Quantum Physics Question
- Thread starter EmeraldHope
- Start date
I have a feeling we're about to find out if there are any engineers on the forum.
Buddy
The Living Force
I'm happy to report that I've resolved my personal issue with "infinity" for all cases but one, and it had to do with the language. As a result, my understanding of the term 'infinity' is closer to the C's (I believe). To me, it means "a situation where there is no reason to assume a limit", instead of "unlimited and therefore not a specific 'thing or amount'".
The difference between definitions is important to me because I noticed that when reading and coming across the word "infinity", I automatically (and unconsciously) assume "thing" because the part of speech is "noun" and this is part of our language education. This automatic assumption, when seen together with the definition "unlimited and therefore not specific", implies a contradiction where none need exist.
So, the problem appeared to be with the word because that's what got the attention, when the issue was really caused by the unseen (unconscious assumption).
I completely understand Ark's "infinity + 5 = infinity" because no matter how many is added to a situation where there is no reason to assume a limit, you still do not have reason to assume a limit, (which means you still have infinity), right?
Since math is not my strong point, I can only see the infinity symbol (a situation where there is no reason to assume a limit) being used in any case where that particular definition is understood; in any case where 'potential infinity' or a 'suitably large number' is usable; or, in a situation involving the Cantor Set where elements of one set with infinity is compared with elements of another set with infinity.
I just can't see it being used in any equation where it may be used to represent an actual number, intentionally or accidentally.
This is my current understanding at this point, such as it is. :)
The difference between definitions is important to me because I noticed that when reading and coming across the word "infinity", I automatically (and unconsciously) assume "thing" because the part of speech is "noun" and this is part of our language education. This automatic assumption, when seen together with the definition "unlimited and therefore not specific", implies a contradiction where none need exist.
So, the problem appeared to be with the word because that's what got the attention, when the issue was really caused by the unseen (unconscious assumption).
I completely understand Ark's "infinity + 5 = infinity" because no matter how many is added to a situation where there is no reason to assume a limit, you still do not have reason to assume a limit, (which means you still have infinity), right?
Since math is not my strong point, I can only see the infinity symbol (a situation where there is no reason to assume a limit) being used in any case where that particular definition is understood; in any case where 'potential infinity' or a 'suitably large number' is usable; or, in a situation involving the Cantor Set where elements of one set with infinity is compared with elements of another set with infinity.
I just can't see it being used in any equation where it may be used to represent an actual number, intentionally or accidentally.
This is my current understanding at this point, such as it is. :)
EmeraldHope
The Living Force
dant said:
They said that there is no difference betweeen zero and infinity . Here is the quote from the c's from this thread:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=18354.msg192953#msg192953
Buddy
The Living Force
dant said:
In the context in which I am thinking, infinity and null can be viewed as the same "point" on the "circle" because of the complete inversion. The "primary algebra" of G. Spencer-Brown might do a better job providing those details, OSIT.
Source: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Form
Edit: added later: When I think of 'null' I think 'negation', or 'placeholder', depending on context.
N
nwigal
Guest
Bud said:
Emptiness still pulses in a vacuum, everything seems to, so far. So somehow, the relationship between two reflections of the same thing will dance and sing within the null state; are we observing dry traces of particle tracks or trying to watch ourselves, or maybe just taking pictures of something else? I suspect it has something to do with the hidden geometry of the surface (which is not really a surface, more of a realm border) of "the looking glass" that in turn reflects the interaction of what has passed, what is, and what is to come. There is an "optical" aberration that can reveal who we are, or what we see, depending on what we are looking for. What if tachyons may be neutrons, which may be neutrinos, and back again? Yes, the spin, and charge, and charm, whatever, changes, but what is really changing? Ourselves, moving through "time"? "Them", according to our "objective" interpretation, within the assigned parameters? If circles are really pictures of living ripples, and points are alive and can't be "pinned down" to a location in "time" or "space" then maybe the integers are alive, and can't be slowed down enough to push any further, without loosing part of the equation, or the questions that ask? Does that suggest that the Plank length is a door, or a window to more than the geometry created by the "limits" imposed upon these boundary states?
I'm just asking, that's all...
I will speculate, without mathematics, I don't know any.
What if "energy" as a term is distracts us? We (normal people, not physicists :)) think of and comprehend energy only as something that can be measured, in any way. We think "if that can't be measured, how we can know that it really exist?" So, how to measure zero or infinity, how many quantities or unit or whatever are there (and where is that "there" anyway)?
What if any energy that we can see, comprehend and measure are just manifestations of some "real" energy, not that "real" energy itself. So, is it possible that there is something that could be called just "POTENTIAL"? That "potential" can be manifested somehow, but also there is no "need per se" for that. Also there is no need to do any measuring of "potential" its pointless, because it can be, but also it cant be (there is no "a must" here). It's just potential and potentially could be everything.
So it is zero and the infinity in the same time, it could be manifested but also couldn't (does non manifested potential becomes non-potential, if we take out "time" from the whole operation?)
What if we add consciousness to non manifested potential (or non-potential) and thus make potential to manifest somehow and cross from zero to infinity, from nothing to everything, or limitless possibilities (of course "consciousness" is also just manifestation of potential) then consciousness choose between (or makes) limitless possibilities and make intention toward one (or more, or "all" of them, which could depend on the level of awareness of that particular consciousness) of them, resonates with potential (resonates because consciousness itself is just manifestation of potential) and according to that makes another manifestation, that can be some sort of energy, or another consciousness, or anything. (and I think that there is no need for more consciousness than one)
So, it would be:
potential> potential+potential manifested as consciousness> other manifestations of potential (some sort of "measurable" energy for example) = infinity
Or in the same "time"
potential> potential not manifested as consciousness> no other manifestations = zero.
I wonder what make that "potential" to manifest as consciousness at first place though.
Sometimes I wish I know mathematics :/
What if "energy" as a term is distracts us? We (normal people, not physicists :)) think of and comprehend energy only as something that can be measured, in any way. We think "if that can't be measured, how we can know that it really exist?" So, how to measure zero or infinity, how many quantities or unit or whatever are there (and where is that "there" anyway)?
What if any energy that we can see, comprehend and measure are just manifestations of some "real" energy, not that "real" energy itself. So, is it possible that there is something that could be called just "POTENTIAL"? That "potential" can be manifested somehow, but also there is no "need per se" for that. Also there is no need to do any measuring of "potential" its pointless, because it can be, but also it cant be (there is no "a must" here). It's just potential and potentially could be everything.
So it is zero and the infinity in the same time, it could be manifested but also couldn't (does non manifested potential becomes non-potential, if we take out "time" from the whole operation?)
What if we add consciousness to non manifested potential (or non-potential) and thus make potential to manifest somehow and cross from zero to infinity, from nothing to everything, or limitless possibilities (of course "consciousness" is also just manifestation of potential) then consciousness choose between (or makes) limitless possibilities and make intention toward one (or more, or "all" of them, which could depend on the level of awareness of that particular consciousness) of them, resonates with potential (resonates because consciousness itself is just manifestation of potential) and according to that makes another manifestation, that can be some sort of energy, or another consciousness, or anything. (and I think that there is no need for more consciousness than one)
So, it would be:
potential> potential+potential manifested as consciousness> other manifestations of potential (some sort of "measurable" energy for example) = infinity
Or in the same "time"
potential> potential not manifested as consciousness> no other manifestations = zero.
I wonder what make that "potential" to manifest as consciousness at first place though.
Sometimes I wish I know mathematics :/
RexDelaware
A Disturbance in the Force
Hello to all,
This is my first post here so sorry if I broke any rules by bumping this ancient thread. Pertaining to the discussion in the beginning of the thread where there was no definition of the variable "R" the website does define this variable in a different article that can be found here
_http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Genesis-Singularity(1886319).htm
it is in the sub article R=0 universe. I am just going to say now that I am not an affiliate of this website nor do I promote it but I have been reading all of their articles because it is to say all their topics are interesting to say the least, but the reason I found this thread here is because I was searching for counter arguments to their arguments. I do this because I am skeptical of everything, want to keep an open mind to everything, want to keep my opinions as unbiased as possible.
so there is my contribution hope that helps solve the original question or if it has already been solved sorry for wasting your time.
thanks:)
This is my first post here so sorry if I broke any rules by bumping this ancient thread. Pertaining to the discussion in the beginning of the thread where there was no definition of the variable "R" the website does define this variable in a different article that can be found here
_http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Genesis-Singularity(1886319).htm
it is in the sub article R=0 universe. I am just going to say now that I am not an affiliate of this website nor do I promote it but I have been reading all of their articles because it is to say all their topics are interesting to say the least, but the reason I found this thread here is because I was searching for counter arguments to their arguments. I do this because I am skeptical of everything, want to keep an open mind to everything, want to keep my opinions as unbiased as possible.
so there is my contribution hope that helps solve the original question or if it has already been solved sorry for wasting your time.
thanks:)
Palinurus
The Living Force
Hi RexDelaware,
Welcome to the forum.
Have a look here to get started: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=18088.0
The forum also has a search function (see top of page) which would yield various other info on related fields of interest if you are so inclined. Happy reading!
Welcome to the forum.
Have a look here to get started: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=18088.0
The forum also has a search function (see top of page) which would yield various other info on related fields of interest if you are so inclined. Happy reading!
RexDelaware
A Disturbance in the Force
Thanks for the info. Will do.
