/fringe/ - Fringe

they are the same thing

Whats reality, and why are better understood when not thinking about them at all, or maybe it isn't.

>>57249

Personally, I am of the opinion that there is not such a thing as existent or non-existent realities but only mathematically consistent or inconsistent realities.

As for why this reality is not an inconsistent one instead of a consistent one that is because all the inconsistent realities are logically consistent with each other. That is to say all inconsistent realities are all the same as the logical theory where all falsities are true or where ∀A.A is true. And so, because there are vastly many more consistent realities than the one inconsistent one it is extremely probable that we are in a consistent reality.

Interestingly enough, all logical theories large enough to run into Goedel's incompleteness theorems are equally as strong as one another (this relates to the Church-Turing thesis) and all these logical theories cannot effectively compute more facts than any other. This strongly suggests to me that our reality does not follow the laws of elementary arithmetic and is somehow weaker in some way.

>>57289

It is altogether possible that "Humanity" can build new, improved mathematics for the next "update" of the universe, that this is why the Material Plane exists. After completion, the "New Earth" is made.

>>57292

I am not sure what you mean by "new, improved mathematics." By the Church-Turing thesis our reality has already reached its limits in what it can compute unless special relativity offers us ways out (such as time-travel.) Also, I believe the concept of time and future states to be an illusion anyway. Any such "New Earth"s would already exist simultaneously with the here and new.

>>57438

We observe our universe to follow certain mathematical rules although we may be flawed in our understanding of them. Those rules admit or define a set of possible realities that follow these rules. For each rule set we can assign a number that is the size of the set of possible realities that those rules allow.

If these rules were to be inconsistent and contradictory then no possible reality could follow or exist under those rules. Inconsistent realities cannot exist. As ALL inconsistent rule sets allow for the same amount of possible realities (none) they are essentially similar and can all be equated to the null set ∅.

Now, realities that have rule sets that change over time or that are very arbitrary could exist but they are not at all the same as realities that are inconsistent.

Note that very arbitrary rule sets can only admit a certain finite number of possible realities. See, in order to define a non-arbitrary rule set that allows for an infinite number of possibilities we have to use recursion or some kind of looping construct. And once we have introduced recursion into our rule-set we have introduced a kind of structure that is fundamentally different than how very arbitrary (finite) rule-sets are. See, we can have a rule-set that admits the realities 1, 2, and 3. We can also have the rule-set that admits the realities 1 and 1 + any other reality previously admitted by this rule-set. But we cannot write out in full denotations of such infinite rule-set and we need to have structure to think about them (in a generic way.)

So, we have the inconsistent rule-sets ∅ that admit for zero realities.

We also have the finite rule-sets 1, 2, 3… that admit for finite amounts of realities.

We also have the infinite rule-sets that admit for infinite amounts of realities.

We have the rule-sets that admit for ℵ₀ (the size of the set of natural-numbers) amount of realities.

The only reasonable standards I can think of for realities is mathematical consistency. I think that there are strictly more infinite rule-sets than finite rule-sets (by just taking power-sets) but I need to brush up on my set theory to remember the exact details. And so, it is much more probable that we exist in an infinite (and structured) reality than a finite and unstructured reality.

>>57249

The simplest way to answer the broadest implication in your question is to begin with what I believe to be the ultimate defining differences between what you understand now… the finite world, and what you're trying to understand it in contrast to; nothingness.

I define nothingness and the infinite as two inseparable and logically consistent phenomenon.

To explain this, I'll begin with probably the most easily accessible example. From a young age, we are taught in mathematics that to divide by zero is logically impossible, you can't take a finite value and divide it by something with no inherent value, you would be sitting there trying to count it until you died from exhaustion.

The point is that your finite mind and body prevent you from understanding what constitutes true nothingness or true infinity, you're simply ill-equipped and incapable of doing so, no matter the perspective adopted or the method taken to try and learn it.

The only aspect about you that is inherently infinite would be the soul, but to approach the infinite via the afterlife would be the most surreal experience conceivable, because all finite conceptions melt away in the face of endlessness, including cycles like creation and destruction, polar opposites like light and dark, even individual consciousness ceases to be.

In other words, both exist, and the only side of this spectrum that lacks the ability to 100% understand the other is the finite. How can you even begin to understand what you're incapable of knowing in the first place?

>>57479

We model the universe with mathematics, the universe doesn't run off mathematics

We have no access to reality as it truly is (in its fullness), that is just how it is and forever will be

>>57539

I don't follow. Either reality's rules are very arbitrary or they are structured in some way. I already explained above how the majority of reality rule-sets are structured. As such, our universe probably has some kind of mathematical structure to it. It is irrelevant or not whether we can only approximate mathematical descriptions of the universe. They still exist regardless of whether we can find them.

>>57585

i'd think that any thing that seems to be unstructured would actually prove to be structured if you increased the breadth of the scope it is viewed under enough. the psychedelic fractals taught me this

>>57600

Sometimes it is also the contrary though too (especially with random phenomena.) At a microscopic level radioactive decay appears totally random but at a high level and over a long time it very closely follows a pattern of exponential decay. Likewise, gas particles move around totally randomly but at a high level obey entropic forces and exert pressure on the room around them (although entropic forces are not the only pressures on gasses, nitrogen (at STP) can shrink to at most 0.14% of its volume before it becomes some other kind of matter.

>>57249

Cause.

Any other answer is wrong.

Why are there rule 2 breakers when there could be no rule 2 breakers?

That said, if any question ever deserved a thread, it is the one OP is asking here. It is the one question alone that made me realize the spiritual is real, the impossible is possible.

How can we understand the universe anyways when we're missing two senses?

>>60353

speak for your damned self.

>>60353

>we

>implying anyone else around you actually exists

>>60381

Some argue that God is a self-causing cause and that no other cause for God is necessary. But why should that argument not apply for reality itself? Why shouldn't the physical reality around us be a self-causing cause? This sort of occasionalism where everything must ultimately derive from God seems to answer nothing to me.

>>60420

It isn't.

>>57269

Everything springs from 0. Zero is the shell.

>>60594

This whole experience is god, fragmentation is impossible. Just god refracting itself in the waters of the mind through the lens of the spirit. Void is just a refracted image of God, that which isn't. Just a concept you can access. God experiences all of its infinite self, for eternity. Why be infinitely singular when you can be singularly infinite? That is our realm of God.

>>60612

Its just a mirror. You are confusing what is, and what isn't. He created this "Mirror" for his light to be reflected back unto itself. You are confusing the mirror with God, because you see his reflection in it.

>>60589

Zero is not some mystical number or anything it is just the size of the empty set.

>>60273

> It's just wordplay.

no u

>>60850

It is not the size of the empty set but the set of all numbered pairs.

0 = {1, -1, 2, -2, 3, -3, 4, -4 … }

I suspect it may be extended to contain the imaginary numbers and the real numbers, being a set of all complex numbered pairs (which are used in fractal generation), but I'm in bed and can't be bothered checking right now.

If you want nothing, you can make it happen. Annihilate Self and there will be nothing. If you want something to be there, preserve Self and there will be something. If you want to perfect the Self, ascend.

>>57269

1 defines 0, 0 defines 1.

They are the same in the sense that each face of a coin is still part of a coin.

You can't have a single sided coin

>>60963

Wut?

Possibly, some kind of abstract representation of numbers could represent zero with the set of all numbered pairs but that is definitely not a necessary representation and does not refute the fact that the size of the empty set must be zero.

>>61019

Zero is the size of the set {}. One is the size of the set {{}}.

But how do we know there could be nothing?

>>61077

And you should know that the empty set is axiomatic to set theory, and therefore set theory springs forth from that axiom.

what the hell is going on on earth?

What are human beings?

what are we supposed to be doing?

why are there forces working against us doing this?

>>60353

which two senses?

>>57258

This. In Buddhism this concept is called the non-duality of form and emptiness. Here are some good links explaining it:

http://arobuddhism.org/community/the-heart-sutra.html

http://arobuddhism.org/community/form-emptiness-and-non-duality.html

Basically the problem is that these explanations can only get you so far, as it appears to us as a paradox, resisting logical comprehension. The whole Buddhist project is about wordlessly realizing it, each and every moment.

>>57272

>realize that it's a dream, which might make you wake up all the way, and I wouldn't recommend that, because every time you do your only option then is to go back to sleep.

can you explain this further?

how do I wake up?

'where' would I be awaken to?

why would I go back to 'sleep'?

is there time out there anyway?

>>57249

>Why is there something?

Because you think. Therefore, you must be.

>>57272

>>57249

>>57258

You claim this to be the ultimate posit; that of why there is versus there not being; with only Non-existence being non-existent. The answer to this incredibly vague and presumptuous argument is within yet another question: If all just "is," and we are meant to accept, who is there to enforce those rules? What makes it so that this universal, unified state is a supreme truth? I once reached a state of consciousness where all questions and answers emanated to a single thought; that being that all details (reality) are imagined by this being, a point of light, which all things revolve around, unquestionable. The sign of "Ain", in Hebrew cosmology, the highest god. But I was struck immediately by the ego and fear in this supposedly divine amalgam. I was able to switch physical forms with my peer. And yet…I realized that even as these details sustain this being, so too exists something behind this cycle. This backwards and forwards of things. The two states sustain each other and are kept together, forming a trine cycle. This forms the basis of the third dimension and every dimension built on top of it. The point is, I was zoomed out and given the image that the point was surrounded by infinite other points, which formed infinite more points. A never ending fractal built and kept alive through a see-saw balance of contradiction. But one comes to the realization that in an infinite existence, one's own existence itself is a limitation. If all beings serve only to sustain an infinite cycle of infinity, the concept of infinity will forever slay them. And so I posit to you this: What exists beyond all infinities? Beyond all recognition, beyond all numbers. Because non-existence is definable as a state as is existence. And the unknowable lay only beyond the known. But is this all there is? Concepts and tropes that define how much, how many. Whether that number be infinite or 0, you are enslaved to a definition, to that cycle. But to break off, to form your own separate nature apart from the relation of cycles…What bliss would it then be, to be beyond being. Where contradiction nor meaning nor word matter, nor thought nor scorn for you are no longer part of a process of being or non being. You would exist beyond the computer, beyond the bytes that define you.

>>71423

death/heroic doses of lsd in a dark room

single point, everything and nothing

because infinity is boring

nope.

>>57249

Actually there is "something" once you create the concept of counting, i.e. natural numbers.

Everything develops from this. All mathematics, then physics and the ability to describe the material world with properties of its particles and how they interact.