>>14297109>Still just an admission that it is possible for space to be quantizedYoure acting like you have some sort of huge breakthrough here. Again, your epistemology is just bad, no-one is going to ever make an experiment that proves you right or wrong, no one is going to observe an actually infinite amount of ever shrinking particles to confirm you right or wrong. Because you defined it this way. That is a weakness in your world view, and you still haven't even explained to me the utility of this definition other than to be trivially correct on a random online imageboard.
>Doesn't matter. Logically, the difference still exists, so to argue that it could be one or the other is not to argue that it could be one or the same one.Because you defined it that why, logically. And when I give an argument for why its a bad definition I just get crickets.
If you want to do this sort of metaphysics just do theology, which deals with much more interesting concepts, I dont understand why you want to die on this hill.
