One Answer

  1. The question is: what kind of infinity are we talking about-infinity in time (eternity) or spatial infinity? If we take spatial infinity, then it has nothing to do with the idea of “the existence of absolutely everything”. Theoretically speaking, matter in infinite space may well be homogeneous in structure (the only thing that can exist is anti-matter, but the theoretical idea of the existence of anti-matter is essentially already based on the concept of matter). But eternity is another matter. Matter cannot be eternal (although some philosophical systems claim that matter is an eternal self-developing substance). But the eternity of a material object implies the absence of changes in it (otherwise there are a lot of unsolvable mathematical paradoxes). And if we assume eternity, then it can only be an attribute of substance (or subject). Moreover, this substance or subject must be by definition in the singular (and not plural), because eternity is essentially a property of the Absolute. And then (if we assume the possibility of the existence of eternity), we will face a number of options, most of which will describe some kind of immaterial Substance, which will be the basis of matter. But such that in eternity “absolutely everything exists” – this cannot be. Because this is classical Platonism. And classical Platonism was refuted by Aristotle, who showed that if for every thing there must exist its idea, then we come to an absurdity and we have a lot of ideas that do not correspond to things in any way. And if you add eternity here, you will get an absurdity in a cube, because all these ideas will be eternal and at the same time their reflections will be temporary. The Stoics tried, of course, to speak in this spirit (eternal logos), but their philosophy did not assume that these “logos” were independent of the “divine Logos” or “Law.” In fact, the Stoics created a religion of “Law”, which governs the “idea” and is itself in fact purely speculative (not subjective).

Leave a Reply