The Concept of Infinity

Infinity is a hard concept for humans to grasp. Infinity has no beginning and no end. It never began and never ended. Mathematicians say the number 0 embodies the nature of infinity. You multiply infinity by 5 and you still have infinity. You add 5 to infinity, you end up with infinity and 5 more, which is still infinity.

I believe everything within the universe can be deduced to mathematical variables. Everything from the mass of nothingness, to the total energy of the universe. I also believe that everything is relative to the point of view which is held. There being an infinite amount of points of view, points of view where every structure of this universe are universes in themselves are bound to exist. An entity of its own. From this point of view it is as if everything else does not exist. At this point is where infinity occurs. I say this because infinity can only exist without other points of comparison. For when you compare an Infinite object with another infinite object you cancel out the infinities leaving finite outcomes.

This is why I think humans cannot comprehend infinity. The way our brains work is by making constant comparisons and connections within our realm of consciousness. To view infinity you must look at the collective whole of the universe that you are trying to observe. Infinity is however reported to be observed while under the influence of psychedelics although it always lacks coherent description. I think this happens because under the influence of psychedelics you view things as a whole. Not seperate parts of the universe, you simply look at the universe. It is like there is nothing to compare to so u simply look at infinity.

Interesting points.

I believe in the concept of infinity, but I think it's only in death. The infinite "void" of all energy and conciousness.

Edvard Munch said:

Interesting points.

I believe in the concept of infinity, but I think it's only in death. The infinite "void" of all energy and conciousness.

Click to expand...

Would you care to explain that a bit more?

The problem that lies within relating 'infinity' with 'humanity' is the human concept of 'Time'.

Time is something that, whether or not one will admit, permeates every moment of our lives each and every day. Night and Day play into this, same as when anyone asks what time it is because they need to be some where.

Now, with such a concept firmly implanted within our every day conciousness, it becomes nearly impossible to understand infinity. Time has a beginning, and an end.

"How on earth can there be no beginning? the universe just HAD to have started somewhere!" is a commonly used argument as well against 'infinity'.

Perplexing

Subjective Infinity in an Objective Blink?

I always preferred the perspective of infinity as opposed to beginings and ends (which are really one and the same as points of change, but, I guess, still entirely relative to your perspective). It's cool that time was brought up here, and it brings back a lot I read in JW Dunne's `An Experiment With Time', but that book's ideas, though interesting, take a lot of time to understand -- I know I don't understand them completely, anyway -- and even what I do understand of it is hard to put down in my own words. If anyone read the book, though, I think it'd add a lot to this discussion if the ideas in it were brought up.

One idea, I think partially from the book and partially from my own experience, is the strange fact about time perception. I argued with some guy (I believe he was male, though sexes are hard to tell on bluelight sometimes, and, in my opinion, are ultimately irrelevant) some time ago about time. He said that time does indeed exist, and is not a human-created concept, and that proof of this is entropy -- you cannot uncrack an egg, for instance. This is very true: time doesn't usually flow backwards (note: `usually' -- saved for a different post; long conversation); in normal experience, the most we can say is that time flows in a direction and keeps going in `a direction'. However, the rate of the flow in that directionseems to be entirely relative to the individual and her/his psychology, state of consciousness, or brain chemistry.

For instance, I've had a great many horrific experiences with pot. That's why I stay away from it now; Mary has the tendency to give me a bigger ass-whooping every time I breath her in. On one particular night when I was horribly stoned, however, I was driving home from work, where I'd smoked with my managers and a few co-workers (welcome to the food industry). It was during a really bad storm. It was nighttime. I travel this route every day, but my mind kept wandering off. I suddenly came to the conclusion that I'd missed my turn -- I should've turned a long time ago. I was about to turn around to head back and look for this road I turn on every day when it suddenly hit me that perhaps I hadn't missed the turn. Perhaps it hadn't been that long. Maybe it was just the drug affecting my time perception.

Curious, I noted the time. I looked away. When my internal clock had told me ten minutes had passed, I decided, I would look back at the clock and see how close or far off I was, just out of curiosity. So I looked away until I thought it was a little over ten minutes. Just then the digital clock changed. It had not even been a minute.

Certainly this proves how bloody fucked up I was, but that's not even half the point. It shows how a change in brain chemistry, the introduction of a foreign drug, or even a naturally-induced altered state of consciousness can change your perception of how time passes (in a set direction) considerably.

Time slowed down that day -- or my perception of it slowed down, rather. Over ten minutes of subjective time seemed to be somehow packed into less than 60 seconds of our objectively measured time.

I've had sober experiences like this, too, where an experienced hour gets squeezed into fifteen measurable minutes, but they were during episodes of spontanious `waking dreams' or `sleep paralysis' or `OBEs' or whatever you wish to call them. Extremely altered states of consciousness were awareness is unerringly directed inward and away from the senses and signals of the body.

Looking back on it now, I can only explain it as this: thoughts seemed to speed up, emotions seemed to speed up, and I as the perciever seemed to speed up with them, therefore not noticing any change in speed. This was subjectively. Objectively, where I wasn't percieving, everything else seemed to go at it's usual rate. Thoughts, emotions, and my awareness seemed to become unhinged from it's usual allignment with the objective environment and go light speed in subjective space. And had there been no clock or sun to measure the experience against when I returned to normalcy (or the closest I ever get to normalcy), I would've truly believed the experience took an hour and not fifteen minutes.

And I've had the opposite as well, though only sober, where time disappears. Like, "whoops, where'd that hour go?" You swear it's only been ten minutes but it's been one or two hours.

A fly lives, what, a day? Could it experience, naturally -- natural for a fly -- a lifetime equivalent to what the normal human experiences as forty years?

A turtle or tortoise can live a few hundred years, right? Could it's experience, it's natural, species-specific brain chemistry, give it the experience of living only for a few months?

Everyone's noticed how the work day goes slow, and free time goes fast. There's some truth hiding in that whole idea that `a watched pot never boils' and `time flies when you're having fun'. If we were to rewire our brains, mix in the right chemicals, alter ourselves to the right state of consciousness, could we experience our lives as being longer?

If a universe existed only for a couple hundred years and there was a species who had the right brain chemistry, could it experience those few hundred years as infinity? Or is that pushing it?

Could infinity be a state of mind, as unbearably cheesey as that sounds?

8 <rotate 90 degrees

This was an excerpt from a very interesting webpage that has since been taken down for some reason.

The serotoninergic consciousness and time perception

The perception of time is highly dependent on serotonine. High serotoninergic activity (not enhancing dopamine function or general metabolism) leads to a decrease of perception of time. Time perception can even disappear to be replaced by a feeling of "eternal present". This is due to the fact that serotonine increases attenuation. When attenuation is strong, it is no longer possible to sense the flowing of time because there are nearly no informational objects inside consciousness! Consciousness becomes thus detached and contemplative. Under fluvoxamine and zimelidine (serotonine reuptake-inhibitors) time can cease to be perceived: hours, months, or a journey in an airplane look all similar! Time flow is only felt after one stops using these molecules. Under zimelidine, for instance, you can very easily stay, say, sitting in front of a wall for hours without getting bored as you do not feel time flow! For an exogenous observer you may look deeply "reflective" and "thoughtful" precisely when you have no ideas in your mind! Very amusing from a philosophical standpoint.

A cat under 200mg of fluvoxamine will sit in any position (for instance paws behind the head!) you put him because he also has no more thoughts in his mind. Having no thoughts he "forgets", in this example, that you placed his paws behind his head and he will stay like this in a kind of serotoninergic cataplexy! Very funny to observe for others... a friend of mine to whom I was joking about my cat under fluvoxamine (he did not know about that) would say: "Eh bé? Je n'ai jamais vu un chat comme-ça" (I have never seen a cat like this)! He would think that my cat was the most bizarre cat in the world, staying quietly with her paws behind her head!! Anything disturbing serotonine can lead to alterations in subjective time flow. For instance, if the speed of attenuation is decreased, as under cannabinoids, time seems to be very long because there are a lot of informational objects filling consciousness! Under cannabinoids there seems to be concomittant disturbances in both serotonine and GABA neurotransmission. How both neurotransmitters are exactly linked I still do not know. In fact time distortion under cannabinoids can be modulated, to a certain extent, by benzodiazepine receptors. Clonazepam is quite efficient in this respect.

As I am not a physicist I do not know what is really exoreal time (I wonder if physicists really know about that either!) but I certainly know that endoreal time depends on the quantity of informational objects flowing into consciousness per arbitrary unit of exoreal time!!! The more consciousness is filled with informational events, the more subjective time lengthens. The less consciousness is filled, the more time comes to a halt giving a feeling of "no time" or "eternity", in subjective terms. Psilocine's alterations on time perception are still not well-understood by the author... give me time and I will find an explanation!


Conscious Dreaming and Controlled Hallucinations
Claude de Contrecoeur ([email protected])

Click to expand...

I agree with Edvard Munch on the "infinity" of death [or un-existance].

I have a copy of the site saved on my pc if anyone wants it please pm me.

Vaya said:

"How on earth can there be no beginning? the universe just HAD to have started somewhere!" is a commonly used argument as well against 'infinity'.

Click to expand...

The universe started at the beginning of time. That's the answer. The problem is, whenever you use words that relate to time to try to explain something outside of time, you're only talking nonsense. The words themselves can't even exist without time.

This is a common mistake people make. They ask questions such as "What happens after death?" Yet they've already assigned words to the question which have negated the possibility of a logical answer. "Where does the universe end?" This question also makes no sense.

For those of you who already know this, I apologize. To the rest, think about it this way: The languages we currently use as humans are incredibly primitive. The fact that we define words with other words is a sign of this. Humans can't even communicate efficiently enough to avoid arguments, and miscommunication is one of the hugest problems that exists in our world today.

Many philosophical questions are no more than mind games, with no logical answer at all. They're good for fun and entertainment, but they aren't of any significant value other than the fact that they convey just how little we can actually explain using our language. As we evolve as humans, our brains will become more advanced, and our minds will be able to grasp concepts in the far future that we can't conceive now. Language will continue to evolve as well, and I predict everything will be perceived differently and humans will be able to explain the intricacies of the world around them far more efficiently.

think about it this way: The languages we currently use as humans are incredibly primitive. The fact that we define words with other words is a sign of this. Humans can't even communicate efficiently enough to avoid arguments, and miscommunication is one of the hugest problems that exists in our world today.

Click to expand...

This was put very well. I agree. I once argued that this problem of communication was the numero uno problem in nearly every relationship I'd ever observed or experienced. I'm also damned impressed with the rest of the post.

several years ago, i used to think about the infiinte a whole bunch (blame it on the acid?).

i used to set up two mirrors in the bathroom, so one would reflect the other. anyway, i'd stick my head between them, and i'd see lots and lots of justsomeheads, and they'd appear to go allll the way back forever.

my reflected heads seem to be infinite, but the problem was, they weren't infinite.

i could see lots and lots of heads, but i couldn't see them all, because the first reflected head would get in the way of seeing the column of reflected heads going all the way back.

follow me here? i could never see an infinite column of my reflected heads because my head would always get in the way.

i think that the example of trying to see one's head reflected infininitley, but being unable to see that infinite reflection because one's head is in the way is fun to think about

I know... it seems like everything should be contained, huh?

Black Hole, thats a very good post.

On another forum site I'd had loads of Physics/Maths discussions with people and they always come up with annoying questions like those
"Whats outside the universe"
and I always reply "But by definition of the universe, nothing"
"But what if you got to the edge and stepped forward?"
8)

Its not possible at the moment to convey these ideas, especially about infinity. Its counter-intuitive to "normal life". Things continuing on forever, or being infinitly big often just confuse people and they try to link them to concepts they understand, but in doing so use inadaquete constructs to try and visualise things.

Loads of people don't get that "0.9999r = 1 (r means recurring)"
because they can't relate the infinite number of 9's after the decimal point to numbers they are used to.
0.9 != 1 (!= means doesn't equal)
0.99 != 1
0.999 != 1
so how come if I do it an infinite number of times its equal to 1? Its the property of infinity that lets me do that.

I think with Infinity you have to be content with either not thinking about it at all, or be willing to accept some steps/properties that aren't "common sense". Like Bohr said about Quantum Physics, "If you think you understand you weren't listening hard enough" :D

Black Hole said:

The universe started at the beginning of time. That's the answer. The problem is, whenever you use words that relate to time to try to explain something outside of time, you're only talking nonsense. The words themselves can't even exist without time.

This is a common mistake people make. They ask questions such as "What happens after death?" Yet they've already assigned words to the question which have negated the possibility of a logical answer. "Where does the universe end?" This question also makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Asking such questions in defense of Time itself, in relation to the concept of Infinity, is senseless and ultimately useless.

...but we find ourselves doing it anyway!

Peace

Great thread...

I started myself to think a lot about infinity because of lsd a while ago.

Got top thinking about time and the universe as has already been discussed.....


I got to a point where i realised that either
"infinity exists, or it does not exist at all"

assume for a moment that the universe is totally finite..... which is a less popular but totally valid theory because no human mind can ever see or understand the infinite anyway.

Now introduce something truly infinite into that universe...... and by the very definition of infinite that universe must be totaly consumed and infinitely expanded upon in order to continue existing...

So if "anything" in the universe is truly infinite... then by definition "everything" in the world must be infinite..... space, time, mass.... its all infinite.

I think this relates to the concept also often revealed while on lsd or psychedelics and that is a "oneness" in the universe..... that we are all inherently linked together with each other and the air and the dirt and the mountains...... in an infinite world we have to be linked because we are all consumed by the forever.....

AlphaNumeric said:

Loads of people don't get that "0.9999r = 1 (r means recurring)"
because they can't relate the infinite number of 9's after the decimal point to numbers they are used to.
0.9 != 1 (!= means doesn't equal)
0.99 != 1
0.999 != 1
so how come if I do it an infinite number of times its equal to 1? Its the property of infinity that lets me do that.

Click to expand...

Looks like we need some forumlas here

Ex 1.
let x = 0.9999...
10x = 9.9999...
10x - x = 9
(10 - 1)x = 9
9x = 9
x = 1

Ex 2.
If we let S(n) = .9999...9 (with n 9s)
S(n) = sigmar = 1 to n 9 * 10-r (From the definition of a base 10 number)

10S(n) = sigmar = 0 to n-1 9 * 10-r (Multiply each term of the sum by 10)

9S(n) = 10S(n) - S(n) = sigmar = 0 to n-1 9 * 10-r - sigmar = 1 to n 9 * 10-r = 9 - 9 * 10-n

S(n) = 9S(n)/9 = 1 - 10-n

limn goes to infinity S(n) = 1 - limn goes to infinity 10-n = 1 - 0 = 1

My concept of infinites are more or less covered in that other thread. no need to repeat myself.

Don't worry KemicalBurn, you don't have to prove it to me. I've had many an argument with other people on other forums trying to show them that it is true. I'm doing a Maths degree ATM so I understand it

Good points...I liked KemicalBurn's first formula (kinda lost the 2nd one ).

I agree with yougene that infinity can be represented by 0.
If you keep binding every perspective together, eventually you reach the infinite perspective ("God", I guess it's commonly called).

rewiiired - I think you're describing metabolic rate?

nickthecheese - that article was rediculously interesting! I'd say that it's basically like if all your attention is on some task, then none of your attention is left to perceive time. However, if you are just sitting around, then all of your attention is on time (or whatever else you're thinking about, I guess).

justsomeguy - yea that's a really interesting point...freaks me out to think about stuff like that, really 8(

Vaya said:

"How on earth can there be no beginning? the universe just HAD to have started somewhere!" is a commonly used argument as well against 'infinity'.

Click to expand...

The flaw in that argument is that we couldn't have come from nothing. It is just not possible for 'nothing' to create 'something'. That's the way I see it, I'm most probably wrong though.

If the infinite point is zero, wouldn't you get there by discarding every perspective as defining your existence, not by adding every perspective?

It's fun to discuss this with druggies instead of philosophers... you don't have to spend days beating them over the head with the limitations of language and logic in defining our universe. I had a big post all written up only to read farther and realize I was just repeating someone else. I would argue that our inability to understand the infinite isn't just a problem of limited conception, though, it's a problem of conception in general. I don't think we're going to be able to get our logical systems to describe the universe accurately.

notneo said:

The flaw in that argument is that we couldn't have come from nothing. It is just not possible for 'nothing' to create 'something'. That's the way I see it, I'm most probably wrong though.

Click to expand...

Hmm.... now you're getting into some deep Quantum Mechanics.

As you are (hopefully) aware, mass and energy are interchangable. The things we see around us in the universe (stars, planets, people, squirells ) are all made of mass, which was created from energy.

Thus, the universe is just a huge collection of energy in a specific configuration. Some "frozen" as matter, some free as the energy in the matter.

All that energy is positive.

Another thing about energy and fields is that any attractive potential has negative energy. In other words, things in a gravity field have negative energy by virtue of their position.

That energy is negative.

One of the things in Quantum Mechanics is Heisenburgs Uncertainty Principle. One "interpretation" of it (since you can talk about many different quantities) is energy and time. If you look at a small enough region of space, you'll become aware of virtual particles pop in and out of existance. To cut a long story short, the larger the mass/energy, the less time they can exist for. But if they had zero energy, they could exist for an infinite time.

This gives rise to a theory that if the positive energy of the universe's mass is exactly cancelled out by the negative energies of various attractive fields (since gravity isn't the only force, but the dominant one on a universal scale) then the universe would have zero total energy, and be able to have just "appeared" from nothing, like these virtual particles.

This does suggest to me that in order for this to happen, our 4d universe would need to be embedded within a larger (ie higher dimension) universe (now the word "universe" is beginning to lose its meaning). Current string theorys like M Theory point at the universe being 11 (possibly 23, but I think the main ones say 11) dimension. Therefore, its possible to have our universe just "blip" into existance in a higher universe and provided that its balanced properly it could exist indefinately.