MB>ME>Which means you cannot derive the infinite from the finite.
MB>ME>GIVEN: Math only describes something if there has been a thing
MB>ME>observed acting in the manner which the math describes.
MB>ME>GIVEN: Nothing has been observed being infinite.
MB>ME>QED: There is nothing which is mathematically infinite.
MB>ME>That was an amazingly simple proof.
MB>Simple, and wrong.  You give as your first premise that Math only
MB>describes something if there has been a thing observed acting in the
MB>manner which the math describes.  This requires, first, a "thing" -
MB>which is concrete and observable.  Math describes the unobserved,
MB>the abstract, it does not depend upon concrete things, or observation.
To restate, then, to fit your definitions:  Anything which math
describes which does not conform to the observed behaviors of things
actually existing in reality are unreal.  No actual thing within
reality is infinite in nature, as versus in potentiality.  QED: There
is nothing that is mathematically infinite.
MB> An excellent example would be this infinite-radical problem.
MB>  Add this forever.
I don't have that long.  Neither do you.  Neither does the Universe.
MB>So, please: spare me your "proof" that there is nothing which is
MB>mathematically infinite.  We may have to use three dots to get the
MB>idea across - but its existence is _real_ - even if it does reside
MB>in the consciousness alone.
That which "resides in the consciousness alone" is known as the
"delusional".  If so-called 'mathematicians' and 'philosophers' are
able to gather money and tenure by that process, that is the horror
and waste of our modern educational hegemony.
      Not to trust, but to know,              
                              Matt Eggleston
--- GAPNet Enhanced
---------------