I can debunk "Infinity" in less than 8 minutes

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by NorEaster

 

OK now that one really explains a lot. I suspected as much. So when is this great revelation happening again?
That's cool bro radical and I'm all for it.

edit on 19-12-2012 by JimTSpock because: add

It's happening right now. Right here. Like I said, this is a wake-up call. This will take years, but it's already begun.

Methinks you're in need of another definition:

sarcasm  

sar·casm [sahr-kaz-uh m]
noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

i]reply to post by NorEaster

this is a discussion about what's real and physically tangible.

As your only focusing your concept of infinity on physical matter/reality...

We all know that everything dies mountains rise or fall, etc.

So is your real point "everything dies in one way or another"?

Who doesn't know that?

The thing is, in your OP you didn't focus on just the physical.
you said:

but in the 2nd part of this video I really think that I soundly debunk the concept of Infinity - and thereby (throiugh direct logical inference) debunk all infinite stuff like the always existent God, the Universal Consciousness, infinite amounts of energy that cannot be created nor destroyed, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, infinite space/time/multi-universes, and whatever else is described as being infinite in nature.

Why the difference as the thread went on?

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
i]reply to post by NorEaster

 

this is a discussion about what's real and physically tangible.

As your only focusing your concept of infinity on physical matter/reality...

We all know that everything dies mountains rise or fall, etc.

So is your real point "everything dies in one way or another"?

Who doesn't know that?

The thing is, in your OP you didn't focus on just the physical.
you said:

but in the 2nd part of this video I really think that I soundly debunk the concept of Infinity - and thereby (throiugh direct logical inference) debunk all infinite stuff like the always existent God, the Universal Consciousness, infinite amounts of energy that cannot be created nor destroyed, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, infinite space/time/multi-universes, and whatever else is described as being infinite in nature.

Why the difference as the thread went on?

edit on 12/19/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

People honestly believe that "infinite stuff like the always existent God, the Universal Consciousness, infinite amounts of energy that cannot be created nor destroyed, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, infinite space/time/multi-universes, and whatever else is described as being infinite in nature" is physical - meaning that it can fully interact with everything else that we know to be physical. Like us, for instance.

And we all know this is how such "infinite" things are viewed because that belief is central to so many larger reality narratives, from the Big Bang theory to basic theology. But if physical infinity doesn't exist, then neither does that stuff. None of that stuff. Because nothing that is physical is infinite if infinity itself doesn't exist as a physical property.

TA DA, as they say. This IS the point of the entire thread, and that 2nd half of the video. Nothing's shifted here. Not in what I've been asserting anyway. There's been no difference as the thread has progressed. It's always been about physical reality and the impossibility of infinity's existence within physical reality.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by NorEaster

 

OK now that one really explains a lot. I suspected as much. So when is this great revelation happening again?
That's cool bro radical and I'm all for it.

edit on 19-12-2012 by JimTSpock because: add

It's happening right now. Right here. Like I said, this is a wake-up call. This will take years, but it's already begun.

Methinks you're in need of another definition:

sarcasm  

sar·casm [sahr-kaz-uh m]
noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

Hell, if I let him - or you, for that matter - bother me, I'd be finished before I started. He asked and I was honest with him. The information has been vetted and it's passed all challenges (all serious challenges). It's going to start making its way into the mainstream of intellectual discourse over the next several years, and I guess we'll see how it fares. I've got no predictions. I'm just going to do my part in getting it out there.

No shame in that.

reply to post by NorEaster


No shame in that. You da man bro.

Live long and prosper.

An interesting issue in respect to the paranormal is that scientist have never really invested time in investigating the source of information related to paranormal experiences. So far to date no serious investigation of indigenous cultures, no double blind test that actually relates to population.

Altogether, investigations relate to students working on there masters and access to the Internet.

Having been raised in part by indigenous people I can tell you that in fact you are wrong and based upon personal experience there is every reason to conclude that infinity can be personally experienced. While you are of course entitled to your opinion all things considered I am of the opinion that you really have no idea as to what you are talking about.

I mean honestly if one wants to claim something is not real why not investigate its origins???

Time for a music break....






Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
An interesting issue in respect to the paranormal is that scientist have never really invested time in investigating the source of information related to paranormal experiences.

I mean honestly if one wants to claim something is not real why not investigate its origins???

Science, being methodological naturalism, by definition, not only has nothing to say about the supernatural, it CANNOT say anything about something that can't be measured or observed. The best that we can do to debunk something is to show how it is done through natural means.

That's why I have a laugh when some chucklehead says that science will (or, even more hilariously, already did,) disprove God. Whether conveniently or not, God is set up as a supernatural being, so science has nothing to say about his existence or lack thereof.

As to why no one has scientifically studied whatever you're referring to, there are a lot of potential reasons, not the least of which is fear of belittlement -- peer review is rooted in the scientific method, so at point one has to open themselves up to other psychologists/physicists/whatever with an unorthodox study, and that's not an easy thing to do.

Why not do the studies yourself? A person doesn't need a PhD in order to conduct a study using the scientific method, and so long as you document what you do, and it's reproducible and done correctly, you might be able to prove something interesting.

reply to post by adjensen


Actually I testified with respect to a certain matter, the effect was a court record that documented events in the future, as a result of my testimony. This is one of the reasons why I do not take the standard model seriously.

I get involved in things that are complicated...

I was raised to understand indigenous ways.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by adjensen

 

Actually I testified with respect to a certain matter, the effect was a court record that documented events in the future, as a result of my testimony. This is one of the reasons why I do not take the standard model seriously.

I get involved in things that are complicated...

I was raised to understand indigenous ways.

Any thoughts?

I am in the unenviable position of being a skeptical theist -- I believe in God, but as far as the supernatural goes, I've never seen any evidence of it. My training as a scientist tends me towards disbelieving it, and I've yet to see anything to convince me otherwise -- everything that I've investigated has turned out to be either a misread or intentional misrepresentation of fact.

I do take the standard model seriously, because apart from some things that I attribute to God, whatever he works out to be, I've never seen anything reputable that diverges from it.

But your mileage may vary -- I'm glad that you're more open to such things, and have had the experiences that you have.

reply to post by NorEaster


I know what your getting at. I know that on a zoomed in scale reality looks totally different.
And there is no doubt that it will change.

But we humans need the a specific environment to survive in. We need the physical environment to be at a specific frequency to be able to receive the reality surrounding us. We are formed to register reality at a specific specter. And we are formed to be able to live in a specific environment.

A day will come when the environment surroundings us will change in such a state that we have no purpose in it.

Originally posted by Kashai

Having been raised in part by indigenous people I can tell you that in fact you are wrong and based upon personal experience there is every reason to conclude that infinity can be personally experienced. While you are of course entitled to your opinion all things considered I am of the opinion that you really have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Anything can be personally experienced. Experiencing something is not the same as actually encountering something. Besides, how can anyone who is finite - which is what we each are - experience infinity? You may be working with a much different definition of the word than I am. I certainly am not referring to anything that someone can experience. Just like you can't experience size. Not the comparative quality that is size. We're definitely not referring to the same thing.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I know what your getting at. I know that on a zoomed in scale reality looks totally different.
And there is no doubt that it will change.

But we humans need the a specific environment to survive in. We need the physical environment to be at a specific frequency to be able to receive the reality surrounding us. We are formed to register reality at a specific specter. And we are formed to be able to live in a specific environment.

A day will come when the environment surroundings us will change in such a state that we have no purpose in it.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

That "specific frequency" you speak of is what holds our reality confine together, and unites all that exists within it as relative in being state. I have taken to calling it the Unit Rate of Change (URC) but maybe a good term might be the Quantum of Now, since each unit represents the indivisible instant of "now" before being replaced by the next indivisible instant of "now" as one unit replaces the last at the very precise and unchangeable URC.

This won't ever change. It can't since this rate is held fast by the unit clusters of information that emerge at this same rate as an ongoing default result of each unit of "now" that has ever existed. Something happens/changes and the fact of that occurrence/change emerges as permanent information. This information exists as contextual precedence, and by defining what succeeds (the logical "yes") and what fails (the logical "no") information ultimately establishes the "natural law" that governs all successive instances of "now". The building composition of conflating and diminishing relationships between information wholes eventually initiates emergent systems that initiate their own subsets of governing principles that are subject - again - to building compositional conflations and contextual reconfigurations until their own inter-holon dynamics bring higher systems into emergent existence. And on and on it goes.

And through it all, the Unit Rate of Change - this "specific frequency" you refer to - remains the one constant that does not and cannot change. It is the common clock that we call progressive time, and it unites everything that comes together to create reality. Of course, there are other realities that each feature a unique and different Unit Rate of Change all their own, but that's another examination altogether. There may even be extremely temporary, and obviously startling, instances of realities that feature extremely similar URCs aligning in sync with one another for a very brief revelation of one to the other - even if only in the vaguest of manifestations - but that'd be speculation at best. Probably a good plot line for a Sci-Fi novel though. Maybe this is where the notion of alternate dimensions came from, but again, it's just speculation.

I think your 8 minutes is up...

Originally posted by BlueMule
I think your 8 minutes is up...

The video debunking lasted abut 8 minutes. But you already knew that and were just being clever. Like three other posters before you, between the two threads that feature that video were being clever.

Good one, though. First time I heard it....today.

reply to post by NorEaster


The only thing i can agree on at the moment is that the information from the beginning of finite existence and until the end of finite existence will never disappear.

All the action that have taken place within the finite existence will be stored within the infinite awareness. Because no information can ever disappear. Finite information can't escape because the infinite takes up all space.

We like to imagine that within the infinite there is no time present. But that is wrong, it does have time even though it is stationary. Its just that the time has no beginning or end: It just is time.

Actually the term unknown should replace the term finite origin. Also, if it is in the nature of the universe to be infinite that its origin was as well infinite is plausible. Commonly this is offered in relation to the Big Crunch as well as with regards to the Black Hole Era during the Big Freeze. As well consider that Multiverse theory was originally developed as a result of problems related in Chemistry not Physics.

Our Universe is essentially a bunch matter stretching anywhere between 40 to 180 light years wide. One can consider that in relation to the mass as a whole, space/time is warped around it. Further, there is not reason to consider that there is much more space/time, beyond the edge of the structure we often refer to as the Universe, as a whole.

NorEaster

Anything can be personally experienced. Experiencing something is not the same as actually encountering something. Besides, how can anyone who is finite - which is what we each are - experience infinity? You may be working with a much different definition of the word than I am. I certainly am not referring to anything that someone can experience. Just like you can't experience size. Not the comparative quality that is size. We're definitely not referring to the same thing.

Many view the NDE as the precursor to an afterlife experience, claiming that the NDE cannot be adequately explained by physiological or psychological causes, and that the phenomenon demonstrates that human consciousness can function independently of brain activity.[81] Many NDE-accounts seem to include elements which, according to several theorists, can only be explained by an out-of-body consciousness. Michael Sabom reports a woman who underwent surgery for an aneurysm, and who reported an out-of-body experience that she claimed continued through a brief period of the absence of any EEG activity. [82][82] In another account, from a prospective Dutch NDE study,[17] a nurse removed the dentures of an unconscious heart attack victim, and was identified by him as the one who removed them, although patient was in a coma and undergoing cardio-pulmonary resuscitation at the time.

en.wikipedia.org...

Under the Search "Clinical research and Near Death Experience there are many more links. The problem is that 3 to 4 minutes after the heart stops, there is no real brain activity that can account for these experiences. Beyond the apparent religious experiences of these patients they are able to remember events that clinically, it was impossible for them to experience. Events like conversation between ambulance drivers about a football game or specifics about the conditions of other patients in the emergency room. This from a heart attack victim, who had been picked up 7 minutes after his or her heart attack at home.

Given human as actually finite that would be impossible but it is not.

Any thoughts?

infinity is just something we imagine, it's a concept we use for things we don't yet understand.
According to Simplicius, Diogenes the Cynic said nothing upon hearing Zeno's arguments, but stood up and walked, in order to demonstrate the falsity of Zeno's conclusions

If I had been there I would have punched Zeno in the face and and asked how it came to be that my fist was able to break his nose..
from wikki, with some creative editing:
Suppose my fist will hit him, before it can get there, it must get halfway there. Before it can get halfway there, it must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, it must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.

But Zeno knew, he was just questioning the way we reason.
Zeno was a good little troll,

Infinity in Math: Never liked it and nor do the scientists.
Suppose you devide 1 in 3, you'll get 3 times 0.33333333333333333 and (so called infinite 3's)
add it up again and you get 0.99999999999999999.....
so we might say that it's actually 1 again. this, based on intuition tells me that those 'infinities' really do not exist.

divide 1 by zero:
Never understood that: result not possiible, as stated in red in most of my tests 30 years ago.
My intuition says: if you dont't devide the result will be the thing you started with.
"zero", "nothing". This was a translation of the Sanskrit word shoonya (śūnya), meaning "empty". The first known English use was in 1598

Just my opinion that math is fundmentally flawed, so we get so called infinities.

What about space?
Well, space is finite, imagin the atom, electron, whatever part is most seperated from us since the big bang, that's where space ends.
the word infinate is meaningless, there is no way you can show it to me, present it as a whole.

Infinity: sometimes used by people who want us to react like sheep (religion)
Infinity: Caused by flawed math.
infinate worlds: well ok, but there not infinate because all of the possibillities haven't happend yet
infinate money, kind of a joke, would you be happy? would you be able to get anyting on your bankaccount?

Flag and stars for NorEaster

Math is not flawed it shows that Infinifty is a part of nature, get over it....


Any thoughts?

Then of course there is the issue of cause in relation to Inflation.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by NorEaster


oh your thread is ironic. well done, perhaps others did not see the connection? The number 8 is the symbol for infinity.

s & f from me.