Sunday, 27 January 2013

Three Zones of Infinity

Infinity by its definition includes all, as in everything: meaning there is only one true physical Infinity. Of course Infinity can be chopped up into sections which possess (POV) infinite properties, or certain directions can be taken infinitely; but for me, shall we say, Absolute Infinity is quite simply All and everything: as in "Infinity" is by nature a singular state.

I see our Visible Universe as one POV constituent within one zone of a three zone existence (taken from human perspective), of which there is our scale (let’s just say atom to edge of visible universe as an example of being one constituent), there is infrascopic scales (zooming in as with a microscope on matter to the infinitesimal, like a Mandelbrot zoom ad infinitum) and there is suprascopic scales (which are say a sea of trillions of universes making up a multiversal blanket which could be viewed all at once but then zooming out further until the blanket becomes but a spot in a collection of blankets and then) zooming out infinitely: I would see the latter as the diametric opposite of the infinitesimal. I would see the scale of human perspective stratum as just one layer in an infinite stratigraphy of POVs at different zoom functions.

So basically a stratigraphically layered structure to Infinity at different scales.  

So our Visible Universe is, in effect, a POV bubble that resides within an infinite stratum on our scale which in turn is one layer in the stratigraphical construct of All (we know there are layers by what is testable in quantum physics and chemistry) but these layers are dictated by the scale of vision of the beholder. 

It also needs to be said that the human POV is of course not limited to the visible universe, but one is able to travel infinitely (in theory) along the human POV stratum whatever that may turn out to be; without changing scale, just moving the bubble's centre as the subject travels in any direction through an infinite single universe (infinite zone of matter or protomatter areas of expansion and contraction) or multiverse (this is only categorisation). 

Saturday, 26 January 2013

All human action whether positive or negative has a positive outcome 3

Having more is our fundamental character. And to have more we have to take from others. Taking from others by force is becoming increasingly hard. Taking from the willing by being constructive is positive.

I would never be so bold as to suggest negative action doesn't exist. I am saying people always as a collective seek to learn and stop negative action as default. There will always be contrary examples, but that does nothing to disprove that the most developed and productive nations on Earth are successful because of their ability to turn negatives into a positive.

I will concede there is a long way to go. All nations of the world have to work for the common international good, and stop squabbling for nationalist ideology to be thrust forth. The EU is a shining example of people trying to unify to be stronger and more just for all.

We can say that good and bad are just conditioned sociological states, but what about the tendency of atoms to group and form molecules. What of the tendency of life to group and form self perpetuating protectorates, innately. What of the natural instinct of people to accumulate and build? Matter has evolved itself, within its own confines/laws to be inherently productive and creative.


Infinite possible configurations of matter.

Maybe the Universe's individuality, its configuration, is decided by differences that themselves have an infinite amount of possible states/configurations. Infinite amounts of laws of physics if you will, not only on our plane (quantum to edge of visible universe or other universe on comparable scale of resolution), but also going down in scale infinitely, into the infrascopic past Planck and beyond without end. So if matter is tied into its inner states going down infinitely, the permutations of these possible inner states are also infinite? due to this infinity there is no way another earth could exist that is the same because it is inextricably linked to an infinite system that expresses itself in an infinite amount of possible variations. So there are no repetitions.

And so, if one travels out into our visible universe or outside of it into an infinite expanse of our universe or indeed a universe beyond it that is one constituent of a multiverse, on our scale of existence, there are no copies of our earth or of oneself out there in infinity because the possible configurations of matter/existence, are endless ways in which to be expressed. 

I suppose the question to ask is whether an infinite amount of possible configurations is contingent upon being tied into an infinite internal history or not? Or whether the amount of possible configurations can be limitless within a POV scale that ends around-abouts planck?

So how does the prior sit with determinism? Does an infinite possible amount of states mean matter can be anywhere other than where it's supposed to be? Would there have to be an infinitely precise method of configuring these states to take on their properties? Would an infinite expanse of the infinitesimal infrascopic scales of matter, if linked to matter on our scale, cause an infinite chain of cause and effect that can't be reconciled theoretically?

I personally wouldn't talk about predetermined, though all movement is cause and effect; decisions are make-able, just a sequence of events that leads to present state.

Within the infinitesimal cause and effect chain there could indeed be a lack of cause and effect (lack of time-lag anyway) because internal states are directly linked to the larger. So instead of a history, it exists as simultaneous movements on an infinite scale. 

This seems like quite a decision to make. Direct instant effections, or cause and effect internal histories spiralling down infinitely with time a factor that builds up the further one goes.  

Sunday, 13 January 2013

An Attempted Rebuttal to Occam's Razor

Inspired by a recent, very interesting conversation I had, here is my attempt to question a philosophical favourite:

If this has been stated by far greater minds years ago then I apologise.

I would have to say that for me, Occam's Razor, whilst on the surface seems like an important and proven tool in validating a theory's relevance, there is a possible weakness.

Occam's Razor inevitably gets applied from a limited perspective. OK, I know that a human perspective is limited. And I know that human perspective as a group is a seemingly quite wide and yet limited one. But can Occam's Razor really be applied with definite certainty as regards the validity of ordering theories into a qualifying list of more or less possible? (OK I recognise that at one end of the list resides the ridiculous which Occam's Razor can address rather well, but I am looking at the end of the list where "lower amounts of components need to be added": as in the non-ridiculous). If one chooses to look at existence from an unlimited perspective, temporally, therein the weakness in application of Occam's Razor is highlighted. How can Occam's Razor apply to something that will turn out to be true though we haven't confirmed it as such yet? Surely if a theory is true then it is true no matter how many components are required? Through not being able to see the developments of the future, the fact we don't know yet and apply Occam's Razor will not effect the fact that we will discover the truth at a later stage/date? Therefore, any theory we apply Occam's Razor to and state this is less likely to be true, we always have to remember that Occam's Razor could be completely wrong on a specific theory regardless of addition or subtraction of components.

Now I know that this doesn't completely invalidate Occam's Razor, but it does weaken the use of it in an argument over which theory is more valid than another from an analytical point of view?