The Infinity Framework

Intellectual Property Statement: I offer this work to the global community from a spiritual autonomous point of view which is devoid of any connection to any concrete religion. Groups and or religions can not and may not derive exclusive rights or privileges from the factuality of infinity. It is an abstract work; spiritual interpretation of this factuality of infinity for three primary, abstract dimensions is a personal affair.

Introduction 

A long time ago, in my early twenties I was already aware of malevolence in our world, how this manifested through people. I also noted back then a trend of which I knew it was rooted in malevolence. “Erstwhile” it seemed communities were a lot more religious than they seem to be at present; regardless of religion. When one looks at present times and at past decades, most would recognize that over time, creed has fallen back, and inverse proportionally, decay and depravity have risen. The introduction of commercial stations, where controversy after controversy, sometimes bordering acceptable limits seemed to be common place. People that noted this and talked about this were often cornered as ‘old-fashioned’ or ‘prude’. At the same time, there was the advent of science. Also here a trend was notable. Science was often used to marginalize religion. Likewise, religion rejected science, mostly because of those marginalization attempts. I sensed that malevolence was at the roots of this, going by these other trends. Spirituality would not stand against the scientific discussion because of this rejection and differentially in the “modern” world within the scientific community there was an erosion of spirituality. The greater depth with regards to this is that people were losing a beacon at the spiritual level more and more. Apart from how someone fulfills their creeds, it gave to people the strength and courage to plow through life and one shouldn’t be surprised if people would actually receive help from ‘above’. Malevolence strives for discouraged and weakened people because people in these conditions offer a lot less resistance and would be more inclined to accept changes as they came with a sense of powerlessness. I am specifically talking of watching how our world descends into decay and depravity where core values like truth, love, honesty and integrity are compromised more and more.

From childhood I had noted these trends and one day I came to a decision; to find a way to make clear that science and spirituality are no opposites to one other. Contrary, that they could actually enhance and strengthen each other. I myself was raised in a Christian fashion, mainly through school. However I left it behind in my teens because of an overarching insight gained… at an early age I began to realize the factuality of the Absolute Duality and the given fact that people on this earth conduct their creeds in many various ways. It didn’t mean that I cast away the notion of a possible existence of higher powers. Contrarily; I always had an open, spiritual approach towards the infinite unknown. That there is more between heaven and earth was clear to me as a result of personal experiences. But likewise, I loved the sciences. At an early age I was already dabbling with electronics, programming and all the while gaining common knowledge. Also the coming into existence of our planet, dinosaurs and later, people’s cultures were part of this. And likewise, of our fascinating universe. I talked about this with a social worker about twenty years ago; also stating that I was in a way paranormally gifted.

To undermine this malevolence which is at the roots of this artificial duality between science and spirituality I began to reason. Because, in the end, science is no more than the charting of the world surrounding us and at its core it says nothing about an existence or non-existence of phenomena. I were going to do this through what one would call, a series of scientific theorems. The goal..? To bring together two worlds, the world of science and the world of spirituality. I was about twenty years old. When the time would come where I would present this, I already knew back then that I had to be absolutely sure of these developments. I had to be able to substantiate to take on any contentual discussions. Besides my natural interest for sciences I also knew I had to gain a basic knowledge of them to take on future discussions.

I never wrote notes. The process of reasoning took many years and was always reevaluated when new knowledge was accumulated. I’ve always kept it in my head. Until that one day in 2015, where I felt the need to formalize its core principles. On a forum I am a member of, the right opportunity appeared to do so. It’s a computer, science and technology forum. A thread was posted about a Russian billionaire whom wanted to invest into the search for extraterrestrial life. To make a statement about the existence there of I decided to use my work as a basis to substantiate this existence. You can find the original post from 2015 here: Science Meets The Infinite. In the following section the post itself is presented:

Infinity 

Well.. I’m going to take this on from a different approach. Please bear with me.

Infinity. It’s a concept. As most of you know, it is not a finite value. It’s a concept. In essence, it means, one can go on forever. There will never be a finite end. This is very important to keep in mind.

Now, let’s prove the existence of infinity. Just look around. We are. That is the proof. How can I say that so surely? Well.. to begin; there is difference. Now you’re reading this and in a couple minutes you’ve reached the end of this post. There is an infinite amount of singular states elapsing of the whole. Now keeping this in mind.

There’s always been the questions, what’s beyond the universe? What’s been before the big bang? When looking at that previous statement: for the Big Bang to come to fruition there must have been a change of state. For that, Time is required. Without time, no change of state can occur. No, I don’t mean our local time within our own local universe. No, I mean the Time ‘outside’ our universe. Abstract thinking.

For things to change state there must have been time. Since we are, we can simply conclude that there’s always been Time (at an abstract level) for things to change. Otherwise we’d have never come to be!

This same can be said for Space. Here I’m going to make a side-jump as far as infinity goes. Since infinity is not a finite value, it causes an ‘exception’ in ANY mathematical calculus, making it null and void. This means, that since our universe is working just fine, as is our own earth, as are all known living creatures, we can conclude that all these systems are FINITE systems. As far as our universe goes, it can still seem infinite to us; but if we were able to leave bread-crumbs and travel at impossible speeds, we’d eventually run into our own breadcrumbs. I call this pseudo-infinity. A circle for example is just that: a line that goes round and round infinitely, however, the circle is a finite geometry (finite diameter). Applying this to our universe, our local space can be warped to a point we will never reach a finite border and basically be trapped within. This would not ever allow us to explore the next outer system (that what is encompassing our universe).

As is the same with time explained before, one can ask… what’s there in the next outer system? And, what’s beyond that system…? And beyond even that? You’ll get the gist. From this, one can conclude that basically, there is an Infinite amount of nested FINITE systems. (See the Fractal concept). The same goes for inward systems. The molecular world; the atomic world; the quantum world… and what’s the next inner system? Have we smashed yet quantum particles themselves? Breaking into an inner-system has proven to be very difficult and requires a tremendous amount of energy (See LHC).

Each system has its own physics rule sets (standard model) which defines the rules for the next outer system. Since it’s an endless nesting of finite systems, one can conclude we’ll never be able to mathematically describe all the systems and have to make-do with placeholders. Can’t catch ’em all. There’s no unifying theory here. (Relativity theory breaks down completely at the quantum level).

If you read up till this point and realize the Infinite does exist, since we are, I can now make another number of statements:

Implications 

  • Every problem is solvable in every numerical system, since one can ALWAYS acquire the precision needed to make calculations to be exact results within the finite system of interest. (There’s no 4.4444556 electrons. There’s 4, or 5). This principle I call “finite system resolution”).

  • There are an infinite amount of finite creatures across all the finite systems. ‘All’ isn’t even an appropriate wording here since this is a finite term.

  • There’s much more one can deduct from this, like spiritual implications, but that’s beyond the point I’m trying to make here.

There’s one more thing I didn’t touch upon, besides abstract (Universal) Time and abstract (Universal) Space. And that is Force. Duality. Force is ‘hidden’ within the standard model as the 4 force particles. However, force deserves a rightful place on its own. To stretch this, one can conclude:

  • There are an infinite amount of beneficially aligned finite creatures as well as an infinite amount of detrimentally aligned creatures. Including us humans and all that lives on this planet, no matter their perceived intelligence levels (sentience quotient). And guess what? Any aware creature as such is posed a binary choice: Choose to be beneficially aligned OR to be detrimentally aligned. In reality, in daily life, we can be anything in between (those that have not made a real conscious choice just yet..)

To make this complete, I’ve introduced a new mathematical symbol which relates to infinity directly: The equals sign, with a dot above it. It means: Infinitely close to, but NOT mathematically exact.

I’ve condensed this theory into a scribbly note:

So, it’s pretty safe to conclude we’re not alone, and we definitely won’t be the top-of-the-line either!

It might offer you some good food for thought 🙂

The picture is of the same note, though now taken on the 8th of November to prove that the ‘MagicBox’ forum account is truly my account and to prove that this article is no plagiary. One can see that the ink after all those years has darkened, the addition in the top right corner has been written with the same ballpoint pen.

Follow-up Discussion 

After having posted this message I had a contentual discussion afterwards with another forum member. It continued in the actual thread itself but then continued through personal messages. Below here these posts and messages:

Carniflex
About Time and Standard Model. As far as I understand before Big Bang there is no need to have time. Time starts with Big Bang in this model. The edge of our universe according to this model is the farthest point in spacetime. Beyond that edge the model just breaks down – however, there is no reason whatsoever to assume there is time (spacetime) as time needs some kind of energy density for it’s existence.

So you do not need Time for “something to happen”, for our existence it is sufficient if the time exists after the initial event. Leaving aside the issue that time itself is relatively tricky concept in very early universe. Granted, it’s been a fair number of years since I have done anything with Standard Model and I’m most certainly not an expert in the field.

MagicBox
I know what you’re trying to say; but the time you’re referring to is what I call our ‘local’ time. And then I don’t mean the time-zones on our planet, but Time-Space as it is within our own universe. You’ll need to abstract time a little more. The bolded part you describe, is in the most abstract, “difference”. For difference to be (between two singular states) time in the most abstract sense is required to allow this change of state. There’s no ‘initial’. As for the big bang, it’s known that we can convert matter to energy by the annihilation process. But it’s already proven that matter can come into existence from interference of pure energy waves; the contrary. If our universe is ‘matter’ to the outer system, it’s not too difficult to conceive that there’s been a point in the most abstract sense of time where our universe as it is came into existence. 🙂 I’m not trying to argue against your point, I’m merely trying to point out the level of abstractness in regards to time. In the most abstract sense, “the allowance for difference to occur”.

Carniflex
I’m note sure I’m quite following you. It is quite possible I’m not able to grasp the relevant abstraction level. I’m not particularly strong in Philosophy. From physics viewpoint talking about time makes no sense unless you have some kind of energy density (be it then in the form of fermions or bosons) present which basically causes the curvature in space-time which we know as “time”.

In theory of relativity “difference” does not need time, space is just as good for that. I remember calculating the conditions for two events to be simultaneous a long while ago and it was possible to prove that the two events can be simultaneous only if they happen in the same space point in space-time. However, without some kind of energy density you do not have space itself. So further abstraction of “time” does not seem to make sense for me as without space-time as your frame of reference all events are independent – meaning there is no cause and effect, no “difference between two singular events” as these two singular events can not be compared.

In a nutshell only difference between “matter” and “energy” is basically energy density 😉 Even a single photon of the lowest possible energy is sufficient to cause the space-time to exist. Give the photon (or any other particle) enough energy and it can spit out all kinds of exotic stuff including components for fermions (which is traditionally considered as “matter”). At room temperatures main difference between “matter” and “energy” is the spin, Matter, or fermions have half spin values, 1/2, 3/2,… etc meaning they have to follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle and which means they cannot co-exist in the same state at same location at the same time (i.e., hand does not pass through the table because it is made predominantly of fermions). Photons (which is usually considered as “energy” traditionally) are bosons – they do not have to follow that rule and can overlap. Leaving aside some exotic constructs like Bose Condensate.

I know that abstraction can be quite hard, as I have struggled with it myself during my studies. Zero, Number, … , Infinity, Limit, differentiation and integration then proving theorems and writing equations where A and B are some kind of physical entities and at some point it snaps and you are juggling with covariant and contravariant vector spaces, defining the operators for addition and multiplication, soon thereafter dealing in N-dimensional tensors (which is still a concept I’m finding hard to swallow).

Anyway, I think we are drifting off topic here 😉 As interesting as this discussion is 😀

Basically I think that trying to spot the potential spots for “aliens” is not wasted effort. It’s a lottery, that’s for sure, but if you hit a jackpot it can mean a huge paradigm shift on Earth.

MagicBox
Hey mate,

Thanks for your elaborate respectful reply 🙂 I read yours and I have to say likewise, interesting stuff to discuss 🙂 I’m not very strong in actual physics, predominantly the basics. I’m an electronics engineer as wel as software engineer. But I’ve kept myself up-to-date on physics knowledge for as far as I could understand it, getting the generic gist of it, so it was interesting to read what you wrote and learn a little along the way too.

I’d figure I would leave you a PM rather than having you think I’m ignoring you.

Yes, the thing I’ve come up with wasn’t a 5-minute thing. It’s basically a sort of culmination of things I’ve pondered; it was never meant to disagree with established finite science. In fact it was intended to expand on it; bringing the concept of infinity into it to be able to make a number of statements, mostly on (indeed) the philosophical side of things. It’s not meant to be a replacement or an assault on existing physics calculus 🙂

In that sense, Time and Space as I’m using it I never felt was entirely accurate; those concepts may change when going into deeper systems. There’s no real abstraction in those, as those terms relate to finite physics rather than being abstract terms. To get the abstraction, the 3 components would be:

-The phenomena that allows things to happen
-The phenomena that makes things happen
-The phenomena that describe the things subject to the two above.

Energy in that aspect (i think) is no different than potential. Without potential, energy wouldn’t ‘move’. You were right that ‘difference’ applies to Space as well. As well as force/energy.

That’s why I called ‘difference’ the ultimate abstractness of things, forming the base of it all (just not in that post itself, it’s something I realized almost 20 years ago.)

Peace 🙂

Carniflex
Thanx for the interesting discussion indeed 🙂

From the viewpoint of how people think in terms of concepts and visualizing for themselves sometimes very abstract things it is certainly enlightening. Software engineering in itself can be quite abstract undertaking no doubt giving a bit different perspective on the world as a result.

BTW I was not quite disagreeing with you. Just trying to explain the different point of view. As Big Bang, Time and Space are fundamentally events / things beyond which hard science cant say much all it leaves us with is philosophy (and religion). At first glance what you were saying seemed like a variation of Anthropic principle.

Best o/
Carniflex

For now the Infinity Framework has not yet been documented as a white-paper. I may still formulate this as a white-paper in the future.

SOS-CAS-TOA 

There are people who want to nullify this work with all kinds of baseless allegations like trying to claim that the Infinity Framework is based on ‘SOS-CAS-TOA’; based on trigonometric functions. This is an incorrect statement; the basis is formed by the ‘ultimate abstraction’ which is the concept of difference. The abbreviation series is a Dutch aid to easily remember these formulae. To these people the following advice: Create an account at overclock.net and place a post with an actual rebuke. Without that, you’ve got exactly zero right of speech..

What doesn’t exist, can’t be taken 

08/12/20: In the middle of the night while having sleep problems, I have taken the physical scribbly note and burned it up in my bathroom above the bath tub filled with some cold water to reduce any sort of igniting fire in the house. The physical note no longer exists other than within my memory and in a digitally scanned form. That what is behind the formulation of this note is still part of the knowledge in me though. I call this, own merits.