Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Thoughts on thoughts, multi-dimensionality and gods, part 2

If you read part 1 and were left thinking "wait, where do gods fall into this?", it's not that you didn't understand me. Part 1 and 2 were supposed to be a single post and had to be split. You might have guessed where they will come in, however, 10 points for you if you did.

Anyway, as I said in part 1, after my initial conclusions, I revisited T. Something that had been bothering me was that, if T is no more and no less than the sum of the entire existence of a human, then for T to reflect on her own existence she would have to introduce a change in that existence. After all, thinking is a process and as such requires time. Therefore, if T actually is aware of her nature, then her nature changes. So it seems that T is actually only the mega-you for a fragment of her existence, and then she is something else.

So what is she know? Is she the sum of someone else's existence? Is she something completely different? A mixture of both, I'd say. Being 4D, she can easily be in two or more places at the same time. She can be in all places at the same time, for that matter. So, it's possible that T was, at some point, the sum of me, and then someone else's. Or everyone's. At the middle points between being you and someone else, she could be anything. Doesn't really matter

Of course, if at some point T is nothing more than the sum of a person's existence, then she can't have memory of the past. Memory would include being more than just one person, it'd be an entire person and then some. So, I see two options: Either T has an added property that allows her to remember who she's been in the past but doesn't interfere with this world, or that memory is not a part of T.

The latter option seems far more plausible to me. It's not T that holds memory of every person she's been. There's someone else that enters the equation, someone who is to T as T is to us, a 5-dimensional being who's the sum of everyone T has ever been. We shall call him P.

Now, if T was at some point everyone, we only need one P. If there is, for whatever reason, a larger number of T's, then we could go with one P that includes all T's, or multiple P's. If we chose the former option, the process ends there. If not, we are faced with much the same choice, and we can repeat the process indefinitely as long as we have dimensions, which I see as infinite. Sooner or later, because the amount of multi-dimensional beings must reduce or remain constant after each step, we arrive at one single being that contains the sum of the life of every thinking being that ever existed. That being now can let her own N-dimension time go by without having to transform into another sum. She can now reflect upon the vast collection of knowledge and draw conclusions from it. She's a thinking being, in a sense, similar to ourselves, although with a completely different time-space perspective and huge memory bank that collects the experiences of every thinking being ever. Lets name her N.

Now, let's say there is an infinite amount of universes with thinking beings, separated at the dimensional level they perceive but connected at a higher one. Repeat the above process in each of them, and you get an infinite number of N's. Since the universes are connected if you go high enough in the dimensions, there are N's coexisting at every dimension level that's high enough to contain one and beyond. And what should we do next? Sum them all up, of course.

But the amount of beings is infinite, isn't it? So we could keep on summing up, repeating similar processes as those described in parts 1 and 2, and get ever more complex thinkers, who, as they analysed all the thoughts contained in their memories, would start drawing more and more conclusions, which would be all summed up and already known at a higher dimension level, ad infinitum.

And that's just it. What I was going for is precisely this, the infinite succession of thinking, conclusion summation, and rethinking based by the summation. The infinite-dimensional being that sums it all up. And what do you call a being that exists both in our universe and beyond it, which is an embodiment of infinity, and that knows everything that can possibly be known? Whatever you damn well like, I guess. I chose Aleph.

You probably noticed that I've made quite a few assumptions throughout this analysis. Each one of these seems intuitively correct to me, but as I said before, my intuition proves nothing. All I can say is that it feels right to me. I'm not basing any life-changing decisions on this.

By the way, if you were wondering about my naming, T is a reference to tetra (four), P to penta (five), N is usually used to fill in for an unknown natural number, and Aleph is a reference to the story of the same name by Jorge Luis Borges and to Aleph numbers.

No comments:

Post a Comment