My first ignore has been used 
This thread is so clean now without him in it
This thread is so clean now without him in it
Does infinity exist?
- Thread starter Ciggavelli
- Start date
I give up. This can't be made any clearer. I've properly operational ized my variables, given room to falsify my claims, performed an experiment, and CLEARLY demonstrated and proved that absolutely nothing can never exist. I have dumbed it down as far as possible. You are being utterly outrageous right now. I made the mistake of bringing you into this thread.at myself. I learned a lesson.
You win. Hail @Napoleon poster of all posters, king of kings, and smartest person on the internet
Your problem is that you need to separate the two claims:
1. something exists
2. does nothing exist?
3. CAN nothing exist?
4. show that "nothing can never exist"
You haven't done that.
Time DOESNT exist.
Thats the point.
Pay attention in physics:
You're in here committing to all this flawed logic then pretending you understand what you're talking about!
@Ciggavelli, the statement: "nothing can never exist" is an assertion you haven't proven.
Just because "something" exists does not mean that "nothing can never" exist.
While it may SEEM that way, there is a case in which there could have been a moment where "nothing existed"
Thats the point.
You're falling prey to the basic flaws of inductive language because you refuse to omit your absolute statements.
Just because "something" exists does not mean that "nothing can never" exist.
While it may SEEM that way, there is a case in which there could have been a moment where "nothing existed"
Thats the point.
You're falling prey to the basic flaws of inductive language because you refuse to omit your absolute statements.
Ok, I'll bite, but I shouldn't.
Nothing can't create something and matter can't be created or destroyed (those are laws or something right, I can't remember, I fell asleep in all of my science classes).
If nothing can't create something, and something is here right now (which we proved), then something had to have always been here.
If something has always been here then there was never a "time" when nothing was here
Since matter cannot be created or destroyed, and something has always been here, then something will always be "here"
If there never was a time when nothing was here, then absolutely nothing can never exist.
You don't know that ABSOLUTELY. And experiments in quantum physics seem to challenge you on that.
Yet you're here trying to challenge what you barely understand.
you haven't shown this to be universally and demonstrably true.
Sure
The way this works is that your conclusion will be true (at least valid) if all the premises are true. Your premises aren't all coherent.
Thats about HALF right.
Dude your tautologies aren't making any fukking sense.
You dont know that something has "always been here"
You just don't and you damn sure don't know the future.
Whether or not "nothing" can ever exist has NO BEARING on if something "does" exist.
Those are two separate questions.
You can't prove a negative!!!
You don't know that ABSOLUTELY. And experiments in quantum physics seem to challenge you on that.
Yet you're here trying to challenge what you barely understand.
you haven't shown this to be universally and demonstrably true. Sure The way this works is that your conclusion will be true (at least valid) if all the premises are true. Your premises aren't all coherent.
Thats about HALF right.
Dude your tautologies aren't making any fukking sense.
You dont know that something has "always been here"
You just don't and you damn sure don't know the future.
Whether or not "nothing" can ever exist has NO BEARING on if something "does" exist.
Those are two separate questions.
You can't prove a negative!!!
I'm on my phone and so I can't watch your video.
If something is here now, I do know something has always been here because nothing cannot create something. Even if it could (nothing creating something) then something else would be needed to turn that nothing into something, which of course means something was there all along.
(And I was joking about falling asleep in class...
)I really think this is a negative that can actually be proved.
You don't know that ABSOLUTELY. And experiments in quantum physics seem to challenge you on that.
Yet you're here trying to challenge what you barely understand.
you haven't shown this to be universally and demonstrably true. Sure The way this works is that your conclusion will be true (at least valid) if all the premises are true. Your premises aren't all coherent.
Thats about HALF right.
Dude your tautologies aren't making any fukking sense.
You dont know that something has "always been here"
You just don't and you damn sure don't know the future.
Whether or not "nothing" can ever exist has NO BEARING on if something "does" exist.
Those are two separate questions.
You can't prove a negative!!!
I haven't read Lawrence's book, but from what I briefly looked at on the internet, it seems full of speculation and what if's. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me to be an authority on anything.
The whole idea that nothing can create something is ludicrous unless you consider nothing to be the combination of negative infinity and positive infinity (i.e., in the simplest terms, the negatives cancel out the positives, which would lead to 0). But that of course would still be something, even if it appears to be nothing
I'm on my phone and so I can't watch your video.
If something is here now, I do know something has always been here because nothing cannot create something.
FALSE
YOU. DO. NOT. KNOW. THAT. ABSOLULTELY.
Even if it could (nothing creating something) then something else would be needed to turn that nothing into something, which of course means something was there all along.
(And I was joking about falling asleep in class...
what you "think" has no bearing on actually being able to prove it.
Why are you so committed to making leaps in logic like this????
You're taking things as a given when they in fact, are not.
Its not.
Its made for laymen, like you, who sit on the couch and believe anything YOU come up with without actually having to learn anything.
The guy is one of the foremost cosmologists EVER.
You're confusing math with physics
Subbed
You're not going to like this, given that "it's not your responsibility to answer these questions", but give me a way that nothing can create something. Anything. I know that is not the correct way of going about this line of debate, but I'm curious. Energy is always required. And energy is something
Also, I'm not confusing math with physics. I'm dumbing it down for people like you
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/faithpathh/hawkingpres2.html#c1
I will go with nothing can create something, if you define nothing as everything (). If the "negatives" cancel out the "positives" and we have a situation where it appears that there is nothing (but in reality there is everything), then yes, nothing can create something when you introduce some energy that somehow causes a disruption and the "negatives" outweigh the "positives" or vis versa.
But this introduction of energy is, well something....
). If the "negatives" cancel out the "positives" and we have a situation where it appears that there is nothing (but in reality there is everything), then yes, nothing can create something when you introduce some energy that somehow causes a disruption and the "negatives" outweigh the "positives" or vis versa.But this introduction of energy is, well something....
Because you're assuming something instead of proving it.
It might seem that such a thing would "always" be the case, but in taking that assumption, you actually haven't proven it.
THERE COULD be a situation (and we're pushing the frontiers of science right now on this topic) where "nothing" existed
I will go with nothing can create something, if you define nothing as everything (
But this introduction of energy is, well something....
See, this is where I just stop debating.
This isn't addition and subtraction and you clearly don't know much about advance physics or anything beyond what Neil Degrasse Tyson passively told you about.
Reading pop-culture versions of frontier science won't get you to understand whats actually being discussed here.