Creation and Origin

[der Astronom]

Everything that has been spoken of, I already spooke it. Who spoke on physics? Me. Who states the word physics and pins against me? Others.
I have more then exemplified the problem with infinite, as any physicists know as well. String theory, among others, try to reach around the problem. I have shown this very, very well and have even provided demonstrations.

I am not going to listen to people practically telling me that all I am doing is telling people to 'shut up', as you call it, when my potency on physics have already been shown and have already acknowledged rebuttals before the fact.

There is, after all, a word for that.
You got it.

There you go again. This is a prime example of "shut up, that's why". Instead of responding adequately to any of our questions, rebuttals, or any of the fallacies we've pointed out, you've decided you're better than us, and that you don't need to answer any of our questions. That's effectively "shut up, that's why" because you still haven't answered any of our questions, you've still made fallacies, and your arguments are still flawed. Instead, you've decided we need to shut up about it, and for no good reason.

Thanks once again for killing the discussion.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

There you go again. This is a prime example of "shut up, that's why". Instead of responding adequately to any of our questions, rebuttals, or any of the fallacies we've pointed out, you've decided you're better than us, and that you don't need to answer any of our questions. That's effectively "shut up, that's why" because you still haven't answered any of our questions, you've still made fallacies, and your arguments are still flawed. Instead, you've decided we need to shut up about it, and for no good reason.

Thanks once again for killing the discussion.

Because I do not intend to keep repeating myself. I will just re-post everything prior before I keep wasting my time. You think I should keep jumping through these fabricated hoops, and that's simply not going to happen.

 

[coffeecup]

Whoa, this thread sure has progressed a bit since I last checked.

Well, I'll give a response from a philosophical perspective, since that's where OP is coming from with "reality" and "infinite." You don't seem to be talking about the version used in mathematics or science. In other words, when you refer to "reality" being infinite, you're talking about the infinity of something outside that which is described by physics. The use of infinity in physics and mathematics are used as tools for approximations and such (but there are a select few theories in physics, I believe, that do include infinity when you get to the sub-atomic level). But I'm just going to stick with your view of an "infinite reality."

Anyhow to get to the actual point, there is a bit of a problem with your argument that I see at first glance. And it is the contradictory nature in which you're using "infinite reality." In terms of philosophical application, "infinite reality" cannot be defined or understood. If you were to limit the analysis of "infinity" to one particular subject, then it's possible to talk about an isolated instance of "infinity." However since you expand infinity to "reality" itself, the best you can simply define this concept is to say that "infinite reality is the opposite of a finite reality." Thus by default, the concept of an "infinite reality" itself is supposedly inconceivable to the human mind (since our knowledge comes from relations which are all finite in nature). Any attempt at defining the concept itself would bring it under another (finite) limitation since any practical understanding is itself limited in scope in some manner or another once again. So any use in defining an "infinite reality" would be an attempt to make the inconceivable conceivable to the human mind. Which is plainly no longer the true nature of an "infinite reality." So your whole talk about defining an "infinite reality" is itself contradictory in its use of the concept itself. There is actually no way to intelligibly talk about an "infinite reality" (to reiterate, as defined from a philosophical standpoint). So to say things like we are "sentient" and "not sentient" would presume that the point of "sentience" itself is relevant to the idea of an "infinite reality," which is not necessarily true.

Now this does not mean that it cannot exist; rather it is simply something that cannot be understood by human thought. This also doesn't mean that our perception of reality itself cannot be finite, yet "reality" being infinite. Time itself can be finite, yet "reality" can be infinite. The universe can be finite, yet "reality" can also be infinite. And so on and so forth.

Of course there is no (readily) observable phenomena that are "infinite;" however, from a philosophical perspective this doesn't disprove the idea of an "infinite reality." Actually, as you've defined the concept, it is something that cannot be disproven or proven. Since science is irrelevant in understanding this concept (like you said it is limited in scope in terms of defining such things outside the scope of science itself, I think you used "nothing" as an example...if I remember correctly), using science against this type of philosophical argument isn't going to be dispositive.

Even if you omit the initial problem of truly understanding the inconceivable, the concept being contradictory isn't even necessarily relevant in discussing whether an infinite reality exists. You simply cannot use a finite measuring stick against "infinite reality." Reasoning itself is a finite form of argument or understanding. Even human understanding concerning everything itself is finite in nature. Everything that we know is "finite." So your method of dismissing an "infinite reality" is premature given the way you've defined the concept. (Remember this is a philosophical discussion. Scientifically an "infinite realy" is just speculative thought based on nothing empirical in nature. This is probably why we have the stand-off problem in this thread at the moment. Philosophers and Scientists do not mix very well.)

 

[CassinoChips]

Apologies to those who have done well in this topic, including the above post, but it has once again spiraled into a NO U argument.

THREAD CLOSED