As demonstrated in all of the politics and religion sites, people always much prefer the simple minded, “black or white” mentality and defend it relentlessly, regardless of all reason. They love to be on a supportive side. It makes them feel much more secure and have the courage to struggle through their imaginary life.
Even nothing exists, in your imagination like all things.
How could you talk about it otherwise?
Your imagination exists. What it is that you imagine is a totally different story.
Your dreams exist. What it is that you dream to be real, is merely a dream/fantasy.
this argument is retarded. 1/infin is not absolute zero, it only approaches it. slapping a label of ‘absolute zero cuz my pro-fes-so sez so’ doesnt actually make it absolute zero.
second thing laughably retarded about this is u liken the universe to a random number generator, then you say a force is needed to cancel out the random numbers.
utterly retarded, since the random number generator is caused by a force in the first place, and if u know anything about computing is random generators have to be built into the machine, using strings of numbers, and or multiplied by the date and time, all of which are forces. so it would actually be less “force” if the numbers were homogenous and not randomized, so terrible example to base your demonstration on.
No offense, but your refutation seems a bit “retarded” considering;
1 infinitesimal ≡ (1/infA)
There is nothing saying that 1/InfA is exactly/absolute zero.
Wasn’t that kind of obvious from the OP? Wouldn’t one have to be kind of “retarded” to miss that?
And also:
The only time that I talk about absolute zero is when I end up with the lowest possible number raised to a power (“(1/AbsInf)^(Absinf^12)”), which automatically brings it to less than the lowest possible … or “absolute zero”.
Emm … no.
Firstly I am not likening the universe to a random number generator, at all, rather I am computing a possibility. I never said that the universe randomly provides whatever. I am calculating the absolute possibility of anything existing regardless of from where it might have come.
This argument is independent of the issue of any cause of the universe.
Regardless of any kind of causal agent, it is mathematically impossible for the universe to become, or to ever have been, pure nothingness.
Nonsensicalness. All of it is experience which is brain chemistry. Blue exists. Dragons exist. Both exist in your mind, not out of it.
If you say colors exist, then you have to conclude nothing exists as well. It is only admitting that your brain is real, nothing more complicitated than that and let alone nothing cosmographical or such.
Look.
“Nothing”.
“Something”.
Can you experience the similarness?
All of that would depend on your definition of “existence”. But has nothing to do with this OP.
Oh.
Your quote
Of course youll scramble to twist your words and that this has nothing to do with absolute zero.
Next thing that’s retarded. Are you aware of a concept of white noise? Absolute randomness, would be nothingness, in the sense of lack of conscious awareness. Your equations are shams.
Are you having trouble reading?
Your point? You devoted a whole paragraph to it in a small 5-6 paragraph essay. And now you’re claiming its irrelevant to your equations.
The point is that you have been falsely accusing me.
1) You implied that I said that 1/infA = absolute zero. I did not ever imply that. In fact, I expressly showed it not to be.
2) You claimed that I was likening the universe to a random number generator. I was not. I explained that I was merely calculating the possibility of the universe ever being in one particular state regardless of how it might get there.
3) You are now making claims that I am making some sham apparently because you can’t follow fairly trivial logic and math.
The very end result is that there is less than the lowest possible number of a chance for the universe to be at a state of nothingness. I call that being at “absolute zero”.
It isn’t a word game. It is pretty simple logic and math.
Nonsense. Rubbish, and bollox.
I simplified your equation for you. Saying 1/(inf^inf^inf) is no different than your equation, is no different than 1/inf)
its made up babble since the universe does not even contain an infinite amount of stuff.
your entire argument is predicated on sand. the tower of babble
My argument is independent of that erroneous thought. But for you to use it as contradiction, you really need to be able to prove what you just claimed. I, very seriously, doubt that you can do that (although it still wouldn’t be relevant to my OP argument).
Right, I will take my microscope, scoop up every bit of stardust in the universe, and then you’ll say “But maybe you missed a spot.”
I’m afraid that I am going to have to agree with Phyllo on this;
I am so hurt James. With this post, you have elevated your piles of crap above mine, and will forever be known as a living legend, sounded in the halls of ilpturds.com, for aeons.
With this post, you have single-handedly doomed me to a life of obscurity, and mediocrity, for many years. Well played sir, well played.
I think that you need to define what you mean by nothingness.
Do you believe that empty space is nothingness?
I personally believe that space is full and matter is empty.
The universe is apparently 4% matter and 96% emptiness or space.
If E=MC squared, then emptiness and space are made of the same stuff.
I would call this stuff aether.
…the complete lack of any form of substance or differentiation, 100% homogeneity.
I know that it isn’t. That’s the whole point to the OP.
Unless you have a strange definition of “empty”, matter cannot be empty.
It is around 4% highly concentrated affectance and 96% very lowly concentrated affectance.
That’s true.
I call it Affectance. Aether was defined much earlier and in very slightly the wrong way. Due to that misunderstanding of what it had to be, Science turned against the existence of it completely. The Aether theory was actually very close to being exactly right … except they mis-defined what aether is.
On the other hand, there is no alternative to the existence of Affectance.
Affectance is what “aether” was supposed to be.