Religious people aren't built for logical debate.

[SciWriter]

there is no amount. infinity has no amount

Or it, potentially, has all amount, and more, as unbounded.

I guess we need a new word, as it might turn out embarrassing if we were to replace our uses of 'infinity' in our text with "that which can never be", for people would say, "See, you're speaking of something that you by definition say cannot ever happen."

(I'm going with the flow.)

 

[universaldistress]

"Nothing, everything, unbounded duration and extent all seem to have to be in the package together, along with with no special time or place, no special anything at all. And so we get away from having to account for specific locations in times for any happenings, for there can be no accounting for the causeless."

Special is a relative construct. But the relative, every individual point in infinity, at once, is not special, it is infinite.

 

[SciWriter]

Nor would there be any one specific center of history. Seems that there is only now, this being everywhere as well.

It is only now, then, for that’s all there can be, yet every possible ‘now’ is out there, somewhere, the universe containing its own history and future, it even possibly being able to use the future in the present, for no-origin systems are their own precursors, and that's still an apparently strange notion to swallow.

 

[universaldistress]

Or it, potentially, has all amount, and more, as unbounded.

I guess we need a new word, as it might turn out embarrassing if we were to replace our uses of 'infinity' in our text with "that which can never be", for people would say, "See, you're speaking of something that you by definition say cannot ever happen."

(I'm going with the flow.)

Yes all amount but still infinite.

I like it lol then this debate would be even more pointless than it already is lol Infinityism's echoes lost in a sea of eternity.

I see it as without end, the modern usage of the term.

This is the starting point for my theory.

 

[universaldistress]

Nor would there be any one specific center of history. Seems that there is only now, this being everywhere as well.

It is only now, then, for that’s all there can be, yet every possible ‘now’ is out there, somewhere, the universe containing its own history and future, it even possibly being able to use the future in the present, for no-origin systems are their own precursors, and that's still an apparently strange notion to swallow.

Yes. I am not sure about the idea that there is out there replicas. There are so many variables, but infinity says that there has to be repeats. Even if most of the rest of it is following different laws, as it must, there is just no limit, so eventually you return to the same, but not the same as it is another.

 

[universaldistress]

Yes. I am not sure about the idea that there is out there replicas. There are so many variables, but infinity says that there has to be repeats. Even if most of the rest of it is following different laws, as it must, there is just no limit, so eventually you return to the same, but not the same as it is another.

And the only other explanation is that we just do not understand.

or my brand new theory . . .

 

[universaldistress]

Yes. I am not sure about the idea that there is out there replicas. There are so many variables, but infinity says that there has to be repeats. Even if most of the rest of it is following different laws, as it must, there is just no limit, so eventually you return to the same, but not the same as it is another.

This seems to support parallel universes but they wouldn't be connected just coinciding.

 

[universaldistress]

Infinity in all directions.

 

[SciWriter]

Let's hope that our replicas are really far away, both in space and time, rather than nearby and doing things that might give us a bad name.

Why, just the other day, I was having a quiet evening at home reading the Dead Sea Scrolls that Chi gave me, and someone claimed to have seen me at that very instant in a bar and drinking too much. Wait til I catch that clown of a clone! I'll send him an infinite distance away in extent and an eternal duration away in time.

 

[universaldistress]

Don't do that. Take him out for a drink, I reckon he would be an interesting guy to talk infinity with

There would be enough differences genetic or quantum (depending on the degree and mode of split) to be able to entertain each other enough.

In fact sometimes I think that an exact copy of myself could be interesting headbanging.

 

[universaldistress]

Don't do that. Take him out for a drink, I reckon he would be an interesting guy to talk infinity with

There would be enough differences genetic or quantum (depending on the degree and mode of split) to be able to entertain each other enough.

In fact sometimes I think that an exact copy of myself could be interesting headbanging.

As soon as the split occurs a different direction would be taken.

On a parallel tangent, have you considered human entanglement?

 

[SciWriter]

Don't do that. Take him out for a drink, I reckon he would be an interesting guy to talk infinity with

There would be enough differences genetic or quantum (depending on the degree and mode of split) to be able to entertain each other enough.

In fact sometimes I think that an exact copy of myself could be interesting headbanging.

OK, I've given up on the Dead Sea Scrolls and have gone out drinking.

The exactness of the replica would depend on how much resolution there really is in reality, or even looking at it as how many degrees could there be in the morphing of one face into another, which is a popular diversion.

 

[universaldistress]

The exactness of the replica would depend on how much resolution there really is in reality, or even looking at it as how many degrees could there be in the morphing of one face into another, which is a popular diversion.

Is that with or without the beer? Everything seems to morph after 10 pints of 'Stella' :bugeye:

Or how far one went with the copy, how far within etc. the depth of resolution one chooses to specify in the cloning procedure. And how far out those differences could emanate their effections. Like the idea of quantum genetics or even deeper.

With just macro genetics (so to speak) we may be left wanting.

I have got to sleep, 3.25 here, have agood one.

 

[SciWriter]

OK, and have a lucid dream, for in there we can be God and do anything, even breaking the laws of physics and floating thought the air.

Here's some more breakfast food for thought, even if it repeats a bit:


It’s only those things that we don’t know are possible that we can’t say for sure. We’ll have to wait for better computers to figure it out, a daunting task since even a state of one change of one atom requires a precursor form and a series of prior events cascading backwards through infinite time and across infinite space.

However, there is still every possible combination of matter and energy; it’s just the resolution that remains unknown. Think of morphing objects together; the resolution is like how many intermediate stages there are (possibly infinite, but who knows).

I am calling this notion ‘supercontinuity’. It says that any object known to us, whether a galaxy, planet, person, or whatever has a prodigious number number of very similar examples in space somewhere, varying along every possible parameter. This supercontinuity must be true by virtue of the universe’s permutational variability. The only question, still, is what is its resolution: how closely can these (separated) instances of any given type of object resemble each other?

For example, even on Earth, between human races, the percentage of DNA separation is less than .1 percent (2% between chimps and humans). There is even a web site where one can look up their so-called ‘doubles’ on Earth. Identical twins have identical DNA, but differing experiences (so we are not yet at the stage of identicality). To be exactly the same, they would have to have the same molecules and quantum states.

But, heck, there is all of space and all of time; thus, it is very likely, even certain, that at least some intermediate states of a certain resolution exist somewhere at this very moment, and always did and will at any given time. If there is not exactly another Earth, surely there could be one whose only minor difference was one unnoticeable at the atomic level.

 

[SciWriter]

OK, and have some lucid dream, for in there we can be God and do anything, even breaking the laws of physics and floating though the air.

Here's some more breakfast food for thought, even if it repeats a bit:


It’s only those things that we don’t know are possible that we can’t say for sure. We’ll have to wait for better computers to figure it out, a daunting task since even a state of one change of one atom requires a precursor form and a series of prior events cascading backwards through infinite time and across infinite space.

However, there is still every possible combination of matter and energy; it’s just the resolution that remains unknown. Think of morphing objects together; the resolution is like how many intermediate stages there are (possibly infinite, but who knows).

I am calling this notion ‘supercontinuity’. It says that any object known to us, whether a galaxy, planet, person, or whatever has a prodigious number number of very similar examples in space somewhere, varying along every possible parameter. This supercontinuity must be true by virtue of the universe’s permutational variability. The only question, still, is what is its resolution: how closely can these (separated) instances of any given type of object resemble each other?

For example, even on Earth, between human races, the percentage of DNA separation is less than .1 percent (2% between chimps and humans). There is even a web site where one can look up their so-called ‘doubles’ on Earth. Identical twins have identical DNA, but differing experiences (so we are not yet at the stage of identicality). To be exactly the same, they would have to have the same molecules and quantum states.

But, heck, there is all of space and all of time; thus, it is very likely, even certain, that at least some intermediate states of a certain resolution exist somewhere at this very moment, and always did and will at any given time. If there is not exactly another Earth, surely there could be one whose only minor difference was one unnoticeable at the atomic level.

 

[universaldistress]

Double trouble lol (double meaning)

 

[SciWriter]

More 'trouble'…

The exterior of infinite largeness bounds the infinitely small interior of infinitesimal smallness, an inescapable consequence of closure—closure being the level of existence where the large becomes indistinguishable from the small, both merging into the singularity of Totality: zero.

Imagine an enormous sphere in space, growing progressively more immense. As long as its volume remains finite, it is a three-dimensional object with a two-dimensional surface. When its volume reaches infinity, its three-dimensional interior is now the surface by which it is bounded. The sphere becomes inverted, just as infinite smallness and largeness can be inverted. The largest, via dispersal, and the smallest, via compaction, are the same vacant ends of Totality’s spectrum: zippo.

The two halves of Totality, delineated by polarity (charge), of, I will say, positive ‘yang’ and negative ‘yin’, just for fun, nullifies all of existence in the overview. This is because the only possible prime mover that is infinite and eternal is nothing, it requiring nothing prior to itself but itself. Yet, it is so unstable that it cannot absolutely exist, even for an instant. And so it is that we reside here, in this balance of opposites, necessarily at the mid-point of the largest and smallest infinities.

It is now, for that’s all there can be, yet every ‘now’ is out there, somewhere, the universe containing its own history and future, it even possibly being able to use the future in the present, for no-origin systems are their own precursors.

 

[universaldistress]

OK, and have some lucid dream, for in there we can be God and do anything, even breaking the laws of physics and floating though the air.

Here's some more breakfast food for thought, even if it repeats a bit:


It’s only those things that we don’t know are possible that we can’t say for sure. We’ll have to wait for better computers to figure it out, a daunting task since even a state of one change of one atom requires a precursor form and a series of prior events cascading backwards through infinite time and across infinite space.

However, there is still every possible combination of matter and energy; it’s just the resolution that remains unknown. Think of morphing objects together; the resolution is like how many intermediate stages there are (possibly infinite, but who knows).

I am calling this notion ‘supercontinuity’. It says that any object known to us, whether a galaxy, planet, person, or whatever has a prodigious number number of very similar examples in space somewhere, varying along every possible parameter. This supercontinuity must be true by virtue of the universe’s permutational variability. The only question, still, is what is its resolution: how closely can these (separated) instances of any given type of object resemble each other?

For example, even on Earth, between human races, the percentage of DNA separation is less than .1 percent (2% between chimps and humans). There is even a web site where one can look up their so-called ‘doubles’ on Earth. Identical twins have identical DNA, but differing experiences (so we are not yet at the stage of identicality). To be exactly the same, they would have to have the same molecules and quantum states.

But, heck, there is all of space and all of time; thus, it is very likely, even certain, that at least some intermediate states of a certain resolution exist somewhere at this very moment, and always did and will at any given time. If there is not exactly another Earth, surely there could be one whose only minor difference was one unnoticeable at the atomic level.

I have some musings around this which I may post tomorrow.

 

[universaldistress]

More 'trouble'…

The exterior of infinite largeness bounds the infinitely small interior of infinitesimal smallness, an inescapable consequence of closure—closure being the level of existence where the large becomes indistinguishable from the small, both merging into the singularity of Totality: zero.

Yes I have totally got this, though my form inserts more between the join.

Imagine an enormous sphere in space, growing progressively more immense. As long as its volume remains finite, it is a three-dimensional object with a two-dimensional surface. When its volume reaches infinity, its three-dimensional interior is now the surface by which it is bounded. The sphere becomes inverted, just as infinite smallness and largeness can be inverted. The largest, via dispersal, and the smallest, via compaction, are the same vacant ends of Totality’s spectrum: zippo.

The two halves of Totality, delineated by polarity (charge), of, I will say, positive ‘yang’ and negative ‘yin’, just for fun, nullifies all of existence in the overview. This is because the only possible prime mover that is infinite and eternal is nothing, it requiring nothing prior to itself but itself. Yet, it is so unstable that it cannot absolutely exist, even for an instant. And so it is that we reside here, in this balance of opposites, necessarily at the mid-point of the largest and smallest infinities.

It is now, for that’s all there can be, yet every ‘now’ is out there, somewhere, the universe containing its own history and future, it even possibly being able to use the future in the present, for no-origin systems are their own precursors.

I am getting a picture of understanding to your theory. It is probably superior to mine in that it doesn't seek to create to much extra construction. I know this is flaw in my theory but mine is to be explored through fiction so anything goes.

I suppose it is all highly conjectural anyway. Like I said, I may post something more on those other extrapolations tomorrow, though bed beckons now.

I will reread your last post again too, see if I have any input to offer within your frame, instead of asserting my own (got to read-up on that einstein stuff you posted as well, maybe wiki?)

tired :sleep:

 

[SciWriter]