Is the concept of infinity real or imaginary?

[fast]

I'm saying, "nothing is on the table." I'm saying, "nothing is in the drawer." I'm saying, "no one is in the room."

I'm not saying "'a' nothing is on the table." I'm not saying, "'a' nothing is in the drawer." I'm not saying, "'a' no one is in the room."

You can say it and think it.

But you can't observe it.

You can't observe the nothing in the drawer.

All you can observe is the drawer. If you are observing a drawer you are observing something, not nothing.

Right, you can't observe THE nothing (whatever that is), but we can see that there is nothing (not, a nothing) in the drawer.

 

[untermensche]

You can say it and think it.

But you can't observe it.

You can't observe the nothing in the drawer.

All you can observe is the drawer. If you are observing a drawer you are observing something, not nothing.

Right, you can't observe THE nothing (whatever that is), but we can see that there is nothing (not, a nothing) in the drawer.

You can conclude there is no something in the drawer.

But all you can observe is the drawer.

 

[fast]

Right, you can't observe THE nothing (whatever that is), but we can see that there is nothing (not, a nothing) in the drawer.

You can conclude there is no something in the drawer.

But all you can observe is the drawer.

Can I observe the empty space?

 

[untermensche]

You can conclude there is no something in the drawer.

But all you can observe is the drawer.

Can I observe the empty space?

If you are looking right through something and not seeing it at all can you really say you are observing it?

If I took that space somehow and placed it on a table with the space from other drawers could you recognize it?

 

[fast]

Can I observe the empty space?

If you are looking right through something and not seeing it at all can you really say you are observing it?

If I took that space somehow and placed it on a table with the space from other drawers could you recognize it?

In another thread, you said, "And nobody understands what it means for something to go on without end." You also said nobody understands ... something about what God is.The part I'd like to highlight is nobody understands.

If I stepped into your philosophical shoes, I might have to retort, how talented. How talented for this mysterious nobody to actually understand.

The entirety of what you said is not at issue. It's just that phrase alone. It was normal speak. Understandable. Made perfect sense. It's like you let your guard down and wasn't affected by the philosophical grip that causes you to easily abandon convention. This grip has a dominoe effect and causes you to redefine words.

You are shrinking the scope of observation, so much so that the good point you have is being lost in communication. Not to me, as all I have to do is adopt your language and figure out all the reprocussions. It's not an easy task, mind you.

You are flat out wrong when you say that we cannot observe that a drawer is empty, no matter how true it is that we cannot see any contents within it. When you dig down in discovery of a truth, you can't pop back up and abandon convention. What's the ole saying, think with the learned; speak with the vulgar? Truth doesn't alter meaning as commonly used. You should express yourself as expressions are often expressed so that philosophical insights are better understood by others who can't readily flip through the consequences of convention abandonment.

 

[untermensche]

No. I am defining "observing" accurately.

You observe what is there.

You can't turn this on it's head and pretend you are observing invisible things too.

 

[fast]

It's a fact that nothing is in the drawer. Knowing this fact is a function of observation. I don't need an argument or deduction. Sheer observation is sufficient.

 

[untermensche]

It's a fact that nothing is in the drawer. Knowing this fact is a function of observation. I don't need an argument or deduction. Sheer observation is sufficient.

Nothing is not a thing that can "be" somewhere.

It is only a figment of the imagination.

 

[bilby]

It's a fact that nothing is in the drawer. Knowing this fact is a function of observation. I don't need an argument or deduction. Sheer observation is sufficient.

Nothing is not a thing that can "be" somewhere.

It is only a figment of the imagination.

For someone who demonstrates no imagination whatsoever, you don't half express a lot of opinions about imagination.

 

[fast]

It's a fact that nothing is in the drawer. Knowing this fact is a function of observation. I don't need an argument or deduction. Sheer observation is sufficient.

Nothing is not a thing that can "be" somewhere.

It is only a figment of the imagination.

I know that nothing is not a thing. That's what I've been telling you. When someone says nothing is in the drawer, it's an incorrect interpretation to think that what's being expressed is that there is some thing called nothing in the drawer. When you said nobody understands something, it would be an incorrect interpretation that there is a nobody that understands something. Well, except for the slang usage where someone is called a nobody.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing is not a thing that can "be" somewhere.

It is only a figment of the imagination.

I know that nothing is not a thing. That's what I've been telling you. When someone says nothing is in the drawer, it's an incorrect interpretation to think that what's being expressed is that there is some thing called nothing in the drawer. When you said nobody understands something, it would be an incorrect interpretation that there is a nobody that understands something. Well, except for the slang usage where someone is called a nobody.

You can't get around the difference between actually observing something and making an inference from the observation.

You can observe a drawer and nothing else.

You can infer nothing is in the drawer from what you can observe. You cannot observe a nothing.

The nothing in the drawer is as real as zero.

 

[fast]

I know that nothing is not a thing. That's what I've been telling you. When someone says nothing is in the drawer, it's an incorrect interpretation to think that what's being expressed is that there is some thing called nothing in the drawer. When you said nobody understands something, it would be an incorrect interpretation that there is a nobody that understands something. Well, except for the slang usage where someone is called a nobody.

You can't get around the difference between actually observing something and making an inference from the observation.

You can observe a drawer and nothing else.

You can infer nothing is in the drawer from what you can observe. You cannot observe a nothing.

The nothing in the drawer is as real as zero.

Sooo, I'm making multiple mistakes then.

One, I'm overstating what it is I think I'm observing. Sure, I'm observing the drawer; I have that part right; it's just that I'm not really observing an empty drawer, as such a statement shows that I'm comingling both the observation and the inference I make.

The second mistake is that I'm claiming to be making no inference when really I am.

Thus, there's a two prong process at work. I need to separate the two. First, I need to stay clear about that which I am truly observing, which is only what I can in fact sense, which is the presence of the drawer. After that and failing to see any contents within the drawer, I can hipppity hopscotch to the inference-bearing deductive conclusion that nothing is in the drawer. It's kind of like a subconscious argument I'm making: If I can't see anything in the drawer, it's empty; I don't see anything in the drawer; therefore, the drawer is empty.

It seems as though I need to slow down; maybe take a break between the tasks before me: 1st, observe, and maybe write it down: I see a drawer. Then, lounge around, chill for a few minutes; then, think about what other insights I might be able to draw from my observations. Make an argument!

Ya know, I have a problem with that.

 

[untermensche]

Your brain is quick. It makes inferences in an instant.

But all the eye can observe is a drawer.

It can't observe nothingness.