The Big Bang? (Nonreligious Content)

[RageofFir]

It's a human concept, isn't it?  Do we actually observe infinity anywhere in nature, or is it just on paper and in our minds that we encounter it?  That's a serious question.  While infinity can be worked with and encountered in an abstract logical system like mathematics, does really exist anywhere?  Even if the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, how do we sufficiently demonstrate this, and would it be reasonable to then say that infinity itself is a thing that exists, any more than any random number actually exists beyond the abstract?

 

Sorry, it's a bit off topic, but I couldn't resist.

I could be way off on this.

 

Infinity, by definition is limitless or endless; impossible to measure or calculate. So isn't infinity endless potential? Endless potential but it's always forward because the direct opposite of infinity, is nothing nada zip zero. So because none of us are omnipresent/omniscient there is a direct correlation to potential of human choices of what we do*what others do*what nature does*failure of events. It's the what IF question I believe that is what infinity is.

[Heated Bread]

I could be way off on this.

 

Infinity, by definition is limitless or endless; impossible to measure or calculate. So isn't infinity endless potential? Endless potential but it's always forward because the direct opposite of infinity, is nothing nada zip zero. So because none of us are omnipresent/omniscient there is a direct correlation to potential of human choices of what we do*what others do*what nature does*failure of events. It's the what IF question I believe that is what infinity is.

 

Shiiiit we're going off the rails in this bitch.   Zero is just a placeholder, but taken as literally nothing, or that which does not exist (which itself makes no sense when you think about it since "that which does not exist" is not really a thing, but it's referred to as a thing for the sake of conversation), its opposite would merely be something that does exist, not necessarily an infinity of something.  But then one has to ask the question "Is it even sensible to say that something that doesn't exist has an opposite?", to which the answer is that it's sensible for the concept of nothing to have an opposite, but not actual nothingness (which again isn't actual at all, since it doesn't exist!).

 

Yay, semantics?  Is your head ready to explode yet?

[RageofFir]

Shiiiit we're going off the rails in this bitch.   Zero is just a placeholder, but taken as literally nothing, or that which does not exist (which itself makes no sense when you think about it since "that which does not exist" is not really a thing, but it's referred to as a thing for the sake of conversation), its opposite would merely be something that does exist, not necessarily an infinity of something.  But then one has to ask the question "Is it even sensible to say that something that doesn't exist has an opposite?", to which the answer is that it's sensible for the concept of nothing to have an opposite, but not actual nothingness (which again isn't actual at all, since it doesn't exist!).

 

Yay, semantics?  Is your head ready to explode yet?

Oh semantics makes my world go round.

 

So we have some problems:

1. An action that cannot be calculated, is what? I believe we fall in the realm of schrödingers cat.

2. The existence of nothing. It's impossible, time wrecks change because everything has a past. The only thing that comes close to nothing is pure empty space outside of the universe, which we can't actually get. Gravity is a close second but even the weakest of density's will attract each other. So we gotta look at zero energy isolation and to be quite honest something that is not created nor destroyed is very hard to tamper with. (Also outside our universe). So zero, is the beginning which we can't actually prove. It's the thing that made the thing(first thing) that maybe exploded (big bang) that didn't actually happen.

[Heated Bread]