"There are no graspable infinities. There are only the unmeasurable identities to with which we sometimes (all too often) ascribe the actions of ourselves or others. Infinities rightly belong in the realms of mathematics and religion. Cantors enumeration of transfinities gave people ways to deal with uncountable sets in an algebraic manner. Infinities in mathematics are just as important as nothingness (also a form of infinity) and without them we would soon exhaust possibility.
Most conceptions of God require the infinite although not all. "In the Beginning" of the book of Genesis clearly indicates a non symmetrical creation if we hold that the future is unknowable. The only way to resolve this psychotheological chasm is to posit a distinct end to the universe. So it appears that any allusion one may have to human infinities within ones faith, must remain supernatural.

In philosophy we seem to have a small problem with infinities. Although it may be simple to construct a statement or thought experiment using some infinitude, there's always the problem of translating ones insights to the mundane, finite reality of daily life.
In fact I would go even further as to propose that "all infinities are conceptual". This is not to say that if we someday discover and utilize unimaginably huge spaces, such as exist in the collective quantum states of assemblages of atoms, we won't necessarily use the work of George Cantor et. al. in a practical way. However these are not infinities. The problem with infinities, is that when you have one of them, you end up needing a whole bunch more to support the one you started with. It really gets to be a complicated mess, and more importantly, gives you no new information. This brings us to causality which is our most intimate relation with reality.

There can be nothing nearer and dearer to our hearts than the effects of our actions. Even our attitudes may hold the power of life and death. Such is the responsibility of consciousness. Awareness extends to the limits of our cognition and so must extend to include the "other" within ourselves. There are no infinities here, only the warm realization of right action. We are not embedded in causality, we are causality. Every atom of our body has a history of its own. Every one of our thoughts is connected to humanity and the world as a whole. We are like little knots in the fabric of the universe, each of us distinct only in temporary form, not in kind. It's important to keep in mind that the future belongs to each and every one, and the web of causality extends in all directions."

Ken Bell February 20 2003

Response:

We agree more reasonably that there are no graspable infinities in a complete sense, (and how more reasonably could there be since infinity implies no-end, whereas completion implies end.) Though you acknowledge that there are graspable infinities, like mathematical and religious infinities, from our limited perspective.

Also, we agree that since infinities in a complete sense are more reasonably not graspable, to rely on them as basis for one’s perspective is to reply on one’s faith in a supernatural sense, in which one’s perspective can only be proven within limits through one’s belief in something he or she does not know that he or she knows.

However, it is unclear to us why "causal infinity" used in a rationalistic, limited sense cannot more reasonably be used to describe existence. You say that existence in order to avoid the problem of grasping infinities completely, ought to be defined as a "distinct end". Yet you say that causality is our "most intimate relation with reality" and that it "extends in all directions". Does it not follow that to maintain your view of causality that there must more reasonably be a causal infinity from our comparative perspective? How do you avoid the contradiction of causality being our most intimate relation with reality, when if we posit an end to existence as you suggest, there would be something which precedes causality? It appears to us that the notion of [complete] end, from our comparative, limited perspective, succumbs to faith and the supernatural no different from infinity in a complete sense; whereas, causal infinity from a rationalistic, limited perspective, avoids this uncertainty problem, while maintaining consistency with causality as our most intimate relation to reality.

2. Entry:

"Disregarding the problem of ‘human’ and ‘beings’ with respect to what these terms may represent, the notion of ‘causal infinity’ is itself subject to human-evolved conceptual limitations. In other words, the terms ‘causal’ and ‘infinity’ may be primate/homo brain-dependent, and not representative of greater nature.

The basis of my contention is that I suggest there is no reason to assume that there is no non-time nature. That is, there may be existence outside of our evolved time- perceived reality-therefore the notion of nature as ‘causal infinity’ i.e. ‘the unending interactive relationship between things’, may be incomplete. Nature may contain a part that is not ‘unending’ because it is not subject to, or part of, the space-time reality, which is the frame of reference in which our brains have evolved.

I also suggest that this idea is not so fantastic as it might at first appear. If the universe cannot be ex nihilo (i.e. come into existence out of nothing), then something must exist which always was. If it is the universe itself, then by definition part of the universe must be outside of causal interactions. Alternatively, if the universe came from something else, that ‘else’ must be ultimately outside of causal interactions also.

Furthermore, it is impossible to say that our evolved reason is necessarily the best way of determining what is true on this matter, as our evolved reason can easily be shown to be ineffective in representing a range of experimentally verifiable aspects of our material existence. (Our reason evolved to survive, not necessarily represent all external reality). It may be no different with non-experimentally verifiable, non-material aspects of existence.

There are many examples in life forms in which various aspects of nature are not at all perceived by some species. Human cannot use/detect sonar (unlike a bat), or ultra-violet radiation (unlike a number of other species), or magnetic fields (unlike some birds). Some fish are completely blind etc. Homo sapiens may be ‘non-time reality blind’, etc.

There are a range of researchers (e.g. Pinker et al) who suggest that there isn't necessarily no answer to these sort of questions such as causality and infinity, but that our tree-ish/savannah-evolved brains simply cannot grasp the necessary concepts/actualizations to such questions, any more than a human cannot detect ultra-violet radiation. All the research into brain science suggests that the brain does what it has evolved to do-regulate and survive, in our case largely in competing groups on the savannah and in changing climates, and little if anything else.

Therefore I conclude we are better off concerning ourselves with what we are good at, utilizing various earth sustaining sustenances and enjoying participation with the biosphere of our earthly environments. Intractable philosophical musings outside our frame of reference serve little end other than curiosity, because essentially we have not evolved to understand or follow them."

Ice-age primate February 23 2003

Response:

We agree that the terms "causal" and "infinite" may be primate/homo brain-dependent, and not representative of a greater nature. Also, we agree that there is no reason to assume that there is no non-time nature. Though the proposition merely posits from a more reasonable, incomplete perspective that causal infinity is the so-called greater nature (barring the inexpressible), and therefore the proposition leaves open the possibility that causal infinity may be incorrect, or simply there is non-time nature. So in the context of the competition and your entry, we are left with determining whether or not non-time nature is more reasonable within limits than time nature (causal infinity). To this end, you propose that because from our perspective ex nihilo is less reasonable than something from something else ad infinitium, then the something (or greater nature) must exist in a static state with no end or beginning. You call this something the universe itself or a meta-universe itself, and you point out that in either scenario, the something due to its static, infinite state is outside of causal interactions. We do not have a problem with your position, but it is off target because we posit causal infinity from our incomplete perspective, while acknowledging that there must be an inexpressible force behind causal infinity, otherwise it would not make sense how the causal infinity could exist. So your static, infinite state may be consistent with our inexpressible force, but it does nothing to refute the general nature of existence being defined from our perspective as causal infinity.

Your contention that because of the apparent limitations of our perception like our inability to detect sonar, ultra-violet radiation, or magnetic fields, causality as a frame of reference is flawed, overlooks that just because we are unable to directly detect things like ultra-violet radiation, does not necessarily mean that our causal frame of reference is flawed. The important contention is that as thinking beings we cannot avoid having an understanding of ourselves, whether it is as mere biological entities evolved to survive or as being an interconnected part of the causal infinity of existence, and since we rely on our conception of ourselves to exist, it follows that it would be in our interest to determine the more reasonable understanding of ourselves.

For you to dismiss philosophical inquiry as outside of our frame of reference and of minimal significance to ourselves, overlooks that philosophical inquiry or any other inquiry including scientific, can only more reasonably be from our frame of reference (viz., we apparently cannot get outside of what we know (or our frame of reference) and know that we are), and therefore, we have potentially evolved to understand and follow philosophical inquiry. We assert further that we have evolved to understand and follow philosophical inquiry, because due to our apparent inability to more reasonably truly know and know that we do (Competition 1), all systems of thought, including science and religion, have their basis in philosophy.

The challenge you face is to show how the concept of "survival" is more reasonable than the concept of "causal infinity" in terms of understanding ourselves (humanity). To merely point out the limitation of our perception in directly identifying things like ultra-violet radiation shows the possible limitation of both causal infinity and survival. It does not show the less reasonableness of causal infinity. Viz., the concept is posited as limited with the possibility that it may not be.

3. Entry:

"At first glance it seems difficult to come up with objections to this new proposition. For starters I'll just try to make a list of possible penetration points. To get things going, perhaps.

What's there to disagree with?

-To claim that we are not human beings really seems to be unproductive to say the least. We have to call ourselves by a name, so why on earth not that one?
-To dispute the fact that existence is causal, or at least consists in part of non-causal "matter". That is to say, to make an attempt to identify a vital element within us human beings that can most reasonably be understood as being detached from causality. The only thing that would be required, is to identify an integral part of our being that could be considered to remain for ever possible, irrespective of circumstance (in other words, something that will be supplied with opportunities to emerge for all eternity and therefore will emerge for all eternity and therefore may safely be considered independent of contingency (causality). What about the Schrödinger equation of our DNA? A truly Platonic idea? Anybody who wanted to, may be capable of defending this position till kingdom come. Additional remark: Just to keep you from ignoring everything mentioned in this point, except the sole example I (ad lib) came up with. -To dispute the fact that existence is infinite.
-To claim that if existence is truly infinite, we have existed, do exist and will exist again, irrespective of causality.
-To claim that causality and infinity are mutually exclusive. A cause seems to have caused the universe 13.7 billion years ago. That's not infinitely long ago. If the universe will collapse in the end, or get so widely dispersed that every quark in it will never see another quark again, preventing the cause game to be played, infinity may be reasonably considered to be a phantom. Of course one could argue that there is such a thing as an infinite number of universes that procreate or are caused by an infinitely available source we have never even heard of. But it would be difficult to show such a viewpoint to clearly be the most reasonable.
-To claim that existence is not something you're part of, since it is what you are. This would not make you a part of the causal infinity of existence, it would rather make you its whole (A case for solipsism).

P.S. In fact this proposition is so darn good, that when I absorbed and appreciated it thoroughly my girlfriend was startled greatly, since I started to shimmer in and out of existence at the same time, which in turn seems to support the first proposition!"

Raoul Starren March 8 2003

Response:

We agree that by more reasonably establishing from our perspective a non-causal aspect of existence whether Schrödinger equation of DNA or a truly Platonic idea, the proposition would be overcome. However, we disagree that the non-causal aspect could be defended indefinitely, since it is evaluated by more reasonableness and within the time-frame of the Competition. Also, the problem with the non-causal position is that it amounts to ex nihilo, which is less reasonable than something from something else ad infinitium. Note, we define existence by causal infinity, but allow for an inexpressible force to explain the origin of causal itself, otherwise our position would succumb to the ex nihilo position.

Regarding a truly infinite existence which is beyond causality, it is unclear how from our perspective we could more reasonably exist infinitely without being subject to causality. Moreover, it is unclear how the universe through collapsing could cause every quark to become so widely dispersed that causality would be negated, because as long as a spatial relationship, no matter how significant, existed between quarks, we must allow for causality between the quarks and whatever separates them.

Further, to contend that existence is something we are, rather than something we are part of, is self-defeating because your proposed view that we are existence is based on comparison or parts, rather than non-comparison or wholeness.

In our view, the potentially weak area of the proposition is the "inexpressible force" (viz., "Existence": the interaction between things based on an inexpressible force), because it may cancel out causal infinity. Though this argument faces the same self-defeating problem from claiming that we are existence, rather than part of existence.

4. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 2

"'The challenge you face is to show how the concept of 'survival' is more reasonable than the concept of 'causal infinity' in terms of understanding ourselves (humanity).'

I don't suggest that we are not part of the 'causal infinity' of existance, it is simply that as a guiding principle of our existance, it seems to be subservient to our current and potential ecological place.

I also recognize that to overcome the proposition, one must show that a part, or whole, of our existance is outside of causal interactions, i.e. part of a 'greater' or non- interactional 'nature'. (It may be that only a part is required, as the 'greater nature' may completely over-ride any causal component, wherever present).

Various aspects of human ecological niche/place takes precedence over notions of 'causal infinity' in terms of understanding ourselves, because undoubtedly this earth and its biosphere is what our brains and bodies have evolved to exist in. If the origin(s) of life stems from causal interactions, ('causal infinity' or otherwise), this is nevertheless always subservient to our now-evolved, various ecological needs, since millions of generations have subsequently elapsed since life originated (e.g. evidence of the geological record). We are biological beings, and we cannot escape the greater biosphere in which we have our existance. Our ecological existance is the most dominant, and perhaps even the only, aspect of our existence.

I agree that we may well have 'evolved to understand and follow philosophical inquiry', although I would also suggest that it may not be the most dominant, or necessarily the most important aspect of our evolved existance, but just one of the many functions our brains have evolved to do. It would also seem to me that self/body- regulation and survival/security has taken greater precedence in brain/body function than philosophical inquiry, because without the former, there is certainly no opportunity for the latter.

Most of our habits, thought processes, dietary requirements, social customs, various survival mechanisms, regulatory/body mechanisms etc relate to 'survival' in the biosphere, and not to an misplaced, abstract kind of nirvanic mental paradigm (i.e. conventional religion), or to an irreducible 'causal infinity'. If any 'deep mental notion'/state is necessary, or in fact pre-programmed within our minds to inevitably arise, then surely the best is 'deep ecology', because of all the religious/spiritual state/?infinity notions which have developed in various cultures, surely our relation to the world and its processes is the most appropriate and the most universal.

Monks, priests, shamans, ministers, philosophers, scientists etc throughout various societies and ages who wish our existance to be otherwise than in the biosphere in which we live, are themselves subject to periodic plagues, sickness, dietary and various other subsistence requirements, territorial attack etc, meaning their admirable, but ultimately misplaced spiritual sojourn, is flawed. It may be argued that in some cases theirs was an evolved, but misplaced 'deep ecological', or if you prefer, misplaced 'spiritual state', in more than a few cases set up by the prevailing political powers of the day. In other words, the purpose of the 'religious state', i.e. the spiritual and/or ecological process, has evolved in us to find our place within the surrounding biosphere, but is easily subverted by the prevailing powers of the day.

In simple terms, paradigms of ecological place (e.g. Native Americans, at least 12,000 years old), are preferred to One God-Appointed Leader on Earth idea (e.g. 'Roman Catholicism', about 2000 years old), or the Judaistic 'One God' idea (at least several thousand years old), or God-Given Series of Documents/One-God Appointed Many Leaders (e.g. Protestantism, Essenism, both at least 2000 years old), to take a few examples.

Most ancient societies in particular have evolved some form of 'deep ecology' which, as mentioned, may be the ultimate function of evolved 'religious' predisposition. My interpretation of modern western society is that there is also a trend towards a better understanding of our place within the biosphere, as the old misplaced non-biospheric notions (i.e. misplaced religious ideas) subside. (Although it should be noted that the interaction of free market economics with deep ecology does not, at present, appear to be in harmony.)

Because we are intimately connected to the surrounding earth and its biospheric processes, 'causal infinity' is not really 'the more reasonable in terms of understanding ourselves'. I would also suggest that as a guiding principle it may not be the most appropriate, whether in terms of the greatest happiness (utilitarianism), survival (e.g. Darwinism) or otherwise. In addition, whether or not life's origin(s), and our 'being' (Competition 1) are reducible to chemical processes, and/or a part of the 'causal infinity' is to a certain extent mute, because it seems obvious to me our that our current 'being', our 'survival', and our daily existance is predominantly ecologically-based, irrespective of life's origins, or indeed the 'greater nature' of the surrounding universe and what is behind it."

Ice-age primate March 11 2003

Response:

We agree that our relationship to the world (and the biosphere) and their processes (based on our interconnectedness and interdependence on the world and biosphere within limits), what you call "deep ecology", appears to be the more reasonable concept of who we are in terms of understanding ourselves. However, this ecological based view is underlain by causality (i.e. the causal relation between things including the "human ecological niche"). So to stop one’s understanding of ourselves at ecology itself is to ignore the causal forces behind ecology and the greater biosphere, and our relationships to the causal forces. Our point does not refute your ecological perspective, but simply takes it further by pinpointing the causal relationship between things.

The notion of "infinity" comes into the causal picture not as a religious /spiritual inference, or as a "irreducible" conception, but as a representation of the nature of our perception, in which we are apparently unable to identify a complete beginning or end to things. Hence, the causal nature of things takes on an infinite state to reflect the apparent constant process to things from our perspective, while deny the religious and spiritual states you referred to by denying the conception of a thing-in-itself (barring the inexpressible force behind causality itself).

You may respond that the ecology based view is more tied to our survival because it implicitly connects the greater biosphere with who we are, but causal infinity goes further by not assuming the connection, but bluntly declaring it. Note, the ecology based view by not clarifying its position on infinity and non-infinity is susceptible to religious infestations as demonstrated by Christianity’s human based stewardship of Nature, and offshoots of deep ecology like "GAIA, the goddess of the Earth". Also, for you to focus on security mechanisms and ecology’s precedence to human survival/security over causal infinity, is to ignore that causal infinity clearly implies humanity’s interdependence and interconnection with the greater biosphere, thereby the importance of maintaining the greater biosphere and its content, within limits, in order to ensure our own survival/security.

Entries 5-7