OPRP GG Infinity does or does not exist in space-time? General

>>19587449

>isn't there a finite amount of superpositions and planck moments possible

Space-time isn't a linear plane, so no.

>within what we can observe?

This is the crux of it all, perspective of observer. Just because you cannot perceive it, does not mean it does not exist.

>>19587462
>isn't there a finite amount of superpositions and planck moments possible

Space-time isn't a linear plane, so no.

How does 'Space-time isn't a linear plane, so no.' disprove that there are not a finite amount of points and places within space-time for subatomic particles to exist, even when factoring them in relation to one another?

Please, tell me more about your PhD dissertation on this, because if you don't have a peer reviewed supposition on your statement, it is garbage, and is unsupported by what we currently know. You would win a Nobel prize and probably $1,000,000 anyway because your 'statement' would explain the P = NP problem in the millennium prize.

>>19587462
Our universe doesn't contain infinite matter, nor infinite energy, per General Relativity.

While also, examining quantum mechanics, there are NOT infinite unique quantum particles as far as we know TODAY.

Thus, there are a finite amount of planck moments, which these finite amount of particles can exist in.

It's a big number, it's just not infinity.

OP. Your question is just a complicated way to ask: "If a tree falls, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" The answer is yes, because it alters sound waves around it.

The same thing is applied to time-space. Even though you do not personally experience something, that does not translate to non-existence. Space-time has much more to offer than just your relative knowledge about it.

>>19588754
>The answer is yes
It must be only for you, because the concensus is that it wouldn't make a sound unless there is a observer for it.
>It didn't happen unless you witness it.

>>19588767
Your argument is quite weak. "Consensus" does not override fact. Again, simply because you do not experience something does not mean it does not exist. A group of people who have never used the internet could come to a consensus that we are not using the internet to access this site. The consensus does not hold because the fact remains that we are indeed using the internet to access this site. The fact remains that the tree falling alters sound waves surrounding it. The fact remains that beyond what we have observed, there is still more to discover and observe.

>>19588811
The difference is that the concensus was made by true experts and your comparison is a fallacy because you used it wrong.

OPRP?

>>19587449
Are you claiming to be GG? You should be aware that you left here never to return after Enemy Zero was destroyed, and no OPRP agent would make such posts and include the fact they're with the OPRP, assuming they didn't know in the first place. Gonna need confirmation.

You are answering questions that likely belong more on a board about science. If existence can only occur when light can reach then the theory of dark matter cannot exist since it does not interact with light? I'm no scientist so I may be babbling. If it's true dark matter cannot interact with light, and assuming it is true dark matter would exist under that premises, then why wouldn't reality exist past the longest light wave.

On that note, does that light wave continue to travel, or does it hit a dead-end? Could you show a 'wall' in which all light will cease to travel, or would the light continuously travel when checked hundreds of years later? If the line continued to travel.

>>19587462
I'm not entirely sure what they mean here other then there are no directions in space. You also have to take into account that either space or time might be warped... or some shit. I dunno'. Then you got the idea of 'curved' space-time which is just more confusing.

Where does the light that enters a black hole go? No one knows?

That likely doesn't answer your question at all.

Also, on the subject of entropy, once again... no scientist, but the existence of a universe in the first place sort of proves all our rules and laws stemming from entropy to, I dunno' what else, is more or less a set of guidelines.

I'm not saying the existence of our universe itself proves some otherworldly creator, so to speak, like a God... but it definitely would insinuate what we know about the universe only applies to some of the universe.

It's a guideline, but definitely doesn't explain everything once you get to the very beginning of the universe. It could very likely mean there is an answer to your question, it might exist past that, and there might be a set of guidelines that apply which we, as humanity, haven't really figured out yet. The concept or theory might just not exist. Unless you wanna' go back to a sky fairy. I'm not knocking religion; in fact, I'm religious. I'm just saying this is sometimes why people go back to the sky fairy in the end to use a comical term for a catalyst or dynamics we don't comprehend.