If past
time is to retain its distinct intelligibility, it can
only be viewed as “having occurred,” “achieved,” and “actualized.”
Now let us turn to the
other side of the expression, namely, “infinite.” Throughout this Unit, I will
view “infinity” within the context of a continuous succession
because I will show that real time in changeable universes must be a
“continuous succession of non-contemporaneous distension.” Now, infinities
within a continuous succession imply “unoccurrable,” “unachievable,” and
“unactualizable,” for a continuous succession occurs one step at
a time (that is, one step after another),
and can therefore only be increased a finite amount.
No matter how fast and how long the succession occurs, the “one step at a time”
or “one step after another” character of the succession necessitates that only
a finite amount is occurrable, achievable, or actualizable. Now, if “infinity”
is applied to a continuous succession, and it is to be kept analytically
distinct from (indeed, contrary to) “finitude,” then“infinity” must
always be more than can ever occur, be achieved, or be actualized
through a continuous succession (“one step at a time” succession). Therefore, infinity
would have to be unoccurrable, unachievable, and unactualizable when applied to
a continuous succession. Any other definition would make “infinity”
analytically indistinguishable from “finitude” in its application to a
continuous succession. Therefore, in order to maintain the analytical
distinction between “finitude” and “infinity” in a continuous succession, “infinity”
must be considered unoccurrable (as distinct from finitude
which is occurrable), unachievable (as distinct from finitude which is
achievable), and unactualizable (as distinct from finitude which is actualizable).
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario