>>11235666I second your statement, without the viewpoint of scientific skepticism, none of our arguments have any hope of being closer to validity.
But consider this, if reality is infinite, if reality is a system in which infinity exists in any part thereof, then by simple logic, you as an entity that experiences, a conscious being, exist in this form and in an infinite variation of forms infinitely.
In a sense, you would be everything, and everything would be you, in every concievable way, always. (Quite similar to Spinozism or the belief system Einstein conceived of for him self, that God is both the garden and the gardener).
This all rests on the assumption that reality is infinite, but think about it, wouldn't it be weird if all of existence was finite? What would that which doesn't exist be? What is nothing really?
This argument could also hold for the simulation hypothesis, which I'm not going to elaborate on.
This conception of infinity was written up properly for the first time by the mathematician Emile Borel, commonly known as the infinite monkey theorem.
Hail the Beast, for his name is the number 666.
