Discussion Infinity.

[NowItsSlimeTime]

In the finite nature of our world, our brains, we cannot grasp infinity. Does it even exist? What lies beyond our universe's constant expansion? If we have free will, and there are infinite parallel universes as a result, what is the end of THAT infinity?

Can infinity even exist?

Everything we know functions off the basis of finiteness. From life, with even stars exploding after a certain amount of time, to death, with bodies decomposing over time. Mass is consumed to make more mass which is then consumed by others. When does it end? DOES it end?

Some people believe in a concept known as an afterlife. True to it's name, it is something that takes place after life. Where all people can congregate and be together. Some believe that there are different sects, like heaven or hell. Some people believe in reincarnation, and that earth is it's own afterlife. These are all infinite concepts.

But at the end of the day they're just concepts.

We cannot prove to anyone that infinity actually exists. Does it exist? Maybe. Maybe on the outside of our expanding universe it does. And it helps to believe in infinity. Because if infinity is true then we aren't living pointless lives, with nothing to look forward to. Infinite possibility, promise and possibility. It's a nice thing to hold onto.

Do you believe in anything infinite? Is what I'm saying just a ramble?

 

[Doomer Guy]

If afterlife exists my place in hell is already reserved.

 

[Doomer Guy]

High IQ post.
As you said, none of these afterlife concepts (heaven, hell, reincarnation) can be proven... But at the same time, we know scientifically that the Universe isn't enternal. Space and time don't even exist from a quantic perspective.
So what could be outside of the Universe? What created the Universe? Could consciousness exist without a physical body?
So many questions, so little answers...

 

[NowItsSlimeTime]

High IQ post.
As you said, none of these afterlife concepts (heaven, hell, reincarnation) can be proven... But at the same time, we know scientifically that the Universe isn't enternal. Space and time don't even exist from a quantic perspective.
So what could be outside of the Universe? What created the Universe? Could consciousness exist without a physical body?
So many questions, so little answers...

These are all very interesting concepts. I like to blend my own religious beliefs with science, as I follow both. Thank you

 

[nice_try]

What lies beyond our universe's constant expansion?

Something.
This whole universe and existence itself is just too weird and too exact/specific to be just a coincidence. There's something going on, we just cannot grasp it (yet).

An interesting thought I had:

Have you ever noticed the similarity between the universe and a GTA map?
In the center we have the playable map with super high details and variety (earth).
The surrounding of the map is just (seemingly) endless space with low textures and low details (the universe with plenty of dull planets without life or variety).
The player cannot escape the playable map, even if he tries (humans would need to travel at the speed of light for BILLIONS of years just to reach the border of our milky way)

It's so mind-blowingly similar to me that the probability of this being a simulation seems very high to me.

So the next thought would be: Why a simulation? Maybe a training program? But why make it last so long then (human lifetime is quite long).
So it's probably not a training program, training programs are usually shorter and simpler.
So what is it then?

The next best thing I could come up with was:
A fish tank.

We are a fish tank for a higher being.
It watches us like pets. It created this fishtank (earth) for us where we have everything we need to live (and that is A LOT, so much it can't be a coincidence in my oppinion) and it enjoys watching us exist.

Ever heard about the saying: Fortune favours the bold. ?
You know why that is? Because it's more fun to watch the bold fishes instead of the boring fishes.
Imagine you have a fish tank. Which fishes do you like the most? The happy active fishes that swim around and have fun? Or the depressed fishes that do nothing but sleep in a hole the whole day? Exactly. You like the happy fishes more and you will feed them more and take care of them more.
It's the same with this earth and god.
You want luck? You want god to like you?
Then you have to be a happy fish and live a joyful life so that god has fun watching you and wants to care for you.
If you're the incel fish, god will be bored of you and not really give a fuck.



OK.
Please tell me if anything of what I wrote makes any sense to you or if you think that I'm an idiot, it would really help me out.

 

[NowItsSlimeTime]

Something.
This whole universe and existence itself is just too weird and too exact/specific to be just a coincidence. There's something going on, we just cannot grasp it (yet).

An interesting thought I had:

Have you ever noticed the similarity between the universe and a GTA map?
In the center we have the playable map with super high details and variety (earth).
The surrounding of the map is just (seemingly) endless space with low textures and low details (the universe with plenty of dull planets without life or variety).
The player cannot escape the playable map, even if he tries (humans would need to travel at the speed of light for BILLIONS of years just to reach the border of our milky way)

It's so mind-blowingly similar to me that the probability of this being a simulation seems very high to me.

So the next thought would be: Why a simulation? Maybe a training program? But why make it last so long then (human lifetime is quite long).
So it's probably not a training program, training programs are usually shorter and simpler.
So what is it then?

The next best thing I could come up with was:
A fish tank.

We are a fish tank for a higher being.
It watches us like pets. It created this fishtank (earth) for us where we have everything we need to live (and that is A LOT, so much it can't be a coincidence in my oppinion) and it enjoys watching us exist.

Ever heard about the saying: Fortune favours the bold. ?
You know why that is? Because it's more fun to watch the bold fishes instead of the boring fishes.
Imagine you have a fish tank. Which fishes do you like the most? The happy active fishes that swim around and have fun? Or the depressed fishes that do nothing but sleep in a hole the whole day? Exactly. You like the happy fishes more and you will feed them more and take care of them more.
It's the same with this earth and god.
You want luck? You want god to like you?
Then you have to be a happy fish and live a joyful life so that god has fun watching you and wants to care for you.
If you're the incel fish, god will be bored of you and not really give a fuck.



OK.
Please tell me if anything of what I wrote makes any sense to you or if you think that I'm an idiot, it would really help me out.

I think my least favorite infinity theories are simulation theories, if just because they make life seem so pointless. This one especially so. It makes us seem like just... things, designed to entertain one person. Puppets in some great game. Maybe it is true but I'd hope not. And why waste our time on saying stuff like that is true in the first place, too? It doesn't make anyone happy to think stuff like

If afterlife exists my place in hell is already reserved.

So why think it? The entire point of infinity as a concept is to believe whatever you want to believe. Ultimately, though there can be evidence of this or that which proves something or other, we don't have solid proof. Believe something that will make you happy, if anything at all.

It makes sense, your theory, I just don't like it.

 

[WizardofSoda]

Way I look at infinity is its an idea that is imaginary. But imaginary concepts are still useful for proving some math ideas.

Like our universe whether real or simulated, I think it will be finite in size. Even if it is some insane size like 1,000 times larger than scientists currently believe, that is still finite.

For very large numbers I have been using 'some astronomical number'.

 

[WizardofSoda]

I think my least favorite infinity theories are simulation theories, if just because they make life seem so pointless. This one especially so. It makes us seem like just... things, designed to entertain one person. Puppets in some great game. Maybe it is true but I'd hope not. And why waste our time on saying stuff like that is true in the first place, too? It doesn't make anyone happy to think stuff like



So why think it? The entire point of infinity as a concept is to believe whatever you want to believe. Ultimately, though there can be evidence of this or that which proves something or other, we don't have solid proof. Believe something that will make you happy, if anything at all.

It makes sense, your theory, I just don't like it.

I think organized religion came up with this idea of a God that created this universe for entertainment purposes. The idea then is the priests of the organized religion only they can speak to this god/know the secrets to win favor with this god. And then the normies pay money monthly to the religion to keep in good favor with that god.

The problem in my simulations/reincarnation religion is that the creator isn't intervening in our universe. But this means there wouldn't be a point for normies to pay money to the priests to win favor. So without a constant very large revenue stream, how do you have organized religion - you don't.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Did you know that there are different levels of infinity!

 

[NowItsSlimeTime]

I think organized religion came up with this idea of a God that created this universe for entertainment purposes. The idea then is the priests of the organized religion only they can speak to this god/know the secrets to win favor with this god. And then the normies pay money monthly to the religion to keep in good favor with that god.

The problem in my simulations/reincarnation religion is that the creator isn't intervening in our universe. But this means there wouldn't be a point for normies to pay money to the priests to win favor. So without a constant very large revenue stream, how do you have organized religion - you don't.

Organized religion is a slippery slope. The thing is, how can we differentiate religion from cults? Every religious order, sects within religious orders, even some gods like Dionysus started as a cult. Cults and religions are both predatory in that you have to believe in it, your friends do, and if you don't show support you die. But they're also important. Keeps people from asking questions, especially back in the day.

"Why do we have a king?" "God." "Why the death penalty?" "They go to hell." "Why are we fighting?" "God told us to."

I'm religious myself, but I don't believe everything that is written because people use that shit for their own gain.

 

[Mega Coper]

Have you ever noticed the similarity between the universe and a GTA map?
In the center we have the playable map with super high details and variety (earth).
The surrounding of the map is just (seemingly) endless space with low textures and low details (the universe with plenty of dull planets without life or variety).
The player cannot escape the playable map, even if he tries (humans would need to travel at the speed of light for BILLIONS of years just to reach the border of our milky way)

It's so mind-blowingly similar to me that the probability of this being a simulation seems very high to me.

Glad to see someone with similar ideas. I also have the same feeling while playing life simulators like GTA. Instead of the fish tank arc, I think our universe is a simulation created by a very advanced civilization for entertainment as well where they have pretty much achieved everything achievable, so life is kinda boring or perhaps they're incels who need a hyper real cope. I think the people in this world or at least some of them are people from the outside who want to re-experience life fully and what better immersion than not remembering how you got there and have to experience it on a linear timeline? Essentially an escape from reality. This makes sense to me because it's something I would do and could see happening in the far future tbh. I also think inherent laws of nature (physics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics) are strikingly similar to a programmed environment (we have to follow them after all).


The only thing that troubles me is the start of the universe. The big bang doesn't really make sense to me logically and if we were created by other beings, then how did their universe come into existence? Perhaps it's in a way we simply cannot comprehend, but it seems to be circular logic.

 

[NoLooksNoLife]

In the finite nature of our world, our brains, we cannot grasp infinity. Does it even exist? What lies beyond our universe's constant expansion? If we have free will, and there are infinite parallel universes as a result, what is the end of THAT infinity?

Can infinity even exist?

Everything we know functions off the basis of finiteness. From life, with even stars exploding after a certain amount of time, to death, with bodies decomposing over time. Mass is consumed to make more mass which is then consumed by others. When does it end? DOES it end?

Some people believe in a concept known as an afterlife. True to it's name, it is something that takes place after life. Where all people can congregate and be together. Some believe that there are different sects, like heaven or hell. Some people believe in reincarnation, and that earth is it's own afterlife. These are all infinite concepts.

But at the end of the day they're just concepts.

We cannot prove to anyone that infinity actually exists. Does it exist? Maybe. Maybe on the outside of our expanding universe it does. And it helps to believe in infinity. Because if infinity is true then we aren't living pointless lives, with nothing to look forward to. Infinite possibility, promise and possibility. It's a nice thing to hold onto.

Do you believe in anything infinite? Is what I'm saying just a ramble?

Dnr

 

[nice_try]

Glad to see someone with similar ideas. I also have the same feeling while playing life simulators like GTA. Instead of the fish tank arc, I think our universe is a simulation created by a very advanced civilization for entertainment as well where they have pretty much achieved everything achievable, so life is kinda boring or perhaps they're incels who need a hyper real cope. I think the people in this world or at least some of them are people from the outside who want to re-experience life fully and what better immersion than not remembering how you got there and have to experience it on a linear timeline? Essentially an escape from reality. This makes sense to me because it's something I would do and could see happening in the far future tbh. I also think inherent laws of nature (physics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics) are strikingly similar to a programmed environment (we have to follow them after all).

Damn, that's also an interesting idea.

Imagine a civilization that has achieved everything. Maybe even immortality, maybe by transfering the mind/consciousness onto hardware so it couldn't die anymore. Imagine you are an immortal conciousness living a perfect life because your civilization is so advanced.
I assume that would get boring real quick, so living through a (simulated) finite life could probably be a very thrilling and exciting experience, basically as a cope to being immortal, idk.

Another thing to think about:
What do good computer games want to achieve? - Immersion.
What would be the highest level of immersion possible? - Not knowing that you're in a game.


I mean the whole simulation theory just makes so much sense, it's ridiculous. I mean what are the chances that there's this one particular planet earth that has a thousand parameters in line (correct distance from the sun, correct speed to not drift into or away from the sun, an atmosphere, perfect temperatures, etc) for life to even come into existence, meanwhile every other planet in a billion lightyear radius is quite literally just rocks or gas, I mean cmon ...

But yeah, interesting stuff.

 

[Mega Coper]

I mean the whole simulation theory just makes so much sense, it's ridiculous. I mean what are the chances that there's this one particular planet earth that has a thousand parameters in line (correct distance from the sun, correct speed to not drift into or away from the sun, an atmosphere, perfect temperatures, etc) for life to even come into existence, meanwhile every other planet in a billion lightyear radius is quite literally just rocks or gas, I mean cmon ...

Copers will say abiogenesis and random chance . I guess I have to give it to them for trying to explain our existence based on things we have encountered and are theoretically possible. I don't know if we could ever confirm that we are actually living in a simulation even when it really does seem like it.

 

[nice_try]

Copers will say abiogenesis and random chance . I guess I have to give it to them for trying to explain our existence based on things we have encountered and are theoretically possible. I don't know if we could ever confirm that we are actually living in a simulation even when it really does seem like it.

Man, these existential thoughts are really hard to digest.

But they're good stuff to prepare for death, because if you think about it there are only 2 options:

a) it's all just a huge coincidence and there's no afterlife, you just cease to exist, which means this whole planet and existence itself is absolutely worthless, not sustainable and therefore nothing to be sad about losing.

or

b) there's more to it all and you'll probably find answers after your death.

so basically you can only win.

 

[Oroborus]

 

[based_meme]

@based_meme

Thanks for the tag, brocel.

 

[NowItsSlimeTime]

Dnr

Ddlc

 

[Postmaxxercel50k]

Dnr

 

[ResidentHell]

The regression argument states that any event can be infinitely questioned due to the possibility of an event being the outcome of an infinite series of previous events. For example, a conclusion may have a premise, where the premise of the conclusion may also have a premise, where the premise of the premise of the conclusion may also have a premise, and so on to infinity

The reason why infinite regression can lead to a logical predicament is because it would be impossible for an infinite series of events to have a fixed point of origin (or a fixed end point). This condition enables the element of doubt about any observed event, because chronologically it would be impossible for any specific event to happen when there's not a fixed point of origin to the sequence of events that would have ultimately lead to a specific outcome (of which the outcome would have been a specific event)

But this doesn't ultimately invalidate the possibility of an infinite regression, because proof of existence is relative to conscuiousness. Existence would normally be identified and validated by a standard of measurement that can be employed within the field of conscious perception. Without consciousness, "existence" becomes a complete mystery. If you assume there has been a point or phase in "time" when consciousness was absolutely non-existent, it would have been totally impossible to identify "existence" at that point or phase. But if consciousness has existed without any limit or partition in its duration, it would have inevitably perceived "existence" as an eternal phenomenon

Ideally, it would be possible for existence to occur beyond the realm of consciousness. But the issue is that it would be impossible to prove this is true, even if it is true. A sensible conclusion to the dilemma of infinite regression would be that infinity exists based on the assertion that "existence precedes consciousness" or "a certain consciousness neither has a limit nor partition in the duration of its existence". But the problem is that it's unclear as to whether it is possible to consciously observe the whole extent of infiniteness in existence at any precise moment in time

In conclusion, it's not certain whether it's possible to prove that infinity exists, because it's uncertain whether it is possible to consciously observe the whole extent of infiniteness in existence at any particular instant. Although it would be sensible to conclude that infinity does exist based on the assertion that "existence precedes awareness" or "a certain consciousness neither has a limit nor partition in the duration of its existence"

 

[LeFrenchCel]

@Infinity

 

[based_meme]

Ideally, it would be possible for existence to occur beyond the realm of consciousness. But the issue is that it would be impossible to prove this is true, even if it is true. A sensible conclusion to the dilemma of infinite regression would be that infinity exists based on the assertion that "existence precedes consciousness" or "a certain consciousness neither has a limit nor partition in the duration of its existence". But the problem is that it's unclear as to whether it is possible to consciously observe the whole extent of infiniteness in existence at any precise moment in time

We have empirical evidence that our earth existed long before any conscious being arose on the planet. So we already we know that it's possible for existence to precede consciousness in the finite set.

In conclusion, it's not certain whether it's possible to prove that infinity exists, because it's uncertain whether it is possible to consciously observe the whole extent of infiniteness in existence at any particular instant. Although it would be sensible to conclude that infinity does exist based on the assertion that "existence precedes awareness" or "a certain consciousness neither has a limit nor partition in the duration of its existence"

It's not logically possible for a finite instantiation of consciousness to observe infinity, which leaves us with the only other alternative: an non-finite (infinite) instantiation of it observing infinity. Then, we must conclude that in order for the observation of infinity to be possible, neither existence nor consciousness must precede the other, and that both must simulatenously exist for this observation to be possible.

This infinite instantiation of consciousness is what we all know as the concept of God.

 

[DenHaag]

The regression argument states that any event can be infinitely questioned due to the possibility of an event being the outcome of an infinite series of previous events. For example, a conclusion may have a premise, where the premise of the conclusion may also have a premise, where the premise of the premise of the conclusion may also have a premise, and so on to infinity

The reason why infinite regression can lead to a logical predicament is because it would be impossible for an infinite series of events to have a fixed point of origin (or a fixed end point). This condition enables the element of doubt about any observed event, because chronologically it would be impossible for any specific event to happen when there's not a fixed point of origin to the sequence of events that would have ultimately lead to a specific outcome (of which the outcome would have been a specific event)

But this doesn't ultimately invalidate the possibility of an infinite regression, because proof of existence is relative to conscuiousness. Existence would normally be identified and validated by a standard of measurement that can be employed within the field of conscious perception. Without consciousness, "existence" becomes a complete mystery. If you assume there has been a point or phase in "time" when consciousness was absolutely non-existent, it would have been totally impossible to identify "existence" at that point or phase. But if consciousness has existed without any limit or partition in its duration, it would have inevitably perceived "existence" as an eternal phenomenon

Ideally, it would be possible for existence to occur beyond the realm of consciousness. But the issue is that it would be impossible to prove this is true, even if it is true. A sensible conclusion to the dilemma of infinite regression would be that infinity exists based on the assertion that "existence precedes consciousness" or "a certain consciousness neither has a limit nor partition in the duration of its existence". But the problem is that it's unclear as to whether it is possible to consciously observe the whole extent of infiniteness in existence at any precise moment in time

In conclusion, it's not certain whether it's possible to prove that infinity exists, because it's uncertain whether it is possible to consciously observe the whole extent of infiniteness in existence at any particular instant. Although it would be sensible to conclude that infinity does exist based on the assertion that "existence precedes awareness" or "a certain consciousness neither has a limit nor partition in the duration of its existence"

Well said.

The breaking points of consciousness point to the precedent existence beyond it—thinking of the paradoxes of Zeno and Nagarjuna—even in a way Goedel.

Infinity at the ultimate cardinality encompasses more relations and predicates than consciousness and even existence itself.

 

[ResidentHell]

we must conclude that in order for the observation of infinity to be possible, neither existence nor consciousness must precede the other

This depends on what you mean by "infinity". Theoretically, infiniteness can take on a few different forms of being, like eternity, infinite size and infinite quantity

non-finite (infinite) instantiation of it observing infinity

In theory a "non-finite instantiation of consciousness", could be an "instantiation of consciousness" that is devoid of limitation or partition in time, quantity or size / expanse

As for an instantiation of consciousness devoid of limitation in quantity, this could be an unlimited amount of different consciousness that have somehow merged or converged into the same realm of existence, in which all of the seperate consciousnesses observe phenomena or obtain some experience

As for an instantiation of consciousness devoid of limitation or partition in time, this could be a space-restricted, quantity-limited consciousness that has existed and remained existent without any limit or partition in the duration of its existence

As for an instantiation of consciousness devoid of limitation or partition in size / expanse, this could be a time-restricted, quantity-limited consciousness that currently has complete knowledge of all things that currently exist in multi-dimensional space (this is based on presumption that the expanse of multi-dimensional space is infinite)

This infinite instantiation of consciousness is what we all know as the concept of God

However the "infinite instantiation of consciousness" could be defined by the absence of a limit in at least one of three ontological aspects of existence (which was explained in previous points): time, quantity and size / expanse

If an "infinite instantiation of consciousness" can be devoid of a limit in at least one ontological aspect of existence, can it have a limit in another ontological aspect of existence that may be related to it? (e.g. can an "infinite instantiation of consciousness" be a consciousness devoid of any limitation or partition in the duration of its existence, but be quantity-restricted and space-restricted simultaneously?)

Basically can the being of "God" be infinite in one aspect of its / their being, and simultaneously be restricted in other aspects of its / their being?

 

[based_meme]

This depends on what you mean by "infinity". Theoretically, infiniteness can take on a few different forms of being, like eternity, infinite size and infinite quantity

What do you mean by infinity? I highly doubt that we're discussing different concepts.

Infinite means everything without end. Infinity doesn't have forms. Infinity includes the set of all finite things, whether they are objects, attributes properties, or anything really, and it includes an infinite amount of them. It also includes an infinite amount of infinite things.

In theory a "non-finite instantiation of consciousness", could be an "instantiation of consciousness" that is devoid of limitation or partition in time, quantity or size / expanse

Yes. Logically, it would have to be unconstrained and not limited in any way, shape or form, including the properties you listed.

As for an instantiation of consciousness devoid of limitation in quantity, this could be an unlimited amount of different consciousness that have somehow merged or converged into the same realm of existence, in which all of the seperate consciousnesses observe phenomena or obtain some experience

As far as infinity is concerned, there would be an infinity of infinite consciousnesses. This is tautological.

As for an instantiation of consciousness devoid of limitation or partition in time, this could be a space-restricted, quantity-limited consciousness that has existed and remained existent without any limit or partition in the duration of its existence

It wouldn't really be "one infinite consciousness," since one is finite. Since we can't grasp the essence of infinity from a finite perspective through experience, we use our limited language to describe it as "an instantiation of infinite consciousness" (IIC). We can then begin to scratch the surface and understand the totality of what it could mean to be an IIC.

As for an instantiation of consciousness devoid of limitation or partition in size / expanse, this could be a time-restricted, quantity-limited consciousness that currently has complete knowledge of all things that currently exist in multi-dimensional space (this is based on presumption that the expanse of multi-dimensional space is infinite)

An IIC would have all of the finite information possible, and hence have perfect knowledge. This includes all possible branching probability combination outcomes.

However the "infinite instantiation of consciousness" could be defined by the absence of a limit in at least one of three ontological aspects of existence (which was explained in previous points): time, quantity and size / expanse

If an "infinite instantiation of consciousness" can be devoid of a limit in at least one ontological aspect of existence, can it have a limit in another ontological aspect of existence that may be related to it? (e.g. can an "infinite instantiation of consciousness" be a consciousness devoid of any limitation or partition in the duration of its existence, but be quantity-restricted and space-restricted simultaneously?)

Basically can the being of "God" be infinite in one aspect of its / their being, and simultaneously be restricted in other aspects of its / their being?

No, you cannot logically have a finite set of aspects with infinite quantity/magnitude. This means that no aspect of God can be finite, if we were to define God as an (the, really) IIC.

N.B. We're discussing philosophical infinity, not mathematical infinity that is based on set-theoretic ZF axioms. In maths infinity is a concept that has special uses in mathematical reasoning and computation. In logic the concept is not partitioned with special uses cases.

 

[ResidentHell]

What do you mean by infinity? I highly doubt that we're discussing different concepts.

By "infinity", I mean the limitless of something that has to do with size, length or amount

An IIC would have all of the finite information possible, and hence have perfect knowledge. This includes all possible branching probability combination outcomes

If "IIC" were to have total knowledge of all finite information possible, this condition would likely include entropy of information. If all possible outcomes of existence would be infinite, some of the outcomes may be inconsistent with a logical system (e.g. white noise, paradoxical objects like "round square")

If "IIC" were to "know all things", it would be exposed to the dilemma of having to rationalize information that seem to be chaotic (as in without order) or logically inconsistent. If "IIC" exists, how would it rationalize information that clearly doesn't have a pattern or orderliness about it?