Metaphysics of interchanging sets with an eternal base

Metaphysics of interchanging sets with an eternal base

At the base of existence over all-time is eternity, this is because no matter how many integers and sets we apply, they will always belong to a greater whole.
Eternity itself can have no things composing it, for the same reason ~ it will always be greater than infinite sets and even the aleph omega of all sets. This is because there are other things existent than the components of infinite sets e.g. Finites/sets. The metaphysical position for totality is taken by the eternal, and so the infinite sets cannot become complete, this also due the the fact that they are multiples and hence none can singularly compose the entirety.

This delivers movement, where all the components of each and any set are as if moving along on their line. That is to say that we cannot locate any part/segment or integer, they are in a manner of speaking ‘up in the air’ and cannot manifest until something denotes a position. If we had say all the colours repeating in a bijective set, it isn’t until something interjects to denote locality that any of the colours exist.

Now however we can place some such lines in parallel [bijectives, injectives or whathaveyou] such to visualise what’s going on, and as the positions along the lines are in perpetual movement, and as some qualities have connotations and attractions to other properties of other lines, there may be occurrences where the positions may become located ~ existent, where the two attractions manifest the form/result of said attraction.

Where this occurs we will then have localised movement or ‘time’ and existence. That’s not to say eternity and the infinite don’t exist, as we have just drawn an existence from them, and it is impossible to attain an existence from a non-existence.

Now we may consider quantum entanglement*, but eliminate the act of measuring to see what’s going on. If you affect an integer on one line [infinite set] from one on another [or even the same line but its less confusing to consider it all as different lines], the entire line touches the connecting line such that the other quantum position ‘perpendicular’ to the given, ‘knows’* how to act. If e.g. We take a position or particle in position z,y,z, of say negative polarity, its counterpart in the system or somewhere else in the universe, will know how it is meant to act because the information is correlated within the context of the line. That is to say that if we change one value then all the other values are informed of the change because they belong to the same metaphysical entity. Thus a change in the properties on one part of one line, affects the background informational values of the whole line, which in turn affects the values of the attractions connecting said line with that of the offending integer of the given changing property on the first taken line.

Or in simpler terms, all the lines and all the colours/info talk to each other, and adjust their positions respectively. When they pass by an attracted to each other then exists and a relationship is formed, then when that happens a baby is born ~ the universe or a part of it is born.

So why did the universe begin?

Lets say there are attractions occurring all the time, but you cant have say a single atom just pop into existence alone. This because it requires an environment of relative attractions, a space and correlating quantum positions. Then that you need the given amount of attractions to manifest a full set required to form any manifest entity. So in short, a single occurrence requires a system. So it isn’t until the lines pass each other to the point where there are the required amount of attractions to form a complete ‘event system’, that a universe may occur.

*Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently—instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.
*Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc. performed on entangled particles are found to be appropriately correlated. For example, if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, then the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise; because of the nature of quantum measurement, however, this behavior gives rise to effects that can appear paradoxical: any measurement of a property of a particle can be seen as acting on that particle (e.g. by collapsing a number of superposed states); and in the case of entangled particles, such action must be on the entangled system as a whole. It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair “knows” what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.

_

I would say that I disagree with your premise of an amorphous backdrop of all infinities that can view and comprehend them all as something that “transcends time” - which is the word game that “eternalists” try to play. Eternal has multiple definitions, the one most commonly used is without beginning or end, but it doesn’t say “without time”,

The problem with removing time or process from perception is that it yields no sequence, and as such cannot be processed by an intelligence.

Something which isn’t finite can transcend [finite-] time, where time is a collection of finite events in motion, and finite [maths] is abstract. Existence ultimately has to be without beginning or end, otherwise you get the paradox of first cause from nothing, which isn’t logical or reasonable. Even if the universe is cyclic, there must have been a first, and so you get the metaphysical three circles i spoke of. I should also add that physicists looking at the tangents in the background radiation found them to be straight and not curved, which infers that the universe is or at least was infinite. If so, then both these arguments demand an infinite schemata of some kind.

I didn’t exactly say that the metaphysics transcends time, its more about meta-positions prior to manifest entities in time.

Ideas can be visual, a mass of interchanging objects none of which stand still/remain the same, is still discernible visually. A fractal is discernible even if you don’t know the process/formula. my theory involves processes, but not usual ones based upon the limitedness of finite appearances.

_

I’m just going to make a couple quick comments about your reply to my post…

An infinite may be greater than a finite as you say, however , as I said, without the finite elements, the infinite can neither exist or be abstracted.

Read my comment in the omni thread…

What I said there is that there would be a lack of sequence in the eternal perception, which turns data perception into mush.

Next us like to point out that there is also a paradox of something not beginning, has always been there solves the same as never started… Do you know anything that exists that never started??

It’s one thing to infer this from the other paradox, but an entirely different thing to not see the paradox here… If it never started that I just typed this, then I never typed this, if it has always existed that I typed this, then how could I have ever started typing this??

It may be so that we cannot do that, i admit that in my thinking i am making utility of finites of a sort, but that doesn’t mean that eternity cannot. As there must be the infinite and reality cannot have a beginning nor end, then it must.

In this theory all metaphysical positions are in the eternal/infinite field, and in that sense eternity IS whatever integers it has, but they may not be processes at least in what we know or can think of. Its plausible to me that there could be random sets which just so happen to marry up, such that enough attractions of random properties correlate to form universe.

No, but i already stated that manifest existence is the result of the couplings of metaphysical positions [your typing is such a result]. When the universe started it was infinite, now work that paradox out! Lol.

_