Well, with 0.9 recurring you have 2 numbers separate numbers which are taken to be equivalent. Likewise, if the Universe is infinite (I assume that's still a popular theory) then surely we can't be measured against it in any real way. In theory there'd be several 0.0's recurring before you hit a 1 down the line, but you never really would. Similar, not the same.rokkolpo said:how do you support that statement?Woodsey said:Mathematically speaking (and in a similar vain to 0.9 recurring being equal to 1) I'd put forward the argument that we don't exist.
... wow, nice theory, I totally agree with you. XDWoodsey said:Well, with 0.9 recurring you have 2 numbers separate numbers which are taken to be equivalent. Likewise, if the Universe is infinite (I assume that's still a popular theory) then surely we can't be measured against it in any real way. In theory there'd be several 0.0's recurring before you hit a 1 down the line, but you never really would. Similar, not the same.rokkolpo said:how do you support that statement?Woodsey said:Mathematically speaking (and in a similar vain to 0.9 recurring being equal to 1) I'd put forward the argument that we don't exist.
Anyway, even if the universe is finite, then I'd still argue the same thing. Look at how small we are compared to Canis Majoris. You can't see us for several comparisons before we even get to Canis Majoris. So, even measured to that star alone, we'd be rounded down to a 0% share of that space.
Then look at the universe, with 100 billion galaxies. We go so far to a 0% share hold of the universe's space that that's what we, mathematically, must be equal to.
I'm not saying we don't exist, I'm saying that mathematically we don't.
And operating under faux quantum physics (I really have no idea if I even get the gist of it) I could argue that we create everything in existence.Woodsey said:Mathematically speaking (and in a similar vain to 0.9 recurring being equal to 1) I'd put forward the argument that we don't exist.
damn i thought this was going to be a philosophical argument. i can't beat math. *murble* going all teacher on me *grunt*.Woodsey said:Well, with 0.9 recurring you have 2 numbers separate numbers which are taken to be equivalent. Likewise, if the Universe is infinite (I assume that's still a popular theory) then surely we can't be measured against it in any real way. In theory there'd be several 0.0's recurring before you hit a 1 down the line, but you never really would. Similar, not the same.rokkolpo said:how do you support that statement?Woodsey said:Mathematically speaking (and in a similar vain to 0.9 recurring being equal to 1) I'd put forward the argument that we don't exist.
Anyway, even if the universe is finite, then I'd still argue the same thing. Look at how small we are compared to Canis Majoris. You can't see us for several comparisons before we even get to Canis Majoris. So, even measured to that star alone, we'd be rounded down to a 0% share of that space.
Then look at the universe, with 100 billion galaxies. We go so far to a 0% share hold of the universe's space that that's what we, mathematically, must be equal to.
I'm not saying we don't exist, I'm saying that mathematically we don't.
Good for you.philosophicalbastard said:And operating under faux quantum physics (I really have no idea if I even get the gist of it) I could argue that we create everything in existence.Woodsey said:Mathematically speaking (and in a similar vain to 0.9 recurring being equal to 1) I'd put forward the argument that we don't exist.
just when you think they can't go bigger....you realise you're only on 50% of the vid.Simalacrum said:Ah yes, I remember seeing that video...
Now here's one that shows that we're even smaller:
When you get down to the sub-sub-sub...-atomic level in this universe distinctions between things get fuzzy and undefined. Particles have the ability to be in two places at once in that state. But if its observed the fuzzieniss goes away and everything is clearly defined. In other words, if a tree falls in the woods and no one sees it, the tree didn't fall. Yet if someone goes to the spot where the tree fell and observes a fallen tree, then it did fall.Woodsey said:Good for you.philosophicalbastard said:And operating under faux quantum physics (I really have no idea if I even get the gist of it) I could argue that we create everything in existence.Woodsey said:Mathematically speaking (and in a similar vain to 0.9 recurring being equal to 1) I'd put forward the argument that we don't exist.
I have no idea what you mean.
Going by your name anyway, doesn't that have far more to do with philosophy?philosophicalbastard said:When you get down to the sub-sub-sub...-atomic level in this universe distinctions between things get fuzzy and undefined. Particles have the ability to be in two places at once in that state. But if its observed the fuzzieniss goes away and everything is clearly defined. In other words, if a tree falls in the woods and no one sees it, the tree didn't fall. Yet if someone goes to the spot where the tree fell and observes a fallen tree, then it did fall.Woodsey said:Good for you.philosophicalbastard said:And operating under faux quantum physics (I really have no idea if I even get the gist of it) I could argue that we create everything in existence.Woodsey said:Mathematically speaking (and in a similar vain to 0.9 recurring being equal to 1) I'd put forward the argument that we don't exist.
I have no idea what you mean.
It has philosophical applications, but its real science. The one partical in two places thing also gives some support to the idea of alternative universes.Woodsey said:Going by your name anyway, doesn't that have far more to do with philosophy?philosophicalbastard said:When you get down to the sub-sub-sub...-atomic level in this universe distinctions between things get fuzzy and undefined. Particles have the ability to be in two places at once in that state. But if its observed the fuzzieniss goes away and everything is clearly defined. In other words, if a tree falls in the woods and no one sees it, the tree didn't fall. Yet if someone goes to the spot where the tree fell and observes a fallen tree, then it did fall.