here are your arguments
- Yes, fair enough. I guess I badly worded what I was trying to say. When I say, 'just because you don't understand infinity, doesn't mean no one else can,' I mean that- just because you, or any or all of us don't understand infinity (assuming we don't), does not logically imply (of itself) that it is not possible to. Just because person A does not understand concept x, does not mean that it is logically impossible for person A, or any other, to understand concept x. Granted, you are saying that the nature of the particular concept at hand- infinity- implies that this is the case. I don't think you've demonstrated this, however, and I also think that this means that you are saying a bit about the nature of infinity (it's not able to be understood by us), and are hence understanding it.
1)you are dead wrong. a finite amount of space(synaptic connections) cannot store infinite amounts of information. this is the logical implication of infinite. being something you cannot know what it is to be nothing. try naming a new sense and what it entails, something new. you cant because experience dictates concepts. what is it like to be in two places at once. i have demonstrated this over and over. YES, someone can know something that is knowable that someone else doesnt but not the unknowalble. no finite mind can know infinity, there are books written on this subject actually. write out the final number for pi would ya, and get back to me. your person A example doesnt matter in this debate(that has been the problem, your examples arent relevant). if i know that dont know that 1+1=2 that doesnt mean someone else cant, this is true. but this is a perceivable concept and has nothing to do with the concept of infinity, can you not see this. im saying i dont know the nature of infinity, but based on my knowledge of finite in juxtaposition to infinite i know i cannot grasp it. no point in arguing this it has been refuted clearly, i mean come on seriously that is a weak ass argument.
- I don't think this is a particularly strong point for you, and this is the point I was using the red brain case to argue against. When you say that the brain is a finite piece of matter, and a thought (even though it is intangible) is simply a semblance of electrons in a finite area of space- to this I agree. Yet, I do not think it implies the next step- just because the brain is (physically) finite, doesn't mean it can't comprehend what it is like to be not-finite. So, I mentioned the red brain. The brain is a particular colour. But we are able to comprehend other colours. I think that perhaps you are on a bit of a reductionist track here.
2)no it is not a strong point for you, you used a perceivable concept that is readily experienced to explain something that no one human has experienced(again your using improper examples to make your point that have no relevance). finite space cannot store infinite space, this is an easy concept and is not debatable, i dont understand how you can even argue it.
definitions to help(finite)
2. Mathematics
a. Being neither infinite nor infinitesimal.
b. Having a positive or negative numerical value; not zero.
c. Possible to reach or exceed by counting. Used of a number.
d. Having a limited number of elements. Used of a set.
infinite
1. Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless
can you now see why only a concept and not true understanding of the reality of infinite is not possible.
Your other point, however, was strong- we can conceptualise only what we have encountered in experience. I made the point, however, that we can use processes of thought to deduce other concepts which we have not encountered in experience. A person can know two concepts, A and B, and from A and B he can logically deduce the existence or nature of a third concept, C, even though he has not had experience of this concept C.
yup this is my point, and is correct. nature not ultimate reality
- Again, just because I cannot point to a particular thing and say, 'that's an example of infinity,' doesn't mean one can't grasp the nature of it. See above paragraph.
yes it does, and for other reasons. everything you experience is you, you dont know what its like to be me nor can you because of your experience. same logic.
- Nothing is something. It is nothing. Nothing and something are not mechanistically, rigidly exclusive concepts, just like objective and subjective are not.
yes they are, youve actually missed the whole point, nothing is not something. something has attributes and exists. nothing does not exist.