Does infinity exist?

[Ciggavelli]

What happens in a microcosmic scale happens the same in the macrocosm...reflection eternal..black on both sides..all the same

wouldn't that be infinity then?

edit: nevermind I see what you are saying now, I think. Finite small is the same as finite large? I still don't understand how there can be an end though. Who/what put that there? WHy does it exist? It seems more logical to me that nothing put anything anywhere, hence infinity

 

[observe]

wouldn't that be infinity then?

edit: nevermind I see what you are saying now, I think. Finite small is the same as finite large? I still don't understand how there can be an end though. Who/what put that there? WHy does it exist? It seems more logical to me that nothing put anything anywhere, hence infinity

Nothing is nothing is a European concept..African Philosphy is that there is always something in nothing..it's just that because you can't see nothing doesn't mean that nothing is there, cuz there is something..

 

[Ciggavelli]

Nothing is nothing is a European concept..African Philosphy is that there is always something in nothing..it's just that because you can't see nothing doesn't mean that nothing is there, cuz there is something..

agreed, there is always something there. True nothing can never exist. But that still goes back to my infinity problem. If true nothing can never exist then how can there be boundaries where true nothing exists outside of them. Doesn't everything have to be infinite?

 

[Chrishaune]

Light hasn't reached the edge of space so yes.......infinity exists until it can be proven there is an end of space.......

 

[Ciggavelli]

Light hasn't reached the edge of space so yes.......infinity exists until it can be proven there is an end of space.......

interesting. Is infinity the default belief then? Interesting...

 

[Chrishaune]

interesting. Is infinity the default belief then? Interesting...

It probably wasn't at first but now it is.........and scientists are learning that the galaxies are moving away from each other.........galaxies have millions of stars each, at least.........

 

[Chrishaune]

d/p

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@Napoleon I'm curious about your thoughts on this, given the existential ramifications.

I gave up trying read the article.

It was like a child trying to contribute to the adults table at Thanksgiving.

 

[Ciggavelli]

I gave up trying read the article.

It was like a child trying to contribute to the adults table at Thanksgiving.

it was the cover story too

 

[observe]

I gave up trying read the article.

It was like a child trying to contribute to the adults table at Thanksgiving.

The only thing you contribute to the table is bashing religions and the latest news from tabloid articles

 

[Ciggavelli]

The only thing you contribute to the table is bashing religions and the latest news from tabloid articles

it was his way of not engaging in the discussion, because of where it would lead

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

it was his way of not engaging in the discussion, because of where it would lead

The only thing you contribute to the table is bashing religions and the latest news from tabloid articles

Not at all..

Lets be honest.

This was an attempt by non-science folks to understand science.

Not even physics.

But science.

Theres a lack of vocabulary your average journalist is aware of, much less capable of using properly, to convey certain terms and concepts in a way that accurately portrays what your work means to the greater field you were eventually serving.

When it comes to astrophysics, all this rhetorical garbage means essentially nothing. Its an essay on existentialisim and what it means to be "you" knowing that you didn't contribute to this finding and why you're still not contributing to this finding.

Its a round-about way of introducing concepts of self-worth, value, and respect while supporting concepts they don't understand.

Philosophers HATE to be left out of conversations they were once privy to.

 

[Hersh]

i farted.. long and noisy

 

[observe]

Not at all..

Lets be honest.

This was an attempt by non-science folks to understand science.

Not even physics.

But science.

Theres a lack of vocabulary your average journalist is aware of, much less capable of using properly, to convey certain terms and concepts in a way that accurately portrays what your work means to the greater field you were eventually serving.

When it comes to astrophysics, all this rhetorical garbage means essentially nothing. Its an essay on existentialisim and what it means to be "you" knowing that you didn't contribute to this finding and why you're still not contributing to this finding.

Its a round-about way of introducing concepts of self-worth, value, and respect while supporting concepts they don't understand.

Philosophers HATE to be left out of conversations they were once privy to.

Science is a a western concept that takes out the naturalism and spiritualism from its original origin..that's why there will always be "meta" before "physics" and not "physicsmeta"

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Science is a a western concept that takes out the naturalism and spiritualism from its original origin..that's why there will always be "meta" before "physics" and not "physicsmeta"

Metaphysics is bullshyt made up by people who can't compete.

Naturalism is basically physics for folks who couldn't pass regular physics.

Spiritualism is for mental midgets who want to insert their personalized deities into concepts which never ask for the opinions of magic men to insert judeo-christian beliefs.