Can someone here disprove the nature of infinity to me. If the universe exists in infinity than all arguments hold a superstate of being wrong and right. So we all exist while we simultaneously don't exist? If infinity is an actual concept and all atoms realign themselves to create every reality at all times what holds us back from changing the rules there-in.
I know this isn't a philosophy board but I can only hope someone here could explain where I'm wrong.
Other urls found in this thread:
youstupidrelativist.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
>believing in a material universe
meh I'll bump this once before it hits page 9
>If the universe exists in infinity than all arguments hold a superstate of being wrong and right
That's entirely nonsequiter
Sorry m7 this board is dedicated to questions about phone os and graphics cards.
I don't understand how this is a nonsequiter, are you saying that you didn't read those words and that I'm not typing back to you?
In what state is my argument untruthful.
Are you trolling?
you're completely confused: that the universe is infinite doesn't mean that all configurations exist. it's completely logically possible that time is infinite and yet nothing ever changes, for instance. that the future is infinite doesn't entail that everything logically possible will happen. this works analogously with space and with modality; that there exist an infinite number of possible worlds doesn't entail that there exists a possible world for every conceivable possibility, so long as some are qualitatively identical.
some strange conclusions follow from the existence of actual infinities--see zeno's paradox--but what you're gesturing at isn't one of them.
No, that's not how that works. Ask /sci/ about it or whatever. I'm going to bed.
I'm drunk and time doesn't exist.
Im a mystic i've experienced many paranormal visions, and outerboy experiences, astral body like in dr strange. Even deep space.
Here's a thought of how fucked up and strange and magnificent all of this is. The all is. The all is god. we are all god, and even though the universe is infinite above all comprehension, the most fucked up part is there is no thing that ever existed that was ever an exact duplicate. each thing in existence is different, each snowflake that ever fell. each human including identical twins, each blade of grass. not one thing ever was the exact same. now thats what really will drive you crazy until the end of time no matter how good our technology is, there are things that we will never be able to comprehend in this super strange complex beautiful existence/reality etc. our feeble brains our living minds will never be able to understand it all until we unite with the one source/consciousness again. then mayb we may be able to grasp abstracts or things above normal order systems numbers or time, or any other systems that we made to try to give order to what it is we are experiencing. RIDE ETERNAL SHINEY AND CHROME
I'm willing to concede my exact definition of an infinity isn't absolutely accurate, but acknowledging any infinity as credible further entangles me in the paradox I'm trying to understand. (like dat non sequitur)
All I'm saying is that if we are both wrong and right at the same time than we are always right. Both conditions end up with the same conclusion.
alright I actually got a bit of a cosmology and philosophy education so I'll clear this up.
>Can someone here disprove the nature of infinity to me.
no.
>If the universe exists in infinity than all arguments hold a superstate of being wrong and right.
what? seems a bit non-sequitor to me.
> So we all exist while we simultaneously don't exist?
no, all I know is that I definitely exist in some state.
>If infinity is an actual concept and all atoms realign themselves to create every reality at all times what holds us back from changing the rules there-in.
what? there's no evidence for "every reality" existing in any sense, not sure how you're deriving this idea.
I think you're confusing the concepts of "infinite spacial universe" with "infinite timeline" sci-fi bullshit or something like that. I'll try to explain.
it's commonly accepted within the cosmological community today that the universe is most likely infinite in all directions, and is generally similar in composition throughout. the reason this is the currently accepted hypothesis has to do with observing doppler shifts in surrounding large objects and the homogenous expansion of space between such objects, background radiation from the big bang in all directions at a consistent distance in light years, etc. etc. it's difficult to explain to someone without more of the puzzle pieces, but basically whatever the big bang was, it happened everywhere simultaneously, and since then space has expanded and seems to continue to expand evenly throughout. our observations support very few hypotheses, and an infinite spacial universe is the only one that's supported by observation that doesn't dip too far into the realm of hypothetical possibilities(simulation, centric-earth, etc.)
You're stupid as hell nigga
this statement cannot be proven true
if you prove it true, then it's false. if you can't prove it true, then it's true, but this cannot be proven. this shows that there always exist feasible configurations that are not logically reachable from a given set of axioms, even though the true statements you can prove from a given set of axioms are infinite. hope that helps
So within an infinite spacial universe only specific things happen? I'm not wrong even by your definition. Either you don't understand the concept of infinity or it doesn't exist within your perimeters.
>I'm not wrong even by your definition.
wrong about what? there were a couple of things you said that are inherently logically invalid, so you were definitely wrong about at least one thing. I'm trying to help you understand, not attack you.
>only specific things happen
what did he mean by this?
>Either you don't understand the concept of infinity or it doesn't exist within your perimeters.
dude I understand what you're trying to say, I explained exactly where you're confused, please try to understand my post before repeating your op in response