Infinitely stupid

[Dragonfly]

Michael wrote in a thread on RoR about the possibility of an infinite number of things:

I wonder why people are claiming to know what they don't know and can't know - on both sides. Since when is infinity or finiteness built into the fundamental axioms?

"I don't know" is a valid position for some issues. Epistemologically, the Objectivist theory of concepts can handle both possibilities.

I prefer to wait and see what science comes up with on this one - or die in my blessed ignorance if this knowledge doesn't come in my lifetime.

"On both sides" is not correct. It is the orthodox faction, here represented by Bill Dwyer, that states that there cannot be an infinite number of things in the universe. The other side, mainly represented by Jon Letendre and Glenn Fletcher, doesn't claim that there are infinitely many things in the universe (the scientific evidence doesn't point into that direction), only that you can't claim that this is impossible using a philosophical argument, so in fact they say the same as you do.

This is a rather extreme example of the ludicrous idea that you can determine the nature of the universe on the basis of playing with definitions of "existence", "universe", "number", "quantity", etc., it is the reductio ad absurdum of the philosopher who thinks that he can determine the nature of the universe from his armchair. Isn't that what in philosophy is called "rationalism"?

[Ellen Stuttle]

The other side, mainly represented by Jon Letendre and Glenn Fletcher, doesn't claim that there are infinitely many things in the universe (the scientific evidence doesn't point into that direction), only that you can't claim that this is impossible using a philosophical argument, so in fact they say the same as you do.

This is a rather extreme example of the ludicrous idea that you can determine the nature of the universe on the basis of playing with definitions of "existence", "universe", "number", "quantity", etc., it is the reductio ad absurdum of the philosopher who thinks that he can determine the nature of the universe from his armchair. Isn't that what in philosophy is called "rationalism"?

I haven't looked yet at RoR, and basically I'm posting to test whether I can use the quote function -- and what the post looks like if it works. (Most of the posts I see on my screen don't clearly set off what is being quoted.)

I don't doubt that "rationalism" is being employed by certain participants on RoR, but I myself don't understand what "infinitely many THINGS" would supposedly mean, what cognitive content it would have. Sounds like a contradiction to the meaning of "infinite."

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

I don't doubt that "rationalism" is being employed by certain participants on RoR, but I myself don't understand what "infinitely many THINGS" would supposedly mean, what cognitive content it would have. Sounds like a contradiction to the meaning of "infinite."

Do you have problems with the statement "there are infinitely many primes"?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Strictly speaking, I asked:

Since when is infinity or finiteness built into the fundamental axioms?

I reread some of the posts. You are correct that nobody postulated infinity as actually existing - only as a possibility.

I think the argument for finiteness is a primacy of consciousness argument at root - a variation. It basically claims that unperceived aspects of the universe exist as we think they do, deducted from a very subjective use of axioms. "We think, therefore the universe is as we think," is the underlying premise. The universe actually is what it is, irrespective of our thinking. This last statement is a correct use of the axiom of existence.

Stating that the universe has an identity is not the same thing as saying what that identity is. Infinity and finiteness are simply not applicable to forming the axiom of identity.

Rand was correct in stating that cosmology needs to be eliminated from philosophy.

Elle - Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey! Welcome back! I hope you had a good time!

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Yes, I forgot to say that: Ellen, welcome back!

[Ellen Stuttle]

Dragonfly asked me:

Do you have problems with the statement "there are infinitely many primes"?

No, I don't, because primes are abstractions, not what I'm thinking of when I think of "things," which to me implies physically existing entities. I expect we're going to run straight into a language problem again here. The usual. ;-)

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Elle - Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey! Welcome back! I hope you had a good time!

Michael

Yes, I did. Dare I say "infinitely wonderful"? From many of the talks at the Symmetry conference -- one of which I anticipate was a pre-taste of Nobel-winning work in progress, another of which was a superb talk on the relationship of science and art, and, and, and...a lot of other really good ones (along with a few duds, mostly because of awkwardness with English) -- to the sight-seeing, in Budapest and Vienna. Our hotel in Vienna was on a quiet street a few blocks off from St. Stephen's Square (using English spelling). From our hotel room, we could see the spire as centerpiece to a marvelous panorama.

I wish I could magically transit (a la StarTrek) to visiting that part of the world often, without the hassles of the plane trip in between here and there.

Ellen

___