>
>Matt Eggleston wrote to Mark Bloss about "Existence Exists"
 ME> To restate, then, to fit your definitions:  Anything which math
 ME> describes which does not conform to the observed behaviors of things
 ME> actually existing in reality are unreal.  No actual thing within
 ME> reality is infinite in nature, as versus in potentiality.  QED: There
 ME> is nothing that is mathematically infinite.
 
 MB> An excellent example would be this infinite-radical problem.
 
 MB>  Add this forever.
 ME> I don't have that long.  Neither do you.  Neither does the Universe.
 
 Hold on just a second!  Who gave you the right to speak for the Universe!?
 How do you know, in your infinite wisdom, that the Universe doesn't
 have that long - indeed hasn't already taken that long!  Please try
 to keep your perspective here - you are finite - not the universe or
 reality itself.
 
 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.
 ME> That which "resides in the consciousness alone" is known as the
 ME> "delusional".  If so-called 'mathematicians' and 'philosophers' are
 ME> able to gather money and tenure by that process, that is the horror
 ME> and waste of our modern educational hegemony.
  It is a delusion to call that which is only in the consciousness a
  delusion.  It is calling the consciousness itself, finite - and our
  consciousnesses cannot be _assumed_ to be finite, unless we _assume_
  that it is.  And why should we?  It is a trap, and you are in it,
  hook, line, and sinker.  In a sea of infinite depth, does the sinker
  ever reach the bottom?  No, because there is no bottom for it to
  reach, not because it wouldn't get there if one was there.
  
  But does that mean an impossibility?  Simply because we don't have
  it in our experience to observe an infinitely deep sea, nor even
  the _ability_ to observe one, does NOT mean it does not exist as
  such; and it especially means that it _could_ exist.  And if it can 
  be observed within the consciousness to exist - then we are free 
  indeed.
  
  If infinity was an illusion, then why bother with the three dots in
  an infinite progression of terms _representing_ it?  Why do we bother
  defining it?  Why do we go on and on and on trying to explain it?
  Because, no matter how long we go on, we never quite come to an 
  understanding of it - NOT because infinity isn't part of _reality_ -
  but because our poor finite brains hasn't GOT a grasp on what reality
  really is.  
  
  
... By the time this message gets back on topic, WE'LL ALL BE DEAD!
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------