You’re talking about countable infinities vs uncountable infinities, but you’re proving my point. Order is a countable infinity, disorder is an uncountable infinity. You’ve just abstracted yourself into a corner.
Grapes and real numbers are both finite distinctions of a shared infinitely ordered set, which itself is part of an infinitely disordered set. Numbers are an infinitely ordered set that do not contain grapes. Grapes are part of many finite sets that are also part of an infinitely ordered set. Both exist within disordered and ordered sets as well. You’re not describing limitations of the infinite like you think you are. You’re only describing the limitations of your understanding of the infinite.
Exactly this. I think the real problem is that “infinite” is virtually impossible to comprehend, so people regularly misunderstand what it means and how it works.
They’re slippery concepts to be sure. Language itself becomes an impediment when discussing the subject. How can one use terms which were created to narrow perspective in order to expand consciousness to encompass the ineffable?
How is the universe infinite if there’s something missing?
The set of natural numbers is infinite. The number 2.5 is missing from that set. Therefore infinite sets do not contain every possibility.
It’s not rocket science
You’re talking about countable infinities vs uncountable infinities, but you’re proving my point. Order is a countable infinity, disorder is an uncountable infinity. You’ve just abstracted yourself into a corner.
sigh, very well then.
Consider the set of real numbers, which is an uncountable infinity. Notice how this infinite set does not contain any grapes.
It’s not rocket science
Grapes and real numbers are both finite distinctions of a shared infinitely ordered set, which itself is part of an infinitely disordered set. Numbers are an infinitely ordered set that do not contain grapes. Grapes are part of many finite sets that are also part of an infinitely ordered set. Both exist within disordered and ordered sets as well. You’re not describing limitations of the infinite like you think you are. You’re only describing the limitations of your understanding of the infinite.
Well, yes, obviously different infinite sets have different contents. Do you have a point that’s actually relevant to what we’re talking about?
No, no more points to make with you. You’ve missed every point I’ve made so far, so to continue would be a waste of time.
Probably for the best. Thanks for your…unique…contributions to the discussion!
Carry on with your anthropocentric ideations I guess.
Exactly this. I think the real problem is that “infinite” is virtually impossible to comprehend, so people regularly misunderstand what it means and how it works.
They’re slippery concepts to be sure. Language itself becomes an impediment when discussing the subject. How can one use terms which were created to narrow perspective in order to expand consciousness to encompass the ineffable?