@Harjas, It seems that the attempt is being made to define eternity as all-encompassing. Not only would eternity be composed of every conceivable trait, but these would also, in themselves, be 'full, or not lacking, in keeping with this description of eternity.

This also speaks to the nature of good and evil, in that fullness must be descriptive of good, and that evil is, 'privatio boni' (the lack of good, or fullness)

There's no actual certainty in what we think as causation. — TheMadFool

Good point, @TheMadFool. That could be taken one step further. One could posit from extrapolation that there is no actual certainty in anything we think. One might also substitute 'accuracy' for 'certainty', since certainty may be absolute only when doubt exists. In a state of omniscience, no certainty is needed because all things are known. (I am fully aware that the above statement could be used against me later)

This leads into the question of predetermination. If God (or non-personified version) is absolute, then God's knowledge is also absolute. However, possessing foreknowledge of events does not necessarily translate into a predetermination of events. One could decide to believe God created the known substance with knowledge of events from conception. This could also include the multiverse of all possibilities. Having done so, the universe could be left to itself. In the case of choosing either the apple or the orange, it has been predetermined that the chooser be able to choose. Foreknowledge of that choice does not represent force, but passivity. Being also omnipotent, which God must be if 'omni' is to be all-encompassing, God is then free to exercise force, at will.

@Daniel Are you speaking of a process in which the eternal becomes temporal?

There may be no perception of existence, or non existence, without relationship. When one thing or idea is compared to another, only then is there perception, and a corresponding need for definitions.

Conditions of absolute presence and absolute void may not be temporal. However, within temporality, the finite versions of these ideas can be measured. In this instance, presence must simultaneously exist alongside void. If the nature of temporality is finiteness, and movement from beginning toward the end, then it is the temporal which is the sphere of change. Correspondingly, that which is intemporal would not change.

While I am uncomfortable making any speculation as to whether the substance of what is intemporal or eternal can change into that which is temporal, this would negate a condition of intemporality to begin with.

Yeah. The historical view is a good way to get at it. There was a reason why the Greeks were so horrified by the notion of an irrational number. That very reaction betrays the underlying belief about what a definition might be. — apokrisis

Thanks for the mention.

My knowledge of mathematics and its history is only rudimentary. Perhaps I slightly misunderstand the role of the Pythagoreans in relation to irrational number. It seems, by most accounts, that the Pythagoreans were not 'horrified' by the idea of irrational number, but rather of this idea becoming generally known by the 'uninitiated.' By Hipparsus' own account, Pythagoreans may have been well aware of irrational numbers and accepted their existence.

To the extent that the idea behind whole numbers may be tied to an eternal, or extra-temporal idea, they fall into the same category as what we are calling 'irrational,' hence the question at the outset of this discussion. To the extent that a number such as pi can be concretely understood as to its function, it could be called 'rational', loosely speaking, of course.

Again, in returning to the question of 'existence', numbers have more existence as concept than as concrete. Defining existence itself can become problematic. One school of thought mentions as many as three other types of existence apart from the concrete, or physical, one of which is conceptual.

Glad to be on this forum.

Forgive any apparent crude or unintelligible thoughts. As to the question of whether numbers exist:

Who can question whether number exists in the mind? Whether they have concreteness is simply to say, 'do they exist in reality as they exist in mind?' Obviously not. Temporal construction is such that inequality defines its nature. Equality, on the other hand, can only be outside of temporality. One might say: 'equality can only exist eternally.'

The question then arises, 'what is the nature of number?' Conjecturally, one might say, number is a series of equal values (quantity). Hence, Pythagoras' and other ancient mathematicians' inclination to render number as equal, whole values. If this is an accurate description of number, then it follows, the concept of number is tied to the idea of a 'unity' value (unit measure).

The question can then be asked, 'where does the concept of 'unity' come from? Again, conjecturally speaking, unity may only be understood as an eternal concept. So, the question of whether number exists, is tied to the answer to the question of whether eternity exists.

I ask your patience as I am new to forums, in general.

The 'journalistic' questions, (who, what, when, where, why) seem to be ordered properly. 'Who' is a good first question, since this would answer whether it is relevant to human existence, and gives matters of humanity primacy. 'What' would answer as to the subject matter. 'When, where, why, all seem to answer for 'how' and 'which'.

This would be an over-simplification given the inherent complexity of the potential matter being discussed, but not as a way to begin.

I am also new to this forum (and to forums in general). I believe we are all 'philosophers' by nature, so it seemed the logical place to start.

It may take some measure of self-love in order to love another person. Hence, in understanding our own needs or wants, we then understand what others might want or need. This, of course, is the essence of the 'golden rule'. This could technically be called 'selfishness'. However, where 'selfishness' and 'selflessness' do not exist side-by-side, there may be imbalance.