reply to post by AnimeAgent
if the above quote is true, who is the person who defines the characteristics of infinity?
If the above quote is true, then we can only define a limited number of characteristics of infinity. It would be impossible to "get them all" unless
you can merge with infinity and experience all of it directly for yourself. Everything else is postulates.
That is a good question, who is the person who defines infinities characteristics. I think we are all still working that out. I couldn't tell you in
the slightest the answer to that. If we really are all fragments or frozen snapshots of this, then you can say that a bunch of snapshots are coming
together and trying to resolve agreements and disagreements as to the characteristics of infinity. Its partially taking place here on this thread in
real time present moment, at least for the typer, and the reader reading it.
All very philo/matha/experientialism.
it doesn't have to be intelligent by nature, just because calculators can solve problems doesn't make them intelligent, it doesn't necessarily have
to create the possibilities either, the possibilities couldv'e already existed.
Yeah but your comparison is of a calculator, which another limited snapshot of the whole. Calculators do not equal the whole of infinity. But if you
have the right tools, can you deconstruct the calculator into an infinite amount of atoms, particles, strings, higgs bosons? Would that be possible to
Your right the possibilities could have already been there, as a result of infinity being instantaneous, which brings up for me more questions.
Infinity is never ending so what is the speed of infinity? Anyway, back to your question. Yeah that would have to be a possibility, to experience
something as always having been there. Infinity exploring and veing every possible possibility.
If this is so then there are an infinite number of dimensions. One in which we dont exist. Another in whic this thread doesnt exist, another one where
the population is 5.4 billion instead of 6.4 and so on.
uh....no....randomness isn't a pattern, in fact it is the complete absence of a pattern that makes it random
Yeah but you know this based on "randomness's" qualities and definitions. And a pattern is seen and known by its qualities and definitions. I think
the confusion is in a scenario of us having only 1 randomness. Then it would just be that 1. But we have and can have sets of randomness's all with
the same qualities/definitions which make those sets, patterns.
if i can toss a coin, and that toss itself is an act of randomness, am i not the intelligent creator of that randomness? would i not be part of
infinity, or rather, would infinity not be a part of all of us?
Yes you would be the force or creator of that act of randomness. Yes infinity would be both part of you and the random act. Even though that act
itself would be randomness with only 2 possible outcomes. I was conceptually looking at more of infinite randomness with infinite outcomes.
Infinity would be existing as all kinds of randomness's with all kinds of numbered outcomes from 2 to infinity. Brings up another good question. Can
we have randomness that only comes out to 1 outcome (i.e. a 2 headed coin)
also, would not saying that infinity was an intelligent self-aware design limit the concept of infinity to having just those characteristics?
Yes of course it would. I was just saying those have to be possible. Thats just the human perspective of being able to pull out at least some
characteristics of infinity, but not all. The eye can't see itself. Its a matter of perspectives. I didnt say the above quote in order to limit
infinity to those characteristics, just simply brought it up to show that by infinities nature, it has to be, or has to be a possibility at least.
if infinity was everything, then randomness couldnt be infinity, because to explore every possibility would mean that infinity had to have some
uniformity to it, which contradicts the concept of randomness. this is something i believe, infinity=FUDGE FACTOR
If infinity is everything, then how could randomness not be part of it? Yeah perhaps it would have to have uniformity to explore every possible
possibility, but thats also limiting infinity. Besides exploring every possible possibility, it also just is, it also rests, it also is as having no
uniformity at the same time as having uniformity. Contradictions are in the eye of the beholder. In the perspective of the existence of things,
physical, conceptual, philosophical, mathematical, etc. Existence is "being" and that is a oneness.
If someone from the outside of everything saw the existence of everything, they would see 1 thing(existence), even though we see multiples cause we
are part of existence.
You can view infinity(at least conceptually for now) from the outside of infinity. Then you see 1. But when you go in for a closer look and see whats
going on within infinity, then you see several. Which perspective is right?
This isn't fudge. Its something real and practical. Takes one out of a conceptual,philosophical box and expands the question of what is really gong