• Perfection

    Posted by Andy on July 3, 2022 at 1:05 pm

    The more confidence we have in our beliefs or convictions, the ever greater risk of catastrophic humiliation and abject embarrassment, and the more difficult it becomes to let go of them as a result.

    No one likes to be humiliated or embarrassed. It’s human nature.

    I am 99% sure about the things I say here, but I always reserve the right to be wrong. You could say I don’t believe in anything, and I don’t frankly. Not even what I write about here. There is no value in beliefs, contrary to what we’re taught in life. Society tends to consider beliefs a moral imperative. You gotta believe in something, most of us are taught from an early age. That’s a dangerous and fruitless mindset in my opinion, but it is how society has functioned over the millennia. We gravitate towards like beliefs, and the larger we grow as a society the more diverse and chaotic we become in our beliefs.

    There are facts, like 1+1=2, and there are accepted beliefs built on consensus masquerading as facts. I don’t believe 1+1=2. What would be the point? It is 2. Everything else is open to interpretation. To form a belief is to abandon our innate sense of reason and logic. It’s like randomly claiming 1+1=3. And that I wouldn’t accept as fact, with 100% certainty.

    The reason I bring this up is because when I do make claims, I do so with a sense of humility and a side of fear. I am fully aware of the fact I am stepping on long held beliefs built on consensus, while offering an alternative line of thought that may feel foreign to those reading it.

    Humanity has been woefully misguided in the definition of infinity for a very long time. What began as a great pondering of the universe throughout the millennia, culminated into an admitted religious quest, and ended with a useless mathematical definition built on consensus, not actual facts. I’m sorry to inform everyone, but Georg Cantors infinite set theory may have produced useful mathematics to wrangle large numbers of variables within our man made numbering system, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of infinity. Infinity has limits in the real world, and is not some mysterious inexpressible numeric value greater than any other. That’s just silly. It’s contradictory nonsense. Numbers are finite. We should know, because we invented them. Infinity is no more relevant to specific values than finite is. They are labels.

    Many consider the universe to be infinite, as do I, but I completely reject the current accepted beliefs surrounding the definition of infinity. Does it make sense that we can describe our universe as a number greater than any countable number or quantity, mathematically speaking? What sense does that make? It’s a nonsense statement of course. And yes, I’m going to call bullshit when I see it.

    We assign values from our invented numbering system to properties of the universe, because we discovered that our universe behaves mathematically. And this gives us the ability to make mathematical predictions. Our universe though, is neither math, nor numbers. Those aren’t real things. They’re abstract concepts in reason and logic. They only exist in our imagination. Immeasurably useful, yes, but they’re not physical realities. The universe either exists or doesn’t, and from that simple fact we can assign a conceptual value of 0 or 1 to describe states. Simple binary logic for our brains to process.

    The universe is akin to a simple single pole light switch. Existence is represented by the on position, and non-existence is represented by the off position. Those two positions can be translated numerically as the finite values of [1] for on, and [0] for off. But, we really aren’t in either position in our reality. Our universe exists within the variability of the 2-dimensional length between those two positions. And that length is infinitely variable representing a constant change in position. They are non-static or non-finite values encompassing all that we observe and experience. Fraction of the whole. [-e]+[+e]=[1], and [-e]-[+e]=[0]. Depending on the direction something is headed within that 2-dimensional length, it either exists 1, or it will come to an end 0. States of matter that we recognize and observe are moving towards the off position.

    The universe does not want us to be here. A little dramatic, yes, but I don’t think it’s far off the mark, and it’s most certainly not implying a universal consciousness. It’s just a cold and calculable fact of nature.

    I was pondering entropy the other day.


    Lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

    This makes sense to me now.

    What puzzled me wasn’t the disorder in the system over time, rather the perceived order from which it came. How do we define order? And that’s when it hit me. [1] is perfection in order. [0] is the absence of perfection, but a perfect state none the less. Equal and opposite conditions. Two points on a number line. 2-dimensions.

    [1] is the highest level in predictability of existence. There is no motion or energy, and time is frozen in that potential state. A motionless state of existence becomes a self-evident result. The universe would always be the answer to itself. A finite state of the universe is the ultimate in predictability. It’s value is always [1] at any perceived moment in time from our vantage point.

    That state of [1] is an unsustainable condition, obviously, because we exist. Non existence is the next best thing, or [0]. But that state leads to extreme disorder.

    Understanding the fundamental universe appears to be a 2-dimensional problem. Complete disorder sits between [1] and [0]. The more disorderly a state becomes, the closer to nothing it gets. The universe appears to be sorting itself out, naturally seeking a return to [1] or [0], or perfection in order. Not implying a consciousness. It’s just what it does, naturally.

    Andy replied 1 year, 7 months ago 1 Member · 1 Reply
  • 1 Reply
  • Andy

    July 3, 2022 at 1:51 pm

    I suppose another way to look at it is, things that don’t exist are unpredictable. Pointing out the blatantly obvious, I know. The closer to nonexistence a state becomes, the less predictable it becomes as a result. Quantum mechanics by its very nature plays on the edge of existence, hence, it is unpredictable, so they must use probabilities to describe it. It may not be a known variable issue, Quantum Mechanics proximity [0]. I always assumed it was a variable issue. Hmmm.