There should be a reason for everything

And I always thought of myself as an experiencer.

Sniff:
I like that nickname :)
In that case Infinity has no infinity because it keeps reinventing itself? Or is Infinity the same as or related to Nothing?


It was allways infinity, either infinite limits or infinite parts, even ones in an infinity, infinite dimensions.

As we talked about before, nothing might not be the best name for it, since it is contradictive. It was close to nothing, it is still "dimensionless" since all lengths are zero, but it was also infinite all the time.

Example: 0 has no sign, 1/0 has no sign, hence both must be zero. Since one is infinity, I reckon both are.

Do you understand this thinking?
 
I think that if we hold that everything in the universe can be explain, then it should also be possible to explain the laws of physics and the existence of physical matter without appealing to some supernational set of laws or a supernational god. we need a theory that explain why the laws of nature is the way it is, and why it has the form that it does. unfortunity, everytime when some one seek to explain why the laws of nature is the way it is, it must also invoke a "higher" level sets of laws. EX: If string theory is correct, then we still need a theory to tell us why strings exist, and why string has the property that it does, and why the sting is a string or no a dognut-namely, we need to prove uniqueness. So far, all our scientific theories fail the above criterions, becauses they all appeal to something. A theory of everything would be a theory with no chance, no purpose, or reason. Such theory would allow us to see that existence demand a unique universe with a unique set of laws, without appeal to god. On the contrary, if you claim that there is no reason why things are the way they are, then the whole of the universe and the scientific enterprise is based on no reason at all, and therefore unscientific.


If we are successful in coming up with a such a theory, then we should be able to completely create a universe without using the laws of nature( Because our theory would tell us where the laws of nature come from), and without using any energ(becauses our theory would explain the existence of matter and energy).
If everything didn't exist, then nothing would exist, and that can't happen.
 
Do you understand this thinking?
I'm not much of a maths' guy, or science for that matter. But I may enjoy watching it in movement if it's made clear enough. I'm more of the Picasso-Warhol genre: broken angles and split windowpanes, and tragic arrangements in contemporary silliness.
 
I'm not much of a maths' guy, or science for that matter. But I may enjoy watching it in movement if it's made clear enough. I'm more of the Picasso-Warhol genre: broken angles and split windowpanes, and tragic arrangements in contemporary silliness.

That sounds like a way you could spend your life. 1/0 is much like that. My theory is that 0 is its own inverse. It's a bit of a broken equation and a tragic arrangement in contemporary silliness I guess.

Sorry for being away, I was having a vacation.
 
So in other words, one is the loneliest number,
and zero is self-sufficient because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny?
 
Back
Top