Philosophy Now Forum

To prove it let's assume that the whole is bounded. But that means that the whole is bounded by something else. That means that what we call the whole is not the whole but something bigger. So whatever we imagine as the whole is bounded by something else unless we accept that the whole is boundless.

just because you haven't found the end, doesn't mean there isn't one

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 6:00 pm just because you haven't found the end, doesn't mean there isn't one

-Imp

The fact that the whole cannot be bounded means that it is boundless.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 2:11 pm To prove it let's assume that the whole is bounded. But that means that the whole is bounded by something else. That means that what we call the whole is not the whole but something bigger. So whatever we imagine as the whole is bounded by something else unless we accept that the whole is boundless.

The whole, or the Universe in this case, if were were to assume was bounded, then would also mean that there was 'a boundary', and for there to be 'a boundary', then it would have to exist in one form or another with a 'thickness'. Now, let us assume that that 'thickness' was as thick as a brick, or if one likes as thick as a plastic wrap. Now, we have a boundary, with a thickness to it. But, whatever is on the other side of this boundary would have to extent out forever more, or if bounded, then by 'a boundary' of some 'thickness' to it.

And, obviously, if there is some thing, extending outside of 'the boundary', and every thing outside of 'the boundary', then would have to also be included in the whole, or the Universe, Itself. Obviously there could be no thing outside nor beyond 'the whole'.

Now, if anyone wants to presume that 'the boundary' could be of 'no thickness', then what is past 'the boundary' would have to go on forever more, or again be 'bounded' by some thing else, with the same scenario/s being played out. Or, if one is presuming 'the boundary' could be 'infinitely thick' on the 'other side' of the 'inside' of 'this boundary', then, again, by definition of 'the whole', or the Universe and all-there-is, then 'this infinite thickness' would also have to be included in 'the whole'.

So, until a logical and reasoned explanation of how it could even be a possibility that 'the whole', or the Universe, Itself, could even be bounded, to me and from what I have observed the Universe, 'the whole' is infinite, and/or unbounded.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 6:00 pm just because you haven't found the end, doesn't mean there isn't one

-Imp

And, conversely, just because one might presume, or believe, there is an end, does not mean that there is one.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 2:11 pm To prove it let's assume that the whole is bounded. But that means that the whole is bounded by something else. That means that what we call the whole is not the whole but something bigger. So whatever we imagine as the whole is bounded by something else unless we accept that the whole is boundless.

Do you ever notice that your proofs tend to be just word games?

This proof is about how we use the word "whole". It doesn't prove anything about reality.

And we can talk about "the whole watermelon" which is bounded. So this "proof" doesn't even cover all the various ways that the word is used.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 2:20 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 2:11 pm To prove it let's assume that the whole is bounded. But that means that the whole is bounded by something else. That means that what we call the whole is not the whole but something bigger. So whatever we imagine as the whole is bounded by something else unless we accept that the whole is boundless.

Do you ever notice that your proofs tend to be just word games?

Game? Huh?

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 2:20 pm This proof is about how we use the word "whole". It doesn't prove anything about reality.

It does if you understand it.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 2:20 pm And we can talk about "the whole watermelon" which is bounded. So this "proof" doesn't even cover all the various ways that the word is used.

Even the whole watermelon is boundless. Even the whole you is boundless.

Even the whole watermelon is boundless. Even the whole you is boundless.

At least you are consistent.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 5:53 pm

Even the whole watermelon is boundless. Even the whole you is boundless.

At least you are consistent.

I am correct as well.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 6:29 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 5:53 pm

Even the whole watermelon is boundless. Even the whole you is boundless.

At least you are consistent.

I am correct as well.

Of course you are correct, "the whole" means everything. (Except when it doesn't.)

You have successfully used the dictionary.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 6:37 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 6:29 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 5:53 pm
At least you are consistent.

I am correct as well.

Of course you are correct, "the whole" means everything. (Except when it doesn't.)

You have successfully used the dictionary.

The dictionary does not say that the whole is boundless!

whole : all of something
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... lish/whole

whole : With the or the possessive. The full, complete, or total amount; all the constituent parts, elements, or individuals (of something); the entire thing.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/whole_ad ... e#14408255

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 7:01 pm whole : all of something
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... lish/whole

whole : With the or the possessive. The full, complete, or total amount; all the constituent parts, elements, or individuals (of something); the entire thing.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/whole_ad ... e#14408255

So what? The dictionary does not tell that the whole is boundless.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 7:02 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 7:01 pm whole : all of something
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... lish/whole

whole : With the or the possessive. The full, complete, or total amount; all the constituent parts, elements, or individuals (of something); the entire thing.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/whole_ad ... e#14408255

So what? The dictionary does not tell that the whole is boundless.

Your "proof" is based on the idea that if there is something else beyond "the whole" then it is bounded.

Which is the same thing that the dictionary says ... "the whole" is "the entire thing", "complete", "all the constituent parts", etc.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 7:09 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 7:02 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 7:01 pm whole : all of something
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... lish/whole

whole : With the or the possessive. The full, complete, or total amount; all the constituent parts, elements, or individuals (of something); the entire thing.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/whole_ad ... e#14408255

So what? The dictionary does not tell that the whole is boundless.

Your "proof" is based on the idea that if there is something else beyond "the whole" then it is bounded.

My proof is based on the idea that if the whole is bounded then it is bounded by something else then what we call whole is not the whole.