Infinity as Change

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Infinity as Change

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 6:10 pm You're way out of your depth right now, but i'm willing to teach if you're willing to learn. Your framework is wrong. You cannot progress.
Progress where? Beyond the limits of epistemology?

Good luck escaping the human condition.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Infinity as Change

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Skepdick post_id=503177 time=1616173989 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503176 time=1616173856 user_id=15238]
You're way out of your depth right now, but i'm willing to teach if you're willing to learn. Your framework is wrong. You cannot progress.
[/quote]
Progress where? Beyond the limits of epistemology?

Good luck escaping the human condition.
[/quote]

No matter what one tries to do, without an accurate epistemology, progress is arbitrary.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Infinity as Change

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 6:30 pm No matter what one tries to do, without an accurate epistemology, progress is arbitrary.
Arbitrary progress is still better than no progress.

The problem with epistemology is always the problem of criterion. However "accurate" your epistemology how do you know that you are progressing and not regressing?
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Infinity as Change

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Skepdick post_id=503183 time=1616175350 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503180 time=1616175020 user_id=15238]
No matter what one tries to do, without an accurate epistemology, progress is arbitrary.
[/quote]
Arbitrary progress is still better than no progress.

The problem with epistemology is always the problem of criterion. However "accurate" your epistemology how do you know that you are progressing and not regressing?
[/quote]

Arbitrary averages out to 50/50. That is clearly not better than even the tiniest shred of actual knowledge. How well you're progressing depends on where you're trying to go, always contingent.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Infinity as Change

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 6:49 pm Arbitrary averages out to 50/50. That is clearly not better than even the tiniest shred of actual knowledge.
It's better than any ignorance mistaken for knowledge and results in below arbitrary/average performance.
Advocate wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 6:49 pm How well you're progressing depends on where you're trying to go, always contingent.
Which is what I keep asking you. Where is Philosophy trying to go? How do you measure Philosophy's progress?
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Infinity as Change

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Skepdick post_id=503188 time=1616176475 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503187 time=1616176184 user_id=15238]
Arbitrary averages out to 50/50. That is clearly not better than even the tiniest shred of actual knowledge.
[/quote]
It's better than any ignorance mistaken for knowledge and results in below arbitrary/average performance.

[quote=Advocate post_id=503187 time=1616176184 user_id=15238]
How well you're progressing depends on where you're trying to go, always contingent.
[/quote]
Which is what I keep asking you. Where is Philosophy trying to go? How do you measure Philosophy's progress?
[/quote]

The Truth is the end of the beginning. The next steps are to polish and disseminate it and advance consilience. The end is to finish Spiritual Math, which is the formalization of all knowledge, and to explicitly settle how much certainty is too much.

eh, well, that's the epistemology part.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Infinity as Change

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm
Age wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 3:17 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 6:21 pm

1. "You" and "I" shows a distinction.
Very True. But 'you' and 'you' does NOT. Neither to does 'I' and 'I'.

But what can be CLEARLY SEEN is 'I' and 'i' shows a distinction, as well.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 6:21 pm2. Human consciousness exists as a subset of universal consciousness. Given human consciousness cannot observe the totality of universal consciousness, universal consciousness exists beyond human consciousness thus a distinction between the two occurs. "Our" references human consciousness given both you and me are human.
Look, this is just 'your' view. And, 'your' view could be wrong and/or incorrect, correct?

But, if you BELIEVE that 'your' view is absolutely irrefutably true, then just go ahead and prove 'it'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 6:21 pm3. Who are you too judge whether responses to your questions are honest or not.
When, and if, 'you' discover and/or learn the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' then 'you' will KNOW 'WHO', and 'HOW', 'I' am able to judge, properly and correctly.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 6:21 pm4. The point is "•"
I suggest that if you can NOT explain in words what you are 'trying to' say and explain here, then you not use a philosophy forum.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 6:21 pm5. Thus we are all connected.
Why would ANY think or believe otherwise?
1. "You" and "you" and "I" and "I" shows a distinction as multiple "you's" and "I's" where "you/I" exists in multiple time/space localities which define each "you/I" respectively.
But there is NO 'other' 'I'. There is ONLY One 'I'. In saying that, however, OF COURSE there are many 'i's'. But 'you', thee individual one here, seem to be MISSING this FACT.

'you', older human beings, do, however, seem to think that 'you', individually, are greater and more important than 'you' REALLY ARE. 'you' ALL do have a grandiose perspective of "yourselves". 'you' do see "yourselves" as the greater 'I', and as such do label "yourselves", and thus, literally, put "yourselves" as thee greater 'I'.

There are many of 'you', little individual 'i's, but, literally, without specific distinction made, 'you' are all the SAME.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm 2. The proof is in the nature of consciousness as reflection. Consciousness is the mirroring of the phenomenon it observes.
If 'it', consciousness, can observe, then 'what', EXACTLY is 'consciousness'? 'Where', EXACTLY, is 'it'? 'How', EXACTLY does 'it' work? 'What', EXACTLY, is 'it' made of? And, 'when', EXACTLY, will 'it' reveal 'its' True Self?

When little old 'you' can express 'this' FULLY in a way that the rest of 'us' can FULLY understand, accept, and agree upon, then great.

But until then 'we' are ALL just trying to work ALL-OF-THIS out, in our OWN individual little ways.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm If I observe "x",
'Who' and 'what', EXACTLY, is the 'I' here?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm "x" is repeated in a new state such as a thought, word or action. The replication of forms in nature, for example the branching form occuring in veins, rivers, lighting, trees, etc., shows nature as self aware or rather self reflective.
IF 'nature' IS Self Aware, then WHY does 'It' have so much trouble explaining this AWARENESS to 'you', human beings?

In other words, WHY is taking 'you', people, so long to catch up and KNOW Thy Self?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm 3. Prove you learned the answer to "who am I?".
Prove to 'who'?

'I' have ALREADY proved 'this' to thy Self. BUT, of course, one can NOT prove ANY thing to ANY one who BELIEVES otherwise.

You, OBVIOUSLY, wrote what you did here from the perspective and BELIEF that 'this' could NOT be done, correct?

If this is NOT correct, then prove to 'me' that 'you' are Truly OPEN about HOW I could prove to 'you' that 'i' have ALREADY learned the, proper and correct, answer to the question 'Who am 'I'?'

In other words, 'what', EXACTLY, could I do to prove to 'you' that I have learned the answer to "who am I?"
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm 4. Words are symbols and I explained the source through a symbol.
BUT, if you did NOT inform us of what the definition and the meaning of the symbol is, to you, then I have NO idea NOR clue what you are, literally, pointing at. If you are going to define 'point' as the symbol ".", then I am NOT going to know what you are on about.

A '.', literally, does NOT 'point to ANY thing'. So, if you do NOT inform us of what the 'point' IS, exactly, then there is, literally, NO point, to the '.'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm 5. The variation of the one form through multiple connected forms can be turned around where the many are viewed as the source of being rather than the one.
Who cares?

AND, what is the actual 'point' in RE-REPEATING this same 'thing'?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Infinity as Change

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:02 pm The Truth is the end of the beginning. The next steps are to polish and disseminate it and advance consilience. The end is to finish Spiritual Math, which is the formalization of all knowledge, and to explicitly settle how much certainty is too much.

eh, well, that's the epistemology part.
Settling how much certain ty is 'too much' or 'too little' is precisely the problem of criterion.

It doesn't have a context-free answer. When you contextualise it in terms of time, every decision was either too soon (not enough information), too late (too much information) or just on time.

How do you distinguish those three cases?
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Infinity as Change

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Skepdick post_id=503256 time=1616232556 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503201 time=1616180551 user_id=15238]
The Truth is the end of the beginning. The next steps are to polish and disseminate it and advance consilience. The end is to finish Spiritual Math, which is the formalization of all knowledge, and to explicitly settle how much certainty is too much.

eh, well, that's the epistemology part.
[/quote]
Settling how much certain ty is 'too much' or 'too little' is precisely the problem of criterion.

It doesn't have a context-free answer. When you contextualise it in terms of time, every decision was either too soon (not enough information), too late (too much information) or just on time.

How do you distinguish those three cases?
[/quote]

The information gathering part of epistemology is a whole other question than what we SHOULD do because the context comes from without. We must account for our responsibility to gain more information, our desire to acquire more information, and our ability to gain more information long before the decision-making times usually come. The necessity of gathering information remains at least until decision-time, and sometimes afterwards if you need closure or if you need to account for the results in a sequence of events... I'm not quite sure what your getting at here.
Last edited by Advocate on Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Infinity as Change

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:15 pm The information gathering part of epistemology is a whole other question than what we SHOULD do because the context comes from without. We must account for our responsibility to gain more information, our desire to acquire more information, and our ability to gain more information long before the decision-making times usually come. The necessity of gathering information remains at least until decision-time, and someone's afterwards if you need closure or if you need to account for the results in a sequence of events... I'm not quite sure what your getting at here.
What I am getting at is how the decision being made changes as more information becomes available, because Bayesian reasoning is about updating beliefs based on new information. Without arbitrary limits imposed on the process (termination criteria ala Turing's halting problem) this is an infinite process. Otherwise known as analysis paralysis.

Remember how WHO kept changing their mind about masks during COVID-19?

They work. They don't work. They do work. Do this, no do that. No. Do this. We were wrong! No, we were wrong about being wrong!

You need arbitrary limits a priori, otherwise you get stuck doing Philosophy for 2000+ years.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Infinity as Change

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:04 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm
Age wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 3:17 am

Very True. But 'you' and 'you' does NOT. Neither to does 'I' and 'I'.

But what can be CLEARLY SEEN is 'I' and 'i' shows a distinction, as well.



Look, this is just 'your' view. And, 'your' view could be wrong and/or incorrect, correct?

But, if you BELIEVE that 'your' view is absolutely irrefutably true, then just go ahead and prove 'it'.



When, and if, 'you' discover and/or learn the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' then 'you' will KNOW 'WHO', and 'HOW', 'I' am able to judge, properly and correctly.



I suggest that if you can NOT explain in words what you are 'trying to' say and explain here, then you not use a philosophy forum.



Why would ANY think or believe otherwise?
1. "You" and "you" and "I" and "I" shows a distinction as multiple "you's" and "I's" where "you/I" exists in multiple time/space localities which define each "you/I" respectively.
But there is NO 'other' 'I'. There is ONLY One 'I'. In saying that, however, OF COURSE there are many 'i's'. But 'you', thee individual one here, seem to be MISSING this FACT.

'you', older human beings, do, however, seem to think that 'you', individually, are greater and more important than 'you' REALLY ARE. 'you' ALL do have a grandiose perspective of "yourselves". 'you' do see "yourselves" as the greater 'I', and as such do label "yourselves", and thus, literally, put "yourselves" as thee greater 'I'.

There are many of 'you', little individual 'i's, but, literally, without specific distinction made, 'you' are all the SAME.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm 2. The proof is in the nature of consciousness as reflection. Consciousness is the mirroring of the phenomenon it observes.
If 'it', consciousness, can observe, then 'what', EXACTLY is 'consciousness'? 'Where', EXACTLY, is 'it'? 'How', EXACTLY does 'it' work? 'What', EXACTLY, is 'it' made of? And, 'when', EXACTLY, will 'it' reveal 'its' True Self?

When little old 'you' can express 'this' FULLY in a way that the rest of 'us' can FULLY understand, accept, and agree upon, then great.

But until then 'we' are ALL just trying to work ALL-OF-THIS out, in our OWN individual little ways.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm If I observe "x",
'Who' and 'what', EXACTLY, is the 'I' here?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm "x" is repeated in a new state such as a thought, word or action. The replication of forms in nature, for example the branching form occuring in veins, rivers, lighting, trees, etc., shows nature as self aware or rather self reflective.
IF 'nature' IS Self Aware, then WHY does 'It' have so much trouble explaining this AWARENESS to 'you', human beings?

In other words, WHY is taking 'you', people, so long to catch up and KNOW Thy Self?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm 3. Prove you learned the answer to "who am I?".
Prove to 'who'?

'I' have ALREADY proved 'this' to thy Self. BUT, of course, one can NOT prove ANY thing to ANY one who BELIEVES otherwise.

You, OBVIOUSLY, wrote what you did here from the perspective and BELIEF that 'this' could NOT be done, correct?

If this is NOT correct, then prove to 'me' that 'you' are Truly OPEN about HOW I could prove to 'you' that 'i' have ALREADY learned the, proper and correct, answer to the question 'Who am 'I'?'

In other words, 'what', EXACTLY, could I do to prove to 'you' that I have learned the answer to "who am I?"
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm 4. Words are symbols and I explained the source through a symbol.
BUT, if you did NOT inform us of what the definition and the meaning of the symbol is, to you, then I have NO idea NOR clue what you are, literally, pointing at. If you are going to define 'point' as the symbol ".", then I am NOT going to know what you are on about.

A '.', literally, does NOT 'point to ANY thing'. So, if you do NOT inform us of what the 'point' IS, exactly, then there is, literally, NO point, to the '.'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm 5. The variation of the one form through multiple connected forms can be turned around where the many are viewed as the source of being rather than the one.
Who cares?

AND, what is the actual 'point' in RE-REPEATING this same 'thing'?
1. Multiple "I's" account for the multiple time and spaces of the "I". There is no same time and space for the "I", thus resulting in multiple "I's".

2. Who/what/where/when/why "I" is, is the manifestation of time and space.

3. Explain who "I" is.

4. "•" points, as a symbol, to the point.

5. The same thing repeating is it mirroring Nothingness where the one is repeated under the many where the many is the negation of the one through voiding of it.
Ferdi
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:23 am

Re: Infinity as Change

Post by Ferdi »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:12 am The concept of the perfect circle continually repeats across multiple observers thereby making the perfect circle infinite.

It is the continual repetition of a phenomenon which makes it infinite.

For example a continually progressive function of the number line necessitates 1 existing in perpetual variation given each number is the number one repeating itself. Under this number line progression 1 exists as perpetually changing thus 1 is repeating in newer and newer variation through the numbers which follow from it.

1 as perpetually changing is 1 as an action. One as a continual action is 1 as infinite.

Infinity is perpetual change as action and can never be observed in its entirety except through the source which repeats itself under newer and newer variation. Infinity can be observed in the number 1 given 1 is infinite through perpetual change.

Infinity thus can be observed through the finite where the finite is the point of change from one phenomenon to another. Each finite object is infinite through its continual change with this change from one finite phenomenon to another being multiple infinities.


Your opening sentence is impressive but makes no sense. The simple fact is that the word ”circle” is the label for a particular 2 dimensional shape. The adjective “perfect” is superfluous. A circle has nothing to do with infinity unless you are a nitwit and walk along the line of a circle to look for the end of the line. If I met you wherever you may have been doing so, I would advise you to go back to where you started. If you did not remember where you started I would make a mark for you along the circle, then watch you going around and point out to you where you started and make you note that there is no end to such shape. Nothing to do with infinity !
INFINITY simply IS. We cannot see it. We exist in it. Lives come from it and return to it. We, our personality, came from it and returns to it.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Infinity as Change

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:10 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:04 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm

1. "You" and "you" and "I" and "I" shows a distinction as multiple "you's" and "I's" where "you/I" exists in multiple time/space localities which define each "you/I" respectively.
But there is NO 'other' 'I'. There is ONLY One 'I'. In saying that, however, OF COURSE there are many 'i's'. But 'you', thee individual one here, seem to be MISSING this FACT.

'you', older human beings, do, however, seem to think that 'you', individually, are greater and more important than 'you' REALLY ARE. 'you' ALL do have a grandiose perspective of "yourselves". 'you' do see "yourselves" as the greater 'I', and as such do label "yourselves", and thus, literally, put "yourselves" as thee greater 'I'.

There are many of 'you', little individual 'i's, but, literally, without specific distinction made, 'you' are all the SAME.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm 2. The proof is in the nature of consciousness as reflection. Consciousness is the mirroring of the phenomenon it observes.
If 'it', consciousness, can observe, then 'what', EXACTLY is 'consciousness'? 'Where', EXACTLY, is 'it'? 'How', EXACTLY does 'it' work? 'What', EXACTLY, is 'it' made of? And, 'when', EXACTLY, will 'it' reveal 'its' True Self?

When little old 'you' can express 'this' FULLY in a way that the rest of 'us' can FULLY understand, accept, and agree upon, then great.

But until then 'we' are ALL just trying to work ALL-OF-THIS out, in our OWN individual little ways.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm If I observe "x",
'Who' and 'what', EXACTLY, is the 'I' here?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm "x" is repeated in a new state such as a thought, word or action. The replication of forms in nature, for example the branching form occuring in veins, rivers, lighting, trees, etc., shows nature as self aware or rather self reflective.
IF 'nature' IS Self Aware, then WHY does 'It' have so much trouble explaining this AWARENESS to 'you', human beings?

In other words, WHY is taking 'you', people, so long to catch up and KNOW Thy Self?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm 3. Prove you learned the answer to "who am I?".
Prove to 'who'?

'I' have ALREADY proved 'this' to thy Self. BUT, of course, one can NOT prove ANY thing to ANY one who BELIEVES otherwise.

You, OBVIOUSLY, wrote what you did here from the perspective and BELIEF that 'this' could NOT be done, correct?

If this is NOT correct, then prove to 'me' that 'you' are Truly OPEN about HOW I could prove to 'you' that 'i' have ALREADY learned the, proper and correct, answer to the question 'Who am 'I'?'

In other words, 'what', EXACTLY, could I do to prove to 'you' that I have learned the answer to "who am I?"
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm 4. Words are symbols and I explained the source through a symbol.
BUT, if you did NOT inform us of what the definition and the meaning of the symbol is, to you, then I have NO idea NOR clue what you are, literally, pointing at. If you are going to define 'point' as the symbol ".", then I am NOT going to know what you are on about.

A '.', literally, does NOT 'point to ANY thing'. So, if you do NOT inform us of what the 'point' IS, exactly, then there is, literally, NO point, to the '.'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm 5. The variation of the one form through multiple connected forms can be turned around where the many are viewed as the source of being rather than the one.
Who cares?

AND, what is the actual 'point' in RE-REPEATING this same 'thing'?
1. Multiple "I's" account for the multiple time and spaces of the "I".
But there is NO multiple 'time' nor 'spaces' of the 'I'.

There is only one 'time' and 'space' of and for the 'I'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:10 pm There is no same time and space for the "I", thus resulting in multiple "I's".
I agree that there is no same 'time' and 'space for the 'I', but then 'you' would have to have enough curiosity to discover WHY there now appears to be a contradiction in what I have just said here.

Oh, and by the way, there is NO multiple 'I's'. There is only One 'I'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:10 pm 2. Who/what/where/when/why "I" is, is the manifestation of time and space.
But what is 'time' and 'space', to 'you?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:10 pm 3. Explain who "I" is.
'I', and NOT 'i', is thee Only and ONLY One. In visible form 'I' is, or am, thee Universe, Itself, and 'I' is, or am, thee Mind, Itself.

For further clarification, and for actual proof of this, then just continue on with the clarifying questions.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:10 pm 4. "•" points, as a symbol, to the point.
To the point of 'what', EXACTLY?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:10 pm 5. The same thing repeating is it mirroring Nothingness where the one is repeated under the many where the many is the negation of the one through voiding of it.
To 'me', this sounds like you really do NOT know what you are talking about but are trying your very hardest to sound like you actually do.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Infinity as Change

Post by Terrapin Station »

Janoah wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 1:06 am That is, there may be an infinite process, but there cannot be an infinite thing at the moment.
Wouldn't that be different if one believed in real (extramental) abstracts? In that case one might believe that quantitative sequences are a real abstract and that they're infinite. (Not that I believe there are real abstracts, but I'm just saying for someone who does.)
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Infinity as Change

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=503704 time=1616486136 user_id=12582]
[quote=Janoah post_id=500689 time=1615075581 user_id=19679]
That is, there may be an infinite process, but there cannot be an infinite thing at the moment.
[/quote]

Wouldn't that be different if one believed in real (extramental) abstracts? In that case one might believe that quantitative sequences are a real abstract and that they're infinite. (Not that I believe there are real abstracts, but I'm just saying for someone who does.)
[/quote]

Abstractions are indefinite, not infinite. They must exist in the time and space at an actual brain.
Post Reply