[2025-09-25 21:42:17] <@Digit> the infinitesimal, the door to the zero point energy, the vast ocean of energy upon which our observeable cosmos is but the thinnest ripple atop of. [2025-10-10 16:17:57] what was " humans is like infinitesimals, shit to be " supposed to mean? beyond the grammar fail, ... "infinitesimal"? and "shit to be"?? [2025-10-10 16:19:34] infinitesemal, seems a hyperbole driving towards nihilistic heartless dehumanisation [2025-10-10 16:21:19] we will be meaningless [2025-10-10 16:21:26] when i experienced omniscience, it wasnt like a 10,000+ ft view, losing the fidelity. it retained all scales. ... no ivory tower style detatchment. no seeing people as insects, or worse, infinitesimals. [2025-10-10 16:22:23] "we will be meaningless" ... are you sure it had nothing to do with nihilism? lol [2025-10-10 16:21:26] when i experienced omniscience, it wasnt like a 10,000+ ft view, losing the fidelity. it retained all scales. ... no ivory tower style detatchment. no seeing people as insects, or worse, infinitesimals. [2025-10-10 16:35:47] reality = infinitesimal [2025-10-10 16:36:47] "reality = infinitesimal"... that... frankly... is insane. what a dangerous conflation to make. how blinding. [2025-10-10 16:37:24] infinitesimal != merely "limited". are you using the word in a different way to as it's defined in dictionaries? [2025-10-10 17:29:55] if one loses a limb... does that not prove they were not infinitesimal? :3 [2025-10-12 13:28:37] from a place of not self-sabotaging unwitting advocacy of absolute defeatism and perpetual ignorance. [2025-10-12 13:29:40] "you cant get there from here", i more often tend to use in that sense, rather than referring to the past. but the two are similar. stuck in the impossible stagnancy. [2025-10-12 17:11:24] krb: you've made this statement many times, i thought i'd refuted it many times, and socratically queried it sufficiently to reveal our ignorance sufficiently undermining the plausibility... and yet you keep asserting it as if irrefutable truth, that we are infinitesimal. did nnnnnnothing i said in the other chan take root with you? [2025-10-12 18:27:15] idk why the leap to the infinity superlative. [2025-10-12 18:28:26] "cant see where's the end limit... must be infinite!" type of naive realism doing the fallacy of mistaking absence of evidence as evidence of absence. plausibly. [2025-10-13 17:28:48] <@Digit> ironically, contrasting to the narcissist's misinterpretation, nuanced difference here, we are each (in part and whole) the size of the universe. not infinitesimal. ... for one way to look at that, look to hinduism & ayurveda, where the whole arrangements/balance of doshas/elements in us, take nothing from us, and the apparently smaller of us, are no smaller, in another sense, just having more vata (air&space). [2025-10-13 17:32:25] <@Digit> gotta wonder what horrors shall be wrought by perceiving us as infinitesimal. that absolutist reductivism and crude [2025-10-14 17:50:37] krb: consider https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mVBbdbqHmw [2025-10-14 17:50:38] [YouTube] ⁨How Physicists Proved Everything is Quantum - Nobel Physics Prize 2025 Explained⁩ | 7m 18s | Channel: ⁨Dr Ben Miles⁩ | 237,251 views | 2025-10-12 - 15:04:35UTC [2025-10-14 17:52:34] electrons are not perfect points, but probabilities, that do not ever reduce to absolute zero, out to infinity. and this is true of macro things too. so "infinitesimal"? no. [2025-10-14 17:56:33] cool [2025-10-14 18:05:53] then can consider the ranges of scales smaller and larger, and, temporally too, shorter and longer, than the probability peak. consider, there are more orders smaller (e.g. planck length 1.616255 x 10 x -35th power ) than larger, observably, 4.4 x 10 x 26th power meters, fathomnably 1.1 x 10 x 29th power meters, theoretically infinite beyond that. so for as much as we can observe and fathom, even without considering ^(like how our [2025-10-14 18:05:53] probablity fields extend apparently infinitely), we are VAST. not infinitesimal. even when considering plausible infinite expanse beyond the fathomnableuniverse bubble, we still extend infinitely. [2025-10-14 18:20:39] Digit: the conventional way to render that in ascii is like: 1.616255x10^-35 [2025-10-14 18:21:45] ah, thnx. brain fart. i knew that. forgottededed. [2025-10-14 18:25:30] had a related thought recently: mereologically, the planck length is thought of as the minimal size, but what it it's the _only_ size? [2025-10-14 18:25:47] objects of largers size are the just compositions of planck length components, after all [2025-10-14 18:25:53] larger+ [2025-10-14 18:25:55] larger* [2025-10-14 22:56:43] krb: so, you're still not entertaining the ideas i've presented? you've decided on the answer, and any and all contrivance goes to serve that answer, in ignorance of perspectives refutating that answer? i went to great lengths over days, presenting several different angles of refutation, and still, you're sticking to that. no import at all; no consideration, not entertaining the idea, it's still just "we're infinitesimal" or [2025-10-14 22:56:43] reworded equivalents of the same static perspective asserted as if irrefutable truth, the one true truth? ... i even did the maths! n_n would love to hear anything to refute that. or even a counter argument. anything at all better than restatement or rephrasing. even any glimpse of an indication you even read any of it. n_n [2025-10-14 22:57:39] would it help if i coddled with a preface of "i can see how it can be seen like that, but have you considered..."?