Now here’s another question: is it a belief based in a fact of a finite universe, or was the universe infinite before gullible humans were made to believe otherwise and trapped within their beliefs completely, due to species-wide conformity through fear and panic?
Edit: which would theoretically only create a pocket of finite resources wherein other parts of space might be infinite still.
How do you come to see different and equal as opposites? What do they have in common?
They’re really not opposites at all.
Night and day are opposites.
Sweet and bitter are opposites.
Altruism and apathy are opposites.
The opposite of different would be “the same” or “similar”.
The opposite of equal might be uneven.
No, I meant the colour symbolisms of “negative” and “positive”, respectively.
If one’s distance from the finish line (co)determines the outcome of the race, then it’s not a completely random universe. Now insofar as it affects the outcome of the race, you want the contenders to be the same–e.g., start equally far from the finish line. So if the universe is completely determinate–i.e., if everything affects everything else–, you want the contenders to be exactly the same. I think you confuse chance with the unknown: insofar as they can be known to us, you want all the factors determining the outcome of the race to be the same for all contenders: this you call their having the same “chance” to win it.
So you agree that you’ve been talking about means, not opportunity:
Actually the liberals say “everyone is free”, which is impossible, and the egalitarians say “all are equal”, which is also impossible. So they have to find a synthesis, if they don’t want to constantly fight aginst each other; and the fact that they have found one is the reason for the fact that they say thesis (“everyone is free”) and antithesis (“all are equal”) together.
You’re the one who’s bizarre here, dude. That’s EXACTLY what it means for a universe to be infinite. If there is no infinite supply of all things that is accessible to everyone at any time, then the universe is not infinite, but finite.
If things are infinite, they are EVERYWHERE. If they are not everywhere, they are not infinite. This is very easy to grasp, but if you’re a liberal, you will never admit it.
An infinite universe is a fallacy, James and Magnus just have different views of how this impossibility would best be conceptualized.
Magnus, I have an idea as to why you claim that a liberal wouldn’t take your view, let me know if I’m right.
A liberal, in this sense being one who is particular prone to denying reality, likes to claim various absolutes exist, but to avoid exposure the absolutes must always exist out of range of perception. So the absolute of utopia, is of course far in the future, the absolute of equality among people is magically possible despite the entire filed of science being built upon even the slightest measurements of divergence, and an infinite universe would just be a universe that has unlimited aspects to it outside of the range of perception - which of course is essentially saying nothing, but the idea primes people’s minds to accept the afore mentioned absolutes.
“Infinite universe” means “infinite in height, width, depth, and time”. It has never had anything at all to do with the notion of having an infinite number of things within each region (except for perhaps infinitely small “things”). Obviously there are a finite number of finite things within each region, but there are an infinite number of regions (unless you fell into the Bogus Bang hoax).
“Infinite universe means an infinite number of apples on my tree… an infinite number of pennies in my pocket… an infinite number of girls in my bed…”. rather moronic.
They’re both absurd, maybe one drawing attention to the seemingly mundane absurdity of the other by magnifying it.
What, James, to you think lies beyond the human horizon of perceptions? Unperceived perceptions, and then more and more - endless possibilities - out of reach, sort of a substitute for actual hope?
What lies outside human perception is just about everything. Human perception is pretty damn limited. A reasoning mind extends far, far beyond what is merely perceived and thus offers real hope rather than fantasy hope.
Beyond the stars, are more stars… always and forever.
Metaphorically, yes, one extends his perceptions as a practical way of progression, but to take it literally to the stars and beyond, is only a substitute. Even the reasonable hope of outer space being a continuing and much needed frontier hardly expands beyond the solar system, certainly not to another star or to stars unseen.
The issue isn’t about “much needed frontier”. The issue is about who can be trusted to be truthful. When an idea is promoted that is patently false but for the purpose of proposing a “much needed frontier”, then false hope is the guide. And guess where that leads.
Is there some need for people to believe that the universe has a limited size? No one is going to get anywhere close to any proposed boundary anyway. So why the deception? Is the intent to maintain a lack of trust in the people promoting such things? General insecurity perhaps? What am I missing in this game of The Bogus Bang theory?
Peter, I think I may not have been clear.
Opportunity is not limited to money.
Opportunity is more , it is having intelligence, drive, desires will, etc, etc.
Qualities of a person will make opportunities or take away opportunities.
If you had to choose an employee would you want one that worked hard or one that was given things?
You can promise equal education opportunities to all but, just how many would use it well? Not many.
We have small towns and cities that could use more willing bodies, do the young in large over populated cities migrate as they did in earlier times? No, not enough and why? The needed qualities are missing. Why try when settling is easier. Our social programs are used as hand outs not hand ups, they lack attached incentives and are easy to get and keep.
To clarify, I assume you believe the universe is infinite in size as you described it earlier and your saying that to claim it’s finite is patently false? If so, then where did you get the idea that the need for space as a frontier has anything to this supposed deception I’m perpetuating? I was just using that as an example to clarify what you agree with, that, “No one is going to get anywhere close to any proposed boundary anyway.” Making the issue of hope obsolete when concerning the issue of whether or not the universe is finite.
The issue is simply getting rid of schizophrenia in the sciences. When it comes to issues that don’t deal with humans and their longing for absolutes, science is rigidly pragmatic, taking no one at their word alone, and not even humoring theories that haven’t undergone near endlessly testing. But, when it does deal with humans and absolutes, suddenly racial divergence is too small to detect, the logical absurdity of equality is given leeway, and so-called atheists’ inability to let go of their theistic origins are allowed to speak of absolute size, time, and beginnings and ends without any evidence.
We seem to be talking across each other. I can’t tell what you are intending by what you are saying.
Yes.
Are you perpetuating that it is finite? Logic resolves the issue.
The “need for frontier” was your thought, not mine. I don’t know how it relates.
And I suspect that you are taking Science as more trustworthy than it is. The Bogus Bang theory was literally proposed as a joke but now is promoted as “the truth of science”. Why is it being promoted so much? The theory is creating “schizophrenia”, not getting rid of it. Today’s “science” is not Science.
