The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - Ever

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.

How do you know that nothingness is %100 homogeneous?

If matter isn’t empty, then , why is space trying its hardest to get into it (gravity)?

You have just added another name to aether. I will have to add it to my growing list. Dark matter, dark energy, virtual photon, Higgs boson, up quark, down quark, space time continuum, strange quarks, charm quarks, muons, neutrinos, tauon, bottom quark, top quark, weakons, Klingons and now introducing the ‘affectance’.

Aether is like soap powder.People keep repackaging it with hyperbole and dubious science.

That seems like kind of a silly question. If there was any variation, that variation wouldn’t be “nothing”.

I could understand you asking why other mass is “trying to get into matter”, but what makes you think that space is trying to “get into matter”?

No. I have named what is actually there. The word “Aether” is not referring to the same thing that I am talking about. Affectance is much like what they defined as aether, but they are not actually the same thing. I didn’t call it aether for a reason. When they defined aether, they made a mistake … the same mistake that your buddy Robert Distinti is making. Affectance is NOT a “medium” that objects float through.

So, are you saying that empty space has nothing in it?

Space is pushing you down towards the centre of the Earth, that’s why. Nature can only push, it can’t pull. Pulling is a 17th century concept which was derived from the horse and buggy era. It was thought that the horse was pulling the buggy but alas, the horse is pushing the buggy, not pulling it.

Ah, ha. So affectance is a new improved form of aether. Does it get out all those stubborn stains that ordinary aethers can’t? :laughing: Enough humour; what about cause and effect? Is affectance an effect without the cause? If so; then, what what causes affectance?

Robert Distiniti has more than 50 videos. I imagine that you couldn’t have seen all of them in such a short period of time so you might have been a little rash in jumping to any conclusions so quickly. I would advise you to see all his videos and maybe watch some several times so the concepts are better understood. Note - Spinning objects tend to attract without gravity or magnetism.

Please explain how you believe light travels.

I am saying that there is no such thing as absolutely empty space.

Affectance is eternal. It is impossible for affectance to NOT exist in all places at all times throughout eternity. That is what the OP is proving. So there could never have been a “before affectance came along” moment.

I was merely taking his word in the few that I did watch. I am not going to watch 50 vids when the man has already made very relevant fundamental errors in merely the first couple.

If he was here, I would debate why his reasoning was bad, but as it is, he cannot defend himself. If you want to try to defend his notions, go ahead.

I see no reason to believe that.

On an appropriate thread.