Understanding infinity from boolean logic and geometry

Post Reply New Topic

The word infinity comes from the latin word meaning Unbounded, or indistinct.

In geometry, what makes something distinct from something else? Only a few things: Area's, dots and boundaries. Lines are just merged dots or dots stitched together (merged) or separated (dispersed).

Now there are many definitions of infinity, but to think of infinity in the general sense it makes sense if you begin here. In boolean logic this would mean, either filled or reverse filled. Either on or off, instantaneous velocity or transmission velocity. There is no squence of in between movements in boolean space, you are either in the space (filling it) or not filling it. You "Jump" instantaneously between areas in boolean space (imagine 2 concentric circles on the ground, and you jump between them and land exactly in the middle of each one, except when you make the jump, you are instantaneously transported from the middle of the first circle, to the middle of the next, and the empty space in the 2nd circle is instantly transported (displaced) to the first circle behind you. (it helps to imagine it as 2 spheres connected by an "infinitely reflective point" (a node of instant transmission) in the middle.

People try to think of infinity as a number, but it can't actually "BE a number" in the traditional sense of how we understand numbers, because a number is a an object and objects are BOUNDED (defined) to mean something. When mathematicians count numbers or create them in their imaginary symbolic space, they don't realize that we use numbers to describe things that are for the most part could be described with infinitely many points, it's just where we continue to stop (bind (choose) a number), Imagine you're polishing a mirror for a new space telescope do you make an object "infinitely" smooth, by dividing and dividing again the measurements, or do you at some point stop and the mirror is smooth enough?

If you really want to see what it is like to understand infinity, go get a hand held mirror and cover it partially with a piece of solid or semi translucent tape that is easy to unstick from the mirror, and then stand in front of another one like your bathroom mirror and reflect the mirror back on itself. That is essentially infinity: The point of infinite reflection, something that unidirectionally reflects back on itself like a circle, infinity is a surprisingly easy concept to understand. Once you understand that its infinitely reflective *unidirectional* geometric series of "vortex like (spinning)" conic rays towards a point in space, or a surface like your mirror, that fades (compresses) into a point that merges, because all the images when you look off into that "hall of mirrors" you've just created merges into an area (a completely filled space near the "Vanishing point" (the point where objects lose their boundaries and become unbounded)), all the images created from that eternal reflection, at some point become squished together "infinitely" (completely filled) where no object is distinguishable from any other object: all objects merge and lose their boundaries! (That is to lose distinction or boundedness)

Mathematicians the symbolic terrorists

Traditional mathematics obscures the concept of infinity because math is a tool for measurement, but most mathematicians forget that math is arbitrarily defined symbols we apply to positions on a line or surface somewhere located in a space. We simply choose a point and then begin counting (creating ones or subdivisions of 1) in a direction (a vector or simply an arrow pointing in a linear direction), in school you really only count 1's and fractions of 1 in one or two directions on the old fashioned number line (... -2 -1 0 1 2 3 ... ), they never teach you that you can count geometrically in 3D space, from any angle in any direction and even many or all directions at once from arbitrarily chosen points in a space.

The concept of one or one-ness



The concept of one-ness, what is a number? Well I'll tell you what numbers really are, they are whole or partial reflections of the concept of one. Or, numbers are BOUNDED OBJECTS or an object that is bounded (distinct) from something else. Why do I say this? Because all numbers are nothing more then reflections (creations of one, fully or partial like 1, 1/3 or 0.5 (5x0.1) or reverse reflections (destructions (partial or total seperations) of 1), and you can infinitely create (knit/stitch) ones together or infinitely destroy them into infinitely many pieces. Why do I say create or destroy? Because as you remember: Numbers are bounded objects, and numbers are DESCRIPTIONS of OBJECTS in the real world. Be it binary data, or the length of a wall, or the "mass" (how filled with energy) of an atom.

Now why do I say infinity is simply unidirectionally reflective geometric series towards a point? Look in the mirror, geometric series existed before we assigned numbers to them, (1/2, 1/4, 1/16, 1/32, ...) what you see in the mirror is such a series, all you need is two (or more) mirrors reflecting back on itself to DISCOVER certain things that about math, and how we choose to assign symbolic representations to things we see like (i.e. geometric series) which in the real world can be seen visually (instead in symbolic numeric notation) two mirrors reflecting an object or parts of objects back on themselves.

Math is a symbolic subset of measurement ("detecting, feeling and sensing things")

Math is really the concept and field of Measurement, and not just measurement, measurement of shapes, colors, lights, sounds and objects, basically math is the measure of objects that have boundaries and distinction. Now say we want to know how long the coastline of Britain is, from a mathematical standpoint we'd want to fill all the cracks and crevices along the coast with a ruler that gets smaller and smaller and smaller, but now lets try something else. Draw a circle on a 2D piece of paper, and measure it with a ruler... a problem starts to occur, the more you measure, you hit a point where you keep adding measurement nodes to the circle, or you hit a point where all your measurements begin to merge (imagine a circle where you keep creating dots on a growing ruler by dividing the distance again and again, over time, and you see this circle animating, kind of like a dots traveling around the boundary in wave, as the previous scale dots keep moving and moving.

Therefore infinity is a data space, or boolean probability field, think of 1 and zero joined and flickering vibrating, in "half on" and "half off" state)... basically. the state between zero and 1, unboundedness. When we choose a number, what we are really doing is pulling strings of data (0's and 1's, ons and offs) from an infinite ball of string and making dots, and then connecting dots with lines and making shapes with them. It is the creation of boundaries around an point on a line or a dot we've created in a data space that we've now created objects. Imagine it as the units from which all data are constructed : One's and 0's, existing or not, on or off. and then drawing lines between off or on nodes in any infinite number of patterns in 3D space of 2D planes of 1D dots (nodes), of being in the state of on or off.

Now lets say we're god for the sake of argument and we want to build a new universe, for my example we'll do it in 2D. We have a plane of paper in front of us that represents a "blank sheet" of paper (basically no space time has been created yet).

So how do we create an area for (bounded objects, i.e. boundaries around unchosen or unwound data) to exist in? By drawing dots (nodes) binary points that are either on (connected) or off (disconnected), 1 being filled, 0 being not filled. So we begin to draw dots around a chosen center point on our paper, in an equidistant manner creating a concentric circle (of any size you wish to use). So now we connect the dots and now we have a boundary around an area or a "space", but in the creation of that finite space, that finite space is now connected to "unified space (infinite space) and it's inverse (finite space). The easy way to understand how its connected is by simply imagining sciences believe in the unbroken chain of cause-and-effect, of the chain is unbroken everywhere for all time, then it must be connected at some central point, otherwise there is no unbroken chain of cause and effect, and cause and effect breaks down completely and there is no boundaries between objects and all energy in the universe merges back to "unified space" of our 2D paper universe (it helps if you imagine that the paper doesn't have a boundary and is not square or measurable, that there is an infinite geometric series of projection translucent echoes of that paper in every direction filling the whole universe.

The data space (the space between zero and 1)

So if infinity is unbounded (filled, all connected, merged), the finitude is the unmerging and dividing and creation of boundaries from the one source (infinity) because only an unbound object can bind objects from every angle (to think of this concept, imagine you are in a perfect sphere of fluid mirrors that wobble and vibrate (always changing their angles continuously) and for the sake of this experiment you are an ethereal being, light and matter does not interact with you but you can cause material happenings and you can cast laser light continuously (all the time) and unidirectionally in all directions and you notice that it will bounce eternally back on itself, off this wobbly liquid-wave mirror.

Outside of mathematical theory I do not buy into the concept of infinity. I think there is beginning and an end to everything.

Thats because you're trying to treat infinity as if it were a number and not a probability space. Before you make a choice between yes and no, what are you doing? You're sitting in a boolean probability space of deciding between directions.

Then how is there a boundary between objects, if the universe is connected in an "unbroken chain of cause and effect", how can we even do science? If energy and mass are the same thing in different forms, and there is never destruction of energy, then the universe has to be a pulsating ring of energy that feeds back on itself in a circuit.

http://www.sidis.net/ANIMContents.htm

OK, then what is there before the beginning and what comes after the end? If the answer is "nothing" then we are back to "infinity."

The problem is you're using words and not boolean logic, words are just data, or bound numeric strings we turn into words.

There is no "nothing" or what might be termed "non existence" in boolean logic is Negative energy.

When we say "something exists" we are saying that an object that is bound by a boundary and contained in space
exists. So what happens to the object when we "unravel" it to its basic pieces? the stuff that formed the object doesn't disappear, it just disperses. In geometry this would be black and white fading into the background color of a piece of paper if we were able to set and change the opacity or color gradient in real time animation.

Think about it all numbers on this binary computer are made of 1's and 0's (switches either turned off or on)

Off isn't "nothing" off is "unfilled (negaive) energy space", and on (positive) is FILLED energy space.

Draw two circles on a piece of paper in your minds eye, color one black and one white. The opposite of existence is not non-existence it is NEGATIVE existence, you still exist in "negative form" (unconsciuos versus consciousness).

Think of it like a build "built" (formed) verses Collapsed (unformed) because when you die, the atoms that make up your body and energy dont ever disappear, they just decay into lower forms of energy due to the conservation law of mass and energy.

Remember E=MC^2?

I knew I should have said 'explain balance' as it falls at 0. 0 has no "opposite" or "negative" energy as its between positive and negative.

P.S. I dislike discussing the universe in "maths." While I understand "math" I absolutely hate it.

* In a classical system there does appear to be a 'beginning' for all events leading to the cycle of their termination or 'end'. However, in a quantum system, all events are simultaneous and there is no real beginning or end to any event. Ultimately, this problem can be reduced down to the P VS NP problem.

* Mathematics is not a subset of measurement, it is a language. Mathematics describes actions, laws and entire systems.
The idea of mathematics being a tool for measurement is somewhat pre-Newtonian and is far too simplistic for our current understanding and expression of theories and observations.

i basically think infinity is real. i mean i'm sure there was something before there was anything, there just isnt any knowelege out there yet to find it.

Math is the "language of measurement", lets not pretend that math is not about measurement. Maybe we should get some descriptions for you? When you DESCRIBE something you must have been able to MEASURE it or a subset of what you're trying to describe (in the future or past) or else you couldn't describe it.

Google definitions of math:

# mathematics: a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space and change. It developed, through the use of abstraction and logical reasoning, from counting, calculation, measurement, and the study of the shapes and motions of physical objects.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math

Definitions of quantity on the Web:

* measure: how much there is of something that you can quantify
* an adequate or large amount; "he had a quantity of ammunition"
* something that has a magnitude and can be represented in mathematical expressions by a constant or a variable
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Quantity is a generic term used when referring to the measurement (count, amount) of a scalar, vector, number of items or to some other way of denominating the value of a collection or group of items. It is usually represented as a number (numeric value) of units, together with the type of those units (if required) and a referent defining the nature of the collection. Both parts are required.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity

* How many do you need. It is a good

You can find lots of definitions of the word mathematics; it's mere semantics.
Maths is more than measure.
All you have to do is invoke Godel's incompleteness to show this.

You are not far wrong though in thinking that it is 'the language of measure.'
I was going to describe areas such as group theory, set theory even topology, where measure does not come into play. However, in all theses systems measure and ordering plays a large part.
But there are some things outside of 'measurement' (or ordering systems).

I am not sure what you mean in your original question of 'understanding infinity.'
Whatever level you are at; you are sure to learn much maths in your quest to understand.
This is the main joy of maths: not to do with measure.

I forgot this long ago.

[edit: don't confuse the mathematical concept of infinity with any other definition or root of the word 'infinity.' There is no ambiguity about what is meant by infinity in mathematics. ]

I can prove that the numbers are infinite, using formal logic. I will prove by contradiction.

Another way to say that the numbers are infinite is by saying that there is no largest number.

But suppose not... Suppose there is a largest number.
Call it N.
N is a number.
Now, consider N + 1.
N + 1 is a number because it's a sum of two numbers.
N + 1 > N, because addition increases a number.
But N is already the largest number.
This is a contradiction.
Therefore, there is no largest number.
Q.E.D.

Why is it some-one (usually more versed) has to steal my Ideas!


--I truly believe you are onto something -- I have aswell scribbled my concept of Geometrical Information Theory - alright I haven't decided on a proper tilte... Howabout "existance as a logical extension to reality"? -uh I don't know ... I had realised a good while ago that I would have to invent a new form of math to be able to convey may piont... but what you are doing here is brilliant.


I have categorised the types of definitions required for my understanding of existance.....

DATA:

The data can come in orders of compexity. Each order defines higherorders to build upon. (Like inheritance in programming)

Complexitty:

Defined by Geometrical attributes... ie piont data (nodes) ,, the complexity is of course driven by how many nodes exist. ,but since we define data as being an order of magnitude in complexity it comes as discrete definable geometric entities.

Working with the OBJECT's which define themselves as being nothing more than organised discrete data, is the hard part > It's an order of magnitude beyond my algebraic capabilities.

...but in this system, your definition for infinty holds true.. it's nothing more than a BOOLEEN process. ,with Zero being defined as the space between nodes. (which I still can't get my head around -but to me it seems to make sense)


--The end result of what I believe to be the next step in understanding observations ,,, is that with this system we shoud be able to predict the future and the past. ,and should also be able to engineer systems which ,are in effect alive..... I believe it to be God's maths - so really ,even if Enistein would have figured this out- which I wreckon he could of - he didn't tell - he just ascended on his own.

Kid, your making my brain hurt.

is makes my brain hurt too!

when you realise that math is nothing more than a language. .. to convey views concerning observation. ,, yes we can make up imaginary problems to solve -eg. String Theory - but really such rantings, like string theory pertain to be, just take 'the eye off the ball' ... einstein had it right ,,he was observing on the most fundamental level... he wuite literally stated the obvious and invented a language to define it : Relativity ... I think his problem was that, with his formalised education he wasn't able to convey his true feelings about existance. --String/M Thoery and maybe others , are nothing more than fancy algebra - htey actually complicate things which shouldn't be that complex.

by redifining exitance .. ie Zero ,and our formalised proofs for oo ..infinity then maybe we could finaly start to calculate and convey observation beyond our current limited 'Newtonian Kinetic' veiw.

Do you even know anything about theoretical physics?

Good piont:

'Number Crunching' as theoretical Physics pertains to be today, especially so with the adoption of thoeries like StringM theory , are in effect just using what we already know, to construct imaginary possibilities. Quantum Theory on the other hand has a purpose,, it's a great approximation of the philosophies of observation. Just like Einsteins philosophies taught us that an object resides in it's own system. (unlike the Newtonian veiw that objects reside in 'a' system)

Concepts like strings residing between ethereal M's are an extension to our limited veiw on Existance. When we can finally start to calculate without actually using an entity as the data (Zero) , maybe a better understanding of the interaction between objects in a void can be achieved.(Yes String Theory may just be able to define abstract concepts Like our veiw on Infinity__but we are still using the 'old stuff' to define it.)

I have watched documentaries stating that things Like sting theory are God's maths... my opion though... we are just playing with numbers we already know of. ,,, ie it's not a Philosophy, it's just an artisitc painting, however beuatifull it maybe.

I remmember a proof about Zero actually existing... I wouldn't have a clue what's it's called or who did it,,, but maybe he/she was onto something.