- This topic has 173 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I come to y’all with an urgent question: What is infinity?
So many here seem to have intimate knowledge of its details, yet I never was able to grasp its definition. Am I just an idiot who doesn’t understand anything?
In other words, you are saying that yes, your Neshama is holier than the Torah. Wow! Are you aware that Neshamos are also created?
Ready, take a look in the Maharal’s Tiferes Yisroel, Prakim 49-53.
Hashkafa, especially in basic and fundamental topics, should be learned and ‘Horevved’ over. These are deep topics that need Yishuv Hadaas and understanding. Don’t twist all Mamarei Chazal around your understanding of one particular Maamar.
^_^
Uh oh. Are quoting from “that” book again!!?
^_^
One ofMany: See, that’s the problem. Bigness is a relative term. Infinity is an objective term, which [likely] can’t fit into something finite [like myself]. Either that or I’m dumb. I guess you guys are just more in touch with your infinite neshamas, or learn much more infinite torah, or are infinitely familiar with Vogons, respectively.
frumnotyeshivish: Hmmmm…not really. Infinite can also be a relative term. And it can fit into finite spaces. How many numbers are there between zero and one?
But I don’t know who said anything about infinite neshamos and don’t really know what it means anyway, so I’m not necessarily trying to support that…
Infinite can also be a relative term. And it can fit into finite spaces.
And that is part of the paradox.
Indeed. So?
A paradox is something that can’t rationally be explained (by mortals).
You can debate whether the thing you don’t understand includes xyz or not, but you can’t really be authoritative on it (without immortal sources).
Additionally, in what way can infinite be relative? Please give an example.
A paradox is something that can’t rationally be explained (by mortals).
You can debate whether the thing you don’t understand includes xyz or not, but you can’t really be authoritative on it (without immortal sources).
What exactly are you trying to be authoritative about? I don’t really get what you or HaLeiVi are trying to address.
Also, your definition of the term paradox is not accurate (or at least irrelevant as it applies to this particular case).
Additionally, in what way can infinite be relative? Please give an example.
In its different applications. You are right the the absolute concept is absolute, but so is the absolute concept of bigness. Relativity can only exist in specific applications, of which there are plenty relating to infinity – that is what set theory is pretty much all about. One example – the cardinality of the set of integers (…-2, -1, 0, 1…) is infinite. However, the cardinality of the counting numbers (1, 2, 3…) is also infinite, although the set of counting numbers ostensibly contains fewer elements. (Yes, this is a paradox, but I don’t see how this makes a difference to any of the arguments that are being made here.)
OneOfMany: So the amount of numbers possible between 0 and 2 is infiter than the amount between 0 and 1? The paradox itself is why your argument makes no sense. Additionally, I wasn’t defining paradox, I was stating a fact about this one.
My issue generally (nothing to do with the bechira issue before), is that there was so much debate over what is infinite here, and how, and if, and what couldn’t possibly be, and it seems almost silly to me, because my human brain is incapable of getting past stage 1 of the conversation.
Counting numbers is not infinite because no one can get to infinity through counting numbers. In fact, no one can get to infinity from any finite point. That is what the Chovos Halevavos was getting at.
Using infinity in math is a toy, since there is no relationship between it and the finite, while there is no mathematical reason for such a concept not to exist. This is why we will find paradoxes in many levels.
This doesn’t mean we can’t understand what is meant by infinity. It simply means that there is no bridge to get there, and any attempt to define the infinite by applying finite terms will have paradoxes.
So the amount of numbers possible between 0 and 2 is infiter than the amount between 0 and 1?
Exactly so.
The paradox itself is why your argument makes no sense.
It’s not my argument. And I don’t see how you can say it makes no sense when you don’t even know that. Why don’t you do a search for “set theory,” and see for yourself.
Additionally, I wasn’t defining paradox, I was stating a fact about this one.
Your associations with the concept show that you misunderstand its full meaning, which is affecting your perception of this particular case.
My issue generally (nothing to do with the bechira issue before), is that there was so much debate over what is infinite here, and how, and if, and what couldn’t possibly be, and it seems almost silly to me, because my human brain is incapable of getting past stage 1 of the conversation.
lol I really think you should read Notes from Underground.
So you know that question about unstoppable forces and immovable objects?
“Immovable Object vs. Unstoppable Force – Which Wins?” on YouTube. Epic win. ^_^
Settled.
Next Question:
If I have a time machine and go a different time, then I come back to a minute before I left, putting me in an endless loop, and someone asks me how many times this happened already, will I be able to answer? If yes, then you didn’t really travel time, since you have time in the form of how many times you looped.
I don’t believe in time travel…
Haleivi – That is gonna be a big problem with time travel – If you ever go BACK in time, there is no way you will be able to proceed past that point, because you will reach the time you want back and travel back.
Oh, hold on, that’s not a problem. If you have a time machine, then just move to a minute after you go back in time, and you should miss it.
If you would go back in time and kill your grandfather (before your parent was born), would you cease to exist? If you would, then there would be no way for you to kill your grandfather, because you don’t exist. If you don’t exist, then your granfather is still alive, and so you will exist. So if you do exist, then you can kill your grandfather.
A ???? ?????. I believe ? ????? ???? speaks about this in numerous places, about “A ???? which if it will be ?? will be ???? itself” – For example, by an ??? ????? who gets money from somebody ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??, the ??? can keep the money, even though generally we say ?? ??? ??? ???. R Shimon explains how this works: The money was given with a ???? that the ???? shouldn’t get it. So if the ???? gets it, then ????? the ??? never got it in the first place; therefore the ???? can’t get it either. So if the ???? recieves the money, a direct cause of that will be that the ???? loses the money. So it is a ???? which if it would be ?? would cancel itself out, rather than it being ?? and then being ???? itself, we say it isn’t ?? in the first place.
Same sort of ????
Just count how many of you are lined up at the time machine and subtract one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.