Counting to Infinity

[SteveA]

It appears you had some similarly "awed" views regarding infinity.

Yes, it's very innocent appearing that infinity "stretches" forever or some other linear connotation - very simple, just a line.

But it's most entirely not how it "works" (sort of) - there are many forms of infinities and all of them are in a sense the same thing (if you pick the very largest infinite possible, which in physical terms would seem to be time - we never have more information than is available over time, every other infinite form of construction is smaller and derived from time).

And for an infinity to exist in time, it can't be an identical repetition or everything becomes superimposed as a single identical thing. So then it becomes a bit more significant ... but it goes past this - how do we actual end up perceiving time? Well it comes in terms of distinct types of conscious experiences - I consider it similar to a string of properties that exist in a moment - for example, seeing a tree could be described in various ways as fractal with various textures and colors and contrasts between background and foreground colors etc.

The complete "alphabet" of human perceptions is likely not incredibly large and there may be just a few hundred basic "atoms" in these concepts (I'm just making a rough guess - might be a couple thousand, though it could be 50 ...it's not "huge" - the larger space of experiences over time result from combining these and with memory).

So let's say we tried to count and we had the equivalent of 50 binary valued perceptions (the property either exists or it doesn't) and let's say there are something like 40 of these sets per second.

Now how long would it take to fill all possible conscious experiences with this set?

Well we have 2^50 possible combinations and we divide that by 40 per second and 3600 seconds per hour, 24 hours per day (ignoring night) and 365 days per year gives us close to 900,000 years (this is very rough, it could be billions or trillions of years)

Now there could be a question of whether or not these could stop in some manner before or after death and I personally can't see how that could be possible because it requires that something outside this timeline change to indicate whether or not life is currently occuring - but if such a state could be toggled from "stopped" to "running", then what would stop it from changing back again if it went from "running" to "stopped" - you'd need some other latch to tell the first latch to not toggle anymore and then we end up finding that there would need to be some infinite sequence of such latches and still no guarantee that anything remains latched.

Logic can't contain time - they're actually two entirely separate "elements" - logic describes static forms, but none of them inherently move unless "given" time (which comes from outside the logic) and so logic just really can't touch time, it's dependent upon it to do anything.

So in a sense it seems just unknown whether or not time is infinite, but there appears little reason to believe it's finite because it really isn't even constructed by any form of finite logic.

So in the example, above - you'd need to go past those 50 perceptions to represent times over 900,000 years and so we could add something like a new color of the rainbow - let's just say it's some new funky glow, but then that's just another 900,000 years.

And it gets even more interesting because you can't simply increase the number of perceptions without physical properties to encapsulate them - for example, if there were an infinite number of perceptions, if only finite physical information is available, then if can't "fill" all this with unique forms, so this information needs to become unbounded as well, and then we once again find that finite intelligence couldn't comprehend infinite information and so finite bounds on this are "broken" as well and basically anything that we try to impose a finite restriction on is ultimately surpassed by infinite growth.

Now consider that even the bounds of imaginary for a person are finite because they're only made from a finite set of concepts derived from finite experiences and senses etc.

Actually we already have what could be infinite qualitities in conscious perceptions already - the textures, smells, colors etc. though potentially stimulated via. numeric and finite "external" information are not in themselves easily quantizable - to elaborate, let's say that there is a specific wavelength that is precisely "green" and we can quantize it into the detection of some quantity or number in the environment (this should be possible), now though we could reference this objectively as the discrete symbol for "green", the quality of green consciously perceived could vary from person to person and doesn't appear to have any quantizable trait - what if someone actually saw green similar to turquoise or even as something wildly different and experienced sight similar to a blind person feeling textures? There doesn't appear any way to draw a fine line to these experiences and separate them into any numeric form.

So this could already represent something equivalent to an infinite component of experience, though they still only exist as some finite perceivable collection of them in experiences and so they ultimately would have to differ over time as well.

Basically it appears that a linear view of infinity is a complete misrepresentation of it and infinity does not resemble anything like 1,2,3,... or straight lines. It's an alphabet of so much complexity that it's about impossible to say much of anything specific about its properties except that there can always be things past the lines you draw.

And from your post it appears it "hit you" to an extent also how significant that is, though you may not have recognized the extent of it.

Now none of this appears entirely certain though - logic doesn't seem to work with time very well and so similarly it could be that time is actually irrational (and I mean that in the sense of randomness and insanity and not similar to an irrational number) and yes, despite no logical way to describe how, it still "stops" and/or "starts" and somehow maintains a logic in one respect and not others, but it just seems extremely unlikely (if Occam's Razor applies and its simple then time should be infinite - there's really no other explaination) and was there ever something in "Everything" that implied only a finite quantity of things could exist? Seems highly unlikely - I'm personally willing to accept that time is infinite and it fits in well with so many other things that it's become almost obvious to me (though it appears there may never be certainty, but since when have we had absolute certainty - the existence of time is probably the #1 most significant physical thing around - it's also the most common noun in English http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/press/time-noun.htm). And it wouldn't be surprising at all to find the that single largest infinite thing is also the thing/noun most frequently referred to

[Lloyd Gillespie]

"Have you considered time/motion/substance inversity...?
The chiralling conflexivity/inversion/eversion of finity in infinity: Time/FS/Motion / | \ Time/FS/Motion
Finity: X/X=1+IEE / | \ Infinity=Imagination??? Lotta space/time/FS/motion beyond finity, in my imagination...
Most amazing annimation I've ever seen: Link Thanks, Steve..."
/ | \ = my logic symbol for: 'not same, yet related'

Steve, if you noticed above, I show infinity and finity to be two distinct forms of thought, yet related. Finity, what and all we can know of possessing time as a logical measurement of matter in motion, and infinity, as pure imaginary thought; or the reasoned thought of 'logica docens' and the often-unreasoned thought of 'logica utens'. The first has real time, matter, numbers and logic, and the second may not have real time, matter, numbers and logic__just pure imaginary speculation, for what it's worth, but can be used to encapsulate theory advances, back at the finite level of geometric logic and finite reality.

Though it has seemed there was only one 'time' of matter in motion, which still may be true, as thought can not exist without matter in motion, within our skulls, there may be two aspects of this matter in motion__the standard objective and subjective, and the deeper level of super-subjective and super-objective__at the imaginary level. The super-imaginary level may see more, as long as it maintains its fundamental grasp of finite reason and logic, as background information attatchment/ascription, as its Non-Shamanistic guide to new visions and possible models...

Just theorizing...
Lloyd
btw, ya 'din't' answer the question? "Have you considered time/motion/substance inversity/eversion...?"rrr

Now none of this appears entirely certain though - logic doesn't seem to work with time very well and so similarly it could be that time is actually irrational (and I mean that in the sense of randomness and insanity and not similar to an irrational number) and yes, despite no logical way to describe how, it still "stops" and/or "starts" and somehow maintains a logic in one respect and not others, but it just seems extremely unlikely (if Occam's Razor applies and its simple then time should be infinite - there's really no other explaination) and was there ever something in "Everything" that implied only a finite quantity of things could exist? Seems highly unlikely - I'm personally willing to accept that time is infinite and it fits in well with so many other things that it's become almost obvious to me (though it appears there may never be certainty, but since when have we had absolute certainty - the existence of time is probably the #1 most significant physical thing around - it's also the most common noun in English http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/press/time-noun.htm). And it wouldn't be surprising at all to find the that single largest infinite thing is also the thing/noun most frequently referred to

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Steve, you actually make fine sense when you're talking to a mathematician, about pure mathematics problems, as I read you and Antonio's exchanges__Very impressive.

Just to let you know, I've stated in my early posts, I'm simply interested in working in general geometric accuracies, to allow a larger and easier scope of information processing first. This is where you and I collide. So, if you respect my genericities, I'll respect you exactitudednesses, in the threads where these differences belong__OK...?

And btw, welcome to ToeQuest...rrr

Thanks,
Lloyd

p.s.
There are two important posts waiting for you Here, and Here...

[SteveA]

"Have you considered time/motion/substance inversity...?
The chiralling conflexivity/inversion/eversion of finity in infinity: Time/FS/Motion / | \ Time/FS/Motion
Finity: X/X=1+IEE / | \ Infinity=Imagination??? Lotta space/time/FS/motion beyond finity, in my imagination...
Most amazing annimation I've ever seen: Link Thanks, Steve..."
/ | \ = my logic symbol for: 'not same, yet related'

Steve, if you noticed above, I show infinity and finity to be two distinct forms of thought, yet related. Finity, what and all we can know of possessing time as a logical measurement of matter in motion, and infinity, as pure imaginary thought; or the reasoned thought of 'logica docens' and the often-unreasoned thought of 'logica utens'. The first has real time, matter, numbers and logic, and the second may not have real time, matter, numbers and logic__just pure imaginary speculation, for what it's worth, but can be used to encapsulate theory advances, back at the finite level of geometric logic and finite reality.

Though it has seemed there was only one 'time' of matter in motion, which still may be true, as thought can not exist without matter in motion, within our skulls, there may be two aspects of this matter in motion__the standard objective and subjective, and the deeper level of super-subjective and super-objective__at the imaginary level. The super-imaginary level may see more, as long as it maintains its fundamental grasp of finite reason and logic, as background information attatchment/ascription, as its Non-Shamanistic guide to new visions and possible models...

Just theorizing...
Lloyd
btw, ya 'din't' answer the question? "Have you considered time/motion/substance inversity/eversion...?"rrr

Actually you do have a very good point - finite objects have beginnings and endings - they repeat perfectly in time. Even a physical body might be considered an object in this case - objective reality "out there" appears to be effectively numeric, though it doesn't "capture" the properties of consciousness complete.

As you know I believe time cannot be of a finite length, and so in this case, if we truly have an infinite thing in the universe (any one at all), then yes, there can exist a continuum.

So yes, maybe your thoughts are quite accurate and there's the equivalent of a process of interlinkage between these two that is not detected on any specific finite scale, though we may be able to deduce that it exists via. personal observation, even if it can't be objectively shown.

(I used to try to stick more to the "hard facts", but I realized the hard facts simply could not explain it all - it requires introspection beyond that to see further)

So yes, if time is infinite, then memory or values may also be infinite, but notice that a continuum may be a misrepresentation - that's us just blurring it into a flatness that it would not appear able to be perceived as.

So I believe a better manner to describe a continuum would be to construct a single source process of growth and it may be as simple as a form of linear count 1,2,3... and then constructing functions, or similarly physical interconnections to the motion that allow for unbounded complexity to evolve and be distinct - though consider that at least from how conscious perceptions appear to operate and be distinct, there would need to be an algorithm for growth of the quantities of these as well (and these may actually be the "seeds" that construct the perception of physical time - some form of "pressure" toward more diverse conscious perceptions and a physical timeline is establishing the continuity of that perceived space before more can be added - that's basically been what my thoughts are regarding this).

[SteveA]

Steve, you actually make fine sense when you're talking to a mathematician, about pure mathematics problems, as I read you and Antonio's exchanges__Very impressive.

Thank you and yes, I enjoy reading his posts too. He picks quite interesting topics that usually 'click' some association.

And I do congratulate you if you can follow much of the discussion. I know it's hard for me to follow my own thoughts and it's more difficult to follow another with someone elses, so here's at least a couple "Brownie Points".

Oh, and you can redeem them for a free coffee at any participating coffee shop too (My pleasure, no need for thanks hehe!)

Just to let you know, I've stated in my early posts, I'm simply interested in working in general geometric accuracies, to allow a larger and easier scope of information processing first. This is where you and I collide. So, if you respect my genericities, I'll respect you exactitudednesses, in the threads where these differences belong__OK...?

Yes, and I do recognize the need for a nice intuitive "macroscale" model, though I do think I have a decent physical/logical toy model, it doesn't extend beyond that to include possible conscious pressures and the form of generalization you're working on would appear something desirable - (yes, we may not be able to stick with pure logic on all scales and at least one unknown "tweak this parameter yourself - because noone else can measure it for you" would likely be needed)

And btw, welcome to ToeQuest...

rrr

Thanks,
Lloyd

p.s.
There are two important posts waiting for you Here, and Here...

Thank you much. Ok, I'll check out the links (at work now though and I do need to "drift down slightly" from cloud 9 or I'll never get any work done - that's one problem with non-physical labor. It might almost be nice to have some simple repetitive job for a bit so I could let my mind drift and still get some work done! LOL I don't believe in mind over stomach (at least not yet ) and I've got lots of mouths reliant upon me)