1x0

Nothing.

Exactly. It seems to be finite. So if it has the physical appearance of a finite structure it cannot be infinite. I tried to give an example what infinity could mean... If the Universe is finite it has to have a starting point and what else can be that start be than the lowest possible physical state?

This still can not explain the lack of infinite energy and matter in the observable universe. Everywhere should be everything. Everything should be a supermassive black hole....

Time says when I should be there. It is an information when I should be present. It is an information about how long will it take for me to cover the distance to reach the restaurant in time. Would the 3 spatial dimensions of the restaurant change if I change the time of the meeting? It would just be a different information about the space where we should meet. It is hard to believe that time has nothing to tell about space when you say it is an inseparable part of it. Could we have a space program if we would do not count with time just with space? We need to be aware of time to be able to determine the route of the rocket and the point of arrival in outer space. One could say we need to know the velocity of the rocket and not the time how long it takes to make the journey but then does not velocity is indeterminable without time (km/h).

There are no signs of infinite matter and energy which could be a paradox if we can recognize patterns of infinity in numbers. On the other hand, maybe we just not yet found the physical limitation of number recognition and that is why we assume it approaches infinity.

How do you mean this? It makes anything measurable and by that perceivable for us. Could you make a second last infinitely long? How?

Trying to make a conclusion about this thread could I say that time can be recognized as a basic information about space? By the recognition of space through time the information gets physically relevant(volume)... Spaces velocity should be determined by time giving its rate/speed of evolution (if space really can expand and it is not an absolute infinity. Such an absolute infinity should have infinity velocity too or would it have 0 velocity then?....) Could we hold for 10 sec the same space-time? Is it more than information? Isn't spacetime physically present?

That it is finite or infinite. There is a significant difference between the two states. If it is infinite then how can it be just applied to one physical entity space(time) and not to energy and matter?

I do not really see this as a reason, why not to be able to determine the units of measurement and execute the measurement.

Maybe this is a paradox?

My recognition leads there... A step by step evolution and a simple basic information at the beginning which would have been a good start for a balanced reality. I do not think that a step by step fine evolution cannot include the singular aspects of this physical development. At the end of the day, even minimal information will be everything in proportion to nothing, which could be perceived as a singular event.... With analyzing the data received from the observations.The observation is executable in the realm and the physical properties recognizable. I do not think that we have to get outside to get what was prior. We just has to recognize reality as it is. I wrote a thought experiment about this maybe you would consider to read it: It is about information and how we perceive information (and by that does it have physical properties or not) As far as I understood our conversation about this it seems to me that it is space(time) itself we speak about. What other physical attributes spacetime has then information? It is recognizable and physically measurable. Attached to every observation. We can measure space with our physical reality based objective scalings. 1 meter is one meter does not matter I measure it in thin air or in dense rocks. Then does this mean that I could measure one meter in a black hole too? I mean a black hole has a measurable real size where our scaling unit (meter) could be measured. I understand that this reality will be relative to all observers. But does the relativistic recognition of the observer and its assumptions to measure reality changes the measurable reality itself? Thought experiment: There are 1 million technologically advanced intelligence in our galactic neighborhoods with 100 - 10 million lightyears away. They got the common task to measure earth´s exact size and weight as well as its future path in space-time. What would be the difference between the measurements of the intelligence 100 light years away and the one 10 million lightyears away? If I could collect all 1 million measurement results originating from their individual perception in different physical realities and measure what reality really is (we know the size, the weight and the path of the earth) then could we estimate/recognize the general relativity caused torsion of the original information? Why could I not measure the exact meter in a black hole when I know how its mass impacts the presentation of energy and matter (it is denser). I can observe a black hole and assume its size. We perceive on earth that a black hole is a 100K km wide physical object but if we would be in it it would be like 100K lightyears. The differences between the perceptions and reality itself should not mean the absolute incapability of exact measurements and convertibility. Space and the perception of space have to be relative (e.g to our general physical understanding) so the subjectively set objective measurement and relative perception should not change the exact physical extent of the space pointed out and described with a numeric expression of one Unit subjectively determined but objectively measurable.

We can measure space with our physical reality based objective scalings. 1 meter is one meter does not matter I measure it in thin air or in dense rocks. Then does this mean that I could measure one meter in a black hole too? I mean a black hole has a measurable real size where our scaling unit (meter) could be measured. I understand that this reality will be relative to all observers. But does the relativistic recognition of the observer and its assumptions to measure reality changes the measurable reality itself? Thought experiment: There are 1 million technologically advanced intelligence in our galactic neighborhoods with 100 - 10 million lightyears away. They got the common task to measure earth´s exact size and weight as well as its future path in space-time. What would be the difference between the measurements of the intelligence 100 light years away and the one 10 million lightyears away? If I could collect all 1 million measurement results originating from their individual perception in different physical realities and measure what reality really is (we know the size, the weight and the path of the earth) then could we estimate/recognize the general relativity caused torsion of the original information? Why could I not measure the exact meter in a black hole when I know how its mass impacts the presentation of energy and matter (it is denser). I can observe a black hole and assume its size. We perceive on earth that a black hole is a 100K km wide physical object but if we would be in it it would be like 100K lightyears. The differences between the perceptions and reality itself should not mean the absolute incapability of exact measurements and convertibility. Space and the perception of space have to be relative (e.g to our general physical understanding) so the subjectively set objective measurement and relative perception should not change the exact physical extent of the space pointed out and described with a numeric expression of one Unit subjectively determined but objectively measurable.

Interesting. Thanks for the link. It is not easy to perceive this concept... Infinitely larger than infinity.....while there is no sign of general physical infinity. What makes real numbers uncountable? We can count them although we can not reach their limitations (if they have any).. If we could give a natural number (1) to every point of spacetime and try to count how many points we have in the universe could we do that theoretically and could we count at the same speed or faster, than reality itself in its entirety is developing?

Humanity has a symbiosis with technology(different levels of artificial intelligence) and this symbiosis started ca 2 million years ago. This technologic evolution can get exponential but I do not see so many risks by this on humanity. There will be always something to do and recognize in every upcoming new moment of reality. Imagine we would gain intergalactic access to the Universe by advanced AI and we would not have enough humans to send one to every galaxy... The realm we exist in provides much more information what Humanity would be interested at. There is plenty to do, we just have to recognize and gain access to the new tasks of Humanity. If advanced AI would run our society our resources would be much more effectively allocated. A global, political and economical restructuration of Humanities current solutions would be required which suggestively should run on the commonly recognizable but finally individual human values. Knowledge, freedom, responsibility, peace, love, unity.....

This two statement feels antinomic. If the first is true how do you mean the second? How something can anything be infinitely larger than something pointing towards infinity when we do not really know can infinity exist at all...

Jun 18 right.

if this is true why we need any numbers beyond 0 and 1? Feels like different scaling of the natural numbers. What would be the difference between the infinite numbers between 0 and 1 or the infinite numbers between 0 and 1 000

14: a property (such as resilience (see resilience 1) or elasticity) of an inanimate (see inanimate 1) substance or object resembling the animate quality of a living being some space is required at the end of the day as does the "living" thing.... For the hydrogen atom, the action against decay and death already had been applied in its physical attributes. It is stable and unchanging. Why can we not count the physical attributes as applied information in action against decay? The word does not get meaningless because you include something in it previously was not described or recognized by the word. 700 years ago the earth was the center of the universe (visible stars from our galactic neighborhood). Our perception today include much more entities (galaxies, black holes...) and different structure recognition but this does not mean that the original point what the word Universe tried to express have changed.

There are not too many clear references on the internet. Maybe you could share a good link. I am working with living creatures in my everyday life. I do know what life and existence is meaning. That is why I dare to expand the limitations of the application of the concept our subjective recognition perceives. Life: all objects that have self-sustaining processes(wikipedia). Based on this definition could I not define a hydrogen atom as a living thing as its physical attributes are sustained in perpetuity. The hydrogen atom self-sustain the information about itself although the processes are physical ... It depends wherefrom you look at this, but I understand categorization led perception. If organized atoms can be called alive then a single building block of the organism why cannot be alive? While sustaining not just itself as a hydrogen atom (the co-operation with other elements does not change the basic physically determined attributes) but the organism's existence as well.

Why? What is awareness? To know something about Itself. The hydrogen atom will provide this information forever with the right physical circumstances. It can be part of simple and more complex atomic structures even biophysical entities. The hydrogen atom will always act upon the information determines its attributes does not matter it takes part in a tree, in an ant or in a human. For sure that it can support all three different level of Intelligences in there existence. More complex informational structures can run upon the hydrogen atom. Can a hydrogen atom be alive? What could make it dead? Can a hydrogen atom disappear just like that? Why we say it is not alive? It is existing....It can exist in circumstances we call life... It will exist longer in the form it is than I do... It could exist forever...

The crystal should be "aware" of its basic (physical) information. Intelligent? Yes. It provides information and so perceivable intelligence (the information is relative.?). A different entity will provide different information and show a different level/kind of intelligence. Does the crystal act upon the information determines its physical attributes? Yes. Without any physical impact, it will act upon. One could recognize this as it is aware of its own physical attributes/values/limitations...Is it conscious? Hard to say. Maybe on a very simple level. A hydrogen atom can be part of my body and so maintain/be part of the conscious entity I am. If the hydrogen atom would not be conscious on a basic level about the physical attributes it acts upon how could it maintain/present its attributes and how could it be a maintaining part of a more advanced consciousness? Could I say based upon this recognition that I am more than the matter I am? (atoms are changing several times throughout a lifetime but I still have the same memories, knowledge, personal attributes, and there is the energy level change when dying with the remaining atoms One had have....) It feels like I am energy with consciousness.... Then considering the laws of thermodynamics...

It is intelligent enough to be a sweet potato.... The genetic information presented through the potatoes physical appearance. Without any further physical impact, it would maintain this information in perpetuity (shot it out to interstellar space where the physical impacts of reality are not so significant than it is here on earth). It could still provide almost the same palatability in a billion years. Then if it can maintain this kind of information in such a long timeline does not that suggest that the physical structure "aware" of its physical attributes. It would still act upon the information determined its appearance when came into existence to be a sweet potato. Note the original genetic information would still be mostly present after a billion years.

It is a paradox if the system is finite. If not then it is the not yet clearly understood truth. Physical infinity and finite cannot exist in the same system. Ether it is finite or infinite but how could one system be both? Maybe that is why it is paradoxical since we always have a concept of a possible truth which cannot be true (and here does not really matter that infinity or finite is that)

Everything existing, if intelligence is meaning that they are aware of (at least) the physical properties they own and they act/react upon that information. A lot of different level of intelligence can exist in the realm... It is just how you perceive intelligence. For an advanced ai or a type 5 civilization (if they could already exist) we are like bacterias.... For me, it seems that physical entities have different level of intelligence but fundamentally everything is intelligent (conscious) at the end. Or in other words, I can not execute an observation in reality with which I would not be able to perceive a level of information the observed (bio)physical entity exist with.

I will do my best. Thanks for the advice.