Thread: the philosophy of stars law and infinity

What?

This is hilarious. First, the presumptuousness you must have to immediately name a law of nature after your... username? Then the poorly explained argument which jumps from conclusion to conclusion while failing to come anywhere close to explaining the last.

Firstly, what are you basing these 'infinite laws of nature' on? Do you think they exist? If so, why? And what do you even mean by 'infinite laws of nature'?
Just because something goes on into infinity doesn't mean literally anything is possible. There are infinite numbers. 1, 2, 3, 4, .... But that doesn't mean that somewhere on the number line there is an elephant. Because numbers are ordered in a certain way, according to our definition of what numbers are. Just as multiple universes would probably have constraints.

However, there is one potentiality in infinity that trumps all other philosophies as invalid and powerless. That is what I am going to call, "stars law". Which makes weaker potentials "false"

This is where you completely lose me. There is hardly a point in asking further questions though as I doubt you'd be able to answer them as you clearly have a very loose idea of what logic is.

Right now I've just read a bunch of scattered thoughts with absolutely no sense of a backbone of the strict, rigid reasoning that is required in actual philosophy to be taken seriously.

As long as you guys know that you will not get replies from OP coz he is not with us anymore.

^ As it was so ordained from the Throne of Timeless Multiplicities. The star has gone dark. An eternal moment of silence please.

No, I had no idea. This is the first time I've posted outside of RRC&C in over a year.

Originally Posted by Deanstar

Stars law states that due to the concept of infinity, One supreme creator must be responsible for infinity to have created everything. This requires that the entity create conditions 'within infinity' and outside of it, to his pleasure. Therefore the condition of "time" he has potentially made "in time" and "out of time" as follows.

I realize that Deanstar is no longer with us, but it's like he was stumbling on to something and then purposefully limiting the conclusion it yielded so it confirmed his belief in God. Rather than believing that existence entails a creator, it makes more sense to believe that existence entails... existence. You know, itself. Nothing about existence requires it to be created, it must simply exist. If it exists, it is. That's all there really is to it. He thought this conclusion didn't make sense, so instead started creating his own rules for it and instead of believing that existence propagates itself (which is the only thing that makes sense to think), he already believed in God and so was like, "Oh I see! Because there existence, there is God! There is the creator!"

Well, he wasn't quite wrong, but what he failed to realize is that stating that there is a creator or that one made what "is" implicates limits within existence. Since he himself stated that since "infinity" is a thing, you can't logically reason that infinity can be limited. And, since I already pretty much explained why believing that there is an entity behind existence makes no logical sense because it implies that existence is finite, he is wrong for believing that his "God" is real based on his own initial premise, that there are infinite possibilities. Boom, head explodes.

Doesn't this imply that the current infinity could give rise to a Christian God (if it hasn't already), with the power to create an infinity himself? In a way, it seems, he would be correct, as for all we know, the "layer" of infinity we're in could have started with God. He would just need a higher infinity to cause himself. Go back far enough, though, and we will probably reach "existence just is"(unless God can, perhaps retroactively (not that he'd necessarily know), mess with the initial infinity).

On a semi-related note, does infinite possibilities eventually entail "the permanent end of all infinite possibilities" as a possibility in itself? Or, to put it another way, could existence stop itself from existing?

That's why I said he wasn't quite wrong. He is partially right, but not completely.

edit:

And to answer your last question, I think the answer is fair to say both yes and no. It stops itself existing but then exists because it already is. Haha.

It would probably continue to have existed in the past (or meta-past), unless both concepts would have been destroyed with other possibilities. There's no need for all infinite possibilities to follow the same laws of logic that we're used to, so, it may be that we can have both the permanent end of possibilities, whilst also allowing other possibilities. Contradictory to us, but it probably works on the ultimate meta-physical scale. Although, wouldn't our idea of infinity also be limited in this regard?

Just some random thoughts of mine.