/lit/ - Literature

>>17775831
>time is infinite
Time exists entirely inside our brains.
It does not exist.

>>17776058
rather, *time is present only in our brains.

>>17775831
I caused the first thing but forgot why I did it. Sorry about that I'll let you know if I remember.

>>17775831
>The same thing applies to space, like wtf is at the edge of space?
Nothing exists beyond the edge of space. Maybe other universes if you subscribe to that belief. But beyond that, nothing exists. It's not a void. It's not nothingness. It just doesn't exist.

>>17775831
nothing would just be another thing that would be. the real question is why things are the way they are instead of any other way. the answer is brute facts.

>>17776090
>Nothing exists

>>17776058
>time exists
>time does not exist
Which is it faggot?

>>17776090
Bruh

>>17775831
My theory is that God, being omnipotent, created himself, being outside the laws of acyclical causality imposed by time, and then he created the universe. Time is infinite but God is outside of it. Space is infinite but if there's nothing occupying it does it even exist?

>>17776058
Correction: time is infinite, because eternal, but incommensurable.

We apply measures to something like this to make it finite. These measures are what you're referring to: they are the things inside of our brains.

>>17776242
>>17776221
Right, time is theoretically infinite, like a perfect line.

But because anything that ramifies and comes into existence has to operate under the physical laws of reality, and because anything that is extended has to remain between finite bounds, then time is effectively finite, and so is the line.

Theoretically of course, it is infinite.

>>17775831
>If time is infinite then how can infinity exist?
time is not infinite but indefinite

>>17776090
Impossible
>>17775831
It is an absolute principle that existence is the foundation for all possible and potential things and that non-existence is a negation made from INSIDE existence, and thus is again a process of existence. As soon as something is at all, if it even to be slightly comprehended, then it must take place in existence. All the evidence from literally any account of afterlife or death is something that can be comprehended, thus it exists and isn't non-existent. So nonexistence is an existent principle. So actual non-existence is impossible. "nothingness" is a quantifier of an appearance of emptiness but if it were truly empty we wouldn't be able to observe it. Since we observe it, we release our existence into its nothingness through our comprehension of it. Thus it was seen, and now that field of nothingness exists like a photo, a new synthesis.

>>17776351
In what way have we observed "non-existence"? I'm not sure if it's even something that could be observed.

>>17776452
I should've said 'if we observe it'

>>17775831
Read Guenon he has all the answers.

>>17775831
A human trying to understand these things is like a goldfish trying to understand calculus.

>>17776514
this

>>17775831
>tfw you discover there isn't something, something is just nothing nothing-ing itself

The univerase works the same way as how Minecraft renders chunks.

>>17776780
That's nonsense, nothingness doesn't posses the capacity to be perceived as something, because that would make it not nothingness as possessing capabilities and being nothing are mutually exclusive.

>>17776920
becoming is a sublation of being and nothingness, being is the self-negating negativity

>>17776947
>Hegeltards think drivel like this is deep

>>17776947
I have a question: Historically the dialectic of ontology was between being (Parmenides) and becoming (Heraclitus). How could becoming be the concrete if it is clearly a negation of the abstract (being) in this case? Shouldn't non-being be the concrete (ie Taoism?)

>>17776947
>becoming is a sublation of being and nothingness
No, becoming is contingent upon the fact that the things which become, themselves participate in being, and without them doing so there would be no becoming of them.

>>17775831
Because Being cannot not be.

>>17777001
it really is, it just hasn't intuitively clicked yet

>>17777056
this is a good question and I'm not sure Hegel ever satisfactorily explained the passage from Idea to Nature. i'd say becoming IS concretized by non-being, because Being is spoken against (and with) a background of Nothingness that kicks the dialectic into gear

>>17777126
there's nothing to participate "in", their movement is something that only participates in itself

>>17777135
This is another way to put it

>>17776058
This is verifiably false

>>17776879
>The cosmic background radiation is just the chunk loading algorithm glitching out at the edges

Time is not real, it's motion. Find a way to freeze all particles within matter and time will freeze too

> Like why tf is there something rather than nothing?
Because there is
> If time is infinite then how can infinity exist?
Infinity doesn’t exist, a thing can only approach infinity.
> like wtf is at the edge of space?
There might not be an edge of space depending on the shape of the universe.

Any good philosophy reader should engage with serious advanced science and studies.

Something exists because Infinity exists. Infinity exists because it has no limits. Because it has no limits, nothing can prevent its existence. Everything exists because it should.

>>17776090
Describe to me what you would experience when seeing/ reaching this area of the universe.

>>17777422
Infinity is actually proved to not exist in the physical realm.

Anything physically existent must be constrained by finitude.

>>17777426
...

>>17777448
The physical realm is just a fraction of Infinity, just like everything else.

>>17777239
> here's nothing to participate "in"
existence
> their movement is something that only participates in itself
they are not their movement, that they can move at all first requires that they participate in existence as an existent thing

>>17777459
>fraction of Infinity
Mathematically incoherent

>>17777500
If you truly believe mathematics can explain everything. I feel sorry for you.

>>17777514
Sorry to break it to you, but a fraction of infinity is still infinity.

>>17777527
Now you're starting to understand.

>>17777527
Indeed. Matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. Isn't that Eternity? Isn't that Infinity?

>>17777542
Eternity is finite, just an immutable concept of reality.

To say motion is eternal is necessary, but because the universe is finite, motion is finite as well. Understand?

>>17777422
based
>>17777527
> Mathematically incoherent
The infinite is undivided and partitionless in its infinity, because of this the infinite doesn’t really have parts or fractions that divide it up. While remaining partless, the infinite is capable of producing or manifesting manifold appearances within Itself, although these appearances are not actually parts of the infinite but this is a category which our mind imposes in order to make sense of things

>>17777558
>Eternity is finite

>>17777623
Correct. The universe is finite, ergo eternity is finite.

Are you okay, anon? Can you grasp this please?

>>17777500
meant to reply to you here >>17777620

>>17777636
>Correct. The universe is finite, ergo eternity is finite.
Not him, but you seem to be confused about the meaning of the words you are using. Eternal means without beginning and without end, the universe is not synonymous with eternity if the universe has a beginning or end. Something cannot be eternal and finite at the same time, because only the infinite is eternal

>>17777636
>The universe is finite, ergo eternity is finite
Nice strawman. You see, there are infinities that are more infinite than others. Even if the Universe is finite, that doesn't mean Eternity is. It doesn't need to be the "Absolute Infinity" in order to be infinite. We couldn't talk about Eternity without assumming some form form of Infinity.

>>17777290
how and where?

>>17777740
>You see, there are infinities that are more infinite than others
no, the infinite is the infinite, one infinite possessing anything that would render it different from another infinite such as being greater or lesser would become delimited by that difference and would no longer be infinite, because the infinite is unqualified in its all-encompassing existence and admits no limitation, any other infinite that one would consider outside of this is just something that belongs to the indefinite, it’s not the true infinite

>>17776074
Can you to tell me when you gonna remember it, asking for a friend of mine

>>17777895
Correct, now replace infinite with God

>>17776074
lol

>>17777911
Yes brother

>>17777895
If I have, let's say, infinite dots. And I group them one after the other, so that I create a line. Isn't that line infinite?

>>17777963
No, because the starting term of your equation “infinite dots” is a contradiction in terms. What you are really referring to is an indefinite amount of dots. The infinite is not limited by anything and so to say that its at once infinite while at the same time configured into the specific spatial limitations of existing as dots is violating the law of non-contradiction by simultaneously ascribing two mutually exclusive statuses to the same thing (i.e. that that it’s infinite while at the same time subject to spatial limitation). Guénon explains the difference between the infinite and the indefinite and how some modern mathematicians and theorists confuse them in his book on calculus.

>>17778085
I'm done with you. I'm going to sleep. Goodnight.

>>17777746
I recommend checking out General and Special Relativity. Time is relative and it has some interesting effects. Even GPS has to account for the difference in rates on the surface and in orbit, although at that scale it's only about 7 microseconds difference a day. It gets a lot more extreme when you start taking into consideration things like neutron stars and black holes.

>>17778100
Kant actually argues the same thing as Guenon in this respect (the crucial difference between indefinite and infinite). That anon is correct, whether you admit it or not.

Wtf r u talking about

>>17777290
>verifiably
lol, this is just an idea made up by atheist rationalists

>>17777500
>Mathematically incoherent
In what logic?

>>17778102
The fact that time is relative and has "interesting effects" doesn't say anything about its inherent subjectivity. For starters, we already knew time was responsible for effects (namely for THE cause-and-effect we are capable of thinking and perceiving). This does not give time objective reality, it gives time reality as a form of perception (intuition).

>>17778124
Shit that works pays the bills So does things that don't work, but you're on borrowed time before the ruse is up

>>17778139
There is relative time in the physics sense and then there's whatever the fuck your consciousness does to try and work it into its circuitry. Basically relative shenanigans stacked upon relative shenanigans. This is why we invent instruments to minimize the mental noise in the way of the experiments.

>>17778162
Everything that we perceive only exists as such inside of our minds. We have no idea what anything is like outside of subjective experience. All of your instruments are interpreted through this same subjective faculty of perception, so they do not lend any objective credence to time, except as an appearance that is not dependent on your own imagination.

>>17778224
At least they give reliable results, even if we are all just brains trapped in jars.

>>17776514
Please tell me where

>>17775831
no

>>17777717
An eternal principle would theoretically exist before the creation of something, that's all. I'm not confused about the definitions of the words, you are simply confused in regards to the application.

If I say that eating food is eternal, that anything that exists must consume nourishment to survive, then if I create an ant colony, it would be asinine to deny that those ants were consuming food for a finite amount of time. Certainly the principle of eating food is eternal, but the ant colony was existent for a finite amount of time, so the act of consuming food is finite.

>>17777740
>Even if the Universe is finite, that doesn't mean Eternity is.
In application, eternity is finite. In theory, eternity must be an infinite, immutable property.

Also I'm curious about the get >>17777777

>>17776074
tell us faggot

>>17776221
how tf is that possible

>>17775831
>Plato so far seems to provide the best answer
What does plato say?

>>17779531
I think OP meant Aristotle

>>17777422
nothing prevents the existance of a something within that infinity that somehow doesnt allow the existance of anything else in that infininty.

keep spinning the wheels of thought my guys. i'll see you in nibbana when you get there.

>>17779723
buddhism is fake and gay, stopping all thought doesn’t lead to Nibbana but its just lobotomizing yourself, and buddhists never actually stop all thoughts anyways, it’s an unattainable pie in the sky that none of them ever reach, that’s why there are no modern arahants or Buddhas.

>>17778955
>If I say that eating food is eternal
It’s not

>>17778108
Eternity isn't indefinite.

>>17779707
>uncreated eternal universe governed by polytheistic gods
Sounds pretty sensible to me.

>>17775831

There is only one satisfactory answer you will ever find for all of these big questions and it's that humans simply can't see or understand the true nature of the universe everything we think we know is simply built on false or incomplete perceptions

>>17780128
based

>>17780053
i love how rationalists seethe as soon as they feel their thoughts are threatened.

>>17780664
If you are trying to stop all thoughts why are you posting on 4chan which requires thinking?

>>17780700
your post doesnt seem to have required thinking heheh

>>17775831
Man is bodily, man is time.

>>17776074
hahahahahaha

>>17781356
Obviously it did require thinking, otherwise I could not have noticed how that posters behavior is inconsistent with the values that they espouse

>>17777497
brainlet

>>17778102

>>17781416
>things can become without participating in existence as existent things

How time can be infinite if it was started by the big band? or does time existe before the big bang? what if our universe started this dimension?

>>17781933
Pussy bussy femboy sexhaha UwU

>>17775831
You think nothing language, so trying to contact these questions is pointless. The first mover was the bedrock for a primordial science, so read about the history of science to see how it has transformed into a more sophisticated form.

>>17782340
*within not nothing

>>17782315
This tbqhwymfamalam

>>17782340
>I FUCKIN LOVE SCIENCE!!!!1

>>17782717
You patternbrain buzzword spewers should be fucking rounded up and gassed

>>17775831
just BEE yourself :)

>>17783287
this

>>17775831
Well, try bending your intuition a different way... Why would it be more normal/expected for there to be 'nothing'? Is it really reasonable to think that 'nothing' is some kind of ontological state, rather than just an abstract conceptual contrast to the extant?

I agree that existence itself is a wondrous thing from our perspective (and you should cherish that sense of wonder), but there is no good reason to suppose that existence is improbable or that it is not the singular default state.

As for infinity, our minds are not equipped to process it and we can't receive information from outside our universe, so we can only speculate. My guess would be that the 'base state' of existence is simply everywhere and trying to think of it in terms of finite regions with boundaries is a mistake of human intuition.

"Infinity" is a construct of the human mind. Everything in the universe is finite.

>If time is infinite
It's not.

>why tf is there something rather than nothing?
Even if you had an answer, you could ask "why" again and again. Move on.

>>17778224
If we techincally don't know, then we can't assume to what extent our perceptions do or do not align with objective reality. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the reality which conditions our perception imparts some aspects of itself into perceptual mechanisms. While our perception is undoubtedly very limited, it seems a greater stretch to assume that perception and reality are completely alien to one another.

>>17776074
Fuck