User Controls
Are there infinite dimensions?
-
2016-05-02 at 3:12 AM UTC
[SIZE=12px][SIZE=14px]Are there infinite dimensions?[/SIZE] [/SIZE]
If there is...
Then right now, in one of them, at this very moment, I'm having an orgy with some hot ass loli's
In another one...I'm fucking a hot lil loli doggy-style
And in another one I got 6 loli's preggo.
FUCKING HAWT!!
All of you are doing the exact same thing in one as well. Just saying... -
2016-05-02 at 4:06 AM UTC
What do any of you dipshits even think "there are infinite dimensions" would even mean anyway?
Infinite layers of complexity -
2016-05-02 at 5 AM UTC
If there is…
Then right now, in one of them, at this very moment, I'm having an orgy with some hot ass loli's
In another one…I'm fucking a hot lil loli doggy-style
And in another one I got 6 loli's preggo.
FUCKING HAWT!!
All of you are doing the exact same thing in one as well. Just saying…
Thank you for this post -
2016-05-02 at 6:42 AM UTC
If there is…
Then right now, in one of them, at this very moment, I'm having an orgy with some hot ass loli's
In another one…I'm fucking a hot lil loli doggy-style
And in another one I got 6 loli's preggo.
FUCKING HAWT!!
All of you are doing the exact same thing in one as well. Just saying…
Do not forget, there are the same amount of universes in which you are the loli. -
2016-05-02 at 10:28 AM UTC^ you're a fucking pig
-
2016-05-02 at 3:50 PM UTC
herp derp i dont understand multiverse theory
Get fucked dumbass
-
2016-05-02 at 5:25 PM UTC^
-
2016-05-02 at 7:54 PM UTC
What do any of you dipshits even think "there are infinite dimensions" would even mean anyway?
Infinite axes and infinite configurations of "existence". -
2016-05-02 at 9:08 PM UTC^
-
2016-05-02 at 9:23 PM UTCNobody watches your video links or cares that you post them. Why don't you write out your thoughts instead?
-
2016-05-02 at 9:24 PM UTC
[greentext]>"My theory has more proof than your theory"[/greentext]
[greentext]>Uses my theory to prove his[/greentext]
[greentext]>Thinks this is solid logic.[/greentext]
I never claimed multiverse was true I simply noted that it may be some individuals understanding of dimensionality. It is also stupid to say that "because if you believe in a multiverse, you would be open to the idea of a flat earth." This is pretty fucking stupid because if you believe in a multiverse you would indeed be open to the idea of a flat earth, or a universe where the natural formation of matter is a flat square rather than spherical. You would also be open to the idea that there is a universe entirely made of ants, a universe where you are sploo, a universe where totse never ended, a universe that is just a basket of fruit in a large white room. Furthermore you would believe all variations of any possible potentiality exist somewhere in some way. For me personally this is a bit far fetched and while things like multiverse and string theory have elegant and beautiful proofs, there are always holes and flaws in them.
But more importantly if you believe in multiverse theory that doesnt mean that you must believe that the earth is flat in this universe. All it indicates is that you could imagine a reality in which the earth is flat. Further there is all the evidene in the world to say that the earth is spherical from NASA to standing on the beach and looking at a boat cross the horizon. In all our years of sailing and exploring, do you not find it strange that no one has yet found the edge? Further, is it not rectifiable with your theory that one can board a plane look out the window and see the curvature of the earth or send a baloon up with a camera and see the same at a high enough altitude?
Bill Krozby will never address this. -
2016-05-02 at 10:34 PM UTC^Quite true
Nobody watches your video links or cares that you post them. Why don't you write out your thoughts instead?
Also very true. If Bill Krozby wants to be taken seriously he wouldnt post a video that literally no one will watch. I have never clicked on a Bill Krozby youtube link because I am fully aware how retarded its going to be. At least if he wrote out what he thought I would be forced to skim over it and maybe catch a glimmer of his warped understanding of things. -
2016-05-02 at 11:11 PM UTC^ how about you suck my dick instead you faggot, you might learn something
-
2016-05-02 at 11:19 PM UTCHe's too busy cucking you.
-
2016-05-03 at 4:42 AM UTC
Infinite layers of complexity
So you've just replaced the word "dimension" with "layer of complexity", it does nothing to make the situation clearer. What is an layer of complexity? Why do we have reason to believe any number of them exist? What would count as evidence of an infinite quantity of them existing?Infinite axes and infinite configurations of "existence".
What does it mean for an axis to exist? We commonly model dimensionality of a space with vectors, lengths of a vector in a space are equal to the dimensionality of the space, we can consider and express vectors of infinite lengths and spaces with an infinite number of dimensions but is that a sufficient condition of existence? It devolves into ontology I guess, I'd say no, just because we can model a thing doesn't give us a reason it "exists" for any normal meaning of existence.
I suspect the most natural reading of OP would be "does an accurate model of physical space have an infinite number of dimensions" and the maps has been mistaken for the territory. In that case we can at least say the question seems coherent but I don't see what could possibly count as evidence for or against the proposition. Occams razor would seem to recommend we take the answer to be "no", in absence of a reason to believe there are infinite physical dimensions we'll have a simpler world view in accepting there are exactly 4. -
2016-05-03 at 5:21 AM UTCThere would be too many dimensions and they'd fold into themselves in a spiral fashion and the dimensions at the core of the spiral would be shattered into bits and pieces of random dimensia that would fly through the surrounding dimensions like shrapnel integrating themselves respectfully into what would effectively be the 'older' dimensions and mutating them into a brand new dimension which continues within the spiral and so and and so forth, always producing new dimensions, but at the same time, the old dimensions are always shattering into the new dimensions, so it's like yes AND no, mannnnnnnnnnn.
-
2016-05-03 at 5:56 AM UTC
So you've just replaced the word "dimension" with "layer of complexity", it does nothing to make the situation clearer. What is an layer of complexity? Why do we have reason to believe any number of them exist? What would count as evidence of an infinite quantity of them existing?
A dimension IS a layer of complexity. It takes a lower state and exponentiates the information into a higher structure. A layer of complexity means that the information is elaborated upon in a way that cannot be expressed by a lower state. We have a reason to believe they exist because we know we can percieve at least four of them. If a 3-d state is a single perception, then a 4-d state is perceptions morphed through time i.e. consciousness being is an exponent of perception. If a 4th dimension could be equated to consciousness, would 5th, 6th, 7th dimensional states be defined as a "collective unconscious" or human consciousness elaborated upon in a way that could be represented by "entities"? Would we assume the entity of universiality and connections between everything (All) to be a finite, n-dimenional state or infinite? Your IQ literally make me upset sometimes. -
2016-05-03 at 11:04 AM UTCI'm on mushrooms the answer is water and triangles. Lots of both
-
2016-05-04 at 2:57 AM UTC
If a 4th dimension could be equated to consciousness
How is "a 4th dimension" the same thing as consciousness? -
2016-05-04 at 4:54 AM UTCNotice he says "If a 4th dimension". This is to say, "for the sake of argument". Or to say "to play devils advocate". This is to say "my argument cannot be substantiated but wouldnt it be fun to talk about?". TBH my best understanding of the four dimensional is three dimensional. At least visually (I am a visual person). I think interstellar is a good place to begin in thinking of a spherical hole in the universe as a fourth dimensional object. Unfortunately I cannot convey dimensionality in a purely mathematical sense. Check out my thread Becoming Unlimited and check out the Reversible Multiverse meditation post. DO NOT believe anything on the second page of that thread. Agents hijacked my accounts to give false information.
I have said too much.
