Infinity is a pointless expression. Actually, it isn't an expression, it is just a definition of a system of representation. Hey, does that make sense to you? Let me begin an elaboration. . .

Here's a broad topic: The space-time continuum, what exactly is it?

We know that the space-time continuum has no limits, it is infinite. But infinity means nothing to the universe. Thus, everything in the space-time continuum must be represented . . . By math. Warps in space-time are represented, sort of like this:



Ouch, I hope that programming-code wasn't hard to understand. But anyway,

What hosts this clock-work behind the universe? What supports reality? Here's quite a jump: I call it the Omniplex. It is like a central processor, but it doesn't exist in space-time. The Omniplex exists behind reality. It takes a system of representation (which we discovered by knowing that the space-time continuum is infinite) and drives it on. It is a form of intelligence, infact, everything is intelligence.

Interested? Read more at my blog: link

I hope you don't count that as advertising, but I just don't want to repost my entire blog here.

Cheers,
Ben

It is a form of intelligence, infact, everything is intelligence.

What would you define as intelligence?
It is usually argued that only sentient beings are capable of being intelligent. Since only sentient beings are capable of abstract thought, performing problem solving and calculations etc etc.

How can everything be intelligent? Is the chair I am sitting on intelligent? Is Justice intelligent?

On a deeper level, if everything in the universe is determined by cause and effect then nothing is intelligent since it is only doing what is inevitable for it to do.

What would you define as intelligence? . . . How can everything be intelligent? Is the chair I am sitting on intelligent?

Yes, the chair you are sitting on is intelligent. I define intelligence as energy. Not particularly the intelligence of a brain. But there are two types of intelligence, physical and experiential. Did you read my blog? It gets into this stuff.

Sorry I have a hard time explaining it. I found it out after studying a series of graphs that I had constructed which gives structure to everything in physics, I didn't suppose that everything was intelligence at the moment. However I believed that the universe originated from intelligence. But after a while I can't remember why, but I did conclude that everything is intelligent. I discarded the graph, decided to study something different, and that is when I discovered this theory.

-- edit --
Okay I'll try to explain better. The matter in your chair has molecules, which have atoms, which have hadrons, quarks, and then super-strings fundamental piece of substance. I concluded that this substance is processed by intelligence, but in order for the network to be a network, the substance must be intelligent too.

-- edit 2 --
This network, or the "Intelligence Subnet" is a network which transfers intelligence's thoughts by following regulations such as space-time and compact dimensions. The network has 3 components:

Experiential intelligence (concience)
Physical intelligence (energy and matter)
Processing intelligence (the Omniplex, the networker and central processor of the universe)

-- edit 3 --
Here's a bad/good example: if we have a paricle; particle A, and a particle; particle B, and they collide as experiential intelligence witnesses them then what would be the background going on? Well particle A would be at some postion in space-time, which would be represented by it's intelligence, and same goes for particle B. This intelligence is networked and thus the two particles know that eachother is there. Things can now interact in a system which is goverened by the Omniplex.

-- edit 4 --
On a deeper level, if everything in the universe is determined by cause and effect then nothing is intelligent since it is only doing what is inevitable for it to do.

Yes I know that, but you're thinking about intelligence as random thought without a cause. In this system, intelligence is goverened by cause and it isn't exactly able to think by itself, that is what makes it what it is.

I define intelligence as energy
If when you say 'intelligence' you mean 'energy'... why don't you just say energy?
Makes more sense.

Yes I did read your blog.

I concluded that this substance is processed by intelligence, but in order for the network to be a network, the substance must be intelligent too.
Not necessarily, the network could be a network and remain so if has been designed that way by the intelligent designer. It doesn't have to be intelligent itself.

And since you define intelligence as energy. What you said reads:

I concluded that this substance is processed by energy, but in order for the network to be a network, the substance must be energy too
I think you need to redefine some of your words


also as a side note: You are assuming that the universe was designed by an 'intelligent designer'.

You will see criticism of this view if you look at the 'argument from design'

If when you say 'intelligence' you mean 'energy'... why don't you just say energy?No I don't mean energy. I define one of it's proporties as energy; that intelligence is tangible. People don't really know what definitions are it seems like. A definition describes something, and so it doesn't mean that they're exactly that. Ah arguing gets stupid sometimes, people argue about what a definition is. But can I tell you something? I believe that I'm catching onto something big. Hey umm and I should have also said this instead: "Energy is intelligence." but you can always configure definitions the other way around.

I think you need to redefine some of your words
Nope you just assumed things incorrectly. Language is very imperfect.

But thank you, I may have misthought somethings; perhaps physical things are not intelligent. Perhaps physical matter is all held at the Omniplex.

Oh thank you so much for this wonderful debate, it's very interesting

Hi Ben, I'm Daniel and I am new to this site. (I've made some posts on the Aesthetics forum since that is my main interest.) I am a musicology major and am fulfilling a philosophy minor.

I think about the concept of infinity from time to time, as well as the concept of nothing. Do you believe that we as human beings are capable of experiencing or even imagining infinity and/or nothing? Sometimes when people talk about the creation of the universe, they will say something like "in the beginning there was nothing", and you might picture just a blank black box or screen. If there is such a thing as nothing, however, there isn't even this black screen. There is literally nothing. Is it possible for humans to experience that or its opposite, infinity? Perhaps by some kind of super-deep meditation?

Thanks!
Daniel John Carroll