Infinity Is the Only Concept That Occurs Perfectly In Nature

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
Take a square with sides of exactly one yard. Take a yardstick and measure it- it appears to be exactly a yard. Now, measure it to the nearest quadrillionth of a yard. Will it still appear to be exactly one yard? Not likely. The reality, is that you can measure the sides of a square in increasingly smaller increments on to infinity, and you will eventually find, no matter what, that the sides of the square deviate from a perfect yard at some point. This is because infinity is the only perfect number that occurs in nature. Infinite time and infinite space are truly the foundation for all physics as we understand it, and the only perfect concept that occurs in nature. Nothing is perfect, everything is perfect.
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
This is not complicated. A singularity is infinite time and space contextualized by finite observation, wherein our finite observation of its characteristics defines the possible physics emerging within. Can anybody actually demonstrate a single reason why I am wrong, and why we should apparently completely ignore what the math regarding General Relativity is telling us? Once again, that you don't want to believe infinity is real is not an acceptable answer.
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
To make a clarification, the principle I am referring to applies to measurements of the dimensions of a geometric object. Yes, you can hold two apples in your hands. But measure the diameter of the equator of either apple, and no matter what you do you can improve the precision of that measurement to infinity. When we measure the dimensions of a black hole, for example, the only thing we know with absolute precision is that the spacetime within is infinite.
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
So in other words, you all are acting like the only thing we can actually know for certain is the only thing we can't.
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
Imagine I were to say to you, what is 1 divided by 10, would you not say one tenth? If next I asked what is 1/100, then 1/1000, and we were to dedicate all our time to this task, could we not carry on til the end of our lives if we truly wished? And suppose a crowd is watching, and as it becomes apparent that one of us is about to perish, someone will step in and take our place. Now suppose that the conditions were such, that humanity survives forever, never perishing as a species but continuing on, and enduring, always finding a way. And suppose that this game of numerical telephone were to carry on with them, and every time a person perished they would immediately be replaced. Could we not carry out this task forever, coming up with new names for the new numbers we create? Now imagine, that humanity had spent the past 1000 years learning base 100 mathematics. Would this task not be immensely easier? What if we learned base 1000 math? Would the task not be even easier still?



Language follows the same principle. English is a base 27 mathematics system. How can we have math without an equation, you ask? You can't. On one side of the equation, is the person who conceives the words and utters them, writes them, or signs them. On the other, is the person who hears, reads, or sees them. The difference from one side of the equation to the other, lies in the relative perception of each individual. In each form of the communication of language, information is created by a user based on their own relative understanding of language and perception of reality. That information is then received by a user with their own unique attributes. These attributes are constrained by the conditions through which the being evolved and by the conditions through which they live. These constraints by determining past and present conditions present the user with possible choices. The user than selects from these choices based on the motivation implied by instincts (genetic information, including sensory input which is a reflection of evolved quantum collective biological systems) and modified through conceptualization (mathematical information, including language). The greater our processing capacity for and understanding of mathematical information, the more control we can exert over the motivations implied by our genetic information. In other words, we excercise free choice constrained by reality as a reflection of our understanding of language. The conditions in which feral human beings have been found is well known and should bring an end to any debate about this. However, there is also a limit to how much an understanding of language can be useful in the context of any given society. If one has a much better natural understanding of language then others, they wind up struggling socially because the others communicate on a different level. The same is true for those who have a naturally lesser understanding of language. These individuals manifest in different ways as being "on the spectrum" the implication actually being that they are in one class above and in another below the "normal" or baseline spectrum for understanding of language concepts. Both classes will attempt to find ways to "normalize" but since one class can't use baseline language skills, with language being the central characteristic of socialization, not for a lack of intelligence but for a lack of mutual understanding these unfortunate people are automatically excluded. Those who are on the opposite end of the spectrum also struggle with a mutual lack of understanding, but may find more success at blending in, often by conforming at significant personal cost. Not truly understanding the mechanics of socialization due to a lack of "baseline" common ground, they will often struggle with feelings of isolation because even in social settings, they don't know how to relate, and attempts to do so often feel awkward and uncomfortable and are perceived as such. In my own experience, efforts to incorporate such an individual often feel forced despite the best of intentions and actually exacerbate a sense of loneliness, by giving the impression that these attempts are a reflection of pity. The only way to minimize the difference from one side of the equation to the other for all, is by creating as much common knowledge as possible, between the lower, middle, and upper parts of the language spectrum (which, again, is by no means a qualitative metric of intelligence). We do this by creating a cultural understanding of language (in the modern age defined by a contemporary dictionary) and all other forms of communication, including body language and visualization. I, while seeming intelligent to some, would be at a severe disadvantage if our culture's communication relied primarily on visualization, because I am aphantasic¹(meaning my capacity for visualization is virtually nonexistent) The more the common language is understood, and the more languages that are commonly understood, and the more common means of communication are known and brought under the control of the conscious mind, the more we have a basis for mutual understanding via the mathematical properties of language. So now, I pose a similar question: what if we had spent the past 1000 years learning a 100 character language? Or a 1000 character language? And could we not carry on in this manner to infinity and beyond? Over time, the basic understanding of the general populace would increase, and as the saying goes a rising tide would lift all boats. As we learn to comprehend and communicate with greater and greater precision, we would have more and more cause for common ground, and less and less cause for strife. From an early age more and more we would learn to communicate our feelings with precision, and we wouldn't have to bury them because society demands it. Trauma would not remain hidden, more and more it could be understood and dealt with. War would seem less and less necessary, with disputes being resolved more and more with diplomacy. Life would not be perfect, for sure. But, having restored our Earth to its rightful condition, a place where life can thrive and compete in all it's glorious forms, we could lift ourselves to higher and higher purpose... Help man's best friend evolve (evolution being the means by which we are granted infinite potential) on their path to intelligence... Journey to the stars... infuse new planets and systems with life, helping them as we can as they begin their infinite journey. The mathematical nature of infinity is all around us, of this alone their can be no dispute. Nothing is perfect, everything is perfect.



¹Aphantasia is a term that if memory serves was coined in 2015. The opposite is hyperphantasia, which indicates a tendency to have extremely vivid visualizations. In a society in which socialization is dependant upon visual communication (what we would call symbolism), I would be on the low end of the spectrum with almost zero capacity for communication, whereas individuals who learn from imagery and visualization would be on the high end of the spectrum and considered to be "more intelligent" which is always relative (in our case, the relative perception of intelligence is centered on the emergence of language as a dominant trait for survival in early human society). Such is the nature of a universe grounded in the principle of infinite relativity. All perception is relative, with infinite room for improvement.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY