A logical proof of Eternal Infinity (video)

[Mu_]

By all means scrutinize my logic and relate it to yours, find out whats true, why I'm wrong, why I'm right, really dive deeper into all the lead up to my proof, it is good to grapple with this stuff and feel and find out for yourself how you believe, see, and live as a result of such assumptions.

Comments, thoughts?

[RMQualtrough]

Thank you for your video. I watched it the other day and recall enjoying it.

[4201]

You conclude it's infinite after going through a finite reasoning. After asking a fixed number of questions to your scientists you kinda just conclude it's infinite but you haven't been through the infinity of questions you could ask deconstructing everything. This doesn't mean you are "wrong" nor that it's finite but your proof isn't a proof, it's just a "reasonable explanation". Next time your mind wants to get stuck in thought again, it can just go deeper than this explanation to get stuck. Since you assumed it's infinite you didn't go all the way in and so there's always deeper to get stuck anyway.

Can you prove something to be infinite in a finite number of statements? You can prove it by showing that for everything there is another one.

For instance let's prove there is infinitely many natural numbers. Assume the natural numbers are a finite set. Add every number in the set, you get a new number which is bigger than any number in the set, and thus not in the set and so the natural numbers are infinite.

You can't use numbers to prove your experience is infinite though because your cognitive ability is too limited to process any number. There exists numbers too big for a computer made with of all the particles in the universe to store. So numbers is not the way to go with your human experience.

You could try to go visually but you'd soon find out that the resolution of your eye is limited and you can't see images with infinite resolution, so you wouldn't be able to compare images past a certain level of detail. Same story with sounds there is a limit in the amount of frequencies your ears can perceive. 

Not only that but given that the speed of light is finite and there is minimum to the length and time unit you can perceive, a sufficiently powerful computer could simulate your experience in a finite amount of operations. There is a finite amount of particles in your observable universe interacting with themselves. Since the speed of light is finite, in any given time unit any particle only interacted with a finite amount of particles which make the whole process computable in a finite amount of operations. Given that time is not infinitely precise in how we can measure it, you wouldn't be able to distinguish the finite simulation from infinity.

I don't think infinity is provable. If it was you could just take it for granted. There is no shortcut to being present. You can convince someone that it's infinite through reasonable arguments but you can't deal with the infinitely stubborn that requires a proof. Ironically if you could prove it's infinite you'd be totally out of possible misconceptions. (You'd have the perfect assumption) But that can't be since the amount of misconceptions must be infinite too. If it's infinite then there's infinitely many ways to get stuck and so a proof is not an option.

Edited June 11, 2021 by 4201

[RMQualtrough]

@4201 Outside of time, how could there be a beginning or end? Or a past or future?

If there's no beginning and no end then how "long" does it exist if not forever?

[4201]

1 minute ago, RMQualtrough said:

@4201 Outside of time, how could there be a beginning or end? Or a past or future?

If there's no beginning and no end then how "long" does it exist if not forever?

Yes absolutely nothing is neither finite nor infinite but no proof nor logic exist in the context of absolute nothingness. Logic is a sequence of statements and it implies time. My point is that we can't work from this relative context to prove infinity. The only nonduality is nonduality, there is no shortcut.

[Mu_]

9 hours ago, 4201 said:

You conclude it's infinite after going through a finite reasoning. After asking a fixed number of questions to your scientists you kinda just conclude it's infinite but you haven't been through the infinity of questions you could ask deconstructing everything. This doesn't mean you are "wrong" nor that it's finite but your proof isn't a proof, it's just a "reasonable explanation". Next time your mind wants to get stuck in thought again, it can just go deeper than this explanation to get stuck. Since you assumed it's infinite you didn't go all the way in and so there's always deeper to get stuck anyway.

Can you prove something to be infinite in a finite number of statements? You can prove it by showing that for everything there is another one.

For instance let's prove there is infinitely many natural numbers. Assume the natural numbers are a finite set. Add every number in the set, you get a new number which is bigger than any number in the set, and thus not in the set and so the natural numbers are infinite.

You can't use numbers to prove your experience is infinite though because your cognitive ability is too limited to process any number. There exists numbers too big for a computer made with of all the particles in the universe to store. So numbers is not the way to go with your human experience.

You could try to go visually but you'd soon find out that the resolution of your eye is limited and you can't see images with infinite resolution, so you wouldn't be able to compare images past a certain level of detail. Same story with sounds there is a limit in the amount of frequencies your ears can perceive. 

Not only that but given that the speed of light is finite and there is minimum to the length and time unit you can perceive, a sufficiently powerful computer could simulate your experience in a finite amount of operations. There is a finite amount of particles in your observable universe interacting with themselves. Since the speed of light is finite, in any given time unit any particle only interacted with a finite amount of particles which make the whole process computable in a finite amount of operations. Given that time is not infinitely precise in how we can measure it, you wouldn't be able to distinguish the finite simulation from infinity.

I don't think infinity is provable. If it was you could just take it for granted. There is no shortcut to being present. You can convince someone that it's infinite through reasonable arguments but you can't deal with the infinitely stubborn that requires a proof. Ironically if you could prove it's infinite you'd be totally out of possible misconceptions. (You'd have the perfect assumption) But that can't be since the amount of misconceptions must be infinite too. If it's infinite then there's infinitely many ways to get stuck and so a proof is not an option.

Communication is a play of words, and as such this video was just as much.  And as such this was kinda play on the whole which came first "chicken or the egg". 

The word infinite in my usage here was less to do with possibilities being infinite and never ending, and more pointing to the implications of infinite regression and how it would equate to a no-beginning, no-current, no-end scenario, which is very much the implications of Eternal. 

And this kinda gets to the logical proposition I was making that when you regress back Everything, even your ideas of what you think light is, numbers are, time is, eyes are, cognition is, brain is, *and yes this is a thought experiment* you can come to the realization that either....

A.  Infinite regression will happen infinitely if you believe there is not a Fundamental/Eternal source, thus becoming a Eternal of sorts, a no beginning, and thus perhaps a no current, or a no future.  And yes I mean anything you think is a "anything" or a "nothing" and ask well where did that come from..... Because again what is something if its never made from something to start, that never begins or began.  The so called you and I material world would by definition be such in that case.

B.  Or you come to a conclusion that a Absolute Always Present has Eternally always been in which is the Source of the "chicken or the egg".  And since time, matter, space, experience, phenomenon, all arose from and thus as this Source, you could see how this Source is not defined or limited in time, or space, or matter, or space, or experience, or phenomenon...  Very much similar to A. in that there is no beginning, current, or end, since fundamentally all is Source which is a Infinite of sorts......  Again the the so called you and I material world would by definition be such in that case.

Now the most important part of the video's intention is the mysterious phenomenon that can happen when it dawns on you that if either one of these is true, which is the proposition, then this has immediate connection to you and what you think you are right now.... since well, you'd have to be that suchness reading, this, feeling like your human, thinking what you think, debating what you debate.... as a no beginning, no current, no future some something....  a mystery of sorts.

The very fabric of your being would literally have no foundation of its own since there is no material/energetic/time based/space based/dimension based source, since in either A or B the fundamentalness of what you may call your hand isn't fundamentally made up of a beginning "thing" because A or B are literally no-things.

 

But your right, what seems to be a mind, can get rather confusing and argumentative.

[WelcometoReality]

@Mu_ Thx for the video. A nice example one could use when trying to explain this wishy-washy non duality stuff to someone who has a scientific mindset. 

[VeganAwake]

Thanks for the share.

Could it be possible that the 'Self' that thinks it's literally talking to 'Itself' is just a story?

 

[Mu_]

1 hour ago, VeganAwake said:

Thanks for the share.

Could it be possible that the 'Self' that thinks it's literally talking to 'Itself' is just a story?

 

Just as much a story as a “no one there, just energy happening.”

 

this is just a fun pointer story video video to possibly help the mind relax. 

But ultimately saying something is never going to be exact and saying nothing as a statement to say something about what is, or statements such as just silence is it, or experiencing without words is it, or no knower to know or speak about anything, is going to fall short to.

And yet something rather then nothing miraculously IS, no?

[VeganAwake]

7 hours ago, Mu_ said:

And yet something rather then nothing miraculously IS, no?

No need for rather.

Something is nothing simultaneously.

Real and unreal...

Dancing emptiness...

❤

[4201]

On 11/06/2021 at 0:12 PM, Mu_ said:

Communication is a play of words, and as such this video was just as much.  And as such this was kinda play on the whole which came first "chicken or the egg". 

The word infinite in my usage here was less to do with possibilities being infinite and never ending, and more pointing to the implications of infinite regression and how it would equate to a no-beginning, no-current, no-end scenario, which is very much the implications of Eternal. 

And this kinda gets to the logical proposition I was making that when you regress back Everything, even your ideas of what you think light is, numbers are, time is, eyes are, cognition is, brain is, *and yes this is a thought experiment* you can come to the realization that either....

A.  Infinite regression will happen infinitely if you believe there is not a Fundamental/Eternal source, thus becoming a Eternal of sorts, a no beginning, and thus perhaps a no current, or a no future.  And yes I mean anything you think is a "anything" or a "nothing" and ask well where did that come from..... Because again what is something if its never made from something to start, that never begins or began.  The so called you and I material world would by definition be such in that case.

B.  Or you come to a conclusion that a Absolute Always Present has Eternally always been in which is the Source of the "chicken or the egg".  And since time, matter, space, experience, phenomenon, all arose from and thus as this Source, you could see how this Source is not defined or limited in time, or space, or matter, or space, or experience, or phenomenon...  Very much similar to A. in that there is no beginning, current, or end, since fundamentally all is Source which is a Infinite of sorts......  Again the the so called you and I material world would by definition be such in that case.

Now the most important part of the video's intention is the mysterious phenomenon that can happen when it dawns on you that if either one of these is true, which is the proposition, then this has immediate connection to you and what you think you are right now.... since well, you'd have to be that suchness reading, this, feeling like your human, thinking what you think, debating what you debate.... as a no beginning, no current, no future some something....  a mystery of sorts.

The very fabric of your being would literally have no foundation of its own since there is no material/energetic/time based/space based/dimension based source, since in either A or B the fundamentalness of what you may call your hand isn't fundamentally made up of a beginning "thing" because A or B are literally no-things.

 

But your right, what seems to be a mind, can get rather confusing and argumentative.

Yeah I really took issue with the word "proof" and what it means for something to be a proof.

If I understand you correctly, what you are essentially saying is when you let go of all assumptions there is either

A. an infinite amount of assumptions to let go

B. a point in which there is no assumption (Absolute/Source)

But A only makes sense if someone would assume it's infinite in the first place. If you believe life is finite then A cannot be true. A finite mind cannot hold an infinite amount of assumptions.

To be honest I never really considered A. To imagine that right now, I am assuming an infinite amount of things and thus I will never reach a state of no assumption because of that is in itself a very weird assumption. A is so weird because believing A is believing you have an infinite mind yet believing it cannot be free due to it's infinity.

Taking A aside though all we really have said here with B is that "if you stop assuming there is no assumption". Fair enough, but I wouldn't qualify this as a proof of anything. It's more a tautology which makes sense because all proofs are in the domain of some assumptions.

That being said it's not a bad reasoning. I really did not fully understand what you were trying to say in the first place, so my bad.