Message from discussion Rand and Infinity (Was: Re: Rand & Von Neumann....)

From: GRADinc <grad...@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Rand and Infinity (Was: Re: Rand & Von Neumann....)
Date: 1998/05/07
Message-ID: <1998050713111200.JAA03315@ladder01.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 351092987
Approved: tskir...@uiuc.edu
References: <1998050712234700.IAA25966@ladder03.news.aol.com>
X-Date: 07 May 1998 13:11:12 GMT
X-Email-Submissions-To: tskirvin+hpom...@math.uiuc.edu
X-Submissions-To: tskirvin+...@math.uiuc.edu
Organization: Auto-Moderation Bot, v0.99a
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP humanities.philosophy.objectivism iQCVAwUBNVGzE4twLG25AQfZAQGCsQQAjBgnbPkDszGY2cDQ2q71Px2tCLO46e09 /zbAH9xbza2wk6hn8ln7hoVCHQUlWXjfCxafFkDtVcaUlQtgpIR/UpfYeiEoOFtG uHJRi5EOOU99cHVsusx3T1mooIytH3yj1kcKGcWOJwszNzJ+PIyBfyab48eXuvsm Z93wycnqVVQ= =x9/E
X-Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Originator: tskir...@alpha.math.uiuc.edu


DSANDIN 

>Ask what "infinite" -- having no limit -- could physically mean.  Taken 
>literally, it means "having features or attributes embodying amount, but 
>at the same time *beyond* any particular amount".  This means, having no 
>identity.

Dean, Dean.  
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 
>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.)

Who we all live in a concept of method, 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 
>"whatever number of existents (or measures of their attributes) exists, 
>it is to be included in the same sequence" of progressively larger 
>numbers.

What do you think the result of Cantors method would be
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.

If the universe is NOT finite, then what is it?
Or alternatively if finite does not mean "of some
definite size" then what does it mean?

Tom Clarke