|
|
humanities.philosophy.objectivism |
DSANDIN If the universe is NOT finite, then what is it? Tom Clarke
>Ask what "infinite" -- having no limit -- could physically mean. Taken Dean, Dean.
>literally, it means "having features or attributes embodying amount, but
>at the same time *beyond* any particular amount". This means, having no
>identity.
Since I triggered the post to which you reply I will point out
the flaw in your argument. You say "*beyond* any
particular amount", this is true. But then you go on to
"no identity". But for this to follow the only aspects of
identity have to be "amount". Surely you are more
than six feet and 180 pounds and 140/80 (whatever the
numbers are).
>"Infinity" is still a valid mathematical concept, however, so that in Who we all live in a concept of method, a concept of method,
>a certain non-numerical sense Objectivism *does* allow an infinite
>universe ... Rand in IOE ... "An
>arithmetical sequence extends into infinity, without implying that
>infinity actually exists; such extension means only that whatever
>number of units does exist, it is to be included in the same sequence."
>(This makes "infinity" what her epistemological view calls a concept of
>method.)
a concept of method.
In the town where I was born, lived a man who failed to see ...
>The application of her statement to the physical universe is that What do you think the result of Cantors method would be
>"whatever number of existents (or measures of their attributes) exists,
>it is to be included in the same sequence" of progressively larger
>numbers.
when applied to the physical universe? - precisely what
you wrote.
Objectivist just don't like the word "infinity" I think.
If the universe is as you describe then it is not finite:
How big is it? 1 googol light years? then there is an
existent in the sequence beyond a googol, so it is
not a googol light years big. The same is true for ANY
number you can name.
Or alternatively if finite does not mean "of some
definite size" then what does it mean?