The Infinite! In Search of The Ultimate Truth.

[I Am The Scum]

How's it that you said something different here?

When you know something for certain, namely "the moon is far away and while you can walk on it, you cannot walk to it; but you could fly round trip in about 20-30 min during lunch break provided you have a very fast spacecraft parked outside" then you are clear about the possibility.

But when you have no clue what caused the cause of the cause of the Universe, a better bet is on something caused it as opposed to nothing caused it. But either way you cannot nullify the possibility that something caused it, since you have no knowledge to back up your opinion. On the other hand I could say, "We know of nothing that was not caused of/by something, therefore since the Universe is something and we now truly spending our time blogging about it; a safer bet is, something caused whatever caused, the cause of the Universe."

With respect, you seem horribly confused. Take the following inference:

I don't know how much money is in Jim's wallet, therefore it is physically possible for Jim to talk to the moon in half an hour.

Does that seem like a fair conclusion to you? I don't think one can properly connect the ignorance in the first half to the physical possibility in the second.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Who knew Ultimate Truth would be such an multichromatic eyesore?

 

[tazanastazio]

No, we don't. All you have done is to say that something must have caused the universe. You then posit this cause to be something you term 'The Infinite', which apparently doesn't need a cause.
If 'The Infinite' doesn't need a cause, then why does the universe need one?

On what basis do you assert that 'The Infinite' is caused by nothing?

The term Uni-verse, inplies a segment with a beginning and an end. Their is no such limitation for the Infinite. The characterization "Infinite" does not apply to anything else, since everything else must have a beginning, an end and a cause. The Infinite was not caused. All terms derive as an outcome of the concept "Infinite." "Nothing" does not encompass the Infinite. If a physical "nothing" truly existed within the Infinite (It would mean that the Infinite had gaps and limits - unless perhaps infinite minute in comparison). If nothing is not just a concept to describe the absence of something as far as humanity can perceive, or the zero that would divide any segment to negative and positive (and any such segment can in turn be infinitely divided as far as we can imagine); then any such physical nothing, if truly existed, would be included within the Infinite and infinitely fail in comparison. In fact it could not be an actual nothing, but a transitional phase between the three fundamental characteristics of the Infinite ( "characteristics" as far as we humans can describe them)- Energy, Intelligence and Matter. Without the transitional phases we would not have space for mobility within the Infinite. The Infinite must be infinite from every perspective, inwards the infinite microcosm and outwards the infinite macrocosm. Furthermore if Energy was to be extended to actual Infinite proportion it would still not use all Infinite matter and vs versa.

Now the above is an attempt of human intelligence to comprehend and describe what we can best describe with the word "Infinite" to simply differentiate it from everything else - the Finite. The Finite exists; everything that does exist does so within the Infinite. The Finite exists as a result of a cause; the Infinite is the cause of all causes, It has no cause to be. The Infinite simply is; yet even the term "be" does not apply to the Infinite (to "be" implies to have limits).

 

[Thor 2]

........

I do not denounce science, I accept the validity of science, but I also recognize its shortcomings (taken conventions would be one of them), as any rational person should.

Science has failed so far, to provide the answers to what and why, caused the cause of the Universe (and a good bet is, it will never provide one; or an answer to what caused that cause).

.........

Perhaps you could detail some of the shortcomings of the scientific method. I have no idea what you mean about conventions as a shortcoming, you will have to explain/elaborate on this.

Science hasn't failed in any pursuit of knowledge and understanding. That would only be true if every person threw their hands up and said "I give in" when trying to explain a phenomena.* Actually even this would not indicate a failure of the scientific method, just a failure of people to apply it.


* Only the religious do this.

 

[Craig4]

Convince you in recognizing that since we don't have clear answers, we should not discard the possibilities.

I do not denounce science, I accept the validity of science, but I also recognize its shortcomings (taken conventions would be one of them), as any rational person should.

Science has failed so far, to provide the answers to what and why, caused the cause of the Universe (and a good bet is, it will never provide one; or an answer to what caused that cause).

I cannot think of any-thing in life that was caused arbitrarily, without its cause also have been caused by something else that came to be due to a reason/for a purpose, can you? Why would the Universe be the exception?

Till science can answer the aforementioned, and provide the prologue to the main theme, philosophy (Infinitism is a philosophy not a religion) will suffice.

We will disagree to agree I guess; the truth lies in the mind of the thinker.

Why will philosophy suffice? Why is a made up, philosophical answer in anyway superior to "we don't know yet"? What makes you think you simply thinking about it and coming up with something is more valid or useful than not knowing?

 

[Kid Eager]

Why will philosophy suffice? Why is a made up, philosophical answer in anyway superior to "we don't know yet"? What makes you think you simply thinking about it and coming up with something is more valid or useful than not knowing?

You can create a lot more word salad by seeking alternatives to "we don't know yet". Never mind the quality, look at the volume!

 

[Deadie]

You can create a lot more word salad by seeking alternatives to "we don't know yet". Never mind the quality, look at the volume!

You are clearly educated stupid and do not realize the cubic truth of 4 simultaneous rotational days.

Infinite 4th dimensional quantum entangled naked tesseracts are the real alpha and omega and your inability to parse such ideas is clearly proof of said truth.

Word salad? Nah we got a solid $12 all-you-can-eat-casino-buffet-words.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

It doesn't answer how the subatomical particles that formed the atoms came to be and why? .

This is your standard nonsense. As you are unable to set out your incoherent word salad as a coherent scientific hypothesis, you revert to a cover all, back stop, excuse "Well you scientists can't explain to me how the universe started"

However when I direct you to actual scientific theories being formed about that actual topic, like Intersecting Brane theory or string theory, you simply write more word salad and refuse to read the theories being developed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

https://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/the-start-of-the-universe-with-string-theory/

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I do not denounce science, I accept the validity of science....

No. You are lying. You refuse to set out your incoherent belief system as a coherent scientific hypothesis. You simply spam your repetitive word salad, on science forums, to get attention.

 

[tazanastazio]

You are clearly educated stupid and do not realize the cubic truth of 4 simultaneous rotational days.

Infinite 4th dimensional quantum entangled naked tesseracts are the real alpha and omega and your inability to parse such ideas is clearly proof of said truth.

Word salad? Nah we got a solid $12 all-you-can-eat-casino-buffet-words.

No such thing as any more dimensions than 3, time does not exist, gravity does and affects everything within the Infinite; it stretches the fabric of space which is formed by particles; objects deteriorate in it. If you become small enough you'll find yourself in a three dimensional space.

Greeks invented the "A" and the "Ω", time to tell us who invented the quantum tesseracts, Genius.

 

[tazanastazio]

This is your standard nonsense. As you are unable to set out your incoherent word salad as a coherent scientific hypothesis, you revert to a cover all, back stop, excuse "Well you scientists can't explain to me how the universe started"

However when I direct you to actual scientific theories being formed about that actual topic, like Intersecting Brane theory or string theory, you simply write more word salad and refuse to read the theories being developed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

https://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/the-start-of-the-universe-with-string-theory/

That's because you have not answer yet whether you believe that the branes and the strings were always there; whether they came out of absolute nothing and nowhere; or whether they were formed by something else; and if the latter is the case what formed that and why?

 

[Kid Eager]

That's because you have not answer yet whether you believe that the branes and the strings were always there; whether they came out of absolute nothing and nowhere; or whether they were formed by something else; and if the latter is the case what formed that and why?

Believe? Belief is not required. The question is irrelevant and the post sidesteps the question posed to you by Mr Ellard.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

No such thing as any more dimensions than 3, time does not exist,

That sentence clarifies that you know absolutely nothing about basic science.

How would different wave frequencies exist if there was no such thing as time?

Yet here you are seeing different colours, (electromagnetic waves at varying frequencies.)

You really need to read a basic book on science before posting again as you are simply embarrassing yourself.......again........

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I cannot think of any-thing in life that was caused arbitrarily,

Random and arbitrary mutations occur in DNA chains. The environment then sorts out the more advantageous random mutation chains from the less beneficial mutations for that environment.

This is called the theory of evolution. You said you agreed with the theory of evolution when it is clear you haven't a clue what the the theory is.

Please stop posting on our science forum until you have read a basic book on evolution.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

No, we don't. All you have done is to say that something must have caused the universe. You then posit this cause to be something you term 'The Infinite', which apparently doesn't need a cause.
If 'The Infinite' doesn't need a cause, then why does the universe need one?

On what basis do you assert that 'The Infinite' is caused by nothing?

The term Uni-verse, inplies a segment with a beginning and an end.

Citation needed, because I don't think it does.

Their is no such limitation for the Infinite.

Becasue you say so.

The characterization "Infinite" does not apply to anything else, since everything else must have a beginning, an end and a cause.

Because you say so.

The Infinite was not caused.

Because you say so.

(Snipped yet more bare assertions)

Now the above is an attempt of human intelligence to comprehend and describe what we can best describe with the word "Infinite" to simply differentiate it from everything else - the Finite.

No. The above is you inventing something you call 'The Infinite', and then using all sorts of special pleading to make it do the things you want it to do, apparently in an attempt to appear superior to everyone else.
Trust me, it isn't working.
Try some kind of evidence. You could even try logic, which is often used as a last resort by the religious when it becomes apparent they haven't actually got any evidence for their claimed gods (and your 'Infinite' sounds suspiciously like a god).

The Finite exists; everything that does exist does so within the Infinite. The Finite exists as a result of a cause; the Infinite is the cause of all causes, It has no cause to be. The Infinite simply is; yet even the term "be" does not apply to the Infinite (to "be" implies to have limits).

Bare assertions, special pleading and some semantic tomfoolery.
Nothing more.
Do please give some thought as to how you would demonstrate the existence of this special thingy you have made up. I look forward to your presentation.
Kind of.

 

[tazanastazio]

Why do we, as humanity , need to know of or understand this Infinite?

What benefits do we now derive of this great knowledge you impart upon us that was not possible before?
I really am curious as to what it is we need of it.

Science will almost always be able to answer the "How", but quite often not the "What" and the "Why."

 

[p0lka]

No such thing as any more dimensions than 3, time does not exist, gravity does and affects everything within the Infinite; it stretches the fabric of space which is formed by particles; objects deteriorate in it. If you become small enough you'll find yourself in a three dimensional space.

Greeks invented the "A" and the "Ω", time to tell us who invented the quantum tesseracts, Genius.

Re: the highlighted
then how do your posts appear one after another?

 

[Deadie]

Greeks invented the "A" and the "Ω", time to tell us who invented the quantum tesseracts, Genius.

I did.

 

[Craig4]

Science will almost always be able to answer the "How", but quite often not the "What" and the "Why."

Care to show your work on that one? Secondly you still haven't answered my question, why is your philosophy in any way better that "we don't know"? What does your philosophical answer lead us to that is better than "we don't know"? "We don't know" is a far more satisfying answer and certainly more exciting than a philosophical answer that leaves us looking nowhere.

 

[Steve]

I did.

No, I did. As a surprise for my daughter at her eighth birthday party. She was thrilled!