A Very Bready Question of Infinity and the Zeno Paradox

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: MasterKaman

Thank goodness I only had to read the first six lines of your wall of text to be utterly sure that you are talking nonsense.

philosophers have totally failed to explain it so far.

The explanation of Zeno's Paradox is that there is no such thing as a point of zero dimensions. Not since the Big Bang anyway.

Although perhaps difficult to read, it was full of relevant anecdotes. I urge you to spend the time to re-read it.

You guys should just focus on infinity for now.

Is there infinite infinities or just one? That is, is there actual separation?

If something changes, did just "it" change, or did all of reality change?

I think it should be all of reality, and just 1 infinity. i.e. Just 1 set, like set theory, which includes all other sets - one set that is all sets.

There is nothing beyond what is | nothing doesn't exist | infinity.

[nothing is not outside the brackets, if nothing exists, its within the brackets too]

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
You guys should just focus on infinity for now.

Is there infinite infinities or just one? That is, is there actual separation?

If something changes, did just "it" change, or did all of reality change?

I think it should be all of reality, and just 1 infinity. i.e. Just 1 set, like set theory, which includes all other sets - one set that is all sets.

I think it is far more likely that the universe is Finite but part of an infinite structure that encompasses all possible outcomes.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
I think it is far more likely that the universe is Finite but part of an infinite structure that encompasses all possible outcomes.

You're calling the universe all of physicality? Whether seen or unseen, whether multiverse or just one universe, there is only one matrix which is finite, but within it, there is infinite potential?

Like separating force that is from potential force that can be?

Does probability/potential exist as a thing? If so, what is it? If not, does it? It is a thing, yet is not a part of the universe? etc.

I think you're still trying to allow nothing to be a something when instead you should think of potential as an upward swing of a pendulum. That is, what is has always been. Something doesn't come from nowhere into reality. It is just reality changing by force/will. I cannot create into nothing from nowhere as those places don't exist.

Maybe think about it like you want to go to the beach, the desire is real, whatever you're interpreting as that desire is real but you're not at the beach - you have not enacted/willed that force which you are interpreting as your desire to go to the beach, but then you must see that the thing you are interpreting as desire is that same force you will use to go to the beach, right?

k, I think the thought is coherent now, sorry for so many edits. but yeah, I think we need to define potential/probability?

originally posted by: Bleeeeep

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
I think it is far more likely that the universe is Finite but part of an infinite structure that encompasses all possible outcomes.

You're calling the universe all of physicality? Whether seen or unseen, whether multiverse or just one universe, there is only one matrix which is finite, but within it, there is infinite potential?

The other way around... all possibilities played out but each iteration crystallized as a finite universe.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

finite like unchanging?

and where are all the possibilities coming from and going to? Do they arise from nowhere and into what was nothing?

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Korg Trinity

finite like unchanging?

and where are all the possibilities coming from and going to? Do they arise from nowhere and into what was nothing?

Unchanging is not the right way to think about it. In the same way a drill bit makes a groove look as though it is moving, our experience makes us believe we are moving through a changing universe.

The universe does indeed have periods, and those periods are different from one point to another... but all that existed in the past, all that exists in the present and all that exists in the future exist already.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

So what is changing is the witness/observer/awareness?

We're kind of back to my first few posts in this thread - what I tried to explain about the body being the image of the soul and the soul the awareness of the spirit/forces.

What is the difference between the image of the groove and your awareness of it? Isn't your interpretation of the groove your awareness, that is, what you see is your own interpretation? And does that awareness/interpretation not exist in the physicality of your body? Granted it doesn't look like a groove if I were to look at your brain, from the outside, but from the inside, wouldn't I see what you see, if I shared the same interpretation/conception as you?

Can you follow what I'm saying?

And for the record, I do think potential/probability exists, but I think it exists as the very same will/force that force exists as. I mean, if we were to look at a pendulum just before its downward swing, we would be looking at potential/probability but we would only see it as our interpretation in that moment - so maybe I look and think potential or maybe I look and see a weight at the end of a line, but whatever I see, it is some image.

So it is just as I see these words in my mind (they are the image of my desire/will/force/spirit) and the only real difference then, is if I put them into the body at large or just the body of my brain (that which I see).

What is potential besides what is determined / what is interpreted? Let's say that someone tells a lie, isn't that still a true lie? That is, whether or not I see the truth of the thing, as the thing truly exists, I still did see what I saw, so what was determined was what I interpreted, at least within my own mind/brain.

That is, I think you are getting hung up on absolute truth and relative truth, even though what is relative is still absolute.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Korg Trinity

So what is changing is the witness/observer/awareness?

Yes. But not in some spiritual way. consciousness is an emergent property of complexity, the reason we cannot perceive the universe as an overall construct is because we are ourselves made of this construct.

We can deduce it but it will never be something we can directly see as we are nothing from any other perspective than within it.

It's very a very difficult subject to get across... but believe it or not it is what the math tells us about the nature of Space-time.

Time is not an illusion, but from our perspective it is easy to see how one might think it is.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying physicality doesn't change, that is, the spiral isn't moving, yet we are and we are the spiral.

And you say it isn't spiritual but what is the difference in spirit and forces really? Forces weren't determined, they just were? Forces were set into motion by some causation that didn't need to be initiated/determined? It is impossible. Causation must be caused by something that is, itself, uncaused - like will, the way you can will changes to your bodily forces.

Think about it. Cause is the effect of something initiated -- it cannot go into infinity, as infinity must be from always - infinity cannot have a cause. It is the same as trying to find what is outside of reality, what is beyond the border of infinity, or trying to make something from nothing. It simply cannot be.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Korg Trinity

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying physicality doesn't change, that is, the spiral isn't moving, yet we are and we are the spiral.

I'm not contradicting myself. What is happening is your concept of a spiritual essence being outside of the construct we call space-time is clouding your mind to what is being said.

Although the following was not made to demonstrate the concept it is actually quite a good example of how space time works.



The now is the one slice you feel present in, the past is the slices before the now slice, and the future are all the slices in front of the now slice. The Now is defined by your consciousness as it experiences space-time... Let's return to bread...



Everything that happens in the universe at the moment of now was already set to happen in the future and the now is just the slicing of the bread to reveal the now from the slices in front of it. the construct as a whole exists as a loaf in just the same way that the universe exists as a construct. The best of it is, depending on where you are and how fast you are traveling, depends on how that slice is angled..... ala Relativity...

it doesn't matter where you are in terms of the now, the whole construct remains the same. yes it is true that when you compare one area of the construct to another there are differences but those differences exist as a static. only our experience of the movement experiences causes the notion of a flowing change.

So what is time? Time is a Dimension of space, that describes the differences in space-time between two plank time units.

If anything those that are religious based upon a fear of death need not worry, as each slice exists always, that is to say you never really die as such.

Do you see?

a reply to: Korg Trinity

My only real issue with predeterminism is uncertainty. While truly "random" cannot happen (as the set its derived from is finite), within a finite set random can occur. An example is the random release of subatomic particles during decay.

ETA: the term i should use is "spontaneous".

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Korg Trinity

My only real issue with predeterminism is uncertainty. While truly "random" cannot happen (as the set its derived from is finite), within a finite set random can occur. An example is the random release of subatomic particles during decay.

ETA: the term i should use is "spontaneous".

I know exactly what you mean. and it is true it doesn't make sense.... that is unless you call into existence other universes that exhibit every other state that could exist, and thus the seemingly random becomes predetermined.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

In a system that seems to love efficiency, that seems like an incredibly inefficient concept.

What about a "kinetic reality", where the potential for reality is there but unused. It is getting close to holographic theory, I know....

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Free will exists. Every object that does not possess >0 free will, is absolutely determined. Systems with free will, are more and less determined based on how much free will they have.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Korg Trinity

In a system that seems to love efficiency, that seems like an incredibly inefficient concept.

What about a "kinetic reality", where the potential for reality is there but unused. It is getting close to holographic theory, I know....

Believe it or not there are some strong evidences that suggest the universe is indeed holographic, but that doesn't negate the concept of a multiverse, only that the contents of the universe are described on a simpler 2d surface... it doesn't explain why the universe is the way it is... only that it can be considered to be nothing more than interference patterns.

Which is essentially what the planck scale of reality would actually look like...

But again, it doesn't explain why the universe is the way it is... only how space-time manifests reality.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Free will exists. Every object that does not possess >0 free will, is absolutely determined. Systems with free will, are more and less determined based on how much free will they have.

Do you consider yourself to be in the present??

Although you might think yes, the answer is surprisingly not.... you are at all times living in the past, what we see takes time to get to us and be interpreted by the brain. Therefore we never see what we would consider now... in fact Now doesn't actually exist as such.

Which is diametrically opposite to what many people believe that there is no past or future.. there is only now... well, I'm saying that the past and the future are all just various places in the continuum we call space-time. That our brains are made of this space-time and track as part and parcel of the space-time construct.

Any one slice cannot change the past because it is a set pattern in space-time and has no knowledge of the future because that pattern is not the pattern at the point of inquiry. Everything is set, spacetime has a shape and it isn't expanding is the traditional sense into something, it is all there is, the Loaf is whole regardless of which slice you may be at.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

You didnt really attempt to speak on my claim of free will;

But I agree that the larger systems of matter are determined, and our free will can not necessarily effect them, so in that sense you are right;

Such as; we cannot move the sun and the earth any way we please; thus we can assume, that tomorrow will exist, and the next day, and the next day; which is really saying, that the sun and earth will continue to move as they move.

In this sense; 'abstractly' the future 'exists'.

But in relation to the nature of the mind, free will, the future is not set in stone.

As far as the nature of 'the present';

I suppose the present is the constant moment of the future becoming the past. We always exist in the present, though we can think about the past and the future, our thinking of which can aeffect the present. But the present is the ever current moment of movement and transformation.

a reply to: ImaFungi

I have often wondered how far the impact of the observer goes. Does knowing something in an abstract notion create effect on events?

This gets pretty close to the whole "create your own reality" new age mumbo jumbo.

ETA: does knowing that I have 1 heap of sand matter at all, i guess is a different way of putting it. What if i didn't recognize a quanta at all? What it still be quantified as "some" sand?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ImaFungi

I have often wondered how far the impact of the observer goes. Does knowing something in an abstract notion create effect on events?

This gets pretty close to the whole "create your own reality" new age mumbo jumbo.

ETA: does knowing that I have 1 heap of sand matter at all, i guess is a different way of putting it. What if i didn't recognize a quanta at all? What it still be quantified as "some" sand?

The whole quantum observer effect thing, is largely misunderstood and misinterpreted.

There is a finite quantity of stuff that exists and it is exactly as it is where it is at all times;

The mind is a very complex system which can create symbolic representations of stuff, and mix and match it and invent new stuff, and think about the future...

In this sense 'knowing stuff in an abstract notion can create an effect on events'... as we might as well say that is entirely what a mind is and does.

You know that a tree exists outside of your mind, the image of tree is sent to your mind by light, you know that that tree can be used for things, you can bring into your mind the images of the things that a tree can be used for, you can bring into your mind the image of saw, you can make your mind move your body and arms to get a saw, you can use the saw to cut down the tree; what started as you looking at a tree, had an effect on the event, by manifesting 'abstractions' or thoughts.

Your ETA I have no clue what you mean, about heaps of sand.

The only reason I brought up the sand thing was to relate it to the toast thing; how we define 'toast as toast' or 'heap as heap'.

The term heap was invented to signify a quantity of things, similarly to the term 'pile'.

But on closer philosophical inspection we may discover some issues with ambiguities and vagueness.

So a heap of sand is generally, a lot of sand stacked on each other.

Toast is generally, an amount of energy given to bread enough to particularly alter the molecular orientation of an amount over an amount of time.

But is 1 molecule altered in the bread consider the piece of bread toast? 2? 3? 4? Is 3 grains of sand a heap, 4? 5? 6?

The wiki article on the history of that sand heap problem, makes the claim that it is difficult to define it as an arbitrary amount such as: A heap of sand is 10,000 or more grains of sand. Because there is so little difference between 10,000 and 9,999... would 9,999 really not be a heap? Or as long as we define it as not being one, yes, it will not be one, and then there can be a new word invented to define groupings of objects that are not enough to be a heap. Science has done this systematically and rigorously by creating the rules and units of measurement.