>>11689410because the impossible whopper is just that better than the original whopper
>girls responsewouldn't be a confirmed girl's response
besides, "youknowwho" had plenty of shit to talk anyhow
>whos serious and who ism'tdoesn't change the nature of the argument
I once had a conversation on x with one retard that was trying to brute force the idea that since "nothing" (as in void beyond time and space that has no spatial dimensions and doesn't exist as gravitational and electromagnetic fields do in it's low energy states) has no properties within itself that can transmit data it somehow logically followed that "nothing" can not be observed
I argued that by standing at the precipice of everything at the very edge of the universe where it ends (and thus in turn nothing begins- mind you it was a hipothethical proposition- not the statemenf of universe's nature; and also the the beginning and end was labeled more as edges since a yard stick doesn't begin at it's first inch and so on and so forth) by actively obsetving the void in which not even fields (electromagnetic, higgs, gluon, gravitational etc) which can otherwuse be observed innour universe- the lack of information found during the observation would in fact be observation od the nothing
like looking for leprechauns and finding none, you observe that they do not exist (as far as you know; but that conjecture applies to every single observation you, a machine or set of observing agents commit.... the "as far as you know" conjecture that is"
but the guy just kept echo chambering himself and preffered to escapism in his abstract metaphysical philosophical bs about nature of the nothing
was he a troll? was he serious? doesn't matter, the conversation wss retarded and I just gave up, no point in trying
