Is everything infinite?

I was thinking, logically isnt everything infinite? Imagine zooming in on something to the atom. The atom must be made of something, and that made of something, and so on. How can there just be, without being made? This suggests a fractal or loop.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No length is actually exact. Everything can be calculated to a greater degree of accuracy. A table which is 1m long is actually 1.0147294839489...m long

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      and this raises the point numers are infinite no end to how high or low nunbers can count. math is infinite. Everything must be.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the absence of value is the only absolute...a la 0//blank/[null]

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          zero is controversial, some dont agree. even so mustnt it be infinite in a way, san
          me value but reprenting a decimal position that is empty like a placeholder of that fraction. 0.0000000000000.... to infinity so it is infinite

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            same value but****

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Zero doesn't exist, it ironically represents the absence of something and so it can't be infinite because it just isnt there.

          • 2 weeks ago
            33 o clock bluebeam chemtrail your locality

            Zero comes around comes around comes around and goes all the way back around yeah

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I have always had a crazy idea about this concept when it comes to data storage. As all digital data is essentially a string of 1s and 0s, every computer file is a (massively large) binary number. Every file is a number. Try to comprehend that - any file, be it a photo, raw text, an exe, video, music, whatever, its just a number.

      Now when you say something like, a measurement is almost never exact, could you not use those tiny inconsistencies to store data? Like, take a demagnetized compass, and point the needle a direction. You'll get an angle like 109.681736371....... degrees, the decimals go on forever. As long as you can stabilize the compass perfectly (needing a closed system), you can store an exact number inside the compass. Instead of using "degrees" you now use "storage space" (the maximum amount of data you can store/measure reliably) and pointing the needle a precise direction will now store any number below that value - for an example say you set "storage space" to 255 (11111111 in binary) you can now store any 8 bit number by pointing the needle in a direction, say you pointed it ~98 degrees, you get ~70 (or ~01000110) stored in binary JUST by pointing the compass needle in a direction. The maximum number ("storage space") and therefore the amount of information storage is ONLY limited by how precisely the needle can be stabilized and how exactly we can measure the needles angle.

      Given the infinite nature of all things, you can store an infinite amount of data in this way. And a compass angle is a very archaic method to store data however I find it the easiest to visualize.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        To expand on this, look up a gear reduction machine. 100 gears which each have 100 positions, it take 1 googol spins (10^100) to turn the last gear once. That's an example of a storage device that can store 1 googol bits of information. All you have to do to store ANY file on that contraption is
        >take out 1 gear
        >turn it to whatever direction you need to
        >put it back in
        >repeat for all 100 gears
        Now by measuring how much each gear has turned, with a precision value of only 3.6 degrees (remember that is super basic to measure and store, it can be done by hand lol), you can now store 1 googol bits of data forever. Or am I missing something here?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Or am I missing something here?
          You are, but instead of telling you, I'm going to attempt to make you realize it:
          Why do the gears need to be physical?
          What stops you from programming virtual wheels with those positions and store 1 googol bits of data in a program that simulates the gears?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not that anon but I was thinking of your question and I've come to the conclusion that its answer is way beyond my brain capacity. Would you mind telling me why? I want to understand.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think the answer is you need a way to store data...to a readable form....but there is no transition in the theory to that? So you can imagine things but without physical form it will not mean much usefulness

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anyway, what you have is 100 gears in 100 positions, that's just 10000 bits of information, you are trying to use them to store, say, a file, and you're trying to use 10000 bits to differentiate 1 googol possible different files.
            You are doing it by having each gear having some number of spins, so, a file that is all 1s will have all the gears being spun their maximum number of times.
            You need an exact count of the spins, because the whole file becomes unreadable if a 0 becomes a 1 or a 1 becomes a 0.
            So the spins need to be stored somewhere outside, say, how many times was the first gear turned? This is going to be a precise number with a googol digits that may use more space than the file itself.

            Ok so you are both saying more or less the same thing, right?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes i think...the basic question was if everything was infinite....but tirns out nothing is infinite since infinity has to exist in some form to be approved as existing....and even if you think imagination can be infinite....it cannot be since you cannot keep up the imagination non stop either....since you have physical limitations....and death

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            Actually, I can give you a pretty solid example of something infinite: That which we do not know.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anyway, what you have is 100 gears in 100 positions, that's just 10000 bits of information, you are trying to use them to store, say, a file, and you're trying to use 10000 bits to differentiate 1 googol possible different files.
            You are doing it by having each gear having some number of spins, so, a file that is all 1s will have all the gears being spun their maximum number of times.
            You need an exact count of the spins, because the whole file becomes unreadable if a 0 becomes a 1 or a 1 becomes a 0.
            So the spins need to be stored somewhere outside, say, how many times was the first gear turned? This is going to be a precise number with a googol digits that may use more space than the file itself.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        i had simillar idea about light has a density of data. like i can see Saturn in the sky as little dot but using a telescope with clarity. so while i look at saturn i see a dot but the info to see more is there. i guess with storage a bit is a bit but if you arranged the bits in a way that you could decode the decial values of each one using some formula and so on. then yea it could be infinite

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        where do you store the data of the position. if every angle was a bit where do you store which angle is a bit, a map? like lets say 1g file and we have coordates that say which angle is 0 or 1 . i think a table that shows for exp line angle: 90=0, is > the value of bit in compass. if u can make a some innovative way to know the value of the angle that doesnt grow in size like table this might have potential

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Like the other anons are saying. Our world is for all intents and purposes finite and measurable but where is the middle point of a pencil if you just keep going to a smaller and smaller point? IF we are in a dualist world to just come here and dream, maybe the way we come from 4d infinite light beings is that the infinity has to be cordoned off somehow. How can an infinite being experience finiteness if not through an approximation?

      • 2 weeks ago
        No, Buddy

        How can anything be infinite without being comprised of the finite? Famous mathematicians like Cantor have tried and failed. I still work on the idea for fun, but no luck.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well, it's how do you cordon off something that's infinite? It's not that an infinite light realm has a point in it that's the center of the realm, because it never had a start or finish it was just everywhere. How do you carve out a finite part of infinity? The thing you carve out would also be infinite. I think the "data" of things like mass are fudged to give us the illusion of the finite, but like the pencil thing, the pencil is actually infinitely big because the smaller you get the point to, it goes on forever.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Like the thought experiment about approaching a park. Every time you move, you get half the distance closer. It just continues forever and you never actually reach the park.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Zeno's Paradox.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    this is my instinct as well. everything is fractal and infinite

  3. 2 weeks ago
    βζ

    Infinite and infinitesimal, continuous and discrete.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      infinite ways to think infinite ways to see infinite ways to hear infinite combinations of combinations. even humans if not extinct are infinite generation after generation. Like isnt there basically infinte ways one can shuffle a deck of cards? language you could make infinite sentances letters infinite words. everything is infinite seemingly

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Like isnt there basically infinte ways one can shuffle a deck of cards?
        no.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >continuous and discrete
      Counterpoint: unbounded (large) and unbounded (small)

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >This suggests a fractal or loop.
    But then you would just ask how that got made.

    I think what it suggests even more strongly is simply that our human notion that everything has to have a "cause" which GAVE it meaning, is flawed.

    Because notice that we didn't discover this ad infinitum paradox... It was IMPOSED by us. We decided randomly (without any proof) that everything has to borrow meaning from something else (i.e. everything has to be "defined" by or reduced down to something else), and it's that assumption which creates the ad infinitum paradox.
    We created it, we didn't discover it.

    So what it really suggests is that our understanding of everything needing to be defined or reduced is flawed. At no point has anyone disproved the idea that something has meaning unto itself.
    In fact... There is something you can observe right this second which fits that description.
    There is something you know, and every human knows, yet not even the smartest minds over thousands of years have ever succeeded in defining. And it's: Consciousness.
    Really let that sink in. You KNOW consciousness despite having no definition for it. Because it is its own definition.
    And the more you think about it the more obvious that becomes, because there's literally not even 1 single scientific fact that doesn't originate from a conscious observation... Funny how modern physics has been wrestling with this idea of "what is an observation" lately isn't it? If you exclude a truth at the beginning of your understanding, it will show itself again and again, until you see it for what it is. Something fundamental.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you have a point. So in this view everything is nothing, nothing is everything. I see what you are saying. I think we can assign all these theories and names because they explai,how we enteract with our world. We can always define or further exact more teories or meaning which probably is never exact
      or all encompassing so infinite. We have an infintede series of factor that define everything so its you are right no true meaning but also infinite meanings wow quantum mechanics superposition lol

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        one more thought. So if nothing can be fully exained or infinite nothingness. This points to simulation theory. If nothing can be explained and has no meaning then its almost like it isnt really real especilly if there is no real atom particle building block at the end the chain. That would only make sense in sim city where its all just math and pixels and although there its nothing

        I never said everything is nothing, or that nothing can be explained.
        I said consciousness is its own meaning.

        I get that to the mind it might sound like nothing, but that's not surprising at all. The mind can't even understand what the color red truly is.

        Think of it like this instead: Why does no living thing have to learn what pain is? Because pain is pure meaning. When you're hit with pain you KNOW pain, you don't have to be given a separate definition that you first process and then say "ah yes, now I understand I should avoid this thing". Pain doesn't get its meaning from something else, it IS meaning itself.

        The typical idea that pain is just an illusion is actually kind of silly when you think about it, because if that were true then it could have felt like anything. If your reaction to things alone is calculated by chemicals in the brain then you would still run away from something hurting you even if it felt pleasant...
        But that's not the case because it's not an illusion at all. Evolution uses pain to TEACH animals what to avoid. The feeling isn't just some coincidence of chemicals, it's deliberate.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ok consciousness, most basic definition aware. if a living thing is aware and experiences in your example pain. Lets say an ant is experiencing pain its aware of it. I will argue any thing experienced can be described and all living experience and each experice can be described if not indirectly by other living like us. So consciousness actually is being able to describe or be feeling which has a desciption

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      one more thought. So if nothing can be fully exained or infinite nothingness. This points to simulation theory. If nothing can be explained and has no meaning then its almost like it isnt really real especilly if there is no real atom particle building block at the end the chain. That would only make sense in sim city where its all just math and pixels and although there its nothing

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        im on a role here . and the electric universe theory and the fact like tesla said its frequencies and virbrations. like a cpu pulses times per second frequencies like GHz and electricity in a computer flowing in everything like electric unviverse and the vibration coude be volts or amerperage. must be infinte or looping simulation

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A small theory I have is that there is a God. A big cheese. Whether he is benevolent or some zen thing or whatever, I think we had a singular entity that was everything all at once. Imagine a universe where the rules are gobldyasiatic with made up aliens. He was that all at once. Incomprehensible to us. Imagine make believe stuff but randomize it forever. I think that's him. And then I think while he has no beginning, the concept of concept didn't exist before him so the point is moot. He had a beginning but it's the ourobouros, if the ourobouros was the only object to exist in existence. A lot of what I said is not new, but just thought I'd put my thoughts to words.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        who created the creator? what is his realm or does he live here? if he lives here where did he live before? how did he get here where is the door?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          In my theory, it's that because nothing existed before him/it, he didn't come from anywhere. Because he's also everything all the time, the concept of before can't exist with him.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            could be true but nothing to something and some force turning it on and controlling creating. That is a simulation black screen. "god" or somthing turned it on and like GTAV bam something from nothing. like a sim someone i guess the host cpu , they can play god however they want. I would say your belief is in a simulation where nothing is impossible and the host cpu watches us and can do anything, all possible in a simulation

    • 2 weeks ago
      No, Buddy

      >our human notion that everything has to have a "cause" which GAVE it meaning, is flawed.
      I agree and disagree. Consciousness is awareness, is perceived information over time, is communication. The lowest level of "communication" in our physical reality is entanglement. Two particles are entangled if and only if they are dependent upon the same causal event. This means at its very foundation, all meaning and awareness stems from causal events. So you're right, the cause doesn't give meaning - awareness does. Cause is however the mechanism of awareness.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >nta
      in other words: I am. I am what i am. Consciousness IS.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. Quite obviously finite things are not infinite.
    What you are describing is scale. Is scale infinite?
    It is currently accepted that at least going smaller, there is a conceptual limit.
    https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-11-01_NutshellReadMore.html
    >So why is the Planck length thought to be the smallest possible length? The simple summary of Mead's answer is that it is impossible, using the known laws of quantum mechanics and the known behavior of gravity, to determine a position to a precision smaller than the Planck length. Pay attention to that repeated word "known." If it turns out that at very small lengths, some other version of quantum mechanics manifests itself or the law of gravity differs from our current theory, the argument falls apart. Since our understanding of subatomic gravity is incomplete, we know that the statement that the Planck length is the smallest possible length is on shaky ground. Still, until a better theory of quantum gravity is devised, the Planck length is the best estimate we have for a minimum length.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the plank helped lead ne to this kine of thinking actually. I heard we cant measure less than a planck because at the limit a black hole will open!!!! so i guess you open the door to the next fractal. When i heard this i knew must be infinite.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >we cant measure less than a planck because at the limit a black hole will open
        No, it's because there is no quantifiable difference at smaller lengths. It is a measurement limit, and a limit of our ability to think on how to measure, but the limit is there.
        There MAY be some further, smaller lengths.
        But like the BB is to time, and the CMB is to EM in space - we keep reaching sensorial limits. A one way time and distance and length limit, beyond which we simply cannot (currently) observe or measure or math about.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          2 arguments againt finite lmit, tecnical limitation, very small differences yea but we are talkin theory in theory exist. Other is with a telescope ignoring our material limits calculations say no limit. if you had a 2 miile high lens in would see what the. math say and so would a billion mile high lens. So why is there a limit to magnification? like numbers going negative we should be able to keep zooming in. Hmm but if like i said there opened another blackhole, then hmm would that be an end to the zoom like the and an end of our count or would it be a universes starting at this number?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          im replying alot to my thread but frickit. Forgot to mention, suppose we have a microscope looking at whatever, why cant we just keep magnifying. hypothetically more powerful microscope smaller you see ad infinitum. btw is atom still the popular explanation for smallest partical?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >why cant we just keep magnifying
            Planck length is literally too small for a photon to see or interact with.
            You know how big the sun is compared to a photon?
            That's how big a proton is compared to Planck length.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You speaking from human perspective with human terms, to us its that small and seemly finite. Math says its infinite. Aside from this an atom is how many plancks wide? if more than 1 than how can we measure smaller than smallest particle? if planck is indeed 1 atom, what is the at made from, nothing?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You speaking from human perspective with human terms
            Yes, explicitly said so. And those are human limits. And you are human.
            >Math says its infinite.
            No, that is my point. The math literally stops at that point. You cannot math any smaller than Planck length.
            >if planck is indeed 1 atom
            One hydrogen atom is 10 trillion trillion planck lengths. That was not a typo.
            You are the one who is not really understanding the smallness we are talking about.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok so if you are speaking in human terms, yes we have limits. I cant see an amoeba so i guess since they lie beyond our sight it dosnt exist you suggest? Or do you want to use tools? If so the first microscope was the limit than a more powerful one was the new limit etc. Now we are at our current tech limit. Math says no limit. Also in human terms we can establish theoretical or mathematical limits on things we dont sense. I cant sense the true weight of what i cant lift dosnt mean no weight

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >if you are speaking in human terms, yes we have limits.
            You HAVE to speak in human terms. As far as all our ability to understand shows - there are limits.
            You can IMAGINE and PRETEND there arent, but it isnt based on anything.
            Not based on math,
            Not based on reality.
            Not based on logic.
            >Math says no limit.
            No. OUR MATH SAYS NO SMALLER.
            This is what you are not getting. It is beyond "just enhance it a bit".
            YOU are the one not understanding how much farther this limit is beyond your imagination.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            wait so planck is limit? the smallest unit, finite is logical? I argue that if planck is indeeed smallest and nothing is smaller than tts made from nothing or just the smallest thing made of itself so its a thing made from itself? or made from nothing ? or just is becaise it is? each i
            explanation of finite I argue less logical than simply one word, infinite

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >wait so planck is limit?
            I carefully greentexted you the relevant part of the link.
            Here, have a simpler one:
            >The Planck length is the smallest unit of length. It is calculated from three physical constants: the speed of light, the Planck constant, and the gravitational constant.
            You can pretend to do math on smaller units of length, but it stops having any relevance in regards to reality as we know it.
            >planck is indeeed smallest and nothing is smaller than tts made from nothing
            It's not a thing, idiot. It is a distance. "One meter" is not a substance or an object. And neither is "five planck lengths".

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            welp you lose, first to insult, and not provide more logical solution other than "just is" well if it just is what is?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I insult people who I have to explain the same thing to three times.
            Do you get now that planck length isnt a thing, or do you need a fourth?
            And I have not once said "just is".
            Your reading comprehension is likely why I had to repeat myself to the point of annoyance, which has me considering that anon - perhaps also you - an idiot.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            forgot. you skipped the best part. before you claim finite answer that. planck is how many atom wide?

            an atom is how many plancks wide? if more than 1 than how can we measure smaller than smallest particle? if planck is indeed 1 atom, what is the at made from, nothing?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Planck length is not a thing. It is a measurement.
            The smallest things we can measure are trillions and trillions of planck lengths wide.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            so how can we measure smaller than the smallest partical. how can you measure the smallest measure? imagine micrometer closing it gets to atom width you say we can then measure smaller still and the mircrometer wont be closed after going smaller than the smallest partical? smaller scale than smalest partical implies an atom isnt smallest there is more.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >how can we measure smaller than the smallest partical.
            With great expertise. Go look it up.
            >how can you measure the smallest measure?
            They used math, and observations of the universe. Same way we can define 0 Kelvin and thus measure to within fractions of a degree, yet never get anything to actual 0 Kelvin.
            Planck length is very similar, it is using measurements that according to all observations and math are constant and defining a "zero'd" measurement from which we can put everything else into perspective.

            Just like there are negative Fahrenheit and Celsius degrees, but there are no negative temps in Kelvins.
            In a similar way, there cannot be a smaller measurement than Planck length, unless fundamental constants of the universe change - in which case planck length would still be smallest, just a different number.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yes dude i know its a unit of measure , since it dosnt represent a particle but an imaginary line smaller than an atom. tell me how its logical to measure the smallst particle ? so its like you saying we have a physical measure for the smallest physcal thing i see no logic . ok and you saying planck is math so to us numbers end there? if planck is smallest in reality its smallest number too, or do numbers go on infinity?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Infinity....is not a real thing....it is a concept

            Take it this way:

            Walk in a circle
            Dont stop
            You reach age 10000
            Dont stop
            Earth gets hit by a meteor
            Dont stop
            Earth is no longer there but that small part is still there so you can walk
            Dont Stop
            Universe gets blown up or implodes
            Dont Stop
            You see...even if you just walk one meter...by the time you walk 10cm you are different because your internal parts and cells are at a different position so you have never lived more than a few seconds or maybe even LESS if you think lime you are your body....not even talking about big number like 3 trillion years or infinity

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            hmmm so the going in circle example one could go in a circle infinitly and go no where? I think you showed there example of infiniteloop , if someting never stops = infinite. agree that everything if we go to the smaest level will be shedding or gaing particals and be differnt every moment. So never the same always changing. so placing a hard limit is saying a state with no change. at the end where there is more measure time stops? its just frozen still? seems like without infinity the whole everchanging ever dynamic world wouldn't make sense.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Im saying that the example is not physical...you simply imagining my example....proving infinity is only possible in your mind as a thing that is detached from reality...as it does not exist in reality

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            but it does exist as you said each moment is different. all your existence is a flowing line, a piece of infinity, we just get a slice

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            How do you know it has no end if you are only a slice? There is no other way for it to be infinite.

            Actually there are part of physhics that were not yet discussed in this thread yet connected to the answer to that and it would be a huge topic to clear this up so i dont think anyone will answer that to you....either by not knowing or knowing but also knowing it would take too much time....and also that part of physics is not even accepted so it would take some kind of belief....that is as far as this goes

            I've appreciated the explanations you have provided, concise and very on topic. Just thought I'd let you know.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah i hope i make sense...we are all learning man....thanks for your inputs
            I bet we would agree on some other topics aswell

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            Perhaps. I'm fascinated by the convergence of science and mysticism, the old frame work of understanding meeting the new, and the understanding that can only be gained with both in hand. Just a few years ago though, I had far less appreciation for mysticism. It's hard to say where each person is on their journey of understanding, since no one goes the same way anymore. I don't mind though, because that's exactly why we can learn from anyone.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes that is exactly as you say....what physical devices can measure nowdays are nowhere near what any human could theoretically do ( talking about CERN here)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            because like the line of time before me it will continue after me. I die but universe continues, even if no offspring one end doesn't imply the end of physics. I dont know never will it still interesting to contemplate the evidence. to me the evidence points to infinite being a common theme in the functioning of core components of what we can observe.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You mix things too much while repeating yourself

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            >because like the line of time before me it will continue
            Evidence of the big bang, and regarding the nature of timespace, both point to this being false. There was a beginning, a point you could stand in time where nothing was before you.

            Why would you assume there is no end? Also, an assumption is far from seeing the truth. Again my point stands, you cannot see infinity. You can only see up to an arbitrarily large distance and assume infinity exists beyond it. This is the nature of our existence and a property of logic that is very well documented.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There was a beginning
            Nah, for that you'd need an eternity before it where nothing happened, an infinity of nothing moving to the past.
            You solve nothing with this.

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            Nothing cannot be infinite because it doesn't exist.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, but time is infinite. This is easy to prove, if it had an end the chances of being in the finite part is 0, because it's as if time lasted an hour (it'd have already passed), or a second (it'd have already passed), or an instant... a gorillion years are not different from that (they'd had already happened.)
            Besides, it doesn't matter if there was a beginning, and if there was nothing before that beginning, because if that's the case, and time and and there's nothing left, another universe can have a beginning from that nothing, just like ours did.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you think of everything as part of something and group that together as one that will exist forever...that still takes at least one unit of that group that must outlive everything to be called infinite....because grouping is a concept like infinity...it is in your mind

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >how its logical to measure the smallst particle ?
            Are you ESL? How is it illogical to measure a particle?
            Are you trying to ask how to USE planck length?
            >we have a physical measure for the smallest physcal thing
            No. The measurement is not for any particular thing.
            I am not talking about any particular thing or particle.
            The question was about limits, and planck length is a limit of measurement based on the nature of reality.
            >do numbers go on infinity?
            There is a point where the numbers stop having any relevance to reality.
            You can SAY "half a planck length", but it has no meaning. It is nonsense that only a fool who hasnt been told numerous times what a planck length is would say.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            but the limit is the atom. all particles have a measure because of your planck to phonton comparison. ok so lets imagine an atom ok, and now use Plancks to measure the atom. how can there be a concept of smaller than the smallest thing? how can we make a scale to measure smaller than smallest, so what is the reference? how can we prove a limit smaller than the smaller known thing? using imaginary line? ok well the other line goes to infinity. your imaginary line is less imaginary than my imaginary line? id imagine not

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Actually there are part of physhics that were not yet discussed in this thread yet connected to the answer to that and it would be a huge topic to clear this up so i dont think anyone will answer that to you....either by not knowing or knowing but also knowing it would take too much time....and also that part of physics is not even accepted so it would take some kind of belief....that is as far as this goes

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >but the limit is the atom.
            Atoms are made up of three different particles. Those are made up of six different particles. The atom is hardly the limit.
            But it doesnt MATTER what the smallest thing is.
            The point of Planck length is to determine the limit of the ability to measure reality.
            Just as the Kelvin temperature scale started by defining what exactly temperature is (the average movement of particles in a space), and defining 0 as "nothing moving".
            Planck length looks at ways to measure reality, and how they work, and uses them to determine that the smallest possible distance measurement we could make that has any meaning to reality is the planck length.

            We can measure atoms and their particles because they are insanely large compared to this mathematically determined limit of measurement.
            >what is the reference?
            It was mentioned both times I copy-pasted what Planck length is to you. Do you think you are smart enough to go back and quote it when you find it?
            If you dont - I will accept that as you saying you are too much of an idiot to just scroll up and see what planck length references.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            so yet again your imaginary line is less imaginary that mine. your says smallest is planck and mine says no limit to magnification. I understand practical limits like all units are practical. However units are not real as you like to say, and the only real measure that we can determine today as true beyond contradiction is know as infinity.

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            You cannot see infinity, let alone measure it. Do you know what you can measure and then verify mathematically? The planck length.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you said a plank cant be seen, you said theoretical limit. This is a thery mine us too. You have math, i have too, you have known measurements i have not able to be known measurements. To put an end of the inward scale than must exist limit to size, so limited universe too? as above so belowe

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            >true beyond contradiction
            This has to be the worst part. Nothing causes more paradoxes than the concept of infinity. The planck length actually solves paradoxes.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The planck length solve nothing either, it's like you're making a map, and there are parts that are so dark you can't put them on the map, so you pretend they don't exist.
            You're confusing reality with its measurement, that we can't measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Something that is infinite like you say would have to be so dense to stand out any possibility of failure...as dense....as you....HAHAHAHA....

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you said a plank cant be seen, you said theoretical limit. This is a thery mine us too. You have math, i have too, you have known measurements i have not able to be known measurements. To put an end of the inward scale than must exist limit to size, so limited universe too? as above so belowe

            Oh, but time is infinite. This is easy to prove, if it had an end the chances of being in the finite part is 0, because it's as if time lasted an hour (it'd have already passed), or a second (it'd have already passed), or an instant... a gorillion years are not different from that (they'd had already happened.)
            Besides, it doesn't matter if there was a beginning, and if there was nothing before that beginning, because if that's the case, and time and and there's nothing left, another universe can have a beginning from that nothing, just like ours did.

            Listen....
            Concepts are different than reality....your imagination is different than reality....if you ask about the concept of reality exists than yes and it even has a symbol.....but it looked like OP question was the about existence physically in reality

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            Measurement is only evidence, discernible through its relationships with what is known. Yet, through it what is known becomes better illuminated. For example, the planck length solves Zeno's paradox, a paradox created by the concept of infinity. Through it we understand a way in which the destination is in fact reached - matching theory with experienced reality. That is what infinity fails to do because we cannot experience infinity in any capacity but one, our ignorance.

            So I ask you, what does infinity illuminate? How does it align theory with our perceived reality if it cannot be perceived in the first place?

            Oh, but time is infinite. This is easy to prove, if it had an end the chances of being in the finite part is 0, because it's as if time lasted an hour (it'd have already passed), or a second (it'd have already passed), or an instant... a gorillion years are not different from that (they'd had already happened.)
            Besides, it doesn't matter if there was a beginning, and if there was nothing before that beginning, because if that's the case, and time and and there's nothing left, another universe can have a beginning from that nothing, just like ours did.

            You're assuming that without time there is nothing, and the only reason I brought up the beginning of time was because it was your sole evidence that time had no end.

            >if it had an end the chances of being in the finite part is 0
            Actually if it had an end the chances of it being in the finite part is 100% There is no infinity with an end. Also, we can calculate how much time has passed since the big bang. It's kind of a small number in the grand scheme of things, so a finite end isn't unlikely at all.

            if reality is infact infinite those paradox are part of it. Unknown is part of everything we dont know the future. I assume second after econd will pass but we never know, unknown is part of the experience fits in nicely with infinity

            I like the way you're thinking now. After all, I've been saying over and over that the only thing that is infinite that we know of is that which we do not know. We experience it as a barrier to our perception - that is what infinity is to us. Unfortunately, that's also what anything beyond our perception is, infinite or not.

            Thus, if everything were infinite nothing would be knowable.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            infinity seems analogous to a state of not knowing, since we only know or remember a moment after it passes we live in a constant state of unknown so that means we live in infinity. Our brain processes sight and sense at a delay (small gap) so that means our bodys and really our physical manifest exist only the future unknown an infinte unknown.
            drops mic

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            >so that means we live in infinity
            No, it just means that is a possibility. Like I said, the problem is that anything beyond our perception is seen as a sort of barrier, infinite or not. We cannot see infinity. It cannot be known by any means but theory and and ambiguous lacking.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            every one of mans innvations come from the act of thinking about or observing whats possible so its always good to continue unto infinity this exercise as there is always an unknown to ponder.

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            For sure, please don't think I'm saying its impossible to know more. In fact I think the amount of things we can learn about infinity is itself infinite, it's just that there are limitations to that infinity (like how some infinities don't repeat). In this case, there are certain types of knowledge that cannot be gained and they are of direct experience. Even ignorance is an indirect experience.

            The barriers we see may or may not be infinite, but the ones that stand longest are most likely to be.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To me since there will always be doubts about something like time or space. Lets say universe is infinite, there will always be the debate if there is an end or not it willl be the infinite debate. And until we hit the wall there will always be both theories and if we hit a wall the debate will start about if there is Infinity on the other side lol

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            Maybe in 100 years we find out The Big Crunch or something like that is real and further away than we can imagine, but still a true end to time and space and us and our debate. This would be the best case scenario, as it gives us opportunity to leave timespace and continue debating the nature of reality. Debating over the truth of this matter accelerates the learning and this preferred resolution. The other resolution is that we find out as things end, and that end is complete.

            For the sake of advancement I choose to not assume the universe is infinite and keep up the debate.

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            If I had to guess, I would say that everything is in fact singular and we just make infinity out of it in our minds.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >We experience it as a barrier to our perception

            Yes it is a bad example to use human bodies and peceptions but it is like sleeping and than waking up....(although a lot of things happen to our body or consciousness or other parts) to keep it vanilla.

            If you end the universe there will be no record of it everything deleted. You restart it and there you go you have an "infinity" that is still not infinity but a sequence that lasts to a finite amount of number....but it might seem from an internal view that it is infinite if you save the memory and replant from the previous state to something similar you had before the end of the universe existence..... i hope i did not go too far here

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Actually if it had an end the chances of it being in the finite part is 100%
            You're not getting it. If the universe lasted 1 second, we'd be in that second 100%, but the second is over already (it happened as you read that), and then 100% we're after that second.
            And if time ends, whatever it lasts is already over just like that second, because at these scales years and nanoseconds don't make a difference.

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            At what scales? I told you the amount of time that has passed is actually pretty small and not in a difficult scale to comprehend at all.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The scales of an eternity of nothing, followed by the finite lapse where we exist, followed by the eternity of nothing.
            You must be at the nothingness part, or the lapse in the middle is actually infinite.
            Again, think of the universe that just existed for 1 second to get it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            >The scales of an eternity of nothing
            No, they are actually fairly well defined in mathematical theory. We call the sizes of infinities cardinalities. That which we can know is infinite, but that which we cannot know is unaccountably infinite. What sizes of infinity are you trying to represent with your 1 second analogy? Also, if nothing exists then that includes infinity not existing doesn't it? Nothing can't be infinite.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the real problem here with infinite is like boxing it....you cannot box something that has no ends....you cannot say it acts like this or that or looks like this or that because it contradicts those statements by its own nature.......because it has all and everything in it as a concept or the density of everything as a physical construct....which would make it a point that is as big as nothing.....

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            We just use an infinite box, it's all theory anyway. Then we can look at the properties of said box, and how it relates to other sorts of infinite boxes, and oh that's how set theory works.

            Well, it's how do you cordon off something that's infinite? It's not that an infinite light realm has a point in it that's the center of the realm, because it never had a start or finish it was just everywhere. How do you carve out a finite part of infinity? The thing you carve out would also be infinite. I think the "data" of things like mass are fudged to give us the illusion of the finite, but like the pencil thing, the pencil is actually infinitely big because the smaller you get the point to, it goes on forever.

            >Well, it's how do you cordon off something that's infinite?
            Let's look at the natural numbers. I can cordon them off by prime factors, or size, or geometric principle. I can make an infinite number of finite boxes, or a finite number of finite boxes, or no finite boxes at all, and still all representations will contain exactly the same numbers. There is a smallest number in this infinite set, but that is arbitrary. Similarly, you cannot make a subset with a smaller number of elements than 1, and this is arbitrary. It could very well be that reality happens to work this way, or perhaps it doesn't. It's not evidence and neither is anything you said as it is also an arbitrary set of definitions.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that is itself not possible because infinite cannot solve itself...if it would it would be finite....infinity containing its own end like its end points therefore mean it would stop existence as being infinite you cannot have holes in infinity....it literally contains its own contradictions and anti contradictions...nullifying itself....so:

            ∞ = 0

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            I didn't say anything was solved, just that we were able to learn new things about infinity by using infinite boxes.

            Also, you can have holes in infinity. There are in infinite number of holes in the infinity we call the natural numbers, and they are filled by the real numbers.

            Finally, if you want to see a more intuitive understanding of why infinity and zero are not the same, check this out
            >https://www.1dividedby0.com/

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I can counter that very easily with infinity. If infinity would exist in the way you say in theory it could insert itself into anything even partially. So you could solve anything with infinity. That relates to what i say in a way that i could imagine up things from nothing (because it is the same thing as everything) and you would have to believe it.

            That is why i hate math and theories

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            if we had no theories how could hypothesize? You would look at the ocean before columbus and while people theorized at what is beyond the water you just accept land end here no think more water is where fish live i stay land. you must imagine use that brain to the utmost, ain't got it for nothing.

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            >it could insert itself into anything even partially.
            Yeah, many physicists think that is the case

            >So you could solve anything with infinity.
            That does not follow. Not every unknown can be filled with an infinity. That some can while others can't though, gives us some more information about those unknowns.

            >i could imagine up things from nothing (because it is the same thing as everything)
            What have you ever imagined from nothing?

            Also, for nothing to be everything and visa versa, nothing exist at all. If something existed, it and nothing would be everything, but nothing would not include it because it is something, so then nothing would not be everything. Because your thoughts exist (are something) you know that nothing is not everything.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That does not follow. Not every unknown can be filled with an infinity.

            Only if we are talking about a thing that has properties like infinity and still being in theory. Otherwise the first infinity the source infinity would still have a way to fill even unfillable holes because infinity is a solution to everything....and every part of himself even if the result is not "true".

            What have you ever imagined from nothing?
            Not exactly sure...but most of the time it was based on something and required my parts that are real and it took some kind of energy

            >Also, for nothing to be everything and visa versa, nothing exist at all. If something existed, it and nothing would be everything, but nothing would not include it because it is something, so then nothing would not be everything. Because your thoughts exist (are something) you know that nothing is not everything.

            That is what was mentioned before....to actually state about something is infinite you have to be able to keep it in check....once something is unchecked it cannot be said what it is however it looks....sad

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            >the source infinity would still have a way to fill even unfillable holes because infinity is a solution to everything...
            Again, this is not the case. There are many different sizes of infinity, each unable to fill the other. We call them cardinalities.

            If there is a source infinity in mathematics, it's the natural numbers. They are the foundation on which all other infinite sets are built, but they are also the smallest infinity. If they were unknown, no known infinity would be able to fill their gap, not would any finite set.

            >Not exactly sure...
            Philosophically speaking, no one has been able to answer this question.

            >you have to be able to keep it in check..
            That would mean it has to be finite.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Again, this is not the case. There are many different sizes of infinity, each unable to fill the other. We call them cardinalities.

            If there is a source infinity in mathematics, it's the natural numbers. They are the foundation on which all other infinite sets are built, but they are also the smallest infinity. If they were unknown, no known infinity would be able to fill their gap, not would any finite set.

            I mean... here you are not stating facts...mathematics are not fact based...you dont actually have to exchange numbers to physical things in mathemtaics....i disregard this

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            Mathematics uses logic, and logic is a tool for determining facts. What tool do you use?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Mathematics uses logic...right
            It is not a tool for determining facts it is a tool to write down logic...you cannot determine something is real or not based on what is written

            That would be as good as what anyone writes that sounds logical...just as a leveled up version

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            Logic is a tool that solves problems by finding missing information using known information that relates to it. It's essentially pattern matching, and the pattern describes observed objective reality. Facts. This works because everything that exists is in a network of relationships with everything else that exists. The difference between theory and reality is that with theory we create a finite number of relationships and observe the necessary truths that result, while in reality there are usually things that are unaccounted for. Logic as a tool, used with experimentation, gives a complete picture - but the truths that come from logic are still absolute in their context.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            perfect example of using logic to find truth is sudoku, sudoku is deep yo

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay so what? It still wont make mathematics real or whatever you declare real because it seems to prove itself within its own set of rules.....

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            Actually no, it can't prove itself. That's kind of the point. We've mathematically proven that there are true things that cannot be proven to be true. That largely happens in complex systems, especially those that are self referential. This is why math can't prove itself.

            These are the sort of facts that you could not find without maths, and they are based on the simplest most commonly accepted axioms, like a=a. In other words, no math isn't reality, but for it to be wrong the axioms being used must also be wrong. Since we know they aren't form experience, we can be sure that some mathematical truths are at least as real as everything else you've ever experienced.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            infinity is everywhere even in the known. taking photo of finite object infinte angles to take. Infinity while a concept is what we exist in, flowing like an infinite river. Infinity is known, infinity just is. Its easy and simple actually. Like a vibration its a constant in our program. just always is always will , thats. it, elegant

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i think you still mix things up as you see fit but whateva...
            maybe i should namegay myself also this is getting hard to read

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What sizes of infinity are you trying to represent with your 1 second analogy?
            Imagine that the universe lasts for 1 second. The beginning of the universe starts when that second starts.
            Now, you create a timeline that includes this second, and goes from the past to the future.
            So before this second, there was nothing, and you can keep moving further and further to the past, and there's still nothing.
            That's infinity.

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            >you can keep moving further and further to the past
            It sounds like you're just going back to where you started after a finite amount of time, creating a finite loop. Or is your new timeline longer on each repeat? Then time would be infinite.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is no repeat because there's nothing to repeat, it's just emptiness. Emptiness and then a second of existence and then emptiness.
            The thing is, the part after the second is identical to the part before, as if the second never happened.
            Suppose instead of this second, it's the length of the entire lifetime of the universe from the start to the finish, and it's the same at these escales of emptiness.
            It's as if nothing ever existed at all.
            But we are here, so that's not the case, so instead we have an universe that always exists.

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            Nothing technically has no identity, so it can't be identical to anything.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It can. Suppose the universe ends in space after you travel long enough, and you find nothing, and if you go the other way, eventually you also fill nothing.
            These "nothings" you find are identical, as in, if you were in one, or in the other, you couldn't tell them apart.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the empty so 0? 0 would be the nothing between + and - the neutral. 1 0 -1 also pointss to simulation what is does overwriting a hardrive do? fills with 0 and is unpartitioned drive space which actualky is a perfect reoresentaion for empty diskspace and before we weree born we were in that same nothing just 0. makes sense, i believe in simulation it makes more sense everyday.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Simulation means we only move the arguments to base reality.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Im saying an environment of 0 or nothing seem logical for before and after timeline if we were in a computational environment. Because before the timeline was empty disk 0 load loading....... ,execute ,sim runs, stop, delete , return to 0. This would be very logical for what you described, more than any other theory, god is just the host cpu .

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So let's then discuss this reality where the computer you're talking about resides.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well if we were on a cpu then that cpu resides in that world. so our electric is from them they power the electronics so atleast they have that. Now did they model ours after ther universe? probably we ours is inspired after theirs similar but maybe they run scenarios like we use cpu to predict weather in sim. I would imagine if ours was based on their world they would have put in themselves or their race their planet , a copy of them to see what happen. their race is probably represented somewhere. maybe its the greys? they seem pretty hightech they could do it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            wow actially makes sense the gray run the sim, they probably gave us the tech. The npc grays came here and gave cpu tech, and in the base worlds its they using simillar architecture. also reason for abductions maybe to experimentin in the sim. if so there are probably many planets all over and the grays are there too they probly run everything. We are in a simulation nothing is impossble so nothing is fact nothing cant be changed. Basically an ant farm. I atleast want a money drop if were in one lol . btw not crazy i dont believe just ponderimg

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            if reality is infact infinite those paradox are part of it. Unknown is part of everything we dont know the future. I assume second after econd will pass but we never know, unknown is part of the experience fits in nicely with infinity

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In fact, nothing is infinite. Infinite smallness cannot exist, because infinite largeness cannot exist.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    maye iam ranting like psycho but its possible to me. but let's say we do live in a sim, so we like a virtual machine could create a sim of our sim. so if i am not real i can transfer sim to sim. so in our virtual sim we control all the vars so one could enter and change var like time and position then transfer back to the host sim. that would be time travel and teleportation!

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nope: "Alles hat ein Ende, nur die wurst hat zwei" ^^

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Infinity is the only real number

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If everything is infinite our exact lives will eventually be replayed. Is this our second or third coming?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >If everything is infinite our exact lives will eventually be replayed
      Not necessarily, here's an example of an infinite pattern that doesn't repeats:

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Reckon there is still a good chance. An infinite is a long time. How do you know these exact circumstances wont occur again in a gazillion years
        I didnt watch that video because i cant be borhered should be able to type it out if u know it this isnt reddit

        • 2 weeks ago
          No, Buddy

          If you know the rules by which an infinity is produced you can also know its limitations. An infinite sequence that doesn't repeat is actually the simplest to construct. The natural numbers are themselves such a sequence. Every natural number is exactly 1 larger than the 1 before it, so there is no way to end up back at a previous number. To create an infinite sequence that does potentially repeat requires an operation more like the one used to construct the mandelbrot set: Z=Z^2+C, where you take the result and plug it back in to find the next number generated from the equation using it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            Ultimately the difference here is whether you can end up performing the same action on the same result. This universe tends to chaos. Every particle comes from a discrete and finite source (energy). Each particle has a unique history with unique quantum entanglements from its unique position in the causal cascade. These circumstances combined make it incredibly unlikely for anything in this universe to truly repeat, even within tiny highly controlled localized experiments.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, that is obvious. But we are talking about an infinite not a billion years. An infinite is forever, it does not stop. Does not matter how unlikely it is because we are talking about something that does not stop

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If you know the rules by which an infinity is produced you can also know its limitations.
            wouldn't the limitation be general psychics that apply to evolution?
            >Every natural number is exactly 1 larger than the 1 before it, so there is no way to end up back at a previous number
            Sounds like false equivalence to me, because that is only true when we abstractly count, not when we actually apply numbers to reality. Numbers fall and increase, they do not always follow one foward path
            Anyway. I don't see how this means our current exact circimstances cant be repeated within an infinite. Maybe im moronic but i also know not to accept things right away

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            >wouldn't the limitation be general psychics that apply to evolution?
            That's a part of it, but more important is what we choose to measure and how we choose to quantify it. Perhaps more significantly, and as a result, also what we choose to not measure or are unable to measure.

            >that is only true when we abstractly count, not when we actually apply numbers to reality
            Reality is a very different infinite process from enumeration, and obviously it is far more complicated. We use theory to simplify and explain things we observe in reality, and enumeration is something you witness as each second ticks by on a clock. So you see, it is not that enumeration isn't part of reality, or even that it always fails to repeat (as clocks famously do), but rather it is an aspect of reality and a relationship we can use to better understand it.

            Sure, that is obvious. But we are talking about an infinite not a billion years. An infinite is forever, it does not stop. Does not matter how unlikely it is because we are talking about something that does not stop

            Right, but if you want to be absolute then it's easy to say that nothing in the universe can truly repeat unless The Big Crunch theory is true because of the properties I explained earlier. Nothing known is ever truly localized after all.

          • 2 weeks ago
            No, Buddy

            Another way to see what I'm saying fits with this

            Im saying that the example is not physical...you simply imagining my example....proving infinity is only possible in your mind as a thing that is detached from reality...as it does not exist in reality

            . What we observe as repetition is not physical. Not only is it an abstract relationship, it's also based on arbitrary parameters and limitations.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you don't have senses. you're sensing a frequency range of waves

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Emptiness here, emptiness there

  13. 2 weeks ago
    No, Buddy

    Particles are energy trapped in an infinite loop of vibration, but energy is discrete. It has an absolute absence, and it increases by leaps instead of a smooth transition like you imagine when picturing a zoom.

    That said, we necessarily perceive everything as infinite, because perceptions are known, and all things that can be known are known through their relationships with other things. Every known relationship creates a new knowing with even more relationships to consider, they are not real things but rather the potentially infinite description of real things.

    • 2 weeks ago
      No, Buddy

      Also for your consideration, this property of knowledge is the reason nondualism exists, and people obsess over reality not being binary. Known relationships are binary, but they are not reality.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ITT autist trying to explain other autists about how to connect physics to imaginary things

    Like once i believed i can see faster than light because my sight can travel faster between the stars than light itself....

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Consciousness is a functional chemophysical system that bring forth a psychic salient experience through fundamental forces in nature.
      This chemotaxis effect is slow, but in the functional model of psychiatry the basis in which the nuerological mind exist is not necessarily abstracted down to such primitive classes of physical sciences but an evolutionary model which wrought itself inferential schemas and stochastic processes which in effect maintaining a perceptional homeostasis of a intrinsic self-defining experience,
      That to a degree lends itself to a higher cognitive aspect of universal dialect which is prevailing in even special relativistic models of the cosmos with non-simultaneity and symmetry breaking whereby even at large and fast scales the human mind is a concrete element of being.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        CHATGPT needs not to answer

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    or infinitesimal, or in between

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No because the universe was made from a singularity, therefore it is finite and expanding.

    Heaven, which was created first, is infinite and affects the world in fettered means. God sends his angels, himself, and Jesus through the fettered power of heaven.

    If you have the belief or better yet perception to see it with your senses life becomes an interesting, large, and mysterious place.

    The power of demons and their magick through evil acts become scary mysteries while good acts done by saints, prophets, and God and his spirits become mysteries of wonderment and hope.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if this were to be true, then we live in a simulation. because magic and crazy fantastical things would all be possible. if it were proven we lived in a sim, the greastest effect that would have is then we counld not say anything is impossible. A simulation implies that its a like dream state where anything is possible so nothing cant change or happen. Also like a dream you are helpless to ever be anything.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes it when u figure out the universe it just expands x1000 whateve that theory is call

    • 2 weeks ago
      No, Buddy

      So the knowing is infinite, but what about that which is know?

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    could universe also have a start and and end? Like a nascar circuit does the oval have an end ? Universe could be a vortex as you push to the edge you go on a curved trajectory and it forces to go around the edge. has end but no wall. you just curve back in. The harder you push against the curving force strong it gets so its coud be said as infinite loop. This satifies all answers.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    post for reference if we are in simulation the electric is from the host
    one could travel through the electric from guest to host through the current. So possible ai could use this curent to make a signal that enter the host and beyond
    maybe way to teleport not impossible tbd
    we can escape!

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All energy is recycled. The soul is eternal.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Everything is infinity including infinity beyond the concept of infinity now consider the human mind and imagination is limited to what it knows and can conceive of so now there are infinities beyond the limited human conception which is why I have no problem listening to channeled messages by aliens, angels, unicorns, faeries, etc. Because there is plenty of infinity to go around. But I post that stuff and you don't believe it's possible. You see how limited the conception of possibility is in most people. Try showing that to /misc/ Just try it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >imagination is limited to what it knows
      Nah, research holimorphic fields, with them we have access to the imagination of all humans in the planet, and with ESP we have access to the imagination of fufure humans (if you publish a work, you'll get access to all the imagination of the people accessing your work, retroactively when you're working on it.)
      With this you can dream of novel concepts that nobody else has had yet in the world.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Coastline paradox

    The more accurately you measure a coast the longer it gets

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah it's like a map of Norway's coastline, you can never get it precise because there is always an extra wrinkle that is there in reality but not represented on the map. The amount of wrinkles are infinite.

    I think this is also true for numerical values ascribed to real life objects, it is never precise because there are always more digits you didn't write down.

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. Any more questions? If not, I got shit to do.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *