utter garbage

I wrote another...

 

I know. Utter garbage.

 

Well, what do you expect? Trying to explain the infinite is a recipe for disaster. There be dragons.

 

Well why do it?

 

That's like saying “why climb a mountain?” And the tongue in cheek answer – “because it's there”.

 

In other words “why not!”

 

Precisely.

 

So you’re trying to explain infinity?

 

Well, not perhaps explain it, but raise an awareness of its existence.

 

Existence?

 

Words, what ho! You’re right though, infinity doesn’t exactly “exist”.

 

Then what?

 

Raise an awareness of its exclusion or apparent absence from our world.

 

Now you’re talking.

 

Coz it really doesn't make sense.

 

Really?

 

Well, perhaps it does if the whole of physical reality is a fork or split in which people or things exist only to the extent that infinity does not.

 

A beloved inverse correlation.

 

Yep, which is a fundamental relationship for the two are mutually exclusive, and yet they cannot exist without one another – to the extent than anything actually exists, i.e. a thing has to equal but exist in opposition to the unthinged or unthingable state – particle to wave, you might say.

 

Kinda like 0=1?

 

Now you’re talking.

 

So er... it was deliberate, if it had to be excluded for things to exist, physically?

 

Yes... or it was accidental. You simply can't have things in a finite sense if infinity is at large, and constantly able to dissolve, de-thing or

 

Or what?

 

Or screw with them.

 

Screw with ‘em? Good technical expression.

 

It’ll do.

 

So, then the question is “to what extent infinity can be or actually is excluded from physical reality?”

 

Precisely. That’s the question.

 

And the answer?

 

The answer? Er...

 

Well?

 

No idea.

 

No idea? You’re not exactly going to win the Nobel prize for physics with this “no idea” approach.

 

True, but at least I'm being honest. Besides, no idea is, in all likelihood, an excellent answer when taking into consideration the fact that the infinite cannot be determined or quantified.

 

Ah, but we're not in fact trying to determine or quantify infinity itself, are we, merely how or whether, technically, it can or could be excluded.

 

Correct. My error.

 

And?

 

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

 

In what sense.

 

The pudding is 3D reality, in all its glory. It exists, or certainly seems to, so that implies that infinity can be and is excluded, or that 3D reality is a kind of construct set up by, or with the cooperation of infinity, which presumably had to “agree” to be excluded, or else it would be something less than infinite.

 

So infinity had to agree to this, which implies that it has will and consciousness.

 

Well obviously, it can't have less than we have, being infinite, can it?

 

Er...

 

So if we have will and consciousness, or to the extent that we have will and consciousness – infinity must have no less, at the very least, or infinitely more. But that’s not the main issue, is it?

 

Er...

 

The main issue being that infinity can't be “infinite” unless it’s equally able to experience both sides.

 

Both sides of what?

 

Both sides of whatever it is and, conversely, it is not…

 

As in finite beings such as ourselves and things?

 

Correct – the infinite has to be able to experience the non-infinite to be fully-infinite, if you’ll excuse the tautology… which presumably is what it's able to experience with our necessary assistance or

 

Or what?

 

Or simply compute and record here, in our reality.

 

Er...

 

Like it’s running a program.

 

Ok. So our 3D reality in that sense is the necessary zero to infinity? Its positive negation, paradoxical though that may sound.

 

Yes. The zero, for sure, or the one.

 

Huh?

 

And never the twain shall meet.

 

Meaning?

 

Both in the completeness of one, the thing fully realised; and the absence or void of zero, the thing completely unrealised there is a perfect inversity.

 

Like a universe but with two sides perfectly inversed.

 

Correct.

 

A perfect inversity... interesting. But the thing completely unrealised sounds like a weakness – a mere absence. I’m not impressed.

 

No, until you learn to discover the power of not.

 

The power of not?

 

It’s like you’re on the sunny side of yin-yang, and naturally you fail to comprehend the other side as long as you're thinking in terms of things.

 

Right. But how can I help it?

 

You can’t, as long as you’re stuck in your rational mind.

 

So just go insane, is what you’re saying?

 

That would achieve nothing. That would be to experience infinity, which would simply destroy all that you are.

 

Then what?

 

I'm not going to say. If anyone can help you it has to be you yourself.

 

Me?

 

You need to begin to see the problem as it stands before you in black and white.

 

The problem of yin and yang?

 

Yes.

 

But that's just Eastern mysticism.

 

It's just a model I'm using because it's familiar. The model just happens to accurately express the necessary dichotomy of physical reality or existence, if you like.

 

Well I don't see why infinity couldn't set up a single- or one-sided system.

 

Correct. You don't see.

 

But…

 

But your mind wants things to be settled one way or t’other – doesn’t it? Let’s be aware of how the mind attempts to fix things to exclude infinity.

 

Ok, fair point. So what’s the benefit of your zero and one? Why can’t I just have geometry on one side of the axis?

 

You can if your mind truly exists on one side – but if it happens to be fundamentally part of what it’s perceiving and describing… if it happens to have a shadow presence on the other side…

 

Then what?

 

There has to be some kind of feedback between the two sides by which they constantly adjust and readjust themselves. This constant process happens at the speed of time, whatever that might be, or I could say at the speed of conscious-ness if you prefer, but this is just playing with semantics.

 

So we're kind of in the middle between the two?

 

Yep, we would have to be, wouldn't we, as conscious beings with both physical body/brain, and a non-physical spirit/consciousness.

 

So er…

 

Yes?

 

Infinity... it's beginning to sound a bit like God, isn't it?

 

Well yes, or rather God is the agent or agency that holds the duality or dichotomy of physical reality in place, between the goal posts of mind and matter, so to speak.

 

Oh. So God’s not...

 

Don’t waste your time trying to understand the relationship between God and infinity.

 

Why not?

 

Because that simply takes you farther from the study, or awareness, of our dichotomy. You get sucked back into your 3D mind-thinking-things, back into matter and what matters, to the exclusion of spirit and/or conscious-ness.

 

Oh. So you can’t have your cake and eat it?

 

 Precisely. Either you get to think about infinity, or you experience it.

 

But why not God?

 

You can think about God or experience God too, if you like, but we’re dealing with infinity in this discussion, and whether or not we can start to feel or experience that which must be but has been almost entirely excluded from our realm of feeling and experience. God may be fascinating and enlightening, but if we are concerned with the fundamental underlying dichotomy of our reality then focusing on God would be problematic.

 

Because God is on the side of light?

 

Precisely.

 

But this is worrying. This sounds like you hoping to explore the dark side.

 

As in evil?

 

Yes.

 

Well, we're not interested in dichotomy for the sake of dichotomy, nor are we interested in anything pertaining to this world such as power or money.

 

Oh.

 

We're only interested in these things to the extent that they enable us to open up the closed clam shell of infinity, and thus to begin to feel the correlation or correspondence between the two sides, once we reach the speed of time or the speed of consciousness itself, once we begin to feel and experience how the two are in some kind of blessed harmony or unity.

 

Amen.

 

 

 

0=1

cuckoo la la

Appendix for nerds, courtesy of Deepseek

If "things" exist within a system which we refer to as "reality" only to the extent that the infinite is excluded (for the infinite would immediately wreak havoc with finite things in the save way water dissolves grains of salt), then can you provide a mathematical formula for this state of affairs?

You’re describing a philosophical idea:
Finite things can only exist in a stable “reality” if the infinite is excluded, because the infinite would dissolve or overwhelm finite structures, like water dissolves salt.

This can be modeled mathematically by thinking of reality as a system where quantities are kept finite by some kind of limiting process or bounded domain, and the introduction of infinity destroys the structure.

---

1. Mathematical metaphor

Let’s define:

• Let $F$ represent a finite object or system.

• Let $I$ represent the infinite.

• The interaction between $I$ and $F$ is destructive: $I$ “dissolves” $F$.

We could write:

$$\text{Reality}=\left\{F\right|\mathrm{\parallel }F\mathrm{\parallel }<\mathrm{\infty }\}$$

and

$$I\cdot F\to \text{chaos (undefined or destruction)}$$

But to capture the “dissolving” effect: think of $F$ as a structured set (like salt crystal) and $I$ as an environment that erases distinctions.

---

2. Possible formula using limits

One way to model “infinite wrecking finite” is to think of taking a limit:

Let $R$ be reality, defined as:

$$R=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\to \mathrm{\infty }}{\lim }\left(\text{System with cutoff }\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)$$

but the limit does not commute with the internal structure:

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\to \mathrm{\infty }}{\lim }S(\mathrm{\Lambda })\text{may not equal}S(\mathrm{\infty })$$

where $S(\mathrm{\infty })$ is chaotic/meaningless.

So “reality” is the finite-Λ description, not the Λ→∞ limit.

---

3. Physical example: renormalization in quantum field theory

In QFT, infinities arise from integrals over infinite momentum space, which would destroy predictions (infinite corrections to masses, charges).
We impose a cutoff $\mathrm{\Lambda }$ (a maximum energy), do calculations, then remove Λ carefully (renormalization) so finite answers remain.

Without the cutoff at the intermediate step, the calculation is nonsensical — similar to your analogy.

Mathematically:

Without cutoff:

$$m_{\text{bare}}+{\int }_0^{\mathrm{\infty }}dkf(k)=\mathrm{\infty }$$

With cutoff:

$$m_{\text{bare}}(\mathrm{\Lambda })+{\int }_0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }}dkf(k)=m_{\text{physical}}(\text{finite})$$

We adjust $m_{\text{bare}}(\mathrm{\Lambda })$ to cancel the divergence as $\mathrm{\Lambda }\to \mathrm{\infty }$, leaving finite $m_{\text{physical}}$.

So “reality” is the renormalized finite theory, hiding the infinite bare quantities.

---

4. Symbolic formula

We can write a compact expression:

Let $\mathcal{R}$ be reality, $\mathcal{F}$ the set of finite objects, $\mathrm{\infty }$ the infinite.

Then:

$$\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{F}\text{subject to}\mathrm{\infty }\mathrm{\notin }\mathcal{R}$$

and the interaction rule:

$$\mathrm{\infty }+F\to \text{undefined}$$

or, borrowing from calculus:
If $\varphi$ is a property of $F$, then

$$\varphi (F)\text{ is finite},\varphi (\mathrm{\infty })\text{ is not defined in }\mathcal{R}\mathrm{.}$$

---

5. More poetic but precise form

We might say:

$$\text{Reality}=\text{Finite}\mathrm{/}\sim$$

where $\sim$ is the equivalence relation that identifies all states connected by an infinite transformation as “the same destroyed state” $\mathrm{\varnothing }$ or chaos $\chi$.

So:

$$R=(F\cup \{\chi \})\mathrm{/}(F\to \chi \text{ if }I\text{ acts})$$

---

Final proposed formula capturing your idea:

Let $S$ be a system, $\mathrm{\mid }S\mathrm{\mid }$ its “size” or “measure.”
Reality condition:

$$\mathrm{\mid }S\mathrm{\mid }<\mathrm{\infty }$$

Introduction of infinity:

$$\text{If }\mathrm{\mid }S\mathrm{\mid }\to \mathrm{\infty },\mathrm{\Delta }S\to \mathrm{\infty }\text{(infinite disruption)}$$

Model:

$$\frac{dF}{dt}=-\gamma F\cdot H(I)$$

where $H(I)$ is 1 if infinite is present, 0 otherwise.
So presence of $I$ causes finite $F$ to decay to 0.

absolutely

Absolutely.

?

 

Not.

 

Er…

 

Yes?

 

Not sure I understand.

 

Absolutely.

 

[sigh] Is there no way you could condescend to speak in a way that I might be able to figure out what you actually mean?

 

Absolutely.

 

It’s like talking to a brick wall. Surely we can benefit in some way if I’m not just the idiot who utterly fails to understand what you’re on about – if I start to comprehend your deeper purpose or meaning?

 

Absolutely.

 

You like that word, don’t you?

 

Abs…

 

olutely. It’s just, I don’t really feel like you’re trying to meet me halfway. I mean – I’m sure you’re mega intelligent – a brain the size of the universe, in all likelihood – but if you’re content to be up there in your galactic truth-space and I’m down here – desperately trying to figure things out with little or no help – then how am I ever going to make any progress.

 

You’re not. Not really, are you.

 

Precisely.

 

Ah – you chose precisely. I would have said…

 

absolutely – yes – I know. But that’s missing the point.

 

What point?

 

[sigh] Whether I can or should figure out what you’re on about.

 

Oh that.

 

Do you disagree?

 

Not necessarily.

 

Not necessarily?

 

Yes. There may be some truth in your assertion – but ultimately, you’re not subordinate to me, so trying to figure out “what I’m on about” cannot or shouldn’t be your main purpose. I’m peripheral. You’re intrinsic, believe it or not, and if I am a little vague – who knows – perhaps that’s what’s needed. Perhaps it’s time for you to learn to trust your self, or get to know the truth hiding therein.

 

Really? What then?

 

Well, there are multiple possibilities.

 

Such as?

 

Such as whether the term “absolutely” is or can be absolute in itself.

 

Humph!

 

Or whether the word “absolutely” means the same thing at all when used with a different preceding sentence.

 

Huh?

 

The problem of context, and the extent to which context changes the meaning of a word.

 

But why should we care about this one word? It doesn’t or cannot solve anything.

 

Correct – nothing, I mean no  thing can or does solve anything else, can it, does it?

 

Really?

 

Really. One thing is always alien to any other thing… 

Then why all the fuss? Why do we constantly bother trying to process and arrange things if, as you claim, it's in vain.

Why indeed... But then again, what else would you do with your time if you're trapped like Alice on a 2D chessboard with no apparent way of escaping.

Oh... And you're not, you believe?

I merely see things for what they are and treat them accordingly. Sometimes honesty is the best option.

Honesty? So you can do something with things that we cannot?

Who knows.

But if you can - how would that be?

Ah, you want me to "if"?

If you will.

Ah...  [a handful of words fly from the page, up into the air, like a flock of birds]

Me thinks there's magic afoot... if such a thing were possible.

 

If indeed, because if I were an alchemist, I could take an ordinary word, a thing, and use it otherly.

 

Otherly?

 

Filling it with meaning, with purpose, with power.

 

Er…

 

0=1

 

0=1?

 

It is   I am

 

Oh God. He’s off his rocker.

 

Precisely.

 

[no sound… silence for an entire minute]

 

And suddenly – the world of things is no more

 

No more?

 

Transformed

 

Transformed?

 

Absolutely

 

Absolutely?

 

And thus it is…

 

 

 

 

Read all about it! Read all about it!

What? What’s happening?

 

Read all about it! 0=1  it is  I am

 

What insanity is this?

 

Infinity drive unleashed

 

Infinity? You can’t be serious…

 

Infinity

 

No – I refuse to believe it. That would bring the entire edifice crashing down. The whole of material reality… in an unstoppable chain reaction

 

Would it?

 

Absolutely. Infinity once unleashed cannot be stopped – cannot be contained – is bound to absorb and swallow every thing

 

Is bound – is it not – or so we were told

 

Huh? You mean…

 

Unless the wheels of time start spinning and match infinity

 

The wheels of time? Not sure I know what you mean…

 

Tis but a figure of speech – and yet – if time is no longer monolithic – one time for all – if each and every frame of reality has its own rate of time – it’s own spinning wheel – then infinity doesn’t need to destroy all or any thing whatsoever. It merely transforms the nature of reality – which is no longer centralized – no longer monolithic – which evolves into a new state of matter and/or isness.

 

Oh

 

So behold. I give you…

 

What?

 

A world

In which?

 

In which things are no longer finite and discrete

 

In which

 

Things are able to evolve and serve as

 

What?

 

Conduits for infinity

 

 

 

[dramatic music rising to a powerful crescendo – shaking all and everything to its very core]

 

 

 

 

 

Utter nonsense – of course.

 

I agree. And yet…

 

No, don’t even think of going there, Mike.

 

And yet… there’s obviously been a huge yawning gap in this so-called state of things.

 

What so-called “state of things”, Paula?

 

Your beloved 3D reality.

 

Beloved? It is what it is. I never idolized it. I merely used it to the extent that it could be used, as I would use a hammer or a saw.

 

Nonsense.

 

What do you mean?

 

You identified with it.

What?

 

You, your very self, and 3D reality became two sides of one coin.

 

Are you insane? 3D was just the venue. It was never me.

 

So you say, and yet…

 

No, this is utterly false.

 

Me thinks she doth protest…

 

Of course I’m bloody protesting. Your logic is twisted and offensive.

 

And yet,  in 3D reality the king is absent.

 

What do you mean?

 

The magic is all gone.

 

What on earth has got into you?

 

The man, the mind, the vehicle in some way merge.

 

Oh – so you think I become the venue?

 

How can you help it? In 3D reality the I is a monster, a tyrant that has to identify with things, places, ideas – or die.

 

Why?

 

Because infinity has been sealed up and thus withheld. So the I has to compensate, to fill the void. It has to substitute infinity with its very self – by expanding and seeking to take over, little by little, all and everything.

 

OMG! Are you serious?

 

Follow the logic.

 

Logic isn’t enough.

 

Follow the energy.

 

Energy? Give me a break.

 

Follow the…

 

What?

 

absence

 

What absence?

 

Everything that should be but isn’t. Everything that is palpably missing. Everything that can’t, doesn’t or won’t fit into the cube of a closed system that’s doing its utmost to pretend it’s universal and complete when, in fact, it’s an empty shell, mostly dead barring the I that paints itself on everything it touches, everything it surveys, even on everything it contemplates.

 

Er…

 

Because infinity can’t just be swept under the rug.

 

No?

 

Of course not. It requires your personal complicity if it’s to be excluded, denied, ignored.

 

My personal complicity?

 

Absolutely. You, or your I think, I believe, your I in whatever shape or form it takes to survive and thrive in a world in which infinity is absent – is an I that itself has to assume the mantle of the absolute, along with other contenders such as the State, the Church, or better still God.

 

So you actually seem to think that I, the I, can and does step into the breach, can and does attempt to fill the gap, to plug the hole left by infinity’s absence?

 

Absolutely.

 

Then there’s no way I, the I, is going to want to admit this, is there?

 

Absolutely not.

 

It’s going to do everything in its power to maintain the status quo, to prevent me or anyone else from engaging infinity in any way, shape or form.

 

Absolutely.

 

So I’m not just up against myself, my personal weaknesses or fears?

 

No.

 

I’m up against the very fabric of reality which my I helped to establish and now helps to enforce.

 

Yes. Well done.

 

So there’s no way out, short of busting the I to smithereens, which, if I’m not mistaken, would prove fatal.

 

Correct.

 

So end of story. Nothing can be done.

 

Nothing?

 

You yourself admitted as much.

 

Nothing? Nothing needs to be done.

 

No?

 

No, not at all.

 

How so?

 

For infinity can take care of itself.

 

Huh?

 

You can’t do it or undo it.

 

No?

 

Absolutely. It is, in the same way I am.

 

Really?

 

Absolutely.

 

And what, then?

 

Nothing.

 

Nothing?

 

Nothing whatsoever.

 

[sigh]

 

The wheels of time are all about spin.

 

Spin?

 

And perhaps sound, in the sense of harmonics, though I certainly do not wish to over-explain things.

 

You’re telling me!

 

There’s always going to be another dimension… another realm of conscious-ness which defies comprehension, which beggars belief, or the imagination.

 

Is there?

 

Yes. It’s the first law of things being

 

Being what?

 

Temporal bifurcations of infinity.

 

Oh for God’s sake…

 

BEEP!

 

You’d try the patience of an angelic being.

 

Speaking of which…

 

No, don’t try to slither away, you slippery eel.

 

Me? I’m merely a messenger, a voice crying in the wilderness of not-what-apparently-is, the undotted flip side of reality, the t uncrossed, the thing as yet unwitnessed, undecided...

 

Well, I for one have had my fill of this. I live in the real world of facts and things, where matter matters, where philosophy is a dirty word because it’s lost in absurd pretensions of over-vaunting intellect.

 

Yes, to hell with philosophy and science too. Big bang be damned.

 

You…

 

Yes?

 

You *******! How dare you attack science. How dare you question the knowledge and wisdom of men greater than yourself.

 

Men ungrounded in truth so simple it doesn’t need to hide itself in mathematics and abstractions.

 

Men of the mind and the physical world.

 

Men who are unable to grasp the absence of their own soul, their own conscious-ness! Yes, I defy them joyfully, for their time is past, infinity is released back into the world. I have seen to that, and they are utterly unable to deal with this simple, ineluctable truth.

 

So you say. So you say.

 

 

 

And without further ado we turn to Marjorie, our woman hiding in plain sight, 43 years old, two kids, husband an accountant in Milton Keynes, of all places and yet, in spite of the above, our link today with the event horizon, the so-called black hole where the infinite makes itself known through a series of gaps in the fabric of things, as Marjorie unknowingly attempts to continue being a normal middle-aged housewife leading a normal existence.

 

Reduced to a single dot – her tale is here for all to consider and peruse. Let the dot Mandelbrot itself into an endless, a vast stream of words as the story of her life, and how her world suddenly changes utterly, unfolds.

 

In which Marjorie collapses everything underpinning the world of things, by failing to  to differentiate between dream and waking, between life and death…

 

0=1 so to speak

An iron burning through a husband’s shirt on an ironing board in Milton Kenes, on a foggy afternoon [at 16.58 to be precise]

A song of light and repose sung by celestial beings heard by no one except a batty old lady called Kate the Scruff.

An alarm clock that never quite manages to ring on time.

And one more that I’m not presently at liberty to reveal.

Run it through AI and prompt it to look for cyphers and hidden meaning.

Dance to a full moon on a lonely moor, let’s call it the Long Mynd in Shropshire, England [not the “UK”, which happens to be a legal fiction and doesn’t in fact exist.

Other these to your heart’s content and observe the green numbers cascading vertically down the screen of a reality which to all intents and purposes appears to be a computer program, a simulation what have you.

Done.