Barbelith Underground > Head Shop > Language, thought, and infinty

“Borges pointed out that infinity corrupts deeper and faster then stuffing your asshole with the bones of orphans.”

And Burroughs once remarked, “Just look around, buster! Just look around.” And what is it that we see if we actually are serious about looking around?—The Garden of Forking Paths! “Semantics follows cultural trends just as the value of information does”: it would have to—information is language, “…and language is virus,” as ole William S. told it. I’d bet that “…stuffing your asshole with the bones of orphans” is a damn fine way to manifest a whole lotta’ viral corruption.

But enough of the Side Show Stealin’…

1) “Look up at the night sky.”
OK.
“See the dark bits between the stars?”
Yes.
“How far can you see?”
I don’t know—looking at only a dark patch I have nothing by which to make sense of distance.

2) “Stand between two mirrors.”
OK.
“See the infinite reflections?”
No. I can only make out a limited number of reflections. There are many, but I can only see so far—the images blur into one and other—I did not experience an infinite number of reflections.

(And I really did these two things—go try it!)

3) “Calculate Pi/enumerate all integers How long will it take?”

How about four minutes?

But only if we did not appear to be limited and finite beings, and were able to perform an unlimited number of acts. If this was so, then in first minute we could write out the first integer, 0. After another thirty seconds, we’d write out the second integer, 1. After fifteen more seconds, we’d write out the third integer, -1. Seven and half seconds after that, we’d write out the fourth, 2. Three and one quarter second after that, we’d write the fifth entry, -2. And we’d continue to write out each integer in half the time we’d spent writing the one before it. After two minutes, we’d been done enumerating the integers. Then we could do the same thing for ‘Pi’. Starting with first digit, ‘3’, in the first minute, and continuing with ‘1’ thirty seconds later, ‘4’ fifteen seconds after that, and so on. Four minutes—in fact, the amount of time it takes to do this is arbitrary: we could do it in one minute, one second, or one nanosecond—but only if we too are, in some way, infinite.

But we’re not, at least, we don’t typically appear to be…so we can’t do it. Even if we had the remarkable power to consciously mark off and remember one integer for every second of a life, and let’s suppose we live, in this one life, to be 47 before—for whatever ghastly reason—we die, even then we’d only mark off around 1, 514, 764, 800 of the integers. So we haven’t really experienced anything close to infinity in this one remarkable life. We wouldn’t come close even in a finite series of similar remarkable past and future lives. I mean, no matter how many lives we use to add to the above number we still end up infinitely short of infinity!

Thus, we only are ever able to have a conceptual experience of infinity—like in the above we have a finite conception of infinity. Actually, there are two infinities in a finite bundle of 185 words. Now, is it reasonable to assume that from that, or any other, finite bundle we have actually experienced infinity? We certainly don’t have the whole of either infinities in my mind—otherwise we’d know the final digit of Pi! So in 1) and 2), the things we can actually do, we have no experience of infinity, and in 3) we can only experience those infinities if we are already in some way infinite. In other words, we do not live infinity through any of those methods.

Anyway, “'Chance' refers to our theory of probability that predicts events”: I agree! However, I do think that “one event” does give it, as you say, “…a chance :-) to work”—more or less. If the event is the entire process of flipping the coin—an apparently finite and discrete portion of spacetime—then during that time an apparently finite and distinct being, often calling itself “I,” experiences its “…theory of probability that predicts events.” Let’s be clear: whether the theory is for better or worse—whether it is accurate or not—is not our issue; the issue is that during that apparently finite and discrete portion of spacetime—during the apparent motion of moments to a seemingly distinct and finite being that views itself as exclusive from a seemingly distinct and finite coin—there is a seemingly distinct and finite pattern (the moments that compose the flipping of the coin) which represents, to the “I” of a particular memory, the fifty-fifty chance of the coin landing heads or tails. So in this respect, we, as an “I,” live chance.

In other words, the finite concept in our heads, ‘chance’, bears a more or less definite relationship to a finite pattern of experience—it doesn’t matter if we project it or its really there. What I am saying is that there is nothing in our pattern of experience that we can “project” ‘infinity’ onto or “discover” ‘infinity’ through—other than itself.

And yes, I am saying that mathematics is a language. “I am saying that ‘one’ and ‘1’ refer to [or bear a more or less definite relationship to] the same thing [or pattern of experience], in the same way that ‘white’ and ‘blanc’ refer to [or bear a more or less definite relationship to] the same thing [or pattern of experience]; moreover, I am saying that the ‘1’ picks out something in the world that is no more or less fictional than a shovel.” Again, what is your disagreement?

“For granted, if all we have is our senses, we can't actually prove objectivity, only infer it.”
~cusm.

Yeah, exactly, and I get the sense that Quantum agrees (but feel free to correct me, Q). But on the other hand, I can no more prove that “we” have senses: I can only infer from my own senses that the rest of “us” have senses; that is, as an “I,” we can neither prove a shared objectivity nor subjectivity, but can only infer these.

“Is that really [an eZ]? We may never know...”