We're talking past each other, and I'm sorry for that. I'm saying that if infinite is "for example" a number of things, then...The number of limits would, but whatever you're applying those limits to wouldn't be.
That's my point. The "thing potential" is not "the thing". They are two different things. I am potentially a rocket engineer. But I'm not a rocket engineer.But potential is itself a thing.
That's why I said, "Potential exists." It's within the set of all things. "Existence" isn't actually the set, if the set exists --the set is all things. However, to label it "existence" is common language, and understood. Literally, existence can't be potential --it can't be anything --it is being. So the set winds up being nothing more than that set of "all things" (a 'thing' being).Then again existence can't be without potential otherwise it isn't infinite.
Technically, we can't even talk about existence. That's why we have things to talk about instead.
Oh, I didn't see what you were saying before: that something can't be infinite and potential. But existence isn't a thing, so everything's okay. (Literally. )Including potential, as well as infinity. Since they can't both exist, and yet they must both exist, we're kind of stuck with a paradox.
Now if you're saying that the set of all things can't be infinite and potential, I'd ask the same question I asked Poly. If you 'add a thing' to the set of all things, you still have the set of all things --it hasn't changed. It's not fixed in size, because the measurement "size" is a thing. It's not fixed in location, because spacial "location" is a thing. It doesn't have any attribute, because attributes are things. If it includes it's own potential, it's still complete. So is there really a problem?
(...with magic in the world. I think not.)
I'm excluding nothing (literally) ...except, of course, that "nothing" is by definition "not a thing," so fortunately it doesn't exist to be excluded.Which is a limited definition. You're excluding all that can be.
Where have I excluded potential? I'm missing something. I see "potential" in contrast to "actual," but existence isn't limited to "actual" (except by poor definition). Potential and actual describe conditions --both the potential and the actual exist.Potentiality, as well as anything that could potentially exist, would have to be included in order for "infinite" to apply.
Is that where we differ?
That's the beauty (the poetry) of talking about paradoxes like "nothing".You're asking that we take into consideration the "content" of nothing and you don't realize that the conversation has already ceased to make sense?
I love it.
I'm not excluding concepts. Are you? It's simply a paradox, and paradoxes do exist.And potentiality is a thing, even though it's just a concept. Why should we exclude concepts?
For potentiality to exist, we can't have completion. For completion to exist, potentiality must have been fulfilled in which case there is no more potential.
For infinity to exist, we have to have both, so once again we have a paradox.
When we're talking about the set of all things --that necessarily has no limits, because limits exist --it can exclude no thing. I suspect, though, that (as I've had cause to say often lately) some people's universes are a whole lot bigger than others.
I see that you're equating completion and actuality. I can see that image, but I can also see potential being complete unto itself.