[Lackjester]

This is a repost from something I've written in the INFP section. It didn't attract attention or lead to anything interesting so I've decided it might be best to post it here in the hopes of receiving some kind of constructive feedback.

Let's assume, for a moment, that we're trying to understand reality and not simply ponder on things that lie outside of it.

Infinite time in a perfect cyclical system invariably ends up representing the path(s) of least resistance (of equal values) between infinitesimal contraction (or enthalpy) and infinite dissipation (or entropy) which I call the possibility-space. The same infinite time, in a permutating cyclical system, ends up representing all paths of least resistance of any equal value/probability in the possibility-space. As for infinite time in a non-cyclical system, it merely remains unstable and thus cannot possibly exist. Nothingness is absolute, it is everything outside of reality, but it can only ever take shape (become real) through the bottleneck that is probability-space -- which also called necessity or commonly perceived as some kind of deity. In the end, at best, an infinite amount of time and energy can only lead to an infinity of mathematically-sound alternate realities.



Existence itself, or reality, is defined by movement performed linearly (in either direction) along any given path of least resistance in the probability-space. The only unique aspect about consciousness is its impact on the overall system: it increases and alters the final expression of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Please do note that these thoughts imply that the purpose of morality and life itself is the maximization of, and control over, the expression of entropy and that all of this implies the impossibility of true death or in-existence, if only because nothingness (which is ironically also everything-ness) is all-pervasive and so is the probability-space.

Also, exponential economic growth cannot be sustainable in an environment with limited resources. All capitalistic economies are bound to clash with the nature of reality and the reality of nature.

All individual consciousnesses are unimaginably complex folds of the same line. As such, it's merely logical to assume that, since everyone is you and you are everyone, it is best to treat everyone (yourself) as morally as possible -- which can only be achieved by developing empathic understanding and self-control through knowledge and personal struggle.

What are your thoughts regarding my assumptions and conclusions? Do you have any idea as to how I could possibly improve my view of the world without veering into the likes of deep nihilism?

Thanks.

[Sleeve Of Wizard]

Cool poem bro.

I'll come back to decode this after I've had some sleepy time.

[Lackjester]

It's not a poem, it's a conjecture through which I attempt to justify morality (entropy ethics), meaning, deism (?) as well as define and explain reality & nothingness.

I'd like to add some additional clarifications/thoughts:

1. It seems to me that our existence itself is as it is now merely because it couldn't be otherwise -- for any meaning (or function) to exist, our Universe has to be (one of) the (most likely cyclical) path of least resistance (ie. most stable) in a sea of an indefinite amount of other universes.

2. As such, I picture "nothingness" as an endless sea of potential (unstable and temporary) realities outside of our own finite potentiated (stable and eternal) reality -- "nothing" then defines the unsubstantiated essence of an infinity of random quantum fluctuations.

3. In other words, to sum up what I've just said, nothingness can only be -- in my eyes -- whichever part of the essence of infinity is superfluous to the arrangement of a stable reality.

4. We are all -- technically speaking -- lifeless but very complex automatons in some distant Planck frames of the Universe.

5. My view doesn't leave room for free-will but does take into account the neurological functions of "will" and neural inhibition as well as very complex and distinct personalities.

[CowboyBarry]

I do agree with certain parts of what you've mentioned, but I'm going to have to go all Parmenides up in this piece.

Nothingness cannot be anything. It is impossible for something that "is not" to be. There is no such thing as not-being (as well as coming into or going out of being).

[Lackjester]

I do agree with certain parts of what you've mentioned, but I'm going to have to go all Parmenides up in this piece.

Nothingness cannot be anything. It is impossible for something that "is not" to be. There is no such thing as not-being (as well as coming into or going out of being).

That's a problem of linguistics. We have the same thoughts but simply express them differently -- we are in line.

My attempt was to explain that nothingness doesn't exist because it is actually "everythingness" that lies outside our reality.

It "exists" only momentarily because it's not stable.

[CowboyBarry]

That's a problem of linguistics. We have the same thoughts but simply express them differently -- we are in line.

My attempt was to explain that nothingness doesn't exist because it is actually "everythingness" that lies outside our reality.

It "exists" only momentarily because it's not stable.

How can something that doesn't exist lie outside of something?

For that matter, how can anything lie outside of something truly infinite?

Forgive me if this misunderstanding is just another example of the different meanings we attach to words.

[Lackjester]

How can something that doesn't exist lie outside of something?

For that matter, how can anything lie outside of something truly infinite?

Forgive me if this misunderstanding is just another example of the different meanings we attach to words.

No worries, I understand that my words and sentences are confusing. Let me try to explain...

According to me, our reality isn't infinite, it is most probably and stable, finite and cyclical path of least resistance in an infinity of "nothingness" which is actually infinity itself: an endless stream of random quantum fluctuations.

This picture might help:


tesla-coil.jpg

[KneeSeekerArrow]

Cycles of Time by Roger Penrose

[Lackjester]

Cycles of Time by Roger Penrose

Haven't read that -- does he share or dismiss my point of view?

Did he argue in favor of entropy being the basis of morality? If so, I might just have to read his book.

[CowboyBarry]

No worries, I understand that my words and sentences are confusing. Let me try to explain...

According to me, our reality isn't infinite, it is most probably and stable, finite and cyclical path of least resistance in an infinity of "nothingness" which is actually infinity itself: an endless stream of random quantum fluctuations.

This picture might help:


tesla-coil.jpg

That makes more sense.

The part in bold is where we differ, then. I think reality is necessarily infinite and one.