Intelligent Infinity Defined

[Anders]

@Infinite I actually like the term 'Word' for the Intelligent Infinity Logos. Because a word is like a platonic form, which timelessly exists. But okay ground is also a useful description I think. Except ground sounds like something that can be added to. The Word has created everything.

[Anders]

I discovered that Morgue's model with Euler's formula can explain increase of frequency in manifested reality. Maybe I'm using the formula in a different way than Morgue, but it matches the Law of One description of increasing densities. The higher the density the higher the frequency/vibration of manifested reality.

Euler's formula describes a circle for all values of x. So the circle has infinitely many points. However I make a distinction between unmanifested reality and manifested reality. Unmanifested reality is infinite and changeless while the manifested reality is always finite and expanding.

"Questioner: ... I would like to fully investigate through questioning the mechanism of evolution ...

Ra: I am Ra. Your question presumes the space/time continuum understandings of the intelligent energy ... the continuum is finite. ..." - Law of One 19.1

What Ra says in session 19.1 is what I mean by manifested reality being finite. If manifested reality was infinite no change or time would be possible. So the infinite is the Source and its manifestation is always finite and always expanding and evolving.

And in the circle, when there are a finite number of points, the larger the number of points the higher the resolution/density. And the higher the resolution the broader the spectrum of frequencies. Loosely speaking one can say that as time progresses the more broadband manifested reality becomes, leading to evolution and higher densities.

[Anders]

Ra said that on their level of knowledge there are no paradoxes: "Ra: I am Ra. We are humble messengers of the Law of One. To us there are no paradoxes." (73.14)

Here is an example of a paradox:

"13.12 Questioner: Could you tell me how intelligent infinity became, shall we say (I’m having difficulty with some of the language), how intelligent infinity became individualized from itself?

Ra: I am Ra. This is an appropriate question.

The intelligent infinity discerned a concept. This concept was discerned due to freedom of will of awareness. This concept was finity. This was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One. Thus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness. Due to the infinite possibilities of intelligent infinity there is no ending to many-ness. The exploration, thus, is free to continue infinitely in an eternal present."

I resolve the paradox by saying that Intelligent Infinity manifests now, starting with a single difference between everything and nothing which explodes into more and more differences. And the differences are always finite.

Another thing I find crucial is that there is only one actual infinity! As Ra explained: "That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning." (1.7)

But then what about for example the natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... isn't there an infinite number of numbers? My conclusion now is that no, the numbers are always finite. It's tricky since there is of course and infinite potential of numbers, yet that potential can never be fully exhausted.

[Anders]

Are there several Intelligent Infinities? No, there can only be one Intelligent Infinity since there is only one infinity. Then what about parallel realities and parallel timelines?

Ra explains it with: "This is approximate due to the fact that parallel possibility/probability vortices cease when action occurs and new probability/possibility vortices are begun." (11.3)

As I see it, there are apparent different timelines into the future, yet at each moment the path unifies into a single timeline (parallel possibilities cease as Ra said). Notice that the term parallel timelines in the New Age teachings is still valid since as Rudolf Steiner explained, esoteric terms are often veiled and can sometimes even have multiple meanings.

[Brandon Gwinn]

As far as simply defining "intelligent infinity" I think it pretty much defines itself. Take the meaning of intelligent and the meaning of infinity and put them together. Going beyond defining it into explaining it's contents and progression could be, well, an infinite task, depending on how far you want to go. I think somewhere, though, the Confederation said that the term "faith" was synonymous with "intelligent infinity," one being a spiritual term and the other being more acceptable to those who seek with measure and pen. Intelligence in the Ra material I think is used interchangeably with awareness, and infinity is understood as unity, so "intelligent infinity" could also be defined  as "unity awareness"  maybe. The Word or logos I think is the second distortion and not the undistorted, formless, and timeless intelligent infinity or just infinity itself maybe. I think intelligent infinity was a very abstract and empty thing besides the infinite potentialities before the introduction of the 3 primal distortions which combined to make the creation as we know it.

[Anders]

@Brandon Gwinn I haven's checked with the Law of One, but yes I agree that the Word can be seen as the first distortion. The infinite I illustrate as a circle with each dot on the circle connected to all other dots. That's the same as Indra's net. That the undistorted infinite. The Intelligent Infinite is a single point on the circle chosen with infinite intelligence.

I think it's useful to teach/learn about Intelligent Infinity. For example that there only is one infinity was a new revelation for me. It has huge implications! It means that there is nothing manifested that is infinite. For example, there can't be an infinite number of points in 1 centimeter of space.

[Brandon Gwinn]

@Anders
I like to think that because infinity is infinite, that it could contain an infinite number of infinities. The Ra material says that in holographic style, every iota of the creation contains the infinite whole. I'm pretty sure an iota can be infinitesimal which means there could be an infinite number of them in any given area each containing the infinite whole of creation.

[Anders]

@Brandon Gwinn No, the infinite doesn't contain any infinities. Because that would make it more than one infinity. As Ra said, there is only one infinity.

Then how to explain for example Hilbert's Hotel Infinity?

"Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel (colloquial: Infinite Hotel Paradox or Hilbert's Hotel) is a thought experiment which illustrates a counterintuitive property of infinite sets. ... Finitely many new guests ... Infinitely many new guests ... Infinitely many coaches with infinitely many guests each" - Wikipedia

As Ra said, there are no paradoxes. And indeed, the paradox is resolved by observing that there are no, and can never be any, hotels with an infinite number of rooms. Not even in theory. Simple! Yet it's also radical since mainstream science still believes in infinities within infinities.

[Brandon Gwinn]

No matter how many infinities are within however many infinites, it's all still part of the one ultimate infinity. That's just the way I see things. To each their own.

[Anders]

No matter how many infinities are within however many infinites, it's all still part of the one ultimate infinity. That's just the way I see things. To each their own.

That was my view too. But then I realized that there can't be infinities within infinities! It's a radical shift of perspective. For example I used to think that there are infinitely many numbers. With the new perspective there is only a transfinite number of numbers. By transfinite I here mean that there is an infinite potential yet that potential will never be fully exhausted.

My reasoning is that infinity cannot contain infinities because that would make it more than one infinity. I got the idea from this answer by Ra: "That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning." (1.7)

[Anders]

Wow, I found that Aristotle has already said something similar:

"Aristotle handled the topic of infinity in Physics and in Metaphysics. He distinguished between actual and potential infinity. Actual infinity is completed and definite, and consists of infinitely many elements. Potential infinity is never complete: elements can be always added, but never infinitely many." - Wikipedia

So instead of using the term transfinite (which is often equated with infinite) I will use the terms actual infinity and potential infinity. And there is only one actual infinity. And there are many potential infinities. For example all even numbers 2, 4, 6, 8, ... are potential infinity. And all odd numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, ... are potential infinity. And when adding all even numbers together with all odd numbers, the sum is still potential infinity.

[Anders]

When scientists use continuous space there is actually a problem. For example take a line 10 inches long and divide it in half, then with continuous space, each line of 5 inches has an infinite number of points and the 10 inch line also has an infinite number of points. Does that actually compute? No, I don't think so. That's an example of infinities within infinity. And the size of the points must be zero length or the lines would be infinitely long. And zero times any number is still zero. So again a messy problem.

If instead space is "pixelated" with a smallest possible pixel size larger than zero, then when a line is divided each line will contain less points than the original line. The "paradox" resolved.

[Anders]

Here I found another huge problem with allowing several infinities and it's called the continuum hypothesis:

"In mathematics, the continuum hypothesis (abbreviated CH) is a hypothesis about the possible sizes of infinite sets. It states:

    There is no set whose cardinality is strictly between that of the integers and the real numbers." - Wikipedia

One expert said that Kurt Gödel proved in 1940 that CH can't be proved false. And then in 1963 Paul Cohen showed that CH can't be proved to be true! So CH can't be proven true or false. Sounds like inconsistency to me. To only allow one actual infinity will solve it since CH is then an invalid construction. And having only one actual infinity will cause a huge change in mathematics in many areas and not just for CH.

[tadeus]

The infinite cannot be many, Ra said, and that's logical since something many can be counted. How can you count infinity? Ra also uses terms like Law of Confusion, distortion and illusion. Why? In my opinion because to avoiding revealing some information prematurely to humanity.

Maybe the logic is simply, that what cannot be counted is infinite.
So Intelligent Infinity may be not infinite in reality, but it is not limited in time/space too, because it can be given in an unlimited time.
So at least it is not wrong to talk about it as Intelligent Infinity.

[Anders]

Maybe the logic is simply, that what cannot be counted is infinite.
So Intelligent Infinity may be not infinite in reality, but it is not limited in time/space too, because it can be given in an unlimited time.
So at least it is not wrong to talk about it as Intelligent Infinity.

That's a great summary. Some may say that this still allows infinitely many infinities within infinity since that can't be counted. I think my example of dividing a 10 inch line proves that there can only be one infinity. The puzzling thing is that in mainstream math it's allowed to have lines of different lengths each containing an infinite number of points.

[Anders]

I found some discussions from mathematicians about problems with many infinities, but it was sort of overcome by using the axiom of choice. A more clear example of contradiction I found in this video where philosopher Steve Patterson explains that an infinite circle in math is identical to a line, which is a contradiction. He said that when infinity is actualized in math, when infinity is "completed" it causes logical errors. That supports Ra's claim that infinity cannot be many. And I guess there might be something to my claim about the 10 inch line example!

Another example which I find excellent is called Thomson's lamp paradox. It shows one example where it's impossible to get a consistent mathematical on/off result for infinitely many steps.

[Anders]

Great! In this video Steve Petterson interviews math professor Doron Zeilberger who rejects the idea of completed infinities.

"Anderj Bauer laments that it is hard to kick old habits, but, he himself has to kick the old habit of believing in infinite sets." - Dr. Doron Zeilberger

But is there ANY actual infinity? Yes, I believe Ra is correct that there is only one actual infinity. In my model, reality is a result of infinity manifesting. And I also have consciousness connected to infinity. And the manifested world is always finite.

[Anders]

As I understand it, there is only one infinity and everything else Ra calls distortions. That's a very deep and foundational philosophical concept. Because it means that everything that can be described is distortions. Ra has light, not the Word, the Totality Logos, as the first distortion.

"Ra: I am Ra. ... The concept of light is instrumental in grasping this great leap of thought as this vibrational distortion of infinity is the building block of that which is known as matter, the light being intelligent and full of energy, thus being the first distortion of intelligent infinity which was called by the creative principle." - Law of One 13.9

To make it fit with my idea I will have to use the Bible verse about how in the beginning, was the Word and the Word was God. So light can then be seen as the Word made manifest! And since the Word was before the light, the Word cannot be a distortion. One "poetic" description is that Intelligent Infinity created the Word, and a more hardcore explanation is that the Word is a platonic form with the attribute of intelligent infinity.

[Anders]

In mathematics there are as many even numbers, as there are even numbers plus all odd numbers. That seems like a contradiction. The solution is that they use infinite sets.

With potential infinities it becomes different. Then all even plus odd numbers, can be more than all even numbers, which is intuitively more logical. It depends on how it's defined.

[tadeus]

In mathematics there are as many even numbers, as there are even numbers plus all odd numbers. That seems like a contradiction. The solution is that they use infinite sets.

With potential infinities it becomes different. Then all even plus odd numbers, can be more than all even numbers, which is intuitively more logical. It depends on how it's defined.

Only in mathematics things can be infinite.
But such definitions helps to keep mathematics alive for every situation.

[Anders]

Only in mathematics things can be infinite.
But such definitions helps to keep mathematics alive for every situation.

Having several infinities as in ordinary math might be more practical than dealing with potential infinities. One idea I came to think of is to have sizes of potential infinities based on the size of all natural numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... as the unit size U. So for example all even numbers 0, 2, 4, ... have the size 0.5 U. And all odd numbers 1, 3, 5, ... also have the size 0.5 U. And then all natural numbers 1 U = 0.5 U + 0.5 U.

[tadeus]

Having several infinities as in ordinary math might be more practical than dealing with potential infinities. One idea I came to think of is to have sizes of potential infinities based on the size of all natural numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... as the unit size U. So for example all even numbers 0, 2, 4, ... have the size 0.5 U. And all odd numbers 1, 3, 5, ... also have the size 0.5 U. And then all natural numbers 1 U = 0.5 U + 0.5 U.

O.K. Why not.
When this definition is helpful it is a good definition.
It's not different to the definition of imaginary numbers with i² = -1

[Anders]

Ouch, I just realized that the Word, the Infinite Logos, can NOT be represented as a number. Because rational numbers don't have an infinite number of decimals, and the real numbers are problematic from a philosophical perspective.

As a simple example, what is the last decimal of Pi = 3.14159265... ? The answer is that there is no last decimal of Pi! So the standard method of saying that Pi is a real number is valid as an abstraction, yet invalid as a factual statement.

The manifestation of the Word on the other hand can be represented as a number with a finite yet growing number of decimals. So the manifested Word has a beginning and an end, the Alpha and the Omega as Christ (who is the Word manifested) declares himself in the Bible. The total unmanifested Word however can't be represented as a number, only as Intelligent Infinity.

I will take a look at this video for more information about the problem with Pi as a real number:

[Anders]

Great, I found a confirmation about only one Intelligent Infinity. My reasoning is that since there is only one infinity, there is also only one Intelligent Infinity. If several infinities were possible, then there could be many infinite creators with infinite intelligence.

"Questioner: Thank you, Ra.

Ra: I am Ra. I leave you in the love and the light of the one Infinite Intelligence which is the Creator. Go forth rejoicing in the power and the peace of the One. Adonai." - Law of One 4.23

[Patrick]

"several infinities" would still be "inside" Infinity (with a capital I).

What boggles my mind about Infinity is that it is somehow "more" than the set of all possibilities.

[J.W.]

My thought always takes me to the tesseract whenever this subject comes up.

https://tenor.com/view/tesseract-gif-18047385

my curiosity of this topic revolves around the question... Is there a "continuum?" between infinite realities within infinity itself? ...

Or are they all operating as a standalone, but with one shared experiences/foundation that builds upon each others?

A few examples that I could put into perspective are... Your siblings, and distance relatives all live different lives, but they all belongs in your family tree... Your neighbor isn't in your family tree, but belongs to your specie on this planet... so on and so forth... Like the many sacred geometry we see in this universe that takes on the pattern of "branching."

In literature/philosophy... A query is a product of a person's past "answers/experiences".....

questions are built upon the answers we have, thus generating further questions...

This loop could be "the" limitation of this density, but each time it is visited, I can feel the veil thinning.

with l/l

[Margan]

"several infinities" would still be "inside" Infinity (with a capital I).

What boggles my mind about Infinity is that it is somehow "more" than the set of all possibilities.

The mind is boggled bc it can only comprehend finite things, measure, define etc and infinity is beyond all that.
How do you think is infinity "more" than all possibilities combined?
Is it maybe the set of all possibilities and impossibilities ?

[Anders]

"several infinities" would still be "inside" Infinity (with a capital I).

What boggles my mind about Infinity is that it is somehow "more" than the set of all possibilities.

That's also how I sometimes see it, especially since in math there are infinities within infinities. However my guess now is that there is only one infinity without infinities inside it. I take Ra's description of how infinity can only be one as excluding the possibility of infinities inside the one infinity.

For example in math there are an infinite number of positive numbers and also an infinite number of negative numbers. I have started to use Aristotle's potential infinities for cases like that. A simple reasoning is that there isn't any largest number, so it's impossible to have a 'completed' infinite set of numbers. With potential infinities there is an endless list of numbers that never can be completed.

"Carl Friedrich Gauss's views on the subject can be paraphrased as: "Infinity is nothing more than a figure of speech which helps us talk about limits. The notion of a completed infinity doesn't belong in mathematics."" - Wikipedia

[Anders]

my curiosity of this topic revolves around the question... Is there a "continuum?" between infinite realities within infinity itself? ...

In math today they use a continuum (between each point there is an infinite number of points, yikes). I believe that's a false idea. It will be interesting to see if there will be more experts who start to reject the idea of a continuum. Today only a few experts reject the continuum.

One of the few experts who deny the existence of a continuum is N J Wildberger that I posted about earlier. Here is another video where he talks about the continuum. I will take a look at it:

[Patrick]

13.12 Questioner: Could you tell me how intelligent infinity became, shall we say (I’m having difficulty with some of the language), how intelligent infinity became individualized from itself?

Ra: I am Ra. This is an appropriate question.

The intelligent infinity discerned a concept. This concept was discerned due to freedom of will of awareness. This concept was finity. This was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One. Thus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness. Due to the infinite possibilities of intelligent infinity there is no ending to many-ness. The exploration, thus, is free to continue infinitely in an eternal present.

Infinity figured it was even able to be finite if it wanted to.