Does infinity exist?

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

<sigh> yes, I am getting very tired of repeating myself.

So quit while you're ahead.

If something exists then that means that something exists.

Sure.

If the world is a container, then that means that if something exists, that means that something exists in that container

Sure

If the world is infinite, then that means that something exists in infinity

HOOOOOLD UP.

Lets quit with the "if" here.

1. what do you mean by "the world is infinite" WTF does that even mean?

2. Then to go on and say "then that means something exists in infinity" ...well sure, but that would only make sense if your first premise made sense...and it doesn't.

In either case, something exists.

Sure, but you're playing with words.

If something exists then absolutely nothing can never exist.

False.

Prove this statement to be universally and absolutely true.

I don't know why you can't grasp this simple concept

Because you play fast and loose with language, then get mad when I call you out on the fact you haven't thought through this shyt.

If "something exists" that doesn' mean "absolutely nothing can never exist"

To even get to such a conclusion doesn't make any sense.

Its like saying "since football exists, there can never be airplanes"

You're trying to throw time in here, when time doesn't exist. If time exists, we can go down that route too

YOU BROUGHT UP "TIME" IN THE FIRST fukkING PLACE AND I CORRECTED YOU!

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Maybe a picture will help you?

if something exists in either case, ABSOLUTE NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE

This again makes no sense.

You haven't demonstrated that:

1. outside of the universe is: "infinity"

2. absolute "nothing" is impossible.

 

[Ciggavelli]

So quit while you're ahead.

Sure.

Sure

HOOOOOLD UP.

Lets quit with the "if" here.

1. what do you mean by "the world is infinite" WTF does that even mean?

2. Then to go on and say "then that means something exists in infinity" ...well sure, but that would only make sense if your first premise made sense...and it doesn't.

Sure, but you're playing with words.


False.

Prove this statement to be universally and absolutely true.

Because you play fast and loose with language, then get mad when I call you out on the fact you haven't thought through this shyt.

If "something exists" that doesn' mean "absolutely nothing can never exist"

To even get to such a conclusion doesn't make any sense.

Its like saying "since football exists, there can never be airplanes"



YOU BROUGHT UP "TIME" IN THE FIRST fukkING PLACE AND I CORRECTED YOU!

You corrected me by saying that time doesn't exist (which I agree with)

nothing and something are intricately related. I've already discussed this. It is very far away from airplanes and football

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You corrected me by saying that time doesn't exist (which I agree with)

nothing and something are intricately related. I've already discussed this. It is very far away from airplanes and football

Prove it.

 

[Ciggavelli]

This again makes no sense.

You haven't demonstrated that:

1. outside of the universe is: "infinity"

2. absolute "nothing" is impossible.

I'm showing that in either case, with the universe being infinite or it being finite, if something exists, then that means absolute nothing is impossible.

 

[Mr. Manhattan]

Man ive been arguing this infinity theory in my head a few weeks ago
Its a total mind fukk, we simply dont have the answers like Nas said on NY State of Mind
"Outside the walls of intelligence life is defined"

Meaning even at our peak of intelligence we simply cant define our existence

 

[Ciggavelli]

Prove it.

well both involve things

Nothing requires a lack of things
Something requires the existence of things

Things is link here, you can't understand one without understand the concept of the other

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I'm showing that in either case, with the universe being infinite or it being finite, if something exists, then that means absolute nothing is impossible.

You didn't show that to be the case.

The state of existence has no bearing on whether or not a state of "nothingness CAN exist"

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

well both involve things

Nothing requires a lack of things

sure.

Something requires the existence of things

Sure.

Things is link here, you can't understand one without understand the concept of the other

The only link is what you use to establish the quality, not the inherent state of the entities you're describing.

 

[WaveGang]

I ain't been on boxden in a while now. After I finished that Fraud project and Max lost the appeal (), I stayed over here

Max losing his appeal was tough, tryna keep the wavement poppin. making a wavement part 2 just killed it.


I got banned for life for talking pro black, i said ronnie didnt care/respect black people

 

[Ciggavelli]

Max losing his appeal was tough, tryna keep the wavement poppin. making a wavement part 2 just killed it.


I got banned for life for talking pro black, i said ronnie didnt care/respect black people

Yeah, I was pissed that Ronnie killed Wavement part 1

Coli is better anyway. Although the news section on boxden is better than higher learning over here (which is kinda a joke sub-forum in my opinion).

Ronnie can be a tyrant, from what I hear. shytty that he banned you for that though...damn

 

[Ciggavelli]

You didn't show that to be the case.

The state of existence has no bearing on whether or not a state of "nothingness CAN exist"

It does if time doesn't exist

The only link is what you use to establish the quality, not the inherent state of the entities you're describing.

rephrase that, I'm not sure what you mean, because I think it does describe the state as well

 

[Ciggavelli]

Edit: I know what you mean now. You mean the state of existence.

My response is that you can't have time and not have time at the same time (lol). You can't say that time doesn't exist in one instance and then say that there may be a time before when absolute nothing existed or a time in the future when absolutely nothing existed. You're contradicting yourself.

If there is no time, which you agree with, then, I have described the state of existence of nothing and something.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Edit: I know what you mean now. You mean the state of existence.

My response is that you can't have time and not have time at the same time (lol). You can't say that time doesn't exist in one instance and then say that there may be a time before when absolute nothing existed or a time in the future when absolutely nothing existed. You're contradicting yourself.

Then you dont understand what is meant by time or what quantum physics is actually doing.

 

[Ciggavelli]

Then you dont understand what is meant by time or what quantum physics is actually doing.

I'm referring to time, as the passage of something. I'm not sure what you are getting at here