I don't know what's blocking the understanding... Alric, you said it yourself:
Originally Posted by Alric
You could never claim to have ever lived forever because you would never actually reach that point, but you can just keep going on and on.
Not because 'you would never actually reach that point', but because if there ever is a point, it is not forever. Not only could you not claim to live forever because it is unreachable, but because if it was reached it would contradict itself. Therefore you can never say such things and attribute it to a physicality that is bound by the laws of change.
Originally Posted by Alric
As for not living forever, that is just an assumption you made. There is no reason a person couldn't live forever, if they were able to survive the death of the universe.
Can you tell me why you think surviving the death of the universe is trivial?
Originally Posted by Alric
Like I said, you would never actually reach infinity and you can't ever claim to have an infinite life, but you can live forever.
Here is another contradiction. If you cannot claim it, why say you can live forever? You must say instead: I am living as long as I possibly can.
Originally Posted by Alric
Think about it like this. For the sake of picturing this lets assume for the moment that the universe is expanding out forever, which a lot of people believe. If you were to start at the center of the universe and fly out towards the edge at slower than the rate of the universe expanding you could travel forever and never hit the edge. There will always be more universe created before you can get to the edge. You would effectively be traveling forever.
It is equally unrealistic as your other examples. Must you give an example of an infinite amount of fuel, or is that just another triviality not to worry about?
I don't think you realize how over-simplified and bold your statements are. At times they might sound convincing on their own, but they are just hypothetical concepts that are lost of wisdom.
Here are some great quotes by Taosaur, who posted in one of my old threads. I think he described it well, and it's something that isn't easy to do. He was actually debating with somebody with different ideas of 'infinity', but of which seemed too theoretical. I hope you can visualize that there is actually a paradigm difference here.
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Eternity is not a limitless amount of time--that usage is a bastardization deriving from a failure to grasp the concept. Eternity is outside or beyond time, the dualistic opposite of linear time. It is beginningless as well as endless. It is the fixed background against which time moves, the still pool upon which our reality reflects. Taken differently, eternity is the view on reality from which everything is accomplished and nothing changes, from which what we take for change is merely a reflection of the perpetual state of being.
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Again, you simply don't seem to know what we're talking about when we discuss the all-encompassing, boundless, infinite, eternal aspect of existence. It's neither mystical nor "comes from nowhere," but arises naturally from an understanding that all boundaries are artificial, including the boundaries between each of us as an object/entity and the air, the sun, or the kitchen table, as well as the boundaries between past and present, causes and effects. This understanding is at once counter-intuitive, defying the conceptual construct we take for reality, and self-evident: whatever we take for a thing unto itself, an object, is in fact interpenetrating, exchanging substance with, and mutually co-defining everything in its surroundings. We're all somewhat aware of the material exchange, but close examination of time, cause and effect reveals the same interdependence and interpenetration.
|
|
Bookmarks