Our universe which is “something” has always existed, with the explanation for it using math.

you know when i see people trying to explain the unexplainable, it just makes me chuckle. as if gotta believe no death, or sky gods this and that, all the same thing. if you got something legit, bring it to the table, but if not then quit pretending to be special, that dirt over there contains our ancestors, and your fate will be the same.

a reply to: ringdingdong

Unless of course the promises of Christ are true, then dirt is not my fate but eternal life in heaven. Such a pessimist .

originally posted by: LightSource
a reply to: Revolution9

I believe the problem lies in what we have been taught what 1 and 0 are. Once you can break the barrier that you can never reach 1 and never reach 0 you can understand things more easily. There are an "infinite" number of smaller particles just as there are an "infinite" number of particles larger. We are "infinite" to a single blood cell inside our bodies just as the universe is "infinite" to us.

You just need to look at a few Physics observations. Two high-energy gamma rays (photons) when they have similar paths, will create an electron.

When an electron and positron combine together, they annihilate and a couple of gamma rays are given off.

Matter and Anti-Matter are more like +1 and -1.

When two atomic nucleii undergo fusion, the mass of the resulting nucleus is lighter than the two original nucleii. This loss of mass has been converted into energy ie. E = mc^2

A similar change in mass and energy occurs with atomic fission of heavy elements. The change in mass is released as energy. But attempts at fusion take more energy than is given out.

Another one is beta decay where a proton or neutron in an atomic nucleii is converted into a neutron or proton along with the emission of a electron, positron and a neutrino. Those neutrinos can flip between three different states and can travel through atoms as if they weren't there. Yet, some seem to get "stuck" between atomic particles and only released due to fusion and fission. They too can have anti-particles. It just all seems to be energy and anti-energy.

originally posted by: LightSource

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: LightSource

Okay so approximately infinity. That would make it even harder for it to expire!
How can an infinite loop of time expire when you only approach it but never reach it?

By viewing it from the outside and not the inside. Here is another way to view it. If there were only 3 things a human, the sun, and the universe. The human dies after 100 years. The sun dies after 1000 years and the universe dies at 10000 years. To the human the sun and universe were everlasting. To the sun the human was finite and the universe is everlasting. To the universe whatever is holding it is everlasting but the human and sun are both finite. Just as Einstein proved that time is relative so is "size". With that being said "infinite" eventually ends by a observation or sudden change. Even though in our eyes it was XXXXX years it actually happens in a blink of an eye. So we have an infinite number of infinite loops that all happen at once in a blink of an eye (or basically all at the same time).

everythingforever.com...

That's got to be the coolest thing I've ever read since the simulation theory

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Peeple

You laugh it off as irrational that doesn't make it so. I would actually argue that a virtual reality is more rational than a physical reality.

Okay, but at this point in space-time (joke) it is as pointless to argue about as the existence of god. I don't want to convince you and i don't want to get convinced. This would go on for hundreds of pages and all we'd do is to piss each other off.
I respect your view, i just see it in a different way.

a reply to: Peeple

Yet you acted like your view the world was physical was intellectually superior and it is simply just untrue.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Because to me it has a whole list of advantages.
The same as your view has for you i'd guess?

You are so close to te truth but not quite right. At the start wasn't nothing and something but nothing and everything. Something and and its mirror, anything came after that.

a reply to: Peeple

No i don't believe something in the advantages it gives me in life. I believe something because I think it to be the thing that is most likely to be true, but I would never try and pretend that the position of I take makes me intellectually superior to you either. I might feel like I have an understanding on certain topics that you have not arrived at yet but I would never call your view irrational and try to put myself on a higher level than you.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

And yet i was feeling like i tried my best to not insult you. Enjoy your acid head theory...

a reply to: Peeple

I think the crudeness is a defense mechanism. Maybe you dont feel comfortable approaching new topics because you question your own ability to critically analyze things. Whatever no point in wasting time with someone as close minded as you.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Whatever, exactly. There is no point in discussing with someone who lost touch with reality like you.
If you were capable of critical thinking you wouldn't believe in a fictional theory.

a reply to: Peeple

Its no more fictional than your theory, if you can't see that I don't think I am the one with the inability to think critically.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Did i tell you what theory i believe in? No.
Nice try. And i'd like to point out i said exactly this pointless argument would happen...
Logic! To some it is magic!

Can you really call that math? You used arbitrary numbers 0 and 1, but nothing else. That's not math that's metaphor.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Peeple

Its no more fictional than your theory, if you can't see that I don't think I am the one with the inability to think critically.

So critical thinking = "Magic and ancient unverified myth is just as valid as science"?

How exactly does blind faith hold equal or more weight than science? I'm curious. People seem to think that blind denial of science = critical thinking but it's the opposite.