Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Paradoxical otherwise:
So i’d say your understanding of infinite is wrong. Bear the following in mind when you read the rest of this post. You can never have two different things in the same place at at the same time. It would be paradoxical to say that you can. Bear the following key words/meanings in mind: Infinite (without beginning and without end) Semi-infinite (with a beginning but without an end) Finite (with both a beginning and an end)
The core argument+conclusion is as follows:
A) You can’t have two beings occupy the same place and time. B) You can’t have something come from nothing
This yields the following conclusion:
C) Only Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Any alternative to C will either lead to A or B or both. Try it, you’ll see.
Infinity has to be treated as a whole. It can’t be infinite in some dimensions whilst being finite or semi-infinite in others (absurdity B as you can’t have any dimension come from nothing or border non-existence) So it is necessarily infinite in all dimensions and can never be anything other than this and has never been anything other than this.
Bearing in mind A, no other being can be infinite in any dimension.
With regards to all dimensions, Existence is necessarily infinite. Consider time. You necessarily can’t have two infinite time lines as that amounts to A. But you can have two or more semi-infinite timelines within this infinite time line/dimension purely because an infinite time line allows for a semi-infinite amount of start points. Simply, this amounts to a semi-infinite amount of semi-infinite time lines. If there were no start points, then it’d be infinite and that would amount to A.
This applies to all dimensions. You can have a semi-infinite number of lines in/on any two dimensions. So long as it’s two dimensions or more and with a different start point, then no paradoxes occur.
In all dimensions. We know that we don’t everything about Existence (for example, how many senses are there, can it sustain a being with a 100 senses) these are unknowns. But what is know is that Existence has to be all-existing/omnipresent. Plus the other traits I’ve been mentioning. These are knowns because contrary to them with paradoxical. Unknowns are simply that, unknown, they don’t contradict the core traits of Existence.
Paradoxes are absurd. They will never make sense. Alway, it’s either a case of faulty observations, or unknowns. Never a case of absurdity. So with every example that you gave that appears to look like a contradiction/paradox, it is simply a matter of unknown or problems with the theory that’s being worked with. Again, if we observe something that appears to go in and out of Existence, we can never conclude this as it is absurd. We are forced to conclude the following:
A) Either it’s a case of faulty observation or
B) It’s a matter of unknown (particle went to an unknown dimension/reality or did something unknown)
Unknowns are unknown (we don’t know if they’re absurd are possible. We can’t apply reason to them as they are unknown). This is not the same as an absurdity where we have applied reason and it amounted to a paradox (faulty reasoning, or faulty positions of meanings/semantics, faulty use of language, faulty theories etc.)
Omnipresent entails being infinite in all dimensions. So that includes xyz and t plus possible unknowns. Omnipresence is not doubtable, it would be paradoxical.
How is does this render the nature of Existence as being anything other than infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient?
You can be sure. Paradoxes are always impossible. We can say this with certainty just as we can say that reason is infallible. Our use of reason however, is not so infallible.
I do accept that we may mistakenly not see something as amounting to a paradox on initial glance and we may mistakenly consider some things as paradoxical that aren’t but this doesn’t alter the fact that paradoxes are always impossible.
Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Paradoxical otherwise:
Bear the following in mind when you read the rest of this post. You can never have two different things in the same place at at the same time. It would be paradoxical to say that you can. Bear the following key words/meanings in mind: Infinite (without beginning and without end) Semi-infinite (with a beginning but without an end) Finite (with both a beginning and an end)
The core argument+conclusion is as follows:
A) You can’t have two beings occupy the same place and time. B) You can’t have something come from nothing
This yields the following conclusion:
C) Only Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Any alternative to C will either lead to A or B or both. Try it, you’ll see.
Infinity has to be treated as a whole. It can’t be infinite in some dimensions whilst being finite or semi-infinite in others (absurdity B as you can’t have any dimension come from nothing or border non-existence) So it is necessarily infinite in all dimensions and can never be anything other than this and has never been anything other than this.
Bearing in mind A, no other being can be infinite in any dimension.
With regards to all dimensions, Existence is necessarily infinite. Consider time. You necessarily can’t have two infinite time lines as that amounts to A. But you can have two or more semi-infinite timelines within this infinite time line/dimension purely because an infinite time line allows for a semi-infinite amount of start points. Simply, this amounts to a semi-infinite amount of semi-infinite time lines. If there were no start points, then it’d be infinite and that would amount to A.
This applies to all dimensions. You can have a semi-infinite number of lines in/on any two dimensions. So long as it’s two dimensions or more and with a different start point, then no paradoxes occur.
You didn’t answer my question, but for now it’s neither here nor there. I proved that there are subjective states god has no access to. Mine’s demonstrable, yours is not. Omniscience is a flawed premise. You even state yourself that none of us can be this, so it’s unfalsifiable by your own definition, but I did falsify omniscience by what we can all demonstrate. I don’t think you truly understand …
It is a PROOF that god has NEVER known what it’s like to not know something, but we have, and in an infinite cosmos, there are an infinite number of subjective states that god has 0% access to. This means that a human can judge a human better than god.
But… I’m going to blow your mind further …
Before I do, I need to say this!
To say that a perfect being planned all of this, and we should just accept it, is actually a really scary way to look at life, as in sadistic and psychopathic (“you don’t know, this is going to hurt, but it’s NECESSARILY for the BEST”). NO MEANS NO !!! There’s no other philosophy to be had there. Now you’re coming off as a serious creep. That’s your argument against omnibenevolence? Ouch man, psychopath cult leader vibes here.
Here’s what’s going to blow your mind:
Something that comes from something else came from nothing at all. Even if god does it.
I gave you a proof earlier and you ignored it.
If god knows every reason why god does what god does, and all of those reasons are internal, then god knows nothing about why there’s an external to act upon, which means there’s no otherness in existence.
This causes a state called logical Catatonia where the being in question cannot perceive existence.
Additionally, you confuse, “all the knowledge of existence is in existence”. With the statement, existence knows all the knowledge in existence.
You’re taking existence outside of itself, which you yourself said is impossible.
I still don’t see why knowledge is needed in order to exist. For instance, the Christian god is the technocrat who could explain how he created the universe, but the Hindu god would have no idea and he would say he just did it. Both gods exist everywhere: Yahweh exists everywhere by definition and Brahman exists everywhere because everything is made of Brahman, but he has no idea how he does anything just like you’ve no idea how you beat your heart. Existence doesn’t seem to be dependent upon knowledge (conceptual knowledge).
Infinity is not anything that can exist and is actually a result of the circularity of self-inspection (infinity is an error message). The day infinity exists is the day forever has arrived. It’s impossible.
That wasn’t my point. Knowledge is needed in order to KNOW you exist, if I can disprove omnipresence of knowledge, I can disprove omnipresence in general.
Anything finite in an infinite universe, where the standard of mathematics is that of infinite set converge, force the fact that anything finite inside infinity has a zero percent chance of existing!
If I live one day out of an infinite number of days, upon converging that infinity, the day becomes so infinitesimal that it has a zero percent chance of occurring!
What are dimensions? You’re still trying to define existence in terms of something that already exists.
What does the universe look like from the outside? There is no outside and there is no “look” outside the universe and there are no dimensions outside and there is no “where” outside. Existence inside this universe is being a function of the universe, but outside the universe, there is nothing to exist as a function of and therefore no possible way to exist outside. But that begs the question of how the universe exists because what would it exist as a function of? That’s the paradox.
But you’re just postulating that. You’re making an axiom of the impossibility of absurdities from the context of inside the universe in order to draw conclusions about things outside the universe. You may be right and you may be wrong, but you’re just guessing.
Yeah, that’s what Einstein thought. He thought there were hidden variables that would determine what appear to be random results, but John Bell proved there are no hidden variables. IOW, events are absolutely causeless.
Or in the case of Einstein vs Borh: C) We’re forced to conclude absurdities exist.
Infinite in all directions = nonexistence. The ubiquitous cannot be said to exist because there is nothing to contrast it to.
We can’t make statements about everything. Alan Watts gave a great talk about this:
You can only say everything in the universe is ___________ if you made an exception. Then, according to logical analysis, you could have made a meaningful statement. But when you start making statements about everything, there’s nothing you can do about it: you can’t prove it and you can’t disprove it. And so they say “You think you have said something, you haven’t really said anything at all.”
We can’t make logical statements about everything, so omniwhatevers are absurdities right off the bat.
And existence is relational. Abstract existence will never make sense to us.
Maybe it’s a failure on my part, but I still can’t see how you’re connecting the proof of omnipresence of knowledge to omnipresence in general. I think finite things can have a omnipresence like a glass being 100% full of water or a piece of metal having an omnipresence of steel, so the problem comes in with the omnipresence inside the infinite and I maintain that’s nonexistence because ubiquitousness would have no contrast. In order to exist, there needs to be a place of nonexistence to provide contrast.
Yes I agree and so does Alan Watts. He said “Something that only happens once in infinite time, never happens.” I think Nietzsche is down with it as well, if his infinite reoccurence theory is a guide.
In infinite time (causality), any odds of happening become certain, so if something has a chance of occurring, then it will occur infinite times. It’s digital: either it happens infinite times or it never happens. But nothing can happen just once.
Because omnipresence of knowledge is a subset of omnipresence in general, if the subset is proven non omnipresent, then by virtue, the superset has a proven gap.
Paradoxes only exist within the confines of this universe like certain paradoxes will exist within the confines of a computer-generated environment, but beings inside the environment who are trying to draw conclusions about the outside environment are stabbing in the dark because they have no way to relate to it.
For example, you say squared circles are impossible, yet looking at an alarm clock we see squared circles (zero) because the resolution is terribly low and the clock only has 7 pixels to work with. Within that construct there is no difference between a rectangle and an oval. Even in our environment they say the planck distance is the shortest distance, so there are no true circles, but only polygons with lots of sides. Perhaps in that light, PI will not be infinite.
I disagree. Essentially, after we established that can God know what it’s like to not know something via everything being informational and God having all the right tools to understand this information, you didn’t successfully refute this argument. If you think you did, show me where, and I’ll show you where I countered and then we can compare them directly.
We addressed the distinction between being a part of God and being God. We addressed the distinction between 1) knowing x and not knowing x at the same time (paradoxical) and how this is not the same as 2) knowing x and what it’s like to not know x (not paradoxical)
You’ve still to not clearly said, do you acknowledge the distinction between 1 and 2? My understanding is that you still insist that the item of knowledge you’re proposing: Namely, knowing x and not knowing x at the same time, is something that is knowable/not absurd.
I also made a clear distinction between how parts can be a certain way, without affecting the definition of the whole here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194327&start=125#p2710079
You didn’t directly address the post. You reiterated what you said and brought in the concept of infinity. Which again, I addressed in my last post to you.
Again, we are a part of the omnipresent/omniscient/Existence. We are not it, we are a part of it. It would be paradoxical otherwise. Address this point if you’re sincere.
God is Existence, so obviously God is never gonna know non-existence. It’s not something to be known. That is absurdity. Again, God knows what it’s like to not know something. This does not amount to knowing x and not know x at the same time. See, I addressed your point again, but you keep avoiding this very point. Address it directly if you’re genuine about philosophical debate.
That’s because you focus too much on unknowns. You don’t know the future so you don’t know how things might get balanced in terms of justice. Also, you don’t know what mechanisms kick in to counter some of the evil we see in our world. It’d take omnisience to make that judgement and it’d take omniscience to fully know the potential of all things in relation to each other. Unknowns are things that you can’t apply reason to. It’s an irrational move. By all means, if you see clear injustice and it’s clearly known to you and you want to uphold reason and morality, then do something. Perhaps give to charity and hope that you were part of the mechanism for some kind of justice (in this case wealth distribution), but don’t make assumptions about things that are outside your realm of knowledge like this wrong/injustice will never be righted.
It’s matter of reason. Knowns outweigh unknowns. Pure and simple. You don’t deny omnipresence just because you don’t know if existence can sustain beings with a 100 senses or not. You don’t deny the Perfect being doing/planning/designing perfectly because you don’t know the future and can’t see if things get balanced or if there is some benefit that may not have been derived otherwise. God does as it pleases, but what it does, it does perfectly because it is perfect. I can think of hypotheticals to how the evil you see can ultimately be a necessary thing in relation to bringing out the best of outcomes relative to the potential. However rejection of Existence as that which I’ve outlined, is blatantly paradoxical. You can’t give me any alternative hypotheticals. So again:
We don’t reject knowns in favour of unknowns. It’d be misguided to do so. To non-omniscient beings how God does perfectly is at times mysterious/unknown. But God always does perfectly.
It’s paradoxical so it’s meaningless.
There’s no external when it comes to Existence. That’s absurd. There’s nothing that isn’t a part of God/Existence. There’s nothing other than Existence. We’re in full agreement on this. What you don’t seem to address or acknowledge is that: We’re just a part of Existence, we are not Existence itself, we’re just a part of it. I’ve repeated this many times you either don’t understand it or you ignore it. Do you understand now?
What did I say that lead you to believe this? In any case, I acknowledge there’s a difference between the two, I don’t know where you got that idea from.
Dimensions are an aspect of Existence. They’ve always been an aspect of Existence and will always be an aspect of Existence. Paradoxical otherwise.
If it’s paradoxical, we can’t accept it. Something coming from nothing is not a matter of unknown, it’s simply impossible. We know this.
If I said something like: There are beings in Existence that have a 100 senses, then I’d be guessing. A matter of unknown. But if I say something like: You can’t doubt reason using reason, or, you can’t have something come from nothing; then I’m not guessing. I’m using reason. Reason is an aspect of Existence and it dictates things clearly and authoritatively. We can’t rationally deny it.
On the contrary, we’re always forced to conclude either faulty observation or unknown. We can’t conclude absurdities exist because that is a paradoxical sentence. We can never understand something like a married-bachelor existing or a square-circle existing.
Non-existence = the negation of Existence (which is absurd/paradoxical) Infinity = not having a beginning or an end. They are not the same thing. One is absurd, whilst the other is necessary. One is absurd, whilst the negation of the other is absurd.
We can clearly distinguish between things that are in Existence (us), and Existence (infinity/omnipresent) itself. We clearly recognise that we are not Existence, we are just a part of it.
We can’t have paradoxes. I’ve demonstrated how rejecting Existence as being Infinite is paradoxical. I’ve also demonstrated how omnipotence and omniscience are necessarily traits of the infinite/omnipresent. I’ve shown how their rejection is necessarily paradoxical.
If you see these concepts as paradoxical, then demonstrate how they amount to a paradox.