Does infinity exist?

[Ciggavelli]

The "theory" you're defending does NOT exist. Its a review of Hawkings book by a religious guy trying to confirm his faith!

Hawking - Turok

http://web.uvic.ca/~jtwong/Hawking-Turok.htm

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

then if there is no time and something exists now, doesn't that mean it exists "always"

No. It doesn't.

The fact that "time" isn't a "thing" doesn't mean that it "always" exists.

What the fukk are you talking about man?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Hawking - Turok

http://web.uvic.ca/~jtwong/Hawking-Turok.htm

OK...and?

 

[Ciggavelli]

No. It doesn't.

The fact that "time" isn't a "thing" doesn't mean that it "always" exists.

What the fukk are you talking about man?

If there is no time, there is just "now," right?

 

[Ciggavelli]

OK...and?

it's always virtual nothing. There is never a "true nothing" That's my point. I'm round about getting to the reason i said the "negatives" cancel out the "positives". We're on a tangent now though, as I'm sure you see

If you're talking about nothing in the Hawking sense (i.e., virtual nothing), I can get with what you are trying to say, but I don't think you are

 

[Ciggavelli]

I dont know sht about philosophy but youre making things more complicated than need be imo, think about it.

To create is to "bring something into existence", creation is a verb representing an action. Now since we know creation is an action and every action requires energy to occur, then creation must be done by something tangible enough to store energy and use that energy to create.

Therefore its logically impossible for something to come from nothing (an absolute lack of anything).

@Napoleon is not content with that. He wants me to prove that absolutely nothing can never exist. Which I feel I have, but clearly I haven't in his mind. Any help would be appreciated

 

[Ciggavelli]

You know, before I was really pissed at @Napoleon 's questions as they seem outrageous (and some of them still are), but this is actually fun and making me think more in-depth.

 

[FrederickDouglas]

thoughts aren't "something"

Its merely electrochemical patterns.

 

[Ciggavelli]

He's right about them just being electrochemical patterns. They're still something though, as electrical patterns are still, well, something

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@Napoleon is not content with that. He wants me to prove that absolutely nothing can never exist. Which I feel I have, but clearly I haven't in his mind. Any help would be appreciated

Because when you speak in absolutes, you must be prepared to demonstrate this.

 

[FrederickDouglas]

He's right about them just being electrochemical patterns. They're still something though, as electrical patterns are still, well, something

Yeah I got that, hence me bolding the contradiction

 

[Ciggavelli]

Because when you speak in absolutes, you must be prepared to demonstrate this.

I feel I have, and with you now admitting to time not existing (which means there is only "now"), I think I have once again proven that absolutely nothing can never exist because something exists "now"

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

it's always virtual nothing.

That is NOT what that link stated.

There is never a "true nothing" That's my point.

How did you link me to soemthing, and misunderstand it yourself? All it was is a depiction of WHAT WE THINK the universe is. That says NOTHING about the state of the universe before that or what else may exist in excess of that.

I'm round about getting to the reason i said the "negatives" cancel out the "positives". We're on a tangent now though, as I'm sure you see

Because you're using informal language to talk about concepts that are rooted in mathematics.

This is what happens when philosophers try to put into words what is only understood in math class.

If you're talking about nothing in the Hawking sense (i.e., virtual nothing), I can get with what you are trying to say, but I don't think you are

Now you're shifting definitions. You spent this whole time defending "nothing" now you're talking about "virtual" nothing.

if you listened to Krauss' talk (instead of reading reviews of his books) you'd understand this already.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I feel I have, and with you now admitting to time not existing (which means there is only "now"), I think I have once again proven that absolutely nothing can never exist because something exists "now"

This doesn't make any sense.

The quality of "nothingness" has no value on whether or not something exists now.

You are making a statement that "nothing can never exist"...which is an assertion to which you have yet to prove.

Stop speaking in absolutes and you won't have this problem.

 

[Ciggavelli]

That is NOT what that link stated. How did you link me to soemthing, and misunderstand it yourself? All it was is a depiction of WHAT WE THINK the universe is. That says NOTHING about the state of the universe before that or what else may exist in excess of that. Because you're using informal language to talk about concepts that are rooted in mathematics.

This is what happens when philosophers try to put into words what is only understood in math class.



Now you're shifting definitions. You spent this whole time defending "nothing" now you're talking about "virtual" nothing.

if you listened to Krauss' talk (instead of reading reviews of his books) you'd understand this already.

when I get the time I'll watch the hour long talk

I shifted to virtual nothing because that is the only thing that can ever make sense to me at this point in time, in regard to your assertion that absolutely nothing can exist