Does the Infinite Exist?: the Distortion of Language and Self

Does the Infinite exist apart from our thinking it? or is it bound to our cognition? This is similar to other questions in philosophy, such as, whether numbers exist in objective reality or are they simply “in the head” as entities created by human cognition. In this post, I will present two arguments for and against the existence of the Infinite. These arguments will dovetail into one another. The first argument will be an ontological argument. Ontological arguments attempt to prove a position by the meaning of the term alone. In this case the meaning of the Infinite will be used to show that the entity corresponding to the term must exist independent of our minds. The second argument will be a reductio ad absurdum. It will begin with the claim that the Infinite exists—the conclusion of the first argument—and show that this position leads to absurd, untenable results. In the end, I will briefly elucidate the consequences of accepting either position.

The term the Infinite means that which is unbounded.[1] We can think about this concept and understand its meaning. Yet, in thinking about the Infinite, if we suppose that it is confined to our cognition alone—i.e. it does not exist independent of us—then we are not thinking about that which is completely unbounded. After all, an entity which is bound to our cognition is not completely unbounded. Since the Infinite means that which is completely unbounded, the entity we refer to in using the term the Infinite must exist independent of our thinking it.[2] In other words, what we mean by the term the Infinite requires that something actually exist independent of us in order to satisfy the meaning of the term. Therefore, the Infinite exists independent of us.

The Infinite exists and is wholly unbounded. To be wholly unbounded, the Infinite must encompass all that we encounter in experience, viz. the whole cosmos. The Infinite contains all abstract objects and concrete objects, including human agents.[3] However, these entities have distinct properties that demarcate them from one another. For example, human agents have the distinct property of subjectivity—i.e. they are aware of themselves as freely acting subjects with an independent identity separate from other agents and entities.[4] If these various entities truly can be demarcated from one another, and if the Infinite, by definition, must contain them since it is unbounded and encompasses all things, then either the Infinite is not unbounded since it has divisions in itself setting forth various boundaries between various types of entities and human agents, or these various entities and human agents are mere illusions arising from human cognition. It cannot be the case that the Infinite has divisions within itself, since it would not be truly unbounded. Therefore, the entities we encounter in experience, including ourselves as distinct subjects, are merely illusions. The Infinite requires that all reality is one, unbounded whole and since it must exist (see the Ontological argument above) we as human agents cannot have an independent existence over and against each other or other things. It therefore follows that there is no such thing as individual personalities—i.e. your sense of being an independent personality is an illusion—or separate entities, all reality is one; it is all the Infinite.

If these arguments are both sounds and cogent, respectively, what they show is that inherent difficulties result from taking either position. If we conclude that the Infinite actually exists, it follows that we as human agents—as independent personalities which are thinking about the Infinite—do not exist as individuals. All things are metaphysically one. If, on the other hand, we conclude that the Infinite does not exist, then we must conclude that our language is not a reliable guide to reality; for the term the Infinite seems to require a corresponding object independent of us. If our language is unreliable the next natural conclusion would be an epistemic skepticism about what we can know by means of our language. We may suppose that we can deny the existence of the Infinite and rethink the way our language works; in particular, that our language doesn’t have to reliably refer to things in reality, by its terms, in order to grant us knowledge. A language detached from referential relations in this manner may engender greater difficulties than just biting the bullet and maintaining the existence of the Infinite, though. So, we either don’t exist as individuals or, if we do exist, our language is an unreliable guide to reality leadings us into a type of skepticism.[5]

As for my part, I would refer the reader to my previous blog post entitled “The Infinite.” I suggested there that any attempt to speak about the Infinite annihilates our understanding of it. For if the Infinite is truly unbounded, it cannot be encapsulated in a definition or, more broadly, in our language through description. And perhaps this blog has further demonstrated that point. When we attempt to encapsulate such a grandiose entity into our language it distorts it—almost as if it is trying to break free of our concepts, being too large for them, and in the process completely bends the usual boundaries of our linguistic concepts. Further, in the attempt to encapsulate the Infinite it began to bend and warp our sense of self or our sense that we can reliably know the world through our language. In short, whatever the Infinite is, the attempt to encapsulate it in human thinking and language leads to the inevitable distortion of the same. Perhaps Wittgenstein’s wisdom comes radiating through even more brilliantly, “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.

---

[1] See my previous post entitled “the Infinite” for further clarification on this premise.

[2] Kant’s criticism that “exist” is not a true predicate may seem appropriate here. However, when it is observed that the Infinite cannot be bounded in any sense, including bounded to modal contingency, then it seems appropriate to say that the Infinite must “necessarily exist.” Important, necessary existence is a true predicate.

[3] If the Infinite did not encompass all entities then it would have a boundary, viz. a boundary separating it from these entities.

[4] We all have this experience. I experience myself as Judson Burton with certain memories, habits, desires, interests, etc. And I recognize that my identity in all of this is separate from the identity of my wife, Angela. She is an independent person apart from me.
[5] As with all philosophical arguments, these conclusions can be resisted. In a later post, I will take up a response to these arguments to ward of potential skepticism and maintain our common sense notion of the self.