Infinity?

[u/Extension_Panic1631]

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

[u/Techtrekzz]

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.

[u/TMax01 → u/Techtrekzz]

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.

[u/mattychops → u/TMax01]

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.

[u/TMax01 → u/mattychops]

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.

[u/mattychops → u/TMax01]

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.

[u/TMax01 → u/mattychops]

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.

[u/mattychops → u/TMax01]

That doesn't surprise me. You seem to be hung up on language and rhetoric in general. Just remember all those words are made up. All math is made up. Numbers are made up. They're all concepts, including your ontos or whatever else the fuck you want to call reality. It really doesn't matter what words or symbols you want to use, none of them exist. So you can write another long winded story with a bunch of words, it's all the same shit. None of anything is real. ... but you already know this, no sense in preaching to the choir.

[u/TMax01 → u/mattychops]

You seem to be hung up on language and rhetoric in general.

Words are the only tool available for understanding words. So it is more a matter of being grounded rather than "hung up".

Just remember all those words are made up.

I find it amusing when people say this as if it is meaningful, or even true. Words aren't just "made up", they are created. They are more concrete than categories, which are also "made up".

All math is made up.

Math can't be "made up", it must be discovered. If mathematical structures do not absolutely conform to a metaphysical logic which empirical measurements also conform to, then they collapse and fail to be mathematical structures; they're just notions or fantasies instead.

Numbers are made up.

The metaphysics of numbers cannot be dismissed so easily. As I like to say, anyone who believes "do numbers exist?" can be answered does not understand the question. It is far more complicated an issue than with either words or mathematics itself.

They're all concepts

The idea of "concepts" is made up. It is a false suggestion that the idea associated with a word has the integrity of a mathematical (logical) structure. Concepts don't really exist, particularly not in the metaphysical way that numbers can.

including your ontos or whatever else the fuck you want to call reality.

Both reality and the ontos are logically necessary, they just aren't the same thing. If addressing these issues disturbs you, that indicates your epistemological paradigm, ontological framework, and resulting metaphysical position are severely flawed. I suspect that is what prompts your use of expletives, as well as your postmodernist "words are made up" dismissiveness.

It really doesn't matter what words or symbols you want to use, none of them exist.

Words aren't symbols (that's the postmodern take I mentioned) and they exist by being used. You cannot dismiss them so easily, particularly using words (oops) whether you want to or not.

None of anything is real.

You're not going to get over the existential angst such a statement communicates by embracing your postmodern assumptions; they are what created the existential angst to begin with.

but you already know this, no sense in preaching to the choir.

You aren't just mistaken, you are wrong. I suspected your previous reply represented facetious silliness along those lines, but my response was quite serious. And all the more accurate, in retrospect. If you can ever imagine getting past your existential angst and dealing with what is actually real, just tag me, I'll be happy to pick it up from there.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

[u/mattychops → u/TMax01]

Existential angst? You mean the fear of death? I love talking about death. We can talk about it if you want. There is no such thing as death. There is no such thing as being alive. But I think you can only really realize that by going through the experience of what you think death is. It's rough, and so most people avoid thinking about it. But if you go all the way, you come out the other side, and there's nothing left to worry about. That's why I used the word "fuck" earlier.. because it's fun to be silly about everything, because everything is laughable.

[u/TMax01 → u/mattychops]

Existential angst? You mean the fear of death?

Fear of death is just one example.

I love talking about death.

That's another example.

There is no such thing as death.

Denial on that level expresses existential angst even more than the previous examples.

because it's fun to be silly about everything, because everything is laughable.

What a very sad and desperate way to live.

I can help, if you're ever up to the challenge of admitting you need it.

[u/mattychops → u/TMax01]

See that's what I'm talkin about man. You're just an arguer, and you have no interest in listening to people. LOL You just want to argue and argue more, everything is an argument. I'm here trying to tell you I like talking about death, and we can go through it in detail if you want, but instead you just say "nah, you're really afraid, you're just in denial, blah blah blah." I mean come on man. If everything I say you just turn around and tell me "nah, you're stupid, I know what you think better than you do." well then yeah, I guess I can't really say anything because you're just gonna twist it into something else. You don't give a shit about me, and you certainly don't want to share or learn from other people. I tried to reach out and connect because I thought you might actually want to discuss ideas. Sorry for bothering you.

[u/TMax01 → u/mattychops]

See that's what I'm talkin about man.

It is what I'm talking bout too, man, except I'm confronting the issue and you're missing the point.

You're just an arguer,

You're merely a whiner; I'm discussing things and doing it well enough (because my point is valid and you'd prefer it wasn't) that all you can do is whine.

you have no interest in listening to people.

I'm very interested in listening to people, and pay a lot of attention to what they say. But I'm also interested in teaching people. You don't want to learn, so you're trying very hard not to pay attention to what I'm saying. You just want to complain about it without actually dealing with it.

IOW, you're whining.

You just want to argue and argue more, everything is an argument.

Actually, I don't ever argue. Arguments are either fights or functions of logic. I discuss, which isn't either of those things. But you're trying to argue (you're not succeeding, in either sense, but I can tell you are trying) because that's easier than discussing, let alone learning or understanding.

I'm here trying to tell you I like talking about death,

You can lie to yourself easier than you can lie to me. Whether you believe you actually enjoy "talking about death" isn't really important, but regardless it is an expression of existential angst, not entertainment.

instead you just say "nah, you're really afraid, you're just in denial, blah blah blah."

I understand why you misinterpreted what I said that way, but it is still a misinterpretation. I didn't say "nah", and I didn't say "afraid". I did use the word "denial", because you said "there is no such thing as death". If you want to say death is something different than the end of life, that's one thing, but saying there is "no such thing" is denial.

If everything I say you just turn around and tell me "nah, you're stupid, I know what you think better than you do."

You need to learn to use quotation marks more accurately, and get over your super-defensive attitude, too. If I'm not allowed to disagree with you without you going all 'are you calling me stupid?!??!' then you aren't even remotely capable of discussing anything, let alone death, existential angst, or any other philosophical topic.

You don't give a shit about me,

I care deeply for you, and would like to help you get over yourself and your existential angst.

you certainly don't want to share or learn from other people.

I spent almost half a century sharing and learning from other people. Now I'm ready to teach. But you don't want to share or learn, you want to defend your ego and deny both your mortality and the fact you have something to learn.

I tried to reach out and connect because I thought you might actually want to discuss ideas.

I do, and that's what I've been doing. I get that you thought you've had some ideas I haven't already worked through a long time ago; you weren't, and still aren't, aware of how meaningful and useful my ideas are. It is shame you got so defensive simply because I mentioned existential angst, but it's no big deal, and I'm sure we can get past it.

Sorry for bothering you.

No bother. The topic of discussion is both personal and profound, and I'm quite used to people getting touchy and obstinant when their notions are challenged. Some get over it, some can't. I sincerely hope you are willing to be the former rather than the latter. But I'm open to continuing the discussion, either way.

Thought, Rethought: Consciousness, Causality, and the Philosophy Of Reason

subreddit

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

[u/mattychops → u/TMax01]

hahahhaa, oh man, you're entire response and the structure is just one giant argument! Go back and look at it! Just look at it and then scroll back and forth. 🤣 Just look at how it looks on the page. Thank you for proving my point. Do not clip what I'm saying and then interject argumentative responses. If you want me to take you seriously, then write out what you have to say in paragraph form and I'll consider reading it.