Concept of Infinity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
182

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I’m still not getting why you are so willing to accept the eternal existence of a hypothetical supernatural being, but deny the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. Can you explain?[/quote]

I do not deny either actually. It’s the problem of contingency. Everything that exists has it’s basis in something else. Be that in or out of a space/time continuum.
Now we know certain things. That this current instance of the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, has a center, a mass and a size (an ever changing one, but a size). Whether the whole thing will turn in to a giant black hole and collapse on itself, I don’t know. What I do know is that everything that exists physically or metaphysically, has properties and these properties have origin. As you strip these properties, then you get to what something really is.[/quote]

i wouldn’t be hanging my hat on any determined age of the universe. This is a hotly contested issue and has a lot of implications in regards to the Big Bang… there is even a lot of credible room to revise that theory entirely.

[quote] Let’s take an example from Plato’s Forms. Think of a triangle. Now this triangle you are thinking of has properties, yet it doesn’t exist physically and does not exist in time. You mental triangle isn’t your creation it is your discovery, but like a physical triangle it has angles and sides, it must or it’s not a triangle. Can you see it? It will never move, change or age in any way. It will always be there for you to discover.
Where did the angles come from? Where did the sides come from? What about it’s color, size, etc. Where did it come from, your brain? No, your brain cannot make a damn thing. It can only discover and manipulate.
We can drill down infinitely on this triangle. It has infinite points.
The question is what makes it what it is and where does it come from?

I chose a metaphysical object because time is not a factor, yet it exists, has properties and origin. It exists infinitely, but culminates into a finite object.

People see physical things and metaphysical things as different, but I don’t. Every physical object has metaphysical components, therefore not only are they related, but things that are physical cannot exist with out the metaphysical, not so the other way around.
You can’t build a motor cycle out of a box of parts with out a plan.

Bottom line is this, all that exists has components that are infinite, or are time independent if you will. But yet they all have origin and when you come across something where you cannot ask where it came from or why it exists, there you have found God.

Everything is related and it all rolls up…

[/quote]

183

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

It doesn’t. Ephrem claims this not I.

Starting over from a formally collapsed universe is not what I am talking about. I am talking about infinite regress in logic. It is not possible to ever come to a conclusion if your argument starts over all the time.[/quote]

Everything in nature starts over all the time. All that has form ends at some point in time, but as you and i know, while the form ends the building blocks the form was made-up from are used in some other form.

Nothing really ends.[/quote]

We don’t know whether something ends or not. Certainly, according to the laws of thermal dynamics and such that shit only changes states, that nothing is created or destroyed. Then there are black holes, where it is very possible that information does get destroyed and it is a common theory. But nobody can see beyond the event horizon.

Here’s the problem with the singularity theory, other than the creative property what other properties does it posses or must it posses to create an entire universe? [/quote]

Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.

Where do these particles come from?

If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.

Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia

An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.

You call that God instead.
[/quote]

Energy is not destroyed in a black hole.

184

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
What comprises space if there is no matter, antimatter, or energy present?

Isn’t it possible the unpredictability of the double slit experiment is caused by randomness rather than ignorance?[/quote]

What’s unpredictable about the double slit experiment? If you shoot enough electrons at it the slits you will get a interference pattern every time with out fail…That’s pretty damn predictable.[/quote]

The pattern is predictable, but the fate of each individual electron is completely unpredictable.[/quote]

Not true. You know the electron will go through one of the two slits and will hit the background somewhere. Again, the fact that it makes an interference patter ever time with out fail only tells we don’t know why the electrons do what they do, but what ever they do they do it reliably. Not understanding something and random are not the same things. We don’t understand the behaviour of electrons, but shoot enough and you will have an interference pattern. This tell us something about their behaviour.
Eventually, we should be able to predict where an electron will land in the double-slit experiment…I have faith in our quantum physicists.[/quote]

You need to learn some more physics before making such blanket statements.

The double slit experiment proves that you cannot predict where an electron will land.

When electrons are fired ONE AT A TIME, they pass through BOTH slits, and each electron will interfere with ITSELF. When a series of electrons are fired one at a time, if the resulting individual patterns are added together, you get the same interference pattern as the original experiment. This proves the probabilistic nature of the behaviour of particles, and the existence of randomness. The entire premise of quantum mechanics is probabilistic. The other undisputed example of true randomness in the universe is radioactive decay. It is impossible to predict when an indiviual atom of radioactive isotope will decay.

185

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Zeb,

You just gave a none-too-subtle insult to my ability to father my sons and be a positive example for them.

Some things you don’t joke about, and this is one of them.

This is not a “you pushed me, so I get to push you situation.” This is you being inappropriate. [/quote]

In my experience, Zeb will dish out some of the most personal, mean spirited attacks I’ve seen in the 5 years I’ve followed these boards. For example, several times he has accused me of abandoning my wife and children to “pursue the gay lifestyle”’ despite knowing that I never cheated on my wife, that it was a mutual decision after a full year of therapy, research, and heartfelt discussion, and that we are still on good terms today. Don’t take it personally, and consider the source.[/quote]

forlife, you are without question the biggest scoundrel on this site. No one even comes close. You were caught in a lie in the previous thread you were on and fled. Now you’re attacking me on this thread without provocation. More cowardly acts by a cowardly person. [/quote]

Look out Mak, I’ve moved to the top of his list :slight_smile: Being called names by Zeb is a badge of honor, in a way.
[/quote]

You scoundrel! How dare you steal my spot!

186

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Zeb,

You just gave a none-too-subtle insult to my ability to father my sons and be a positive example for them.

Some things you don’t joke about, and this is one of them.

This is not a “you pushed me, so I get to push you situation.” This is you being inappropriate. [/quote]

In my experience, Zeb will dish out some of the most personal, mean spirited attacks I’ve seen in the 5 years I’ve followed these boards. For example, several times he has accused me of abandoning my wife and children to “pursue the gay lifestyle”’ despite knowing that I never cheated on my wife, that it was a mutual decision after a full year of therapy, research, and heartfelt discussion, and that we are still on good terms today. Don’t take it personally, and consider the source.[/quote]

Yea, Zeb’s probably the only piece of shit on this board that will come at you like that and then act like Jesus was his cousin.

He’s a fucking douchebag, has been for years.

I feel bad for his family. They probably all live in the basement and his daughters have his grandkids and such, as these “god fearing” hillbillies tend to do… all waiting for the space god’s return…[/quote]

Surely I get an honorable mention.[/quote]

your ability to be a cunt is pretty poor

187

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
What comprises space if there is no matter, antimatter, or energy present?

Isn’t it possible the unpredictability of the double slit experiment is caused by randomness rather than ignorance?[/quote]

What’s unpredictable about the double slit experiment? If you shoot enough electrons at it the slits you will get a interference pattern every time with out fail…That’s pretty damn predictable.[/quote]

The pattern is predictable, but the fate of each individual electron is completely unpredictable.[/quote]

Not true. You know the electron will go through one of the two slits and will hit the background somewhere. Again, the fact that it makes an interference patter ever time with out fail only tells we don’t know why the electrons do what they do, but what ever they do they do it reliably. Not understanding something and random are not the same things. We don’t understand the behaviour of electrons, but shoot enough and you will have an interference pattern. This tell us something about their behaviour.
Eventually, we should be able to predict where an electron will land in the double-slit experiment…I have faith in our quantum physicists.[/quote]

You need to learn some more physics before making such blanket statements.

The double slit experiment proves that you cannot predict where an electron will land.

When electrons are fired ONE AT A TIME, they pass through BOTH slits, and each electron will interfere with ITSELF. When a series of electrons are fired one at a time, if the resulting individual patterns are added together, you get the same interference pattern as the original experiment. This proves the probabilistic nature of the behaviour of particles, and the existence of randomness. The entire premise of quantum mechanics is probabilistic. The other undisputed example of true randomness in the universe is radioactive decay. It is impossible to predict when an indiviual atom of radioactive isotope will decay.
[/quote]

Again, aren’t we dealing with unpredictability, not randomness?

188

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Zeb,

You just gave a none-too-subtle insult to my ability to father my sons and be a positive example for them.

Some things you don’t joke about, and this is one of them.

This is not a “you pushed me, so I get to push you situation.” This is you being inappropriate. [/quote]

In my experience, Zeb will dish out some of the most personal, mean spirited attacks I’ve seen in the 5 years I’ve followed these boards. For example, several times he has accused me of abandoning my wife and children to “pursue the gay lifestyle”’ despite knowing that I never cheated on my wife, that it was a mutual decision after a full year of therapy, research, and heartfelt discussion, and that we are still on good terms today. Don’t take it personally, and consider the source.[/quote]

Yea, Zeb’s probably the only piece of shit on this board that will come at you like that and then act like Jesus was his cousin.

He’s a fucking douchebag, has been for years.

I feel bad for his family. They probably all live in the basement and his daughters have his grandkids and such, as these “god fearing” hillbillies tend to do… all waiting for the space god’s return…[/quote]

Surely I get an honorable mention.[/quote]

your ability to be a cunt is pretty poor[/quote]

I don’t know… i rate him pretty high.

189

439×536 32.1 KB

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Zeb,

You just gave a none-too-subtle insult to my ability to father my sons and be a positive example for them.

Some things you don’t joke about, and this is one of them.

This is not a “you pushed me, so I get to push you situation.” This is you being inappropriate. [/quote]

In my experience, Zeb will dish out some of the most personal, mean spirited attacks I’ve seen in the 5 years I’ve followed these boards. For example, several times he has accused me of abandoning my wife and children to “pursue the gay lifestyle”’ despite knowing that I never cheated on my wife, that it was a mutual decision after a full year of therapy, research, and heartfelt discussion, and that we are still on good terms today. Don’t take it personally, and consider the source.[/quote]

Yea, Zeb’s probably the only piece of shit on this board that will come at you like that and then act like Jesus was his cousin.

He’s a fucking douchebag, has been for years.

I feel bad for his family. They probably all live in the basement and his daughters have his grandkids and such, as these “god fearing” hillbillies tend to do… all waiting for the space god’s return…[/quote]

Surely I get an honorable mention.[/quote]

your ability to be a cunt is pretty poor[/quote]

I don’t know… i rate him pretty high.
[/quote]

O_o

190

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Zeb,

You just gave a none-too-subtle insult to my ability to father my sons and be a positive example for them.

Some things you don’t joke about, and this is one of them.

This is not a “you pushed me, so I get to push you situation.” This is you being inappropriate. [/quote]

In my experience, Zeb will dish out some of the most personal, mean spirited attacks I’ve seen in the 5 years I’ve followed these boards. For example, several times he has accused me of abandoning my wife and children to “pursue the gay lifestyle”’ despite knowing that I never cheated on my wife, that it was a mutual decision after a full year of therapy, research, and heartfelt discussion, and that we are still on good terms today. Don’t take it personally, and consider the source.[/quote]

forlife, you are without question the biggest scoundrel on this site. No one even comes close. You were caught in a lie in the previous thread you were on and fled. Now you’re attacking me on this thread without provocation. More cowardly acts by a cowardly person. [/quote]

Look out Mak, I’ve moved to the top of his list :slight_smile: Being called names by Zeb is a badge of honor, in a way.
[/quote]

You scoundrel! How dare you steal my spot![/quote]

You were never number one. But you do try harder and that keeps you in the game.

191

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.

Where do these particles come from?

If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.

Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia

An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.

You call that God instead.
[/quote]
All the know mass in the galaxy including the black holes isn’t enough to explain why galaxies don’t fly apart from their rotation.[/quote]

Gravity.[/quote]

That is what he is referring to when he mentions mass.[/quote]

Aha.

So what’s he talking about then?
[/quote]

I think he is making reference to dark matter.[/quote]
correct.

192

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Zeb,

You just gave a none-too-subtle insult to my ability to father my sons and be a positive example for them.

Some things you don’t joke about, and this is one of them.

This is not a “you pushed me, so I get to push you situation.” This is you being inappropriate. [/quote]

In my experience, Zeb will dish out some of the most personal, mean spirited attacks I’ve seen in the 5 years I’ve followed these boards. For example, several times he has accused me of abandoning my wife and children to “pursue the gay lifestyle”’ despite knowing that I never cheated on my wife, that it was a mutual decision after a full year of therapy, research, and heartfelt discussion, and that we are still on good terms today. Don’t take it personally, and consider the source.[/quote]

Yea, Zeb’s probably the only piece of shit on this board that will come at you like that and then act like Jesus was his cousin.

He’s a fucking douchebag, has been for years.

I feel bad for his family. They probably all live in the basement and his daughters have his grandkids and such, as these “god fearing” hillbillies tend to do… all waiting for the space god’s return…[/quote]

Surely I get an honorable mention.[/quote]

your ability to be a cunt is pretty poor[/quote]

I don’t know… i rate him pretty high.
[/quote]

O_o[/quote]

Tongue in cheek

193

571×570 89.8 KB

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You were never number one. But you do try harder and that keeps you in the game.
[/quote]

I don’t remember that post being directed at you. It was only about you, not to you.

194

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You were never number one. But you do try harder and that keeps you in the game.
[/quote]

I don’t remember that post being directed at you. It was only about you, not to you.[/quote]

I like it, good example of what I was talking about.

195

Ephrem,

Thank you for posting those videos… I’m going to watch them at least 3 or 4 more times… excellent stuff.

196

[quote]kamui wrote:

not really,
as a teacher, i see too many grammatical errors a day to feel dizzy about this one. [/quote]
Are their really to many or are you losely stating this as fact?

197

Maybe we can simplify the concept by using base infinity instead of base ten.

I’ll count to infinity first. 10.

198

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

It doesn’t. Ephrem claims this not I.

Starting over from a formally collapsed universe is not what I am talking about. I am talking about infinite regress in logic. It is not possible to ever come to a conclusion if your argument starts over all the time.[/quote]

Everything in nature starts over all the time. All that has form ends at some point in time, but as you and i know, while the form ends the building blocks the form was made-up from are used in some other form.

Nothing really ends.[/quote]

We don’t know whether something ends or not. Certainly, according to the laws of thermal dynamics and such that shit only changes states, that nothing is created or destroyed. Then there are black holes, where it is very possible that information does get destroyed and it is a common theory. But nobody can see beyond the event horizon.

Here’s the problem with the singularity theory, other than the creative property what other properties does it posses or must it posses to create an entire universe? [/quote]

Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.

Where do these particles come from?

If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.

Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia

An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to self regulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.

You call that God instead.
[/quote]

No, he said when you remove all matter and create a void, something is always there. With true randomness there is no consistency. Seemingly random can satisfy a scientific condition when studying something else, but the particles popping in and out of a void certainly do it for a reason and come from somewhere. Further, a “void” isn’t nothingness. It is a something, it occupies space and things occur in it in time. Lastly, it is a consistently replicatable effect which means it’s not random, just not understood. Given the effects of polarity in the EPR paradox, I don’t actually find this to far fetched.

Ok, so now you have an expanding singularity, that doesn’t have creative properties? What is it then?
Now you have three separate things going on. An ever expanding singularity that has no definition, it just is? Then you have a chaotic system and a self regulation aspect that is random but controls this chaotic system?
You don’t see how you just painted yourself in to a corner?
Where did the chaotic system come from? How did it’s self regulation pop into existance? What’s the singularity then got to do with any of it?

199

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

i would say that both are equally illogical.
we are playing a “my aporetic affirmation is better than yours !” kind of game here.

which is kinda pointless.

if logic was the only criterium, the agnostic position (“i don’t know”) would be the best.

but logic is NOT the only criterium. [/quote]

No they are not. They are not equally logical, they are two different arguments with different premises. One is purely deductive, the other is inductive. It is always the case that the deductive argument is more solid. In an inductive argument, you can always attack the conclusion based on a in complete set of premises. Inductive arguments are inferred based on facts. The deductive arguments are perfectly linear and complete; i.e. it is a “whole”. You can only attack the conclusion of a deductive argument by attacking the premises, but you cannot add or subtract premises. Deductive arguments are deduced inductive are inferred.

If you want to get really technical, I can make a better argument for the existence of a Prime Mover, that anyone hear can make for their own existence. But the virtue of pure deduction, the Prime Mover is more real than you are.[/quote]
It would be quite interesting if you go into it, would it be somehow doubting that I exist as an independent entity but being unable to deny that I am the effect of an eternal cause since I am not eternal?[/quote]

It’s really just an exercise. I believe you exist, but I cannot prove it. If you want to try, make an argument that you exist and I can show you where you went wrong. Then I can show you from that point how cosmology is a stronger argument.

200

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I’m still not getting why you are so willing to accept the eternal existence of a hypothetical supernatural being, but deny the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. Can you explain?[/quote]

I do not deny either actually. It’s the problem of contingency. Everything that exists has it’s basis in something else. Be that in or out of a space/time continuum.
Now we know certain things. That this current instance of the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, has a center, a mass and a size (an ever changing one, but a size). Whether the whole thing will turn in to a giant black hole and collapse on itself, I don’t know. What I do know is that everything that exists physically or metaphysically, has properties and these properties have origin. As you strip these properties, then you get to what something really is.

Let’s take an example from Plato’s Forms. Think of a triangle. Now this triangle you are thinking of has properties, yet it doesn’t exist physically and does not exist in time. You mental triangle isn’t your creation it is your discovery, but like a physical triangle it has angles and sides, it must or it’s not a triangle. Can you see it? It will never move, change or age in any way. It will always be there for you to discover.
Where did the angles come from? Where did the sides come from? What about it’s color, size, etc. Where did it come from, your brain? No, your brain cannot make a damn thing. It can only discover and manipulate.
We can drill down infinitely on this triangle. It has infinite points.
The question is what makes it what it is and where does it come from?

I chose a metaphysical object because time is not a factor, yet it exists, has properties and origin. It exists infinitely, but culminates into a finite object.

People see physical things and metaphysical things as different, but I don’t. Every physical object has metaphysical components, therefore not only are they related, but things that are physical cannot exist with out the metaphysical, not so the other way around.
You can’t build a motor cycle out of a box of parts with out a plan.

Bottom line is this, all that exists has components that are infinite, or are time independent if you will. But yet they all have origin and when you come across something where you cannot ask where it came from or why it exists, there you have found God.

Everything is related and it all rolls up…

[/quote]

The triangle I’m thinking of disappears when I die. It’s a product of my brain, like every other cognitive object I create. That doesn’t make it metaphysical, any more than a computation being done by a computer is metaphysical.

Just so I’m clear, it sounds like you believe matter and energy have always existed? If that is the case, there is no such thing as a first cause, because eternity stretches in both directions.
[/quote]

Not really. You can no longer perceive it, but the entity is still there. This is all about epistemology. Once you get that it’s very understandable. Like a computer your brain cannot produce an original thought. Go ahead and try, think of a color that doesn’t exist and isn’t comprised of other colors. Or any thought that isn’t a culmination of other thoughts, feelings, or experiences, i.e. completely unique. You cannot do it, no one can. A computer cannot postulate on the metaphysical and is useless with out people.

I don’t see evidence of an ever existing universe but I do not deny it’s a possibility. Even if it is, it doesn’t solve the contingency problem. Everything, that exists is contingent upon something else. When you have hit upon that which is not contingent, you have found God. It’s mathematical really.

201

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

It doesn’t. Ephrem claims this not I.

Starting over from a formally collapsed universe is not what I am talking about. I am talking about infinite regress in logic. It is not possible to ever come to a conclusion if your argument starts over all the time.[/quote]

Everything in nature starts over all the time. All that has form ends at some point in time, but as you and i know, while the form ends the building blocks the form was made-up from are used in some other form.

Nothing really ends.[/quote]

We don’t know whether something ends or not. Certainly, according to the laws of thermal dynamics and such that shit only changes states, that nothing is created or destroyed. Then there are black holes, where it is very possible that information does get destroyed and it is a common theory. But nobody can see beyond the event horizon.

Here’s the problem with the singularity theory, other than the creative property what other properties does it posses or must it posses to create an entire universe? [/quote]

Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.

Where do these particles come from?

If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.

Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia

An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.

You call that God instead.
[/quote]

Energy is not destroyed in a black hole.
[/quote]

Nobody really knows. But if it can crush light, pretty much everything is on the table with respect to it’s destructive power. Just look at what happens in the event horizon. Interestingly enough, there are somethings thought to escape the edge of the black hole. That the energy created by destroying atoms is so great that it can escape the black hole, but not much.