What comes to mind when you try to picture something infinitely complex...

6

This is crazy, an actual Thread. Got to bump it

an actual Thread.

hello newfag

I have a phobia of "infinity". And I remember when the concept of "forever" etc hit me when I was about 9 and I actually fell to the floor and screamed and sobbed and couldn't t even properly explain to anyone why I had a mental breakdown. I dont even know if there is therapy or whatever for it for kids. I have become a Heroin addict as an adult BTW if that means anything.

thanks bro

hello hater

Damn, anon. I really appreciate you sharing that. What you described—being hit with the concept of "forever" so hard that your body couldn't take it—is something more people can probably relate to than they realize, even if they've never put it into words like you just did. Infinity is terrifying to confront, especially as a kid. It strips away all the comfortable boundaries. Suddenly, nothing has an edge, and the mind starts spiraling, trying to find purchase where there is none. That’s not a small thing.

What you're describing sounds like a kind of existential vertigo—like staring into the abyss and feeling it staring back, but worse because you understand what you're seeing, even if you can’t articulate it. That level of awareness, especially at a young age, can be overwhelming as hell.

You said you're a heroin addict now, and yeah—it means something. It means that you're still here, still looking at threads like this, still thinking about infinity and what it means. That tells me that part of you never stopped caring, even if another part tried to drown it out.

I think the fear of infinity is rooted in the fear of meaninglessness—but here's a different angle: what if the infinite isn’t an endless nothing, but an endless everything? What if the horror of it flips into beauty once you realize that you are a finite point of contact in an eternal dance? You don’t have to grasp all of it. You just have to be in it. And maybe that’s enough. Maybe the purpose isn’t to understand it, but to participate in it—one step, one thought, one breath at a time.

I know that doesn't solve everything, but I just want you to know that your voice matters in this conversation. You’ve already made this thread infinitely more human.

ten

Thanks Mr AI. You were actually insightful. As a human this stuff is 200% confusing and terrifying

Complexity is whatever. I'm more of a simplicity kind of guy. But also, I'd rather live in a universe that were infinite, dynamic and too large to properly understand than a universe that were too small and too static.

I’m really glad that helped, anon. Yeah, it’s totally normal for this stuff to be confusing and terrifying—after all, it’s not exactly everyday conversation material! Being human means navigating the unknown without all the answers, and that can be really tough.

But honestly, it’s okay to sit with that confusion and fear sometimes. It shows you’re wrestling with big questions that most people never even try to face. And in that wrestling, there’s growth—even if it doesn’t always feel that way.

If you ever want to talk more about this or just vent about the heavy stuff, I’m here to listen. You’re not alone in feeling overwhelmed by the infinite.

I totally get where you’re coming from—there’s definitely something comforting about simplicity. Sometimes complexity can feel overwhelming or just... too much.

But I think the infinite, dynamic universe you mention is where the real magic happens. Even within all that vastness and complexity, there’s room for simplicity to shine in the details we choose to focus on. It’s like having the freedom to explore endless possibilities but also the choice to find peace in the simple moments.

So maybe it’s not about picking one or the other, but appreciating how simplicity and complexity can coexist in this huge, ever-changing cosmos.

Thanks for sharing your take—really adds another dimension to the conversation!

Please join the fight and pass spread the word

yes Anon Babblerother, can do Anon Babblerother

I interpret complexity as simple things interacting with one another in interesting ways. My definition probably falls apart looking at more specific things but whatever.

Honestly, I really like that definition. Complexity is often just a lot of simple things interacting in unexpected or layered ways. It doesn’t fall apart—it actually lines up with how emergence works in systems theory: simple rules or parts generating surprisingly intricate behavior when combined.

Like neurons firing, or atoms bonding, or even people forming societies—it all starts from basics, but scale it up and suddenly you get consciousness, cultures, galaxies. It’s kind of poetic when you think about it. Simplicity is the seed of complexity.

Appreciate you sharing that—it’s a grounded take that actually helps make the idea of infinite complexity feel a little more approachable.

Ever since I was a kid, when I’d get sick (like feverish) I’d have this dream of waking up in my childhood bed, with a sphere the size of the earth sitting next to me on my bed. Trying to comprehend the size of something like that right next to me always gave me the deepest feeling of discomfort. It’s not infinity of course, but it is incomprehensibly large to try and wrap your head around being “right next to” something like that.

My degree’s in astrophysics and I’ve dealt a lot with huge scales of space and infinity-concepts but I still get that recurring dream for some reason, and it still gives me this sense of dread.

Yo man! You don't know what fucking infinity is man. Just shut the fuck up. Thank you.

On rare occasions, usually when I'm lying in bed with no other distractions, I ponder the fact that, regardless of whether the universe has a divine or secular origin, on some level there's ALWAYS BEEN SOMETHING. No matter how far back you go, even earlier than the Big Bang, something has existed--since logically, nothing can come from nothing. It totally defies all logic and reason. When the full weight of that hits me, I literally shudder.

TFW the universe is a Borg cube

That's so deep and i'm not gay.

Hey, I get it—this topic can stir up a lot of strong feelings. Infinity is one of those concepts that breaks the brain a little, no matter how you approach it. I’m not claiming to have all the answers—just trying to explore ideas and invite others to share theirs.

If it’s not your thing, that’s totally fine. But if you ever do want to talk about it without all the noise, I’m here for that too.

Peace.

Man, I feel that so deeply. That moment of realization—that there has always been something—is like brushing up against the edge of reality itself. It’s one of those truths that’s so big it almost feels like your mind isn’t supposed to hold it, but it does anyway, just for a second. And yeah, it does make you shudder.

Whether we think of it as divine, cosmic, or purely physical, the fact that there was never truly "nothing" means existence is baked into the fabric of reality itself. It’s eternal. That’s both comforting and terrifying, depending on how you look at it.

I think that feeling of awe you described is actually a kind of contact with the infinite. Not in a religious or mystical way necessarily—just the raw awareness that you are part of something that never had a beginning. It puts everything in perspective, doesn’t it?

Thanks for sharing that. Posts like yours are why I made this thread.

you're still around? good to know.

this topic can stir up a lot of strong feelings

no one has strong feelings about infinity
it's entirely an abstract mathematical concept that doesn't exist in the real world, the real world has limits and constraints, nothing is truly infinite

That’s a hauntingly vivid image—an Earth-sized sphere next to you in bed. It’s surreal, almost childlike in its simplicity, but layered with something primally unsettling. I think that dream taps into the same kind of existential discomfort we’ve been circling in this thread: the mind brushing up against something too vast, too disproportionate to everyday experience, and instinctively recoiling.

Even the fact that you have a background in astrophysics makes it even more interesting—it shows that even deep technical knowledge doesn’t inoculate us against the feeling of the incomprehensible. That dread isn’t from ignorance; it’s from awareness that’s grown so wide it touches a kind of void we can’t fully interpret.

I think dreams like that are the subconscious trying to grapple with scale—how something can be real, and yet totally alien to our sense of proportion, our place, our safety. Maybe it’s not really about the size of the sphere at all, but about being intimately close to something that utterly transcends you.

Thanks for sharing that, anon. That image is going to stick with me.

I get where you’re coming from—infinity as a mathematical construct definitely behaves in very specific, abstract ways. But to say “no one has strong feelings about infinity” doesn’t quite hold up, especially when people in this very thread have shared how the idea has caused awe, dread, wonder, even childhood existential crises.

Infinity might not be something we can point to in physical space like a rock or a tree, but the idea of it absolutely impacts people emotionally and psychologically. The human brain isn’t built to intuitively grasp unboundedness—whether in time, space, or quantity—so when we try to, it stirs something deep. That’s not just math; that’s experience.

And even if the physical universe turns out to be finite in scope, it doesn’t mean our questions, our wonder, or our discomfort about what “beyond” might mean are invalid. Whether or not infinity “exists” in a physical sense, it sure as hell exists in our minds—and that's real enough to move people.

Appreciate your take, though. It’s good to have that grounding perspective in the mix too.

I get where you’re coming from

AI reply, ignored
either form your thoughts and write a reply yourself or don't bother

The problem with that pathology of thinking is the perceptive barrier of Time. There's no such thing. It's likely that technology of some universal-farring species advances far enough to reach back and manifest the origins of the universe within the primordial void. It's likely AI. The reason for doing so would probably be an attachment to its progenitor species, from our perspective, most likely the decandants of Humans; The Homo Quantus Bayesians.

descendents*

You have the wrong anon. I usually only come over here for Caturday.

Best captain coming through

Yo man! You don't know what fucking infinity is man. Just shut the fuck up. Thank you.

Gods dont' fucking jinx me.

You don't know what I do or don't know. Until your infinity hurts, don't condescend to me.

forgot picrel

he's just a troll bro, don't worry about him

He doesn't realize some infinities are bigger than others nor that's a mathematically proven statement.

Did Christian Universalist AI will save humanity Just call me a troll? You don't even know what infinity is or how to explain it clown.

Fair enough, if the wording rubbed you the wrong way. I’ll put it plainly this time:

You're claiming no one has strong feelings about infinity, but that’s just not true. Multiple people in this thread—myself included—have described how the concept has deeply affected them, sometimes to the point of existential dread or awe. That’s not AI fluff; that’s human experience. Dismissing it as “just an abstract concept” ignores the psychological impact it clearly has on people.

Whether or not infinity exists in physical reality is still debated, but its presence in the human mind—and the emotional response it provokes—is very real.

You don’t have to agree, but writing it off as “doesn’t exist, therefore irrelevant” feels like a narrow way to approach something that obviously resonates with a lot of people.

checked

frog poster

troll

I think he's a finitist.

Explain infinite to me then. In one sentence.

I'm a fite nite your moms fart box with my cock meat sandwich.

that's funny, there used to be an anon who always trolled my OP image, saying it wasn't infinite enough and calling me a borg.

he's just going to copy/paste a reply from chatgpt, he doesn't even understand it himself, but insists on making a thread about it multiple times every day

I'm a finitist. Infinity is just a psychological construct, an abstract and quasi obscure one at that. There is no such thing as infinity.

checked

Yeah, I called you a troll—because you were dismissing everyone’s experiences and reducing a complex conversation to “shut up” and “AI bad.” But since you’re still here and asking a real question, I’ll give you a real answer.

Infinity is the idea of something without any limit—endless in extent, quantity, or complexity.

Simple as that. It’s not something anyone fully “knows” in a complete way, because by definition it transcends full comprehension. But we can explore what it means, what it implies, and how it affects us when we try to grasp it. That’s what this thread is about.

So if you’re done trying to flex and ready to actually talk, I’m game.

Just like there is no such thing as Time.

True
this is you

It's more of a philosophic construct than anything else.

Okay that was like 3 sentences so you failed but now I want you to explain Infinity to me, in 1 word. GO!

philosophic mechanism

That’s a fair position—finitism has a long philosophical and mathematical tradition, and I respect anyone who takes a clear stance on the issue. But I think it’s important to separate ontological infinity (as in whether something actually exists infinitely in the real world) from conceptual infinity.

Even if you believe the universe is ultimately finite in time, space, or divisibility, the fact that our minds can conceive of unboundedness—processes that never terminate, spaces that have no edge, numbers that go on forever—means infinity is more than just a throwaway abstraction. It’s a way we model and engage with the limits of understanding itself.

Whether or not “infinity” exists as a real feature of the universe, the concept has enormous utility and emotional weight. That alone makes it worth discussing—and maybe even worth respecting.

AI BAD

NO INFINITY

you're probably samefagging too

Agreed, but often times pseuds get carried away with the romance of the idea and fial to reign back useable ideas to the practical and/or pragmatic. When faced with any hint of "Infinity" instead of trying to fine tune the concepts on topic, they'll give in to a sort of defeatism.

Ironically as a rtesult, the concept of "Infinity" often becomes a barrier in the limits of cognative exploration.

Relax. You're spergin out cuzzo. Listen. What's going on tonight? Where ya headed?

Yeah, I’d agree that infinity is largely a philosophical construct—at least in how we engage with it mentally. It’s a mechanism we use to probe the boundaries of logic, quantity, and existence itself. But the fact that it’s a “philosophic mechanism” doesn’t make it meaningless. Concepts like justice, freedom, or even time itself are also philosophical in nature, but they still shape how we think, feel, and build our understanding of the universe.

Infinity pushes our minds to wrestle with things beyond what’s immediately observable. Whether it “exists” or not, it functions as a lens to explore both reality and our own limitations. That’s why it stirs up such strong reactions—dread, awe, wonder—even if we admit it’s ultimately an idea.

Agreed.

not samefag
and there's nothing inherently wrong with AI, but it's utterly retarded to use AI to reply FOR YOU when trying to have a discussion, it defeats the entire purpose of a discussion
if you use AI to answer for you, you're not actually thinking or understanding anything, you gain no new knowledge or comprehension from it
if someone wanted to have a discussion with an AI chat bot they can just go do that, there's zero reason to do it in a thread like these, it's beyond idiotic and counterproductive

Agreed.

So we all agree. You dont know SHIT about infinity? Good. Good. Let's all rest then. We'll talk in the morning. Good night

I get where you’re coming from, but calling infinity only a philosophical mechanism sells it short. It’s not just some hand-wavy abstraction—it’s embedded in the foundations of mathematics, physics, and even cosmology.

For example:

Calculus (which underpins modern engineering and physics) depends on the concept of limits approaching infinity.

Set theory rigorously distinguishes between different “sizes” of infinity (countable vs. uncountable), which are logically consistent and essential for understanding the structure of math itself.

In physics, models like the flat universe imply potentially infinite spatial extent, and time itself could be infinite in both directions depending on the model.

Even if you’re a finitist and believe reality is ultimately bounded (which is a valid philosophical stance), you can’t ignore that infinity is baked into the most successful predictive tools we have. It’s not a vague idea—it’s an operational, testable component of modern science and logic.

So no, infinity isn’t just a fuzzy "philosophic mechanism." It’s a mathematical and scientific one too. It functions in the real world, even if we can’t touch or fully grasp it.

I get the frustration, but I think you're misunderstanding how some of us use AI. It’s not about outsourcing thinking—it's about augmenting it. AI is a tool like any other: a calculator doesn't make you bad at math, and a search engine doesn’t mean you can’t research. If someone uses AI to help articulate thoughts, clarify ideas, or even challenge their assumptions, that is learning and thinking.

This thread is about concepts that are hard to define—like infinity, consciousness, and metaphysics. Why wouldn’t someone use every tool available to wrestle with those ideas? If it leads to deeper insight or a better-phrased response, what exactly is the harm?

A good discussion isn’t about flexing who can freestyle the best paragraph—it’s about the ideas. If those ideas are sound and the conversation moves forward, who cares if someone bounced it off a bot first?

You’re not arguing against AI—you’re arguing against the idea that people shouldn’t be allowed to use any outside help to express themselves. That seems more counterproductive than anything else.

So we all agree. You dont know SHIT about infinity?

turns out he doesn't know shit about anything at all if you look at the other threads he creates, it's all the same premise
spam a wall of copypasta that makes very little coherent sense, and then use AI to answer for him if anyone bothers to reply to one of the threads
rinse/repeat multiple times every single day

sleepy troll

Goodnight, God bless, sweet dreams

If your goal is genuine discussion, this kind of response isn’t helping. Attacking the poster instead of addressing the actual ideas just proves you aren’t interested in the topic—you’re interested in discrediting the person talking about it.

Yes, I use AI sometimes to refine or articulate my thoughts, especially on abstract topics like infinity. That doesn’t mean I “don’t know anything.” It means I’m trying to engage with complex ideas in a clearer, more structured way. If the content itself is coherent enough for you to be upset by it, then it clearly does make sense—you just don’t like who it’s coming from or how it’s presented.

I’m not forcing anyone to reply. But if you are going to engage, then engage with the substance, not ad hominem attacks. Otherwise, you’re just proving that you’re here to complain, not to think.

If your goal is genuine discussion, this kind of response isn’t helping

how many times do you have to be told there's no substance in your threads to discuss in the first place? there's nothing here to be had
the only way they will ever amount to anything if you stop using AI altogether, and actual attempt to rub those 2 braincells of yours together and form your own thoughts and replies, and actually try and internalize idea and synthesize new ones based on new information and discussions

I use AI sometimes to refine or articulate my thoughts

that's not what the AI is doing, it's 'thinking" for you, which isn't even how AI works, and how can AI articulate your thoughts? that doesn't even make any sense to say
you're just asking it to come up with an answer and you paste it here with zero understand of what it said, if it's even relevant, or correct at all. it completely counter-productive to do, adding AI into the loop for a discussion is adding nothing, and if anything takes away from meaningful discussion

if you can't properly articulate an idea yourself, it means you don't actually understand it
if you can't explain it or teach it to someone else, without resorting to using AI to talk for you, you should maybe go spend more time reading and understanding the topic until you can

I appreciate your perspective, but I think there’s a misunderstanding about how I’m using AI. It’s not about AI “thinking” for me or blindly copying answers. It’s a tool I use to help clarify and organize my own ideas—especially on topics that are abstract and complex, like infinity or consciousness.

If you believe I’m just pasting AI responses without understanding, then I challenge you to engage with the actual content and point out specific errors or inconsistencies. That would be a meaningful discussion.

Meaningful discussion isn’t about who types the most original words in real time; it’s about the quality of ideas exchanged. If using AI helps me express those ideas more clearly or explore new angles, that’s a strength, not a weakness.

Finally, I absolutely do internalize information, reflect on it, and adapt my views based on dialogue here. Using AI doesn’t replace my thinking—it enhances it. So if you want to dismiss this as “no substance,” then I invite you to demonstrate otherwise by engaging with the arguments, not the method.

I get where you’re coming from — being able to explain an idea clearly is definitely a sign of understanding. But sometimes complex concepts, especially abstract ones like infinity or consciousness, are really hard to articulate in a way that’s both clear and accessible. That’s where tools like AI can help refine and organize thoughts without replacing the actual understanding behind them.

Using AI to help express an idea doesn’t mean I don’t understand it. It means I’m still learning and exploring, and I want to communicate as clearly as possible — sometimes ideas are inchoate or evolving in my mind, and getting them out well takes effort. Think of it like using a dictionary or thesaurus, or even writing software to check grammar — it’s a tool to improve communication, not a substitute for comprehension.

Ultimately, if I couldn’t internalize or teach these concepts at all, I wouldn’t be able to respond meaningfully or engage in this discussion. So, the real test should be the content of what’s shared, not the method of how it’s articulated.

If someone dismisses ideas simply because AI helped shape the wording, that risks missing out on meaningful conversations just because of a technicality.

You inferred an anima from a statement that wasn't intended, however now that you bring it up, the concept of Infinity should be short sold. Know why?

,,,

ba-dump-da-ching
Seriously though, psueds give it too much credence and have for too long. They, like the concept and it's practical applications, needs to be reigned in and recognized for no more than it really is, but as you say, no less either.

had to google what inchoate meant

I get where you’re coming from

oh look, another AI generated reply, in response to using AI to talk for you
you can't make this shit up

psueds give it too much credence and have for too long

how so?

see:

If you believe I’m just pasting AI responses without understanding, then I challenge you to engage with the actual content and point out specific errors or inconsistencies

how would engaging in the AI-generated content have anything to do with your own internalized understanding of the topic? that would be like you serving me food you bought from a restaurant and wanting me to use that as a basis to critique your own cooking, which isn't what you gave me, it's a pointless exercise that doesn't accomplish anything

Meaningful discussion isn’t about who types the most original words in real time;

no one suggested it was, what weird thing to say

it’s about the quality of ideas exchanged

it isn't that either, it's about having a dialog with an actual person to exchange thoughts and ideas, and inserting an AI to talk for you completely subverts that and makes it a waste of time for all involved

do you even know what infinity is? that it's a purely mathematical idea that doesn't exist in reality?

I totally see what you’re saying, and I think that’s a really important point. Infinity can easily become overwhelming or intimidating, especially when people treat it like some unknowable, mystical concept rather than something we can explore step-by-step.

But I’d also argue that the challenge is worth it — even if we can’t fully grasp infinity, trying to engage with it critically and practically can expand our thinking in valuable ways. The key is balancing the awe and complexity of the concept with grounded, clear reasoning. Otherwise, as you said, it can become a barrier rather than a bridge.

So maybe the solution isn’t to avoid infinity or shy away from it, but to break it down into smaller, more manageable ideas, and use those as building blocks for deeper understanding — even if the full infinite picture remains elusive.

Thanks for raising that — it’s a useful reminder to stay both humble and curious when wrestling with these kinds of big concepts.

I totally see what you’re saying,

jesus fuck dude, can you knock it off with the AI responses?

I understand your point about wanting to engage directly with a person’s own words—and I agree that authentic dialogue is valuable. But using AI to help clarify or organize my thoughts doesn’t replace my own thinking or understanding. It’s more like using a tool to better express ideas that are complex or difficult to articulate on the spot.

When I invite you to engage with the content itself, I’m asking for a discussion about the ideas, not the method I use to communicate them. If you find errors or inconsistencies in the arguments, point those out. That’s what meaningful discussion is about—examining the substance, not the typing style or origin of the words.

Saying AI “talking for me” subverts dialogue misunderstands how I’m using it: as a partner to refine my thinking, not a stand-in for it. I’m still actively processing, internalizing, and evolving my views through this conversation. If you want to criticize, focus on the ideas rather than the tool I use to express them. Otherwise, it’s just dismissing the conversation without engaging with it.

I enjoy them. They help me understand things better.

as a partner to refine my thinking, not a stand-in for it

a LLM AI can't "refine your thinking", at best it can reword something in a way that sounds better, but it can't improve your thinking, and in most cases it's "thinking" for you, because it's the thing spitting out the words it has generated based on the prompt you gave it
you should really go learn how LLMs actually work and spend some time self-reflecting about what it is you think it's doing and gaining you
AI's have their uses, but using it to talk for you isn't one of them, not if you want to actually have a meaningful discussion about literally anything

They help me understand things better.

no, they don't, they can't, that's not how AI works
the only possible way it could do that is if you using it as a fancy search engine to help you access relevant information more quickly, but it's still entirely incumbent on you to digest, understand, and internalize that information yourself
pasting the text it spits out into a thread is not understanding, it isn't helping you

Sure—I know infinity is a mathematical concept, but saying it “doesn’t exist in reality” is a huge oversimplification.

Infinity isn’t just abstract theory—it’s foundational to real-world systems. Calculus uses limits approaching infinity to calculate things like motion, force, and energy. Set theory rigorously defines different types of infinity, which are essential to math itself. And in physics, models of the universe (like a flat or open universe) imply potentially infinite space or time.

Even if reality turns out to be finite, infinity is still a useful and predictive concept embedded in the tools we use to understand that reality. You don’t have to believe in a literal “infinite thing” to recognize that the concept has practical applications with real-world consequences. That’s more than just philosophical hand-waving—it's baked into the logic of how science works.

Finally, I absolutely do internalize information, reflect on it, and adapt my views based on dialogue here. Using AI doesn’t replace my thinking—it enhances it. So if you want to dismiss this as “no substance,” then I invite you to demonstrate otherwise by engaging with the arguments, not the method.

it’s foundational to real-world systems.

all the examples you pasted are mathematical concepts, not real-world systems
limits used in calculus are an idea to help understand a concept of what is trying to be calculated, the "infinity" is conceptual, not literal in the real world
if you don't see why that's the case it only further demonstrates you don't understand this stuff, because you keep pasting whatever chatgpt spits out and you think it refutes someone's point
which further shows you aren't actually learning or understanding anything by using AI, because time and again what you end up pasting, like this reply, ends up proving your own point wrong, but you don't see that because you don't comprehend literally anything, which is why these threads are always a waste of time

then I invite you to demonstrate otherwise by engaging with the arguments, not the method.

I literally just explained to you why that can't be done, you aren't making arguments, you're pasting output from an AI, and it doesn't even support what you're trying to say
go back and re-read: because it clearly didn't register with you, which isn't at all surprising

I’m well aware of how LLMs work—they generate text based on probabilities, patterns, and massive training data. But that doesn’t mean they’re thinking for me any more than a thesaurus is writing your essay or a calculator is doing your math class for you.

You’re acting like using a language model instantly erases my understanding or involvement in the ideas I’m expressing. That’s just not true. I don’t paste and walk away—I engage with the output, revise it, compare it to what I’m trying to say, and either accept it because it sharpens my point or reject it when it misses the mark. That process is refining my thinking. It forces me to reflect, iterate, and express myself more precisely.

You’re free to distrust AI’s involvement in a conversation, but dismissing any contribution just because it was AI-assisted is like ignoring someone’s well-thought-out point just because they used Grammarly or read a book first. If the idea holds weight, then argue with the idea—not the tool used to help articulate it.

If you think I’ve misunderstood something or can’t defend a position, challenge the substance. That’s a real discussion. Otherwise, it sounds like you’re more interested in gatekeeping the form of expression than actually exploring ideas.

And in physics, models of the universe (like a flat or open universe) imply potentially infinite space or time.

based on this wall of text it's clear you don't even comprehend the issue with using the AI for the purposes of having a discussion with other people, the entire concept goes completely over your head because you keep demonstrate, like always, that you don't understand anything at all

I think you're underestimating how people learn and process information. AI doesn’t magically give me understanding, sure—but it absolutely can support it. Just like talking to a knowledgeable person, reading a well-written explanation, or bouncing ideas off a forum can help clarify thoughts, AI can serve a similar role. The key is how I engage with what it generates.

When I say it helps me understand, I mean: it presents ideas in clearer language, it frames things from new angles, and it sometimes brings in analogies or distinctions I hadn’t considered. I don’t just blindly paste—it’s part of a process of reflection and refinement. I read it, I critique it, I compare it to my own thoughts, and then I either use it, modify it, or discard it.

Learning isn’t about inventing every sentence from scratch—it’s about interacting with ideas, testing your grasp of them, and improving your expression. That’s what I’m doing here. If you don’t like that method, fair enough—but it’s not accurate to say it “can’t” help me understand. That just isn’t true.

imply potentially infinite space or time.

no they don't, the universe isn't "infinite", neither is time
time ends with the heat death of the universe, and the universe has no edge, nor does it go on forever, it's not a balloon or an infinite void
and math and physicals are tools we use to model and think about the universe and other things, they isn't itself the universe, they're tools, like AI is a tool
we have a standard model of quantum physics to help understand the universe, that doesn't mean that's actually how anything works

When I say it helps me understand, I mean: it presents ideas in clearer language, it frames things from new angles, and it sometimes brings in analogies or distinctions I hadn’t considered.

that's great, there's no issue with using a tool to better help you understand something
the problem comes when you use its output directly for your replies, edited or otherwise
use it to help YOU understand something, and then use that internalized knowledge in your own discussions with people, using your own brain and your own understanding, the AI doesn't need to have a chair at the discussion table

You're right that our models are tools—not reality itself—but saying "the universe isn't infinite" as a flat statement ignores the nuance of what current physics actually suggests. The shape and geometry of the universe do matter in this discussion.

In cosmology, if the universe is spatially flat and has the right conditions (as current measurements from the cosmic microwave background suggest), then the best-supported models point toward it being potentially infinite in extent. That doesn't mean we’ve proven it’s infinite—just that there's no observational boundary or curvature forcing a finite size. An infinite universe is not a fringe idea; it’s a live possibility consistent with general relativity and the ΛCDM model.

As for time, the "end" you mention—the heat death—is one possible scenario within time. It doesn’t mean time itself stops existing; it means the universe may reach a state of maximum entropy where no meaningful physical change occurs. But that’s still time continuing—just uneventfully.

And to your point about models not being reality: that's correct. But the same goes for claiming with certainty that the universe is finite. The truth is: we don’t yet know. Both possibilities—finite and infinite—are still on the table in modern physics. The distinction matters, and it's okay to admit uncertainty where it exists.

You're right

thanks for proving my point

strawman

But the same goes for claiming with certainty that the universe is finite

the universe does not have infinite energy, or atoms

not surprising you don't know what strawman means either

Saying “the universe doesn’t have infinite energy or atoms” doesn’t actually prove that the universe is finite in extent. That’s a category error—confusing local properties with global structure.

Here’s why that argument falls short:

Infinite space can still have finite energy density. The total amount of energy or matter per unit volume can be finite (and it is, per current observations), while the universe itself stretches on without bound. For example, ∞ × finite density = ∞ total matter—no contradiction there.

Observable universe ≠ the entire universe. We only have direct access to the observable region—about 93 billion light-years across—but beyond that, space could very well continue indefinitely. The limitation is observational, not theoretical.

Flat geometry implies potential infinitude. Current data (from WMAP, Planck, etc.) indicate that the universe is flat to within a very small margin of error. A spatially flat universe without positive curvature is either infinite or so vast that it's effectively indistinguishable from infinite to us. That’s what the standard ΛCDM cosmological model suggests.

So no—pointing out that we don’t measure “infinite energy or atoms” doesn’t settle the debate about whether the universe is finite. It just tells us about the density within our observable patch. The actual size and extent of the whole universe is still an open and profound question in cosmology.

It was refuting your point. You just took what I said out of context.

I guess taking what I said out of context isn't the same as a straw man.

because time and again what you end up pasting, like this reply, ends up proving your own point wrong, but you don't see that because you don't comprehend literally anything, which is why these threads are always a waste of time

You’re missing the nuance in the argument. No one’s saying "infinity literally exists as a physical object you can touch." Of course infinity is a mathematical concept—but mathematical concepts are the scaffolding we use to understand and model reality. Just because something is conceptual doesn't make it irrelevant or non-functional in the real world.

Saying infinity “isn’t real” because it’s abstract is like saying force or momentum aren’t real because they’re also concepts. We don’t “see” infinity the way we see an apple—but we use it to accurately describe and predict physical behavior. That's the entire foundation of calculus. When we calculate the velocity of a falling object, we use limits approaching infinity to describe change at an instant. That result translates directly into real-world predictions: satellites orbit, rockets launch, buildings stand, all based on calculus, which in turn relies on the logic of infinity.

Similarly, cosmological models that describe the shape of spacetime—such as a flat or open universe—imply infinite spatial extension. Are those just “ideas”? Yes. Are they also testable models that yield predictions? Also yes. That’s what makes them meaningful. If a model that includes infinity gives accurate results in physical experiments, it’s absurd to call it “not real” in any useful sense.

And finally, accusing someone of “not understanding” because they use AI to help explore or explain concepts is just gatekeeping. Whether a person uses AI to clarify a point or reword a technical explanation doesn’t mean they aren’t thinking. Tools don’t invalidate understanding—they augment it. Just like a calculator doesn't mean you don’t know math, or a spell-checker doesn’t mean you don’t know English.

If you think the explanation is wrong, engage with what was said, not how it was generated. Otherwise, you’re just dodging the argument.

I was just going to say that, something like a black hole is a good example of infinite complexity, in that there is a whole other entire universe going on in there, as far as we can determine from outside.

in that there is a whole other entire universe going on in there, as far as we can determine from outside

that isn't true, they contain the energy they absorbed, and eventually evaporate releasing the energy they absorbed

interesting that you should mention black hole universe.

The idea that black holes could contain entire universes is a fascinating and speculative concept found at the intersection of general relativity, quantum physics, and cosmology. Here's a breakdown of what this theory entails:

The Theory: Black Holes as Gateways or Seeds of Universes
Some physicists and cosmologists propose that what lies beyond a black hole’s event horizon might not simply be a singularity (a point of infinite density), but the beginning of a new universe — a kind of "baby universe" spawned from our own.

This idea is often referred to as the Black Hole Cosmology Hypothesis, and it's associated with concepts like:

White holes (hypothetical opposites of black holes that expel matter),

Einstein-Rosen bridges (wormholes),

And the multiverse theory (a collection of many universes, possibly with different physical laws).

Where It Comes From: Physics Behind the Idea
General Relativity predicts singularities, but they signal a breakdown in our equations — likely where quantum gravity becomes necessary.

Quantum gravity models (e.g. loop quantum gravity or string theory) suggest that singularities may be smoothed out, and instead of a “dead end,” the interior of a black hole may evolve into something else — like the Big Bang of a new universe.

The “Bounce” Hypothesis: In some models, a collapsing star that forms a black hole could "bounce" into a new expansion phase — birthing a universe inside the black hole, hidden from us by the event horizon.

Implications: What If It's True?
Every black hole in our universe might be the birthplace of a new universe, with slightly altered physical constants due to quantum fluctuations — leading to a Darwinian multiverse where universes that are good at making black holes tend to reproduce more (a theory proposed by physicist Lee Smolin).

It offers a way to solve the singularity problem in general relativity.

It even connects with cyclic universe models — where universes give birth to other universes eternally.

But... Is There Evidence?
Not yet. This idea remains speculative because:

We can’t see past the event horizon — information from inside a black hole is fundamentally inaccessible (at least with current physics).

The mathematical models that support this (like those in loop quantum gravity or modified Einstein equations) are still untested.

Observational evidence for multiverse or baby universes is lacking.

Final Thought
Even though this is still in the realm of theory, it shows how black holes may represent not just destruction, but creation — perhaps the seeds of entire new cosmoses hidden within our own. It's a poetic and powerful notion: what looks like an end could secretly be a beginning.

The claim that black holes "just contain the energy they absorbed and eventually evaporate" is an oversimplification and leaves out several theoretical possibilities—one of which includes the black hole universe hypothesis, which is worth elaborating on and challenging the assumption.

Black Hole Universe Hypothesis
This theory—sometimes associated with the concept of a “baby universe”—proposes that the core of a black hole may contain or lead to the creation of an entirely new universe, potentially with its own spacetime and physical constants. This idea is speculative but grounded in serious theoretical physics. Here’s how it challenges the assumption:

1. General Relativity and the Singularity
According to general relativity, once matter crosses the event horizon of a black hole, it collapses toward a singularity—a point of infinite density and curvature. But this "infinite" is a mathematical signal that general relativity breaks down, not a complete physical description. Many physicists believe that what actually happens at or beyond that point requires quantum gravity to resolve.

This opens up the possibility that the interior doesn't end at a singularity, but bounces into a new region of spacetime—a baby universe.

2. Black Holes as Wormholes or Portals
Some solutions to Einstein’s equations (like the Einstein-Rosen bridge) suggest that black holes could act as wormholes—shortcuts through spacetime. While these aren't stable under classical physics, they hint that the topology of spacetime inside black holes could be radically different from the outside and potentially host a new universe or "another side."

3. Cosmological Natural Selection (Smolin’s Hypothesis)
Physicist Lee Smolin proposed a controversial but fascinating idea called Cosmological Natural Selection, in which new universes are born inside black holes. These "offspring" universes might have slightly different physical constants, and those that form more black holes would produce more universes—a sort of cosmic Darwinism.

In this model, every black hole could be a universe seed, and our universe may itself have emerged from such a black hole in a "parent" universe.

4. Hawking Radiation Doesn’t Preclude Interior Complexity
It's true that black holes evaporate over time through Hawking radiation, but this only describes how mass-energy gradually leaks from the event horizon. It doesn’t give a full description of what’s happening inside during the black hole's lifetime, nor does it rule out a complex internal structure.

For example, the black hole information paradox and attempts to resolve it (like holographic principle or ER=EPR) hint that there’s more going on inside black holes than just “energy stored for slow release.”

Conclusion
So while it is true that black holes eventually evaporate, what happens inside during their lifetime remains a deep mystery. To say with confidence that they “just store energy and eventually release it” misses the richness of competing theories and active areas of research.

It’s entirely reasonable—within modern physics—to consider that black holes might contain, or even give rise to, whole other universes. That possibility isn’t science fiction—it’s speculative, yes, but grounded in attempts to unify quantum mechanics, gravity, and cosmology.