The Property Of Infinite Uncertainty: Part 1, ∞ = 0, Infinity Equals Zero

[CCoburn]

It would seem than that you're happy to accept that there is only "The Universe". ?

Not just "The Universe". I know this thread focuses largely on "infinity", and although infinity and eternity are closely related, they aren't exactly the same.

Space and time are transcended when the universe is regressed to its primordial origin. This would be the domain of nonlinear time i.e. eternity. If anything happens within this eternal construct (including the creation of universes) there is no reason to believe it won't happen an infinite number of times as eternity is endless, but infinity is just an abstract concept – it may be approached but never fully realized.

The above is in contrast with M-theory where you have a multiverse residing in "the bulk" which is understood to be a spatial infinity, but I prefer the former where the spatial parameter expands from a virtual negation – a zero-volume existence. I think Occams' razor is useful here in deciding on a theory.

At a most fundamental level these polarities of nothing and something, negative existence and positive existence, zero and one, feminine and masculine are like Yin&Yang where they would just normally be taken together as fundamental to an unending repetitive cycle in lieu of isolating one and stating that it is infinite – one doesn't really have much meaning without the other.

[myselfaswell]

Not just "The Universe". I know this thread focuses largely on "infinity", and although infinity and eternity are closely related, they aren't exactly the same.

Space and time are transcended when the universe is regressed to its primordial origin. This would be the domain of nonlinear time i.e. eternity. If anything happens within this eternal construct (including the creation of universes) there is no reason to believe it won't happen an infinite number of times as eternity is endless, but infinity is just an abstract concept – it may be approached but never fully realized.

The above is in contrast with M-theory where you have a multiverse residing in "the bulk" which is understood to be a spatial infinity, but I prefer the former where the spatial parameter expands from a virtual negation – a zero-volume existence. I think Occams' razor is useful here in deciding on a theory.

At a most fundamental level these polarities of nothing and something, negative existence and positive existence, zero and one, feminine and masculine are like Yin&Yang where they would just normally be taken together as fundamental to an unending repetitive cycle in lieu of isolating one and stating that it is infinite – one doesn't really have much meaning without the other.

Putting eternity aside for a moment.  If you read Part 2, you'll find we're pretty much talking about the same thing, more or less.  The only difference that I can see is that I'm using language that stupid people like me can understand.  

[CCoburn]

Putting eternity aside for a moment.  If you read Part 2, you'll find we're pretty much talking about the same thing, more or less.  The only difference that I can see is that I'm using language that stupid people like me can understand.  

I admit, I've only been skimming around in part one, more so later rather than sooner. It was enough to recognize some obvious similarities though. I think expansion theories are the way to go.

I probably will skim around in part two next at some point. I also have similar writing scattered about here and elsewhere on the internet.

I recall thinking about negative existence maybe back around the early 2000s. It was fucking insane; I almost didn't want to believe it, but I took the red pill.

[myselfaswell]

It was fucking insane; I almost didn't want to believe it, but I took the red pill.

LOL, yeah, it is.  As I've warned readers a couple of times, thinking about this subject can induce a really powerful sense of nausea, and insanity no doubt.

[CCoburn]

 

∞ = 0, Visualising The Improbable State.

 To get to this point of infinity equals zero that I’m talking about, what I’d like you to do is think about all the things in the universe, real or imagined. I’d like you to picture our universe and possibly a multiverse.  I’d like you to think of all of the galaxies, and all the planets, stars and black holes in them.  I would like you to think about all the forces  in the universe, like gravity.  I would like you to imagine all of these things or as much as you can in your mind, including all the space it occupies, even God, everything, simultaneously.Got it?

Right, now what I want you to do is screw it all up. I want you to see it all getting crushed together. I want you to collapse space and time into itself and collecting all of those other things as it collapses. And I want you to crush it all up into the tiniest little thing that you can imagine.
 
All good?
 
Now I want you to make that tiny little thing disappear. That tiny little thing with all of those gargantuan galaxies, all those things and concepts and ideas and space, I want you to make it disappear from your mind. Gone.
 
There is no God, there are no universes, there is no time, there are no forces, there is no space, they are all gone.
 
Hopefully at this point you have developed a sense of a total and complete absence of everything.  That total and absolute absence is so complete that it cannot even be described as nothing, because nothing doesn’t exist.  It is an absence so absolute that it can only be expressed by this binary notation, ∞ = 0, Infinity Equals Zero.

False Premise Equals False Conclusion

The argument is based on a false premise leading to a false conclusion.

There are a couple different cosmological models that incorporate opposing spatial mediums with expansion theory being the most widely accepted last I knew.

From the latter of the above the universe would not be "infinite". It would be finite, and the fact that it is expanding supports that proposition. This would be in opposition to a static eternal spatial medium that continues on endlessly without outer boundary and would therefore be considered "infinite", although you would not be able to regress or compress such an 'existence' since there would not be any "outer boundary" from which to facilitate any such regression.

Spatial Parameters | Conclusion

Type 1. The universe is finite; there was never any "infinity" to begin with.

Type 2. The spatial medium is static, infinite, and eternal and cannot be compressed or regressed.

And not only is infinity misrepresented in "∞ = 0" by compactifying a 'finite' universe', but in a cosmological setting zero(nothing) is undefined, so the equation itself doesn't really have any valid meaning and is pretty much pointless.

The only justification one might have for proposing "∞ = 0" maybe is that from type 1 above it doesn't exist so it's equal to zero, but I don't see the point really.

[quintessentone]

If we look at the properties of a black hole then maybe we need to redefine what infinity is or what it may not be under complex and not easily understood circumstances (?)

From AI search:

From the viewpoint of an observer outside the black hole, time stops. For example, an object falling into the hole would appear frozen in time at the edge of the hole. Inside a black hole is where the real mystery lies. According to Einstein's theory, time and space, in a way, trade places inside the hole.

[myselfaswell]

False Premise Equals False Conclusion

The argument is based on a false premise leading to a false conclusion.

There are a couple different cosmological models that incorporate opposing spatial mediums with expansion theory being the most widely accepted last I knew.

From the latter of the above the universe would not be "infinite". It would be finite, and the fact that it is expanding supports that proposition. This would be in opposition to a static eternal spatial medium that continues on endlessly without outer boundary and would therefore be considered "infinite", although you would not be able to regress or compress such an 'existence' since there would not be any "outer boundary" from which to facilitate any such regression.

Spatial Parameters | Conclusion

Type 1. The universe is finite; there was never any "infinity" to begin with.

Type 2. The spatial medium is static, infinite, and eternal and cannot be compressed or regressed.

And not only is infinity misrepresented in "∞ = 0" by compactifying a 'finite' universe', but in a cosmological setting zero(nothing) is undefined, so the equation itself doesn't really have any valid meaning and is pretty much pointless.

The only justification one might have for proposing "∞ = 0" maybe is that from type 1 above it doesn't exist so it's equal to zero, but I don't see the point really.

I will refer you to a much earlier comment I made to you,

It would seem than that you're happy to accept that there is only "The Universe". ?

Your commentary is entirely exclusionary to the infinite number of possibilities of our reality.  It would appear you don't understand the ∞ = 0 that I have written about.

Perhaps, as a starting point to help, take a line from the signature of Sirius.

I am more than my physical body. Because I am more than physical matter, I can perceive that which is greater than the physical world.

There doesn't have to be a "The Universe" for ∞ = 0, or even ∞ = 1 for that matter.

[CCoburn]

I will refer you to a much earlier comment I made to you:

It would seem than that you're happy to accept that there is only "The Universe". ?

I wouldn't say that I'm "happy" or overly thrilled about any of it, but in the most widely accepted theory the universe encapsulates all of existence, and you're the one that made use of this finite model as some sort of argument leading up to your "infinity equals zero" conclusion – politely put.

The objective universe is all there is. It's a 'real' existence and to extend the scope of it in the manner you have is tantamount to asserting an objective conclusion via the subjectivity of faeries and unicorns.

And I've already told you that "infinity" is nothing but an abstract concept. It's a term used to denote an unfathomable distance or measurement but doesn't have any real existence.

Infinity is the mathematical answer you get when you solve for density in the d=m/v formula applied to a zero-volume singularity, but even then, the answer isn't infinity – it's more like 'undefined' because of division by zero(nothing).

 

Your commentary is entirely exclusionary to the infinite number of possibilities of our reality.  It would appear you don't understand the ∞ = 0 that I have written about.

You can entertain the 'virtually' infinite potential latent within some existential concepts, but you can't just take that along with everything else and squash it down asserting that you have now transformed something that is infinite to nothing, therefore "∞ = 0".

 

Perhaps, as a starting point to help, take a line from the signature of Sirius:

I am more than my physical body. Because I am more than physical matter, I can perceive that which is greater than the physical world.

There doesn't have to be a "The Universe" for ∞ = 0, or even ∞ = 1 for that matter.

It's just more sprinkling pixie dust in the land of subjectivity and unicorns. People are free to think whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it's real or right. There isn't a day that goes by without some dude from left field spouting off subjective notions as objective reality which would include but is not limited to these grand epiphanies.


Snipped text...
 

Mod note -- Encia22 -- Please remember to go after the ball, not the player.
Do not respond "in thread" to this action. Thanks