Infinity is real

[bahman]

If nothingness is not a factor in motion, how would you say that anything moves? Two particles can't occupy the same location, can they? So if it's all just solid particles, how would anything move? (Hence Parmenides' ontology.)

Space is still there when something moves.

The notion that space exists as something "in itself" is incoherent.

It is not.

[Terrapin Station]

Space is still there when something moves.

The notion that space exists as something "in itself" is incoherent.

It is not.

The idea of an existent that isn't matter/relations of matter/processes of matter is incoherent.

[bahman]

The notion that space exists as something "in itself" is incoherent.

It is not.

The idea of an existent that isn't matter/relations of matter/processes of matter is incoherent.

Space has properties. Therefore, it is a substance. Therefore, it exists on its own.

[Terrapin Station]

It is not.

The idea of an existent that isn't matter/relations of matter/processes of matter is incoherent.

Space has properties. Therefore, it is a substance. Therefore, it exists on its own.

Is it a substance in the sense of being matter?

[bahman]

The idea of an existent that isn't matter/relations of matter/processes of matter is incoherent.

Space has properties. Therefore, it is a substance. Therefore, it exists on its own.

Is it a substance in the sense of being matter?

It exists as matter exists. It allows that information to pass by between two particles for example. The spread of information is however at most is by the speed of light. This is one of the properties of space.

[Age]

I much prefer to just LOOK AT and SEE what is just ACTUALLY REAL and Right.

Then go look beyond the observable universe.

Well that is one VERY TRULY ABSURD thing to say and suggest.

There's a fucking reason it's called that.

Send us some photos when you get there.

[Age]

I am that assuming that the whole is finite for sake of argument. This leads to the existence of a boundary that could be finite or infinite. Etc. In the end, I show that the whole is infinite.

Your first mistake here is ASSUMING ANY thing.

No.

"No", in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

And, WHY do you write in riddles so often?

An ASSUMPTION does NOT suffice for an ACTUAL true premise.

ASSUMING will NEVER suffice in PROVING ANY ACTUAL 'thing'.

The end might, coincidentally, show some 'thing', which just happens to be True, Right, or Correct, but by ASSUMING that does NOT necessarily mean that that 'thing' is True, Right, nor Correct. For that, ACTUAL PROOF is NEEDED. ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT PROOF.

By the way, the 'whole' includes absolutely every thing, which happens to include the 'boundary'as well.

LOOK, the whole is infinite, the fence his is ALREADY KNOWN. Full stop.

And there is NO one who could refute this FACT, anyway.

You believe that the universe is infinite.

WHY would you write something like this?

Especially considering how obviously UNTRUE it is?

Do you have any proof for it?

If you are asking here, if I have proof that the Universe is infinite, then my answer is YES.

[Age]

No. I am describing reality.

Are you describing 'reality', from your perspective, or describing thee 'Reality' Itself?

The reality itself.

Okay. Could you be wrong at all?

And, what are you basing your perspective on and off from, EXACTLY?

Real means actually existing.

Actually existing 'when', EXACTLY.

The one that has existed since beginning and will exist forever.

'What' and/or 'who' is that 'one', EXACTLY?

That is not correct. Please read the following comment.


Well, if the whole is boundless then unicorns for sure exist. What else can exist? Anything that you could possibly imagine: Dragon, Dracula, etc.

What do you mean by 'exist' here, EXAXTLY?

To live, to have reality, etc.

So, do 'unicorns', 'dragons', and 'draculas' live and have reality as real living things, or, just live and have reality in imagination only?

[bahman]

Your first mistake here is ASSUMING ANY thing.

No.

"No", in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

No, in relation to the fact that for proving that the whole is infinite I need to assume otherwise and show that this leads to a problem, the existence of the boundary.

And, WHY do you write in riddles so often?

I am not writing in riddles.

An ASSUMPTION does NOT suffice for an ACTUAL true premise.

ASSUMING will NEVER suffice in PROVING ANY ACTUAL 'thing'.

The end might, coincidentally, show some 'thing', which just happens to be True, Right, or Correct, but by ASSUMING that does NOT necessarily mean that that 'thing' is True, Right, nor Correct. For that, ACTUAL PROOF is NEEDED. ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT PROOF.

By the way, the 'whole' includes absolutely every thing, which happens to include the 'boundary'as well.

LOOK, the whole is infinite, the fence his is ALREADY KNOWN. Full stop.

And there is NO one who could refute this FACT, anyway.

You believe that the universe is infinite.

WHY would you write something like this?

Because I read that you think that the universe is infinite.

Especially considering how obviously UNTRUE it is?

It is untrue? Then why you say below that you have proof for it.

Do you have any proof for it?

If you are asking here, if I have proof that the Universe is infinite, then my answer is YES.

What is your proof?

[bahman]

Are you describing 'reality', from your perspective, or describing thee 'Reality' Itself?

The reality itself.

Okay. Could you be wrong at all?

No.

And, what are you basing your perspective on and off from, EXACTLY?

I am arguing that the whole is boundless.

Actually existing 'when', EXACTLY.

The one that has existed since beginning and will exist forever.

'What' and/or 'who' is that 'one', EXACTLY?

Minds.

What do you mean by 'exist' here, EXAXTLY?

To live, to have reality, etc.

So, do 'unicorns', 'dragons', and 'draculas' live and have reality as real living things, or, just live and have reality in imagination only?

They live and have reality.

[Age]

No.

"No", in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

No, in relation to the fact that for proving that the whole is infinite I need to assume otherwise and show that this leads to a problem, the existence of the boundary.

All sounds very unnecessary and unnecessarily complex.

But each to their own.

And, WHY do you write in riddles so often?

I am not writing in riddles.

Is this an irrefutable absolute truth, or just from your perspective only?

You believe that the universe is infinite.

WHY would you write something like this?

Because I read that you think that the universe is infinite.

LOL So, you read that I 'think' something, but then you tell me that I 'believe' something.

These are two VERY different things.

Especially considering how obviously UNTRUE it is?

It is untrue? Then why you say below that you have proof for it.

What I have proof for has absolutely NO bearing on what I believe or not.

But I do LOOK AT and SEE the 'believe' word VERY DIFFERENTLY than you adult human beings do, in the days of when this was written.

Do you have any proof for it?

If you are asking here, if I have proof that the Universe is infinite, then my answer is YES.

What is your proof?

There is NO 'my' proof.

What ACTUALLY exists is thee proof.

If 'you', human beings agree with and accept that EVERY 'thing' was caused by some 'thing', then that is thee ACTUAL proof thee Universe is 'eternal', and, if 'you', human beings agree with and accept that thee Universe can NOT be bounded, then that is thee ACTUAL proof thee Universe is 'infinite'.

Now, if ANY disagrees with either of these, then EXPLAIN HOW some 'thing' can be caused by NO 'thing' and/or HOW there could be a boundary.

If there is NO logical explanation for HOW either could be, then there is "your" logical proof that thee Universe is 'infinite' AND 'eternal'.

As for empirical proof, we can LOOK AT and DISCUSS this later.

[Age]

The reality itself.

Okay. Could you be wrong at all?

No.

WHY are 'you' so SURE of "yourself" here?

Being SO SURE of "yourselves" is WHY 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is written, are so SLOW and CLOSED in discovering, learning, and understanding more and new things.

And, what are you basing your perspective on and off from, EXACTLY?

I am arguing that the whole is boundless.

You can argue till the day you cannot anymore. But without proof your arguments are, literally, NOTHING AT ALL.

If you cannot or will NOT tell us what you are basing your arguments off EXACTLY, then what you are saying is not really worth listening to.

The one that has existed since beginning and will exist forever.

'What' and/or 'who' is that 'one', EXACTLY?

Minds.

So, to you, the 'one' is really 'many', correct?

To live, to have reality, etc.

So, do 'unicorns', 'dragons', and 'draculas' live and have reality as real living things, or, just live and have reality in imagination only?

They live and have reality.

AGAIN, as real living things, or, just in imagination only?

Could you REALLY NOT SEE what I was asking here?

[bahman]

"No", in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

No, in relation to the fact that for proving that the whole is infinite I need to assume otherwise and show that this leads to a problem, the existence of the boundary.

All sounds very unnecessary and unnecessarily complex.

But each to their own.

All are necessary and simple.

And, WHY do you write in riddles so often?

I am not writing in riddles.

Is this an irrefutable absolute truth, or just from your perspective only?

It is the absolute truth.

WHY would you write something like this?

Because I read that you think that the universe is infinite.

LOL So, you read that I 'think' something, but then you tell me that I 'believe' something.

These are two VERY different things.

I know. I should have said think instead of believe in the first place.

Especially considering how obviously UNTRUE it is?

It is untrue? Then why you say below that you have proof for it.

What I have proof for has absolutely NO bearing on what I believe or not.

But I do LOOK AT and SEE the 'believe' word VERY DIFFERENTLY than you adult human beings do, in the days of when this was written.

Ok.

If you are asking here, if I have proof that the Universe is infinite, then my answer is YES.

What is your proof?

There is NO 'my' proof.

What ACTUALLY exists is thee proof.

If 'you', human beings agree with and accept that EVERY 'thing' was caused by some 'thing', then that is thee ACTUAL proof thee Universe is 'eternal', and, if 'you', human beings agree with and accept that thee Universe can NOT be bounded, then that is thee ACTUAL proof thee Universe is 'infinite'.

Now, if ANY disagrees with either of these, then EXPLAIN HOW some 'thing' can be caused by NO 'thing' and/or HOW there could be a boundary.

If there is NO logical explanation for HOW either could be, then there is "your" logical proof that thee Universe is 'infinite' AND 'eternal'.

As for empirical proof, we can LOOK AT and DISCUSS this later.

The universe has a beginning. So you are wrong in your belief that it is eternal. For the second case, infinite universe, why do you think that the universe cannot be bounded?

[bahman]

Okay. Could you be wrong at all?

No.

WHY are 'you' so SURE of "yourself" here?

Because I have a solid argument for it.

Being SO SURE of "yourselves" is WHY 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is written, are so SLOW and CLOSED in discovering, learning, and understanding more and new things.

Yes, including yourself that think that the universe is eternal.

And, what are you basing your perspective on and off from, EXACTLY?

I am arguing that the whole is boundless.

You can argue till the day you cannot anymore. But without proof your arguments are, literally, NOTHING AT ALL.

If you cannot or will NOT tell us what you are basing your arguments off EXACTLY, then what you are saying is not really worth listening to.

The proof is there.

'What' and/or 'who' is that 'one', EXACTLY?

Minds.

So, to you, the 'one' is really 'many', correct?

So, do 'unicorns', 'dragons', and 'draculas' live and have reality as real living things, or, just live and have reality in imagination only?

They live and have reality.

AGAIN, as real living things, or, just in imagination only?

Could you REALLY NOT SEE what I was asking here?

I see what you are asking. And yes, they are living beings.

[Terrapin Station]

Space has properties. Therefore, it is a substance. Therefore, it exists on its own.

Is it a substance in the sense of being matter?

It exists as matter exists.

Without being matter?