Albert Einstein, DON CHARISMA

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” – Albert Einstein

human nature,humor,infinity,philosophy,science,stupidity,universe,DON CHARISMA

Quote of the day …

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”


– Albert Einstein

Hope you like it.


Don Charisma

Help us out by using our referral codesTransferwiseDropboxpCloud

*Shameless self-promotion* – Sometimes we work – Our commercial site : – you dream it we built it … because – “anything is possible with Charisma”

ADD Us On Social Media

(We syndicate out to some of these sites, so maybe be easier for you to follow us on these platforms :

GravatarFaceBook ProfileFaceBook PageTwitter ‘Shitter’ ProfileBlogspotPinterestFineArtAmericaYouTubeYouTubeTVLinkedInTumblr

Resources & Sources

Unless otherwise stated everything here is (c), all rights are reserved – Please contact us if you want to buy digital assets from this website, we’d be happy to help. Sometimes we use photos from stock sites which are un-watermarked (Watermarked photos are normally our own). Where content is included from elsewhere on the internet (for example news articles, or parts of articles, or YouTube videos), we have included under fair use, that is for “satire or discussion”, will cite the source and that copyright remains with copyright holder. – each and every post on this website has an open comments section, so it’s usually a discussion.


Comments are often welcomed, provided you can string a legible, relevant and polite sentence together. In other cases probably best shared with your therapist, or kept to yourself.

17 thoughts on ““Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” – Albert Einstein

  1. Because people need to expand their horizon. Without people who did do this, we would still believe that the Earth is flat and the sun turns around us instead of us turning around the sun. And in the end, without NASA and space exploration, you wouldn’t have this computer whereupon you read this message. Cosmology teaches us also many things about ourselves and the reality around us. I’ve been absent of this forum for a couple of days because I was working on a mathematical model for literature, starting from the premise that if literature has the whole universe as a subject, the literary system may also be ruled by the same mechanisms as the subject it describes.

    1. All sounds very idylic, and I would encourage anyone to expand their mind. We all are perpetual learners.

      No worries, I get busy too, sometimes 🙂

      So how do you feel about people who have a lower IQ than you ? ie, just ordinary people who just want to live their lives untroubled by intellectual achievements and challenges …

      I guess rhetotical, because we already discussed that.

      From my perspective, I like bright people who have great ideas and I also like people who don’t care about expanding their horizons, and like one liners.

      Perhaps it’s age, but as I age, I care less about expanding my horizons, and more about good company.

      My friends in real life vary from a dyslexic autistic to Oxford graduate with 1st class science degree. I myself have an upper 2nd class degree in Sciences, back from the days when they were still giving real education.

      The point of all my ramblings, reminds me of “Fight Club” :

      “So, how’s that working out for you, being clever?” Tyler Durdon

      1. “To realize one’s destiny is a person’s only real obligation and when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it.” – Paulo Coelho, The Alchemist

        Which is fine in some contexts, usually one where money is no object, and one is an individual.

        However I’d say we have real obligations to our loved ones, real obligations to our countries and real obligations to others.

        So you may find you have real obligations which are outside your own destiny, if you wish to live cooperatively with others. I think it’s called interdependency.

        Being clever only is part of the equation. One also needs to be strong physically, mentally and emotionally.

        This is why an Alan Sugar with no education will succeed where intellectuals will fail. And also why the teflon bad orange man has succeeded, in-spite of his intellectual disability.

        The “Engineer” and the “Professor” architypes are both needed in a functioning, cohesive and productive society (along with many other architypes). So “being clever” is important, and has nobility, but …

        A society of just intellectuals would quickly starve to death.

        A society of engineers might also, but as they tend to be adaptable, which I mentioned in my post, they’d probably figure out how to feed themselves.

        Overall, we need everyone from the man who takes away the garbage, to the man who fixes the electric when it goes out, to the engineer who built and designed that iPhone you have in your hand, right up to scholars like Plato, Einstein and Mozart to name just a very few.

        Diversity in a non-left-wing sense, is our only strength in societies. Diversity in the left-wing sense is a “clever” way of saying conformism, the mirror opposite of diversity.

      2. I forgot already where I came across this quote. And yes: the rich ones have a duty to care for the poor ones, the geniuses to provide useful insights for a society that pays their salaries and so on. And the left winged diversity, sometimes also called “positive discrimination” is just that”: discrimination”. A society has the duty to cultivate its brightest minds and not to exclude someone because his skin doesn’t have the right color. Like happens with the Asiatic students at US universities: from a certain quota they’re systematically excluded because they have a tendency to work hard and put down better results to favor students of a more “divers” racial background. Mostly Caucasian and to a lesser degree African (athletes). And down the line: everybody needs every now and then a plumber, an electrician, a car mechanic,…

  2. I suppose the answer to these remarks are belonging to the kind of existential questions that humanity has been posing to make sense out of life. The study of things on the cosmic scale have also been relevant to gain some insights into some subatomic processes. Everyone knows; without quantum-mechanics, no computers.

      1. See you’re able to amaze me, even though I have the attention span of a goldfish, or was that supposed to be the other way round ? 🙂

        Joking aside – liking it, going against the “agreed narrative”, more than one wrong thinker on

        What do you base this on ?

      2. Theorists have been trying to construct a formal mathematical model of the shape of the universe. In formal terms, this is a 3-manifold model corresponding to the spatial section (in comoving coordinates) of the 4-dimensional spacetime of the universe. The model describes a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding (or otherwise, contracting) universe. In other words, the Big Bang is not an explosion in space, but rather an expansion of space.

      3. I watched a few cosmology documentaries over the years, so know a little of the theories – interesting intellectually 🙂

        Practically though, human lifespan is too short and we don’t have a machine fast enough to travel to the edge. So I don’t think in our lifetimes anyone can prove or disprove the theories.

        Engineers have the “good enough” rule, or called something like that – which basically means “the measurement is accurate enough” or “the theory has been applied well enough for the engineering to “work””

        So, I’d say for practical purposes to consider the universe as infinite is “good enough”

        It’s only academics who’d debate, which is all well and good.

        But on a practical level, we have to deal with things as they are, not as the theory says they should be.

        Which also reminds me of a friend of a friend, who had a PHD in business, and utterly failed at the practical aspects.

        The moral of the story – practical is often more useful than the theoretical.

        This plays out again and again in life, people without high degrees or studies becoming wealthy – Alan Sugar for instance I’m fairly sure didn’t do that well at school. (and I’ve heard of plenty of other examples)

        So the moral of that story – competency is not the same as intelligence or “the best ideas”.

Leave a Reply for Don Charisma

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.