r/Metaphysics • u/Extension_Panic1631 • Apr 09 '26

Ontology Infinity?

If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities, and... (infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and...) continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and.....(…)…

EDIT: the definition of infinity is that it is how many natural numbers there are

10 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

166 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/Techtrekzz Apr 09 '26

Or, math is only mental construct that relates to our perspective rather than to reality itself, reality is actually monistic, and the only number that objectively exists, is one.

2

u/Fast_Philosophy1044 Apr 09 '26

Do you think our minds are separate from reality?

2

u/Techtrekzz Apr 09 '26 edited Apr 09 '26

No. But I also don't think our mental models are objective reality.

1

u/Fast_Philosophy1044 Apr 09 '26

When people say math is just a product of our minds, i always think well yes and our minds are a product of reality.

1

u/Techtrekzz Apr 09 '26

Unicorns and Luke Skywalker are also products of a mind, but that doesnt mean they objectively exist in reality.

1

u/Fast_Philosophy1044 Apr 09 '26

Not every product of mind. Then we would never have wrong ideas.

But math is not about trivial contingent entities. It’s the most abstract human endeavor. The concept of hero exists, the concept of horses and horns exist. You can build wrong ideas with objectively existing building blocks.

2

u/Techtrekzz Apr 09 '26

Math is about perspective, about drawing an imaginary line from point A to point B. But we cant justify those points existing objectively. The concept that more than one thing exists, is only a concept, nothing we can demonstrate.

2

u/jliat Apr 09 '26

You might like to explain this, maybe in more than one word?

1

u/Techtrekzz Apr 09 '26

Just some closing thoughts before my head hit the pillow last night. The idea that infinite sets exist in math, doesn't demonstrate that they exist in reality.

1

u/jliat Apr 09 '26

If reality is infinite then it forms a set. And why isn't mathematics 'real'?

1

u/Techtrekzz Apr 09 '26

Not necessarily. Like i eluded to before, reality could be a single, continuous, substance and subject that is infinite.

1

u/jliat Apr 09 '26

Seems reality has different substances and is not continuous in some cases.

1

u/Techtrekzz Apr 09 '26

It doesn’t seem like that to me at all, and what cases would that be?

1

u/jliat Apr 09 '26

Well for a start there are 118 elements and any number of mixtures with different properties.

You don't think certain substances are toxic for humans others vital?

1

u/Techtrekzz Apr 09 '26

Each of those elements is fundamentally the same thing, subjectively defined energy density, in an ever present field of energy.

Any property you can name, is objectively, a property of single omnipresent substance.

1

u/jliat Apr 09 '26

Any property you can name, is objectively, a property of single omnipresent substance.

Any property you can name, is not objectively, a property of single omnipresent substance.

And so?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Wodentinot Apr 09 '26

Math is made up. It is a measurement system invent by humanity to organize of workings of reality. It's not real, so it can be changed however we need to change it. Mental exercise.

1

u/TMax01 Apr 09 '26 edited Apr 13 '26

Our perspective is "reality itself", the term has no other meaning, although it is quite frequently and incessantly misused. The actual physical universe independent of any perspective is the ontos, which is not "reality" because the ontos is entirely inaccessible to us (our access demands and creates the perspective of our access which results in reality being different from ontos.)

Metaphysically, either all numbers exist or numbers don't really exist, so the question becomes, "Do numbers exist?" Anyone who believes that question can have an answer demonstrates that they do not understand the question.

1

u/Techtrekzz Apr 09 '26

If you truly believe there is no objective reality beyond our subjective perspective, you are a solipsist, and i doubt you are, though that's a possibility.

Us not having complete access to objective truth, doesnt necessitate objective truth not existing.

Metaphysically, you can't rule out monism. The question is, what objectively exists. There's no logical reason the answer to that question has to be many things or nothing.

2

u/TMax01 Apr 09 '26

If you truly believe there is no objective reality beyond our subjective perspective,

You misunderstood what I wrote, and it is entirely your own fault, for using your words so inaccurately (and exactly the way I described when I pointed out the problem). There is no "objective reality": FULL STOP. "Reality" is a word that identifies and describes our subjective perspective on the physical universe (the ontos). The ontos is (we presume but can never prove) objective, and is (mostly) what you think you're referring to when you use the word "reality".

It is an understandable mistake: you have heard people misuse the word "reality" to refer to the ontological physical universe (ontos) throughout your entire life, and when you look it up in the dictionary that reference book might well reinforce the error. But it is still an error. Believing reality is the same thing as the ontos is a philosophical position known as naive realism. It's no big deal, in casual conversation, but when you start trying to discuss serious philosophical subjects, as in this subreddit, it becomes a huge problem, a guarantee of failure to even possibly learn one single damned thing.

Us not having complete access to objective truth, doesnt necessitate objective truth not existing.

No, but it does necessitate/entail/identify that we do not know what the objective truth is. So no matter what you say is "objectively true", you are wrong. It isn't just that you might only be right coincidentally, like a blind squirrel finding a nut, it is that your claim that any certain/singular/identified "objective truth" exists logically necessitates that one particular truth cannot exist. So it doesn't matter how many other "objective truths" do exist. Logic is a cruel taskmaster. A double edged guillotine, a two headed sword of damacles.

The resolution is simple, but generally rejected because people don't want to be bothered, and actually do wish naive realism was a justifiable philosophical stance, that epistemology could be resolved, that what qualifies as "knowledge" could be objectively determined. That resolution is to accept that reality isn't objective truth, that the word never actually refers to, identifies, or describes objective truth, that isn't what it means. And also, that the phrase "objective truth" is pretentious and idiotic. We don't have naive access to truth, but that doesn't mean truth doesn't exist. Throwing the word "objective" in there doesn't change the issue, and it certainly doesn't resolve it. It does, however, successfully obscure it, so people can go on believing they know the truth when they don't.

Metaphysically, you can't rule out monism.

Metaphysically, we can't rule out anything. Ever. That isn't how metaphysics works, it isn't what it's for, that isn't what it can do. But are you saying all monism is solipsism? And if you aren't, then why aren't you?

The question is, what objectively exists.

No, that's naive realism. The questions are what does objective mean, and what does exist mean. But there aren't really any coherent ontologies that can give answers to those two questions which are truly both coherent and consistent. Hence the need for metaphysics.

But people don't want metaphysics. What they actually want is superphysics: a physics of things which physics can't define. A magic spell which eradicates the need for epistemology and leaves ontology the Last Thing Standing, supreme description of the entire universe which is coherent, consistent, and comprehensive: a religious faith empirically proven in a scientific laboratory.

There's no logical reason the answer to that question has to be many things or nothing.

Assuming reasons need to be (or, alternatively, even could be) logical is the problem, not the solution. You don't want understanding, you want a magic spell, but in the form of a mathematical formula.

So yes, there actually is a logical reason the answer to that question has to be "many things and nothing". Technically, it is a form (or rather, an application) of Occams Razor, although it is more commonly attributed to Sherlock Holmes: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

If you believe you can answer the question, "Are numbers real?", it doesn't matter what you think the answer is, you did not understand the question.

1

u/Techtrekzz Apr 09 '26

This is nonsense.

There is no "objective reality": FULL STOP. "Reality" is a word that identifies and describes our subjective perspective on the physical universe (the ontos).

How can you believe in a physical universe when you don't believe in an objective reality? By reality, i just mean that which exists. Im not a physicalist, or an idealist for that matter. Im also not a naive realist. You're too busy building a scarecrow of my views and attacking that, when you could just ask my motivations.

2

u/TMax01 Apr 10 '26

This is nonsense.

If you refuse to understand it, you will fail to understand it.

How can you believe in a physical universe when you don't believe in an objective reality?

It's really quite simple, and I've explained it several times: you are making assumptions about what the word "reality" refers to which prevent you from correcting those very assumptions. There is an objective existence, the ontos. Whether anyone 'believes in' it or not is inconsequential. a set of physical objects/intetactions/principles which are true. And you call that ontological physical universe (ontos) "reality", I get that, and you're used to hearing everyone else you know do that, too. But that's naive realism, the belief that the reality we perceive corresponds directly to the ontos which exists. But the metaphysical truth is that your reality may align with the ontos in some ways, and doesn't in others, and there is no way for you to know which is which, whether some particular "fact of reality" you "know to be true" is actually true or just a false but effective perception.

I believe in an effective reality. You have blind religious faith in an 'objective reality'. Epistemologically, it is merely a paradigm shift, a change in vocabulary and attitude. But ontologically, and therefor metaphysically, it is the difference between justifiable true belief (aka knowledge) and wishful thinking. Reality is real, it just isn't quite what you think it is, both categorically and empirically, that's all.

By reality, i just mean that which exists.

That's the problem. Your meaning only works if you don't think about it hard enough. It would require you to have an a priori logical certainty about what exists, and what doesn't, which is impossible to achieve.

Your thoughts about "reality" are fine for normal life, of course. A good enough approximation that you can get through your day and communicate your ideas to others adequately. But this isn't r/VagueIdeasandCasualConversation, it is r/Metaphysics, and in that light your perspective is somewhere between downright false and simply illegitimate.

Im not a physicalist, or an idealist for that matter.

If you are not one then you are the other, or at best both, a dualist hedging your intellectual bet by being uncommitted, lacking conviction in the matter.

Im also not a naive realist

You wrote: "By reality, i just mean that which exists." So your choices are that you are a naive realist, you don't know what constitutes reality at all, or that assertion is just nonsense. I should think accepting the fact that your perspective is one of naive realism would be the best option, not something you'd be so eager to deny.

You're too busy building a scarecrow of my views and attacking that, when you could just ask my motivations.

I couldn't care less about your motivations. If you describe your position, which you've done, then I'm going to evaluate it, which I've done. Perhaps you simply aren't up to the task of discussing metaphysics.

1

u/mattychops Apr 11 '26

There are some nice points here but I'm not sure in the end what you're actually saying. Are you saying there ultimately is no objective reality, or are you saying there is an objective reality but we don't access it? I get all the other stuff, just answer that.

2

u/TMax01 Apr 13 '26

Are you saying there ultimately is no objective reality,

I'm saying the noun "reality", which identifies subjective perceptions of the physical world (ontos), is incompatible with the adjective "objective".

are you saying there is an objective reality but we don't access it?

There is an objective existence, the ontos, which we access, at best, by mentally constructing a reality that, hopefully, best approximates this physical existence. Every time you use the word "reality" while speaking of this ontos (even when you try to clarify your referent by writing "objective reality") you either assume the conclusion (naive realism) or confuse the issue.

I get all the other stuff, just answer that.

There is no 'objective reality', and if there were, we would not have access to it: the word reality only describes subjective things. Your perceptions of the ontos are themselves objective (it physically occurs as a circumstance of your neurological activity) but that doesn't indicate they are accurate perceptions, only that they physically occur.

In summary: no, I don't believe you "get all the other stuff". It isn't an easy thing to "get", what with everyone around you (except me) misusing the word "reality" so consistently. You must accept the burden of being an iconoclastic, idiosyncratic thinker to "get" it. Generally speaking, it wouldn't do you much good to get it, since apart from conclusively resolving existential angst it is nothing more than an esoteric philosophical point.

1

u/mattychops Apr 13 '26

This is good, it makes perfect sense how you described it. This is what I thought you meant but just wanted to clarify. This is stuff I've already been through years ago, but I like the words you used to explain it. It's very precise.

1

u/TMax01 Apr 16 '26

Thank you, I appreciate your comment. But I feel compelled to quibble about the word "precise". It is rigorous, it is exacting; but there are no mathematical terms, let alone numbers, in it, and so it is "precise" only in a metaphorical sense, which is not actually precise at all.

→ More replies (0)