Talk:Infinity (philosophy)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

????[edit]

Ok, I believe in being bold, but was the creation of this article really necessary? There are no references listed either. Root4(one) 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mayan culture and the Infinity[edit]

The Mayan culture also had the notion of infinity. Here are some sources that talk about this regard:

I wish you could add this fact to the History section. --LuisVillegas (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein quote[edit]

The quote from Einstein does not seem very informative. Why include it here? Tkuvho (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is useful in understanding the expanding observable Universe as the only way to contemplate infinity absolutely as there is no solution to the boundary with boundary - Leucippus

...All that exists therefore, I affirm, is bounded in no direction for if it were bounded, it must have some extremity, but it appears that there cannot be an extremity, unless there be something beyond, which may limit it;... lucretius archive (translators Titus; Watson, J. S. (John Selby), 1804-1884, ; Good, John Mason, 1764-1827,.) & ...the vacuum is infinite in magnitude... Plutarch Library, 30 Nov 2006) + had located additional references > [1] + [2]& see : Internal vs External

Tkuvho:Would it be possible to express yourself in complete sentences?

User:Drift chambers : yes sure

Tkuvho : Your arguments may then come across as more convincing. I fail to see a direct connection between Einstein and Lucrecius as you seem to. Einstein appears to have make a joke at the expense of the intelligence of the average person. that may be fine, but how does it help us with understanding infinity (philosophy)? Tkuvho (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is crucial as is one of the authorities of reality with respect to the Universe, so is of the truth of which philosophy leans onto.... Drift chambers (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the reference D.H. Mulder ([3]) identifies the nature of subjective and objective knowledge and as to infinity, since there is no location for infinity on earth of the reality of the indivisible > [4] then the only other location is the boundary of the actual universe, as shown by Leucippus etal so the inclusion is a continuation of theirs. (see also references in [5]) [6] Drift chambers (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. Tkuvho (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

do you mean in dis-agreement of to proceed with returning the information Tkuvho ... (actually is some form of comment on infinity is unknowable, and is reliable as guidance for contemplation) Drift chambers (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Drift chambers (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Drift chambers (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC) actually seems to be certainly not a joke but as stern and (brute) honest reflection of scientific truth, or instead someone very frustrated at the lack of intelligence on the reality of the universe of the number of people not having the correct understanding, as an indication of the difficulty of actually understanding the concept, an actual report in his experiences[reply]

You appear to have a poor grasp of English which is making you nearly impossible to understand. It doesn't help that you appear to be signing your comments in a bizarre way as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the problematic editor continues with his inappropriate additions to the article I would suggest reporting his behavior as disruptive. Tkuvho (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reported the editor to ANI, they added 10k of incoherent rambling to the article and 100k to the talk page [7]. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the use of the word "view" in the headings dealing with Jainism and Early European[edit]

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1AVNA_enGB589GB590&ion=1&ie=UTF-8&rct=j#q=insight+definition 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

View can't be the correct word to use since, the use of the word implies insight, and the definition of the word "insight":

accurate and deep understanding - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/insight

clear, ​deep, (and sometimes ​sudden) ​understanding - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/insight

negates the use of the word "view", in the sense of a group of individuals having an internalized mental view of infinity, since subsequent thinking must have deepened understanding and knowledge. The Jainist considerations must therefore have been comparatively more shallow. 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quantifying infinity[edit]

Infinity can be numerically quantified as 1 times infinity (1x∞.) 1 is the working number, and infinity is the constant... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkMaloney (talk • contribs) 18:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity (philosophy)[edit]

@Deacon Vorbis:


https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6rcLBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=Infinity+is+countless&source=bl&ots=U4P1AFq3gA&sig=83ajMpKhYvda2_LaidbVTYyNEsw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWlZfv9NzXAhUBC8AKHVbODhAQ6AEIVTAJ#v=onepage&q=Infinity%20is%20countless&f=false

actually the factor I identified is Kantian adjectives, and their overrepresentation, or underrepresentation - of these you might like to look again at at the indicated page, where all the adjectives are listed, including countless. 23h112e (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 23h112e (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said nothing about kantian adjectives. The text you added was: "Immanuel Kant (died February 12th 1804), [20] defined infinity as countless. [21]". This is not supported by the source you gave, so I removed it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

edit 21:49, 27 November 2017 "atom"[edit]

https://www.etymonline.com/word/atom shows "...revived scientifically 1805 by British chemist John Dalton" - the description of then (history) indicates true to the understanding then, to use "atom" indicates a post-Dalton description which is not true. 23h112e (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

edit 21:52, 27 November 2017‎[edit]

was held due to no-source reason given by the editor -

text deleted : In the Jaina work on the theory of sets, two basic types of infinite numbers are distinguished. On both physical and ontological grounds, a distinction was made between asaṃkhyāta ("countless, innumerable") and ananta ("endless, unlimited"), between rigidly bounded and loosely bounded infinities.

23h112e (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is this talk-page section supposed to mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Kant had nothing to say?[edit]

... how shameful is that:

Immanuel Kant: if he didn't say anything worth reporting, then there's not much point noting him
Revision as of 21:56, 27 November 2017

cf. → Immanuel Kant: Unendlichkeit. (With quotes and refs galore.) --89.15.238.141 (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's casting pearls... Obviously both sides of this silly edit war here never read a single line of his work. (And I mean the whole lifetime work, from his thesis till the end!) Instead they are dealing in funny old egyptian stories and their favorite anglo-saxon authors.
Therefore: Speedy deletion of this preposterous article, it's a complete failure. --89.15.239.40 (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is definitely not good; there is a lack of any real analysis of commentary (see, e.g., the Jain stuff). Nonetheless the history of infinity in philosophy is a real thing and it is hard to see how you'd get this deleted. If you have anything useful to say about Kant - say, a proposed addition to the article commenting on his valuable opinions - then that would be useful William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sry, I don't have access to the relevant english literature. Seems most of the useful stuff is behind paywalls. But perhaps this here might help to find the english refs.
Routledge Ecyclopedia of Philosophy:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
And Einstein about modern natural science (i.e. Spacetime, Theory of Relativity) vs. Kant's a priori: Einstein's Philosophy of Science. - So Kant seems history too. (Natural Philosophy is risky business and can be proven wrong. That's why contemporary philosophers escaped to shallow formalism or structuralistic gobbledygook.) --89.15.238.100 (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I only mentioned Einstein here because it seems to me that nowadays most of the scientific debate and conferences on Kant are circling around these problems, that came back to haunt them. But the books and papers are quite expensive. I would by no means invite WP-contributors to indulge in any conjectures about relativity at all!
As for Kant's philosophy, knowledge of the exact (english) terminology is absolutely crucial. (Btw. the guy is already even hard enough to comprehend in german.) That is why I myself can't fill the gap in the article and must leave that for knowledgeable native speakers to do.
Perhaps this book here may be helpful in this case: Norman Kemp Smith. A Commentary to Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' at Project Gutenberg
One very simple (and perhaps the best?) solution I can think of would be just to mention Kant very shortly and then link to the relevant sections of the existng WP-articles about his philosophy. --89.15.236.173 (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't obvious that Immanuel Kant had anything of any importance to say about infinity. His wiki page only includes the word once, glancingly. If, as it seems, you are particularly interested in him, and infinity, it would probably be best to start on his page. FWIW I don't buy the "he's massively unreadable so must be clever" schtick William M. Connolley (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, what do you mean? - Would you please read the Routledge Article (by A. W. Moore) about Infinity first, I pray. Which I had proposed above as number one for a very good reason. It is quite short, informative and well written, in sharpest contrast to all this childish WP-bullshit here. - And concerning the rest of your reply (about cleverness etc.) it's either based on a complete misinterpretation of my remarks or just an impolite rebuke. - FYI: the antinomies arising from infinity are the motive of his entire philosophy. If at least you had read the REP-article you would know this, and also his pivotal role in tackling these problems. - As I said before: it's all bordering on shameful ignorance and now the usual bad manners too. You don't need to buy anything from me, as I won't sell ... I've tried my best to help with the article, but you can count me out now. --89.15.236.173 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions and rollback[edit]

I've restored this article to before (most of) the additions by 23h112e. While numerous, on the whole, these additions have not improved the article. For one thing, they're riddled with spelling, grammatical, format, etc. errors. That's usually fixable (although not quite so easily here). But really there's a jumbled mess of lists of trivia with little to no context in much of what's been added. Worse, where that's not the case, there's quite a bit of WP:SYNTH – very off-topic material has been brought in (the stuff about the number 8 was some of the most egregious here). And worst, when I have tracked down a few of these sources, in multiple cases I've found that they've been misread or misrepresented. There may have actually been some suitable material in there, but so much of it had so many problems, that I can't imagine that I (or anyone) would really want to go through it with the fine-toothed comb that would be required to find what should be kept. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the statement is simply not true. How anything of the details identified for reverting the article have any basis in reality, tell me. Every single entry I made to the article contains some mention of infinity, plus there is genuine information which must be preserved by policy, which is easily verifiable by anyone should they look to any source I used or any source anywhere on the individuals identified for inclusion. For instance, Nicolas Oresme, you state he has no relevancy to the article in some way, by reverting the edits, and not then replacing the information. Your criticisms are nonsense in any case, I was very scrupulous to the copy of source to article, a fact which is easily verifiable by any editor who cares to see the nature of the material. 23h112e (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
your satisfied that Plato had nothing to contribute to understanding of the philosophy of infinity when I see mention of the actual subject of the article in the source? 23h112e (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"...Nun's qualities were boundlessness, darkness..." (sic) https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nun-Egyptian-god 23h112e (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul August: 23h112e (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnipaedista: 23h112e (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingshownan:23h112e (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Lancaster: 23h112e (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JEN9841: 23h112e (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wasilewska (2000) considers the Memphite Theology to be perhaps the most philosophical of the creation stories - p.63 ISBN 1853026816 23h112e (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here are just a few examples:

Atum was one of the names of the sun, including additionally Ra and Khepri. [38] The stars were considered imperishable, [39] in association with iron of the bones of the Pharoah Ounas, [40] the final ruler of the 5th Dynasty. [41] Iron oxide was utilized for the painting of tombs at least during the New Kingdom period, [42] hematite was found on the walls at Kom al-Samak & Malqata palace. [43] Amulet 203, as detailed by Alfred Ernest Knight, contained hematite and was found on the "chest, breast and stomach" of the mummy of its' owner. [44][45] Meteorites falling to earth furnished Egyptian culture with iron (bja [46]), material for utilization of tools-making since the closure of the 3rd millinia BCE. [47] An iron bead (part of a cache dating to c. 3300 BC) found at a cemetery at Gerzeh (1911) is the oldest known iron object from Egypt. The object was proven (Diane Johnson 2013) to be of meteoritic orign by the presence of a Widmanstätten pattern structure. [48][49][50]

This goes further and further off-topic. Trying to relate it to the topic of the article is pure WP:SYNTH.

Plutarch: Born about 40 or 50 AD, died at sometime after 117 AD, [110] and belonging to the group of thinkers known today as Stoics, stated "all is infinite" because of the infinity of the void surrounding the world (Jacques Brunschwig 1994) [111]

Plutarch wasn't a Stoic. You're taking a sentence from the source completely out of context; it doesn't support what you've added.

Plato: Born 427; [95] acknowledges the existence of infinity, though does not use the infinite within his philosophy (Poste 1860). [96]

Here again, you've completely misrepresented the source. It doesn't even remotely support what you've added.
These are just a few examples that I found on a quick look. I don't have the time or patience to check every single thing, but there are so many problems (and major ones) with what you've added as a whole, that I don't see any other option except to roll it all back. As I said, there may very well have been some things worth keeping in what you added, but again, I don't want to have to pick through everything to find them. I'll also say again what I said to you before. And again, I don't mean this in any kind of disparaging way at all, but your familiarity with English may not be sufficient for this kind of work. Anyway, that's my take on this all. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Deacon Vorbis: explain your actual problem with the material you just reverted from the article, including two links to Apeiron (cosmology). The problem is you don't know anything about philosophy, how it is possible you think the additions are inadmissible is because you don't actually understand the articles contents, not the material is inadmissible. I already included the three links at the head of the section to indicate the type of philosophy the material is classified as. There isn't anything else to add to my argument because I've already re-evaluated the material you removed before as I've indicated by the sub-pages.23h112e (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read your criticisms of course and made changes accordingly and if you would like to go through my contributions you'll see the sub-pages there, the relevant changes I made are at the Egyptian philosophy-sourcing page, think about this:
Memphis theology- is the creation story, theology is the factor; creation story, the author stated "probably the most philosophical" (all the sources included before the most recent reversion are professors).
The factor: Nun, is the first factor of the theology, because "all theologies=creation stories, begin with the factor > Nun. The story begins with Nun.
Nun is described as infinite in numerous sources. Thinking about the dimensions of outer space, the quandary as to whether outer space is infinite is obvious, because there is no way to know. As we now know, ancient Egyptian and Greek people knew, because it is obvious there is no way to know as to the actual reality, in the example of "the boundaries of the universe". This is the identified topic of the article. You think the article is somehow about some other subject. 23h112e (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've already looked and found your message to Project Philosophy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/815154100 on the 13th of December, you write "grown beyond my abilities", why you now think somehow since, I make additions to the article and all you do (although I haven't today looked to verify the fact of) is revert information, you therefore know if the information is incorrect. You don't actually study philosophy, how you think you know if the information is correct or incorrect. You act as if you know (reversion), but you don't actually know.23h112e (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained; your additions don't accurately represent the sources you're using and constitute your own synthesis. On top of that, the English in the added material is very poor, as is the English you're using here – to the point where I can't really even understand much of what you're trying to say. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had similar concerns to DV and didn't feel I was getting any traction with 23h112e. Perhaps now is time for another go William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deacon Vorbis: okay, thanks for the pointer, I'll look into the sources again to see if there is a way to align the facts I think I see, to a group of sources showing the necessary information. I'm not sure the implication is entirely erroneous from the choices I made though, as I see, the proof resides on "philosophical" : Wasilewska, but I've looked into sourcing for "Memphite Theology is a cosmology", since Apeiron is a cosmology, this might indicate similitude at further identification of sources to allow proof of the Egyptian infinity being a philosophy. 23h112e (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC) maybe I hurried to re-add the material without locating all the relevant sources though, therefore I'll have to re-evaluate the nature of the representation, as you indicated. 23h112e (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Deacon Vorbis: , @William M. Connolley: - obviously the heading showed "Early Indian thinking" previously and the heading "Early thinking" was already present at the rollback. Since the issue of adding anything suggesting Egyptian thought as a philosophy is contested, it seemed logical therefore to indicate the beginning of an established philosophy at the time we all for the time-being might agree on is a definite moment in history when the philosophy of Infinity began. 23h112e (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd of course be very much interested as to opinions or responses to changes I'm making to the article (bearing in mind of course the fact I have read the criticisms and indicates of the necessary directions I have to take by policy), especially if there seems to be a mistake or flaw in my understanding. All the editors I pinged 02:49, 14 December 2017 are active (I think). 23h112e (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philosophy/Assessment#Quality_scale the article is rated start-class 23h112e (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd quite like to re-add "The Medieval period" since there was one in the philosophy of infinity and the entire section is currently absent - using the material Thomas Bradwardine - because I'm experiencing personal tiredness at this time and is the least complicated factor for me to understand. The content prior to reversion was:

Proposed by Bradwardine; an idea of an infinite space around the world (outside of "the firmament"), in order to resolve conflicts resulting from Aristotlean philosophy and theology,

  • source: Olaf Pedersen (2012) - Science and Religion: One World — Changing Perspectives on Reality - [8] Springer Science & Business Media, 6 December 2012 ISBN 9400920210 Accessed December 12th, 2017

by synthesis of Euclidean geometry

in order to account for the infinity of God (in the possession of infinite power).

I think, as Deacon Vorbis might have indicated earlier, there might be some lack of cohesion in source-content (though this isn't to say the content doesn't exist, just my choice seems not to fulfill the necessities of policy (in my own understanding). Therefore I'll re-examine the sources and continue to add updates. I'm already knowing the contents shown will be re-worded since Deacon Vorbis wasn't satisfied previously. 23h112e (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe it might be better to do away with sub-headings for the time being perhaps, in order to better demonstrate the inter-play of influences between ideas and individuals. For example, "In this way arose the critical attitude of the 14th century" (@ source: Olaf Pedersen - the page number is 151 by the way) is in reference to the influence of The Pope on the Bishop of Paris to pass an order forbidding doctrines stating God was not omnipotent, therefore certain individuals (i.e. Bradwardine) wrote philosophy accordingly criticizing either the previous doctrines (when the doctrines were formed I don't know at this time) and / or "the principle tenets of Aristotlian nature, physics and cosmology" (as is the case with Nicolas Oresme duratio rerum tota simul (source: Kirschner, Stefan - Stanford University), a fact corroborated at "Ockham's attempt to do away with the notion of motion" p.151). 23h112e (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re-additions of the 16th and 17th[edit]

16:48hrs 16th addition - is not problematic obviously, apart from the factor identified by William. M. Connoley, as to the necessities of including place of birth; I did include a comment in the comment for the edit at the time, and to re-iterate, it is necessary to add the place - because - it demonstrates by comparison : interaction between individuals as to the origin and development of idea in the time - Ancient Greece (there is additional benefits and value to knowing). Although if William wants to delete I suppose it might be justifiable in the short-term at least.

17th addition - obviously DV reverted to a version showing the Brugsch links, and those links are present from a time before, plus DV did not proceed to delete the links. The article shows "philosophy and theology", and to insist on Grecian-Christian, and Christian theologies - because there is not currently very much support for "ancient Egyptian philosophy", this does not devalue information on theological factors on the grounds of course "philosophy and theology" identified in the lead, unless some-one wants to challenge the legitimacy of the relevancy of theology to "Infinity (philosophy)". I'm sure the theological is essential for knowing the philosophical on the grounds of "boundless" and unbounded being defined by thought in history of the boundary in outer space, and how this direction of thinking is essentially includes an association with the theological aspect of human existence. 23h112e (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt[edit]

The first quote of the Egypt section seems to be included only for "the guardian has been taken away to the land of infinity" (my bold) (and possibly because Heh (god) is "the deification of infinity or eternity" which is itself dubious). However "infinity" is an English word and someone may well have taken liberties in translation. The ref given for that is [10] which continues "a degree of abstraction which is totally unknown to Egyptian thought". That comment seems rather more useful to me than the quote, which is essentially useless. Vague mystical ramblings don't belong in an article about philosophy. The question is, did Egyptian philosophy... well, did it even exist? Ancient Egyptian philosophy says Almost nothing is known of Ancient Egyptian philosophy. So how is that compatible with this article talking about their views on infinity? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather unobservant argument from you William, considering the number of sources shown at the Ancient Egyptian philosophy article to prove the doubt you are expressing really are rather few, I'm sure you would agree.

Looking through these facts, anyone might discern the existence of indication for a philosophical aspect to Egypt.

  • "Wasilewska (2000) considers the Memphite Theology to be perhaps the most philosophical of the creation stories, originating to the reign of a Nubian pharaoh (of Nubia) of the 25th dynasty.". From the google profile - Ewa WasilewskaPhD teaches numerous courses on ancient and modern Middle East and Central Asia at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. She has conducted archaeological and anthropological fieldwork in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Turkey, and has travelled extensively through Central Asia and the Middle East, as a consultant, cultural and applied anthropologist.

The philosophy included in the article might or might not include any evidence of thinking before or after the accepted approximate date of the definition of philosophy. To delineate philosophy after the date (presuming it falls within the period : ancient Greek thought) is to locate philosophy proper, since the tradition of philosophy, as it occurred by the definition of the English "philosophy" began at the date accepted. This doesn't though therefore eliminate any other type of thought from the article, just because it doesn't belong to the Greek tradition, or stem from Pythagorus, Anaximander, Plato, or those of the Greek and Christian tradition. For example, Jain India is included; the contents shows no mention of philosophy, but you haven't actually mentioned this fact (there being not one included use of the word "philosophy" in the Jain heading), but is included from an historical trace from Cantor, to locate earlier mathematics to root the thought of Cantor. If the Egyptian content isn't here then it is at the other infinity article. The lead shows "philosophy and theology"; in the same method of producing the article based on Cantor therefore Jain, later inclusions from any factor mentioning God, a divine being, therefore would tend towards necessitating the inclusion of earlier mentions of infinity + a divine being / God / god, and since Egypt is at the earliest position in history currently, including Egypt would be essential since it indicates the beginning of human understanding and shows the scope of development of thought at later understandings by comparison to the formulation of concepts on infinity at earlier times. To include earlier thought shows evidence of the existence of thinking, and as a basic value for the word "philosophy" - thinking (and the evidence of thinking) forming a meaningful coherent whole concept - for example Apeiron of Anaximander, is the usual route to the definition in at least one aspect. 23h112e (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


23h112e (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring our own sources. As I said: The ref given for that is [10] which continues "a degree of abstraction which is totally unknown to Egyptian thought" William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

China[edit]

I reviewed the material (China before re-adding, there were some obvious errors) A history, survey, understanding of the focus of the article must include the most earliest firstly (a tree cannot grow without first putting down roots). 23h112e (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vedic religions (Brahmanism)[edit]

Additions made to the article 00:14, 20 December 2017

1st[edit]

"In a narrative"

source: Laurence Coupe - Myth - (1st page of the Introduction) Routledge, 8 January 2009 ISBN 1134107765 Accessed December 4th, 2017

2nd[edit]

"of c.1500 B.C., a Sanskrit word, transliterated as aditya corresponds to the translation "unbounded"."

source: Cristian S. Calude, Gheorghe Paun (2012), (Vilenkin 1995) - Finite Versus Infinite: Contributions to an Eternal Dilemma - p.261 Springer Science & Business Media, 6 December 2012 ISBN 1447107519 Accessed December 4th, 2017

3rd[edit]

"The same word described in a glossary (by Matthijs, 2010) is defined as instead a child of the infinity, with instead "aditi" corresponding to infinite consciousness."

source: Cornelissen R. M. Matthijs - Foundations of Indian Psychology Volume 1: Theories and Concepts - Glossary of words of Sanskrit or Pali orign Pearson Education India, 2010 ISBN 8131730840 Accessed December 4th, 2017

4th[edit]

"In a 2010 publication by Doninger, showing a translation of a poem of the Rig Veda, infinity is identified by the word "Aditi":

quote|From female infinity (Aditi), male dexterity Daksha was born, and from Daksha, Aditi was born.| poetry from the Rig Veda "

source: Wendy Doniger (2010) - The Hindus: An Alternative History -p.127 OUP Oxford, 30 September 2010 Accessed December 19th, 2017

5th[edit]

"Brahmanism after c. 400 B.C became less widespread,"

source: Ian Pearce (May 2002)-Indian Mathematics 5: Jainism University of Saint Andrews Accessed December 19th, 2017

6th[edit]

"developing afterwards into Hinduism,"

source: Oxford Dictionaries - Vedic Religions Accessed December 19th, 2017

7th[edit]

"in part as a consequence of the Buddha."

source: Peter Harvey (edited by Robert L. Arrington) - The World's Great Philosophers - Chapter 5 John Wiley & Sons, 15 April 2008 ISBN 0470692952 Accessed December 20th, 2017

comments by user[edit]

comment (by 23h112e): as a consequence of copy to this section, a change was made to the article at - the correct attribution via the addition of reference Wendy Doninger, not shown in the contents here.

23h112e (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment (by 23h112e): @Deacon Vorbis: wording to the reverted content is changed at : source: Cristian S. Calude, Gheorghe Paun (2012), (Vilenkin 1995) - as a consequence of Vedic religion developed into Hinduism-source: Oxford Dictionaries - Vedic Religions Accessed December 19th, 2017 23h112e (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment (by 23h112e): change made to before reversion version - "(by Matthijs, 2010)" instead of "(Matthijs 2010)" 23h112e (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jain[edit]

I removed [11] the Jain section because it looks unreliable.

Firstly, the original source for most of it is (sigh) User:Jagged 85 [12]; nothing he wrote can be trusted. That leaves as the only source the rather gushing http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/Projects/Pearce/Chapters/Ch5.html which I don't trust either: This theory is quite incredible and was not realised in Europe until the late 19th century work of George Cantor does not inspire confidence. It is probably a quote from something, but I don't know what William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

criteria: Ian Pearce St Andrews - http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Projects/Pearce/index.html, https://sa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D shows use of the source at sa > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_Wikipedia

criteria: Ian Pearce University of St Andrews history - http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Indexes/Indians.html shows School of Mathematics and Statistics University of St Andrews, Scotland

- https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/maths/people/ - Pearce isn't listed (https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/maths/staffarea/#d.en.215892)

- https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/staff/staffindex.html - not listed

- https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/staff/ - not listed

The source does match the contents at the position it was placed at - Pearce must have quit or moved to another University, presuming the page must be written by a professor. 23h112e (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

presuming the page must be written by a professor - no. That's the kind of junk that Jagged did. You added a link to the Jain page infinity, but obviously didn't bother read it, because its the same nonsense as was here William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you follow the links to the index, you'll see that this was a student project – definitely not reliable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there are more sources to verify the material elsewhere though. 23h112e (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the deletions of today, the content may seem to have no relevancy to the subject of the article, this being true when keeping in mind the degree of understanding in the current time, and how far understanding of infinity has developed away from the understanding shown by the Jaina content, of circa 6th century BC. Infact the Jaina content may seem simply nonsensical, untrue, or however else a person might like to define a set of factors in a negative sense, but the sources do definetaly show infinity as a factor : "the four infinities". This therefore seems to bring some disagreement to your decision William, since I see "infinties" but you see nothing of value. To reconsider the material under consideration :
The material is true of the time it is from - is an historical document of the time it was produced. There is meaning to the content, one of the source classifies the text by the title as moral philosophy (i.e. "Classical Indian philosophy of morals" - Gokhale), this indicates the use of the concept of infinity is to express a human moral aspect - the degree to which a Jaina experiences the state of liberation defined as possessing "the four infinities", by the elemination of four kharmas, (if you would refer to the source this is shown there - (at Gokhale)), is a moral description true of Classical Indian thought, specifically Jainism. The central value of the material is theological therefore, and additionally using philosophy (a development of thought on the nature of human, human experience) in a way resembling and being true of moral philosophy, as moral philosophy is known of in any aspect of understanding. The subject of the material is religion and theology, to define the material by this criteria, does not therefore imply there is no additional definition (i.e. is moral philosophy), to re-iterate, to define as theology does not exclude an additional definition as also being moral philosophy (and therefore philosophy of infinity). The reason why this progress of definitions leads to including the material in Infinity (philosophy), as was indicated in the previous sentence - obviously, as is apparent, this use and expression of a philosophy does not have much resemblence to the Greek-Roman tradition and later devlopments, of considering infinity in the sense of philosophy of physics (that is the actual occurrence of infinity in the natural environment), but as the main heading shows - the content under the heading is with regards to "Early thinking". The material does actually show the word "infinities" this does indicate the presence of an awareness of the existence of the concept of "infinity", at an early time in the history of understanding of the concept; additionally therefore, considering the antiquity of the religion and the understanding expressed, being as it is an early understanding, it is not very realistic (in the sense of philosophy of physics - of physical reality - is) but it is relevant to philsophy, does includes both "infinities" & "philsophy" undeniably within the sources. 23h112e (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing[edit]

[13] - p.125 23h112e (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Post-Vedic context 23h112e (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Infinity_(philosophy)/Archive_1&oldid=829208763"