# Limits and Separation

## Recommended Posts

Right away I have to say that this is not an argument. I am pretty much just thinking aloud here; hoping for some interesting comments.

Limits rely on separation. I'll use an analogy to illustrate my thought process:

Imagine there is one thing, and one thing only. What surrounds it? It is the only thing, and therefor nothing limits it. It is infinite.

For it to be limited, something else must exist. Something separate.

(This is an assumption of which I am awaiting proof or disproof as implied by my question later on!)If two things existed, they could both be infinite, but they would be limited, in some way, by each others existence.

For example, if there were only two moments, each moment could be infinitely long. One having no beginning, but being interrupted by the next moment, having no end. There could not be three moments that were infinitely long, because the one in the middle would have to have a beginning and an end, assuming that a moment cannot co-exist with another.

I'm going to stop there, for now, and ask: Is it possible for something to be limited and yet still infinite? Can you disprove the possibility of something like a ray (a line with one end)? If so, there can only be one infinity, because one thing being infinite would limit everything else.

Alright, I'm eager to hear what people think.

(By separation I mean multiple things co-existing, not the act of separating.)

Edited by Dglgmut

##### Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by limited and infinite. Regardless:

If two things existed, they could both be infinite, but they would be limited...

[...]

... Is it possible for something to be limited and yet still infinite?

##### Share on other sites

The question at the end was to validate or contest the first line in what you quoted.

What I mean by limited and infinite is exactly what it sounds like... Something with a beginning, but no end, or something with an end, but no beginning. (Or, for example, in any given moment we have infinite possibilities, however there are still limits: we cannot fly etc.)

To me it seems impossible, but I'm sure someone here could prove or disprove that.

It seems like I contradicted myself in your post, but like I said, I'm not trying to argue... I just used statements so they are easier to argue against, rather than a bunch of questions.

There's only two options, either way. I'm trying to figure out which is true.

I'll argue against the idea, myself:

If there were two moments, and each were infinitely long, at which point is the transition? If the first moment has no beginning, when is it time for the next moment? Is there something fundamentally wrong with this argument?

The idea that we have infinite, yet limited opportunities, seems true.

Edited by Dglgmut

##### Share on other sites

The surface of a sphere has no boundary in the topology of the surface. No edge. So I suppose you could call it infinite in the sense that it has no boundary or end or limit.

בעל חצוף

##### Share on other sites

I think what I'm getting to is that anything finite is infinitely small. And that anything finite is always contrasted by something infinite. If there is only one thing, then it is definitely unlimited.

A moment ends because there are infinite more to come. If there were finite moments, they would never end (be interrupted).

This could also be applied to space... But simply, anything with a physical border is infinitely small.

I'm on this subject because I was trying to figure out how it is that separation is an illusion.

Change/time could not exist without separation. There must be at least two separate moments for a change to occur (time to pass)... and an infinite amount of moments for time to work as it does.

Has anyone thought about separation being an illusion? And that there is only one thing?

Edited by Dglgmut

##### Share on other sites

I think what I'm getting to is that anything finite is infinitely small. And that anything finite is always contrasted by something infinite. If there is only one thing, then it is definitely unlimited.

A moment ends because there are infinite more to come. If there were finite moments, they would never end (be interrupted).

This could also be applied to space... But simply, anything with a physical border is infinitely small.

I'm on this subject because I was trying to figure out how it is that separation is an illusion.

Change/time could not exist without separation. There must be at least two separate moments for a change to occur (time to pass)... and an infinite amount of moments for time to work as it does.

Has anyone thought about separation being an illusion? And that there is only one thing?

A moment is just a moment. What makes it so is due to one who can perceive the events during such. The infinity that you refer to is only infinite so long as a sentient body continues to function or live and thus making such moments finite. Also, I believe "moments" would have to involved a heightened awareness of events which "stretches out" the sequence of events thus dragging it out and increases its intensity.

Separation is not an illusion, it absolutely exists. It is a portion of reality perceived by an conscious entity. Illusion is a phenomenon in perception or rather, a misrepresentation of an existent to an observer. Therefore, it implies that something exists to perceive another thing and that being has a form which defines it or, delimits it to a certain nature which in turn, makes it possible for it to identify itself apart from the object which he perceives.

What do you call this "one thing"? If it can be named, it cannot be therefore that it is only one thing because obviously, it would follow that other "one things" exist and those also have their names and properties and forms which have limits.

You said: "Imagine there is one thing, and one thing only. What surrounds it? It is the only thing, and therefor nothing limits it. It is infinite."

You must be a believer of solipsism if you think like this. One cannot fully and truly imagine only one thing existing as imagination involves conception and concepts could not be formed without a context or background.

I must point out that you're trying to trip your audience by merely speaking of anything or everything in existence such that you can get away from the act of defining what the hell it is that you want to say. All things are infinite only to the point where they cease. Only to the point where a conscious being chooses a portion (measure) of it to suit his purpose or fill his need and capacity.

The possibilities are infinite so long as you do not ask, "the possibilities of what?" and there you will see that the the only borders are the nature of an object and the capabilities and nature of the consciousness who beholds the object.

You said: "Right away I have to say that this is not an argument..."

Sir, you must know that reflections, when presented to others to be judged will eventually lead to a discourse on the subject and argumentation is an essential part of that. Hell, you can already make evaluations as you observe and reflect and what makes it so is the existence of contrast i.e. you always need two or more things plus a context or background to be able to perform any mental act.

If you are not looking for an argument, then are you looking for agreement without judgment?

Edited by David Lee

##### Share on other sites

I think what I'm getting to is that anything finite is infinitely small. And that anything finite is always contrasted by something infinite. If there is only one thing, then it is definitely unlimited.

A moment ends because there are infinite more to come. If there were finite moments, they would never end (be interrupted).

This could also be applied to space... But simply, anything with a physical border is infinitely small.

I'm on this subject because I was trying to figure out how it is that separation is an illusion.

Change/time could not exist without separation. There must be at least two separate moments for a change to occur (time to pass)... and an infinite amount of moments for time to work as it does.

Has anyone thought about separation being an illusion? And that there is only one thing?

A moment is just a moment. What makes it so is due to one who can perceive the events during such. The infinity that you refer to is only infinite so long as a sentient body continues to function or live and thus making such moments finite. Also, I believe "moments" would have to involved a heightened awareness of events which "stretches out" the sequence of events thus dragging it out and increases its intensity.

Separation is not an illusion, it absolutely exists. It is a portion of reality perceived by an conscious entity. Illusion is a phenomenon in perception or rather, a misrepresentation of an existent to an observer. Therefore, it implies that something exists to perceive another thing and that being has a form which defines it or, delimits it to a certain nature which in turn, makes it possible for it to identify itself apart from the object which he perceives.

What do you call this "one thing"? If it can be named, it cannot be therefore that it is only one thing because obviously, it would follow that other "one things" exist and those also have their names and properties and forms which have limits.

You said: "Imagine there is one thing, and one thing only. What surrounds it? It is the only thing, and therefor nothing limits it. It is infinite."

You must be a believer of solipsism if you think like this. One cannot fully and truly imagine only one thing existing as imagination involves conception and concepts could not be formed without a context or background.

I must point out that you're trying to trip your audience by merely speaking of anything or everything in existence such that you can get away from the act of defining what the hell it is that you want to say. All things are infinite only to the point where they cease. Only to the point where a conscious being chooses a portion (measure) of it to suit his purpose or fill his need and capacity.

The possibilities are infinite so long as you do not ask, "the possibilities of what?" and there you will see that the the only borders are the nature of an object and the capabilities and nature of the consciousness who beholds the object.

You said: "Right away I have to say that this is not an argument..."

Sir, you must know that reflections, when presented to others to be judged will eventually lead to a discourse on the subject and argumentation is an essential part of that. Hell, you can already make evaluations as you observe and reflect and what makes it so is the existence of contrast i.e. you always need two or more things plus a context or background to be able to perform any mental act.

If you are not looking for an argument, then are you looking for agreement without judgment?

Thanks for the reply. I want people to argue against anything I say, but I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone else... I just want to see what people have to say.

I'd sum up what I'm saying like this:

Something cannot be limited by nothingness/nonexistence. Limits are always separation; an end is always another beginning.

What is really confusing me, though, is the idea of a finite fraction of something infinite.

If there is an infinite amount of space, and you were to divide it in two, where the hell would the border be?

It seems the border could not exists... Or that one side could never be observed on its own...

Also: What is separation? How can there be more than one thing? Or how could one thing be divided??? - Aren't atoms just made up of energy? Haven't they found out that everything is made up of the same energy and really, nothing is physical in the sense of taking up space?

##### Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. I want people to argue against anything I say, but I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone else... I just want to see what people have to say.

I'd sum up what I'm saying like this:

Something cannot be limited by nothingness/nonexistence. Limits are always separation; an end is always another beginning.

What is really confusing me, though, is the idea of a finite fraction of something infinite.

If there is an infinite amount of space, and you were to divide it in two, where the hell would the border be?

It seems the border could not exists... Or that one side could never be observed on its own...

Also: What is separation? How can there be more than one thing? Or how could one thing be divided??? - Aren't atoms just made up of energy? Haven't they found out that everything is made up of the same energy and really, nothing is physical in the sense of taking up space?

Tell me sir, why does this topic interest you? What's your purpose for studying this? Do you plan to modify, alter, control or manipulate the "fabric" of reality on an atomic or subatomic level? If so, how will this benefit you and anyone else who would participate?

##### Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. I want people to argue against anything I say, but I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone else... I just want to see what people have to say.

I'd sum up what I'm saying like this:

Something cannot be limited by nothingness/nonexistence. Limits are always separation; an end is always another beginning.

What is really confusing me, though, is the idea of a finite fraction of something infinite.

If there is an infinite amount of space, and you were to divide it in two, where the hell would the border be?

It seems the border could not exists... Or that one side could never be observed on its own...

Also: What is separation? How can there be more than one thing? Or how could one thing be divided??? - Aren't atoms just made up of energy? Haven't they found out that everything is made up of the same energy and really, nothing is physical in the sense of taking up space?

Tell me sir, why does this topic interest you? What's your purpose for studying this? Do you plan to modify, alter, control or manipulate the "fabric" of reality on an atomic or subatomic level? If so, how will this benefit you and anyone else who would participate?

It's more philosophical than anything. Something cannot be created from nothing... And nothing cannot come from something... So, what is change? If nothing changes, there is nothing to be afraid of.

All of these kinds of questions, I believe, are part of a search for freedom.

##### Share on other sites

Change is the act of going from one state to another. It's always occurring and there is plenty to be afraid of (also plenty to be happy about).

This thread is appearing more and more like intellectual masturbation.

I'll echo David Lee's post: how can these ideas be useful?

##### Share on other sites

As the Afro laden Billy Preston explained:

##### Share on other sites

"Change is the act of going from one state to another. It's always occurring and there is plenty to be afraid of (also plenty to be happy about)."

How can we go from one state to another without change?

Many people would say that time = change...

Without change there is no time, and without separation there is no change.

Without two separate "states" there cannot be a difference(contrast).

If you replace the word moment, in my previous posts, with state, does it make more sense? State is probably more accurate, actually.

Like I said though, there would have to be an infinite amount of states for change to occur, otherwise nothing would happen as one state would never be replaced by another.

So maybe the assertion I should make is that CHANGE never changes; it never stops. That may be what we are actually afraid of, anyway... Not change itself, but the idea of a final change.

If you guys really hate this, I'm sorry.

##### Share on other sites

"Change is the act of going from one state to another. It's always occurring and there is plenty to be afraid of (also plenty to be happy about)."

How can we go from one state to another without change?

Many people would say that time = change...

Without change there is no time, and without separation there is no change.

Without two separate "states" there cannot be a difference(contrast).

If you replace the word moment, in my previous posts, with state, does it make more sense? State is probably more accurate, actually.

Like I said though, there would have to be an infinite amount of states for change to occur, otherwise nothing would happen as one state would never be replaced by another.

So maybe the assertion I should make is that CHANGE never changes; it never stops. That may be what we are actually afraid of, anyway... Not change itself, but the idea of a final change.

If you guys really hate this, I'm sorry.

Hate?

No. I am your resident amused observer.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.