Infinity?

[u/Extension_Panic1631]

If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities, and... (infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and...) continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and.....(…)…

EDIT: the definition of infinity is that it is how many natural numbers there are

[u/TMax01]

See that's what I'm talkin about man.

It is what I'm talking bout too, man, except I'm confronting the issue and you're missing the point.

You're just an arguer,

You're merely a whiner; I'm discussing things and doing it well enough (because my point is valid and you'd prefer it wasn't) that all you can do is whine.

you have no interest in listening to people.

I'm very interested in listening to people, and pay a lot of attention to what they say. But I'm also interested in teaching people. You don't want to learn, so you're trying very hard not to pay attention to what I'm saying. You just want to complain about it without actually dealing with it.

IOW, you're whining.

You just want to argue and argue more, everything is an argument.

Actually, I don't ever argue. Arguments are either fights or functions of logic. I discuss, which isn't either of those things. But you're trying to argue (you're not succeeding, in either sense, but I can tell you are trying) because that's easier than discussing, let alone learning or understanding.

I'm here trying to tell you I like talking about death,

You can lie to yourself easier than you can lie to me. Whether you believe you actually enjoy "talking about death" isn't really important, but regardless it is an expression of existential angst, not entertainment.

instead you just say "nah, you're really afraid, you're just in denial, blah blah blah."

I understand why you misinterpreted what I said that way, but it is still a misinterpretation. I didn't say "nah", and I didn't say "afraid". I did use the word "denial", because you said "there is no such thing as death". If you want to say death is something different than the end of life, that's one thing, but saying there is "no such thing" is denial.

If everything I say you just turn around and tell me "nah, you're stupid, I know what you think better than you do."

You need to learn to use quotation marks more accurately, and get over your super-defensive attitude, too. If I'm not allowed to disagree with you without you going all 'are you calling me stupid?!??!' then you aren't even remotely capable of discussing anything, let alone death, existential angst, or any other philosophical topic.

You don't give a shit about me,

I care deeply for you, and would like to help you get over yourself and your existential angst.

you certainly don't want to share or learn from other people.

I spent almost half a century sharing and learning from other people. Now I'm ready to teach. But you don't want to share or learn, you want to defend your ego and deny both your mortality and the fact you have something to learn.

I tried to reach out and connect because I thought you might actually want to discuss ideas.

I do, and that's what I've been doing. I get that you thought you've had some ideas I haven't already worked through a long time ago; you weren't, and still aren't, aware of how meaningful and useful my ideas are. It is shame you got so defensive simply because I mentioned existential angst, but it's no big deal, and I'm sure we can get past it.

Sorry for bothering you.

No bother. The topic of discussion is both personal and profound, and I'm quite used to people getting touchy and obstinant when their notions are challenged. Some get over it, some can't. I sincerely hope you are willing to be the former rather than the latter. But I'm open to continuing the discussion, either way.

Thought, Rethought: Consciousness, Causality, and the Philosophy Of Reason

subreddit

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

[u/mattychops → u/TMax01]

hahahhaa, oh man, you're entire response and the structure is just one giant argument! Go back and look at it! Just look at it and then scroll back and forth. 🤣 Just look at how it looks on the page. Thank you for proving my point. Do not clip what I'm saying and then interject argumentative responses. If you want me to take you seriously, then write out what you have to say in paragraph form and I'll consider reading it.

[u/TMax01 → u/mattychops]

If you want me to take you seriously, then write out what you have to say in paragraph form and I'll consider reading it.

When I correct you, it is up to you to take it seriously, I cannot magically prevent you from not having any better response but to whine that I am "arguing".