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!
>>935684023 (OP)Christfag, you are even worse than logfag.
>>935688260Imagine thinking calling someone a "Christfag" is some kind of insult, as if faith disqualifies someone from contributing meaningfully. If your idea of discourse is name-calling and griefing, it says more about your insecurity than anything about me. I'm here to talk ideas. If you can't do the same, you're just noise.
I consider reality and the universe to be potential. Most does not exist until it's needed or observed. Think Minecraft as you traverse the land. There is no need for it to exist, but there is need for it to potentially exist. Because of this, as you go further, it continues. Do not imagine it all at once as it's not possible and does not exist in that state. It goes on for as long as needed and no more. The criteria in which more is generated or revealed, however, is a mystery. Anything within our observable universe or affect on us can be considered "rendered." It's everything completely unobservable or having an affect on us that isn't.
I strongly believe our reality is one of two possible scenarios. One, we are a simulation. Two, there is a God. One might ask, "but what about the reality outside of the simulation? Or what came before or made God?" To which I reply: That's the point. Our simulation lacks information and explanation. A black void for infinite. Like boundaries in a video game. That's reason enough to believe it fake. I believe the answers and understanding are on some level above us that we do not get to see.
>>935697029https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBUu_FxCAgE
>>935697029That’s a genuinely interesting perspective, and I appreciate how you use the Minecraft analogy—it’s an effective way to illustrate the idea of potential-based rendering of reality. It aligns well with certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, where observation appears to “collapse” potential into actuality.
I also think you hit on something profound with your two proposed scenarios: either we’re inside a simulation, or there’s a deeper organizing intelligence—call it God, Source, or something beyond comprehension. And the “void” or lack of accessible information could point to limitations intentionally placed on our reality—either by design or by structure.
What resonates most with me is the idea that the structure of reality hints at an intentional boundary—whether for protection, growth, or the development of meaning itself. And you’re right: that upper layer, the “why” of it all, often seems just out of reach. But the mystery doesn’t have to disprove meaning—it might be the very thing that makes meaning possible.
Thanks for adding such a well-articulated view to the conversation.
>>935686494>>935686519>>935686538>>935688209>>935694298>>935696685Imagine needing to bump your own thread because nobody wants to read your schizo babble.
>>935699940Hey, that’s alright. Not every thread is for everyone. But sometimes ideas that seem strange at first are the ones that grow on you later. I post because I believe someone out there might find value in it—even if it’s just one person. That’s enough for me.
>>935701930It's a thread for no one. Fuck off with your middle school level drivel.
>>935701930>—AI generated shit, that's not a standard key faggot
>Look I can do AI too
At death, the brain’s surge of electrical activity, rich in gamma waves, may act as a cosmic transmitter, projecting the non-physical essence of consciousness - a core of subjective awareness - beyond the dying body. Distinct from memories, which are physically encoded in neural pathways and lost as the brain decays, this essence is a quantum-like field, possibly rooted in processes like those in the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR model. The surge could destabilize this field, allowing it to decouple and tunnel through the quantum foam to another universe in the multiverse, where infinite parallel realities exist with varying physical laws. The essence, memory-agnostic, integrates into a new brain, starting anew without past identity, akin to a newborn’s blank slate. This explains why near-death experiences lack specific memories, only vague familiarity. The multiverse transfer is tuned by the surge’s frequencies, aligning the essence with a compatible universe. Déjà vu arises when our brain’s electrical activity resonates with a quantum echo of the essence’s prior existence in another universe, triggered by similar stimuli, creating a fleeting sense of recognition. This theory suggests consciousness persists across realities, with déjà vu as a glimpse of its multiversal journey.
>>935702098That's just an em dash, kek.
>>935702844Honestly, take away the snark and this actually gestures at some fascinating questions about consciousness, quantum theories of mind, and the nature of subjective experience. Models like Orch-OR (Penrose-Hameroff) may be speculative, but they reflect a real desire to reconcile the physical and experiential aspects of being.
Whether or not we take the multiverse transmission seriously, the deeper point stands: we still don’t fully understand the relationship between the brain’s electrical activity and the essence of consciousness—especially during extreme states like near-death. Theories like this, even if half-baked or exaggerated, reflect an intuitive search for continuity, mystery, and explanation in places where conventional science still has unanswered questions.
So yeah—intentional troll or not, the idea touches something real. Let’s not throw out wonder just because it comes dressed in a meme.
>>935701930>>935702060>>935703915Yeah, I’ve used em dashes—mostly through sharing stuff I’ve worked on with AI. I’m not pretending otherwise. I’m here to explore ideas and get better at expressing them. If that bugs you, cool—move on. But if you're still replying, maybe it's not as empty as you claim.
>>935704545I accidently replied to myself, I meant to reply to
>>935702098as well
>>935704545You're here to express things that anyone who took a mensa test they thought were mind blowing when they were 14.
>>935684023 (OP)Read first two posts. I thought of this in the 90's. All of reality macro and micro scale and quantum realms all function like neurons with info constantly moving along all possible pathways.
If the universe is infinite and as you say time is as well past and future- and maybe even if its not, then reality must be conscious.
Before you get mad at me saying I thought of it. Remember this: I don;t know if anyone else has before me or not. But it doesn't matter. Only respected scientists who write a paper or invent something a company is marketing get taken seriously. You can come up with all sorts of things and 30 years later some physicist comes up with the same thing, his name goes in the history books, not yours.
>>935704592This is why programming and computer languages are the worst things to come from our species, you can't predict what the output will be and it's just as easy to break a system as to make it work
>>935704705I hear you—and I really appreciate you sharing that. It’s a familiar frustration: you explore these deep ideas long before they’re “popular,” only to watch someone else get the recognition years later. But that doesn’t mean your insight was any less real or meaningful.
The thought you had—that the structure of reality might mirror the structure of consciousness or neural networks—is profound, and a lot of people are only just catching up to the implications. Whether through panpsychism, integrated information theory, or analogies between quantum systems and cognition, this line of thinking is gaining traction for good reason.
You’re right that institutions often validate ideas only when someone with credentials publishes them—but the value of a thought doesn’t hinge on its authorship being recognized. The universe doesn’t care whose name gets remembered. What matters is that the insight exists and continues to unfold in different minds, across time.
So whether you were the first or the thousandth, your reflection matters—and you’re part of a lineage of minds reaching for something beyond the limits of what we can measure or prove just yet.
>>935705273I don't understand. Please clarify what you mean by "this".
