if you were to live forever, through anything, assuming time is constant and forever; you would eventually have to face a decision on performing 1 of 2 actions. because you live forever, you would do everything there was to do, no matter how long it takes you to do it, multiple upon multiples of times.

your two choices:

1. destroy yourself somehow so you cannot live forever. (assuming you can destroy yourself somehow or something.)

2. destroy everything, thus ending the existence you can live in, since everything dies if it cannot exist anywhere.
(assuming you can somehow accomplish this.)

which would you choose?

3. Do everything over.

sex all the womenz

if you were to live forever, through anything, assuming time is constant and forever; you would eventually have to face a decision on performing 1 of 2 actions. because you live forever, you would do everything there was to do, no matter how long it takes you to do it, multiple upon multiples of times.

your two choices:

1. destroy yourself somehow so you cannot live forever. (assuming you can destroy yourself somehow or something.)

2. destroy everything, thus ending the existence you can live in, since everything dies if it cannot exist anywhere.
(assuming you can somehow accomplish this.)

which would you choose?

Your proposition makes no sense...

If time and being are infinite than they cannot, not exist.




And the fact that if time is infinite than there is an infinite amount of things to do.

And the fact that if time is infinite than there is an infinite amount of things to do.

If the amount of matter in the Universe remains constant and infinitely stable, wouldn't there theoretically be a limited number of permutations in which that matter could interact with itself?

If the amount of matter in the Universe remains constant and infinitely stable, wouldn't there theoretically be a limited number of permutations in which that matter could interact with itself?



Possibly. But explain your logic I'm not quite seeing it.

Your proposition makes no sense...

If time and being are infinite than they cannot, not exist.




And the fact that if time is infinite than there is an infinite amount of things to do.
of course it makes no sense if you don't ASSUME that you can make them not exist. that's why i said you have to assume that you are able to. :rolleyes:

of course it makes no sense if you don't ASSUME that you can make them not exist. that's why i said you have to assume that you are able to. :rolleyes:

Sorry I didn't deviate from logical reality............

Sorry I didn't deviate from logical reality............

Well aren't you fun


OP, please explain this situation more. How do you survive forever? What happens when the world blows up? Is your body invulnerable?

Also bear in mind that your activities must be limited to things you can do whilst staying alive. Burning to death, starving to death, all of the almost infinite number of ways to die are impossible for you. So that takes the total number of things you can do from nearly infinite to... well, still nearly infinite, but still nearly infinitely less.

Well aren't you fun


OP, please explain this situation more. How do you survive forever? What happens when the world blows up? Is your body invulnerable?

Also bear in mind that your activities must be limited to things you can do whilst staying alive. Burning to death, starving to death, all of the almost infinite number of ways to die are impossible for you. So that takes the total number of things you can do from nearly infinite to... well, still nearly infinite, but still nearly infinitely less.
don't worry about how it is you seem to live forever, just assume that you do. if the world blew up, you'd still be alive, floating in space probably.

also, in the limited activities, it would only be limited in the fact that you wouldn't die after having done them. (i.e. you light yourself on fire, but that's all that happens.)

to make things simple, lets say there is 2 ways you can die, and you can perform them somehow, when you wish to do them (realizing that time for you would be infinite). 1 would be to destroy everything making nothing, including you, able to live. the other would be destroying yourself.

the whole point here is that you have unlimited time. eventually you will end up doing all there is to do, unless you decided to perform one of the actions above before you managed to do everything (which would be foolish in my opinion, and i doubt anyone would actually do that). the fact that you might not be physically or mentally ABLE to do everything isn't really that big of a deal. you have unlimited time: chances are that situations would come together to allow you to do what you wanted, no matter how long time took since you live eternally.

Oh. Then I'd probably just kill myself. What's the point in taking everything else out with you?

I don't really see how the living forever affects this. Surely the question would be the same if you just said 'would you rather kill yourself or destroy the universe/molotov everything?'

Assuming I was invincible and eternally youthful, I would honestly just continue to repeat doing stuff, there is literally so much to do with enough time, the variety could easily keep you occupied. Say in three thousand years I could-

-Study mathmatics,physics,and electronics to uber high levels. Or pretty much become a genius

-Build spaceships, terraform Mars, travel the entire world.

Then say over 3600 billion years I could take a tour of the entire galaxy, visiting planets and stuff.

Then there's the possibilty of building a matrix/virtual reality like system and living though hundreds of billions of scenarios.

However, OP is assuming someone living forever would get bored doing something multiple times, what if I took the time to somehow,maybe throught VR, create a intensely euphoric state of mind, that I could never get bored of? Even then would I ever get bored or lose patience, having as much time as I could ever need.

But I suspect it would be impossible to live forever within this one universe, the word entrophy comes to mind but I'm too tired to remember.

And the fact that if time is infinite than there is an infinite amount of things to do.

Possibly. But explain your logic I'm not quite seeing it.

Limited matter means limited variables; there will be a finite number of things to do given infinite time.

Assuming I was invincible and eternally youthful, I would honestly just continue to repeat doing stuff, there is literally so much to do with enough time, the variety could easily keep you occupied. Say in three thousand years I could-

-Study mathmatics,physics,and electronics to uber high levels. Or pretty much become a genius

-Build spaceships, terraform Mars, travel the entire world.

Then say over 3600 billion years I could take a tour of the entire galaxy, visiting planets and stuff.

Then there's the possibilty of building a matrix/virtual reality like system and living though hundreds of billions of scenarios.

However, OP is assuming someone living forever would get bored doing something multiple times, what if I took the time to somehow,maybe throught VR, create a intensely euphoric state of mind, that I could never get bored of? Even then would I ever get bored or lose patience, having as much time as I could ever need.

But I suspect it would be impossible to live forever within this one universe, the word entrophy comes to mind but I'm too tired to remember.

Interesting. I like your ideas for things to do for immortal people.
I was going to say something like 'yeah, but in an infinite time even all that stuff would get boring
but that VR euphoric state of mind thing may have changed my mind. Could perfect euphoria get boring? Idk. There's another thread about that.

Limited matter means limited variables; there will be a finite number of things to do given infinite time.

But there isn't finite (limited) matter...There is infinite matter...

Reasoning: Take the smallest thing possible (I think in science it's a "Quark") and simply divide it in half and than divide it in half (ad infinitum)...If you can't divide it, than it isn't matter (meaning it has no substance)...And since there is only being and no "not being" we can logically conclude that matter if infinite.


This is why I would like to find something (in terms of drugs, meditation, whatever) that can expand perception (whether dellusion or not) that can allow a type of infinite perception...There in lies the key to understanding reality and all of it's confines (or lack there of ;))

how do you know it's possible to keep dividing quarks? have you tested it?

how do you know it's possible to keep dividing quarks? have you tested it?




Math...If there aren't two parts to the whole (that being the quark) than how can there be a whole?

A tangible thing in order to exist must be able to be divided....

Doesn't the divisibility principle apply to reality because math is founded on reality...

nearly infinitely less.

"Nearly infinite" is a phrase that should never be uttered. Just try it in MS. I fucking dare you! :mad:

Reasoning: Take the smallest thing possible (I think in science it's a "Quark") and simply divide it in half and than divide it in half (ad infinitum)...If you can't divide it, than it isn't matter (meaning it has no substance)...And since there is only being and no "not being" we can logically conclude that matter if infinite.

This sounds like it's taken straight out of Zeno. Where did you find out about this "proof"?

Oh, and "having the quality of being divisible" is not part of the definition of matter--at least as science knows it.


My perspective on this:
1) The edge of the observable universe is expanding at the speed of light.
2) It is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light.
3) Assuming you begin travel after the Big Bang, you will never reach the edge of the observable universe.
4) It is impossible to reach the edge of the observable universe, and thus, impossible to do everything given an infinite amount of time.

It's amazing how much easier philosophy becomes once you know some science.

But there isn't finite (limited) matter...There is infinite matter...

Reasoning: Take the smallest thing possible (I think in science it's a "Quark") and simply divide it in half and than divide it in half (ad infinitum)...If you can't divide it, than it isn't matter (meaning it has no substance)...And since there is only being and no "not being" we can logically conclude that matter if infinite.

You have no evidence that quarks are made up of infinitely divisible particles.

Math...If there aren't two parts to the whole (that being the quark) than how can there be a whole?

A tangible thing in order to exist must be able to be divided....

Doesn't the divisibility principle apply to reality because math is founded on reality...

So these fools playing around with the LHC could have saved themselves a whole lot of time just by dividing everything by two?

Err, excuse me, I just need to make a quick phonecall to Stockholm. :rolleyes:

But there isn't finite (limited) matter...There is infinite matter...

Reasoning: Take the smallest thing possible (I think in science it's a "Quark") and simply divide it in half and than divide it in half (ad infinitum)...

How do you know you can do this?

Also, divinding something doesn't make MORE of something, it is just more fragmented. Two 1/2's doesn't make more than one whole. There can only be one whole, if the whole is finite then no matter how many times you divide it, it is still a whole, you can have an infinitely small fraction, and it will still be part of the whole.

If you can't divide it, than it isn't matter (meaning it has no substance)...

How do you know this? This seems to me to be an arbitrary definition; on what grounds is this true?

And since there is only being and no "not being" we can logically conclude that matter if infinite.

I don't see how this leads onto that conclusion, could you explain it to me?

Also, how are you defining being and not being.


This is why I would like to find something (in terms of drugs, meditation, whatever) that can expand perception (whether dellusion or not) that can allow a type of infinite perception...There in lies the key to understanding reality and all of it's confines (or lack there of ;))


If it is a delusion, then you are not understanding reality, but a delusion.

Interestingly, delusion is a kind of not-being, because it follows what isn't while ignoring what is.

since there is only being and no "not being" we can logically conclude that matter if infinite.


your logic hurts me

your logic hurts me

No, that's very solid logic. What is an earthquake? For a long time we could only define it as "not a non-earthquake", which brought up the question "is non-earthquake A the same as non-earthquake B?" This was seriously one of the principle methods of defining things that philosophers had used... up until Russel.

Just try to explain "non-being exists". I fucking dare you. :mad:

He concluded that matter is infinite because there is only being and no non-being.

But the universe is not infinitely big

So how do you fit infinite matter into a finite space? It would have to be infinitely small - or non existent.

I don't need to explain 'non-being exists' for his conclusion that matter is infinite to be false.

Can you explain 'non-being doesn't exist'?

Living eternally would suck ballsax.

Can you explain 'non-being doesn't exist'?

Yes. But before I do, I must ask...

Do you belive that "nothing exists"?....

Because all I meant was that "nothing" does not exist when I said "non-being" does not exist.

nothing =/= non-being

'nothing' can neither exist nor not exist, because existence is a quality of things, not no things.


And this is getting very off topic, plz respond to what I said about infinite matter not fitting in a finite space, because I don't see how you could argue against that (not saying you can't, that's why I'd like to know your response)

He concluded that matter is infinite because there is only being and no non-being.

But the universe is not infinitely big

So how do you fit infinite matter into a finite space? It would have to be infinitely small - or non existent.

I don't need to explain 'non-being exists' for his conclusion that matter is infinite to be false.

Can you explain 'non-being doesn't exist'?

I was arguing for the premise, not the conclusion. If you're opposed to how he got from the former to the latter then I'll agree with you there. My bad.

yeah, that's what I was talking about.

Although now you mention it I'm not totally sure about the premise either. Soon I might start another thread about that (this has been hijacked enough)

see you there :D

nothing =/= non-being

'nothing' can neither exist nor not exist, because existence is a quality of things, not no things.


And this is getting very off topic, plz respond to what I said about infinite matter not fitting in a finite space, because I don't see how you could argue against that (not saying you can't, that's why I'd like to know your response)


Try to label a thing in itself. You can't (at least on the grand scale of things, but that's the topic). There is an infinite regression of every being except consciousness (sort of, consciousness is infinite, however it reflects back onto itself)...If you try to find the composition of any thing you simply go on infinite regression, thus implying infinite matter...Realize that "space" is simply a scientific term used to describe reality pragmatically. Space does not exist. There is only being. Being is infinite, "space" is infinite.

Space does not exist. There is only being. Being is infinite, "space" is infinite.

Where does this "being" reside?

Where does this "being" reside?

Being and existence are interchangeable...

Existence lies within itself....

Are you implying some sort of metaphysical existence beyond our knowing??

"There is no longer an exterior for the existent if one means by that a superficial covering which hides from sight the true nature of the object"-Sartre

Being and existence are interchangeable...

Existence lies within itself....
No. Existence has to lie in reality. If X exists that doesn't mean X lies within itself. "X exists" means that X is a part of reality and thus lies in reality. So where in reality does existence lie?

Are you implying some sort of metaphysical existence beyond our knowing??
No, but it's clear that you are implying an existence outside of reality.

No. Existence has to lie in reality. If X exists that doesn't mean X lies within itself. "X exists" means that X is a part of reality and thus lies in reality. So where in reality does existence lie?

Reality is simply our perception of existence...I agree with you. One lies within the other because they are the same...I don't know how to reply because I feel we're on the same side here....


No, but it's clear that you are implying an existence outside of reality.


No, not at all. There is only one thing. I don't believe we can fully comprehend it (physics has proved this) but that doesn't make it dualism. There is still only one realm of existence....

Sophistry. Existence doesn't lie in perception. There is a concrete and tangible reality out there, and it's not just formed by social norms and personal perceptions.

Sophistry. Existence doesn't lie in perception. There is a concrete and tangible reality out there, and it's not just formed by social norms and personal perceptions.

Yeah I agree. You're missing what I'm saying (I'm probably not being clear)....

I agree there is base, objective reality. I'm simply saying that human perception is currently incapable of viewing things the way they really are. Physics/science tells us this.

For instance I see computer, not electrons, protons and neutrons which make up computer (reality)...And I certainly don't see the parts that make up those and ad infinitum....

Granted what we see is reality, but it's only a part. We see things in themselves (which isn't possible) rather than the whole infinite picture, we need to break things down into linear, finite entities to survive and function. This would be due to our inability to see the world separate from ourselves....This is not only a Eastern view but Nietzsche points out that we can only objectively view life with an unbiased view on life (impossible since we are a part of it)...

To make an analogy which is probably wrong...We're in an airplane viewing the world, we can only see what's outside our window, bits and pieces of the world, the world none the less, but not the whole world.

It's not that we're blind, we're just nearsighted...Isn't that what you were getting at? Or are we on different spots here?

:(:(:(:(

Space does not exist. There is only being.

I agree there is base, objective reality.

My main beef was with that first statement. Physics tells us that space exists, so if there is an objective reality, it's likely based upon the laws of science, of which space is a fundamental assumption.

My main beef was with that first statement. Physics tells us that space exists, so if there is an objective reality, it's likely based upon the laws of science, of which space is a fundamental assumption.

Yea I worded it wrong, my bad.

What I meant with "space" was a void where there is nothing. The idea (illusion) the there is nothing between my body and some object, when in reality there is gas, gravitational forces and other stuff I don't know about.

Surely there are some places where there is nothing - outer space? I'm not sure about that, I don't know a lot of the science behind it, but I thought space was a vacuum. If matter is infinite then matter must be everywhere, and there is no way to distinguish 'matter' from 'non-matter' so the word is pointless

Surely there are some places where there is nothing - outer space? I'm not sure about that, I don't know a lot of the science behind it, but I thought space was a vacuum. If matter is infinite then matter must be everywhere, and there is no way to distinguish 'matter' from 'non-matter' so the word is pointless

Between galaxies there is typically one molecule of hydrogen (H2) for every cubic meter or so.

So in that cubic metre, apart from the molecule of hydrogen, there's no matter right? There's nothing there?

Space is finite....if you keep going in the same direction in the end you'd be back where you started (if you could go fast enough)

Matter must be finite

So in that cubic metre, apart from the molecule of hydrogen, there's no matter right? There's nothing there?

Space is finite....if you keep going in the same direction in the end you'd be back where you started (if you could go fast enough)

Matter must be finite

Gravity is omnipresent.

So in that cubic metre, apart from the molecule of hydrogen, there's no matter right? There's nothing there?
Well... there's the Dirac Sea, which is mostly just there so scientists can say that there's not really "nothing", just varying degrees of something interspersed with temporary periods of a different sort of "nothingness".

Space is finite....if you keep going in the same direction in the end you'd be back where you started (if you could go fast enough)
But you can't, so it may as well be impossible. We can never know whether space is finite or infinite because we can only see the edge of the observable universe; not the universe itself. But since the edge cannot be reached it is fine to assume for exploratory purposes that space is infinite. Since both scenarios are equally probable, I don't think you can use either of the two to prove the finite (or infiniteness) of matter. It could very well be that the universe is infinite. And it could very well be that the universe is finite but always expanding--we can never know.

So in that cubic metre, apart from the molecule of hydrogen, there's no matter right? There's nothing there?

Gravity between those particles (every mass has gravity)

Space is finite....if you keep going in the same direction in the end you'd be back where you started (if you could go fast enough)

No. You would just keep going, what you said implies finiteness. It's not like the matrix revolutions in the subway (that was a finite location)....

Infinity would never end.

we can never know.

Not through direct observation...But empirical reason we can establish the concept of infinity. Isn't that the whole math and matter thing?

What is the smallest part? A quark...If a quark is a thing than it can be split in two and so on ad infinitum....Thus it is infinity....?

What is the smallest part? A quark...If a quark is a thing than it can be split in two and so on ad infinitum....Thus it is infinity....?

How do you know you can do this?

Also, dividing something doesn't make MORE of something, it is just more fragmented. Two 1/2's doesn't make more than one whole. There can only be one whole, if the whole is finite then no matter how many times you divide it, it is still a whole, you can have an infinitely small fraction, and it will still be part of the whole, and, as far as I can see, the value of the whole does not change.

Not through direct observation...But empirical reason we can establish the concept of infinity. Isn't that the whole math and matter thing?
Infinity is a mathematical inevitability; that doesn't mean that it exists in nature. The number i is also a mathematical necessity but that does not mean that any i exists in nature (in fact, it doesn't).

What is the smallest part? A quark...If a quark is a thing than it can be split in two and so on ad infinitum....Thus it is infinity....?

What happens when you split an atom? The subsequent parts lose the properties of the atom. If string theory is correct, when you split a string, you no longer have matter, but revert back to the quantum fluctuations of the Dirac Sea.

My concept of "infinity" is extremely similar to that of Sartre's...

"It seems rather that we have concentrated them all into a new kind of dualism [states of existent]: that of finite and infinite. Yet the existent in fact can not be reduced to a finite serious of manifestations since each one of them is a relation to a subject constantly changing."


He's saying how when investigating the concepts of "things in themselves" we are sent on an infinite regression of potential states of being. Since all is flux everything aspect of matter is in perpetual change (infinity so to speak)....

So you see since matter is in a constant state of change it is infinite. Although we don't view these changes directly, we can empirically derive this.

Make sense? The reason we don't see this change occur with our perception is because we're stuck in a moment of infinity (a seemingly finite location of being), we're simply viewing a part of the whole.

1) The edge of the observable universe is expanding at the speed of light.


Proof?

It may or may not be true.

Nobody knows for sure, since there is nobody standing at the edge of the universe measuring how fast it's expanding.

No, that's very solid logic. What is an earthquake? For a long time we could only define it as "not a non-earthquake", which brought up the question "is non-earthquake A the same as non-earthquake B?" This was seriously one of the principle methods of defining things that philosophers had used... up until Russel.

Just try to explain "non-being exists". I fucking dare you. :mad:

shanin is so cute when he uses the lil angry face

Sophistry. Existence doesn't lie in perception. There is a concrete and tangible reality out there, and it's not just formed by social norms and personal perceptions.

Actually, you can't say for sure/prove that there is a physical existence out there (except the existence of your own awareness), because there is no way of detecting it without going through your senses, which can in theory be defective or incomplete or deceiving, or you could be the subject of the Devil's experiment, according whatever that guy's name is, the French philosohpher.

Infinity is a mathematical inevitability; that doesn't mean that it exists in nature.


My take: infinity is a concept created by humans, that doesn't exist in reality.

ps shanin your hot

also, i like it when you talk to me so please don't ignore me please please please

Finally just want to add something: "nothingness" and "infinity" are merely CONCEPTS invented by humans. They are not real, physical things that exist in reality that can be seen, touched, measured, or otherwise experienced by the senses. Therefore IMHO it's kind of futile to argue about whether the space is "infinite". It shouldn't even be asked.

Finally just want to add something: "nothingness" and "infinity" are merely CONCEPTS invented by humans. They are not real, physical things that exist in reality that can be seen, touched, measured, or otherwise experienced by the senses. Therefore IMHO it's kind of futile to argue about whether the space is "infinite". It shouldn't even be asked.

i only agree with the last two sentences.

Finally just want to add something: "nothingness" and "infinity" are merely CONCEPTS invented by humans. They are not real, physical things that exist in reality that can be seen, touched, measured, or otherwise experienced by the senses. Therefore IMHO it's kind of futile to argue about whether the space is "infinite". It shouldn't even be asked.

I just explained to you empirically how infinity is a perceivable thing....You can only know things through the senses (and further interpreting them) and infinity, along with everything else belongs in the category....

I just explained to you empirically how infinity is a perceivable thing....You can only know things through the senses (and further interpreting them) and infinity, along with everything else belongs in the category....

uhm...

infinity is perceivable? wtf?

Tell me.

How much does infinity weigh? What colour is it? What is it made of? What does it smell like? What does it look like?

My concept of "infinity" is extremely similar to that of Sartre's...

"It seems rather that we have concentrated them all into a new kind of dualism [states of existent]: that of finite and infinite. Yet the existent in fact can not be reduced to a finite serious of manifestations since each one of them is a relation to a subject constantly changing."


He's saying how when investigating the concepts of "things in themselves" we are sent on an infinite regression of potential states of being. Since all is flux everything aspect of matter is in perpetual change (infinity so to speak)....

So you see since matter is in a constant state of change it is infinite. Although we don't view these changes directly, we can empirically derive this.

Make sense? The reason we don't see this change occur with our perception is because we're stuck in a moment of infinity (a seemingly finite location of being), we're simply viewing a part of the whole.


Ok, yes I agree with this, but this has nothing to do with the concept of an infinite amount of matter. Yes, there are an infinite amount of divisable moments, and I suppose that technically you could say that there are an infinite amount of configurations of matter, even if that reeks of sophistry to me as it doesn't seem to actually mean anything. But that doesn't mean that there is an infinite amount of matter.

Suppose we have a closed system, in the closed system we can infintely divide the moments, but regardless of how small the divisions are the same amount of matter (and energy, etc) is till present. In any case it is practically foolish to say that the amount of matter present increases simply by division. We can infintely divide the number one, but when added up, they will still be one, and nothing more.

Finally just want to add something: "nothingness" and "infinity" are merely CONCEPTS invented by humans. They are not real, physical things that exist in reality that can be seen, touched, measured, or otherwise experienced by the senses. Therefore IMHO it's kind of futile to argue about whether the space is "infinite". It shouldn't even be asked.

"Nothing" can be sensed, stoopid. If you're anaestetised, what do you feel? In pitch black what do you see? If you've got anosmia, what do you smell?

And you can measure nothing using whatever measurement system you want: it's 0cm , 0g, 0m/s, 0 degrees...

But that doesn't mean that there is an infinite amount of matter.

That's a good point...It seems more that there is a limited amount of matter than can take on an infinite amount of forms???

Suppose we have a closed system, in the closed system we can infintely divide the moments, but regardless of how small the divisions are the same amount of matter (and energy, etc) is till present. In any case it is practically foolish to say that the amount of matter present increases simply by division. We can infintely divide the number one, but when added up, they will still be one, and nothing more.


Yeah I think you're a right.

So it seems:

1.) Matter can take on an infinite number of forms

2.) Time has neither a beginning, end or middle. Every moment is occurring at every moment (this is my own reasoning, I didn't get it from you, I'm just trying to map out my thoughts here.)

3.) Matter may or may not be infinite, there is no definitive way to tell.

"Nothing" can be sensed, stoopid. If you're anaestetised, what do you feel? In pitch black what do you see? If you've got anosmia, what do you smell?

And you can measure nothing using whatever measurement system you want: it's 0cm , 0g, 0m/s, 0 degrees...

That doesn't mean nothing is present.


I close my eyes and see nothing (dark is not a thing, a lack of thing rather) however, that doesn't mean nothing is present. In fact our eyelids are right there along with all the molecules of different things in between my eyeballs and lids. A lack of perception doesn't mean nothing is present.

You wouldn't tell a blind man nothing exists because he can't see would you? (well, maybe for the lulz)

what does 'nothing is present' mean? All I'm saying is, you can sense nothing, and you do when you aren't sensing anything. I don't really know what you think 'nothing' means... of course its meaning is relative, but in this thread it seems sensible to treat 'thing' as matter, so where there is no matter, there is nothing. Obviously there are forces, but that's not what matters. To point them out is the equivalent of someone saying they did nothing one day, and someone else saying that that isn't true because they breathed.

Despite your mistaken argument, I have changed my mind about this. There is finite space and matter, but you wouldn't necessarily get bored because despite the limited number of permutations of matter, a repeat of some action would be different to the original action.

Say your 9999999999th action was the same as your 8888888888th, it would still be different because you would be affected by the 1111111111 actions in between.

Even up to infinity, there is constant change because after every action, any action could be repeated and be slightly different to the original.

"Nothing" can be sensed, stoopid. If you're anaestetised, what do you feel? In pitch black what do you see? If you've got anosmia, what do you smell?

And you can measure nothing using whatever measurement system you want: it's 0cm , 0g, 0m/s, 0 degrees...

When you are anestitised, you don't feel anything. Just because you are not feeling anything, it doesn't mean you are experiencing the existence of nothingness, as if nothingness were a thing. You are merely experience a lack of sensations. In pitch black, you do not see anything. Just because you do not see anything, it doesn't mean you are seeing this thing called "nothingness", as if it existed as a real physical thing. Same with anosmia. Lack of smell does not mean you are smelling nothingness.

I know that we say "you see nothing", "you smell nothing"..etc, it's merely a linguistic thing. In the English language, there happens to be a word that describes that lack of being/existence, and this word is nothing. It doesn't literally mean that we are seeing/smelling a thing called "nothing", when we say we see/smell nothing. It just means we are not seeing/smelling anything.

Tell me, how do you manage to measure the weight of this "thing" called nothing? How do you capture it, then put it on the scale such that the scale reads zero? What's its density? Is it divisible? What is it made of? How old is it? How did it come into existence?

My take: infinity is a concept created by humans, that doesn't exist in reality.
It's a concept created by mathematics, not humans. Anytime you divide by 0 you have infinity. It could be said to be "discovered" by humans through mathematics but outside of reality--which is really quite interesting since it shows how we can know something outside of reality. Hmmmmm....

ps shanin your hot

also, i like it when you talk to me so please don't ignore me please please please

I don't have the time. I haven't been posting in other threads either. Even in LT! :(

I'll reply to other stuff in this thread later when I have the time though.

When you are anestitised, you don't feel anything. Just because you are not feeling anything, it doesn't mean you are experiencing the existence of nothingness, as if nothingness were a thing. You are merely experience a lack of sensations. In pitch black, you do not see anything. Just because you do not see anything, it doesn't mean you are seeing this thing called "nothingness", as if it existed as a real physical thing. Same with anosmia. Lack of smell does not mean you are smelling nothingness.

I know that we say "you see nothing", "you smell nothing"..etc, it's merely a linguistic thing. In the English language, there happens to be a word that describes that lack of being/existence, and this word is nothing. It doesn't literally mean that we are seeing/smelling a thing called "nothing", when we say we see/smell nothing. It just means we are not seeing/smelling anything.
not seeing/smelling anything = seeing/smelling nothing. 'Nothing' doesn't exist, obviously, because exsitence is a property of things, not of the lack of things. But when you aren't smelling anything, you are smelling nothing.


Tell me, how do you manage to measure the weight of this "thing" called nothing? How do you capture it, then put it on the scale such that the scale reads zero?
Do you have anything on your scales? No? Then read the weight. 0g. There you go.
What's its density?
0g/cm^2 (based on its mass)
Is it divisible?
Yes. But it stays the same. This is obvious. You have nothing. You share it with 10 people. What do you all have? Nothing.
What is it made of?
it isn't made of anything... that would make it a thing, when it is actually a word to describe a lack of things.
How old is it?
As old as things.
How did it come into existence?
However things came into existence.

It's a concept created by mathematics, not humans.
Wrong. Mathematics is an inanimate object that cannot create concepts/things. Only humans can create things.



Anytime you divide by 0 you have infinity.

First of all, I am pretty sure that anytime you divide something by zero the whole operation is undefined. Have you been drinking?



It could be said to be "discovered" by humans through mathematics but outside of reality--which is really quite interesting since it shows how we can know something outside of reality. Hmmmmm....

By reality I meant the tangible physical reality. Go out there. Look into the sky, your backyard, wherever. Do you see a thing called infinity? No you dont. Infinity exists only in the human mind, as a concept. It's a thing of purely human creation.


I don't have the time. I haven't been posting in other threads either. Even in LT! :(

I'll reply to other stuff in this thread later when I have the time though.
okie

not seeing/smelling anything = seeing/smelling nothing.

No it doesn't. Not seeing anything only equates seeing nothing in a linguistic sense only. When you are not seeing anything, you are not seeing this thing called "nothing"; you are merely experiencing the phenomenon whereby there is a lack of things to be seen by your eyes.


'Nothing' doesn't exist, obviously,

'Nothing' doesn't exist in the physical reality, that much I agree with. It does, however, exist in the human mind as a concept.



because exsitence is a property of things, not of the lack of things. But when you aren't smelling anything, you are smelling nothing.

Like I said, when we say "nothing" here, it's purely a linguistic thing. It doesn't literally mean there is such a thing called "nothingness" that we are currently smelling when there isn't anything to be smelled.

Another example. When I say, "nobody is smart than me", do I really mean to say that there is not anybody smarter than me, or that there is really such an entity called "nobody", which is smarter than me?



Do you have anything on your scales? No? Then read the weight. 0g. There you go.

Just because I don't have anything on the scales, it doesn't mean I am weighing this thing called "nothingness". The weight reads zero because there is not a thing to be weighed, not because you captured this thing called "nothingness" then put it on the scales and it happens to weigh zero.


0g/cm^2 (based on its mass)

So (to humour you), since this thing has a density of 0, which is lower than 1, that means when you put it, namely nothing, in water, it will float?

Yes. But it stays the same. This is obvious. You have nothing. You share it with 10 people. What do you all have? Nothing.

I didn't mean divisible in a mathematical sense. I meant in a physical sense. Since according to you "nothing" has a physical existence (as in, you maintain it can be smelled, touched, seen...etc), it must also be physically divisible. As in, you split matters into molecules then further into atoms..etc. So tell me. Can you disect nothing? Can you reduce it to its molecular structure?


it isn't made of anything... that would make it a thing, when it is actually a word to describe a lack of things.

I am glad you are finally making sense. "Nothing" is just a word, a concept created by humans to denote a certain state, or rather, lack of existence/being. It does NOT exist in the physical reality as a tangible, physical thing.


As old as things.

Prove that "nothing" is as old as things. What method did you use to date it, carbon dating? What? You can't just claim things without backing it up.

However things came into existence.

Prove. How do you know that "nothing" came into existence as things. Were you there when it happened? Did you see it with your own eyes?

No it doesn't. Not seeing anything only equates seeing nothing in a linguistic sense only. When you are not seeing anything, you are not seeing this thing called "nothing"; you are merely experiencing the phenomenon whereby there is a lack of things to be seen by your eyes.
You are not seeing a thing called nothing, no. You are seeing nothing. 'In a linguistic sense only' means nothing at all. That is what the word nothing means. No things. You are seeing no things, or 'nothing'.


'Nothing' doesn't exist in the physical reality, that much I agree with. It does, however, exist in the human mind as a concept.

If nothing didn't exist, then how can things exist?


Like I said, when we say "nothing" here, it's purely a linguistic thing. It doesn't literally mean there is such a thing called "nothingness" that we are currently smelling when there isn't anything to be smelled.
Again, I never said there is a 'thing' called nothing. But when we can't smell anything, we smell nothing.

Another example. When I say, "nobody is smart than me", do I really mean to say that there is not anybody smarter than me, or that there is really such an entity called "nobody", which is smarter than me?
Now this is getting silly. Please point out where I said that nothing is a thing. I didn't. I know that nothing isn't a thing. I also know that nobody isn't a body.


Just because I don't have anything on the scales, it doesn't mean I am weighing this thing called "nothingness". The weight reads zero because there is not a thing to be weighed, not because you captured this thing called "nothingness" then put it on the scales and it happens to weigh zero.
'Nothing' has a weight of zero, or measurements are meaningless. When you say a weight, you mean the difference in weight between that thing and nothing.
[/QUOTE]


So (to humour you), since this thing has a density of 0, which is lower than 1, that means when you put it, namely nothing, in water, it will float?
on earth, if you could get rid of everything from a certain area, and then put water on it, the water would sink, yes. It would fall down. So the 'nothing' would float. But it isn't a thing, it's a lack of things. [/QUOTE]



I didn't mean divisible in a mathematical sense. I meant in a physical sense.
As in 'can you cut it in half'? Then no. You can only cut things in half.

Since according to you "nothing" has a physical existence (as in, you maintain it can be smelled, touched, seen...etc), it must also be physically divisible.
You can sense nothing, that doesn't mean it exists as a physical thing. It isn't, and I never said it was.

As in, you split matters into molecules then further into atoms..etc. So tell me. Can you disect nothing? Can you reduce it to its molecular structure?
It isn't made of molecules, so this is a meaningless thing to say. You dissect things, not the lack of things. Theoretically you can, as I explained earlier.



I am glad you are finally making sense. "Nothing" is just a word, a concept created by humans to denote a certain state, or rather, lack of existence/being. It does NOT exist in the physical reality as a tangible, physical thing.
Finally, you've realised what I'm saying instead of arguing against something I never said.



Prove that "nothing" is as old as things. What method did you use to date it, carbon dating? What? You can't just claim things without backing it up.
1) there are things
2) If there are only 'things' and no 'nothing', then 'things' becomes meaningless. 'By its contrary is everything defined.'
You can't know what a 'thing' is unless you know what 'no things' is.



Prove. How do you know that "nothing" came into existence as things. Were you there when it happened? Did you see it with your own eyes?
Because seeing something with your own eyes is the only way to prove it...
/sarcasm
Because seeing something with your eyes proves it....
/sarcasm

Some things can be proven through logic.


Oh and to save you some time, here is this post as you will read it. This is all I'm expecting a reply to:

Nothing is a thing

"Nothing" can be sensed, stoopid. If you're anaestetised, what do you feel? In pitch black what do you see? If you've got anosmia, what do you smell?

And you can measure nothing using whatever measurement system you want: it's 0cm , 0g, 0m/s, 0 degrees...

When you're under anesthesia, you don't remember it. The last thing you remember is the needle going in your arm and the doctor saying some stuff; the next thing you remember is feeling nauseous and disoriented. "Nothing" is defined by an absence of memory. You have no way of knowing what it's like. From your perspective, the difference between the point where you were put under and the point where you woke up is exactly the same as the difference between this moment and the next.

I didn't mean general anaesthetic, I wasn't clear about that. I meant just being numbed.

Wrong. Mathematics is an inanimate object that cannot create concepts/things. Only humans can create things.
Okay, how about "define the concept of"

First of all, I am pretty sure that anytime you divide something by zero the whole operation is undefined. Have you been drinking?
Divide 1 by .5 and you get 2. Divide 1 by .1 and you get 10 divide 1 by .01 and you get 100, divide 1 by 0 and you get infinity.<---basic calculus. Technically it's called undefined, but infinity is a number that is undefined by traditional mathematics and if one wanted to give it a real value it would be "infinity", though that itself would be meaningless. Oh, and I don't drink.

By reality I meant the tangible physical reality. Go out there. Look into the sky, your backyard, wherever. Do you see a thing called infinity? No you dont. Infinity exists only in the human mind, as a concept. It's a thing of purely human creation.
...and this is what I meant. :confused:

okie

Fuck it's even worse this week, I have my radio shows, 2 exams, probably some meeting to organize for the SSA, and 2 endless fucking scholarships to apply for (that I basically have to do). Fuck. :mad:

Wrong. Mathematics is an inanimate object that cannot create concepts/things. Only humans can create things.


Fuck I didn't even see this last time. Mathematics is an inanimate object? WTF are you talking about? How big is mathematics? Is it divisible? Does it float?

Also, only humans can create things? Humans ARE things you mug, what created us?


I can't believe you were going on about me saying that nothing is a thing when i didn't, then you say mathematics is an inanimate object. That's fucking stupid.

You couldn't do everything. Lets say I wanted to walk across a road long after the humans died off. I walk across. An hour later I walk across the same spot yet theres a cloud so its different. Nothing will be repeatable

You couldn't do everything. Lets say I wanted to walk across a road long after the humans died off. I walk across. An hour later I walk across the same spot yet theres a cloud so its different. Nothing will be repeatable
not if you live infinitely. eventually you would come across every single cloud formation, multiple upon multiple of times.

don't worry about how it is you seem to live forever, just assume that you do. if the world blew up, you'd still be alive, floating in space probably.

also, in the limited activities, it would only be limited in the fact that you wouldn't die after having done them. (i.e. you light yourself on fire, but that's all that happens.)

to make things simple, lets say there is 2 ways you can die, and you can perform them somehow, when you wish to do them (realizing that time for you would be infinite). 1 would be to destroy everything making nothing, including you, able to live. the other would be destroying yourself.

the whole point here is that you have unlimited time. eventually you will end up doing all there is to do, unless you decided to perform one of the actions above before you managed to do everything (which would be foolish in my opinion, and i doubt anyone would actually do that). the fact that you might not be physically or mentally ABLE to do everything isn't really that big of a deal. you have unlimited time: chances are that situations would come together to allow you to do what you wanted, no matter how long time took since you live eternally.

while(true)
if(1+2=1)
return;

Fuck I didn't even see this last time. Mathematics is an inanimate object? WTF are you talking about? How big is mathematics? Is it divisible? Does it float?

Maybe object is not the wrong word. Try "entity". My point though is that math is not something/someone that is capable of creating things.


Also, only humans can create things? Humans ARE things you mug, what created us?

Yes. Only humans can create things. Just because humans are things it doesnt mean we are not the only ones that can create. Also, just because I dont know what created humans it doesn't change the fact humans are the only things/ones that can create.


I can't believe you were going on about me saying that nothing is a thing when i didn't, then you say mathematics is an inanimate object. That's fucking stupid.

You kind of sounded like you were saying nothing is something that exists in the physical reality. But since you dont, I guess you can forget about what I said.

ALso, you seem to take offense easily.