Thread: A Thought About The Existence Of Reality

1/x=y does not translate into x=y. In fact, the exact opposite. If 1/x=y, then x any y are reciprocal (meaning you can multiply them together and the answer is 1). So if 1/∞=0, then 0*∞=1 (which breaks the rule of 0*x=0, but ∞ breaks a lot of the rules of math (which is why you're not supposed to calculate with ∞)).

Originally Posted by Vorago

if you would make this list infinitely bigger eventually you will get to the point of saying: 1/∞=0 where;

No, you will never get to this point.

Let's view this another way: If you share a cake with an infinitely amount of people, they won't get infinitely small pieces. In practice, some will get an atom-sized slice while the rest get nothing

You should consider the ancient Two-Element Metaphysics that disappeared in history. They learned to think of the word "part" differently than nornal.

Every thing consists of two parts, that things form, and that things material difference. Neither form nor material difference is a thing, i.e. nothing. Therefore, every thing is comprised of two very specific nothings, that things form, and that things material difference.

A living organisms environmental acquisition systems are divided the same way---some abstract form, some material difference.

These early pioneers even discovered it was the foundation for all possible logic systems, all possible grammar systems.

You will find some of it in the works of Aristotle, and the Platonic dialogs were an attempt to get very bright readers to comprehend it by meditation on the dialogs. The one (form) and the many (material difference).

Plato worked out a great deal of the implications, and Set Theory is just the start of understanding,.

Definition is to form, as enumeration is to material difference.

These two elements could not be predicated of, you can only name them.

Originally Posted by arh

Let's view this another way: If you share a cake with an infinitely amount of people, they won't get infinitely small pieces. In practice, some will get an atom-sized slice while the rest get nothing

In a chemical compound such as cake, one can not go simpler than the molecular level.

therefore the numer of shares is very finite.

Something that one learns in elementary chemistry, when dealing with compounds one can only divide to the least compound that still retains the characterisic of "cake". Smaller than that, one can not use the word cake as one has exited its definition. The same is true in set theory--if one divide to the level of arbitrary characteristic of an element, it is no longer within the definition of the set.

Therefore, one does not divide a cake infinitely, but divides it until one reaches the unit of discourse. In fact, this was what one of Zeno's paradox's or perhaps more than one, was devised to teach-not to stand there with one's jaw hanging in incredulity, but to figure out the why.

A number is no more than a name generated in an ordered naming convention. The same root understanding is expressible in any grammar system.

A number is a name, as such, one does not say that one name is greater than or smaller than another, one can never predicate of the name itself. In fact, in order for a name to be a name, it, in of itself, can have no characteristics at all.