An Idea

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Singularity of Infinity...

"There exists no math, of the reduction of true infinity, to finiteness__none...!!!__just pure conjecture..."

The singularity of infinity eternally exists, and eternally contains all the infinitesimal finites, either individually__or in group formations__and all are eternally inter-linked by the infinite eternal fields of__The singularity of infinity...

Language must be used precisely, to parse all the world's ignorance...

Giordano Bruno__The world's greatest infinity cosmologist...

Bruno's cosmology
Bruno believed (and praised Copernicus for establishing a scientific explanation for the fact) that the Earth revolves around the sun, and that the apparent diurnal rotation of the heavens is an illusion caused by the rotation of the Earth around its axis. Bruno also held (following Nicholas of Cusa) that because God is infinite the universe would reflect this fact in boundless immensity. Bruno also asserted that the stars in the sky were really other suns like our own, around which orbited other planets. He indicated that support for such beliefs in no way contradicted scripture or true religion.

In 1584, Bruno published two important philosophical dialogues, in which he argued against the planetary spheres. (Two years later, Rothmann did the same, as did Tycho Brahe in 1587.) Bruno's infinite universe was filled with a substance—a "pure air," aether, or spiritus -- that offered no resistance to the heavenly bodies which, in Bruno's view, rather than being fixed, moved under their own impetus. Most dramatically, he completely abandoned the idea of a hierarchical universe. The Earth was just one more heavenly body, as was the Sun. God had no particular relation to one part of the infinite universe more than any other. God, according to Bruno, was as present on Earth as in the Heavens, an immanent God, the One subsuming in itself the multiplicity of existence, rather than a remote heavenly deity.

Bruno also affirmed that the universe was homogeneous, made up everywhere of the four elements (water, earth, fire, and air), rather than having the stars be composed of a separate quintessence. Essentially, the same physical laws would operate everywhere, although the use of that term is anachronistic. Space and time were both conceived as infinite. There was no room in his stable and permanent universe for the Christian notions of divine creation and Last Judgement.

Under this model, the Sun was simply one more star, and the stars all suns, each with its own planets. Bruno saw a solar system of a sun/star with planets as the fundamental unit of the universe. According to Bruno, infinite God necessarily created an infinite universe, formed of an infinite number of solar systems, separated by vast regions full of Aether, because empty space could not exist. (Bruno did not arrive at the concept of a galaxy.) Comets were part of a synodus ex mundis of stars, and not—as other authors maintained at the time—ephemeral creations, divine instruments, or heavenly messengers. Each comet was a world, a permanent celestial body, formed of the four elements.

Bruno's cosmology is marked by infinitude, homogeneity, and isotropy, with planetary systems distributed evenly throughout. Matter follows an active animistic principle: it is intelligent and discontinuous in structure, made up of discrete atoms. This animism (and a corresponding disdain for mathematics as a means to understanding) is the most dramatic respect in which Bruno's cosmology differs from what today passes for a common-sense picture of the universe.

During the later 16th century, and throughout the 17th century, Bruno's ideas were held up for ridicule, debate, or inspiration. Margaret Cavendish, for example, wrote an entire series of poems against "atoms" and "infinite worlds" in Poems and Fancies in 1664. Bruno's true, if partial, rehabilitation would have to wait for the implications of Newtonian cosmology.

Bruno's overall contribution to the birth of modern science is still controversial. Some scholars follow Frances Yates stressing the importance of Bruno's ideas about the universe being infinite and lacking geocentric structure as a crucial crosspoint between the old and the new. Others disagree. Others yet see in Bruno's idea of multiple worlds instantiating the infinite possibilities of a pristine, indivisible One a forerunner of Everett's Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.[27]

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

I agree there are many paths to Truth, Love and Beauty. It appears that all the paths have some joy and sorrow, which perhaps guides us towards our goal, in that it allows us to experience it.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

God, according to Bruno, was as present on Earth as in the Heavens, an immanent God, the One subsuming in itself the multiplicity of existence, rather than a remote heavenly deity.

Matter follows an active animistic principle: it is intelligent and discontinuous in structure, made up of discrete atoms.

Hi Lloyd;

The man's a genius.

Best,

Pat

[Max™]

I know that that was your intention, Pat. Yet it is my intention to show you that only at the detailed level do we have singular (truthful) answers, not at the overall level.

Max had an excellent delivery to add to your information, because it adds dynamics to your static delivery. Yet, the crux is that we then need to let go of the overall reality as a singular entity, something you nor he are willing to do. You state we must have a unifying principle (and you find this with god), Max states we do not need to discuss this.

Well, if you notice I said "completed body of statements", sharing a group relationship, and resulting from a simple set of background axioms.

If we consider the universe that place of matter with direction, then no one can argue that we have a united reality. No one would be so foolish. It is only when adding all frameworks into a single framework that we find ourselves in a tizzy, because we start out doing something innocently (creating a single framework as if that were possible), and next we get engaged into the struggle to have our own truthful details fit in that unrealistic single framework.

I have actually been working to show that matter is nothing but twisted up pieces of said "directions", and the forces a result of the manner of the folding on the neighboring regions of spacetime.

I don't want a framework where I can fit details, I want to find the correct framework where the details emerge as an unavoidable result, anything else strikes me as being artificial.

[Profpat]

Well, if you notice I said "completed body of statements", sharing a group relationship, and resulting from a simple set of background axioms.



I have actually been working to show that matter is nothing but twisted up pieces of said "directions", and the forces a result of the manner of the folding on the neighboring regions of spacetime.

I don't want a framework where I can fit details, I want to find the correct framework where the details emerge as an unavoidable result, anything else strikes me as being artificial.

Hi Max;

I think it's the detail interactions which make up the framework. I think this is true for the proton, atom and even the universe.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

From Wiki:

Basic and complex categories, where some are modified in some way to form complex emotions (e.g. Paul Ekman). In one model, the complex emotions could arise from cultural conditioning or association combined with the basic emotions. Alternatively, analogous to the way primary colors combine, primary emotions could blend to form the full spectrum of human emotional experience. For example interpersonal anger and disgust could blend to form contempt.[citation needed]
Robert Plutchik proposed a three-dimensional "circumplex model" which describes the relations among emotions. This model is similar to a color wheel. The vertical dimension represents intensity, and the circle represents degrees of similarity among the emotions. He posited eight primary emotion dimensions arranged as four pairs of opposites.

[labelwench]

Robert Plutchik proposed a three-dimensional "circumplex model" which describes the relations among emotions. This model is similar to a color wheel. The vertical dimension represents intensity, and the circle represents degrees of similarity among the emotions. He posited eight primary emotion dimensions arranged as four pairs of opposites.
Originally posted by Profpat

Interesting, that at their most intense, the emotions all converge. When one is overcome by emotion, it is often difficult to discern which sector in which to place it. Our biological responses to the sensations we are experiencing can likewise be confusing to the observer.

One example being tears, which we often associate with pain, sadness or grief, yet can also be an expression of intense joy or ecstasy.

The expression of emotions appears to transcend all barriers of language and culture as a language that is implicitly understandable, even when words and actions may not be.

[Profpat]

Logos (lō'gŏs) [Gr.,=word], in Greek and Hebrew metaphysics, the unifying principle of the world. The central idea of the Logos is that it links God and man, hence any system in which the Logos plays a part is monistic. The Greek Heraclitus held (c.500 B.C.) that the world is animated and kept in order by fire-this fire is the Logos; it is the power of order in the world and the order itself. It thus became the unifying feature of the Heraclitean system. The Stoics (see Stoicism) were influenced in part by Platonism and Aristotelianism in their conception of the Logos. To them God was immanent in the world, its vitalizing force, and God as the law guiding the universe they called Logos; with the additional idea that all things develop from this force, it is called the Spermaticos Logos.

Heraclitus accepted only one material source of natural substances, the Pyr (Fire). This Pyr is the essence of Logos which creates an infinite and uncorrupted world, without beginning. It converts this world into various shapes as a harmony of the opposites. The composition of opposites sustains everything in nature. "Good" and "bad" are simply opposite sides of the same thing.

Smart man this Heraclitus.

[Felix Schrodinger]

..........According to Bruno, infinite God necessarily created an infinite universe, formed of an infinite number of solar systems, separated by vast regions full of Aether, because empty space could not exist. (Bruno did not arrive at the concept of a galaxy). Comets were part of a synodus ex mundis of stars, and not—as other authors maintained at the time—ephemeral creations, divine instruments, or heavenly messengers. Each comet was a world, a permanent celestial body, formed of the four elements.

Bruno's cosmology is marked by infinitude, homogeneity, and isotropy, with planetary systems distributed evenly throughout. Matter follows an active animistic principle: it is intelligent and discontinuous in structure, made up of discrete atoms. This animism (and a corresponding disdain for mathematics as a means to understanding) is the most dramatic respect in which Bruno's cosmology differs from what today passes for a common-sense picture of the universe..........

Thanks for an interesting post Lloyd. This is evidence that the logical path to truth is generally the right one and we do not have to complicate things to get there. The concept of 'earth, air, fire and water' is as true today as it was then but we now accept them as representations of 'solids, gasses, energy and liquids'.

I agree with him on the aether and also on his opinion regarding maths as the tool not the path to understanding.

regards
Felix

[Max™]

You can have logic without god.

Incidentally, that without beginning, and that without boundaries, they are quite possible to grasp, with lots of practice, and at the risk of your sanity.

I am a mote inside of a jewel of a multi-dimensional mathematical structure, twinkling against a background of grey light which illuminates all that is not self-contradictory as possible.

There is no end to that sea of potentialities, it is infinitely deep whichever way I look, and there are infinite directions in which to look. As it contains the concepts of origin and terminus within itself, it encompasses those concepts, but is not bound by them.