Observations of Infinity

The information presented here isn't anything for which I have masses of research evidence and, to my knowledge, it is not a collective subject which has its own specifically named theory. Do excuse (and inform) me if you know otherwise as, to me, they are just a collection of intriguing similarities, or parallels personally noticed over time in apparently unconnected subjects, which appear to have the concept of 'infinity' of time and/or space somewhere within their structure.

They largely concern the nature of the information required and available to entities in order to replicate themselves and also suggest a simple way in which the concept of infinity might be grasped. Although the method of presenting them here may not appear particularly eloquent to those who may be considered expert in any of the individual fields, please allow me to elaborate my observations in the simplistic way that I am able:

1) If you have a magnet and cut it in half, you end up with two replica magnets, each having a North and South pole, rather than one half holding the South and the other the North. No matter how many times you halve them or how thin the slice, each infinitely minute particle will remain a bi-pole magnet.

2) If you break a true (*) hologram in half, you will be left with two replica holograms, each holding all the information of the original, rather than two half images like you would with a photograph. No matter how many times you do this, even if you shatter the hologram into an 'infinite' number of pieces, each minute particle will still show the whole picture.

((*) This only occurs with unprocessed holograms that are invisible to the naked eye and still require a laser to decode them. If you cut a commercially available hologram that you can already see, all you will end up with is two spoiled halves).

3) Each strand of DNA holds all of the information needed to create the whole of whatever it is supposed to be, and no matter how many times you try to do this or how infinitely small the cell particle used, the 'clone' produced will always be the 'same'.

4) Based upon very simple (read complex) mathematical formulae all Mandelbrot Fractals contain infinitely evolving, apparently similar, yet subtly different versions of itself and no matter how deeply you zoom into or pull out of the resulting structure, it will continue to replicate 'itself' into infinity.

5) Somewhat differently to the above examples, because the 'information' is not there to replicate in the same way, (but the 'entity' of the smaller space is still contained within the greater space), is the notion of infinity in microspace. Most people will look for the concept of infinity in the great expanse of the universe (macrospace), but cannot comprehend what is beyond the 'end' of the universe. Infinity is, however, within your grasp, not just 'out there' in the vastness of space. For example, it is theoretically (though not practically) possible to keep halving the space held between your hands into infinitesimally smaller slices. Half of a very small space is still half with half more to go - never done - and so you could do this slicing forever. Infinity meets eternity.

So, based upon the idea that the microcosm reflects the macrocosm, what if in every infinitesimal particle there was all the information required to create the entire Universe again, either because it is programmed to create, or because it is all created from the original source - a gigantic perpetual motion machine giving birth ad infinitum? We might tend to end up with God or the Big Bang again, but you get the picture, right? That said, there are some people who state that you cannot have infinite divisions or births (there has to be an end AND (or at least) a start point - like the chicken and egg theory) and to disorientate you they suggest you try to imagine a one-ended stick. They argue also that numbers are finite because, although you can always add another one to any gigantic number you can think of, you are still at a finite number until you add another to the series.

The New 'True' Infinity:
Somewhat overturning the above considerations of infinity in his paper for Paradoxica: Journal of Nondual Psychology (vol. 5, Spring 2013), Peter Francis Dziuban postulates that the clue to the real infinity is in the name. The prefix 'in' as used in incapable, inefficient or infirm means no or not. Therefore infinity means not-finity or, rather, the absence of finity or anything measurable. They are mutually exclusive. Rather than infinity being either an infinitely expanding or infinitely divisible finity, it is the absence of such endless finities - and therefore is everything that is not finite i.e., - nothing - uncountable and immeasurable, whether in time or space - size-less/timeless. Dziuban then gets us to ponder the present moment; we can only ever 'be' in the present moment but (something that has always puzzled me), how long does this state last; a nanosecond, a microsecond, a second? The answer is simple; it is immeasurably infinite or infinity - a complete absence of time - timeless. Being does not co-exist with time; there is no time, only being. Paradoxically, infinity then becomes the only present and everything else - past and future - is never present - as, surely, the past and the future is not present, but in a perpetual [old infinite?] state of flux.

The Holographic Universe:
There is a theory (originally by Michael Talbot) purporting that, rather than reality conforming to a specific actuality outside of ourselves, reality is a kind of holographic projection being interpreted by our consciousness. Reality therefore has as many permutations as there are observers interpreting (believing in) something. Whilst this does not preclude that there still may be an overriding reality that encapsulates all independent realities, it does rather elevate the notion of reality somewhere into the realm of infinite possibilities. The explanation proposed for this is based upon the concept in science of the 'observer observed'. Here, somewhat akin to the notion that quantum particles are not anywhere until we look at them (and this is only slightly different from the theory of Schrödinger's cat...or the question about unobserved trees falling in a forest making no sound), the observer has to interpret the results and thus is part of the experiment because they cannot take their part of the equation out of the answer. Therefore, it doesn't really matter what we believe, all of us are 'potentially' correct and we bring it about ourselves with a dynamic interplay between physical reality and where the projected holographic dimension of the quantum world meets our consciousness. Simple! This allows a resistance-free bridge (or a resistance to be overcome) between worlds, where mind-specific portals to God, ghosts, aliens, demons, time travel and whatever else, can harmoniously sit side by side. Therefore, we need not spend our time arguing what is or is not 'true' because whatever we believe is true in our world. If our neighbour believes otherwise, then their reality is different but equally true. There is therefore potentially no universality to our subjectivity. However, we do share commonly accepted realities to which we each subscribe and contribute in the physical world and we march into our technologically advancing futures, believing this IS reality and that we cannot have any personal impact on things being any different to how they become.

It all sounds a bit personal and not too dissimilar to a lucid dream or a hallucination. I guess that the implications of this form of reality could be utter chaos as there would be no familiarity holding it all together. However, there seems to be enough of us subscribing to the learned reality of the solid physical dimension to just about keep us all hanging in there together. Would this diminish the fanaticism that some have for proving the truth of their religions or histories? Is it then just their need to have their realities verified? What really happened 'back then' and does it matter?