I just gave you my objection backed up by solid logic and you have nothing to combat it with except ‘ad homs’. Should I report you? It’s a pity that I’m not as petty as others. A petty pity that I feel no pity.
Yes, it does, but I think he was referring to the Quantum Physics probable future worlds said to all simultaneously “exist” merely because amidst the ignorance of the precise present, there is some possibility of each varied future. That is a different kind of thing and ontological nonsense.
No, I am not talking “quantum” anything. In consideration of the infinities involved, there are an infinity of "you"s and "me"s. This is an issue of there being a 3D physical universe that is infinite in all directions.
Imagine that you are inside a block of space. An instrument measures literally every single yoctometer of that space (10^-24) and records it’s values. That would be an extremely large amount of information, but a finite amount.
Then realize that the universe has an infinity of those blocks with varied states. And it also has an infinity of blocks that has the exact same finite state as the one describing you at any one instant in time.
3D infinity is larger than you think.
We have always existed and always will … somewhere in the infinite universe.
QP’s “multiverse” is merely a mind game, nothing real.
Whether the Universe is infinite or not is not actually known but if not then it cannot contain an infinity of blocks no matter how small they were
That would be an incredibly large number but still a finite one. I am also very sceptical of the notion of an infinite number of mes in the universe
With no evidence for this it is more ontolological than empirical
Mistakes can be made either way. If the logic is flawless, it’s conclusion will always be exactly true to reality. If the empirical evidence is not misinterpreted or presumptuous and it’s inherent logic is also flawless, then it’s conclusion will also be true to reality. False conclusions in the past have always been merely mistakes in the processes.
As far as I can tell, logic demands an infinite physical universe. There can be no empirical evidence concerning an infinite universe either for or against. All inferences concerning a Big Bang and expanding universe have been shown to be weak and presumptuous, most likely religiously inspired.
There’s such a thing as “logical evidence”. Can you be more stupid than that? A “logical evidence” that proves that “the universe” is “infinite”. One meaningless word after another.
It is not important to understand your words. It’s sufficient that you pretend that you understand them.
Actually, according to you, nothing is known and nothing can ever be known about the universe for the simple reason that the universe transcends the limit of our knowledge – our personal experience.
That is if you’re a scientist. If you’re a philosopher, however, you somehow gain the access to the unknown.
It’s too difficult to accept the simple fact that any sequence of words that has no reference to something we have previously experienced is quite simply meaningless.
There can be no reference to the unknown, to the infinite, to the universe, to the beyond . . .
If you want to say that somethiing has no end, you must already know what it means for that something to have an end.
What does it mean for the universe to have an end?
How does that manifest?
I have no idea if the Universe is infinite or not but if it isnt then its end or edge [ assuming such a thing actually exists ]
cannot currently be determined as it is expanding beyond light speed
Can you show me where I am amazingly wrong for simply asserting it is not good enough
Evidence must be physical and real and not just an abstract concept which is all logic is
Science is not capable of answering philosophic questions like “what is reality?” or “what is nature?” or “what is physics?” and many other philosophic questions that have not to do with empirical evidence.
Then you will immediately get the old blame: “You are a subjectivist”. Philosophers should not be either subjectivists or objectivists, but should try to overcome the subject/object problem.