A finite infinite

[Thomas]

A proposition:

To be truly 'infinite', the infinite must comprise every mode of possibility, if it does not then it is not true to its nature. One such possibility is the finite, and if we can accept this then the finite must exist as a mode of possibility of the infinite.

If the finite exists as a possibility, it must do so actually - that is as a concrete reality - else it remains an unrealised potentiality.

The question then is what prevents the Infinite realising the finite.

The relation then of finite to infinite can be seen in a number of ways:
Time, space and number, for example, all all qualities belonging to the finite (not the infinite) yet each in itself possesses an infinite quality.

Thomas

 

[emong]

Huh?

 

[bruceg]

I would respectfully disagree. Infinite means that it is has no limits. It extends beyond the scope of the finite, no matter how large we make the finite. Yes, it encompasses the finite, but is not limited thereby. Rather, the finite offers a glance into some of the capabilities and scope of the infinte, without allowing access to its entirety.

 

[Thomas]

I would respectfully disagree. Infinite means that it is has no limits. It extends beyond the scope of the finite, no matter how large we make the finite. Yes, it encompasses the finite, but is not limited thereby. Rather, the finite offers a glance into some of the capabilities and scope of the infinte, without allowing access to its entirety.

Hi bruce -

I think you may have misread, because that is my point. If not can you highlight where you think we differ - I agree with everything you've said.

The finite is a mode of the infinite with certain limitations necessary for its realisation - you can't have movement, time, measure, self or other in the infinite - but these limitations apply to the finite only, not to the infinite.

Thomas

 

[iBrian]

Would the question have therefore been:

"The question then is what prevents the finite realising the Infinite."

?

 

[Nogodnomasters]

I believe you are correct Thomas. Time however is a man made concept. It does not really exist. All times exist at once.

The finite becomes infinite because it curves on itself, hence you can travel in any direction for all eternity. Think of space as a three dimensional cone with a rounded top and rounded edges. The top represents the "beginning of time" as we understand it. There is no one single point for the beginning, but rather an area.

We are somewhere in the middle of the cone where the material in the universe is split somewhat evenly between energy and matter.

 

[Thomas]

"The question then is what prevents the finite realising the Infinite."

But then what realises the finite?

Seriously - It is axiomatic to those who believe in a First Cause that the lesser cannot manifest something greater than itself.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Time however is a man made concept. It does not really exist. All times exist at once.

At one level, yes - but there is this -

If time was purely a man-made concept, it would not exist in nature - ie nature would not be subject to time - but then what is season, what is growth, what is decay? What is rhythm, what is tide?

So we perceive 'time' not in itself - and yes, in a sense it is manmade and arbitary, but there is movement - and time, and space, are qualities of movement - else everything would exist everywhere simultaneously.

So we're back in infinite mode.

So I'm not saying you are wrong, but we have to be careful in acknowledging conditions that determine one domain do not apply in another.

In the same way, 'time' in dream is different from 'time' in consciousness - and without time, there could be no consciousness as we generally perceive it.

Thomas

 

[bob x]

Form is emptiness, and emptiness itself is form
Form is not excluded by emptiness, so emptiness is not excluded by form
What is form, that is emptiness, and what is emptiness, that is form
And the same for all our perceptions, intuitions, concepts, and analyses
-- the Heart Sutra

 

[emong]

The universe does not exist.

 

[iBrian]

But then what realises the finite?

Seriously - It is axiomatic to those who believe in a First Cause that the lesser cannot manifest something greater than itself.

Thomas

True - I was simply confused at your proposition that the infinite cannot realise the finite. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your use of language: my reading was that you were postulating an inability for Infinite Divinity to access the Finite Mundane.

 

[Thomas]

my reading was that you were postulating an inability for Infinite Divinity to access the Finite Mundane.

Hi Brian -

No, not what I meant at all.

My primary point was to imply that there is not an infinite over here, and a finite over there, but rather the finite is just one mode of expression of the infinite.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

The universe does not exist.

Hi emong -

This poses the question - Why not?

Or, as a projection of my thesis - what stops it from existing?

And as an adjunct - if it does not, who are you? what are you? why are you? how are you?

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

the Heart Sutra

Hi Bob -

I don't think this necessarily denies existence or the finite, but rather emphasises that one must look with the 'the eye of the heart' into the essence and beyond its myriad manifestations, including, ultimately, the self and the Self -

"When I enter the ground, the bottom, the river and fount of the Godhead, none will ask me whence I came or where I have been. No one missed me, for there God unbecomes." Meister Eckhart

 

[emong]

Hi emong -

This poses the question - Why not?

Or, as a projection of my thesis - what stops it from existing?

And as an adjunct - if it does not, who are you? what are you? why are you? how are you?

Thomas

I am not.

For all you know, I am just words on a page that exists only electronically.

The universe exists only because you believe it does.

Faith and "what if" cannot be on the same menu.

 

[iBrian]

Hi Brian -

No, not what I meant at all.

My primary point was to imply that there is not an infinite over here, and a finite over there, but rather the finite is just one mode of expression of the infinite.

Thomas

Certainly I would quite agree. Especially as, in a metaphysical application, would it not also state "We are all a part of God"?

 

[Vajradhara]

Form is emptiness, and emptiness itself is form
Form is not excluded by emptiness, so emptiness is not excluded by form
What is form, that is emptiness, and what is emptiness, that is form
And the same for all our perceptions, intuitions, concepts, and analyses
-- the Heart Sutra

Namaste Bob x,

i've not see this rendition of the Heart Sutra before, can you tell me from where you got it?

 

[Vajradhara]

A proposition:

To be truly 'infinite', the infinite must comprise every mode of possibility, if it does not then it is not true to its nature. One such possibility is the finite, and if we can accept this then the finite must exist as a mode of possibility of the infinite.

If the finite exists as a possibility, it must do so actually - that is as a concrete reality - else it remains an unrealised potentiality.

The question then is what prevents the Infinite realising the finite.

The relation then of finite to infinite can be seen in a number of ways:
Time, space and number, for example, all all qualities belonging to the finite (not the infinite) yet each in itself possesses an infinite quality.

Thomas

Namaste Thomas,

first, let's define "infinite" so that we all know what we're talking about.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: 1in·fi·nite
Pronunciation: 'in-f&-n&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English infinit, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin infinitus, from in- + finitus finite
Date: 14th century
1 : extending indefinitely : [size=-1]ENDLESS[/size] <infinite space>
2 : immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : [size=-1]INEXHAUSTIBLE[/size] <infinite patience>
3 : subject to no limitation or external determination
4 a : extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large <infinite number of positive numbers> b : extending to infinity <infinite plane surface> c : characterized by an infinite number of elements or terms <an infinite set> <an infinite series>


why must something be considered "truly" infinite only if it must comprise all modes of possibility? is not a ray infinite?

i would presume that you are using either def 3 or 4 in this instance, would you agree?

what is the "nature" of an abstract concept?

 

[Thomas]

why must something be considered "truly" infinite only if it must comprise all modes of possibility? is not a ray infinite?

Hi Vajradhara -

Yes - definition 3 is the closest.

No, I don't think a ray is infinite - but then it depends on the context. A ray has a source, and it is not normally considered omnidirectional (although, of course, the sun emits rays in all directions - but then we tend to the plural). These would seem to imply limitation.

If something is perceived as infinite it must necessarily comprise all modes of possibility, whether that possibility is realised or not - ie whether it remains a potentiality - is a secondary consideration.

Abstract concept - a concept that is theoretical rather than demonstrable?

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

would it not also state "We are all a part of God"?

hi Bob -

"In him we live and move and have our being."

It's a favourite scriptural reference of mine, especially since St Paul is actually quoting a Greek poet and philosopher.

pax,
Thomas