Everything in the Universe is made of nothing.

No matter how deep or far we look into microscopes and telescopes, the fact remains that we can always look deeper or farther. There is no real limit, except the one your mind creates.

Once the microscope peers deep enough, it will see everything.

Once the telescope peers far enough, it will see nothing.

And then the two observers become one. If only they could meet.....

The two observers are "one" and "not one" (i.e. "everything" and "nothing"). Each relies on the other for its own existence. They are opposite, yet they define each other, so neither can exist without the other. They both love and hate each other equally.

They are opposites, yet they are the same.

To put it mathematically, 0+1=2.

Solve that.

Why?

Woah.........

I don't understand the reasoning but mind blown. Kind of.

First of all. No, you cannot always look deeper with a microscope. After a certain, point, you will get to quarks, and then you will just be looking at bigger and bigger pictures of quarks.

Second, Jack has to agree about how much nothign is actually in the universe. Granted there are things to do with 84-85% of the massive part of the universe being made up of dark matter, and string theory plus colliding dimensions can also be argued, but technically the universe is infinite.

In simpler terms, your logic does not make sense to me here. Can you explain it better?

Looks like you have to start again there, Jack!

Except quarks are... how should I say this... not really there?

I mean, they exist, yeah. But they're more like "things in this area have a probability of being where the Quark is".

The universe is a vast area of mostly nothing, with tiny bits of something somewhere inside it. That statement, and the OP's, doesn't actually help us at all, it's just a nice way to sit back and try to appreciate the mostly nothing that is in front of us.

@#$%. Neosilk is right. And I was doing so good too. I made it..... how long did I make it?

Still, the logic confuses me to the point where I broke my 30 day challenge. That says...... something.

Especially where 0+1 = 2 came from.

Edit: It's been 4 days and a little over one hundred posts. Man that is long odds against me going 30.

There is a lot of seemingly empty space, but I wonder about that. We don't know what we will see as we look at smaller and smaller scales. The macro scale objects move and act in certain ways, and quantum scale objects move and act in ways that are counterintuitive to our macro scale conditioned minds.
How can we know there isn't a smaller scale that acts even more strangely, and requires even more advanced and indirect methods of observing it?

This reminds me of the question, "magnets, how do they work?"
After we're done mocking clown rappers, how about explaining magnetic fields? A particle has some property that produces an effect on the space around it, which interacts with other particles and the fields they carry. Alright, but how does a field extend beyond the particle? Or how does it exert force on other particles?
Then there is the concept of space, which I guess is a field in which particles can move and propogate fields in. Which begs the question, what is outside the field of space? This starts to feel like programing a gaming world from scratch, defining objects that exist to allow other objects to exist.
Lastly, I admit that I am pretty uneducated in the nuances and lexicon of quantum mechanics, so please forgive my inaccuracies.

I really feel that this is a roundabout way of saying, "The world is so complex that the only way we can explain it is through complexity." Why not just agree that the universe is complex and focus on functional definitions of the world? More gets done that way and our understanding develops faster, but if you focus on understanding nonsense with more nonsense you don't get anywhere.

This is about as complicated as "since I cannot see everything, everything must not exist. If everything does not exist, that must mean all is nothing." It's an abstraction given a literal, linear narrative. Aka, it's inherently wrong.

the purpose of the universe is to post in the burger thread

if all i should do is post in your burger thread does that mean i can troll you more
or would you call me a cum gargler if i did that again

I just like screwing with people's minds in the way I word things, but the fact that "everything" is comprised of an infinite amount of "nothing" warrants some thought.

Take two objects, A and B, that are a metre apart (whatever a "metre" actually is). Object A moves half the distance remaining toward object B every second while B remains stationary. In this scenario, object A travels an infinite distance and never reaches object B, even though the space between them is "finite". How is this possible?

because there are an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 0

Words.

Agreed. In fact, there is an infinite amount of numbers between any two numbers and an infinite amount of space between any two points in that space.

And the only way to fit an infinite amount of anything into a finite space is if that something is actually nothing.

I'm not sure that that is true. At a certain point, matter/energy becomes indivisible, and the dimensions of that particle are the only accurate unit of measurement. The amount of space between two points thusly measured would be finite. Much like how when you add 1/3 to 2/3, you get 1, even though if you tried adding the decimal equivalencies you would get point nine repeating.
Your conception of numbers as decimals or space as divisible introduces error that is not reflective of the true state of reality.

The only number that is truly indivisible is 0.

About your fraction vs. decimal thing, that's because 1/3 =/= 0.333 (repeating). The decimal system can only represent a subset of all the numbers that exist. Some infinities are bigger than others, after all.

I don't post in threads where I can't comment on the pictures at all.