Is there anyone here that believes there is an infinite number of universes out there? I will prove you wrong right now

>we can't really test it
As in, we can't test it now, or we can't test it ever?

I don't believe in an infinite number of universes but I'm genuinely curious to see what your proof is.

Attached: 1552710337626-b.jpg (600x403, 36K)

I can’t say, I don’t know about the future but it is currently impossible to test it now and it will most likely be impossible for a while.

look all I'm trying to say is that if there is an infinite number of universes in one of the sara jay would invent a time machine and come fuck my brains out

I meant your own post faggot

>I can’t say
Then don't dismiss user's use of the theory by suggesting it can't be tested for. It is currently impossible to test for it now. You do not know the future. It could very well be solved next week.

If one understands the tree falling in the woods philosophy, you will realize that matter and conciousness are coexisting and cannot exist inherently.
That being infallible logic means that whatever the mind can conceive can exist in "reality".
So, infinite innumerable planets, reals, dimensions and even universes are very plausible. Many of which have been discribed by higher intellectual people born in this world.

>you will realize that matter and consciousness are coexisting and cannot exist inherently
Nonsense. It's being implied that matter and consciousness are coexisting; nothing follows such that neither matter not consciousness cannot inherently exist. That makes no sense. Matter and consciousness exist together, but they inherently don't exist?

>That being infallible logic
Fallible logic. Stop here.

I am 100% sure it will not.

I’m not the OP

Your certainty in an outcome doesn't define the future outcome in of itself.

Maths?

No it definitely will not be proved tomorrow.

yea but can you explain the reason why no one in those infinite number of universes ever made a space ship and sent someone to give them the gift of immortality

>brainlet
>If one understands the tree falling in the woods philosophy
Why don't you just ponder upon that for a while brainlet and stop posting.

I fucking hate faggots that say there is literally a universe for everything ever. That’s not how string theory works.

Tomorrow?

If understanding the philosophical thought experiment of the tree falling in the woods results in the fallacious reasoning presented earlier, then it goes in the trash.

>no one in those infinite number of universes ever made a space ship and sent someone to give them the gift of immortality
How do you know this never happened. If infinite dimensions are existent, it's possible in one, are species on this planet are vastly intellectually advanced. Think, 5th dimension beings like in that movie interstellar.

As for my own understanding, immortality can never exist as the nature of this existence is impermanence, it is a fundamental "law" of existence.

String theory. Torture mathematics with variable dimension numbers until your ill conceived delusions work out.

>If understanding the philosophical thought experiment of the tree falling in the woods results in the fallacious reasoning presented earlier, then it goes in the trash.
Fucking brainlet doesn't even understand a simple yet profound centuries old philosophy
Stop posting brainlet, you don't even know the basic method to raise intelligence, yoy are going nowhere.

do you even know what infinite means?

>brainlet
>brainlet
>basic method
>raise intelligence
>going nowhere
Knowledge itself doesn't raise intelligence. Knowledge itself raises knowledge. Bait is bait.

So, no maths then?

Ivan, you do understand that climate change is a death sentence, right?

trips of truth.
If there were infinite universes, then there's infinite possibilities, meaning there must exist one universe where other universes don't exist.

So either we don't exist or we are the only universe.

infinity trips proves infinite universes. You loose user. Paul Rudd told me to tell you he's sorry.

being this dumb to think that the laws of our universe apply to other universes.

that's not how it works bro. There can be sets of infinity. Meaning infinity dons't have everything, just an infinite amount of things.

youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88

>doesn't know how to use a dictionary
>litterally proved the point of not knowing the methods of how to raise intelligence
Just stop posting, both of you faggots

>meaning there must exist one universe where other universes don't exist
If there are infinite universes, there are infinite universes. Possibilities that don't exist, don't exist, and so there are no universes where that no-thing doesn't happen- because a universe is something that happens, and contains things that happen. Otherwise, there's nothing there.

Don't confuse "didn't happen here" for "something that cannot happen", and vice versa.

Bait is still bait.

an immortal being might not live for all time, but may live forever within a segment of time. A 5 dimensional being would be able to move through time the way you move across the room. He could exist at his moment of death, and at his birth and everything in-between the way we move around the surface of a planet.

I don't think you comprehend the subject correctly.

there is an infinite number of timelines.

>thinks laws laws of existence are synonymous with the same as laws of the universe
just stop

like ur mom had an infinite number of orgasms when we smashed last night

>If there are infinite universes, there are infinite universes. Possibilities that don't exist, don't exist, and so there are no universes where that no-thing doesn't happen- because a universe is something that happens, and contains things that happen. Otherwise, there's nothing there.
Fucking brainlet.
Any reasonable intelligent person would accept that one doesn't understand the concept and/or try to learn. This rerard just pretends to not just understand the concept but litterally thinks he can refute it.

Just leave the thread, go read a book.

>A 5 dimensional being would be able to move through time the way you move across the room.
Please tell me why time is being interpreted as a separate dimension.

>but may live forever within a segment of time
Forever is implied to be all of the time that remains.

We have no frame of reference for this for anyone to be able to say that they are or aren't. The "laws of existence" are as wieldy as the idea that you can reach India, by sailing east off the coast of Spain.

>Any reasonable intelligent person would accept that one doesn't understand the concept and/or try to learn
I understand the thought experiment. I understand that the reasoning provided in light of the invoked thought experiment was fallacious at best. I understand that the logic expressed belongs in the trash. I see no refutation for that sentiment.

I just see bait.

>an immortal being might not live for all time, but may live forever within a segment of time.
So the definition of immortal but not invulnerable. Can die but not of aging.
Again, impermanence is the nature of existence, it's not going to stop functioning.
>A 5 dimensional being would be able to move through time the way you move across the room. He could exist at his moment of death, and at his birth and everything in-between the way we move around the surface of a planet.
Time space/space time
If you understand this concept, you can see how ghosts/spirits and the "spirit world" are very viable.

Someone’s high

>impermanence is the nature of existence
Why?

>it's not going to stop functioning
You just said that an immortal, by definition, can die. Just not from age.

>you can see how ghosts/spirits and the "spirit world" are very viable
Please elaborate.

Just leave the thread, it's second hand cringe at this point. It's like you are a 18yo faggot who just knows the name of aristotle but never actually studied or contemplated his teachings or the understandings of.
Just stop

Still bait.

why are you dying?

Which interpretation of QM is this again? Everett or something?

I strongly tend to the idea that QM is a mathematical construct with perfect results, but with no legitimate physical meaning just yet.

>Why
I didn't create existence or it's laws I can't explain why, I just know everything is in a constant flux, nothing is in a permanent state, it is the nature of existence
>Please elaborate.
Well we exist in 3 dimensions of space 1 dimension of time, its plausible that there is a parallel existence in 3 dimensions of time but 1 dimension of space, meaning a being can exist throughout time, (why we may see a victorian aged spirit in a haunted home) but be limited in the space it inhabits, which would be from our perspective a ghost. Possibly from their perspective we are spirits..

"String theory" was actually a group of theories bundled together as a logical whole and presented to the American Astrological society by Doctor Arthur Halliburton in 1958 and was later debunked in the sixties by the Royal Astronomical Society so, yes, the String Theory was quite finished over fifty years ago but it still makes a wonderfully clever element in speculative fiction, doesn't it?

795165783
>Still bait.
>So delusional that being called out as a brainlet is bait because it's impossible for a brainlet to understand that they don't understand concepts.
Not even worth giving you a (you)

Isn't the one of the multi-verse theories that the universe is so expansive you have pockets of it with varying physics that are so far away from one another they're essentially a separate universe?

Could you explain how understanding the a tree falling in the woods thought has any bearing on the existence of multiple universes or even just how it proves that matter can't exist without consciousness?

- It there is infinite matter there is infinite space.
- It there is infinite matter there can't be infinite past nor teleportation.
- If there isn't infinite past either the universe just pop out or the time goes in circles.
- Otherwise the matter in the universe is finite.
- Space? Who knows.
- Useful conclusion? If teleportation is ever discovered (as in travel anywhere instantly), we know that the amount of matter in the universe is finite.

>I can't explain why
>I just know
Doubt.

>Well we exist in 3 dimensions of space 1 dimension of time
>its plausible that there is a parallel existence in 3 dimensions of time but 1 dimension of space
There's a lot out there that suggests, following our respective known laws of physics, that having t be greater than 1 results in very problematic scenarios.

Additionally, in that situation, there is only 1 dimension of space. If for whatever reason, there were some sort of projection from that system onto this one, a thing of 1 dimension wouldn't cast a 3-dimensional "shadow". It doesn't quite make any sense.

The limitation of space would also literally be 1 dimension. It could go anywhere in exactly 1 dimension, and never follow the trajectory of the Earth in space.

He won't, because it's bait.

You are asking me to give you the answer to a philosophical question that is designed to increase your intelligence. Thinking for yourself and contemplating the reasoning yourself is the whole point of philosophy. Try to find the "answer" and it's uses by logic and refutation.

As a simple explanation for you.
Imagine this universe is the only universe and this world is the only world with life on it in the entire universe. Take away all beings from the world except you.... Now take away you.... Who is there to percieve the universe to create its existence?
Matter is only in existence by consciousness perceiving it.
Universes can only exist by beings being able to percieve it.
This understanding obviously disregards any notion of god.

There's also a universe full of paul rudds that did save your life. Sucks for you that you're this you and not that you.

795167013
>brainlet doesn't understand topic of spacetime/timespace at all but tries to refute
Stfu faggot
Not a (you)

I have contemplated the idea before, the result I came to is that only people who are completely self-absorbed, will claim that a tree falling in the woods won't make a sound.
This universe could also be the only one, while having multiple iterations of of intelligent life in it.
Your way of viewing this, also basically means that the entire time our universe was void of life and moving towards conditions where life could emerge, it didn't in fact exist and only started existing after a life form able to perceive its surroundings emerged.

>Matter is only in existence by consciousness perceiving it.
>Universes can only exist by beings being able to percieve it.

You understand these are baseless claims that aren't even demonstrable, right? It's mental masturbation at best

>Thinking for yourself and contemplating the reasoning yourself is the whole point of philosophy. Try to find the "answer" and it's uses by logic and refutation.
That's a very elaborate way of saying that this entire thing is a ruse cruise. I refuted and reasoned my way into suggesting your reasoning belongs in the trash.

>Imagine this universe is the only universe and this world is the only world with life on it in the entire universe
Sure.
>Take away all beings from the world except you
Sure.
>Now take away you
Sure.

>Who is there to perceive the universe to create its existence?
No one, because there are no more beings, agents, who can perform the act of conscious observation that results in the English phrase, "I am aware of that".

What's supposed to follow here? You've created a universe with no self-aware beings. The universe is still there, however hypothetical. There are just no beings inside of it to say that it is there. If the definition of something existing necessitates that something acknowledge its existence, which is a highly anthropocentric thing to think, then we're still observing this lifeless universe. We're cosmically looking into this universe to see that no one is there. We're aware of its hypothetical existence. It still exists. Trees will still fall in it. They have to, because the laws of physics must be the laws of physics, and supposedly, don't depend on the existence of human minds- if the laws of physics had to exist before human minds to create them.

>This understanding obviously disregards any notion of god.
Confirmed bait.

>, the result I came to is that only people who are completely self-absorbed, will claim that a tree falling in the woods won't make a sound.
That sounds like not even a retarded view but just litterally nonsense, like you didn't even understand the philosophy at all and somehow turmed it into some psychological assumptions of how other people are.
Really, nonsense.
Even at the simplistic level is is just a question of does sound exist without an ear sense to percieve sound.
You missed the point completely!
>the entire time our universe was void of life
Who said there was ever a time without life?
Maybe you aren't able to comprehend the microcosmic existence, let alone macrocosm but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Maybe you should spend some time meditating on other beings perspective of life. It would do you some benefit. There are plenty of animals in this world to use as reference, the human perception is not the only, or objective perspective of existence.

>does sound exist without an ear sense to percieve sound
Yes.

>Who said there was ever a time without life?
You did. Matter is only in existence by consciousness perceiving it. Universes can only exist by beings being able to perceive it. These are your words. What logically follows is that the universe could not have existed before minds, let alone matter.

>microcosmic existence
Atom-shift the turboencabulator!
>meditating
No.

>the human perception is not the only
>or objective perspective of existence
>bait

795167952
>doesn't even understand the tree falling in the woods philosophy
>tries to talk nonsense about existence exising without consciousness perception
>doesn't actually make any sense
just leave the thread retard, I have had enough of your retardation

So back when the universe was mostly gas floating in the void, there was life around to perceive it?
That sounds painful, poor that version of life.
You acting condescending at me not getting to the same conclusions as you doesn't make you right though, it just makes you sort of a dick.
And yes, sound does in fact exist in the absence of an ear to hear it, at least in environments where mass moving around causes ripples in the surrounding gases that make up the atmosphere in that place.
Now I can't claim that life didn't exist just after the birth of the universe, but based on how we understand the conditions needed for it to form I find it unlikely.

>tries to talk nonsense about existence exising without consciousness perception
I want you to imagine something.

the philosophical concept of a tree falling is not actually evidence of what you're asserting, everyone in the thread understands the concept but it doesn't correspond to actual reality and everything we know about reality suggests the concept is wrong the only thing that allows you to cling to it is the fact nothing can be demonstrated to a thinking agent with no thinking agent.

It's like babbys intro to philosophy and you're pretending it's a scientific principle we can just assume is true for no discernible reason

You know, if you were as smart and correct as you claim to be, you wouldn't need to resort to name calling while offering no refutation of substance. You'd just have to explain what you think, in a manner that convinces people of the veracity of that thought, while providing evidence that corroborates it.

IDK but I need more followers!

Attached: shot-20190313-19794-1b3maq0.jpg (1280x3182, 711K)

Obviously not because if there were an infinite number of universes there would be a universe in which somebody figured out how to destroy all of the universes.

Attached: muhgranny.jpg (1920x1080, 532K)

There would also be a universe where someone figured out how to create more universes, or stop the destruction of all universes, etc...

>there was life around to perceive it?
Posdibly, I am not god, I do not know, what I do know is that life exists on a multitude of levels and isn't based upon a material body.
While to us, humans, life is a combination of body and mind, but our perspective is limited, by the human condition itself.

>And yes, sound does in fact exist in the absence of an ear to hear it, at least in environments where mass moving around causes ripples in the surrounding gases that make up the atmosphere in that place.
It's paridoxical, sound exists without hearing sense but hearing sense creates sound.
You misunderstand the philosophy, even the wiki page has sensible points and this is the obvious first questioning.

>based on how we understand the conditions needed for it to form I find it unlikely.
Limited perception. Human scientists think that water and carbon are the "building blocks" of life, but this is really just a biased and limited presumption.
If one observes and inquires about what life actually is, it is found to be not limited to a material body, it itself is apart from body. Though the body is a vehicle on which we experience this realm/plain of existence.

this is why infinity is a stupid concept, it's anything +1

>This entire thread

Attached: 1528129940611.gif (480x292, 1.99M)

You're on Yea Forums where there are unironic cuck, trap, dick rate, bbc, and fur threads. What were you expecting mlad

Lol ok faggot!

795168920
>doesn't understand the philosophy
> doesn't understand polysemy
Just stop

wew lads

There is only 1 universe. There is no outside. If there anything it would be something we could never comprehend.

Attached: tumblr_nj0llwBuQ91u34jh5o1_500.jpg (500x400, 39K)

>There is no outside
>If there anything it would be something we could never comprehend
Either there's nothing outside, or there's nothing outside we could understand. You're expressing certainty and uncertainty at the same time.

we live in a simulation.

the "infinite" in infinitely number of universes physicists see is merely the probabilities of any one event taking place in THIS universe.

its a philosophical clusterfuck.

but yes. ONE universe within a matrix.

>stupid concept,
It just means innumerable, unmeasurable, it doesn't specifically mean endless, or the simple understanding of the word infinite

So you claim is that since human perceptions are limited, a different sort of life that perceived the universe in its beginning must have existed. At least if your assertions are to be credited.
The hearing sense doesn't create sound, it senses an already existing phenomena that happens no matter if you happen to be deaf or not.
Since your view of what life consists of is so esoteric, I really don't get how you can act so cocksure about your assertions and call other people retards for doubting these unfounded assertions.

I'd wager he has some kind of mental illness and just enjoys rambling about things he postulates up in his head.

That's an easy claim to make though, especially if your goal is only to cause insult. I've got ADD with autistic tendencies, but I'm not making assertive claims about the universe based on having that diagnosis.

>So you claim is that since human perceptions are limited, a different sort of life that perceived the universe in its beginning must have existed. At least if your assertions are to be credited.
There are a multitude of different beings in the universe, there are new types of beings being discovered regularly in this world alone. Humans are only one type of being. Life exists on different levels, possibly even sub atomic. I'm not god, Idk what life existed at the "beginning" of the universe, that is if there ever was a beginning. It's often postulated as cyclic, without beginning or end.

>The hearing sense doesn't create sound, it senses an already existing phenomena that happens no matter if you happen to be deaf or not.
It's just comical that you don't even understand this simple philosophy yet try to "solve" it with retarded logic.
Tell me again how sound exists without the hearing sense to percieve sound?

>Since your view of what life consists of is so esoteric, I really don't get how you can act so cocksure about your assertions and call other people retards for doubting these unfounded assertions.
>unfounded
So where is this research and study of lifes existence you have done?
Have you ever even inquired where life is, what is it's form, how does it function?
I'm sure your great contemplating into existence has gained you such wisdom for your shitposts.

795170101
Kys, do the world a favour

>There are a multitude of different beings in the universe
Are there?

>there are new types of beings being discovered regularly in this world alone
On this world alone.

>It's just comical that you don't even understand this simple philosophy yet try to "solve" it with retarded logic.
So... is this still bait, or is this genuine now?
>Tell me again how sound exists without the hearing sense to percieve sound?
You know how ripples in a body of water are caused by transformations of energy from one state to another, primarily into kinetic energy, between each particle of said water... and not because you look at the water?

>I'm sure your great contemplating into existence has gained you such wisdom for your shitposts
>Kys, do the world a favour
A stable genius.

Do the world a favor and get on some medication. You're sincerely unwell. Later dude.

" Ubisoft goes Steamworks bye bye, always on DRM"

For someone who keeps asserting he isn't god, you sure do make a lot of assertions about the nature of the universe, that only an outside observer or god if you may would be able to know.
Yes there might have always been life, but that doesn't mean the universe would stop existing in the absence of it, it would only stop being perceived.
>Tell me again how sound exists without the hearing sense to percieve sound?
I already told you, mass moving around and causing ripples in the gases of the local atmosphere. Even if you can't hear it, it's still there.
And again, calling me a retard while exclaiming philosophy doesn't make you right, it only makes you a dick.
>So where is this research and study of lifes existence you have done?
That's kinda rich from a guy being deliberately vague about what life is, to bolster his perception that nothing can exist without being perceived.
You've conveniently created a point of view where you can only be right and making up things on the nature of life becomes facts because otherwise the universe wouldn't exist.
I'm not the one making claims of great amounts of wisdom, while making posts insulting others that explain little to nothing, that's your role in this conversation.

795171357
>You know how ripples in a body of water are caused by transformations of energy from one state to another, primarily into kinetic energy, between each particle of said water... and not because you look at the water?
>Visual stimuli are existent without visual sense. Jesus christ. Not only did you spend an entire thread shitposting about a philosophy you don't understand, you then try to use the same philosophy on another sense and fail miserably.
Kys retard
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest

wrong thread user, I mean Yea Forums doesn't even have the same background colors of Yea Forums Go to sleep nigga

I... am I to believe that you are denying the existence of ripples with a thought experiment? Even the another user explained the actual process with gasses. Air, you know.

>>Visual stimuli are existent without visual sense
Yes. So... so are ripples in the local atmosphere due to the transfer and transformation of energy in the local environment.

>you then try to use the same philosophy on another sense and fail miserably
No... ? I don't think I did that. I'm not using a Wikipedia link to a philosophical thought experiment to argue any of this.

795171679
>For someone who keeps asserting he isn't god, you sure do make a lot of assertions about the nature of the universe, that only an outside observer or god if you may would be able to know.
One can observe existence from our human perception and then observe it from other beings perception once understanding that existence isn't inherently existing. Just how we can use imagination.
>Yes there might have always been life, but that doesn't mean the universe would stop existing in the absence of it, it would only stop being perceived.
So how does existence exist without existence?
>I already told you, mass moving around and causing ripples in the gases of the local atmosphere. Even if you can't hear it, it's still there.
>Sound needs ear sense to be sound
>apparently sound exists without hearing sense because a faggot on a slovakian noodle magazine says so
Ok faggot
>And again, calling me a retard while exclaiming philosophy doesn't make you right, it only makes you a dick.
No it makes you a double nigger retarded faggot
>So where is this research and study of lifes existence you have done?
None I see.
>That's kinda rich from a guy being deliberately vague about what life is, to bolster his perception that nothing can exist without being perceived.
Life is an unknown phenomena, one cannot explain what it is one has to experience it.
The philosophy to explain this is the apple philosophy. I can give you a description of what the apple tastes like, how sweet, bitter, consistency, texture ect but one can never truly knows it's taste until one tastes it themselves.
Do you understand this simple philosophy? It's so simple, entire religions are based upon this. Like, philosophy 101 that even a retard like you could understand.
>You've conveniently created a point
Retard, serious retard, why are you even in this thread

>Retard, serious retard, why are you even in this thread
I really don't know, you're no fun to disagree with at all, you're just so condescending and unlikable that I can't even be assed to refute you properly.

You don't understand simle things.
You are now trying to tie one phenomena like energy, gas to another like sound and vision. You actually think ripples or a tree felling sound are based upon certain kinetic phenomena not the sense that percieve it.
I bet you think the grass and sky are inherently green and blue too.

Fuck off retard faggot
Im out, I could be a tard wrangler if I wanted to listen to tards speak, least I would get paid for it.

If infinity is real. Everything will happen again.

>One can observe existence from our human perception and then observe it from other beings perception once understanding that existence isn't inherently existing
What does this sentence even mean? I also can't exist as a tree to know what it's like to be a tree. I can only use my human bias to imagine, in a human way. And then suggesting that existence isn't inherently existing is... something else.

>So how does existence exist without existence?
Ouch, my brain. Existence is. Existence enables things to exist. This is seriously a misinterpretation of several concepts.

>Life is an unknown phenomena
>one cannot explain what it is one has to experience it
Life is an unknown phenome... what? And what are you explaining right now, if one cannot explain what it is?

>The philosophy to explain this is the apple philosophy.
The what?
>one can never truly knows it's taste until one tastes it themselves
But the apple exists to be described and explained by someone who has already tasted it before you taste it. You don't need to taste it for it to exist in what you've just given. It exists perfectly fine before that- and it could even be explained.

>You don't understand simle things
>You are now trying to tie one phenomena like energy, gas to another like sound and vision
>You actually think ripples or a tree felling sound are based upon certain kinetic phenomena not the sense that percieve it
>I could be a tard wrangler if I wanted to listen to tards speak

>picture related

Attached: 1539584597725.jpg (421x834, 41K)

You'd be an awful hard wrangler, you obviously look down on them and even tards pick up on that.

>What does this sentence even mean
It means, because existence is related to conciousness, one can change their perception and see existence from another consciousness perspective. Things like empathy are a smaller fraction of this ability in the waking mind. Of coure one has to develop their mental ability, directly realise certain mental concepts and gain certain attainments to do this truly. Before that It is just imagination. A lesser ability.

>Life is an unknown phenomea
Did you seriously not understand the apple philosophy?
Its right there, very simple. I can explain to you what life is, but it would be just an explanation, just words, not actually the understanding and experience of life.
Unknown phenomena are things that the mind cannot concieve correctly, one has to experience them.
Example of an unknown phenomena of mind is translucency.
Try to visualize the translucency of water in you mind.
You can't percieve it, there will be color, or a glass, or water or a combination of all three.

Tardation
Normally anons are quite intelligent in philosophy, religion and science threads
You on the other hand are tarded.

>one can change their perception and see existence from another consciousness perspective
I still cannot change into a tree.

>Of coure one has to develop their mental ability
>directly realise certain mental concepts and gain certain attainments to do this truly
In other words... this isn't really a thing.

>I can explain to you what life is, but it would be just an explanation, just words, not actually the understanding and experience of life
Yes, because it is an explanation. Explanations are words. These are explanations. This is an explanation. Understanding can also be explained- as you are doing so right now by using words to explain the intrinsic sense of knowing, understanding.

>Unknown phenomena are things that the mind cannot concieve correctly, one has to experience them.
The only way the mind conceives of phenomena is through experience. Not being able to conceive of phenomena is not being able to experience them.

>Example of an unknown phenomena of mind is translucency
What?
>Try to visualize the translucency of water in you mind
Done.
>You can't percieve it
Incorrect. Translucency is the property that allows matter to let light pass through it, but not completely or necessarily uniformly. I perceive translucent things all of the time, as well as transparent things. Another way of describing this property is calling something "see-through". Light passes through it, but you can still see mostly opaque regions of the object, enough to tell that light is doing more diffusing than passing through.

This is not hard to imagine. All you have to do is imagine a color, and an object through which you can see that color. Translucency. What you're trying to imagine is complete transparency of everything, including any sources of light. There's already a problem with that, because visible light is never transparent. It's visible light. Visible. So the actual environment requires that you can only see the light, if everything else is transparent.

The idea of anything being infinite being ludicrous, except space, I'll never understand why you see scientists who think that literal nothing can't be infinite.