Talk:Infinity (philosophy)

818149551 of 1st January 2017 (lead)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infinity_(philosophy)&diff=prev&oldid=818149551

seems to lead from "philosophy and theology" therefore must be the proceeding factors, therefore excluding for example - philosophy might be metaphysics and a more specific identification of theological thought on infinity. 23h112e (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

no context

subsequent changes 1st January 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infinity_(philosophy)&diff=prev&oldid=818150377 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infinity_(philosophy)&diff=prev&oldid=818151668 23h112e https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infinity_(philosophy)&diff=prev&oldid=818152685 ungrammatical 23h112e (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC) 23h112e (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC) copy of 818151668 22:26, 1 January 2018 (ungrammatical) Infinity as a subject of philosophy (and theology) is explored in articles under headings, The History of Infinity, the Ultimate, the Absolute, God, and within ancient Greek philosophy, such as Zeno's paradoxes. Anaximander, in ancient Greek thought, believed 'the Boundless' is the origin of all that is. He took the beginning or first principle to be an endless, unlimited primordial mass (ἄπειρον, apeiron). The Jain metaphysics and mathematics was the first to define and delineate different "types" of infinities. The work of the mathematician Georg Cantor first placed infinity into a coherent mathematical framework. Keenly aware of his departure from traditional wisdom, Cantor also presented a comprehensive historical and philosophical discussion of infinity. source: Newstead, A. (2009). "Cantor on Infinity in Nature, Number, and the Divine Mind". American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly. 83 (4): 533–553. In Judeo-Christian theology, for example in the work of Duns Scotus, the infinite nature of God invokes a sense of being without constraint, rather than a sense of being unlimited in quantity. In ethics infinity plays an important role designating that which cannot be defined or reduced to knowledge or power.

reversion of 00:20, 2 January 2018

What do you actually find is wrong with the grammar ? you tell me what you thinbk is actually wrong with the grammar.23h112e (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis:

I really am waiting in the here and now to see how there is anything wrong with the grammar. 23h112e (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

You indicate what is wrong with the grammar, in this section, because I don't see anything wrong. 23h112e (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: I've already basked you to indicate the errors you see in the article, you see the errors, I don't, so you indicate the errors, if you don't indicate where you think the errors are, then I can't make changes accordingly. 23h112e (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

sentence removed

In ethics infinity plays an important role designating that which cannot be defined or reduced to knowledge or power.

23h112e (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking for a clean version of this article

So, User:23h112e has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Whalestate, blocked indefinitely in December 2015. It is clear to me that User:Drift chambers, blocked in March 2012, is also the same editor. Other confirmed sockpuppets of this user have edited this page extensively as well in the meantime, and the editor has some difficulties expressing himself in language that is easily understood; this is even more of an issue, perhaps, in a highly abstract article like this. Is the current version of the article an improvement, or would it be worthwhile to try for a clean version of this article? Since the blocking of User:Drift chambers, that would be something like this diff. Or, this is what the article looked like before Drift chambers arrived, keeping in mind that the block of Drift chambers was for "insufficient competence to edit." Which is better, the old version or the current one? Dekimasuよ! 07:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't like his additions but didn't have the strength of will to keep pushing back. I suspect that may be true of others William M. Connolley (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've tried reverting back to the pre-sock version, [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(EC) That's fair enough, and I support the change. However, if you'd like to do more: at the very least, User:Plagktos (May 2017), User:6cb49af5c4 (March-April 2016), and as I mentioned User:Whalestate (March-June 2015) were also socks that added significant text after the User:Drift chambers edits. Dekimasuよ! 09:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

And now I've bothered to read what you wrote, sigh. OK, so pre-23h probably isn't clean. The pre-DC version I looked at [2] looks pretty bad too. Perhaps we should just accept that we've never had a decent article and rebuild it from the ground up? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean. I went back to the first edits of the article, and there wasn't much more clarity then. Dekimasuよ! 09:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like early versions were broken out of the Infinity article in 2007. There's always Infinity#History to fall back on again if necessary, and perhaps other articles. Dekimasuよ! 09:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Um, yeah, so if this is going to start nearly from scratch, then we should start by wondering what it is actually going to be about. The article starts In philosophy and theology, infinity is explored in articles under headings such as the Ultimate, the Absolute, God, and Zeno's paradoxes which is a bit of a mish-mash. Should infinity in theology and philosophy be one article or two? Meanwhile Infinity#History says Main article: Infinity (philosophy) Ancient cultures had various ideas about the nature of infinity. The ancient Indians and Greeks did not define infinity in precise formalism as does modern mathematics, and instead approached infinity as a philosophical concept. So is this actually supposed to be the "history of infinity" article? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I got a bit sidetracked here, and I'm not sure I'm the best editor to answer this question, so I hope there's an appropriate place to ask for more input. User:Deacon Vorbis might be tired of being pinged to this talk page, but I'll try once anyway. My understanding is that this should be about everything that's not explicitly mathematical, which would encompass both (early) philosophy and theology. I'm not sure we can rely upon the section from Infinity to properly define the scope so long after the split. History of infinity sounds like it would be easier to write, however. Dekimasuよ! 19:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Infinity and Blackness

My post has been removed for some reason and I am kindly reaching out to understand why, if possible. I could really appreciate some tips and pointes, please. Thank you for all the help and efforts! Ktf87 (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The purported reason of deletion is "non sense" by someone who goes by William Connolley. This reason is really offensive and reductive; I do not understand what is "non-sensical" about the post I made. The argument about blackness and Math is very much generative and useful to many scholars and researchers. If it is deemed non-sensical because it is simply not in line with someone's research interests, this is a very subjective and limiting/limited definition of knowledge. If it is mot understood by someone, it does not make it obsolete. Nobody has the right to claim what is non-sense, especially if they are not familiar with the field. Ktf87 (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

First of all, my bad about pointing you to here – I missed that you had posted. However, it would still be best to wait to see if you can establish a consensus to add this material before continuing to try to put it in this article. Now then, I also find the addition a nonsensical word salad of postmodern gobbledygook. It's pretty clear that the author of the article is misusing mathematical terminology of which she (probably) has little understanding (see the article on the book Fashionable Nonsense for some similar ideas). That the author is full of BS doesn't automatically mean that her ideas can't be mentioned in the article, but they seem fairly non-noteworthy. It would be best if someone else (who would be a reliable source) has discussed these ideas in a secondary manner, so then that could be used as a source. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

You are a limited and racist "intellectual". Thank you though. You really proved the argument of the article.

Thanks for being a postmodern example of the so-called "gobbledygook" argument. Ktf87 (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

And claiming that an argument is a "BS" salad, and attacking the author's intellectualism and knowledge by undermining and degrading them? That's okay? Just because the author is using Mathematics in a way you do not understand does not give you the right to censor the work. You are not the beacon of knowledge here. Shameful. Disgraceful. But again, you prove her point. Ktf87 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

You've been pointed at Fashionable Nonsense; you should try reading it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

You use the phrase fashionable nonsense like that's a bad thing! EEng 15:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)