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.