Merged [Ed] Infinite Apirism - The Continuity of the Boundless

[tazanastazio]

Of course there's the competing theory of "or not."

For that theory ( "or not" ) to compete, you have to prove first the greatest paradox of them ALL: How can there be Everything (let alone the Infinite) if such a thing as "Absolute Nothing" ever existed.

 

[PitPat]

For that theory ( "or not" ) to compete, you have to prove first the greatest paradox of them ALL: How can there be Everything (let alone the Infinite) if such a thing as "Absolute Nothing" ever existed.

No, I don't have to prove it. You're the one making the assertion so the burden is on you to substantiate it. Frankly all I've seen is pseudo metaphysical nonsense.

 

[tazanastazio]

Shut the ◊◊◊◊ up, Donnie.

I don't discuss politics on social media under traceable identity; it is professionaly disagreeable. Therefore, back at you Kamala.

Shut the ◊◊◊◊ up, Donnie.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

For that theory ( "or not" ) to compete, you have to prove first the greatest paradox of them ALL: How can there be Everything (let alone the Infinite) if such a thing as "Absolute Nothing" ever existed.

Don't you then first have to prove 'Absolute Nothing' ever existed?

 

[tazanastazio]

No, I don't have to prove it. You're the one making the assertion so the burden is on you to substantiate it. Frankly all I've seen is pseudo metaphysical nonsense.

There "burden of proof argument" is a feeble attempt for an easy way out of it.

You assert that my assertion that "there is no such thing as absolute nothing in the Infinite" is false.

I responded that it stands true since if an absolute nothing existed, everything else could never exist.

So the "burden of proof" is for you to prove the latter false, since you will NEVER be able to, my assertion stands as the ONLY reasonable one.

As you cannot deny the Infinite from one perspective (Energy, Matter, Intelligence/Consciousness), and yet accept that you can have order in this Universe as an accidental result of INFINITE accidental actions, within Infinite such Universes; reactions from the level of the Infinitely minute Microcosm to the level that could cause the right infinite chain reactions; from the Infinite small detail that could brake the whole chain and the grant Universal scheme all the way to the Infinite Macrocosm.

 

[arthwollipot]

As you cannot deny the Infinite from one perspective (Energy, Matter, Intelligence/Consciousness)...

I deny it.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

'Cos I says so...

 

[Steve]

I deny it.

Me too.

Oh yeah, and shut the ◊◊◊◊ up, Donnie.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I don't discuss politics on social media under traceable identity; it is professionaly disagreeable. Therefore, back at you Kamala.

Strange, your entire shtick seems to originate from mind-altering substances yet you're not familiar with The Big Lebowski.

Dave

 

[turingtest]

I don't discuss politics on social media under traceable identity; it is professionaly disagreeable. Therefore, back at you Kamala.

Gotta love it when such a vast and deep intellect tries for edgelord sarcasm and trips so hard over an obvious movie reference by mistaking it for a political one.

 

[tazanastazio]

Shut the ◊◊◊◊ up, Donnie.

And as I said before don't discuss politics , it is not professionaly agreeable. Therefore back at you.

Me too.

Oh yeah, and shut the ◊◊◊◊ up, Donnie.

And as I said before, I don't discuss politics on social media, it is not professionaly agreeable. Therefore back at you Kamala.

Me too.

Oh yeah, and shut the ◊◊◊◊ up, Donnie.

Back at you Kamala.

 

[Steve]

And as I said before don't discuss politics , it is not professionaly agreeable. Therefore back at you.

And as I said before, I don't discuss politics on social media, it is not professionaly agreeable. Therefore back at you Kamala.

Back at you Kamala.

"Professionally"??? "Kamala" the politician???

I think we have a budding new Vixen here.

 

[tazanastazio]

Gotta love it when such a vast and deep intellect tries for edgelord sarcasm and trips so hard over an obvious movie reference by mistaking it

Strange, your entire shtick seems to originate from mind-altering substances yet you're not familiar with The Big Lebowski.

Dave

I've never used mind-altering substances or pot for that matter; you? Not that I HAVE to be familiar with every movie made in the past 20 or so years, but no I have not watched it; not the highlight of Jeff Bridges' career either. 'sides you may have attempted a double base covering argument and I'd have opted to respond to the one involved in CURRENT affairs, as opposed to a 2nd rated, silly flick, even if I had wasted my time watching it. I don't play video games either btw, go figure.

 

[tazanastazio]

Gotta love it when such a vast and deep intellect tries for edgelord sarcasm and trips so hard over an obvious movie reference by mistaking it for a political one.

THis applies to your response to:

..." Not that I HAVE to be familiar with every movie made in the past 20 or so years, but no I have not watched it; not the highlight of Jeff Bridges' career either. 'sides you may have attempted a double base covering argument and I'd have opted to respond to the one involved in CURRENT affairs, as opposed to a 2nd rated, silly flick, even if I had wasted my time watching it."

Thanks for your inadverted comiment, "you gotta love it." I do thank you.

 

[tazanastazio]

THis applies to your response to:

..." Not that I HAVE to be familiar with every movie made in the past 20 or so years, but no I have not watched it; not the highlight of Jeff Bridges' career either. 'sides you may have attempted a double base covering argument and I'd have opted to respond to the one involved in CURRENT affairs, as opposed to a 2nd rated, silly flick, even if I had wasted my time watching it."

Thanks for your inadverted comiment, "you gotta love it." I do thank you.

"...compliment."

 

[PitPat]

I've never used mind-altering substances or pot for that matter; you? Not that I HAVE to be familiar with every movie made in the past 20 or so years, but no I have not watched it; not the highlight of Jeff Bridges' career either. 'sides you may have attempted a double base covering argument and I'd have opted to respond to the one involved in CURRENT affairs, as opposed to a 2nd rated, silly flick, even if I had wasted my time watching it. I don't play video games either btw, go figure.

How do you know it wasn't Jeff Bridges' career highlight if nothing ever existed?

 

[tazanastazio]

Thanks for your inadvertedly given compliment, "you gotta love it." I do thank you.

 

[tazanastazio]

This seems unambitious. I think it would be rather good if positivity outdid Negativity. Is there some fundamental reason we can't

 

[tazanastazio]

This seems unambitious. I think it would be rather good if positivity outdid Negativity. Is there some fundamental reason we can't have nice things?

Without gravity there would be no Universe; and human nature as with all finite nature is bound to forces and its own finality.

Your comment meritted priority, but admittedly I got myself caught in weeds of silliness through which I had to bushwack my way out, intermittedly and dual-dimensionally while I was also frying the bigger fish on one hand and using my phone as a figurative machette on the other, fingering letters when time would allow.

 

[Myriad]

Regarding the Infinite

—the Infinite Energy, Matter, and Intelligence / Consciousness—

all concepts found within the seemingly finite boundaries of limited realms / stages, may be extended ad infinitum and apply to the Infinite, Except for the concepts of Existence, Time, and Nothing / the Absolute Emptiness of Space; which have no application to the Infinite.

The purpose of every Consciousness is to work towards counterbalancing Negativity, which constitutes an emerging property of selfishness—the outcome of finality—as well as an emerging property of forces of action; both Natural and forces of a Figurative sense.

"Everything" is the observable, the perceptible, and the conceivable; "Nothing" is the unobservable, the imperceptible, and the inconceivable.

I find that obsessive focus on the infinite is a mental crutch, a distraction, a relief from the terror of contemplating the Very Numerous, which, like Lovecraft's eldritch horrors, can threaten the mind. Minds, after all, are themselves composed of Very Numerous elements that exhibit daunting variety rather than repetition of the identical. You think you're contemplating infinity but you're not; you're using mental shortcuts like endlessness and identical copying to avoid addressing the Very Numerous quantities that one encounters on the way to infinity. You don't dare grasp, for instance, the number of books in the Babel Library (that is, the number of possible combinations of a limited' alphabet of symbols up to the length of a typical bound book), even though that's a number that can itself be expressed in decimal notation in a printed book (if the book is thick and the print small), which makes it a relatively small quantity as these things go. Such quantities as the googolplex and Graham's Number are vastly larger. Yet they fall infinitely short of infinite.