Does infinity exist?

[Giselle]

.

How do I change my user name on here?

 

[observe]

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.

Then tell me why are the top scientists called "Quantum Physicists" dealing with spiritualism now? Many of the young top scientists are spiritualists...obviously they got A's in college to lead in their field, and not failing as you say..

Science doesn't have the answers ..there are mysteries that have been unsolved since human's first conception..how did we come into being..how was the universe created..what are dreams..what happens after we die..science can't answer that..but a spiritual philosopher could come a lot closer to the questions ..

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Then tell me why are the top scientists called "Quantum Physicists" dealing with spiritualism now? Many of the young top scientists are spiritualists...obviously they got A's in college to lead in their field, and not failing as you say..

spiritualism isn't even a thing.

Science doesn't have the answers

Except when it does

..there are mysteries that have been unsolved since human's first conception.

So?

.how did we come into being..

Abiogenesis seems to be the best answer. Even if we don't know, how is that proof of anything else?

how was the universe created..

we don't know, whats that mean about anything you're saying?

what are dreams..

take an neuroscience class.

what happens after we die..

nothing.

science can't answer that..

science HAS answered most of this shyt.

but a spiritual philosopher could come a lot closer to the questions ..

You mean sit around and just "think" about shyt without doing any actual work?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

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?

Prove it.

When you speak in absolutes, you're responsible for those claims.

 

[Dooby]

Think of this if the universe were to have a boundary, where does the boundary end? How could it possibly end? In that case, an infinite universe is indisputable. @Napoleon

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Think of this if the universe were to have a boundary, where does the boundary end? How could it possibly end? In that case, an infinite universe is indisputable. @Napoleon

My point is that: Who knows?

Pontificating about it doesn't mean anything until its demonstrated.

 

[Dooby]

My point is that: Who knows?

Pontificating about it doesn't mean anything until its demonstrated.

What could be any other possible scenario? Nothing else is logically sound but I'd like to hear your side.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

What could be any other possible scenario? Nothing else is logically sound but I'd like to hear your side.

Don't tell me about "possibilities"

Prove it.

thats the point.

Theres no evidence even leaning in any direction. Its just pointless meandering at this point by people who want simple answers to difficult questions.

To say "nothing else is likely" doesn't make any sense since we really don't know. The point is to figure it out, not guess.

 

[Ciggavelli]

Prove it.

When you speak in absolutes, you're responsible for those claims.

Thanks for your comments. I really did want to know what you thought about this

Anyway, this is an easy proof. You are reading this right now. That is something. Since that is something, then true nothing cannot exist because true nothing requires that truly nothing exists (i.e., no somethings)

You reading this post is something therefore true nothing does not exist. Very simple and easy

 

[aXiom]

Act like you understand the universe when you lack the brain and machine power to understand traveling outside of your planet's safety net brehs

 

[Ciggavelli]

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.

I think we were reading different articles breh. She didn't mention existentialism, I did. The article was about how math and physics would be easier if infinity didn't exist. Then she quoted some dudes saying that yeah, it seems weird, but the way science is going we'll probably run into a new thing that proves the world is finite. Very speculative indeed though.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Thanks for your comments. I really did want to know what you thought about this

Anyway, this is an easy proof. You are reading this right now. That is something. Since that is something, then true nothing cannot exist because true nothing requires that truly nothing exists (i.e., no somethings)

You reading this post is something therefore true nothing does not exist. Very simple and easy

What seems intuitive is not always so.

So when you say its "obvious" that there must be "something" over "nothing" you have to PROVE that.

 

[Ciggavelli]

What seems intuitive is not always so.

So when you say its "obvious" that there must be "something" over "nothing" you have to PROVE that.

I did. "Something" is this post. Even if the post is a figment of your imagination it is still "something." Rene Descartes discussed this hundreds of years ago.

 

[MR. SNIFLES]

INFINITY IS LIKE GOD. IT CAN'T BE QUANTIFIED OR COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD SO THEY WANT TO SWEEP IT UNDER A RUG.

 

[Ciggavelli]

INFINITY IS LIKE GOD. IT CAN'T BE QUANTIFIED OR COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD SO THEY WANT TO SWEEP IT UNDER A RUG.

Georg Cantor's Absolute Infinite

Yeah, I agree with you on this. But the existence of infinity is hard to dispute, even from a scientific standpoint. The article I posted from "The New Scientist" is on some next level, let's get rid of infinity because it's not convenient, shyt.