/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13928883]

So why exactly can't a causal chain be infinite? Am I brainlet for not understanding the -necessity- of something that can change, but that cannot be changed?

[Anonymous No.13928896]

>>13928883
Because that would violate the laws of physics.

[Anonymous No.13928916]

>>13928883
how do you think an infinite causal chain would start?

[Anonymous No.13928920]

>>13928896
>>13928883
There's nothing wrong with it.
because god is not in time
and ontology is not in time
therefore the cause of everything is never what is before something in time but the divine eternally giving Being to all

[Anonymous No.13928924]

>>13928883
Here's an analogy which might help.
Imagine that you have a refrigerator and you are asked the question of how it is powered. You answer the question in the following way: the refrigerator is powered by being plugged in to an outlet, and the outlet is powered by being connected to a telephone pole and that telephone pole is being powered by being connected to a telephone pole and that telephone pole is being powered by a telephone pole.. and the chain of telephone poles goes on infinitely.
Is there anything 'logically' wrong with this scenario? If so, what?

[Anonymous No.13928944]

>>13928896

[Anonymous No.13928950]

>>13928883
>>13928896
>>13928916
>>13928920
>>13928924
There’s nothing wrong with an infinite causal chain. The problem arises when, if we hold to the view that everything must have a sufficient explanation for its being the way it is, we ask the question: what accounts for the infinite chain being the way it is?

[Anonymous No.13928961]

>>13928924
>Is there anything 'logically' wrong with this scenario? If so, what?
I don't think there is. Realistically - sure, but logically - no.
>>13928916
>how do you think an infinite causal chain would start?
It wouldn't start

[it didn't start No.13928963]

>>13928916
how can an infinity have an edge?
Aquinas is a pseud.

[Anonymous No.13928969]

>>13928944
>deeply enlightening - the wall street journal
lol, into the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.13928974]

>>13928961
>It wouldn't start
then how did it get there?

[Anonymous No.13928999]

The idea is that matter doesn't explain it's motion. Aristotle uses the example of bronze not being able to turn itself into a statue or wood not being able to turn itself into a bed and later he uses the example of a hand holding a stick which is pushing a rock on the ground. The rock is moving but the rock doesn't have the power to move itself, it has to derive that power from the stick. The stick is the instrumental cause of the rocks movement and it's deriving its power to move the rock from the hand. The hand is likewise an instrumental cause deriving its power from the brain and so on. We know the human itself is not the ultimate source of movement in this scenario because humans go in and out of existence which is an act of change in itself.

The reason positing an infinite series of instrumental causes wouldn't work as an explanation is that not of them are explaining their own movement. Every act of change would ultimately have to be explained by something that is unmoved by anything else. This is the first mover and through a greater analysis of change we can discover that it must have certain attributes that we would classically ascribe to God.

[Anonymous No.13929006]

>>13928963
i assume you've read aquinas in the original latin?

[Anonymous No.13929007]

>>13928974
do you not know what eternity means?
here's the christian definiton

>Eternity is another one of God's attributes. God is not limited by time. He cannot be confined to 100; 1,000 or 1,000,000 years. God is above and beyond time. He is the Lord and Master of time. For this reason He is timeless, eternal, ever the same, immutable and unchanging, ageless and unending. He has no beginning and no end. This is what perpetual, or better, eternal means. Perpetual signifies that which has a beginning but no end. Angels and men are perpetual because although they have a beginning--there was a time when they did not exist but came into existence and were created--they have no end. They are unending. Eternal, however means: ever the same, and as far as time is concerned, having neither beginning nor end.

switch "god" with "universe"

[Anonymous No.13929012]

>>13928883
I reject the entire concept of causation in favor of a theory of the universe as an ephemeral theater made possible by magic memes that can derive one from a set containing null

[Anonymous No.13929024]

>>13929007
switch "universe" for "Existence".

[Anonymous No.13929031]

>>13929006
why would I read a midwit philosopher?

[Anonymous No.13929035]

>>13929007
>the universe is not limited by time
this is where the laws of physics come in.

[Anonymous No.13929037]

>>13929024
sure

[Anonymous No.13929042]

>>13929007
Yes this is what I wanted to say pretty much
>>13928999
>Every act of change would ultimately have to be explained by something that is unmoved by anything else.
I understand everything up to here, but this is what doesn't make sense to me. I can see why it CAN be that, but I don't see why it MUST be that.

[Anonymous No.13929043]

>>13929007
>>13928974
You two seem to be arguing at cross purposes. Also >>13929007, you seem to be not understanding the dilemma being posed. Aquinas puts forward that there must be a beginning, the beginning must be self-caused, and the beginning something that can change but not be changed. This is, to him, an important, necessary function which is found in the Christian understanding of God, and proposed as dogma before the philosophical question was asked. The infinite causaul chain is a dilemma the atheist is forced to confront, because they demand proportional cause and effect, deny the possibility of the creation of energy, and also deny the possibility of the destruction of energy; so they have this terrible question of explaining how, if objects at rest stay at rest, existence came to be at all.

[Anonymous No.13929044]

>>13929035
and do what?

[Anonymous No.13929048]

>>13929044
just google entropy

[Anonymous No.13929052]

>>13929042
Think of rock moving on the ground while being pushed by the stick. Would I really be explaining that rocks movement of I posited an infinite series of sticks pushing ultimately causing that rocks movement?

[Anonymous No.13929053]

>>13929048
is anything of 'this' that subsists within existence supposed to mean something to the universe entire?

[Anonymous No.13929059]

>>13929052
>Would I really be explaining that rocks movement of I posited an infinite series of sticks pushing ultimately causing that rocks movement?
Yes, why not?

[Anonymous No.13929062]

>>13929053
the laws of physics do not "subsist within existence," they are immaterial and transcend the universe and govern it.

[Anonymous No.13929066]

>>13929062

[Anonymous No.13929068]

>>13929059
You're saying that a stick can pick itself up and move other things, all by itself. Come on dude.

[Anonymous No.13929082]

>>13928883

"There can be no beginningless series of cause and effect between the binary members of a series because then that would result in mutual dependence, the effect producing a cause that would produce an effect which would in turn produce its own cause, like a son giving birth to his own father. One cannot come into existence or be produced because doing so requires the other to exist already which cant happen if the cause of it hasn't been produced.

If you say it's a beginningless series of cause and effect between a series of elements it's not a complete explanation unless you explain which of the element is the cause and the other the effect, if you say that they arise simultaneously then neither is really a cause or an effect and there can be no actual relation between them. The cause in a beginningless series of cause and effect has no capability to give rise either to an effect that exists prior to its origination or to an effect that does not exist prior to its production. Nor can it be determined in such a system which is actually the cause and which is the effect which leads to a violation of the order of cause and effect."

[Anonymous No.13929090]

>>13929068
there are no objects to have been caused
no singular divided events or causes and effects
There's only One eternally whole moment

[Anonymous No.13929114]

>>13928883
Because I raped superman in a tent

[Anonymous No.13929117]

>>13929043
Cause and effect is solely an occurrence within taxonomy and does not exist outside an evolved projection of pattern recognition in the human mind that fits our evolutionary needs.

[Anonymous No.13929119]

>>13929090
absolute retardation. just look at a clock for fucks sake

[Anonymous No.13929129]

>>13928961
>>13929059

"The problem seems to me, in both cases (the refrigerator case and the stick and rock case) you still haven't explained that which needed to be explained: in both cases the questioner has asked for a power to be explained (the fridge case the electricity, and in the stick case the motion) and you explained it by reference to another thing which has this power.

But the power itself still hasn't been accounted for: yet it must have an account, if one accepts the principle of sufficient reason. The infinite series cannot be accepted for that reason, because it makes the power fundamentally inexplicable. "

...so the theist might argue. I am not sure if it holds up, but at first glance I don't see anything wrong with it: what do you think of it?

[Anonymous No.13929133]

>>13928896
wrong, the argument is conceptual, not physical
>>13928916
irrelevent, aleph null exists and a set of that cardinality can be written down
>>13928950
>>13928963
these are only problems if you give contradictory properties to infinity instead of classifying the different magnitudes of infinity and arranging them according to their size.
>>13928999
It has nothing to do with matter, its about conceptual understanding of mind.
.

[Anonymous No.13929137]

>>13929117
Bullshit. You can't make sense of science without the category of cause (at least as science is currently formulated) and to claim that it "does not exist outside an evolved projection of pattern recognition in the human mind that fits our evolutionary needs." presupposes the truth of science.

[Anonymous No.13929139]

>>13929119
>>13929117
pure immanence

[Anonymous No.13929157]

>>13929137
X is only the cause of Y IF WE call X a One individuality and Y another. Otherwise there's no objective border between this presupposed cause and effect, they can just as well be seen as one singular Z: thereby dissolving the illusion of cause and effect.

[Anonymous No.13929163]

>>13929129
Yes okay that makes a bit more sense.
>yet it must have an account, if one accepts the principle of sufficient reason
But then this is where I trip up. Why must it have an account, and an account of the nature that you're (the questioner is) looking for?
I feel like this is just pushing us one step back but it's still the same argument/disagreement.

[Anonymous No.13929181]

>>13929163
In other words, it seems that "there must be an account of this kind of power" is a result of the argument that it's trying to prove.

[Anonymous No.13929183]

>>13929157
or ten thousand objects, a million, however many you wish; each the cause of the other; or only one object, none the cause of any for there's only One.

[Anonymous No.13929187]

>>13929157
>X is only the cause of Y IF WE call X a One individuality and Y another.
>literally has to refer to them separately as X and Y to even make his argument that they really aren't separate
>if we just pretend they are the same thing, then they are!
yikes

[Anonymous No.13929199]

>>13929187
You're the one pretending there are events separated from each other when you can't give an objective reason for their existence.
There's only intersubjective names of moments and things that aren't at all.

[Anonymous No.13929259]

>>13929199
DUDE WEED

[Anonymous No.13929278]

>>13929163
>Why must it have an account, and an account of the nature that you're (the questioner is) looking for?

I am right there with you bud. I think at this point the arguer will bring in the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): You can formulate this principle as in a variety of ways: loosely you can say it is the principle that:

"For every fact F, there must be a sufficient reason why F is the case".

OR you can say it more formally as
"For every x, there is a y such that y is the sufficient reason for x (formally: ∀x∃yRyx [where “Rxy” denotes the binary relation of providing a sufficient reason])."

Now, some caveats:a) this way of framing the cosmological argument is much closer to Liebniz than Aquinas—it is far afield from our original questions and b) The Principle of Sufficient Reason is one of the most argued about theses in the history of philosophy. We still argue about it today:some philosophers hold it to be absolutely necessary, whereas some say there are things in the universe which are simply unintelligible brute facts. I take PSR to be true, but you might disagree: for discussion, see

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/#Intr

IN ANY CASE, if we assume PSR, then the defender of the cosmological argument can say that the infinite causal series of powers can't work: the sufficient reason for the power of the refrigerator cannot be the infinite chain of the telephone polls, because there will still be something left over which needs to be explained, namely the series itself

The infinite series [Fridge, outlet, telephone poll telephone poll ....] must itself have a sufficient reason. And if you posulate any other series as a suffiecient reason for this series the set of both series will also need a sufficient reason: therefore there must be at least one thing which is is its own sufficient reason...

This seems to make sense to me so far, but it is hard to see how it gets to God. The arguments make my head hurt. But are you following anon?

[Anonymous No.13929289]

>>13929278
(2/2) For example, can't we just pull the old atheist's debating trick and say that, while the argument works in proving that there must be something self-caused, this is only ONE of the divine attributes: it might be the universe itself, not the God of the tradition.

[Anonymous No.13929296]

>>13929278
>but it is hard to see how it gets to God
youre one step away, God is what we refer to as THE cause of everything, the one case where it is self causing by its nature.

[Anonymous No.13929317]

>>13929157
>X is only the cause of Y IF WE call X a One individuality and Y another. Otherwise there's no objective border between this presupposed cause and effect, they can just as well be seen as one singular Z: thereby dissolving the illusion of cause and effect.

One might respond: "If you assert this, you are asserting the truth of a definite proposition, proposition P—but P is only a definite proposition if WE identify the proposition with language. If we don't identify this proposition by means of language, then both it and every other proposition, including its negation can be seen as one singular Z, thereby dissolving the illusion of truth and falsity".

[Anonymous No.13929365]

>>13929278
>if we assume PSR, then the defender of the cosmological argument can say that the infinite causal series of powers can't work
Yes, I agree with that. But I don't agree with PSR, so to me to me that just sounds like "IF you agree with this thing which, if true, will prove my point, then my point is correct".
So that doesn't do much for me, but yes I understand what you're saying.

[Anonymous No.13929396]

>>13929199
logic depends on the separate nature of entities.
you're essentially saying that a square is a circle.

[Anonymous No.13929474]

>>13929396
I'm saying that there are no squares or circles in the world.

[Anonymous No.13929483]

>>13929259

[Anonymous No.13929553]

>>13928896
Why is that?

[Anonymous No.13929564]

>>13928896
>>13928916
>>13928950
Causa prima is, just as well as causa sui, a contradictio in adjecto. A first cause is just as inconceivable as the point at which Space ends or the moment when Time first began. For every cause is a change, which necessarily obliges us to ask for the preceding change that brought it about, and so on in infinitum, in infinitum! Even a first state of Matter, from which, as it has ceased to be, all following states could have proceeded, is inconceivable. For if this state had in itself been the cause of the following ones, they must like wise have existed from all eternity, and the actual state existing at the present moment could not have only just now come into being. If, on the other hand, that first state only began to be causal at some given period, some thing or other must have changed it, for its inactivity to have ceased; but then something must have occurred, some change must have taken place; and this again obliges us to ask for its cause i.e. a change which preceded it; and here we are once more on the causal ladder, up which we are whipped step by step, higher and higher, in infinitum, in infinitum! The causal law therefore is not so accommodating as to let itself be used like a hired cab, which we dismiss when we have reached our destination.

The general meaning of the Principle of Sufficient Reason may, in the main, be brought back to this: that every thing existing no matter when or where, exists ~by reason of something else. Now, the Principle of Sufficient Eeason is nevertheless a priori in all its forms: that is, it has its root in our intellect, therefore it must not be applied to the totality of existent things, the Universe, including that intellect in which it presents itself. For a world like this, which presents itself in virtue of a priori forms, is just on that account mere phenomenon; consequently that which holds good with reference to it as the result of these forms, cannot be applied to the world itself, i.e. to the thing in itself, representing itself in that world. Therefore we can not say, "the world and all things in it exist by reason of something else;" and this proposition is precisely the Cosmological Proof.

[Anonymous No.13929578]

>>13929474

[Anonymous No.13929580]

>>13929062

[Anonymous No.13929606]

>>13929578
They only become what you call them by projecting objectness onto the matter.
the circle is equally a X amount of secluded particles with nothing in common objectively speaking, and thence 'the circle' disappears.

[Anonymous No.13929621]

>>13928896
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

[Anonymous No.13929622]

Didn't Parmenides prove like 2500 years ago that Something can't come from Nothing and that change is cringe yet Christian say God created the universe ex nihilo?

[Anonymous No.13929623]

>>13929606
>the circle is

[Anonymous No.13929653]

>>13929623
You might have to go to the doctor for add and/or Alzheimer.
"the circle is" is a premise that the rest of the sentence refutes
>that which you refer to as one-circle can only be that by YOU perceiving the bundle matter in front of you as having (magically) a unity with eachother, this unity produces the phenomenon of thingness. Without this projection there's only the individual infinitely-infinite parts.

[Anonymous No.13929663]

>>13929653
you're sitting here telling me all about circles and how they don't exist and i'm the one with alzheimer's?

[Anonymous No.13929682]

>>1392966
circles can't exist IN THE WORLD for to exist in the world it has to be an object, but objects only exist intersubjectively and not objectively, it's mere taxonomy: relative, subjective, arbitrary, ad hoc.

[Anonymous No.13929694]

>>13929682
heh, nothin personnel kid

[Anonymous No.13929704]

>>13929682
>objects don't exist objectively

[Anonymous No.13929726]

>>13928883
The argument is as follows: There cannot be an infinite chain of cause-and-effect, for if the chain is infinite, it could never reach *this* link in the chain. Consider this analogy: if our time line does not have a starting point, i.e. it is infinite, *this* moment in time could not have been reached. For it would take an infinite amount of time to reach *this* moment - which is impossible. Therefore, our time line does have a starting point, i.e., a prima causa.

[Anonymous No.13929742]

>>13929704
those two words have no definitional connection beyond sharing a root

[Anonymous No.13929743]

>>13929396
A foot is not a hand, but are they different objects, or distinct members or parts of the same object? We can plausibly describe them as both, so is our description utilitarian/perceptual and not as reflective of “true nature”?

[Anonymous No.13929746]

>>13929726
Hasn't relativity proved time to be nonsense though?

[Anonymous No.13929770]

>>13929746
time is relative but cause and effect is real. Simultaneity is also relative, but if A causes B then all observers agree that B did not happen before A

[Anonymous No.13929824]

>>13928883
>So why exactly can't a causal chain be infinite?
The universe is not infinitely big. You're thinking of infinite as just a really big number. That's not it. Infinity is a term that exceeds itself, it can't exist in real space.

[Anonymous No.13929879]

>>13929824
>The universe is not infinitely big.

[Anonymous No.13929892]

>>13929824
That's exactly what I was thinking about just now. That if our universe is NOT infinite, then an infinite causal chain is impossible.
But the universe can be infinite (and I mean infinite in the real way, not the way you attribute to me), or at least I don't know why it couldn't.
>>13929726
That's okay but it seems to be sneaking in a starting point by the back door. That is, the analogy shouldn't be about time reaching this point, but instead about time having reached this point by default because it has always existed.
I'm too much of a brainlet to articulate what I'm thinking so I hope this makes sense.

[Anonymous No.13929905]

>>13929892
>But the universe can be infinite
And if it is, there is no problem with regressing to infinity with anything*

[Anonymous No.13929917]

>>13929879
i can't tell if thats JBP or not

[Anonymous No.13929922]

>>13929824
you're thinking too terrestrially. If something like the multiverse exists, than there could be infinite space

[Anonymous No.13929933]

>>13929917
>having prosopagnosia

[Anonymous No.13929941]

Have anyone anywhere proved that infinity as an abstraction or an idea is even possible? How is saying "infinite" or "eternal" for that matter any different from saying "square circle"?

[Anonymous No.13929947]

>>13929933
is it him or not? the forehead looks like his, but the eyes and mouth are all weird

[Anonymous No.13929957]

>>13929941
>Have anyone anywhere proved that infinity as an abstraction or an idea is even possible?

[Anonymous No.13929969]

>>13929922
>multiverse
>implying there are a set number of verses, not infinity (as necessity would demand)
error detected.

[Anonymous No.13929978]

The universe could not have created itself, for it would have to had existed before it came into existence.

[Anonymous No.13929979]

>>13929941
black hole singularity is an infinite spacial dimension

[Anonymous No.13929989]

>>13929957
nvm proving it to anyone else, prove it to yourself. Infinity and eternal means absolutely nothing, even in your own mind. It's like thinking about a square circle.

[Anonymous No.13929995]

>>13929941
I think it can exist in an abstract sense, but not a literal one. Like, you can have a loop in programming that repeats infinitely, and in math functions can approach a limit to infinity. Pi is infinite, etc.
It's like how Planck length in the smallest measurement, and some may then think it's the smallest number. Maybe as far as measurements are concerned, but you can have abstract systems that are easily smaller, like the probabilty of an event occuring.
Just my thoughts on it.

[Anonymous No.13930153]

>>13929989
you can subsection any area of space infinitely
There's no end to partition.
How many colors are there? >>13929117

[Anonymous No.13930401]

>>13930153
>you can subsection any area of space infinitely
In certain hypothetical mathematical models of space, yes. In the space we live in, no.

[Anonymous No.13930435]

>>13928963

You've just posted an example of 'an infinity with an edge'.

The border of that circle is composed of fractals. If they were true fractals they would repeat forever, and yet there would be a limit where the 'real space' of the paper/image would not longer move with the movement of the fractals. This is the notion of limits.

Moreso, your picture has an infinite number of infinities, which together compose an 'edge' of the circle we can perceive, and so the composition is bounded by itself.

There are different orders of infinity, and these can be stacked infinitely - however, this just pushes the real question back an order of magnitude. The fundamental dillemma is that 'existence exists' - and though we can describe how it exists so, there seems to be no escaping the bounds of existence itself, and so there seems to us no reason why 'existence exists'.

[Anonymous No.13930449]

>>13929989
There been fucking textbooks written on the subject, jesus christ anon

[Anonymous No.13930495]

>>13930401
no, literally any space, no matter the size, can be subdivided infinitely

[Anonymous No.13930498]

>>13930435
that's the point
infinity with an edge

[Anonymous No.13930527]

>>13930498
what? i dont think you know what youre talking about

[Anonymous No.13930548]

>>13928896
Aquinas established the laws of physics. Newton simply simplified it. Aquinas was the biggest brain to ever live.

[Anonymous No.13930609]

>>13930495
Please Mr. Einstein, give me the definition of one type of space which has that property.

[Anonymous No.13931008]

>>13928883
it would be a homonculus fallacy if it were

[Anonymous No.13931141]

>>13929068
Well, what if it can? Is there anything to suggest that it cannot, if causality is indeed infinite?

[Anonymous No.13931809]

>>13928883
yes you are

[Anonymous No.13932272]

>>13931141
If a stick could pick itself up and move a rock that would refute the argument. Show me that stick.

[Anonymous No.13932276]

>>13928883
What's the cause for Logos

[Anonymous No.13932293]

>>13932272
Sure, it's the stick I'm holding with my hand.

[Anonymous No.13933031]

>>13930495
When "infinity" results from your calculation concerning a physical quantity, you made a mistake. >>13930498 refers to Escher's Circle Limit, which is a two dimensional compression of a geometrically hyperbolic space (anti-deSitter space), i.e. three dimensional infinity represented by a two dimensionally finite circle. The compression is due to mathematical necessity - the famous Friedmann equation has to account for (i) the "flatness" of the universe (the universe is homogeneous and isotropic) and (ii) the fact that the universe expands at an accelerated rate (kinetic energy (Hubble's constant) of a reducing galaxy must be greater than the potential energy, or else the universe would eventually collapse ("crunch") unto itself). Thus after a bit of mathemagics we obtain a flat (Poincaré) disk with a physically limited edge, which nonetheless cannot be reached even if an infinite amount of time and light speed travel were available. The twofold explanation, (i) the edge being mathematically infinitely fractured and (ii) the universe expanding at an accelerated rate such that the distance from any given point to the particle horizon (the observable edge of the universe) cannot be reached (for you will travel a certain distance in space which *itself* is expanding at an accelerated rate) shows how the cross-pollution between the fields of (especially) analytic geometry and physics increases the opacity of an already conceptually opaque framework within which the physicist works.

[Anonymous No.13934102]

>>13933031
So ... yay or nay on infinite causal chains?

[Anonymous No.13934119]

>>13928883
Because that would be inconvenient to non-Vedantic theology

[Anonymous No.13934192]

>>13930609
The Planck length is only the smallest meaningful (applicable) division, not 'the smallest possible division for its own sake' (which has no limit).

[Anonymous No.13934280]

>>13934192
First of all, that's unsettled, and second, there's more reason than that to think that space is discrete. The main reason being that space itself is an emergent phenomenon and not fundamental.

[Anonymous No.13934296]

>>13934280
youre missing the point.

Pixels on a screen are discrete yet I can conceive of half a pixel. This is not a contradiction.

[Anonymous No.13934309]

>>13934296
Because your mental model of space is not the same model as what you are looking at.
"Space" is not one thing. There are different types of spaces.

[Anonymous No.13934327]

>>13934309
You can articulate a space as discrete, just like you articulate the set of all real numbers as discrete. That does not men its not infinite, and further, my point is the planck length has nothing to do with it, and its just an arbitrary measure as any other measure to base the distribution of elements anyways

[Anonymous No.13934341]

>>13929957
Actually there are a lot of philosophers who argue infinity isn't real.

[Anonymous No.13934350]

>>13929365
No problem with that, but that means your issue is at a deeper level of metaphysics than most people. I would recommend looking more into it if you at all curious though. The arguments for and against it are very interesting.

[Anonymous No.13934358]

>>13934341
Infinity as an idea is obviously possible otherwise how is everyone in this thread talking about "infinity" and comprehending the meaning of the word in the same way.

[Anonymous No.13934389]

>>13929989
I wouldn't go that far... It seems likely that there is a base state of existence which is both causeless and intransient, which can be though of as 'infinite'. To contrast, the concept 'nothing' seems purely conceptual in that it can't describe anything concrete... 'Nothing' is not a thing. The idea of a concretely infinite state of existence seems at least logically tenable in comparison.

[Anonymous No.13934404]

>>13934341
Infinity only exists as an abstract idea in our minds. There is a limit on everything. Now of course the universe is still mind bogiglingly big but it is finite, that is if you set off from one point and travel long enough you will return to where you started from. There is a finite amount of energy, therefore the the universe and space are finite. On an intellectual level it may be at first hard to grasp that the universe is finite in some mind bending way, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. Sure irrational numbers go on forever and so does the number line, but those ideas exist only in our heads.

[Anonymous No.13934408]

>>13928944
what's Penrose's ideas?

[Anonymous No.13934446]

>>13934404
>if you set off from one point and travel long enough you will return to where you started from
proofs???

[Anonymous No.13934483]

>>13934404
So you're saying existence wasn't always the case? There was at some point non-existence? I am also skeptical about concrete infinity within our universe, but existence itself is a very different case.

[Anonymous No.13934855]

>>13929007
>switch god with universe
But I’m not a fucking retard so why would i do that

[Anonymous No.13934893]

>>13929117
>bro its just words n sheeeiiitt
Thanks retard, but the accuracy of those words depends on whether or not they can describe things accurately. If they can, then they are accurate no mattee what you think of the concept. You can reply to me that an anvil hitting someone causes nothing, but it’s clear to any idiot what must of necessity follow. If x must precede y, then the argument persists.