Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I can debunk "Infinity" in less than 8 minutes

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
reply to post by NorEaster
 


This thread is hogwash! HOGWASH I tell you! Just go to your closet, look under the couple of decades worth of shoes and old single socks, pull out that grey and black cube labled Nintendo Entertainment System, find your old copy of Contra, blow on it real good, probably blow on it again just for good measure, put it into the Nintendo Entertainment System, Press the power button, at the startup screen press: up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, start.......... BOOOM!! Your debunking of infinite has just been debunked!

MOTF!


I have no idea what you think you just accomplished with this. Seriously. Maybe you have some brilliant point that you honestly believe your odd statement made, but it as certainly lost on your audience if I was your audience.




posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnorantSquare
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Nothing personal, but human stupidity is and always will be infinite


Eternal, but not infinite. There's a difference. Eternal means that once existent, it will always be existent. Infinite means that it has always been existent, and required no initial emergence. We both know that it takes a human to emerge before that human can be stupid. Of course, from then on, it can certainly be eternally stupid.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by IgnorantSquare
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Nothing personal, but human stupidity is and always will be infinite


Eternal, but not infinite. There's a difference. Eternal means that once existent, it will always be existent. Infinite means that it has always been existent, and required no initial emergence. We both know that it takes a human to emerge before that human can be stupid. Of course, from then on, it can certainly be eternally stupid.


Yep, that's your error -- you have those two terms mixed up.


e·ter·nal (ih-tur-nl)
adjective
1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing ( opposed to temporal ): eternal life.
2. perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3. enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4. Metaphysics . existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.



in·fi·nite (in-fuh-nit)
adjective
1. immeasurably great: an infinite capacity for forgiveness.
2. indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money.
3. unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space.
4. unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: God's infinite mercy.
5. Mathematics .
a. not finite.
b. (of a set) having elements that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset that is not the given set.


(Definitions from dictionary.com)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShaeTheShaman
you really just tried to debunk infinity??? im done with this site... bye


lmao

Yeah.... how high can you count? I'll wait...



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Energy is not infinite, there by it can be created and destroyed.

The only true infinite is the absolute neutral state.


That's difficult to determine since any absolute state can't be accessed by that which exists as relative in being state - which is what we humans exist as. An absolute anything isn't physical, since it cannot possess relative identity (identity that delineates it as being existent relative to that which is NOT it). Conceptually, any impossible thing can be suggested, but we're dealing with what is real and independent of translation or interpretation by human intellect.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I don't debate semantics. As your own post illustrates, there are several definitions for each, and I establish exactly the definition of infinity within my video presentation. Semantics is a dead end and I don't waste my time on dead ends.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


How long has something existed?

how long will something exist?

How many things can something be?

how many somethings are there?

dug the second song.... the guitar was sweet
.... you use reverb? slight delay? tone sounded nice
edit on 13-12-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

None of this, of course, has any bearing on God -- as a supernatural object, proofs or refutations of natural laws and characteristics brings no conclusion to the table about God. Science, intentionally, is only regarding the natural world -- it not only has nothing to say about the supernatural, by design, it cannot say anything about the supernatural.


This, of course, carries over to religion and all speculations made by man.
edit on 13-12-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by adjensen
 


I don't debate semantics. As your own post illustrates, there are several definitions for each, and I establish exactly the definition of infinity within my video presentation. Semantics is a dead end and I don't waste my time on dead ends.


Seriously? You've been shown that you're wrong, you've been shown HOW you're wrong, and you don't want to hear it? So much for your quest for truth, I guess.

It is not a matter of semantics -- you simply don't know what infinite and eternal mean. Without beginning or end is to be eternal, not infinite, and eternal is not a concept that one can apply to quantum physics, or anything in the physical world, for that matter.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Im surprised your still at it OP, thinking you got it all figured out, what reality is.

Some of the greatest minds in the world also thought they had it all figured out hundreds of years ago, then comes along a new branch of science requiring everyone to rethink it all.

Same with quantum physics. Any day a new branch of thought can come out and nullify all your stuff.

Its all concepts and ideas, none of which is the same as reality itself.
" The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao"

Your seeing/experiencing a tiny fragment of reality with a very limited mind using limited logic and reason in a realm that is beyond it all, being yourself a grain of sand with universes revolving above your head and have created the illusion that you have it all figured out.

I read your material and meh........ regurgitated ideas. Unless you get a phd and get published in some prominent journals, all your material will get buried amongst the vast earth libraries of knowledge, never to be thought of again, after your physical avatar vessel passes away.

Cheers for trying though!



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShaeTheShaman
you really just tried to debunk infinity??? im done with this site... bye


Infinity ain't that simple and to this very day great minds are pondering the question...

With other words... you have no idea what you are leaving behind....

Anyways, ...bye..



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
It is not a matter of semantics -- you simply don't know what infinite and eternal mean. Without beginning or end is to be eternal, not infinite, and eternal is not a concept that one can apply to quantum physics, or anything in the physical world, for that matter.


While I also agree that there is some erroneous thinking going on with the defining of Eternal and Infinite, which is also distracting from the argument at hand, I think that your statement of: "eternal is not a concept that one can apply to quantum physics, or anything in the physical world, for that matter." is also the same argument that NorEaster is putting forward. His claim is that there is NOT a physical infinity and that it is ONLY conceptual.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm

Not sure if I totally agree with what you're saying here, but then again I'm not sure I completely understand what it is you're saying either. So let's keep digging into this one.

It seems like using a contextual relationship between Finite and Infinite is impossible other than to say they are opposing concepts that must exist exclusively from one another so as to define each other. Their exclusivity would then satisfy your argument of their non-interaction with one another, however it would still require their Being to also be present only what defines "Being" would have to be discussed possibly. I'm not sure if you can say that anythings "Being" is quantifiable either as an absolute. Reality as we know it is in a state of Being yet that state is ever Changing so it's state of absoluteness is not the same from moment to moment.


I am not suggesting that both the infinite and finite exist as relative to one another - even though permanently incompatible. You're misinterpreting my suggesting that if there was such a thing as an infinite anything, its being state would have to be inherently absolute. I've already stated that infinity does not exist. This entire thread is based on that statement. There is no such thing as an identifiable "something" that exists as absolute, and I thought I presented one good reason why this is true. It can't be delineated as existent if it is absolute - thereby having no borders, boundaries, or relative relationship with that which is NOT it.


On a side note, I don't think that this would effect most religious ideals anyway since most claim that their God of choice is also beyond our finite limitations. Therefore once again, as they would probably claim, it is only because our limited ability and our finite awareness that we are unable to comprehend what an Infinite Being would be. Christianity in fact claims both actually, in that their God is both Infinite and Finite even within it's own scripture by saying that God is both "Alpha and Omega" beginging and end (Finite) as well as Omi-everything (Infinite). Breaking through that kind of thinking once it is accepted as truth, is practically invincible to any kind of argument.


It's still impossible, regardless of whether it is embraced as a tenet of someone's faith. Finite is not a limitation. It is the basis of actual definable existence, and this is where the whole infinity meme breaks down completely. If something - let's say God - exists as infinite in nature, then there is literally nothing that isn't God. And I mean nothing. There's no beginning and no end to the literal wholeness of this being, and the ramifications of this are staggering for the actual existence of this God being. Let me see if I can sketch it out for you.

Even the culmination or collection of everything exists relative to that contextual relationship it has with what it's not. Not that it'd be easy to identify (that which it's not) but for that collective to actually exist, it would require a full and inimitable identity, and that identity could only be achieved if that collective could be fully separated from what contains it - contextually speaking. That relative relationship between "it" and "not it" is what we call reality, and there is no such relationship between an absolute (in the most holistic sense, which is what an infinite God being would necessarily have to be) and anything that isn't it, because there isn't anything that isn't it. In essence, the infinite God being is incapable of achieving actual identity, which is the primordial essence of existence. In short, if it is actually infinite (existing as absolute) then it's this infiniteness that denies it actual existence.

Did that help any?



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by spy66
Energy is not infinite, there by it can be created and destroyed.

The only true infinite is the absolute neutral state.


That's difficult to determine since any absolute state can't be accessed by that which exists as relative in being state - which is what we humans exist as. An absolute anything isn't physical, since it cannot possess relative identity (identity that delineates it as being existent relative to that which is NOT it). Conceptually, any impossible thing can be suggested, but we're dealing with what is real and independent of translation or interpretation by human intellect.


A absolute neutral state is just as physical as nothingness. They are the same thing.

If our existence came out of nothing: do you think that "nothingness" just disappeared?

No, nothingness is just as physical as our existence. Its just that we have no way of observing it. We can only observe our existing universe because we exist smack in the middle of it, and can only observe outwards.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   


/ end thread


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I believe its been over 8 minutes since the thread was started.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by spy66
Energy is not infinite, there by it can be created and destroyed.

The only true infinite is the absolute neutral state.


That's difficult to determine since any absolute state can't be accessed by that which exists as relative in being state - which is what we humans exist as. An absolute anything isn't physical, since it cannot possess relative identity (identity that delineates it as being existent relative to that which is NOT it). Conceptually, any impossible thing can be suggested, but we're dealing with what is real and independent of translation or interpretation by human intellect.


A absolute neutral state is just as physical as nothingness. They are the same thing.

If our existence came out of nothing: do you think that "nothingness" just disappeared?

No, nothingness is just as physical as our existence. Its just that we have no way of observing it. We can only observe our existing universe because we exist smack in the middle of it, and can only observe outwards.



Nothing is a defined "something" in that it is an actual absence of anything. This suggests that it exists as identified as existing relative to what isn't it or the potential for what isn't it to emerge as existent. The absolute has no possible existent "not it" that can ever emerge. It has no existential definition whatsoever. It can't exist.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by interupt42
I believe its been over 8 minutes since the thread was started.


Debunking it and convincing every living person that it's been debunked at two extremely different achievements.

But you knew that already....didn't you.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 




There is no such thing as an identifiable "something" that exists as absolute

Except for the above quote.



If something - let's say God - exists as infinite in nature, then there is literally nothing that isn't God. And I mean nothing. There's no beginning and no end to the literal wholeness of this being, and the ramifications of this are staggering for the actual existence of this God being.

Cool..... then everything is God.

Keep in mind all your rules of science, logic, reason, and all the points you use to support your premise on, may only be possible in this Universe, where it just may be that we are operating under various limits and illusions. However, Universes next door may have Beings in them, all of which whom, directly experience and know of the Infinite Absolute Beingness which superimposes all reality.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
There's no real point in debunking concepts of infinity. Infinity can never be conceptualized, so who cares if the evolving concepts and theories get scrutinized.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join