[Tahiti]

Originally Posted by followthehippos

You cannot produce a size frame small enough that multiplied by infinity that would equal a finite space. You can keep going smaller, yes. But each smaller number would still be finite in regard to the whole. For instance, at any point in time you quit shrinking, that amount is finite. However, if you are in a continual state of shrinking, then perhaps you could argue that in terms of the shrinking variable the whole is approaching infinity. Which, would be the case in terms of limits. Am I right? But in reality, it never hits infinity, just approaches infinity (unless you somehow reach a size nothing). Is that right? Check me please and point out my fallacies. I want to get to the heart of this issue.

You're confusing the hell outta me and yourself.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I'll try to translate what you said. I agree with everything but the first sentence.

The trick is to think paradoxically AND finitely. One has to think in terms of QM and finite measurement and it's "unification". With that said...

Remember if infinity is allowed to be defined as such:

Infinity (calculator and basic math) = Undefined Number
Infinity (physics) = Number Without Limit
Infinity (computation) = NAN
Philosophical Infinity = 2 sides to infinity, speed and size

speed and size are defined by what exactly? this the big problem. if the universe is alive then it wouldn't matter. the speed could be dynamic or static, and the size could be dynamic or static. this is where things get even worse. the universe is far smarter than any of us. it's like a super-brain.

this makes things paradoxical as said before. it would imply that infinity actually means a finite number AND not a number. remember that when we measure on the large scale only one possibility is allowed. on the very small infinity = undefined and defined.

also remember that in terms of the unification between the QM and SM I said that:

energy has the potential to have a polar opposite.

this would mean maximizing-automorphism could also exist. these terms allow for a logical explanation of the universe expanding faster than the speed of light.

If I were to agree with you on your second point of "never actually hitting infinity".

it would imply that we need another concept of infinity.

A super-infinity.

So now we have 2 types of infinity's. infinitely worse than before as Michio Kaku says... along with multiple definitions of infinity.

the infinity is always approaching the super infinity, but never allowed to actually
"match" or "meet" the super-infinity, as you so put it.

I hope you're ready for this, I've been thinking about this for two hours and have developed a ton of new theoretical concepts. Lets begin by addressing my last paragraph. As noted in my last paragraph you can never find a size small enough to satisfy having an infinite amount of it within a finite boundary, excluding a zero amount of size. However, a zero amount of size would take up exactly no space and if you think about it, doesn't exist. Proving that nothing does not exist*. If you think about this further you will realize that nothing exists everywhere, just like everything exists everywhere. That would therefore prove the quantum model in that both nothing and everything exists simultaneously everywhere AND they are not a contradiction or a paradox! Therefore, by analyzing the zero size you can prove that quantum mechanics works!! Therefore quantum mechanics does not involve contradictions at all, just the appearance of contradictions! Quantum mechanics is NOT A CONTRADICTION!!! OR A PARADOX!!! I'm sorry, I'm just so glad this all makes sense to me.

this is the tricky part. quantum mechanics when measured is paradoxical, it's when measured in the real world that its not. that's why i say in order to unify it, a + has the potential to be a -, vice versa. ying can be the yang and yang can be the ying. on the quantum scale, ying is the yang and the yang is the ying. you're starting to understand which is good.

this is why 5 conclusions about our universe could exist:

A) universe exist
b) universe doesn't exist
c) universe exists and doesn't exist
d) A,B,C aren't true (true nothingness)
e) A,B,C are true (true everythingness)

Note: there may be the appearance of a contradiction in my explanation, but I'm pretty sure it's not, but if need be I'll attempt to resolve the 'supposed contradiction'. Just give me some time to think about it. Additionally, that would be that on the outer boundary of our universe there is no such thing as nothing. In essence, I believe the universe is infinite. I also believe that the opposite of nothing is infinity. But, er, let me think about these some more too. WARNING: Below might get confusing, but I've attempted to alleviate that 'supposed contradiction'. I kept all my 'important' thoughts written down to illustrate some of my reasoning. I apologize if it's confusing. If so, I wouldn't get too caught up with it all.. Just remember that the main paragraph above is the important piece. *Edit 2: I'm trying to resolve that nasty contradiction of nothing does or does not exist. If I say nothing exists then I can also say that everything exists and I can also say that they do not contradict and that quantum concepts are viable without hesitation. Hence, if I say nothing does not exist I'm saying that everything exists, but, that's a contradiction**. So, it seems reasonable to avoid contradicting myself that both nothing and everything exist simultaneously everywhere without contradicting. For one is the absence of the other. If nothing does not exist then that would mean everything does not exist either. Which is impossible, meaning that both nothing and everything must exist simultaneously. Thus, once again, confirming quantum concepts. Finally, my contradiction has been resolved. Here's to hoping my explanation is understood (holds up a glass). Essentially it seems that both nothing and everything are compound in one. <attempted explaining further here then after rereading realized everything I said was way too absurd without further analysis> **Edit 3: I give up, my analogy is true, but I can't explain away this quantum crap outside my original concept. It seems that words alone are unfit to clearly explain quantum mechanics without provide scenarios where quantum mechanics can be verified. However, I will not give up, and I will attempt to find and explanation that helps differentiate the apparent contradictions in explaining nothing. For now, I will accept temporary defeat. Until tomorrow of course. Wait, or, nothing does not exist therefore everything exists. Because nothing does not exist everywhere then everything exists everywhere! Hence, quantum mechanics is satisfied! Oh wait.. >.> No, that's the only explanation that works, oh I see, saying nothing does not exist everywhere and nothing exists everywhere means the same thing? Duh, nothing multiplied by anything is nothing, including in it's usage via a sentence. I've been trying to extrapolate nothing with nothing and have been be muffled of how I kept getting nothing. Essentially, nothing does and does not exist and is compound in one with everything, proving quantum mechanics. This is my last attempt.

what you're saying is that 1=0 and 0=1. they're the same thing. that's the nature of quantum mechanics. remember, when measured it's either 1 or 0. that's why I agree with chris langan in that the universe is "alive" akin to a mind. it likes to play tricks. I also say that in order to argue that it's possible to predict when a polar shift will happen one would either need:

A) good understanding of ones galaxy/universe
B) extra-dimensional perception

I'm currently studying the Mayan Calendar. They knew when polar shifts would occur, but not PRECISELY WHEN they occur.

	Logically, "nothing" can't exist without having "everything". Should instead say, Logically, "nothing" can only exist with having "everything". I'm probably not going to be able to sleep tonight.. My brain is going wild.. >.>

"Logically, 'nothing' can only exist with having 'everything'." would imply in an isolated case that one can exist without the other. this is true on the understanding of the standard model.


"Logically, 'nothing' can't exist without having 'everything'." would imply a paradoxical state, that both must exist in co-operation. it means they both mean the same thing and therefore can be reversed. this is true on the understanding of quantum mechanics.

my main argument is just to specify the nature of quantum mechanics in relation to philosophy.

if i were to merge yours and mine together it would say something like this:

"Logically, 'nothing' can't exist without having 'everything'." on the quantum scale, vice versa. Secondly, 'nothing' can only exist with having 'everything'." when measured on a non-quantum scale.

do you see what i'm saying? neither of us is wrong but they both hold a valid meaning on different scales.

---------- Post added 03-25-2012 at 02:13 PM ----------

Here is what our 'baby' super-infinity would/could look like:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"super-infinity is an automorphic image/conceptual process of infinity"

2nd edit:

just found out this was discovered before (the different sizes of infinities, not the super-infinity), it's coined as cardinality. it is the allowance of bigger and smaller infinities.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

[Sk8ordude]

We're part of the universe, and all we are is just concepts that arose out of the base state, governed by the natural laws. Therefore if we are alive the Universe is alive, wether or not it thinks or gives a shit I dont know. In my opinion its beyond life, thinking, or giving a shit.

[Tahiti]

	Originally Posted by Sk8ordude To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We're part of the universe, and all we are is just concepts that arose out of the base state, governed by the natural laws. Therefore if we are alive the Universe is alive, wether or not it thinks or gives a shit I dont know. In my opinion its beyond life, thinking, or giving a shit.

that's what we're trying to find out.

"how special are we?"

if we're just as special as the dinosaurs and destined to become fossil fuels... oh well... or can we use our will to change what seems to be a barren path?

[Sk8ordude]

	Originally Posted by GeniusPr0 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	that's what we're trying to find out. "how special are we?" if we're just as special as the dinosaurs and destined to become fossil fuels... oh well... or can we use our will to change what seems to be a barren path?

That is quite the question. I think our experience is real, and through us reality experiences itself.

There are two options for reality, either it is random or it isn't. If its random it can either be infinite or finite. If its finite what are the odds it came out in a way conducive to complex life (ex. there is no reason for light speed to be 186,000 miles per second, and that governor is what gives the experience of time), if its infinite then everything that can happen does.

I'm a fan of the infinite, where everything that can happen does happen. The unique human experience and our individual realities involved add an entire dimension to what is possible, the conscious dimension if you will, because whats in our mind and what we think is also tied to the base state, how could our minds and what we think be separate from the system?

IMO as a best guess reality has a goal and that goal is to exercise all possibilities, the thing is there is no reason why reality wouldn't exist as the entire picture all at the same point, it doesn't need to do anything, thats what we are for to experience doing all of these concepts its made up of.

This is why I say reality is beyond thinking and beyond life, because it exists as all the answers at the same time and it doesn't need to think or be alive, or care about the experiences of any one of its concepts.

But we are still left with why, and does our individual dimension cease to exist at death? There is only one way to find out the second, and depending on that answer we could find out the first.

Thinking in terms of infinity is as simple as thinking in terms of... thinking. Is your imagination finite? No its as finite as you care to make it (until you die). in a finite universe or reality the implication exists that it had a first cause, and that there is a edge. I think there is a finite amount of stuff in the universe but the space it can expand into could go on and on, just like in the imagination metaphor. Not only that but if it had a beginning were it expoded into existence you have a finite amount of stuff emerging from no stuff, or the vacuum state, this means to me that the stuff is secondary and the no-stuff or the vacuum state is the primary.

0=0
1=1

1=infinity (how could it not?)

I describe the vacuum state as no stuff becuase it has a zero-point energy.

[Tahiti]

Originally Posted by Sk8ordude To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That is quite the question. I think our experience is real, and through us reality experiences itself. There are two options for reality, either it is random or it isn't. If its random it can either be infinite or finite. If its finite what are the odds it came out in a way conducive to complex life (ex. there is no reason for light speed to be 186,000 miles per second, and that governor is what gives the experience of time), if its infinite then everything that can happen does. I'm a fan of the infinite, where everything that can happen does happen. The unique human experience and our individual realities involved add an entire dimension to what is possible, the conscious dimension if you will, because whats in our mind and what we think is also tied to the base state, how could our minds and what we think be separate from the system? IMO as a best guess reality has a goal and that goal is to exercise all possibilities, the thing is there is no reason why reality wouldn't exist as the entire picture all at the same point, it doesn't need to do anything, thats what we are for to experience doing all of these concepts its made up of. This is why I say reality is beyond thinking and beyond life, because it exists as all the answers at the same time and it doesn't need to think or be alive, or care about the experiences of any one of its concepts. But we are still left with why, and does our individual dimension cease to exist at death? There is only one way to find out the second, and depending on that answer we could find out the first. Thinking in terms of infinity is as simple as thinking in terms of... thinking. Is your imagination finite? No its as finite as you care to make it (until you die). in a finite universe or reality the implication exists that it had a first cause, and that there is a edge. I think there is a finite amount of stuff in the universe but the space it can expand into could go on and on, just like in the imagination metaphor. Not only that but if it had a beginning were it expoded into existence you have a finite amount of stuff emerging from no stuff, or the vacuum state, this means to me that the stuff is secondary and the no-stuff or the vacuum state is the primary. 0=0 1=1 1=infinity (how could it not?) I describe the vacuum state as no stuff becuase it has a zero-point energy.

so what would be the source of a zero-point energy
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Sk8ordude]

Doesn't need a source, as a zero point it has no past or future because it has no time since its instantaneous in its causal process. Energy as we know it is limited by the speed of light, as well as the other natural forces.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Sk8ordude To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Doesn't need a source, as a zero point it has no past or future because it has no time since its instantaneous in its causal process. Energy as we know it is limited by the speed of light, as well as the other natural forces.

You might find the Bernard Haisch of Calphysics Institute paper,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
useful:

INTRODUCTION Quantum mechanics predicts the existence of what are usually called ''zero-point'' energies for the strong, the weak and the electromagnetic interactions, where ''zero-point'' refers to the energy of the system at temperature T=0, or the lowest quantized energy level of a quantum mechanical system. Although the term ''zero-point energy'' applies to all three of these interactions in nature, customarily (and hereafter in this article) it is used in reference only to the electromagnetic case. In conventional quantum physics, the origin of zero-point energy is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that, for a moving particle such as an electron, the more precisely one measures the position, the less exact the best possible measurement of its momentum (mass times velocity), and vice versa. The least possible uncertainty of position times momentum is specified by Planck's constant, h. A parallel uncertainty exists between measurements involving time and energy (and other so-called conjugate variables in quantum mechanics). This minimum uncertainty is not due to any correctable flaws in measurement, but rather reflects an intrinsic quantum fuzziness in the very nature of energy and matter springing from the wave nature of the various quantum fields. This leads to the concept of zero-point energy. There is plenty more for your elucidation and as a layman, I find it quite accessible. Zero-point energy is the energy that remains when all other energy is removed from a system. This behaviour is demonstrated by, for example, liquid helium. As the temperature is lowered to absolute zero, helium remains a liquid, rather than freezing to a solid, owing to the irremovable zero-point energy of its atomic motions. (Increasing the pressure to 25 atmospheres will cause helium to freeze.)

[Sk8ordude]

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You might find the Bernard Haisch of Calphysics Institute paper, To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. useful:

Thanks that was quite informative, the energy seems like its just energy in its wave state, not so different from how gravity exists as a field.

[Vogon Poet]

Originally Posted by GeniusPr0 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes. If we can create a universe within our own either using a quantum computer or some kind of contained sphere it would allow us to possibly change rules in the next universe (possibly a combination. I thinking the laws can't be changed though. In order to contain an ever-expanding universe matter would have to shrink, constantly. Call this for lack of a better term... minimizing-automorphism. Matter could be shrinking constantly and we'd never know, it could be proportional or disproportional. This would explain the universe expanding faster than the speed of light, or at least why the "further we look away", "the faster galaxies expand". I'm saying at the end of my conclusion is that my idea of unification does not prove God. It makes it even more difficult and explains why we could even have a logical belief that God doesn't exist. I'm not religious but I chose to have faith in God for reasons of my own. I can't logically prove God is what I'm saying. No matter how hard I could try, I can't do it.

This is very bizarre, but I understand and have reached... similar conclusions.

Without the fuzzy details to muddy the picture, let me throw a simple real-world observation. You know, that stuff that creates scientific inquiry?

1. Axiom: This universe exists with a capacity to contain information systems.
2. Axiom: Information systems exist capable of containing virtual "worlds"
3. Postulate: Artificial Inteligence (AI) can exist.
4. Postulate: Virtual worlds can harbor AI agents.

If the above statements can be true, certain truths can be derived from understanding of the information systems upon which these worlds would exist.

For the purpose of this excercise, "Universe" is what we reside in, or what was declared in Axiom 1. Any world in which postulate 4 is true will be referred to as a "Superworld." Any world product of Axiom 2 will be referred to as a "Subworld," provided postulate 3 applies to that product world.

Truths:

1. Any subworld operates on laws designed by its superworld, governed by superworld resources.
2. All interaction between any subworld and its superworld are completely controlled by the superworld. A subworld can only impact a superworld as that superworld permits.
3. No laws in any subworld can be violated by subworld agents
4. All laws of any subworld can be violated at will by the superworld, within the technological limitations of the superworld's information system architecture, programatically.
5. Time in any subworld is itself a law of that subworld.

If everything presented is true, then AI agents of the subworld would exist autonomously within the framework of the subworld. The information system, which itself is governed by the laws of the superworld, automates regulation of the laws of the subworld. This can be called "controlled law tunnelling." It is accomplished with 100% efficiency, as any loss in the system is compensated by intelligent controls built into the superworld system. For example:

• Superworld law "electromagnetism" governs the information system harboring subworld Alpha. Subworld Alpha operates under a controlled tunnel law "electromagnetism."
• Maintaining subworld "electromagnetism" requires great computational resources, and some superworld processor X has a failure.
• Superworld systems activate and pause subworld Alpha law "time." Superworld agents (technicians) repair processor X and conduct system tests.
• Subworld Alpha is reverted to state t-n, where n is the amount of subworld time since subworld electromagnetism failed.
• Subworld Alpha law "time" is restarted at point t-n. Reality in subworld Alpha records no anomalies, and has no possible way to know that all "electromagnetism" in the "universe" ceased to function. Reality in the superworld, however, records maintenance on a computer. Superworld time and subworld Alpha "time" have also gained a disparity known only to superworld agents.

Note that "electromagnetism" operated completely in superworld, and tunnel law "electromagnetism" operated 100% completely in subworld Alpha, yet entropy was preserved via the disparity of worlds, which enabled superworld agents to compensate inefficiencies intelligently.

This could be extended, as you say, into another subworld of subworld Alpha, should those AI agents construct their own information systems according to the laws we provided for them.

Note carefully the relationship between subworld agents and superworld agents:

1. Subworld agents will only know about the existence of superworld agents if the superworld programatically grants access to superworld information. For example, if the superworld agents put a Webcam feed into the subworld perception memory space, subworld agents might have "eyes" into the superworld. But if that doesn't happen, subworld agents simply would not know a superworld even exists.
2. Subworld agents will see time in a way completely unrelated to time as it is known in the superworld. For example, superworld agents could program a tree into the subworld, which to subworld agents would appear to be "40 years old," for example. The tree may in fact be only 5 minutes old, as it was "grown" (built) on another computer and inserted into the subworld unnoticed. By further extension, the subworld geology would abide by subworld laws, and thus form, erode, compress, etc., according to subworld "time" laws, yet nothing prevents the superworld agents from initiating the subworld Alpha at age 4 billion subworld years. Timelines between superworlds and their subworlds need no correlation, and causality does not propagate between them.

For me, this excercise has been run many times through my mind. I firmly believe the premise for such truths exist, and as such, grant validity for teleological inquiry. In this light, I feel a bit hesitant to draw any direct analogy between "God" and say, the Geek Squad; but in strictly epistemological terms, avoiding any and all superficial correlation, the very prospect of a superworld/subworld duality refutes any and all logical basis for a statement such as "There is no God."

So I would like to discuss how two apparently similar studies of universal duality/plurality have arrived at polar opposite conclusions. You see a logical support for "God does not exist." and I see that very statement as being demonstrably refutable by the same evidence.

Discuss?

---------- Post added 03-27-2012 at 08:48 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Sk8ordude To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If its finite what are the odds it came out in a way conducive to complex life (ex. there is no reason for light speed to be 186,000 miles per second, and that governor is what gives the experience of time), if its infinite then everything that can happen does.

I think this concept is reversed. Consider all things in this universe as artifacts of a ripple in time. What I mean by that may be tough to convey briefly, so let me make a loose analogy:
Spacetime propagates in a manner similar to the perfectly circular ripple in a still pool of water. The "Big Bang" was a pebble in the pool, our timeline is the crest of the first wave. Now imagine every photon, every particle, and every component of this universe as a surfer on that wave. Any surfer going in a straight line away from the center of the pool is considered "stationary" in all dimensions except time. But notice that while the "speed" all surfers go across the pool (through time) is a constant, the wave ring is constantly expanding and the surfers have more and more "space" to maneuver in, even if they are "standing still" (going in a straight line). This is the expansion of space that we already know is happening.
So now let me explain the apparently random number for the speed of light. As a surfer moves left or right along the wave, which correlates to some velocity within our observed reality, there is a finite angle at which he can travel and still stay in front of the crest of the wave. The steeper his angle, the faster he travels through our space (the finite available area of the time ring). If he cuts too steeply left or right, or directly perpendicular to the wave, the crest passes under him; he has gone backward in time (assumedly to catch an echo ripple behind him). The speed any surfer can travel along the wave ring is limited by the maximum angle any surfer can break to the left or right along the wave. That limit for us, speaking of surfers at least, is governed by gravity and the height of the wave. Our time wave likely has a corresponding "height" dimension and some "gravity" equivalent which propagates the wave, and it so happens that exceeding 186M Mps is the steepest angle you can cut before you get left behind. Note that it may be possible that things in this universe are cutting steeper angles, however since they escape our time wave we will never see them. Light is the fastest thing that can be observed, but not necessarily the fastest thing possible. I very firmly believe this is happening, and the concept of radioactive half-lives gives me evidence to support it.

[Tahiti]

Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is very bizarre, but I understand and have reached... similar conclusions. Without the fuzzy details to muddy the picture, let me throw a simple real-world observation. You know, that stuff that creates scientific inquiry? Axiom: This universe exists with a capacity to contain information systems. Axiom: Information systems exist capable of containing virtual "worlds" Postulate: Artificial Inteligence (AI) can exist. Postulate: Virtual worlds can harbor AI agents. If the above statements can be true, certain truths can be derived from understanding of the information systems upon which these worlds would exist. For the purpose of this excercise, "Universe" is what we reside in, or what was declared in Axiom 1. Any world in which postulate 4 is true will be referred to as a "Superworld." Any world product of Axiom 2 will be referred to as a "Subworld," provided postulate 3 applies to that product world. Truths: Any subworld operates on laws designed by its superworld, governed by superworld resources. All interaction between any subworld and its superworld are completely controlled by the superworld. A subworld can only impact a superworld as that superworld permits. No laws in any subworld can be violated by subworld agents All laws of any subworld can be violated at will by the superworld, within the technological limitations of the superworld's information system architecture, programatically. Time in any subworld is itself a law of that subworld. If everything presented is true, then AI agents of the subworld would exist autonomously within the framework of the subworld. The information system, which itself is governed by the laws of the superworld, automates regulation of the laws of the subworld. This can be called "controlled law tunnelling." It is accomplished with 100% efficiency, as any loss in the system is compensated by intelligent controls built into the superworld system. For example: Superworld law "electromagnetism" governs the information system harboring subworld Alpha. Subworld Alpha operates under a controlled tunnel law "electromagnetism." Maintaining subworld "electromagnetism" requires great computational resources, and some superworld processor X has a failure. Superworld systems activate and pause subworld Alpha law "time." Superworld agents (technicians) repair processor X and conduct system tests. Subworld Alpha is reverted to state t-n, where n is the amount of subworld time since subworld electromagnetism failed. Subworld Alpha law "time" is restarted at point t-n. Reality in subworld Alpha records no anomalies, and has no possible way to know that all "electromagnetism" in the "universe" ceased to function. Reality in the superworld, however, records maintenance on a computer. Superworld time and subworld Alpha "time" have also gained a disparity known only to superworld agents. Note that "electromagnetism" operated completely in superworld, and tunnel law "electromagnetism" operated 100% completely in subworld Alpha, yet entropy was preserved via the disparity of worlds, which enabled superworld agents to compensate inefficiencies intelligently. This could be extended, as you say, into another subworld of subworld Alpha, should those AI agents construct their own information systems according to the laws we provided for them. Note carefully the relationship between subworld agents and superworld agents: Subworld agents will only know about the existence of superworld agents if the superworld programatically grants access to superworld information. For example, if the superworld agents put a Webcam feed into the subworld perception memory space, subworld agents might have "eyes" into the superworld. But if that doesn't happen, subworld agents simply would not know a superworld even exists. Subworld agents will see time in a way completely unrelated to time as it is known in the superworld. For example, superworld agents could program a tree into the subworld, which to subworld agents would appear to be "40 years old," for example. The tree may in fact be only 5 minutes old, as it was "grown" (built) on another computer and inserted into the subworld unnoticed. By further extension, the subworld geology would abide by subworld laws, and thus form, erode, compress, etc., according to subworld "time" laws, yet nothing prevents the superworld agents from initiating the subworld Alpha at age 4 billion subworld years. Timelines between superworlds and their subworlds need no correlation, and causality does not propagate between them. For me, this excercise has been run many times through my mind. I firmly believe the premise for such truths exist, and as such, grant validity for teleological inquiry. In this light, I feel a bit hesitant to draw any direct analogy between "God" and say, the Geek Squad; but in strictly epistemological terms, avoiding any and all superficial correlation, the very prospect of a superworld/subworld duality refutes any and all logical basis for a statement such as "There is no God." So I would like to discuss how two apparently similar studies of universal duality/plurality have arrived at polar opposite conclusions. You see a logical support for "God does not exist." and I see that very statement as being demonstrably refutable by the same evidence. Discuss?

Well I don't believe in a 100% computer generated world. It's so open to interpretation it's not even funny.

There are calculators (very simple computers), computers (many background procedures), quantum computers (programmed without a keyboard as of late and unknown overall potential; theoretically infinite computational power), organic computers or humans/cyborgs (unknown overall potential, unknown computational power, unknown spiritual power)

--getting lazy gonna stop using shift for capitals--

so i guess i would say that there are at least 4 "solid" classes of differing computers. i've thought about this being a complete matrix managed by a prior matrix. i've thought about a matrix being a creation from a different world. there's the multi-verse theory, which makes it even worse to understand why all these different universes exist if the matrix theory is invalid.

i actually hate the infinitely-continuing-matrix theory because it says in a sense that this isn't real. when i get that mindset its similar to an emotionless state but, not quite depression. interesting use of maxwell's laws, i just dont know if processor X being repaired is a good abductive reason for possibilities.

ive tried and tried and tried and tried.... to think up of a better universe. ive come to the conclusion that i actually cant.

life has to go through various stages to even get to the point that we're at right now. our dna is so modified and has gone through YEARS of experience shifting and shaping itself.

if i were to just "put" humans at the stage they are now into a universe ran by "loving AI":

- you're born into a world where you're immediately taken in by your human parents. AI is all around you though in a very distinctive form. they AI has perfect-self-optimizing ethics, perfect-self-optimizing laws. all knowledge is known but kept within their "one" synced database.

- work doesn't exist in the form of corporate interest
- work doesn't exist in the form of extremely dangerous consequences

AI does all of the hard work and menial jobs.

all we do is:

-sex
-whatever is fun (including simulated environments for killing, hunting, raping, eating, drawing, driving etc....) is done in a controlled simulated environment... in an already simulated environment.... --this is saying that psychopaths and normal people and odd people are all pampered
-eat and drink
-explore

the massive problems with this are not immediately evident but they do exist. im not going to explain them as im curious if anyone else can point them out. i cant beat god at his own game.

__________________________________________________ __________________________

as soon as we test what happens "what" goes through a black hole we will have a much better picture of our universe.

does a black hole kill life?
does a black hole transfer life to another black hole in our universe? aka a portal
does a black hole transfer life to another universe?
is it optional where to go from within a black hole?
what does QM mean for our bodies when we go through a black hole?

questions are endless and there are no answers right now.

nothingness could equal software
everythingness could equal hardware

its all wishy-washy.

knowing what happens during death would also be a massive help but that seems extremely difficult to impossible in regards to comprehending in a state of life.

__________________________________________________ ________

whatever created "this universe" or "frame" almost definitely thought it through. its "too" good to be a mistake. i honestly believe the human race is sort of a test. this just doesnt seem right. its very fishy. if im right we should have more potential than any other civilization out there.

im not going to explain much more as that fits in under a "theory of civilizations".


__________________________________________________ _______________

when it comes to god i dont know what to think. the whole reason people CAN and cannot believe in god is the binary 1 and 0 system. theres a lot of options. i just choose in the end that its logical to have faith in god, it makes it easier...

[Vogon Poet]

Originally Posted by GeniusPr0 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well I don't believe in a 100% computer generated world. It's so open to interpretation it's not even funny. There are calculators (very simple computers), computers (many background procedures), quantum computers (programmed without a keyboard as of late and unknown overall potential; theoretically infinite computational power), organic computers or humans/cyborgs (unknown overall potential, unknown computational power, unknown spiritual power)

I was afraid an analogy like that would be taken too literally. You have to think scalability. The stuff that subworld Alpha agents build roads, computers, telephones, or dogs out of doesn't have to be or look anything like our atoms, cells, microprocessors or gravity wells. Their entire universe will be designed from scratch, looking as like or unlike our universe as we choose. Maybe we don't want them to even have electricity. So what.

The point is, you should not walk away from the excercise thinking "What? We're all inside some Matrix computer?!" because that's not what I said. The simple fact is, the potential for THIS superworld to create some subworld exists; therefore the potential for SOME superworld to creat THIS subworld can exist. The superworld over us (God/Asgaard/Olympus) most likely would NOT be using computers because the "stuff" their universe is made of simply has no reason to even resemble the silicon, copper, photons, and plastic they gave us to build our computers out of. Even to speculate if we are in a "computer" of some kind is irrelevant because as I demonstrated, no correlation between any superworld and subworld need exist.
If this is truth then science will reach an impasse. In every respect, whatever influence the superworld has on us would necessarily be classified as supernatural and thus defy any scientific ability to define. Superworld agents have perfect control over the laws governing their subworld, including time itself, and by every appearance he/they is/are gods, and everything he/they do is magic. In fact, just as WE cannot assume the embodiment of an AI agent (ala Matrix), agents of our superworld could not bodily enter our universe (unless Jesus mastered Neo's powers). "Natural" contains every and all things within this subworld, supernatural is all things of the superworld or beyond; but NOT things of our subworlds.

[Tahiti]

Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I was afraid an analogy like that would be taken too literally. You have to think scalability. The stuff that subworld Alpha agents build roads, computers, telephones, or dogs out of doesn't have to be or look anything like our atoms, cells, microprocessors or gravity wells. Their entire universe will be designed from scratch, looking as like or unlike our universe as we choose. Maybe we don't want them to even have electricity. So what. The point is, you should not walk away from the excercise thinking "What? We're all inside some Matrix computer?!" because that's not what I said. The simple fact is, the potential for THIS superworld to create some subworld exists; therefore the potential for SOME superworld to creat THIS subworld can exist. The superworld over us (God/Asgaard/Olympus) most likely would NOT be using computers because the "stuff" their universe is made of simply has no reason to even resemble the silicon, copper, photons, and plastic they gave us to build our computers out of. Even to speculate if we are in a "computer" of some kind is irrelevant because as I demonstrated, no correlation between any superworld and subworld need exist. If this is truth then science will reach an impasse. In every respect, whatever influence the superworld has on us would necessarily be classified as supernatural and thus defy any scientific ability to define. Superworld agents have perfect control over the laws governing their subworld, including time itself, and by every appearance he/they is/are gods, and everything he/they do is magic. In fact, just as WE cannot assume the embodiment of an AI agent (ala Matrix), agents of our superworld could not bodily enter our universe (unless Jesus mastered Neo's powers). "Natural" contains every and all things within this subworld, supernatural is all things of the superworld or beyond; but NOT things of our subworlds.

i guess i set you off course when i didnt mean to. what i meant was i know what youre saying. a superworld better not exist, otherwise if i ever spawned in the superworld id punch the creator in whatever face he had. there would truly be no point in this world. the will to exist would possibly cease in those that understand it.

this is why i hope the universe is like a reflexive mind like chris langan says, otherwise we're in for a boring future-life.

what im thinking is is that its a bit of both. its a different view from yours. the computer is needed but so is the matter or physical nature. it would explain why its so hard to discern what is what/real and not have everyone becoming a sociopath.

its like saying they're the same but different. they would be almost indistinguishable. the way my theory differs from yours is is that i have a closed loop. it goes on forever and ever.

universe is created, life forms, and figures out technology, sciences, philosophy, psychology, theory of mind, spiritual transcendence and other important fields etc...

universe becomes a wildly different place, instead of a planet becoming ones home, a solar system, followed by quadrants of a galaxy, followed by the galaxy, this is then expanding into more galaxies.

this is why black holes are so important.

it would help determine a clearer understanding. it wouldnt invalidate your theory as your theory implies a sub-world of a super-world. proving this is even harder than inductively reasoning a closed-loop.

[Vogon Poet]

Originally Posted by GeniusPr0 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

i guess i set you off course when i didnt mean to. what i meant was i know what youre saying. a superworld better not exist, otherwise if i ever spawned in the superworld id punch the creator in whatever face he had. its like saying they're the same but different. they would be almost indistinguishable. the way my theory differs from yours is is that i have a closed loop. it goes on forever and ever.

So your concept is self-created, and therefore has no purpose?

I personally get inspiration having a purpose. I suppose I would join you in punching God in the face if our "program" was to, say, engineer some video game engine. I have to assume it's a bit more important from a universal standpoint, based on how intricate the "program" is. Well, remember the whole thing is not intuition, it's derived from an analysis of bow we "play God" in computer generated worlds, then it hit me that in our programs a superworld/subworld duality share absolutely nothing in common, which greatly explained why "I don't see a God" is completely irrelevant. I suppose Tron is a close analogy, with caveats.

	Originally Posted by GeniusPr0 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	universe is created, life forms, and figures out technology, sciences, philosophy, psychology, theory of mind, spiritual transcendence and other important fields etc... universe becomes a wildly different place, instead of a planet becoming ones home, a solar system, followed by quadrants of a galaxy, followed by the galaxy, this is then expanding into more .

Again I conceived a parallel. But it's not humans per se who evolve, but our world and everything we touch is becoming imbued with information, and eventually becomes a living entity which expands. Logical conclusion of how we work today.

[Tahiti]

Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So your concept is self-created, and therefore has no purpose? I personally get inspiration having a purpose. I suppose I would join you in punching God in the face if our "program" was to, say, engineer some video game engine. I have to assume it's a bit more important from a universal standpoint, based on how intricate the "program" is. Well, remember the whole thing is not intuition, it's derived from an analysis of bow we "play God" in computer generated worlds, then it hit me that in our programs a superworld/subworld duality share absolutely nothing in common, which greatly explained why "I don't see a God" is completely irrelevant. I suppose Tron is a close analogy, with caveats.

My answer to that is "Grand Designer" concept. A God, a single one at that. One we never meet and never understand. That's how I'd do it? This is where I'm running into problems... thinking like everyone else, where I assume God is similar to that of humans. When we die we get rewarded with a realm that satisfies our wildest dreams/fantasies.

That's how a God would do it?

I'd probably still punch God in the first place. It would then have been completely "logical" to kill myself after identifying my fantasies and dreams. I could then live them out as soon as possible. I still don't understand this though. It makes no sense. It still doesn't explain the purpose of life.

Expand and create a Eutopia or "live to die", and not "die to live". With so many incompatible minds on Earth it seems logical to have a pyramid scheme of a super-mind, aka Jesus or Krishna for example.

It's annoying that there are no clear answers. I really feel sometimes that God is retarded.

	Again I conceived a parallel. But it's not humans per se who evolve, but our world and everything we touch is becoming imbued with information, and eventually becomes a living entity which expands. Logical conclusion of how we work today.

that's why I like the CTMU, but not its conclusion. it says what youre saying? universe grows as life grows, and elegantly acts as one. which makes sense. its still retarded.

[Vogon Poet]

Originally Posted by GeniusPr0 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My answer to that is "Grand Designer" concept. A God, a single one at that. One we never meet and never understand. That's how I'd do it? This is where I'm running into problems... thinking like everyone else, where I assume God is similar to that of humans. When we die we get rewarded with a realm that satisfies our wildest dreams/fantasies. That's how a God would do it? I'd probably still punch God in the first place. It would then have been completely "logical" to kill myself after identifying my fantasies and dreams. I could then live them out as soon as possible. I still don't understand this though. It makes no sense. It still doesn't explain the purpose of life. It's annoying that there are no clear answers. I really feel sometimes that God is retarded. that's why I like the CTMU, but not its conclusion. it says what youre saying? universe grows as life grows, and elegantly acts as one. which makes sense. its still retarded.

Well it sounds like I'm trying to answer your dilemmas but I'm just sharing my parallel hypothesis. Why don't I get frustrated not knowing "the program?" there are two very important aspects of the worlds duality that instantly made sense to me. Consider that we designed a subworld for the purpose of curing cancer. Now be careful, not in the "lab rat" sense, but in a sense that "Cancer" was defined as an enemy in our subworld (maybe poverty?), and defeating it caused us pleasure. At the same time, for the subworld to find the answer, it had to achieve a certain population and construct some form of "living cell metasystem." the AI agents in the subworld were set in autopilot (AKA, free will) because we (the researchers) had to avoid contaminating or influencing the final outcome, or the solution would be invalid. Basically the AI agents had to solve this on their own, or bias would skew the result.

So the first roadblock is the fact that we must not bias the outcome.
The second obstacle to superworld knowledge is, we have no common frame of reference. If we just told our AI agents, "Hey, you guys are curing cancer for us! Thanks alot!", the AI agents wouldn't have the slightest idea what "cancer" is, because they probably don't contract it; heck, they may not even be made of cells or atoms! We would be speaking jibberish unless we then started explaining all the magical things like weak nuclear force, radiation, etc. that don't exist in their universe, and they'd be lost. It's like explaining the concept of glass to a goldfish.
The last obstacle is free will itself. If we said directly to do this or do that, and we knew we were curing cancer, we would have the option of saying, "Nah. Don't wanna do that for you."
Perhaps being in the military helps me understand the value and power of blind trust and obedience better than most. Some see it as authoritarian, but I recognize it as protection and working toward a greater good.

I see tremendous explanatory power in analyzing our own AI worlds. Obviously our AI agents can be "saved" literally to a hard drive that doesn't exist in their world. Explains why we'll never see a soul.

One last analogy. Let's say our AI agents completed the metacell and found a solution to cancer. We could then quickly scan back through the logs, pick out the cells which followed the program and drop them into a "Utopia" subworld. It obviously doesn't matter if they're cremated, decayed, or eaten by alligators because we don't want the body, just the soul. The rest, if it were me, would just be erased. But assuming that's not possible, maybe the subworld just runs on unmaintained and without a purpose. I don't know, Hell gets hard to plug in, except that it's defined as "absence from God" in the Bible.

[Tahiti]

Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well it sounds like I'm trying to answer your dilemmas but I'm just sharing my parallel hypothesis. Why don't I get frustrated not knowing "the program?" there are two very important aspects of the worlds duality that instantly made sense to me. Consider that we designed a subworld for the purpose of curing cancer. Now be careful, not in the "lab rat" sense, but in a sense that "Cancer" was defined as an enemy in our subworld (maybe poverty?), and defeating it caused us pleasure. At the same time, for the subworld to find the answer, it had to achieve a certain population and construct some form of "living cell metasystem." the AI agents in the subworld were set in autopilot (AKA, free will) because we (the researchers) had to avoid contaminating or influencing the final outcome, or the solution would be invalid. Basically the AI agents had to solve this on their own, or bias would skew the result. So the first roadblock is the fact that we must not bias the outcome. The second obstacle to superworld knowledge is, we have no common frame of reference. If we just told our AI agents, "Hey, you guys are curing cancer for us! Thanks alot!", the AI agents wouldn't have the slightest idea what "cancer" is, because they probably don't contract it; heck, they may not even be made of cells or atoms! We would be speaking jibberish unless we then started explaining all the magical things like weak nuclear force, radiation, etc. that don't exist in their universe, and they'd be lost. It's like explaining the concept of glass to a goldfish. The last obstacle is free will itself. If we said directly to do this or do that, and we knew we were curing cancer, we would have the option of saying, "Nah. Don't wanna do that for you." Perhaps being in the military helps me understand the value and power of blind trust and obedience better than most. Some see it as authoritarian, but I recognize it as protection and working toward a greater good. I see tremendous explanatory power in analyzing our own AI worlds. Obviously our AI agents can be "saved" literally to a hard drive that doesn't exist in their world. Explains why we'll never see a soul.

meh.................... youre making it so much worse, LOL.

blind trust is synonymous with faith/ignorance. id have to turn off my "care" mode and just play with what i have like a good boy.

[Vogon Poet]

	Originally Posted by GeniusPr0 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	meh.................... youre making it so much worse, LOL. blind trust is synonymous with faith/ignorance. id have to turn off my "care" mode and just play with what i have like a good boy.

Everyone has a faith in something. Even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Do believe in the concept of "unknowable?" Choose your faith well.

[Tahiti]

	Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Everyone has a faith in something. Even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Do believe in the concept of "unknowable?" Choose your faith well.

not knowing everything all the time is the only reason i haven't committed suicide. makes me human i guess. in other words, it's the only thing i have gratitude for in the largest scheme of conscious facts.

ive even thought of joining army but theyre not accepting anyone during this time (cough economy).

[Vogon Poet]

	Originally Posted by GeniusPr0 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	not knowing everything all the time is the only reason i haven't committed suicide. makes me human i guess. in other words, it's the only thing i have gratitude for in the largest scheme of conscious facts. ive even thought of joining army but theyre not accepting anyone during this time (cough economy).

I'm guessing we have a lot in common but something in my life has made me an extreme optimist, which is a change.

Since the 8th grade my favorite book has been a 1968 Mirriam Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, along with our complete set of World Books and 30 years of National Geographic. I am obsessed with knowledge. I began studying military nuclear propulsion plants, which I maintained, then went to weapons systems, radar systems and military satellite communications. Knowledge is everything to me. I guess I just saw too much. Picking up Stephen Hawking, reading Charles Darwin, and then I read Karl Popper. I really got to understand falsificationism, and then got obsessed with logic (well, I've been programming computers since 1978, but philosophical logic was new). There was one fundamental truth that made everything fit together.

Parsimony.

In science, it forces all solution to the most extreme economy. It works wonderfully to allow science to produce amazingly efficient models if our universe. But it does one other thing as well. It injects extreme prejudice against all things unnatural.

You see, pure science is blind to anything supernatural, which is good, but it also means that if God himself came down and parted the Atlantic ocean, science would still find a natural explanation for it. In short, absolutely no amount of study and scientific inquiry can ever reveal the existence or non-existence of anything supernatural. You can put Hecate, Zeus, or God in place for everything unexplainable, and research the world for 100 years, and your faith and knowledge will never come into conflict. I am at peace studying evolution and reading my Bible side by side, because I understand that science and religion have absolutely no intersection point. It is all an illusion, the whole conflict.

[Tahiti]

Originally Posted by Vogon Poet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm guessing we have a lot in common but something in my life has made me an extreme optimist, which is a change. Since the 8th grade my favorite book has been a 1968 Mirriam Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, along with our complete set of World Books and 30 years of National Geographic. I am obsessed with knowledge. I began studying military nuclear propulsion plants, which I maintained, then went to weapons systems, radar systems and military satellite communications. Knowledge is everything to me. I guess I just saw too much. Picking up Stephen Hawking, reading Charles Darwin, and then I read Karl Popper. I really got to understand falsificationism, and then got obsessed with logic (well, I've been programming computers since 1978, but philosophical logic was new). There was one fundamental truth that made everything fit together. Parsimony. In science, it forces all solution to the most extreme economy. It works wonderfully to allow science to produce amazingly efficient models if our universe. But it does one other thing as well. It injects extreme prejudice against all things unnatural. You see, pure science is blind to anything supernatural, which is good, but it also means that if God himself came down and parted the Atlantic ocean, science would still find a natural explanation for it. In short, absolutely no amount of study and scientific inquiry can ever reveal the existence or non-existence of anything supernatural. You can put Hecate, Zeus, or God in place for everything unexplainable, and research the world for 100 years, and your faith and knowledge will never come into conflict. I am at peace studying evolution and reading my Bible side by side, because I understand that science and religion have absolutely no intersection point. It is all an illusion, the whole conflict.

whoa whoa whoa whoa... we differ at the part of where I have ADD or at least some kind of ADD. I grew up learning from video games and tv. I then just watch clips of educational shows. books are my least favorite medium. knowledge yes, reading not so much. the last book i finished was about 8-9 years ago.

and to your second part I have this to say...

you actually want to know the scariest and most unbelievable part of figuring out how the universe works?

it's inescapably correlated to the highest degree with spiritualism. there's going to be a lot of scientists that disagree with this, but the tables will eventually be turned, if we last long enough.

there's a lot of truth to einstein's statement of god not playing dice. and that he wants to know god's thoughts, the rest are details. if god is the cosmic brain of the universe/multi-verse then science and god have to meet. still not sure if this leaves open a spot for a grand designer though. i might just stop thinking about it. : /

[followthehippos]

Question for ya Genius Pr0.

My knowledge of quantum concepts is very lacking and I've developed an idea that I call the two cases of nothingness. I want you to tell me how accurate I am and if needed point me in the right direction. Here it goes:

Two Cases of Nothing

As I've been thinking I can visualize two ways that the concept of nothing can be conceptualized. One I am assuming is the standard model, the other is utilized for a quantum model. One way we think of nothingness is the absence of everything (or nothing is the negation of everything). In essence, 0 = -U In the standard model nothing and everything is a contradiction because U =/= -U. Continuing further we could say that U = infinity. Essentially, 0 =/= infinity. The state we live in is either U or -U, not both.

In the other model we say that both nothing and everything can coexist simultaneously without contradicting. The reason being is U = 0 and U = infinity, but U =/= -U. In the standard model we are restricted to a linear progression of thought whereas the quantum model allows for new approaches to articulating what is occurring in the universe. In this model, as I'm understanding it, nothing and everything are the same thing. I can comfortably visualize this in my mind without it being a contradiction.

[It's funny, in my previous comment I almost said, "if you think further you'll realize they are the same exact thing!" But, I didn't want to sound crazy and wanted to wait until I could develop a better explanation. Granted, I'm still visualizing better ways to explain how this is possible, but I'm fairly certain that I'm grasping this concept visually in my mind without too much trouble. I'm ready to delve further and see how this rabbit hole unfolds.]

One way I visualize this is through a simple analogy. The first case is by acknowledging that you cannot have a left without also having a right. You can visualize a stick held in your hand horizontally. Now, try visualizing that stick without a left. Is it possible? You'll come to realize that it is impossible to have a left without a right or vice versa. It seems to me that the first scenario of nothingness states that you cannot have both a left and a not left. Whereas the latter states you must have a left and a right. Or, nothing and everything. I'm not sure how close this analogy fits but it seems to me that there are at least two ways of thinking of nothing.

NOTE: I don't think this analogy is perfect, and it is not the way I am visualizing everything and nothing being simultaneous and non-contradictory; I'm merely providing analogical aids to visualizing certain ideas. My visualization is near impossible for me to articulate via words..

To me, both ways are right, but I think the quantum model follows this analogy. I'm not so sure on the standard model, it seems to view as something either exists or it does not exist. Which is true, but that's because we argue that nothing is the absence of something/everything (Edit, technically it is, but we're visualizing it wrong). The other see's both and is true as well. It's just a matter of defining how we mean nothing

How am I doing? I'm mainly trying to identify any fallacious logic that I could be utilizing and correcting those errors.

Edit: It seems to me we need to develop an imaginary set of numbers to calculate what effect nothing has on the universe. This is starting to come to me as I visualize different amounts of nothing. Now I see a 'nothing' and a 'true nothing' which is throwing more complication to this whole mess. But, to me it seems that nothing can be 'defined' (not in the sense we usually use it in math) as to develop an understanding how it could affect everything else. That requires, the imaginary (or something along those lines). Oh boy O.O

---------- Post added 03-29-2012 at 04:58 AM ----------

Originally Posted by GeniusPr0 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here is what our 'baby' super-infinity would/could look like: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "super-infinity is an automorphic image/conceptual process of infinity" 2nd edit: just found out this was discovered before (the different sizes of infinities, not the super-infinity), it's coined as cardinality. it is the allowance of bigger and smaller infinities. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

Let me impose a wrench. Lets say that the universe is in the state of a super-infinity in terms of it's expanse. It always has been and always will be. In doing so we are assuming that the Big Bang never happened. In this assumption we can also conceptualize that their is an infinite amount of matter present (a super infinity of matter) throughout the super-infinity, that has always existed and will never be destroyed (though technically can be converted to energy, but lets assume it can go from energy to matter and vice versa). Let also also assume that there is not a first cause (seems like a contradiction, but I do not believe so). I understand the concept 'the universe is stretching', but, bear with me. How would such conceptualization effect your theorizing? (I had more but I forgot it)

I realize after introducing this that there are still tons of unanswered questions. It's annoying yes, I'm going to think about this further. Like, an infinity of matter composed to energy could mean an infinity amount of energy everywhere, or a finite amount of energy distributed throughout the super infinity in either a consistent intensity or varying intensities. Such a crazy concept, perhaps an infinite amount of energy everywhere is possible.. In terms of this assumption. Crazy stuff..

[Tahiti]

I'll create some diagrams and clearly defined terms to clear this up. I wasn't able to respond to your post on my page because I received an infraction and this limits my use of the forums.

[followthehippos]

	Originally Posted by GeniusPr0 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'll create some diagrams and clearly defined terms to clear this up. I wasn't able to respond to your post on my page because I received an infraction and this limits my use of the forums.

My reasoning was that bad, eh? LOL, oh boy! Just don't be surprised if I argue some of your points. I'm aware that I could be thinking about this entirely wrong, but I'll wait for your response. If I am thinking about this wrong it's probably due to my development of the concept of nothing and perhaps infinity. Or, perhaps my explanations aren't concisely articulating that which I'm visualizing mentally. If that is the case, I'll attempt to resolve those errors upon reading your response.

[Tahiti]

No it's not wrong at all. It's just that diagrams will help speed this up along with the need to agree about a distinct difference between true nothingness and nothingness. The same would go for everythingness.

[followthehippos]

	Originally Posted by GeniusPr0 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No it's not wrong at all. It's just that diagrams will help speed this up along with the need to agree about a distinct difference between true nothingness and nothingness. The same would go for everythingness.

FYI, the true nothingness I'm referring to is a different kind of true nothingness that you are referring to (I'm pretty sure at least). If I can think longer I'll be able to indicate the difference, but I'll wait for the diagram. I've been up all night (again), so I doubt you'll get a response from me quickly.

Edit: When I mention nothingness and true nothingness at the bottom of my explanation post I'm not referring to the explanation above in that same post. I'm referring to another rendition of nothing. It's sort of the same, but it's also different. It's difficult to explain right now, but I'll give it a go later.

P.S. I also have another crazy idea that would support the idea of the laws of physics being different in alternative universes/dimensions. I came to that conclusion from this track as well. I also have an analogical approach to this one too. When we get there I'll share it, and it may provide possible support to your idea of creating are own universe. Additionally, I've also saw the possibility of infinite possibilities and infinite usage of space via tapping into 'nothing'. Hopefully I can explain that one too.