Infinity equals perception, not dimension

SamuelVIII

Imagine, if you will, a cosmic leaver; on one end, the concept of zero, and on the other, the concept of everything. As both are equally impossible, then the balance is assured; but in the middle, within the fulcrum, exists our reality. A perfect balance of yes and no.
We are here, we know we are, and that’s all it takes. For the moment, for the purpose of argument, it really doesn’t matter how. Theories range from gods to computer simulations, and again, it doesn’t matter. We are here, somehow; so something is there, even if it is an alien computer programmer.
The Universe exists; and it must be the result of the two impossibilities, the two negatives, making a positive; somehow generating a form of energy. Existence must flicker off and on, faster than a vibrating atom; there and not there at the same time, and all within the balance of zero and infinity. The Universe, it would seem, is bi-polar.
This would make the universe, as we see it, be but one dimension in a multi-dimensional Universe. Take the civilisation living on the electron, who see the flea as the universe; then all the fleas next to it, then the cat and its friends, the people. Countless dimensions within our little universe, and then we look at the rest of the animals, then the trees, the grass; and finally we gasp in awe of the stars, the untold billions of worlds.
This is infinity. This is multi-dimension. Existence crackles with the lives of dimensions, coming and going like popping candy on the tongue. The many exist within the one, for the sole purpose of knowing that it is there; despite, and because of, that being impossible. www.samuelviii.com

SamuelVIII

I just realised that the flea doesn't make much sense; this is because I am increadibly lazy, and just pasted from my own work. I had made the connection of a faint spark, which studies showed to be present at the conception of mice and humans, to the big bang, from another perspective.

Terrapin Station

Imagine, if you will, a cosmic leaver; on one end, the concept of zero, and on the other, the concept of everything. As both are equally impossible, — SamuelVIII

You first lose me here. Why would the concepts of zero and everything be impossible on your view?

oranssi

Samuel, I share the exact same views as yours. I understood perfectly everything you said. It is uncanny when two minds that embrace the paradox cross (virtual) paths.

Zero and Infinity are impossible because they can't stand alone. Infinity has to contain everything including the concept of nothing, and nothing could just be an infinitesimal that has infinite numbers. But of course this is just mindgames and mean nothing at all. Actually it means something, it means preference.

Everyone has its own preference, be it god, a computer simulation or other fancy option. So it doesn't really matter, and that is why it is everything at the same time. How can Infinity express itself and persist? By each one of us having different opinions (that is, preferences). How do I know this? By the patterns in everything that mirror the eternal alpha.

If the Universe is infinite, then I am its center. So are you, therefore let us believe everything.
If the Universe is not infinite, lets make it.

Terrapin Station

Zero and Infinity are impossible because they can't stand alone. — oranssi

Why would a concept have to be able to stand alone to be possible as a concept?

SamuelVIII

You first lose me here. Why would the concepts of zero and everything be impossible on your view? — Terrapin Station

Not zero and everything, zero and anything. They are not only impossible, in my view; but also in a physical universe. It is explained more fully on my blog, but these are by nature, very difficult concepts to grasp.

SamuelVIII

The universe, as we see it, is not infinite. It has a start date, and a dubiously predicted end date. But as a dimension of 'The Universe', we cannot disprove infinity.

SamuelVIII

Samuel, I share the exact same views as yours. I understood perfectly everything you said. It is uncanny when two minds that embrace the paradox cross (virtual) paths. — oranssi

Thank-you, it is refreshing to be understood.

Terrapin Station

Not zero and everything, zero and anything. — SamuelVIII

Your first post begins this way: "Imagine, if you will, a cosmic leaver; on one end, the concept of zero, and on the other, the concept of everything."

Anyway, I'm not going to go digging through your blog for an explanation why you think the concepts are impossible. (And what are we even talking about if the concepts are impossible? We'd not be able to refer to anything but a sound more or less.)

oranssi

↪Terrapin Station

To understand a concept we have to know what it is and what it is not.

My statement is a concept. It itself can't stand alone if nobody questions it. If no one questioned it (inclusive myself), a discussion would simply not exist, therefore no concept to discuss. No discussion with other people and no discussion inside my own mind with myself.

Why is it possible me to be able to question this way inside my mind with myself?
It comes with the consensus reality. We as humans question it fantasizing about a potential for dream / illusion. Therefore we have a concept for reality. If we wouldn't be suspicious about the possibility of illusion / dream there would be no concept for reality. Dreaming, that makes us suspicious when we wake up sometimes remembering it, makes us self-conscious in the waking life. Dreaming is a natural practice for self-consciousness.

For myself to have an identity, there has to be others (not necessarily human),
for reality, there has to be dream,
for night, there has to be day,
for wakefulness, there has to be sleep.
for the concept of concept, there has to be concept of no-concept.

But all this is just so in the antropospheric dimension (and not so).
The all at once, ceases time. It is the infinite zero, the all encompassing paradox.

Terrapin Station

To understand a concept we have to know what it is and what it is not. — oranssi

Wait. First, people create concepts. They're mental events--namely, abstractions a la types/universals/natural kinds/categories/etc. You're usually going to understand your own concepts.

oranssi

↪Terrapin Station

You are right. Mental events, abstractions.

First, there is a phenomenon. That phenomenon might be a concept from where another concept arrises. People don't create concepts out of nothing. There has to be perception and that comes from the own sense of identity, that comes from that which I am not.

But as I said in the previous post, there is always an "opposing force". Not only in physics, but also in the construction of the metaphysic, ideas, etc..

Relatively soon I believe, we humans are going to enter another paradigm, where we are going to use the superposition property of quantum mechanics for new generation of computers. What we use now is the binary system, that reflects the paradigm of the mental frame. It is or it is not, no uncertainty there.

The quantum computer will use the qubit. We wont understand how this is possible, but will be empiricaly acknowledged and it will indeed be useful. For who might be interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXheG7TDtGA

I think this is relevant to the discussion of infinty, zero, and both "at the same time" (no time - as if there is time, they can't phenomenologically be both).

Cavacava

↪SamuelVIII

Imagine, if you will, a cosmic leaver; on one end, the concept of zero, and on the other, the concept of everything. As both are equally impossible, then the balance is assured; but in the middle, within the fulcrum, exists our reality. A perfect balance of yes and no.

I like the analogy, but I wonder why you think the nominal is balanced with the phenomenal or with a shade of difference, why being is balanced with seeming? I think they are connected by language, where language is thought of as a road that leads up and down the hill (to steal a very old thought), the road is the same up or down the hill and really all we have is the road, with its twists and turns sharp inclines and steep declines.

SamuelVIII

I understand that language is important, to some more than others. But to help with understanding the zero, I was liberal with my language, and yes, I just did it again. Zero is physically impossible, and anything equally so. If you managed to make something from nothing, then that something would be everything. No if you put zero on one end of a lever, and everything on the other, you'd have a propeller; and how quick would you be to point that out. Zero would equal absolute zero, no dark, and no space; no dimension at all. Anything would have to start somewhere; where? There will be rules for sub-atomic particles, that we don't yet understand; although, they are only sub-atomic from our perspective. A little less anger makes the world a better place.

SamuelVIII

I like the analogy, but I wonder why you think the nominal is balanced with the phenomenal or with a shade of difference, why being is balanced with seeming? I think they are connected by language, where language is thought of as a road that leads up and down the hill (to steal a very old thought), the road is the same up or down the hill and really all we have is the road, with its twists and turns sharp inclines and steep declines. — Cavacava

I like the way you think; but again my language lets me down. I was trying to say that everything and nothing are the same, because they are equally impossible, thereby making them both negative, giving me a positive from the double.

Infinity equals perception, not dimension

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions