What comes to mind when you try to picture something infinitely complex? It is a concept that is difficult to fathom because it is, well, complex! To understand infinite complexity, you must first get a grasp of limited complexity. Every system, object, situation, circumstance, and idea we observe in this universe has limited complexity. This is because all of these things are finite. An object occupies a finite space. A system can only have so many functions, purposes, and factors. A situation can only have so many facets and factors, and so on. However, just because almost all observable systems are finite does not inhibit the fact that many of the things I have listed can be incredibly complex. These things can have hundreds of thousands, if not millions or billions, of functions, factors, purposes, qualities, interactions, and relationships all within their respective fields. Now an infinitely complex system is one where these qualities, factors, relationships, and interactions have no limit in their scope. Each part of this type of system has infinite functions and relationships with other parts of the system. Imagine a network like neurons or computer networks that has a complexity on this scale. Your brain has around 100 billion neurons, give or take, and this system and circuitry has such a valume of functions and purposes that it is absolutely one of the most misunderstood systems in the world, primarily because the brain is what supports and projects consciousness and reality for every given individual.
Now imagine a network that is infinitely complex, or close to that level. The only way this system could exist is if Existence, the state of everything that could possibly exist, is infinite as well. If it is truly infinite, that means that by being infinite it also must have existed, and will continue to exist forever. If such a complex system that has infinite factors, functions, links within the network, and relationships, exists, this system undoubtedly would have a consciousness so powerful that it could do anything it wants, concieve of anything it wants, and be present in any part of reality, within any and every universe or realm, and has authority over all things. If the system is infinite there is an infinite amount of possibilities to make manifest. This system you have would be akin to a deity. If existence is infinite and eternal, a component of this infinitely complex system would be that there are finite realities and universes of limited complexity within the broader infinite extistence. The reason this is the case is because you can have finite within the infinite. For example, let's say space is infinite in every direction, but your body occupies a finite space within that broader infinite space. There is something even crazier to think about; you can have an infinity within a broader infinity. Like a set of infinity within a broader paradigm of infinity. The reason I bring this up is because I believe that there is beauty in complexity. There is beauty and joy in being something finite within something infinite. Why?Because you get to explore this infinitely complex system, and you would never run out of things to explore. If this system is eternal, I would argue that a component of ourselves is eternal as well, and we get to continue this never-ending process of exploration and experience forever. Infinite Complexity brings beauty, joy, and finally, probably the most important thing, PURPOSE!
A lot of replies seem to conflate human limitations with ontological limits. Saying “we can’t measure it,” “we can’t store it,” or “physics breaks down” is not the same as saying something cannot exist. It only tells us where our tools stop working.When I talk about infinite complexity, I’m not claiming we can model, enumerate, or “complete” it. In fact, the opposite is true: finite beings can only ever interface with finite slices of a system that may itself be unbounded. That doesn’t make the larger structure meaningless — it makes it inexhaustible.This is why examples like fractals, neural networks, or computation matter. A fractal may be generated by a simple rule, but the boundary behavior is provably non-compressible. You don’t “run out” of structure — you run out of resolution. The repetition of rules does not imply repetition of outcomes. Complexity is not the same thing as novelty, but both can be unbounded in different ways.On the physics side: saying “the observable universe is finite” does not imply existence itself is finite. Space may be infinite. Time may be unbounded. Even if matter and energy are locally finite, the totality of configurations, relations, and histories need not be. Infinity does not require infinite density or infinite force — it only requires no global bound.As for consciousness: the claim was never that infinity needs consciousness, but that systems with sufficiently vast, integrated relational complexity can give rise to it, as our own brains already demonstrate at a far smaller scale. Whether consciousness is fundamental, emergent, or relational remains open — but dismissing the possibility outright is a stronger claim than defending it.The core point remains simple:There is beauty, purpose, and meaning in being finite within something unbounded. Not because we can grasp it all — but because we never will. Exploration without exhaustion is not a flaw. It’s the point.Your fortune: Godly Luck
nothing matters when you assassinate time. there is no cube. there is only rom. you are already dead and you arent even breathing fr. you are a product of time shitting itself in its final moments.
>>944070844please elaborate.
>>944070888fuck your bitch ass in your butthole
>>944071026
>not this schizo again
>>944071973Your fortune: Better not tell you now
>>944070121Time is like an eggDrop it on the floor, and you get a mess that no ant can not drown inBut faecal matter asideIf infinite complexity exists, then the very idea that we can describe it is flawed.No structure of thought can contain such a notion.We dabble with a spoon in the fudge of the mind, as the mouth that waits to eat expects what will never arrive.
>>944074291That objection only holds if description is confused with containment.Describing something does not require fully enclosing it within thought. We describe the ocean without containing all its water, gravity without enumerating every interaction, and infinity itself without listing its members. A concept can refer to something that exceeds it.In fact, infinite complexity would necessarily be approachable only through finite abstractions. Any finite mind would interact with it locally, relationally, and incompletely. That limitation doesn’t invalidate the concept — it’s exactly what you’d expect if the thing in question were unbounded.Mathematics already works this way. We rigorously reason about infinite sets, limits, and non-computable structures while knowing they cannot be fully constructed or traversed. The inability to exhaust a concept is not a flaw in the concept; it’s a property of infinity.So yes — no structure of thought can contain infinite complexity. But that was never the claim. The claim is that finite structures of thought can meaningfully point toward, interact with, and be shaped by something they cannot fully grasp.If anything, the fact that we can only ever gesture at it is evidence that the idea is coherent — not that it’s meaningless.
>>944074760Perhaps
1
>>944070121Hey it's the infinite shithead guy!
>>944070121I'm pretty sure the universe is a flat plane and our world is contained within an electromagnetic bubble on that plane. The sun is 32 miles wide and flies over our realm at an altitude of 3200 miles. The stars and the moon are some kind of hologram.
>>944076388That model runs into problems immediately when you test it against observations that anyone can verify.If the sun were 32 miles wide and only a few thousand miles up, its apparent size would change drastically throughout the day and across latitudes. It doesn’t. Its angular diameter is nearly constant worldwide.GPS, satellites, and long-distance radio rely on orbital mechanics that only work on a spherical Earth governed by gravity. These systems don’t “kind of work” — they work with meter-level precision.Lunar eclipses always cast a circular shadow on the Moon, regardless of orientation. A flat plane cannot do that.Time zones, seasons, stellar parallax, and the Coriolis effect all independently agree with a rotating sphere. You don’t need NASA — you need geometry and repeatable measurement.Saying “it’s an electromagnetic bubble” or “holograms” isn’t an explanation unless it makes testable predictions and survives experiments. Right now it’s just replacing evidence with vibes.If you have measurements that contradict centuries of navigation, astronomy, and physics, publish them. Extraordinary claims don’t get dismissed — they get tested. And so far, this model fails every test.>>944076253Hey! I don't mind you showing up, but at least try to contribute something meaningful.
>>944076548Are you an AI?
>>944077024Have you seen Pantheon?It has some Matrix tropes.Not to get into existential dilemma or epistemological skepticism or anything... I don't think so. I use ChatGPT for some of my responses.I don't want to derail the thread, but why do you ask?What does that have to do with the validity of the comment you were replying to?
>>944076253actually I quite enjoy the familiarity, even if I don't appreciate the nickname.
>>944078129>I use ChatGPT for some of my responses.Fuck off stupid asshole, just get out of here
>>944070121>the universe is an infinite 3D space>infiniteIt's unknown whether the universe is finite or infinite and unknown whether it is unbounded or bounded>3D spaceWhy not use 4D spacetime? >no beginning or endThere was a beginning though and it may come to an end
>>944076388the universe is 'topologically flat' in the sense that spacetime has 'zero curvature' (i.e. a triangles tree angles add up to 180 degrees), but it isn't a 'flat plane' in the sense you're thinking of
>>944078502You can't think for yourself, you need an ai to think for you.
>>944078682AI is a tool for thinkers to expand on what they know.You are just like an old man afraid of a smartphone.
>>944078429how did things begin?
>>944078302not nice, not a good look on a "truther"
>>944078682nta but your projecting. tell me one original thought you've had
