This is not the same as an ‘infinite mind’, which for me is stateless and empty [like nirvana]. This is a possible universal extension to that, or something else entirely.
An infinite intellect, could be something like this…
In your consciousness there is an experiencer, here I wont be arguing weather or not it is of the brain ~ that’s a different debate, so I will just go straight to a set of positive assumptions.
Intellect involves recognition
Analogously we could see this as like recording info onto tape or another recording device. Here the tape is something non-physical and it is that which knows the info imprinted upon it neuronally or by any means.
An infinite intellect
The above ability is not made, it occurs prior to anything being imprinted upon it, just as you have to have the recording device prior to making a recording.
Being non-physical it does not exist in space and time nor is particular to any existential dimensions. It is not energy nor matter.
It is unlimited ~ infinite, non-spatial yet omnipresent [it is not particularly anywhere].
So now we have arrived at an infinite ability to recognise and record ~ all-in-one.
All spatial entities and all informations are in the infinite space generally though not particularly.
Ergo an infinite intellect can know everything at once.
Infinite thought
We think particular thoughts in small numbers, we focus the mind ~ perception upon those few things, usually one object at a time depending on how focused our attention is. The infinite intellect can only think all thoughts at once. Each of our thoughts are composed of informational sets of relationships, which we ‘compose’ into an thought object.
The infinite thought is composed of the infinite set of relationships, which means they are not the same relationships between informations as our compositions are. Indeed information itself is reliant upon the sets of relationships between things which compose the thought object, so a different set of informational relationships make for a different thought object.
Thus the infinite intellect does not share our thoughts, nor are we part of its thoughts. There is a completely different set of informational relationships in an infinite thought object ~ if they even are objects et al!
If we consider my ‘uncased rule’ [added below [from the no causality thread]], we may get a hint of the non-object fluid-like nature of infinite thought, at least in the comparison of the existential universal observer.
Essentially the information-relationship sets are never complete, as like our thoughts, they continually transform from one approximate group to the next.
The uncaused rule
There is a lump of clay, I take possession of it and it is manipulated into that shape [of my action upon it]. I have caused a change to the clay, but have not cause the clay to previously exist.
Now my action upon the clay itself becomes a clay.
…and so on and so forth.
I take hold of a gun and fire it at the target, one would make the assumption that perhaps the point where the gunpowder is ignited is the cause, and when it hit’s the target that’s the effect. I have not cause the gun nor the target, in fact nothing I have done has made that effect, the target is distinct from my actions and that of the gun, until it is hit by the bullet.
Where then do we place the beginning and end points, are they not arbitrary, assumed or indeed do they not actually exist. Really the wider the angle of our perspective the lesser the cardinality of the events. We could keep extending to what made the gun and the machine which made the gun, and that of the targets on a seemingly different deterministic line.
The ‘uncaused rule’ as thus described, may be endlessly attributed and reiterated, and in every instance or set of instances, until eventually we arrive at the universal set. Now everything is within the context of the single motion, as if like in our minds considered as the full view, the full perspective. Here as in our minds eye we cannot find the edges, the full and universal set cannot be arrived at, as we also apply the ‘uncaused’ rule to it.
So we have an unyielding search cast across the universe and across relativistic time, we are trying to find the universal set. We fail and so we begin the search once more [like ‘moments’ of time], yet the perceiver* itself is subject to the uncaused rule; there is no search a then search b, the moment merely drifts along. The search attempts to derive from and to move to every point, and from the unfound whole.
Its all just one fluid motion gracefully flowing along, passively, and without teleology.
Such is the river, so is the truth.
.
