4 ms·

The article discusses the different types of infinity known to Aristotle: “An infinitely long line would be actually infinite, whereas a line that could always

The article discusses the different types of infinity known to Aristotle: “An infinitely long line would be actually infinite, whereas a line that could always be extended would be potentially infinite. Aristotle argued that the actual infinite didn’t exist." the article shows that Archimedes dealt with both, mathematically. And both are accepted today in mathematics, although calculus deals with the potential infinite. There is another type of infinity I'm looking to understand or find a mathematical name for. I recently read Spinoza's Ethica (Ethics demonstrated in the style of geometric proofs) where he uses infinity axiomatically to refer to what might be called "allness infinity". I don't know another mathematical name for the concept, even though it is quite intuitive.

dr_dshiv 6y ago
And awkwardly, this is how Spinoza defines God: "By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite—that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality. Explanation—I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind : for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may be denied ; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation" What's fascinating about this rhetorically is that it forces theists to accept a lesser entity as God or to deal with the ramifications of infinity (which leads to a view that looks a lot like atheism). Einstein famously said he believed in the God of Spinoza. "I believe in Spinoza's god, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind"
- nonsapreiche 6y ago
  Also when a logic meets a philosopher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_pro...
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Mark Twain, on concern for the doings of mankind and on infinity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24321794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24321794
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > "By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite […]" > What's fascinating about this rhetorically is that it forces theists to accept a lesser entity as God or to deal with the ramifications of infinity (which leads to a view that looks a lot like atheism). Or one takes the tack of Aquinas and say that God is not a [bB]eing but rather Being itself; see his work De ente et essentia (On Being an Essence). Paul Tillich is someone more modern who argues the same. Bp. Roberts Barron gave a good talk "Aquinas and Why the New Atheists are Right": * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NMex7qk5GU&t=7m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NMex7qk5GU&t=7m

dr_dshiv 6y ago

And awkwardly, this is how Spinoza defines God: "By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite—that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality. Explanation—I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind : for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may be denied ; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation" What's fascinating about this rhetorically is that it forces theists to accept a lesser entity as God or to deal with the ramifications of infinity (which leads to a view that looks a lot like atheism). Einstein famously said he believed in the God of Spinoza. "I believe in Spinoza's god, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind"

nonsapreiche 6y ago
Also when a logic meets a philosopher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_pro...
082349872349872 6y ago
Mark Twain, on concern for the doings of mankind and on infinity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24321794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24321794
throw0101a 6y ago
> "By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite […]" > What's fascinating about this rhetorically is that it forces theists to accept a lesser entity as God or to deal with the ramifications of infinity (which leads to a view that looks a lot like atheism). Or one takes the tack of Aquinas and say that God is not a [bB]eing but rather Being itself; see his work De ente et essentia (On Being an Essence). Paul Tillich is someone more modern who argues the same. Bp. Roberts Barron gave a good talk "Aquinas and Why the New Atheists are Right": * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NMex7qk5GU&t=7m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NMex7qk5GU&t=7m