I can debunk "Infinity" in less than 8 minutes

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


Nice try. Just so you know, oversimplifying things so that they make sense to our meager human intellect does not qualify as disproving anything. Arrogance never solves anything. You must ask yourself, who are we going to believe: scores of theoretical physicists and mathematicians, with oodles of proofs and peer-reviewed equations behind them, or you, with your arrogant bantering (with neither of the above in your favour btw)? You lose.

reply to post by Sly1one

Originally posted by Sly1one

ok change the hypothetical to help you get the point...you see a circle on the floor...where does it begin and where does it end? to answer that you HAVE to assume...OR make something up out of thin air...like starting and ending points.

Where does the universe start or end? no one knows and even the theories are all doing the same thing...assuming or making stuff up out of thin air.

pick any two points and within those points is an infinite distance. Does no one read Plato? or is he just some hack?

I can see how LINEAR infinity can be a simple illusion but a circular infinity is both finite and infinite...you can circle the globe infinitely but there is not an infinite amount of mass...In this analogy distance is infinite and mass is finite. I would imagine the universe to be similar. But maybe that's just because I see things in fractals..

edit on 13-12-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)

No I get the point, I just don't find any validity in your arguments.

You're looking at a circle through a 2d lens. Show me any 2d circle that wasn't at some point 'begun' (perhaps with a pencil) and 'ended.' There's no such thing. If I force myself to imagine a man drawing an infinite circle, one without a beginning and an end, I would be imagining absurdities.

I agree that if someone could live for an infinite amount of years and could infinitely trace their finger around a circle, they would do so forever. But nonetheless they'd be tracing their finger around a finite space, and hopefully during the arduous task they'd have time to contemplate their motive, and eventually figure out how ridiculous the thought is.

The edge of the circle is the 'beginning' and 'end.' A circle has a diameter. If something was infinite it wouldn't be a circle, it would have no boundary, let alone have a diameter.

You're assuming something could draw an infinite circle. I'm not the one assuming or making things up out of thin air here. Do you perhaps have a better example?


I spent almost a decade studying Plato.

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

Nice try. Just so you know, oversimplifying things so that they make sense to our meager human intellect does not qualify as disproving anything. Arrogance never solves anything. You must ask yourself, who are we going to believe: scores of theoretical physicists and mathematicians, with oodles of proofs and peer-reviewed equations behind them, or you, with your arrogant bantering (with neither of the above in your favour btw)? You lose.

Although I shouldn't, I feel compelled to respond to this, just because I'd love to hear your argument—which it seems is non-existent.

By the way, it's difficult to not laugh at someone who spouts moral superiority while acting like a jerk, and with nothing to back it up. I hope you got it out of your system.

I don't expect you to believe me, I expect you to believe what you're told, but I understand I'm not the religious authority you're looking for.

reply to post by NorEaster


If it cant exist. How can we exist?

If there is no physical infinite! were does our physical finite existence come from?

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but when it comes to this site, morals are irrelevant, only verifiable facts, of which you have none. If you want to hear the basis for my argument, all you have to do is pick up a few books on theoretical mathematics or even calculus from the local library. Also, I noticed that you brought up religion, which is also irrelevant. I really do not care what you think I "come off as." The fact of the matter is I am who I am and I am not going to change just because I offended someone on a forum. Capische?
P.S. Oh, and since it didn't sink in last time....you lose. Unless you have a better point to make than "because I said so!" Also, it's been well over 8 minutes and you're no closer to even having a solid thesis, let alone an educated argument for it. As for believing what I'm told....if you had read any of my previous posts in any other threads, you would know that that's the opposite of what I could be qualified as. Debunking for the sake of debunking is neither educational, nor is it rational. All it amounts to is a huge waste of time.

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

Yes. The amount of threads trying to "prove" things and debunk things is reaching the critical point. The worst part is that most, if not all of the things, aren't even debunkable/provable to begin with.

What about pi

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
What about pi

yea... lol ......Pie is so good I can eat it forever....

What about the Mandelbrot?

Or the infinite Fibonacci word?

Im ashamed, by the low quality of threads like this one.
Seriously, OP, your pathetic tentative of attention-grabbing "look at me, look at me, im debunking the infinite"
is ...well...you know...absurd..

Before trying to debunk something you apparently have no knowledge about, take a moment to think and question yourself "do i really understand my own thread ?"

Thank you for reading

reply to post by TheMindWar


Where is the start ? The end will be right next to it...

the fact that humans can understand the term "infinity" WITHOUT having to explain it, means that it exists, at least that is my interpretation of it.

Originally posted by dominicus

Where's your logic in art, in selflessness, in abstract conceptual thought, in a vast array of branches of existence. Logic itself will deduce that logic is limited. Let's not bring limited modes of thought to try and fathom and put limits on the unfathomable and unlimited. (Like bringing a squirt gun to an atomic war).

Art is literally the human mind's attempt to preserve its identity beyond the moment, and hopefully to enable it to survive the death of its material brain. This is the logical impetus behind all human expression, and especially artistic expression. Raw survival of self. This is also the basis of the biological imperative, only in that case, it is the body's DNA directives that are demanding identity survival by way of extending that identity's reach beyond the physical confines of the corporeal whole.

Selflessness is less obvious, but no less rooted in survival. In this case, it is survival of "kind", which is a survival dictate that is focused on the next higher holon level of identity - community. In some human minds, that next level is species. For some, it's focused even higher up the holon "tree" than that, with genus, or even known reality itself as the holon umbrella group whose survival is being preserved. The human mind is the "wild card" in these determinations, but even though the focus is open to a wide variety of specificities, the base impetus isn't. It's always "survival of kind" that drives all efforts.

That survival requirement is at the base of all logic within whichever realm one is operating within. It is the fundamental yes versus no of "does it work or doesn't it?". If it does work, and primordial survival is achieved (this can be as simple as a successful orbit, which allows an identified event trajectory to "survive" for an extended span of existence) then it will be allowed to happen again. If it doesn't work (it's hard to point to an example of this, since we exist so far along the success chain of logical "yeses") then it's never allowed on the "do this" list. It may reoccur from time to time, but if it failed once at the primordial level, then it'll always fail again.

We call this very simple "yes-no" survival enterprise LOGIC. We didn't invent logic. We just labeled it as soon as we realized that it exists and that we can take advantage of it - which we do, all the time.

Reality really isn't mysterious. It's just the rinse-repeat scaling of extremely simple requirements being met by whatever it takes to meet those requirements. When you start scaling this basic structure to the amazing levels that exist all around us, it can seem supernatural. But, it's really just a case of enormous scale, and how complex that sort of structure appears at that scale level.

Originally posted by jimmyx
the fact that humans can understand the term "infinity" WITHOUT having to explain it, means that it exists, at least that is my interpretation of it.

Magic is equally understood. So is Unicorn. I guess that I don't see the correlation between common terminology and the actual existence of what those terms refer to.

reply to post by windword


Your argument, in this case, is with Max Planck and his pesky quantum. Not with me.

Originally posted by DJMSN
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Well another video post...I must say at least you gave a somewhat enlighting description. I must say you can see infinity right here on ATS the neverending "Doom and Gloom" post and 2012 post over and over so me thinks you have failed because they will go on forever even after the end of the world with the never failing it was all a computer program "matrix" threads.

Debunking and teaching are two different efforts, and definitely two unrelated achievements. I realize that I didn't teach anyone anything with my little video. Most people "learn" only that what they already believed to be true is also believed to be true by someone else. Maybe even someone who's created a video that they can show someone else who is in a debate against them concerning this thing that they believe in. It's very rare that anyone shows up on ATS with no deeply held point of view that they are dying to share with others. I've seen it, but it's very rare.

Originally posted by AnonyWarp
Im ashamed, by the low quality of threads like this one.
Seriously, OP, your pathetic tentative of attention-grabbing "look at me, look at me, im debunking the infinite"
is ...well...you know...absurd..

Before trying to debunk something you apparently have no knowledge about, take a moment to think and question yourself "do i really understand my own thread ?"

Thank you for reading

I didn't read it.

2nd line

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
What about pi

What about it? Is pi infinite? No. Endless? Possibly, but not infinite.