I think ALL and SOME are entirely different than INFINITE. ALL and SOME is more a part of the Finite, as you are discussing material values and what is of the now, you are also discussing exclusiveness.
As with INFINITE, you are discussing not only what IS and can be owned or seen, but what is unseen and impossible, except in the minds of few.. it's less an exclusive factor, and more of an.. all-emcompassing one. Evil and wrong, truth and untruth, nothing and existent.. the traditional tao, all under "Infinite"

I don't think mathematics could describe Infinite. It's not a, "Number" like most people seem to relate it too. The best way to put it in numerical value is as "1/3", or maybe as Pie. Good ol' pie, a solution to every problem in life. Alot of people think 0<1 or 0>1 describes infinity. That is exclusive, though. 0<1=0>1 would be better, or some other pattern of numbers and symbols.
I'd best descrive it as Zero. Everything is zero, and can be zero, and can't be anything but zero, in the end. 2=2. Smilk.

As I understand from the link and kahl's post, there's been no attempt at defining infinity thus far. This satisfies my curiosity. Furthermore this gives me hope that methaphysics will perhaps not bleed over to mathematical logic, for that would be tragic; I can almost picture the horrible poetry that undergaduate math books will be filled with in such a case.

pfft. Nobody loves on my posts.

Metaphysics are only "Metaphysics" because common physics cannot explain them, perhaps someday there will be an explanation

If you've read Sir Peter Medawar's "The Phenomenon of Man" you'd understand how exactly a methaphysic analysis posing as a scientific text can UTTERLY DESTROY YOUR SOUL.

It's basically a hilariously overstated, ambiguously directed mess that mistakes philosophy and science for poetry, and poetry for ejaculation.

Infinity is abstract. The best way to describe infinity + 1 would be to just always keep it infinity + 1.

Then again, it does just stay infinity. If you remove a part of space, is it any less infinite? If you add a part, does it become more infinite?

There's alot of philosophy written in poetic form, and alot of poetry written in philisophical form :P I write all my philosophy down poetically, it's the easiest way to remember it, and the best way to write it without filling an entire book to say that T-bones taste good for Dogs and Tuna is for kitties.

Okay so just we know what horrors I'm talking about:



"Everything does not happen continuously at any one moment in the universe. Neither does everything happen everywhere in it.

There are no summits without abysses.

When the end of the world is mentioned, the idea that leaps into our minds is always one of catastrophe.

Life is born and propagates itself on the earth as a solitary pulsation.

In the last analysis the best guarantee that a thing should happen is that it appears to us as vitally necessary"




May The machine god help us all.

You sound as if you fall slightly toward the Newtonian camp, Helm - i.e. deterministic, that all can eventually be described and the future can determined through mathematics from a given, known state. I have a lot faith in mathematics being able to fairly accurately model the world to a certain degree but that their are way too many variables to ever really achieve an exact replication. Not that we shouldn't always strive. One of the things that makes me believe that that degree of accuracy is impossible is the study of language ... mathematics (logic) itself if you think of of it in the Witchenstein (sp?) sense. There are things that I contemplate that I know that, at least the English language, can't adequately describe. That's why arts, music, poetry, ect are important to me. Sure, mathematical/technology can replicate things of those sort but they can never give us the original composition. Sort of the sum of the parts being greater than the whole which no computer in the world can adequately define or recognize. Sorry, I'm babbling ... I'll end this here.

http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/.../infinity.html

One of the things that makes me believe that that degree of accuracy is impossible is the study of language ... mathematics (logic) itself if you think of of it in the Witchenstein (sp?) sense. There are things that I contemplate that I know that, at least the English language, can't adequately describe. That's why arts, music, poetry, ect are important to me.

How is this in the Wittgensteinian sense?

I bet you guys were raised mormon.

What does that mean?

Metaphorically speaking, language parsing is mathematical in both the taking in and processing of data and the logic involved in the algorithm is somwhat the same as what computer might use but this (language parsing for people) is a level of processing that is subconscious to us as it happens. A lot of what Wittgenstein discussed involved the development of language, the logic involved in our brain processing data and what is and what is not possible using language. My main point was the "was is not possible in language". Mathematics, to me, is man's attempt at organization using the most precise and accurate symbology (language) possible. A lot of metaphysical ideas do not lend themselves to mathematical symbols and, as Helm stated, should remain separate for the benefit of both. Mathematics serves a purpose in that it can precisely solve mathematical thereoms/problems in a "step by step" dogmatic, surgical manner but this is, to me, is very sterile and fails to take into account the beauty of the whole composition like the arts do. I'm babbling again, sorry. I'll have to think about this to clarify my point better.

I am of the oppinion that if something cannot be scrutinised, deducted or otherwise inspected logically, then it is irrelevant. The world 'exist' applies to instances that effect their context in some way. An illogical instance cannot exist then, because it's context is not the one we percieve (logical) and is thusly irrelevant. So goodbye to God, Infinity and Everything.

CLAsp: interesting link. I was mainly interested in "In the context of a number system." Thanks.


Another thought: if any infinite context physically exist, wouldn't that mean the second law of thermodynamics goes to shit?

There is no such thing as night?