Space is conceived in the mind and given a thought form. With this thought form we have a problem, akin to the mathematics of natural numbers.
We can imagine travelling through space but cannot give any boundaries. Our mental form, like the numbers, show that if we create an artificial barrier and call it the end of space, or the furthest point in space, then we can always imagine a space beyond it. The furthest point is akin to the highest number, it does not exist so the concept of infinity is brought in. The infinity concept is big enough to contain the highest number or the furthest point but also goes beyond it.
But is space the mental construction we give it. We are often happy to give something perceived and understand a thoughtful construct and consider it to be the very definition of what it is.
Is it possible that the two are the same? Is space actually created from the rules of thought? Giving it its mathematical properties and laws which all belong in the thought realm after all.
If it is not the same as the thought of it and not constructed within thought then it is something that is outside the domain of thought. It may not ever be a thing that is thoughtfully conceived.
Quantum physics through most of its history appears to rely on giving up a certain amount of thoughtful understanding. The absence of this sense benefits you by giving a number of laws a definition that prove themselves over and over again. But space certainly is not the space we normally understand in this context.
So what of this manipulating of symbols that we use to create concepts and understanding. Is it real? Are we mesmerised by the fact we have to use it to prove whether it is real or not? Everything we know and understand about the universe appear in these thought constructs. Maybe they just are not reality at all – just a fabrication by the program in the mind. Or maybe they are everything, that all of reality comes from it.
The problem is, if they are not everything then they only define themselves, in their own unique reality, and are not ever enough to understand or wholly conceive of everything. Maybe these things are not necessary and only called for by the creation or use of thinking. If we think, then we need to think of answers. But then the questions and the answers are just a construct, a filter of everything that is, and not truly of anything but ‘a question and answer’ construct.
Thought also exists as something I used in conscious manipulation of the things I understand to be. Do I create thoughts, or do they exist already and are simply used and manipulated by the mind? I know if I do not exist then nothing will exist to me, in total nothing will exist at all. If I do not think then nothing makes sense to me, almost becoming the same as above – not existing? Or can just perceiving and sensing exist without thought?
It is if infinity itself is nothing but a construct of thought. What actually exists does not need to reach infinite proportions because it just is. It may well be just a singularity that is divided infinitely by imagination. We can put any number of universes there, an eternity of time can be constructed for the pleasure of putting one thing after another. Space can be imagined to put one thing here and one thing there and say they are different – even though they are a singularity and the same nonetheless. We can then imagine compounding these dimensions we are creating to form more and more complex relationships between these things we imagine to be. The infinite singularity?
‘I’ can be ‘we’ on an infinite scale, creating in the realm of these dimensions, relative itself and interacting in time.
I really have to take some time out and study some philosophy I think?
I have no idea where I am going to, or coming from, in this space.