-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Infinite and Eternal
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
Depends, our universe apparently gad a beginning but it is measured to 5 decimal places to be flat and therefore infinite.
So it seems infinity can have beginning.
Of course it could be that deviation from the flat measurement could come into play sometime in more accurate measurement, maybe 6 or 66 or 10*6^6 decimal places
So it seems infinity can have beginning.
Of course it could be that deviation from the flat measurement could come into play sometime in more accurate measurement, maybe 6 or 66 or 10*6^6 decimal places
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
yes, but... there's a logical contradiction. Whether or not that matters is an individual choice.
If this thing is infinite, then it requires recognition. Without recognition, or acknoweldgement, can this thing be accurately described as infinite?
This is the first cause.
An infinite being requires recognition, that requires a finite creation, creating finite from infinite requires division. Etc..
If this thing is infinite, then it requires recognition. Without recognition, or acknoweldgement, can this thing be accurately described as infinite?
This is the first cause.
An infinite being requires recognition, that requires a finite creation, creating finite from infinite requires division. Etc..
An infinite thing is infinite with or without recognition
True infinity in past and future does not require a first cause, it simply is.
you're speaking of the change from a form to forms basically?
from a solid, extremely dense thing, to somethings?
Am i?i thought i was speaking about the universe being flat
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
It can't be infinite if it lacks anything. Without a first cause is a deficiency. It can't be infinite if it's deficient of a cause. By definition.
ETA: "True infinity in past and future", isn't the same as infinite. Infinite is beyond the scope of time. As an example, It includes what hasn't happened just as much as it includes what has happened.
The universe is measured as flat whether i follow it or not.
As for forms, think energy/mass.
I don't follow, repeated dividing a a measurement lacks butternut squash yet the division can go on for infinity
An infinity in the past cannot have a first cause, otherwise it would not be infinite
Merriam-Webster defines infinity as
1a : the quality of being infinite
b : unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity : boundlessness.
2 : an indefinitely great number or amount an infinity of stars.
3a : the limit of the value of a function or variable when it tends to become numerically larger than any preassigned finite number.
So what definition are you referring too. Because unlimited and boundless seem to defy the first cause argument.
ETA, it depends how you view time
That is correct, but what is more interesting is what happens within the infinite, and how the infinite molds Itself.
We say that the manifestations and unmanifestations are cyclic.
The One Infinite transforms its same inherent nature from one form to another.
This is a cyclic , parallel, nested and recursive process that spawns itself from itself.
The causeless transcendental is the cause of the manifested which transcends what was just manifested in THIS cycle, this time around as well as each such cycle of manifestations
<= there you got your first, only and eternal cause.
The problem appears when one acknowledges the transcendental without acknowledging that that which transcends is also immanent in the manifestation. (ex-nihilists)
The problem also appears when one acknowledges the immanent but not the eternal transcendental cause of the immanent. (atheists/materialists)
So it has to be both -- transcendent and immanent. (anvay and vyatirek as VishNu explained)
Last edited:
That is correct, but what is more interesting is what happens within the infinite, and how the infinite molds Itself.
We say that the manifestations and unmanifestations are cyclic.
The One Infinite transforms its same inherent nature from one form to another.
This is a cyclic , parallel, nested and recursive process that spawns itself from itself.
The causeless transcendental is the cause of the manifested which transcends what was just manifested in THIS cycle, this time around as well as each such cycle of manifestations
<= there you got your first, only and eternal cause.
The problem appears when one acknowledges the transcendental without acknowledging that that which transcends is also immanent in the manifestation. (ex-nihilists)
The problem also appears when one acknowledges the immanent but not the eternal transcendental cause of the immanent. (atheists/materialists)
So it has to be both -- transcendent and immanent. (anvay and vyatirek as VishNu explained)
Interesting, not sure how philosophy relate to the measurement of the shape if the universe
Yes.
It has a lot going on within it -- manifesting and unmanifesting entities within itself does not break or divide it. The manifested is in and ON the fundamental.
bramhaNo hi pratishThA aham, amrutasyAvayasya cha |
shAshvatasya cha dharmasya sukhaikAntikasya cha ||
-- said Shri Krishna , Bhagvad Geeta 14.27
I am the foundation of this eternal, undeterred immutable vastness called Brahman',
I am the foundation of the eternal dharma, and the one-pointed bliss.
Last edited:
If it is infinite , can it have a shape?
Space cannot have shape or boundary.
I think what you mean is a specific concentration of galaxies -- whether they appear spiral, disc-shapes, flat, oval etc.
Very interesting, that you bring this up - because studying the shape that celestial objects take can tell a lot about the transcendental cause, and its un-manifest nature, basically the blue-print potential that is hidden in it. The engine, the algorithm and properties.
Krishna says "srujAmyaham puhnah punah" -- I curve , cycle (spiral?) onto Myself again and again. srujAmyaham = I manifest
--- and perhaps this is seen in the spiral shapes in space. First spiraling out -- and then spiraling back in.
The transcendental One manifests galaxies spiraling out, then takes them back spiraling in.
Spacial Infinity does not have shape, it is infinite in all directions
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
This is clearly false. The number of positive integers is defiantly infinite but it totally lacks artichokes.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I agree with the definition of infinite as boundless.
My claim is, in order to go from boundless ( infinite ) to bounded ( the material world ) there is a first cause. This first cause is division for the sake of recognition.
The OP is asking a somewhat common question regarding monotheism. If God is infinite, then how can God be described as being close to some, and far from others. If God is infinite, isn't God equally everywhere at once? How can there be division of an infinite God?
The answer I offered is: Yes, it's true in theory, an infinite thing would be undivided and equally everywhere all the time. But it also includes other outliers which require seperation and division. Anything which requires recognition and a relationship also requries division of the infinite.
I propose that, in theory, both equal unified distribution and otherness / division of the infinite would be happening simultaneously. Otherwise, the infinite thing wouldn't be infinite. It includes both equality and division depending on the circumstance.
Since it depends on the circumstance, I said, the logical conflict in the OP can be ignored depending on individual choice. The perspective of a finite being gets the benefit of choice.
Last edited:
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Nonsense. Infinite includes artichokes and anything you can think of. The numberline includes only real numbers. Infinity includes both real and imaginary numbers. So the "artichoke+numberline" refutation is ... lacking.
Infinity isnt a choice and doesn't give up its bounds. There may be finite things within that infinite. Take for example the subdivision of numbers, you can take any number and half it, and half again and again, the number of divisions is infinite, that infinity contains all those smaller ans smaller numbers.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Nonsense. Infinite includes artichokes and anything you can think of. The numberline includes only real numbers. Infinity includes both real and imaginary numbers. So the "artichoke+numberline" refutation is ... lacking.
You are simply wrong here. It is a mathematical fact that the set of all positive integers {1, 2, 3, 4,...} is infinite in size (cardinality). The set of all real numbers (which I didn't mention) is also infinite but that's a bigger infinity (cardinality). The set of all real and imaginary numbers is the same (infinite) size (cardinality) as the set of real numbers.
You can make another set of {1, 2, 3,...} ∪ {artichoke} (which will have the same cardinality as the integers) but that doesn't mean that the set without the artichoke wasn't infinite by itself. You seem to be confusing infinite with something like "everything". They are simply not the same.