Counting to Infinity

[SteveA]

There are lots of references to infinity around, but what would it take to actually have something capable of constructing unbounded quantities?

A common perception is that this just requires and infinite space, but that's really not enough - a quantity requires a specific termination.

What denotes the endpoints of a space and what sort of properties would be required of these in order to support an unlimited recognition of these spaces?

Notice that if tried to do this in decimal the digits 0-9 allow us to denote 10 possible volumes of space.

If we move to the number 10, we now need two positions of space to denote the decimal 10, but this is a conflict because we're trying to already point to this endpoint - this decimal representation requires space itself before it can point to a space and that's a paradox and the same goes for any other finite form of symbolism - there aren't enough letters, symbols etc. that people could recognize that would be able to point to unlimited quantities of things.

But let's say that such an infinite deterministic system of counting could exist - it would have to have in supply an infinite number of unique symbols - one for each such position in space so that every position or number would be distinct in this space.

We could combine some of these symbols to grow the size of space in various ways using operations like addition, multiplication, exponentiation or factorials etc. (some of these operations more naturally apply to specific physical properties than others), but still this would not allow a finite number of symbols to reach infinite counts.

We ultimately have to add an infinite number of distinct symbols if such an infinite deterministic system could exist.

Now recognize that if we were to consciously "look" at some such number it would appear as some quality to that location and this quality could be of any distinct form - a color, an emotion, an intuitive feeling, a concept or a physical object etc.

There are natural ways in which two such numbers could appear to exist as collections of smaller things - for example, 35=5*7 and numbers of unlimited size can similarly have an unlimited number of factors, similar to a car being describable as an almost unlimited number of subcomponents each of which could be described as collections of other objects until we hit physically indistinguishable units.

Notice that having an ability to select a single such position in an infinite sequence also requires an infinite quantity of information and so this selection could be described in qualitative terms as well.

Anyway, if there was a way to count to infinity, it appears that consciousness potentially possesses the abilities to do so

There are not specific physical objects capable of this, except if space and its properties are also capable of infinite change over time and if space possesses the ability to represent and infinite number of concepts etc.

All you need to count to infinity is a single photon and an infinite diversity of things for it to interact with.

[labelwench]

There are lots of references to infinity around, but what would it take to actually have something capable of constructing unbounded quantities?

Originally posted by SteveA

Based on my limited understanding, infinity is a concept, created in the human mind, and expressed through language, rather inadequately.

By all definitions to date, while one can apply the term infinity to a broad number of further concepts, infinity itself is without parameter.

Perhaps the concept of infinity can be almost understood through meditation, if one reaches that state where one is copletely unaware, their mind completely stilled.....

I'm not there yet. My mind rattles around like a B.B. in a boxcar, or a puppy chasing sunbeams. Got to get a leash on that puppy.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbYJNL7uYRI

[SteveA]

Based on my limited understanding, infinity is a concept, created in the human mind, and expressed through language, rather inadequately.

I think infinity may not just be a concept. There doesn't appear any way for time to be something closed that ends and if there is no end to time then there should similarly be no end to those things describe by the differences and changes between things over time, and for example, the qualities of conscious perceptions, such as seeing a color are not described solely by a wavelength (notice the convenient linear ordering of a spectrum though Makes it nice for navigation).

If such an infinity actually exists, I don't think there would ever be a way to describe it in physical terms - I don't know this for certain, but I don't think any fixed physical laws could describe it - there would, at a minimum, need to be an infinite number of distinct things within that space - if we grabbed every digit and every number and every symbol and every formula and every rock and plant and tree and mountain and planet etc., ignoring the fact that we couldn't aribtrarily arrange these in space without paradox, they'd still not even begin to fill an infinite space and even if we theoretically had an infinite space but only a finite number of objects that could be placed at each location, these objects would still need to be grouped into infinitely long "concepts" to point to those infinite spaces.

It appears that infinity can't be described by simply having an infinite space of uniformity - infinite is instead only describable by infinite diversity. There is no such thing as an infinite uniformity - empty space is just an impossible concept - there's nothing in it to see all of those empty spaces or tell them apart - an empty space is just a single thing and space itself is not constrained without something to constrain it, hence an unconstrained space is naturally required to be infinitely diverse.

By all definitions to date, while one can apply the term infinity to a broad number of further concepts, infinity itself is without parameter.

Yes, I usually always talk about potential infinities etc. If the real thing existed, it would appear we couldn't describe all of its properties because any set of properties we listed would only fill a finite quantity of it. Even if we denoted these space with every conscious experience of everyone alive, that's still not even beginning and it could only be filled by things beyond imagination (even imagination is finite) - infinity is only filled by things that have no constraints (notice that this creates sub infinities as well and classes of properties - in a sense there is no "infinity squared" - you can't have more than everything, but you could have structures similar to a square root of infinity, in which case these would grow with fractal forms, like trees in 3 dimensional space, though we also have an infinite diversity of these forms as well (logarithms, roots, inverses of many functions and combinations of these)

Here are some examples of objects with fractional dimensions (it's just a google image search) http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...tart=0&ndsp=18

Many of these objects are very natural in the qualities of their form, but consider that these would themselves be infinite universes with similarly infinite diversity in the qualities each of these elements represented etc.

Perhaps the concept of infinity can be almost understood through meditation, if one reaches that state where one is copletely unaware, their mind completely stilled.....

Yes, in some ways my references were only to the specific things that would be required to fill it, but there may be some totality of infinity that itself has some specific description. I don't know, but it's an interesting thought that the entire collection may have some natural form.

I'm not there yet. My mind rattles around like a B.B. in a boxcar, or a puppy chasing sunbeams. Got to get a leash on that puppy.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbYJNL7uYRI

Hehe

Yes, I know the feeling ... it's ok. Some fresh air is a good thing, but I do recommend keeping a roadmap of how to get back home after you've gone exploring. Don't want to drift off too far and forget how you got there ... (usually that comes with a hangover too! Just kidding)

[SB_UK]

Anyway, if there was a way to count to infinity, it appears that consciousness potentially possesses the abilities to do so

There are not specific physical objects capable of this, except if space and its properties are also capable of infinite change over time and if space possesses the ability to represent and infinite number of concepts etc.

All you need to count to infinity is a single photon and an infinite diversity of things for it to interact with.

Photon seeking other photons for infinite phon.

That's one of them mettyphors innit?

The potential existence of infinity in consciousness (mind - the 'internal' world) running parallel to the potential existence of infinity in space (the 'external' world).

Phil seeking other Philberts for infinite phonungraphic transfer.

~*~

graphic -> un <- phon

light -> and <- sound

The moving image and The moving sound (music)

Electromagnetism

Electro -> <- magnetism

The moving light -> <- The moving sound [arrayed orthogonally]

3 turns of the

x < {y,z}
(y,z) dual

represented by Lloyd Gillespie as the symbol:

/ | \

and we obtain 6 sides ((2 (red,blue)) x 3) - hinged off the same central axis (in orange).

There're 3 sides of moving imagery which seem real because the 3 sides of moving imagery have 3 respective orthogonally arrayed layers of 'force' to them.
The look and feel are intimately bound -
though arise not from juxtaposition -
but from geometrically slightly 'off' (orthogonal,everted) array.
The manufactured three dimensions - from these three twists
- represents our supposedly 3 dimensions.
A lie though - the reason why our solar system is essentially flat.
The 3d reality which we believe we're living in
- made up of 3 orthogonal 2 axis twists in a continuous matrix - creates the illusion that
to organisms made up of 3 orthogonal 2 axis twists in a continuous matrix
the 3 dimensions which we see
are
true.

6 sides built from one central force -
kinda' like there are 6 sides to the Rubik's cube where the cube consists of a set of squares (the visible sides) which surround the central (hidden square) - at the very centre of the '3d' cube.

We're a folded 2d plane, folded upon 1 axis of 'rotation'.

~*~

... ... and we obtain 6 sides ((2 (red,blue)) x 3) - hinged off the

x 3
- the magic number in subatomic physics.
Strange, Bottom and Charm.
Is there a pert quark?

[SB_UK]

post addition (above)

There're 3 sides of moving imagery which seem real because the 3 sides of moving imagery have 3 respective orthogonally arrayed layers of 'force' to them.
The look and feel are intimately bound -
though arise not from juxtaposition -
but from geometrically slightly 'off' (orthogonal,everted) array.
The manufactured three dimensions - from these three twists
- represents our supposedly 3 dimensions.
A lie though - the reason why our solar system is essentially flat.
The 3d reality which we believe we're living in
- made up of 3 orthogonal 2 axis twists in a continuous matrix - creates
to organisms made up of 3 orthogonal 2 axis twists in a continuous matrix
that
the 3 dimensions which we see
are
true.

So in the case of a notionally real (real to the animal) world

'like a marble or an eye'

object the image of a shape would be accompanied by a feel -
- though the 3 dimensions of look and feel would be slightly offset -
the 'feel' would represent a set of 3 dimensions which is arrayed orthogonally to the 3 dimensions representing 'look'.

Kinda' like the Rubik's cube -
where we can imagine the story here as seen when we turn the central layer or row by 45 degrees.

... ... and who (exactly) put this there?

where's Rufus ?

The 'hidden' third dimension can be imagined as a skewer which penetrates through the centre of the cube
- emerging out at the handily

streuth!

labelled = sign.

.................(|)
..................|
..................|
..................|
..................|

..................|
..................|
..................|
..................|
.................(|)

- with the (circle) to be imagined as in the exact same plane as the black = sign on the cube.

(\\)

- which rotates as it feels a 1d motion passing along and through it.

The Rubik's cube is seeded by a 1d motion -
- a linear -> rotation
which is conferred by a matrix of Planck length standing waves which occur here.
to be imagined as balls.

When these balls are afforded more energy than they 'know what to do with'
- they generate structure -
- the Rubiks cube begins construction.

The Rubik's cube though -
- despite its seemingly real, static nature -
is purely dynamic

everything moves

(under the hood).

Just a second!!!



that's

uhhhhh!

lumme Arbuthnot ... ...it's all the same.

[SB_UK]

... ... slightly offset

giving us our two sets of Earthly poles:

magnetic and geographic

[SB_UK]

Our three dimensional external world consists of three separate dimensions
- three 'separate' (continuous) images (three axes)
- each of which has an appended force -

look and feel
'sound and light' shows

ToEquest [link] to scorpion and om
- the duality between sound(feel)(music - the moving sound)(eye) and light(look)(film - the moving image)(ear)

the real and imaginary components of a complex number
x
3

- continuous - though from our perspective overlaid (though not quite perfectly).

A three dimensional
look
(the bit we see in a bar magnet)
and
feel
(the bit which repels another bar magnet
- even when the two like poles appear to be quite distant from one another).

~*~

Makes sense

- there's a continuous infusion of energy
- to be imagined as the rotating reels of a projector

- rotating reels of a projector which project not a 2d image with sound
- instead (in our case)
- our notionally real (hard) 3 dimensional external reality.

Maya, the illusion

... ... jolly good show Arbuthnot

[melanie]

All you need to count to infinity is a single photon and an infinite diversity of things for it to interact with.

Maya ave this dance!!

[labelwench]

There is no such thing as an infinite uniformity
Originally posted by SteveA

unify, v.t. Reduce (things, or abs.) to unity or uniformity.

Perhaps, then, we can use the concept of infinity to unify humankind.

The search for the T.O.E. could be seen by some, as just such a quest.

Was not that your purpose in starting a thread on the topic of the theory of everything that really matters, through a reduction of scope?

[SteveA]

unify, v.t. Reduce (things, or abs.) to unity or uniformity.

Infinity is a concept that unifies, but in reality there is absolutely nothing uniform about it (not the things within it - every one is unique and there would be no way to perceive/experience/describe/know etc. them except over an infinite time - any time you place on a limit to it, it passes it by - no need to even try to place a limit on it. It does make some squabbles seem rather petty in comparison - we can move on)

The reason why I commented was because I finally recognized:

1,2,3...

or similarly

space, space, space, ...

Does not in any way shape or form represent what infinity would actually be There is only one of each of these and yes, they're all neatly held together by a real infinity and it's just beyond imagination.

Perhaps, then, we can use the concept of infinity to unify humankind.

Well we've got a few selections for endpoints to aim for - the most obvious ones are 0, 1 or infinity. Infinity already contains everything else and is bound to be quite a ride ... then again, there are nice smooth comfy spreads along it too ... yes, why not? Maybe 1 can be understood after reaching infinity

The search for the T.O.E. could be seen by some, as just such a quest.

Well I still consider it to be a destination, but maybe it's one that can't be reached ... it might be that instead the only way to find it is to see everything else and then it's the only thing that could be left - straight line doesn't point anywhere until you have some references to align it to - the more the merrier!

Was not that your purpose in starting a thread on the topic of the theory of everything that really matters, through a reduction of scope?

Yes, that was basically it - if there's someplace you can't ever reach, then what's the most scenic route to take along the way?

If something doesn't really matter, it's not worth trying to keep it and if you can only keep one thing, then make sure it's the most important one (Some decisions can take a lonnngggg time to make hehe)