The Epistemic Communication Dilemma Why Infinite Consequences Require Perfect Communication My Personal Argument

[anew1]

@Acltalls

@anew1

magine ‘trying to’ ‘argue’ for ‘a concept’ of something, as though ‘the concept’ is somehow faultless or ‘the proof’ for ‘the thing’ that ‘the concept’ is in relation to.

And, how did I KNOW you were going to ‘see’ and ‘pick up’ on what you did here?

It is like ‘this one’ really believed that it had some actual bearing on anything here.

I am not arguing that the concept is faultless just because other’s agree with or use the same concept.

Great. Let ‘us’ now remove using ‘concepts of things’ completely from this discussion.

@Acltalls

I am only saying that it is not just my concept.

I KNOW. And, once more, it had NO bearing at all in any way.

@Acltalls

You actually did not know what I was going to see or pick up on there because you misinterpreted what I said because like I said before, you lack the understanding of nuance.

If you only KNEW how ridiculous and absurd this claim of yours is here.

@Acltalls

Additionally, you lack the ability to take on other people’s perspectives which is why knowing what I actually mean by my statements and arguments is such a struggle. You cannot step outside of yourself to actually imagine how other people think and get it right. You have failed everytime that you try to claim to know what I was thinking because you cannot extrapolate well from what I say. This is not my fault however, because I cannot accomodate within my communication for someone who lacks certain cognitive abilities. I have tried though.

Maybe you would have been better off studying more in what you claim you got some sort of degree from.

Now, back to the point here. you wanted me to present ‘the proof’ that I already had for ‘my claim’ that the Universe is infinite.

So, can you say anything that logically disproves and refutes ‘that proof’?

[Acltalls]

@anew1

ONCE MORE, if you do not formulate a ‘sound and valid argument’, then it is not worth sharing nor repeating here. Again, unless of course you want to present and show what not to do.

You are not the arbiter of what is and isn’t worth sharing. My arguments are logically sound and valid, but I don’t think you even know what that means. If you know what that means, then I ask you what exactly is required for an argument to be logically sound and valid?

[Acltalls]

@anew1

This type of question is what “greenfuse” likes to copy and paste in the open and honest thread, making it clear that it came from ‘me’.

I wonder if this question with be copied and pasted also.

The problem is that I am literally arguing against your claim that the universe is infinite. That is literally what this entire discussion is about. I am challenging your claim. I’ve been doing that this entire time. You also go off on tangents if you would like to call them that. I do not, but to each their own.

[Acltalls]

@anew1

Considering that ‘you’ want ‘the proof’ for ‘my claim’ here, one could also ask, do you think otherwise?

If I am arguing against your claim how would you think that I am supposed to do that without bringing up points of my own that I have against your claim? This makes me wonder if you understand basic argumentation at all.

[Acltalls]

@anew1

Great. Let ‘us’ now remove using ‘concepts of things’ completely from this discussion.

I will not remove concepts of things from the discussion just because it would be convenient for your argument. All we are discussing here are concepts. Do you know what concepts are? Concepts are literally just another word for ideas and that is what we are discussing.

[Acltalls]

@anew1

So, can you say anything that logically disproves and refutes ‘that proof’?

I’ll say it once more. My argument is that infinity has not been proven by you. If you can refute this then go ahead because so far you have just stated that infinity is possible while somehow thinking that infinity can be subtracted from by objects. Infinite space does not become less infinite just because of objects, if infinite space were to be a thing.

[anew1]

@Acltalls

@anew1

ONCE MORE, if you do not formulate a ‘sound and valid argument’, then it is not worth sharing nor repeating here. Again, unless of course you want to present and show what not to do.

You are not the arbiter of what is and isn’t worth sharing.

Maybe not. But, ‘I’ KNOW what is and is not worth sharing and repeating here.

@Acltalls

My arguments are logically sound and valid

LOL, LOL, LOL. How much faith and confidence can one have in their abilities here?

Are you even aware that if you had formulated a sound and valid argument here, then there is not a person who could logically disagree with ‘your argument’, let alone refute it at all?

If no, then you do now.

@Acltalls

but I don’t think you even know what that means.

Okay.

you really do have quite a lot of presumptions ‘about me’ here.

@Acltalls

If you know what that means, then I ask you what exactly is required for an argument to be logically sound and valid?

Okay.

[anew1]

@Acltalls

@anew1

This type of question is what “greenfuse” likes to copy and paste in the open and honest thread, making it clear that it came from ‘me’.

I wonder if this question with be copied and pasted also.

The problem is that I am literally arguing against your claim that the universe is infinite.

Once again, this is NOT a ‘problem’ at all, to me.

Also, and by the way, you have NOT argue against ‘my claim’ that the Universe is infinite. you, however, are ‘trying your hardest’ to argue against ‘my claim’ that the Universe is infinite.

To actually argue against ‘my claim’ here you would have to show and prove how what I call ‘the proof’ that the Universe is infinite is NOT ‘proof’ at all.

So, I suggest that you first find where ‘the actual proof’ is exactly that I have used here, and then show and prove to the readers here that ‘that proof’ just does not work at all.

Once you have done and accomplished that, then, and only then, you have successfully argued against ‘my claim’ that the Universe is infinite.

Until then, you are absolutely free to keep on ‘trying to’.

@Acltalls

That is literally what this entire discussion is about.

I KNOW. And, I have to keep trying to bring you back to this.

@Acltalls

I am challenging your claim.

Well, introduce some challenging questions, and/or point out some contradictions or inaccuracies in ‘my claim’.

Just saying, for example, things like, “I believe your claim is wrong because you are too certain about your claim”, is NOT challenging ‘my claim’ at all. Also, introducing words like ‘nothing’ and ‘concepts’, ‘filled space’, ‘empty space’, ‘space is physical fabric’ is also not challenging ‘my claim’ and ‘proof’ at all.

@Acltalls

I’ve been doing that this entire time.

If this is what you have really chosen to believe is absolutely true, then okay.

@Acltalls

You also go off on tangents if you would like to call them that.

Okay.

@Acltalls

I do not, but to each their own.

If you have really chosen to believe that you do not go off on tangents, then okay.

[anew1]

@Acltalls

@anew1

Considering that ‘you’ want ‘the proof’ for ‘my claim’ here, one could also ask, do you think otherwise?

If I am arguing against your claim how would you think that I am supposed to do that without bringing up points of my own that I have against your claim?

But you have not brought up anything against ‘my claim’ other than you do not like ‘the definition’ I provided.

And, ‘the definition’ that you provided certainly does not argue against ‘my claim’. The ‘definitions’ you used actually counter and go against each other on their own.

@Acltalls

This makes me wonder if you understand basic argumentation at all.

Okay.

[anew1]

@Acltalls

@anew1

Great. Let ‘us’ now remove using ‘concepts of things’ completely from this discussion.

I will not remove concepts of things from the discussion just because it would be convenient for your argument.

LOL, LOL, LOL. AGAIN, using ‘concepts of things’ is neither convenient nor inconvenient. Using that term is just ridiculous as it has absolutely nothing at all to do with ‘my claim’ and ‘the proof’ that I have provided for ‘my claim’ here. So, the reason for removing ‘concepts’ is because it is Truly not necessary here at all.

@Acltalls

Do you know what concepts are?

Do you know what ‘space’ is?

@Acltalls

Concepts are literally just another word for ideas and that is what we are discussing.

But ‘we’ were not previously discussing ‘ideas’. ‘We’ were discussing ‘a claim’, and what I call ‘the proof’ for ‘that claim’.

[anew1]

@Acltalls

@anew1

So, can you say anything that logically disproves and refutes ‘that proof’?

I’ll say it once more. My argument is that infinity has not been proven by you.

LOL, LOL, LOL Talk about one believing, absolutely, that it is the most supreme being in the Universe.

LOL Imagine having such a superiority complex that you actually believe that you could go into a public forum and TELL another what has and what has not been proven ‘to them’, and not be embarrassed in any way at all.

Now, “acltalls” so-called ‘argument’ here is:

'Infinity has not been proven to me’.

So, how exactly does ‘your argument’ here go “acltalls”. you have NOT yet presented ‘an argument’ for this, you however have made ‘this claim’ only. So, please write ‘your argument’ down now, and ‘we’ can focus solely on ‘that’, for a while, if you really want to.

@Acltalls

If you can refute this then go ahead because so far you have just stated that infinity is possible

Why are you STUCK on ‘just the possibility’ only?

Has finity been proven to you?

Look “acltalls” I will state what I have previously stated again:

The Universe being infinite is NOT just possible but is the actual irrefutable Truth.

Are you able to comprehend this and remain focused on this?

Also;

It is up to you to first present actual proof for ‘your claim’ and so-called ‘argument’ here.

Secondly, if you can refute ‘my argument’, then go ahead.

Do you think or believe that finity is possible?

@Acltalls

while somehow thinking that infinity can be subtracted from by objects.

This is another one of ‘your beyond absurdism’ claims that you keep making in this thread.

@Acltalls

Infinite space does not become less infinite just because of objects, if infinite space were to be a thing.

LOL OBVIOUSLY there cannot be ‘infinite space’ nor ‘infinite physicality’.

And, if absolutely anyone would like to delve into and look at this also, then by all means let ‘us’ proceed.

So-called ‘infinite space’ is NOT a thing. So, you have introduced ‘another thing’ that has absolutely nothing at all to do with absolutely anything that I have said or stated here. you have just introduced ‘something else’, in ‘your hope’ that it will help you here somehow.

[Acltalls]

@anew1

@Acltalls

If you know what that means, then I ask you what exactly is required for an argument to be logically sound and valid?

Okay.

What? You aren’t going to respond to this? Why? Because you don’t actually know the criteria? And therefore any claim you make about soundness or validity is bullshit? If you are going to judge an argument you use be using criteria, and the criteria that you have stated is soundness and validity. So what are they exactly? Do you even know? Because I do and your claims that my arguments and invalid or unsound are based in an obvious lack of understanding basic logic, which you have demonstrated over and over again by your refusal to educate yourself about philosophy when you are on a philosophy forum.

[Acltalls]

@anew1

@Acltalls

I do not, but to each their own.

If you have really chosen to believe that you do not go off on tangents, then okay.

I am saying that I would not call what either of us are doing, tangents. But if you seperate sentences then they don’t make as much sense.

[Acltalls]

@anew1

But ‘we’ were not previously discussing ‘ideas’. ‘We’ were discussing ‘a claim’, and what I call ‘the proof’ for ‘that claim’.

Everything that you think is an idea. So literally all we are doing is discussing ideas. Your claims and proofs are ideas. Ideas and concepts are the broader terms that all thought falls under. Unless you don’t think. But I would say that not thinking is impossible, so everything you have written here, has at one time been thought by you, which makes everything we have discussed, ideas.

[Acltalls]

@anew1

So, how exactly does ‘your argument’ here go “acltalls”. you have NOT yet presented ‘an argument’ for this, you however have made ‘this claim’ only. So, please write ‘your argument’ down now, and ‘we’ can focus solely on ‘that’, for a while, if you really want to.

Acltalls:

There is literally no point because I have given my argument multiple times, but you are so captured by your own views that you cannot see at all what I am saying. You think that my arguing against your claim that the universe is infinite is somehow me stating for a fact that something has not been proven to someone else. I am making the argument that infinity cannot be known. The point of the argument is to establish this claim that I am making. And no there is no superiority complex needed to say that infinity may not be possible. I do not believe in individual truths. It is either true or it is not and therefore it applies to everyone. Every single person that makes an argument for the absolute nature of something is making a claim that it functions a certain way for everyone. You have done the exact same thing, unless you think that your truth only applies to you and therefore the universe is only infinite to you, but then why would you argue that I or others have not seen your irrefutable proof if only your view matters? (This is another rhetorical question) That’s because you are not just caring about your truth, you want others to agree with you. That is what we all want and to pretend otherwise is delusional. You wouldn’t spend anytime discussing these ideas or trying to prove any claim if you were not trying to convince others of such a thing, unless you just haven’t thought about that yet, which as you have shown, you do not think about a great many of things and are very lacking in overall philosophical knowledge.

[Acltalls]

@anew1

Has finity been proven to you?

Yes, I believe that the finite exists, but I would not claim that the universe is finite just because I believe that that one exists.

[anew1]

Okay.

But, ‘the proof’ that the Universe is infinite is in the Fact that ‘space’ only stops or ends at and with a physical object. Which, combined with what else I have shown and presented here, proves irrefutably so that Universe is actually infinite. Although is obviously contrary to what some people believe is true.

[Acltalls]

@anew1

This is another one of ‘your beyond absurdism’ claims that you keep making in this thread.

There is no absurdism, you have said that space is less infinite due to objects, which is not what being infinite is and would make the universe not infinite. You stated as such here:

@anew1

@Acltalls

Is there an infinite amount of space?

Of course not.

Obviously there are physical objects. Which, obviously, reduces the amount of ‘space’, clearly.

So you do not think that space is infinite by your own statement. So why would I think so either if you do not? You are contradicting yourself here because you do not actually know what you are talking about, because all of your ideas stem from a closed mind. You cannot understand others if you know nothing about them, which is what happens when you don’t not read any philosophy.

[Acltalls]

@anew1

But, ‘the proof’ that the Universe is infinite is in the Fact that ‘space’ only stops or ends at and with a physical object.

If distance is space, then whether space stops at an object is entirely relative to which object you base that off of. Does the distance from one object change because there is another object in the way? No it does not, so in this way, distance would have to be infinite by your logic and could not be stopped by objects, therefore making this ‘fact’ that you claim, completely false because it is entirely relative and lacks any form of absoluteness. Your proof relies on this fact, and due to this fact being untrue, your proof is no longer justified. Are you going to engage with this or just say that I am misinterpreting you? Because for some reason, instead of actually engaging with anything I say most of the time, you just keep saying that you are misunderstood. Actually engage with my argument and find where I am wrong rather than just saying nuh uh to it.

[anew1]

@Acltalls

@anew1

If you have really chosen to believe that you do not go off on tangents, then okay.

I am saying that I would not call what either of us are doing, tangents. But if you seperate sentences then they don’t make as much sense.

Okay…