Mind Alive

Journey of Quantum Infinity

As I have written (in VOID), through the void there is no separation.

And as I have written in Awareness, the all is connected. Also it was there pointed out that awareness is primary. So we should not presuppose the isolation of our identical or near identical selves because of spatial or spatio-temporal separation. We should look and see, both from a possible scientific or mathematical or metaphysical viewpoint and through attention to direct experience.

In an universe, which we might take as a preliminary model, to include that part of the physical universe which in some way encounters our being, we can then define a set of beings, arrangements and events thereby. Call P the set of events and entities which influence or are influenced by our lives. P so defined is not naturally limited to the physical world but likely has an intersection with it.

Because of the quantum flux we need to consider all of these sets as having soft edges, more or less open, as the mathematicians would say.

We are taking a polyvalent approach to quantum infinity, the quest for understanding the significance of the repeated worlds of the infinite universe.

An astronomical approach projects the theory of infinite worlds.

A quantum approach seeks to unravel the possibility of interaction.

A mathematical approach defines the questions of recurrence more closely.

A metaphysical approach opens questions of void and awareness.

An experiential approach looks for direct evidence of interaction.

A synthetic approach weaves these various strands together.

Are consciousness and awareness uniquely associated with an individual S or perhaps also (or even entirely) with S?

What if the awareness we seem to have as individuals is a projection into our world of a larger consciousness of S?

Since the members of S Are always exchanging, can S be a distinct entity? What does or can it mean to be an S? What is S?

S is this collective flux of multiple and perhaps infinite sets of individual awarenesses.

If S is defined as a set of S's, then S is a continually changing set in the sense that its members are being continually exchanged for other members. And even this descriptin resides upon a flow of time, where time may be undefineable between S's separated by such distances.

I am writing as if I stood apart and described Newtonian time.

What is S?

Are there individual S's?

Is there only one collective S?

Suppose we seek some variation on the concept of S which is more personally unique.

Any S in time is currently involved with a set of S's. Suppose we define this collective set as M(S), the 'me' set of S. M(S) is the set of S's which contain S.

M(S) is like the broad experience of S in its various S's, collecting these S's along the trajectory of S's experience.