Infinity is real

[Age]

So there is a problem. Could you rephrase your question, please?

You're claiming that space exists and has properties. I'm asking you to specify what exists and has properties without just repeating the word "space."

Information maybe in a pure vacuum. I don't know another alternative.

Does the phrase 'pure vacuum' imply there is nothing, and thus NOT some 'thing', like 'information', for example?

[bahman]

You're claiming that space exists and has properties. I'm asking you to specify what exists and has properties without just repeating the word "space."

Information maybe in a pure vacuum. I don't know another alternative.

Does the phrase 'pure vacuum' imply there is nothing, and thus NOT some 'thing', like 'information', for example?

Pure vacuum implies that there is nothing in it. The pure vacuum is not nothing.

[Age]

All are necessary and simple.


It is the absolute truth.


I know. I should have said think instead of believe in the first place.

Yes this is Correct, True, and Right, and therefore thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

Cool.

Ok.


The universe has a beginning. So you are wrong in your belief that it is eternal.

But I do NOT 'believe'. So, I do NOT 'believe' that the Universe is eternal. We have gone through this before. Have you forgotten already?

Do you have ACTUAL proof that the Universe began?

If yes, then WHY is that said and CLAIMED "proof" NOT agreed with and NOT accepted by "others"?

Are you aware that if you did have ACTUAL 'proof', then 'that' would be irrefutable, and thus could be agreed with and accepted by EVERY one?

What you say and CLAIM is NOT accepted and NOT agreed with by EVERY one. And this is BECAUSE NOT all of what you say is Right, True, NOR Correct, (as can be proven true). Although this is obviously contrary to what you BELIEVE is true. Do you understand this FACT?

It is your belief. We have already been through this.

No we have NOT.

You are COMPLETELY FREE to BELIEVE whatever you want to BELIEVE. But you will ALWAYS BE WRONG whenever you make CLAIMS like you have here just now. I say this just so that you ARE AWARE.

For the second case, infinite universe, why do you think that the universe cannot be bounded?

Because there is absolutely NOTHING that could bound It.

What do you mean? That is not reasoning.

If the word 'Universe' literally means Everything or ALL-THERE-IS, then 'that' can NOT, logically, be bounded, OBVIOUSLY.

[Age]

Because I have a solid argument for it.


Yes, including yourself that think that the universe is eternal.


The proof is there.

Yet you can NOT provide "it".

And until you CAN provide ACTUAL proof, you are just going to continue FAULTING and FAILING, like you have been here.

Do you understand my argument?

What argument?

Also, was 'it' a sound and valid argument?

I see what you are asking. And yes, they are living beings.

Really?

So, where are these, alleged and supposed, "living beings" called "dracula", "dragons", and "unicorns"?

Also, WHY is it only 'you', "bahman", here who BELIEVES that these 'things' are ACTUAL 'living beings'?

They are a living being as a matter of necessity, the whole is boundless.

Talk about 'NOT reasoning'.

They are, allegedly and supposedly, a 'necessity' to 'what', EXACTLY?

If the whole is boundless, or bounded, then this has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do whether some 'thing' exists as a real 'living thing' or not.

[bahman]

Yes this is Correct, True, and Right, and therefore thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

Cool.

But I do NOT 'believe'. So, I do NOT 'believe' that the Universe is eternal. We have gone through this before. Have you forgotten already?

Do you have ACTUAL proof that the Universe began?

If yes, then WHY is that said and CLAIMED "proof" NOT agreed with and NOT accepted by "others"?

Are you aware that if you did have ACTUAL 'proof', then 'that' would be irrefutable, and thus could be agreed with and accepted by EVERY one?

What you say and CLAIM is NOT accepted and NOT agreed with by EVERY one. And this is BECAUSE NOT all of what you say is Right, True, NOR Correct, (as can be proven true). Although this is obviously contrary to what you BELIEVE is true. Do you understand this FACT?

It is your belief. We have already been through this.

No we have NOT.

You are COMPLETELY FREE to BELIEVE whatever you want to BELIEVE. But you will ALWAYS BE WRONG whenever you make CLAIMS like you have here just now. I say this just so that you ARE AWARE.

It is alright. You could stay in the state of denial.

Because there is absolutely NOTHING that could bound It.

What do you mean? That is not reasoning.

If the word 'Universe' literally means Everything or ALL-THERE-IS, then 'that' can NOT, logically, be bounded, OBVIOUSLY.

That really is not really an argument. ALl there is could be finite. What is wrong with that?

[bahman]

Yet you can NOT provide "it".

And until you CAN provide ACTUAL proof, you are just going to continue FAULTING and FAILING, like you have been here.

Do you understand my argument?

What argument?

Also, was 'it' a sound and valid argument?

Please read OP here. Of course they are sound arguments.

Really?

So, where are these, alleged and supposed, "living beings" called "dracula", "dragons", and "unicorns"?

Also, WHY is it only 'you', "bahman", here who BELIEVES that these 'things' are ACTUAL 'living beings'?

They are a living being as a matter of necessity, the whole is boundless.

Talk about 'NOT reasoning'.

They are, allegedly and supposedly, a 'necessity' to 'what', EXACTLY?

Necessary to exist.

If the whole is boundless, or bounded, then this has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do whether some 'thing' exists as a real 'living thing' or not.

It has.

[Skepdick]

Because it is 'you', "skepdick" who BELIEVES that it is IMPOSSIBLE to SEE past the observable, correct?

Why do you believe that I believe that?

If you travel 14 gigaparsecs in any direction what would be observable to you won't be the same stuff that's observable to Earthlings.

[Skepdick]

How does this, supposedly, 'logically' follow?

Obviously there can NOT actually be an 'effect' before a 'cause'. There can be, of course, however, a 'perceived' 'effect' without a 'cause'. But this does NOT mean that there was an 'effect' without a 'cause'. If one BELIEVES that it is possible to get 'effects' before 'causes', then this just means that one is NOT LOOKING and NOT SEEING ACCURATELY and CORRECTLY.

OK Age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_c ... tum_eraser

[Skepdick]

So you're saying that "space" refers to something that's a verb--that is, an action on something, rather than referring to something that's itself a substance?

Otherwise you either need to suggest something else for what space is, or we need to revise the claim that information would be a verb/an action (namely, the formation of a substance).

Why does it need "revisiting"?

The entire tradition of Western thought thinks in nouns in a universe that has none.

You morons forgot about change and time. Everything is a verb. Being is a verb.

[Age]

Cool.


It is your belief. We have already been through this.

No we have NOT.

You are COMPLETELY FREE to BELIEVE whatever you want to BELIEVE. But you will ALWAYS BE WRONG whenever you make CLAIMS like you have here just now. I say this just so that you ARE AWARE.

It is alright. You could stay in the state of denial.

SO, 'you' BELIEVE that you can tell me what thoughts are occurring here in this head, which I tell you they are NOT and so YOU ARE WRONG, but yet you want to then tell me that I am in a "state of denial". LOL

Who is in ACTUAL 'denial' here is OBVIOUS, NOW.

What do you mean? That is not reasoning.

If the word 'Universe' literally means Everything or ALL-THERE-IS, then 'that' can NOT, logically, be bounded, OBVIOUSLY.

That really is not really an argument. ALl there is could be finite. What is wrong with that?

LOL 'bounded' by 'what', EXACTLY?

AND, how far out does that 'boundary' expand? Or, what is on the other side of that boundary, and then how far out does 'that' expand for?

Also, do NOT forget that ALL of these, laughably called "boundaries", are still just a part of the WHOLE Everything.

SEE, no matter which way you want to LOOK AT this you will ALWAYS arrive at ALL-THERE-IS being INFINITE, as well as ETERNAL by the way.

[Age]

Information maybe in a pure vacuum. I don't know another alternative.

Does the phrase 'pure vacuum' imply there is nothing, and thus NOT some 'thing', like 'information', for example?

Pure vacuum implies that there is nothing in it.

SO, this would include that there is NO information in it also, correct?

The pure vacuum is not nothing.

Of course the 'pure vacuum' is NOT 'nothing' as 'it', itself, is OBVIOUSLY some 'thing'.

[Age]

Do you understand my argument?

What argument?

Also, was 'it' a sound and valid argument?

Please read OP here. Of course they are sound arguments.

But NOT 'valid', correct?

By the way, I have ALREADY EXPLAINED and SHOWN how those, so called, "arguments" do NOT work, AT ALL. But because of those BELIEFS, within that head, you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY BLINDED from SEEING this.

They are a living being as a matter of necessity, the whole is boundless.

Talk about 'NOT reasoning'.

They are, allegedly and supposedly, a 'necessity' to 'what', EXACTLY?

Necessary to exist.

LOL

'you', "bahman", are an expert at 'circular reasoning'.

If the whole is boundless, or bounded, then this has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do whether some 'thing' exists as a real 'living thing' or not.

It has.

HOW EXACTLY?

[Age]

Because it is 'you', "skepdick" who BELIEVES that it is IMPOSSIBLE to SEE past the observable, correct?

Why do you believe that I believe that?

1. I do NOT 'believe' that.

2. I am just asking for CLARITY whether you 'believe' that or not.

Your refusal to just answer a VERY SIMPLE and VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD question REVEALS more about 'you' than 'I'.

If you travel 14 gigaparsecs in any direction what would be observable to you won't be the same stuff that's observable to Earthlings.

[bahman]

No we have NOT.

You are COMPLETELY FREE to BELIEVE whatever you want to BELIEVE. But you will ALWAYS BE WRONG whenever you make CLAIMS like you have here just now. I say this just so that you ARE AWARE.

It is alright. You could stay in the state of denial.

SO, 'you' BELIEVE that you can tell me what thoughts are occurring here in this head, which I tell you they are NOT and so YOU ARE WRONG, but yet you want to then tell me that I am in a "state of denial". LOL

Who is in ACTUAL 'denial' here is OBVIOUS, NOW.

You.

If the word 'Universe' literally means Everything or ALL-THERE-IS, then 'that' can NOT, logically, be bounded, OBVIOUSLY.

That really is not really an argument. ALl there is could be finite. What is wrong with that?

LOL 'bounded' by 'what', EXACTLY?

AND, how far out does that 'boundary' expand? Or, what is on the other side of that boundary, and then how far out does 'that' expand for?

Also, do NOT forget that ALL of these, laughably called "boundaries", are still just a part of the WHOLE Everything.

SEE, no matter which way you want to LOOK AT this you will ALWAYS arrive at ALL-THERE-IS being INFINITE, as well as ETERNAL by the way.

Don't you see? You are arguing the same way I argue.

[bahman]

Does the phrase 'pure vacuum' imply there is nothing, and thus NOT some 'thing', like 'information', for example?

Pure vacuum implies that there is nothing in it.

SO, this would include that there is NO information in it also, correct?

That is called the classical regime.

The pure vacuum is not nothing.

Of course the 'pure vacuum' is NOT 'nothing' as 'it', itself, is OBVIOUSLY some 'thing'.

Cool.