Maybe the universe has been around forever, (big bang or not…big crunch or not…) and there have been an infinite number of other races some human like some not. regardless some that used similar if not exactly the same characters some that don’t… so every combination has, of every symbol, has had meaning at some point at some time… so then everything they type is deep as shit?
Not that I necessarily think of God or would even think of God this way but it brings to mind an image of a God looking at a piece of paper with shit typed on it by monkey’s and reading each line… laughing his head off, then crying, then shaking his head… and so on… or just doing it all at once tears of sadness and joy at the same time…
maybe doing it right in front of people…except all us monkey’s look at the guy like he is some crazy hobo…
because yeah…
he is waring torn rags…
because god is a cheap ass green mother fucker…(that doesn’t like using shit others need or something, or like setting example maybe…)
Nonsense is nonsense. Random typing of symbols doesn’t mean a damn thing when it has no intent. Expression of oneself can be a failure when one can’t express oneself in a mutually communicable method. If you want to type of bunch of random words and express yourself as that, that’s great, but that doesn’t say much about yourself as far as I’m concerned, except that you’re probably a moron.
We could say perhaps that if every symbol and meaning has occurred in the infinite [to the aleph omega], then any expression of that would be deep shit man. So then it’s a matter of how that expression is made, monkeys would not be able to make any further utility than they could of a finite set of info/symbols, humans could only make limited expression of perfection, so I guess you need a perfect intellect in order to make the perfect expression of the infinite set of knowledge and wisdoms. …and for that you need an infinite intellect.
I’m not necessarily concerned with any you here… perhaps i am more concerned as to the probability that it does or at some time will be representative of something regardless of current human recognition?
I didn’t realise I had said that. …but yes it can be boundless [as opposed to infinite proper] e.g. if you had three infinite lines they would be bounded by their ‘line-ness’.
and infinites don’t have an end so all I have to do is imagine something that doesn’t have an end… that in my brain space has some non end that keeps going way way out there… you just need a good imagination i guess… you can see the whole thing too…
Imagine that deep in a mountain range there is a large slab of rock. Over several years erosion has caused some squiggly lines that look as though they would read “Property of Jack”. No one has ever seen this rock, alive or dead. The squiggly lines on that rock are just that, squiggly lines. They don’t hold any semantic content, they’re just lines as on any other eroded rock, in fact it’s surrounded by rocks that look just like it. Now imagine that a man named Jack happens upon this rock as he’s building a house in the area, and notices that the lines look an awful lot like “Property of Jack”. He takes the slab and puts it in front of his house. It is only when an intelligent being gives the slab semantic content does it actually say anything at all. Nothing physical about the rock changed from the time we imagined it in the mountain range with squiggly lines on it to the time where Jack found it. An intelligent being had to give it those semantic properties, and none did until Jack arrived.
I posted this in another thread but it fits better here anyway.
Mind if I make an objection to the philosophy behind the math…
What is something without end?…
A line could perceivably stretch to infinity and have no beginning nor end, yet it still has a limit in the form of it being a line with an edge all around defining that - in a manner. If we remove the edge its now a space and occupies every area [we wont here go into the limitedness of dimensions [infinity is its own dimension and incomparable to all others ~ for the same reasons as anything we describe as infinite]].
Does anything really have an end? Or does it just keep going in a different form? If form ends, what is form but a human abstraction, defining a thing based on a particular perceived order that has occurred according to our mental order recognition system?
Perception perhaps? Perhaps perception alone can imagine and thereby create if not in reality at least in the mind everywheres that them self yet form another everywhere. But then what says an infinite is everywhere… there are an infinite number of even integers, but they are not everywhere on the number line. You might say there is one everywhere that being the allnumbers number line…
Perhaps, or the statelessness ~ when form ends, is the reality, our perceptions of form are not. Then that something does indeed come out of that nothingness [statelessness].
Hmm so your perception of everywhereness is another everywhereness to mine for example? What if there is only one everywhereness and we all have an incorrect perception of it, because perception itself is limited. Or that one perception [though I’d imagine necessarily represents some manner of reality] is correct if it represents the reality ~ which one would imagine is not mental.
Imagine those integers are actually objects rather than metaphors ~ which after all don’t represent reality directly and can be played around with to ones hearts extent. If you had a universe of e.g. red planets, then that’s an infinite amount of them physically being there. Yet there must also be an infinite amount of space around and defining the limits of said red planets. Which infinity/everywhereness do you have? Then if there is another universe will an infinite amount of yellow suns in it, you get the same problem + what exists, the red planets filling everywhere, the suns or the space?
It seams to me that there cannot be an infinite amount of anything bar emptiness, masslessness, statelessness. As soon as we add anything else into the equation it must be finite by its own definition and not to create such paradoxes.
From what I can tell [ I am not a mathematician] the math uses infinities rather as endless/open ended element in an equation, or as an elastic variable, a bag of nuts - so to say, where that is a variable of undisclosed properties/number variations.
.
That is an interesting thought, Are you suggesting that given that forms are not merely abstractions, then preform , while say energy exists, there is statelessness and then out of that form comes into existence… thus out of a form of nothing comes a something… interesting… This suggests the other thought to me that then in reality to be observant of the law of conservation you would think that some form has always had to exist. in which case I might propose that the initial form simply is that which is all things being in a non variant state… is it a contradiction as such to describe a form that is one of formlessness?
Well you seem to be necessitating that infinite is synonymos with everywhereness. technically everyewhere ness would have to be an rather then just infinite… it would be more like infinite x infinite… something infinite that was also infinitely in all places…
To be honest I have yet to sese any proof that anything in the real world is finite (other then concepts and hypotheticals) for example to me an apple is composed of an infinite number of stuff. we have yet to prove that there is a base particle that makes up everything, and even if we found one how could we prove it was and not conclude that our measuring tools were limited? Plus in order for a finite thing to make up everything else it has to be made out of nothing, including non variant energy… or something…no parts… and that doesn’t make sense to me… So to me everything is infinite, but the human mind has the capacity to deal with infinites… we see and apple because we only see parts of it we do not recognize all that it is… we technically do not completely see or grok the apple. For example there is no mathematical prof that finite exist rather it is an axiom: something simply believed and thus used in math… yet in certain number systems 1 can be used to represent infinites of relative lesser sizes then other infinites… (like the set of even integers is considered less then the set of even reals, or the set of evens period are considered infinite yet less big then all numbers…) and it is by that nature of the capacity to be infinite yet bigger or smaller that we thus can see in reality things that seem infinite only because say you seem smaller then the sun yet technically you have in you the same infinite number of infinitely small (technically not really there ) base particles of reality…
Indeed I am actually advocating the something from nothing argument, except the nothing is statelessness, as you say a kind of everythingness ~ kinda as if all polarities have been balanced out and so there is only neutral left. …except you cant have that without the polar opposites, so even neutral is erm neutralised so to say. Perhaps we could say its ‘Omni-polar’. the amount of whatever that is, is what denotes that energy is conserved imho. Strangely that’s an amount-less amount!
There is a difference between infinity and boundlessness, or at least I think so. One can have a line which keeps getting longer forever and hence is endless/boundless, but I think a proper description of infinity means to have no limits whatsoever.
Interesting! I agree in a sense and would take that to the idea of a single infinity at the base of all things. Then I’d scrub the idea of ‘infinity’ and put god there, as infinity itself is a limited concept even after we’ve gotten rid of all other limits. There has to be something that is mind, energy and form, or rather something else which once manifest are such things. That something can be infinite and it can be finite and as such is never ultimately either. it’s a kind of balance.
Yes that makes sense to me I once talked of how given absolute absence there would be or arrise absence of absence …thus existence…
Or i think of this scientifically and imagine a complete vacuum at which point the pull on space-time would be infinite (as opposed to the minute pull on mass of a minor vacuum(yes I am looking at it as a pull not mass falling into it)) and thus mass might be created by the very nature of nothingness to rip apart space time when that nothingness is complete…except that may never happen, relatively speaking if it did or will happen that time period is an infinite time-distance away…
That would just be a boundless infinite… there can definitely be infinites with bounds… for example a perfect discription of an infinite with one bound is a ray line… or all positive even integers…as that starts with a particular number… or 2 bounds by describing the center 3rd of a infinite line… bounded thus by two other infinite parts…
Yes… ultimately I would say that it is indeterminate… but according to the decider of relevance (the mind or perception) it will be considered to be one thing or another… because …well… it is indeterminate as to whether it is indeterminate…
Interesting, for me though I would think that mass is down the line of manifestation, there would be more subtle natures of expression/creation e.g. informations by which the physical derive?
Agreed. When considering infinities in terms of finites then calculus etc, makes a lot of sense.
…I just wouldn’t consider it in such terms as I am always aiming for ultimate descriptions, and have already decided there are no absolute limits to things, so no finite. I also think that one object become transmigratory to the context or indeed form of another when we consider things on a subtler level.
Haha indeed. The receiver [decider of relevance] of informations appears to be that by which they are determined [I don’t mean in a literal deterministic way].
.
