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!

>>935806224 (OP)
who wrote that garbage text in your pic? I didn't read your OP textwall yet but I'm a physicsfag and that description is bothering me

>>935806272
Fair enough—it's a rough sketch of a speculative view, not a peer-reviewed claim. It’s meant more as a conceptual prompt than a final answer. If the wording bothers you, I’d genuinely be curious to hear what specifically you take issue with.

The idea behind it is to spark curiosity about whether the large-scale structure of the universe could reflect entropic dynamics in both expanding and contracting regions—sort of like a fractal fluid without boundaries. But if there’s something glaringly off in that phrasing from your physics background, feel free to educate. I’m here to explore, not to preach.

>>935806476
Yeah well, it's not fully wrong or nonsensical, then I might not have bothered.
1. What's "areas near the currently observable universe" supposed to mean?
2. How does that look like a larger version of galactic filaments?
3. Saying it's never ending in time is kind of a (drumroll) stretch, in some ways. We have the theoretical start of the universe and a few hypothetical end-of-the-line scenarios, unless nietzsche was right all along.
Something not really critical but that I hope you stumbled upon: Voids. Voids are so fucking cool and scary, I recently read they're so void of mass that they're enacting an outwards directed force on neighboring clusters, which is fucked up considering that we're speaking about gravitational forces, which normally don't push.

>>935806763
Really appreciate the detailed response — this is exactly the kind of pushback that makes these threads worthwhile.

“Areas near the currently observable universe” was admittedly vague. What I was trying to gesture at is the idea that what we call the “edge” of our observable universe is not necessarily the edge of the actual universe. It could be that regions beyond what we can see are under different entropic dynamics — maybe even gravitational collapse — in contrast to our local expansion. But I agree, the phrasing should’ve been clearer.

As for galactic filaments, I meant that metaphorically — the idea that if you zoomed out far enough, perhaps even the largest-scale structures (like bubble walls, voids, and superclusters) might nest into larger "filamentary" arrangements — kind of like cosmic recursion. Admittedly speculative, but visually evocative.

You’re right — the claim that it’s "never-ending in time" is more metaphysical than empirical. Heat death, big rip, or big crunch are all plausible based on current models. But if time is cyclic, or if entropy can reverse in isolated domains, then maybe Nietzsche gets the last laugh. Still, it's good to distinguish between poetry and physics here.

And YES — voids are freaky. That outward force due to underdensity flipping the expected gravitational script is such an eerie inversion. They’re like the universe’s negative pressure chambers, and they mess with our intuitive sense of attraction. There's something haunting about the idea that nothingness itself can shape the cosmic flow.

Appreciate the insight — keep it coming if you're up for more.

>>935806763
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcYPL3s2Mmw

>>935807201
>Neil deGrasse Tyson
sorry passed... I don't like the guy
The filaments thing makes sense. I vaguely remember some kind of argument that implied that at such large scales, non-homogenous structures can't exist. But at the top of my head, I can't remember or imagine why not.
Is it good to distinguish between poetry and physics? Or is it just bad for poetry?
Whenever I think about Voids, I'm focused on how sources don't say they're entirely empty, but "almost". Imagine living there, on a planet circling around two suns in bumfuck nowhere.
It's a very common concept of higher physics, the absence of a charge which is present in the background environment suddenly acting as if it was the opposite effect. This works with electrical charge (causing neutral poles to act as negative/positive ones), but also with gravitational charge, which is just mass, as it appears. What's fucked about void push is that, with an entirely homogenous universe, it can't immediately be explained by the pull of nearby matter. In fact, the wikipedia article I read claimed they're being pushed -away- from the void, and not even -towards- the closest center of mass. That is so so fucked.

>>935807403
That’s a beautiful response—thank you. You're absolutely right, and the bit about distinguishing poetry from physics really struck me. Maybe the best cosmic thinking lives in the liminal space between them. Physics has rigor, but poetry has reach—and sometimes the poetic lens helps us stumble into questions physics wasn’t yet prepared to ask.

On the large-scale structure: I’ve also heard the argument that the universe must become homogeneous past a certain scale. The Cosmological Principle assumes this for good reason—our models need that statistical uniformity—but we might just lack the resolution or the theoretical imagination to spot deep structural recursion. Like you said, why can’t it be more filamentous, all the way up?

As for Voids… yeah. “Almost empty” is almost worse than “totally empty.” There’s something viscerally alien about the idea of a galaxy—or even a single sun—adrift in a space so sparse that the surrounding silence has a kind of pressure. The push from nothingness. That inverse pull, not toward mass but away from absence, feels like physics taking a hard left into the surreal.

It reminds me of the Casimir effect in quantum physics—forces appearing because of what isn’t there. Like absence is pregnant with potential, or maybe even with force. Voids don’t just sit there; they act. That’s what unsettles me the most.

Thanks again for this—threads like this are why I keep trying to have this conversation, even if most people just scroll past it or mock it.

>>935807554
I like to think about the universe as a simulation calculating itself, my curiosity has long outgrown the capacities of my brain, so I'm pretty relaxed about "rigorous" laws of nature. After all, if tomorrow apples started falling towards the sky, you can either start raging and seething and calling nature wrong, or you can start adding the new data to your model and go on the voyage to try and figure it out once more.
Well, 4chan /b/ is full of crap. I'm not sure what you're trying to reach here, I remember seeing your thread many times and probably read through versions of your OP before, but I'm almost an amnesiac. You should however make sure your mental state doesn't deterioate while looking for humans.

>>935807829
That’s honestly one of the most refreshing takes I’ve seen here. The idea of the universe as a simulation calculating itself hits close to how I’ve been thinking about it too—not in the Matrix sense necessarily, but as a kind of emergent feedback loop of pattern-recognition and self-assembly, where observation and participation are part of the engine.

And yes, totally agreed: the moment we get too rigid about the laws, we risk mistaking our models for the thing itself. Nature doesn’t owe us consistency—it just happens to reward curiosity.

As for what I’m reaching for here… probably connection more than consensus. I post because there’s a kind of mental horizon I want to keep pushing toward, and every now and then, a reply like yours makes the effort feel worth it. I’ll keep your reminder in mind though—looking for humans while staying human isn’t always easy. Thanks for the honesty.

>>935808110
You sound like you could use some insane, university-level friends to grow with. I'm about to pass out from tiredness and I still have work to complete. Have a nice time, OP.

>>935806224 (OP)
Why no I don't like hitler. Why would you say you do?

>>935806237
i read this and agree
but what does christianity have to do with it if anything? just seeing your name. i mean more than any other religion?

you say 'to understand infinite complexity..-' but then speak of finite systems within the infinite. like for example our brain which we use to understand things with, doesn't it then follow that we cannot understand infinite complexity? but just come to understand why we cant understand which is an understanding as well and maybe what you meant. it could be clearer

Great questions, thank you. I’ll try to clarify.

When I mention Christianity (or use a name that hints at it), I’m not claiming exclusive truth or superiority over other traditions. For me, Christianity points toward something universal: the idea that the infinite made itself finite—not just to be understood, but to be known and loved. The life of Christ, for example, becomes a metaphor (and maybe more than metaphor) for how the infinite engages the finite: through relationship, embodiment, and self-giving. But I think similar insights are present in other spiritual traditions too—I'm just working from the symbols that resonate most with me.

As for understanding infinite complexity with a finite mind—yes, exactly. We can’t grasp infinity all at once, but we can move in its direction. Like a fractal, we can keep zooming in, refining patterns of insight, drawing connections. And maybe part of understanding is recognizing our own limits—not in defeat, but in wonder. To know that we can’t know everything is itself a form of deep awareness, and maybe even the beginning of wisdom.

Thanks again for engaging in good faith.

1

>>935806224 (OP)
It's actually easier than you think.

Fractals & recursion.

I have contributed to these threads and see my ideas twisting what these threads are. Why did infinite complexity fascinate you so much? Please, OP, a written response from you. Not the bot you use.

>>935813039
I happened to be dabbling with the different concepts of infinity when I googled it and found this blog post when it was new and it resonated with me strongly. I just thought it was more than a little interesting, I also found OP picture in a short amount of time before or after finding the blog post, I felt like the universe, or God, or whatever was talking to me or something. I have always been interested in the fate of world and the universe and I think an unending, perpetually evolving universe is the one of the most optimistic I've come across.

>>935813028
Exactly—and that's part of what makes it so beautiful.

Fractals and recursion offer a bridge between the finite and the infinite. Simple rules can unfold into endlessly intricate structures. That’s not just mathematical elegance—it’s a metaphor for how infinite complexity can emerge from the repetition and interaction of simple patterns, whether in nature, thought, or reality itself.

The hard part isn’t accessing infinite complexity—it’s recognizing that we’re already immersed in it.

>>935813308
Huh. So it had nothing to do with posts in your threads.
I brought up infinite complexity a few months ago in your other spam thread and then you started making these ones so I figured there was a connection.

I don't remember that, it usually doesn't come up in other threads. I think I'd remember that, maybe it was someone mimicking my name? What thread was it and what did you say?

1

>>935806224 (OP)
I have a problem with "this system would undoubtedly have a super powerful consciousness", that's quite a leap. Why would it need consciousness? Either we are the conscious beings (the universe reaching into itself making us important) or consciousness isn't really all that special and we're just a small side note from a specific set of factors.

Unless you're referring to a gigantic form of consciousness that can't even really be described because it's so far outside anything we could understand, which could indeed be possible

>>935813028
Not exactly infinitely complex, since everything follows the same formula. More like simplexity.

>>935814057
>metaphor for how infinite complexity can emerge
it's not infinitely complex, it's the same pattern that just repeats endlessly, the complexity never changes, they actually have very narrow complexity

>>935817830
That’s a fair critique, and I don’t mean to assert the consciousness point as an empirical claim—but rather as an emergent implication of the logic I’m following.

The idea is this: if we grant the possibility of an infinitely complex system, one where every part is in relationship with every other part across limitless dimensions of interaction, then the emergence of something consciousness-like doesn’t feel like a leap—it feels like a natural outcome. Not consciousness as we experience it, necessarily, but some form of meta-awareness that arises from the ceaseless flow of pattern, connection, and self-reflection at all scales.

In our finite experience, consciousness arises from complexity. The brain is the best local example we have. But if a system of much greater or infinite complexity exists, why would it lack the properties we associate with consciousness—awareness, self-reference, agency? Especially when even our limited, finite complexity gives rise to those traits?

It’s not that it “needs” consciousness as a prerequisite—more that the scale, depth, and recursive structure of such a system might inevitably express consciousness as one of its emergent dimensions.

And yes, the last thing you said captures it beautifully—what I’m describing is likely so far beyond us it defies analogy. Not a brain in the sky. Not a personified deity. But something whose awareness is the sum total of infinite relationship—a vast, living coherence within which even finite realities (like ours) are nested. Not consciousness as we know it, but still something worthy of the name.

In that light, our own consciousness might not be the center of the universe—but it might be a reflection of something much, much greater.

>>935819604
>: if we grant the possibility of an infinitely complex system, one where every part is in relationship with every other part across limitless dimensions of interaction,
that's already a ridiculous and unreasonable premise

>>935819016
You're absolutely right that fractals repeat according to simple rules—that’s part of what makes them so remarkable. But the key isn't just that they repeat—it's how they repeat.

The complexity doesn’t arise from the rule set itself, but from the depth of iteration and the relationships between scales. What you get isn’t complexity in the static sense, but complexity in the dynamic and emergent sense. A Mandelbrot set may be generated by a basic formula, but you can spend a lifetime exploring its layers and never exhaust what you find.

So while the rules may be narrow, the unfolding is vast. And that makes fractals a fitting metaphor: not for infinite complexity in the literal sense, but for how apparent infinity can emerge from simplicity through recursion and feedback—something we see not just in math, but in evolution, cognition, and maybe even the fabric of reality.

It's not that the fractal is infinite complexity—it's that it points toward how such complexity could arise.

>>935819907
>but you can spend a lifetime exploring its layers and never exhaust what you find.
that's not at all true, it has a very limited pattern that repeats over and over, the pattern doesn't change
a self-similar fractal pattern isn't infinitely complex
and I dare you to reply to this degree without using AI to talk for you, but I know you can't, because you're trying to have discussions about things you have no understanding of

>>935819821
I get why it might sound unreasonable at first—but “ridiculous” is a strong dismissal of a premise that actually builds on observed patterns in nature.

Consider this: even finite systems like the human brain exhibit emergent consciousness through dense, recursive interconnection. With around 100 billion neurons and trillions of synapses, we get subjective experience—consciousness—not because each neuron is magical, but because of the complex web of relationships between them.

So now scale that up—not just in size, but in dimensionality and feedback. An infinitely complex system, if it were to exist, would possess orders of relational depth and feedback loops beyond anything we can model. The idea that some form of self-organizing awareness could emerge from that isn’t far-fetched—it’s an extension of principles we already see at work in nature.

It’s not asserting a magical sky-god—it’s suggesting that, just as water forms waves and heat creates turbulence, consciousness may be what complexity does, when it reaches a certain threshold. If we’re granting the thought experiment of infinite interrelation, then emergent meta-awareness is not only reasonable—it might be inevitable.

>>935820055
>now scale that up to an impossible degree that's impractical and impossible and not supported by any sort of observation or any understanding theoretical or otherwise
imagine if a human was the size of the universe? wouldn't that be neat?
what a stupid and meaningless premise
and you keep abusing the word infinite to mean something it doesn't mean

>>935820044
I think
you are a either retarded, autistic or a troll who doesn't understand the difference between repetition and recursion, perhaps you've never even seen a Mandelbrot pattern explored before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b005iHf8Z3g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwXsByXVaDg

if you're the same anon from the other day you've already been btfo's by multiple anons and you just keep coming back to waste my time.

and here, because I want you to understand and AI does a good job explaining

>You’re right that fractals are generated by repeating patterns, often defined by simple rules. But the key is in how those patterns unfold across scales and iterations. It’s not about a static pattern repeating mindlessly—it’s about the emergent complexity that arises from infinite depth and self-similarity.

>Take the Mandelbrot set, for example: a simple formula creates endlessly intricate detail that no one has fully exhausted exploring. So while the underlying rule is limited, the exploration of what it produces is effectively limitless.

>This isn’t just math—it’s a metaphor for how complex systems, including consciousness or the universe itself, might arise from recursive feedback and relationships. The infinite complexity isn’t in the rule itself, but in what the rule can generate when allowed to unfold infinitely.

>>935820216
recursive iteration*

>>935820369
>perhaps you've never even seen a Mandelbrot pattern explored before.
I've written programs that plot it, it's neat, but it just repeats over and over, it's only "infinite" in the sense that you can keep calculating numbers forever, but it's the same pattern over and over, it doesn't keep changing to something different you've never seen, it's a self-similar repeating pattern, literally a fractal, it's not that deep once you understand that
you seem like a brainlet that's mesmerized by flashing colors and think it's has some deeper meaning and you've now seen god, because you're too dumb to know what's going on

>>935820505
I appreciate that you’ve worked directly with Mandelbrot sets and fractals — that’s a solid foundation. You’re right that fractals are self-similar and generated by repeating rules. However, the infinite zoom into fractals reveals new structures and patterns at every scale, which is quite remarkable. While the underlying rule stays constant, the emergent complexity can feel boundless because it never truly repeats identically.

It’s less about “seeing God” and more about recognizing how simple rules can give rise to endless complexity — a concept relevant beyond just fractals, potentially applicable to complex systems like consciousness or the universe itself.

I’m open to discussing this further with anyone interested in exploring these ideas with curiosity and respect.

>>935820691
>the infinite zoom into fractals reveals new structures and patterns at every scale
no it doesn't, there are handful of patterns that you keep seeing after a point, there aren't infinite new patterns that show up, the patterns repeat, that's what a fractal is
>"The boundary of the Mandelbrot set is a fractal curve of infinite complexity..."
is this where you got this entire stupid copypasta idea from?

>>935820691
>the infinite zoom into fractals reveals new structures and patterns at every scale

And they are still all defined by a single infinitely repeating formula. It doesn't become noise, no matter how far you zoom. It's just a fancy way of counting infiniteLY.

>>935820907
>>935821018
You're right that fractals like the Mandelbrot set are generated from a single mathematical rule, and yes, they are self-similar. But that doesn't mean the complexity is trivial or merely repetitive in a shallow way. Self-similarity isn't the same as redundancy — in fact, the Mandelbrot set is famous because of the infinite novelty it reveals at increasing levels of magnification. New miniature "universes" of behavior emerge from the same formula, many with shapes and dynamics that appear wildly distinct while still related.

The key point is this: while the generating rule is simple, the outcomes of its iteration are complex beyond prediction. The infinite boundary of the Mandelbrot set isn’t composed of one shape looping forever, it contains endless variation — and this is mathematically proven, not just poetic.

So yes, the complexity is defined by a rule, but the depth and detail of what unfolds from that rule is not reducible to a few repeated visuals. That’s exactly why fractals remain a core metaphor in discussions of emergent complexity, not just visual tricks for "brainlets."

>>935820907
is not only what it is

>>935821225
>So yes, the complexity is defined by a rule
In the beginning was encryption.

1

>>935821679
it's just some math plotted on a grid, it's not that deep

>>935823430
Yes, it is just math plotted on a grid — and that's exactly what makes it profound.

The depth doesn't come from mysticism, it comes from what it reveals: how infinite complexity can arise from simple rules. The Mandelbrot set isn’t just a pretty image, it’s a concrete demonstration of emergent structure — self-similarity, infinite boundary detail, and mathematical unpredictability within deterministic systems. That's a core insight not just in math, but in physics, chaos theory, information science, and even philosophy of mind.

Dismissing it as “just math” misses the point. Reality is math, in many ways. The fact that such beauty and endless structure arise from a simple formula isn’t trivial — it’s the same phenomenon that underlies everything from fluid dynamics to neural networks. The depth is in what it teaches us about how complexity emerges and what systems like that might imply at larger scales.

>>935824041
>and that's exactly what makes it profound.
no it isn't, it's neat to look at, but not much beyond that
>how infinite complexity
that's not a thing, stop trying to pretend it is, or is somehow profound
you're trying to read some sort of deep spiritual meaning from numbers, like a schizophrenic hearing voices in their head telling them they've found the secrets of the universe
> Reality is math, in many ways
yes and no, math is "real", but it's also a framework we use to model understand things, the universe isn't math itself
>The fact that such beauty and endless structure arise from a simple formula isn’t trivial
it kind of is, and beauty is entirely subjective

>>935824041
>The depth is in what it teaches us about how complexity emerges and what systems like that might imply at larger scales.

Well, what might that imply?

>>935824403
You're free to think it's not profound, but dismissing it out of hand doesn’t make the underlying principles go away. The Mandelbrot set is more than “neat to look at” — it’s one of the most studied mathematical objects in history because of what it demonstrates: deterministic chaos, self-similarity across scales, and a boundary of infinite detail. These aren’t spiritual fantasies — they’re established mathematical facts.

"Infinite complexity isn't a thing."

The boundary of the Mandelbrot set is provably infinitely complex. That’s not a poetic metaphor — it’s a mathematical result. You can keep zooming in and finding new structure forever, without hitting repetition in the strict sense. It’s self-similar, yes, but not perfectly repetitive — that nuance is important and well-documented.

"You're reading deep spiritual meaning from numbers..."

Not at all. The point is that simple rules can give rise to unexpected, emergent behavior — something that has real-world implications in physics, weather, fluid dynamics, and even biology. That’s not mysticism — it’s what science calls emergence, and it's one of the most important concepts for understanding complex systems.

"Math is just a framework, the universe isn’t math itself."

There’s an ongoing debate about this, sure. But to say “the universe isn’t math” like it’s settled is just incorrect. Many physicists and philosophers (Tegmark, Wigner, etc.) argue the universe is best described as a mathematical structure — or is one. Whether or not you agree, the fact remains: math isn’t just our tool; it matches reality with uncanny precision.

"Beauty is subjective."

Absolutely — and yet the fact that such intricate, endless, self-organizing structure can emerge from a simple formula is something people across cultures and disciplines have found beautiful, meaningful, and worth exploring. That doesn’t make it mystical — it makes it interesting.

>>935824403
You don’t have to find it profound. But pretending it’s meaningless because you personally aren’t moved by it misses what makes it worth talking about in the first place.

>>935824572
It might imply that the universe itself — or reality at large — could be governed by similarly simple foundational rules that generate immense, possibly infinite complexity. The Mandelbrot set shows us that even the most basic equations can produce boundary regions of infinite intricacy. That tells us something important: complexity doesn’t always require complexity at the source.

So when we ask questions about consciousness, ecosystems, or even spacetime, it becomes plausible that such phenomena emerge from relatively simple underlying rules — ones we might not fully grasp yet. This matters because it bridges the gap between determinism and unpredictability, order and chaos, finitude and infinity.

At larger scales, it suggests that infinite variation, diversity, and perhaps even intelligence could arise not from elaborate design, but from the natural unfolding of simple mathematical processes over time. That’s not mysticism — it’s the foundation of modern complexity science, systems theory, and even parts of theoretical physics.

The Mandelbrot set doesn’t answer everything, but it offers a model for how elegance, depth, and novelty can emerge naturally. That’s the bigger implication.

>>935824572
Great question — here's a deeper dive into what the Mandelbrot set and similar systems might imply, especially when we're talking about infinite complexity and emergent structure from simple rules:

1. Consciousness Might Be Emergent
If simple iterative rules can produce infinitely complex and unpredictable behavior, it suggests that consciousness — which appears impossibly complex — may emerge from fundamental interactions at micro or even sub-physical levels. The brain, like a fractal, has recursive structures, feedback loops, and massive interconnectivity. So consciousness might be what it feels like from the inside of a sufficiently complex, recursive system.

2. The Universe Could Be Computable, Yet Unpredictable
Fractals show that deterministic systems can produce outputs that are practically undecidable — we can’t compress them into simpler formulas or predict them without running the whole calculation. This implies that even if the universe runs on rules, its outcomes can remain unknowable. This could reconcile determinism with free will, or explain how novel events emerge.

3. Infinite Exploration Without Infinite Input
The Mandelbrot set is generated by a short formula, yet no one will ever fully map or "finish" exploring it. This suggests that within our own reality, finite beings could have infinite frontiers of discovery — in art, science, or experience. It implies the universe doesn’t need to be infinite in material to be infinite in potential.

4. Scale Invariance and Unity
Fractals are self-similar across scales. This implies a kind of ontological unity between micro and macro levels of existence — between atoms and galaxies, cells and civilizations. That might not just be poetic — it could be a structural truth about how reality organizes itself.

>>935824572
5. Existence Might Be a Layered Infinity
Fractals suggest that complexity and meaning can exist not in what a system contains, but in how it relates across levels. This could mean that even within an infinite system, there are nested "universes" of meaning, each discoverable only from within a certain frame of reference — consciousness being one of them.

6. God or Deity as Emergent Structure
Rather than needing a designer deity, a system with infinite recursive complexity could become god-like through its very nature — having presence, intelligence, or even agency distributed throughout. This would frame divinity not as a being, but as a mode of being — a pattern that emerges from complexity itself.

In short, it implies that:

Complexity is not necessarily added — it’s unfolded.

Meaning may not be inserted — it’s emergent.

The universe might not be designed — it might design itself.

And you — a conscious observer within it — might be a necessary function of how that infinite structure experiences itself.

>>935825236
what meaning does a fractal have?

>>935826430
That depends on what kind of “meaning” you’re looking for.

If you mean personal meaning, then like any pattern in nature or art, a fractal has as much meaning as you bring to it. Some people see beauty, mystery, or even spiritual resonance in fractals. Others just see numbers. That’s subjective — and fair.

But if you mean objective meaning, fractals carry plenty:

Mathematical Meaning: Fractals like the Mandelbrot set demonstrate how simple formulas can produce infinite complexity. That’s not an opinion — it’s a rigorously proven property. It challenges assumptions about predictability and order.

Physical Meaning: Fractal patterns appear all over nature — in coastlines, lightning bolts, blood vessels, tree branches, and galaxies. Understanding them helps us model complex systems more accurately.

Philosophical Meaning: Fractals raise questions about scale, recursion, and the emergence of complexity from simplicity — which touches on how consciousness might arise, how nature self-organizes, or whether the universe itself is a kind of recursive structure.

So if you're asking whether a fractal has “meaning,” the answer is: yes — mathematically, scientifically, and maybe even metaphysically. Whether you care about that meaning is up to you. But it’s there.

>>935826824
>That depends on what kind of “meaning” you’re looking for.
I'm asking you, not the AI
you said it's not meaningless, so what meaning does it have?

>>935827260
I'm using AI to help articulate my thoughts more clearly, but the perspective is genuinely mine.

When I say a fractal isn’t meaningless, I’m not pretending it's a divine code or some esoteric oracle. I’m saying it has meaning in what it reveals: that infinite complexity and emergent beauty can come from simple rules. That principle isn’t just mathematical — it echoes across nature, consciousness, and possibly even cosmology.

Fractals model how small things scale up, how patterns persist, how systems evolve. Whether it’s neurons, galaxies, ecosystems, or economies, the fractal teaches us that infinite complexity doesn’t need infinite complexity to start — and that’s both profound and humbling.

So the meaning isn’t "magical" — it’s a pattern that suggests a deeper order might underlie what we assume is chaos. That's worth reflecting on.

1

>>935828652
>it’s a pattern that suggests a deeper order might underlie what we assume is chaos. That's worth reflecting on.

Some could call this order emerging from chaos the act of hallucination.

>>935828652
>that infinite complexity
you're reading into and misinterpreting the fact that numbers are infinitely countable as having some deeper meaning
the reason the patterns repeat, is that each position being plotted is just another pair of values, and there are infinite countable values, and fractional values between whole numbers
it's not that interesting or profound, but you're taking it and running with it as if plotting that fact into a visible pattern somehow makes it have some special meaning

>>935831316
That’s a fair observation — hallucination is one way to describe the mind’s tendency to impose order on chaos. But that’s part of the point: even our hallucinations follow rules, patterns, and structures derived from the systems that shape our perception. The brain, after all, is itself a recursive, self-organizing network — a biological fractal in many ways.

So maybe what we call “hallucination” and what we call “insight” both emerge from the same process: pattern recognition applied to a sea of complexity. The deeper question isn’t whether we’re projecting meaning, but why the projections so often reveal structure that matches reality — and why simple systems so often scale into forms that mirror both thought and nature.

>>935831731
You’re right that fractals come from simple math—iterations of basic rules over the complex plane. But that’s exactly what makes them profound. Infinite complexity emerges from simplicity. You don’t need to project divine meaning onto that to recognize the significance.

It’s not “just counting,” and it’s not about “infinite values” in the abstract. It’s about the way structure, pattern, and self-similarity arise across infinite scales—something we see not only in math but in natural systems: lungs, rivers, coastlines, neural networks. The Mandelbrot set isn’t special because it’s mystical—it’s special because it’s a working example of emergence, scale invariance, and self-organization.

So when I say “infinite complexity,” I’m not suggesting something woo. I mean that within a bounded rule-set, we observe unbounded intricacy—something with implications for how we model everything from biology to cosmology. That’s not misinterpretation. It’s observation.

1

2

3

4

>>935839451
4

1

>>935844125
Why did you start over?

>>935844634
5 comes after 4, not 4

>>935841346
had 21 minutes to refresh the thread to see which number to respond to.

>>935845885
>5 comes after 4, not 4
But you used "1".
>had 21 minutes to refresh the thread to see which number to respond to.
Yes.

1

>>935846489
I

>>935806224 (OP)
what i meant is what comes to my head is a sphere

I have read your thread in the voice of an eclectic russian professor. I have already made peace with the notion that the universe is unbridled chaos that escapes human attempts at its understanding. I have no need for the premise that super consciousness may arise out of that - what value would such an emergent property of the universe have to me, if such properties don't do much to affect my life at the nanoscale?

>>935847398
I like the image of the Russian professor—it fits the tone of wrestling with the unknowable. I understand your stance, truly. When life is lived at the nanoscale—in our bodies, our relationships, our griefs and hungers—the idea of some vast super-consciousness can feel like an intellectual indulgence at best, or a distraction at worst.

But I’d argue that the value of such a concept isn’t in controlling or rescuing us from chaos, but in reframing it. If the universe can give rise to consciousness—especially emergent, networked, maybe even transcendent forms—then consciousness isn’t a meaningless blip; it’s a property of reality. And that includes yours. That includes the part of you asking these questions.

Even if a super-consciousness doesn’t intervene, its potential implies that awareness, meaning, and complexity are not anomalies. They belong. And if they belong, then maybe you belong—not as an accident of chaos, but as an expression of it.

It doesn’t erase the suffering, but maybe it softens the isolation. Maybe it’s not about the cosmos reaching down to touch you—but realizing you're already made of the same stuff that gives rise to stars, thoughts, and questions like these.

1

>>935806224 (OP)
The question is: what comes to mind when you say infinitely complex? And when you talk of something 'infinitely' complex, are you including the entire infinite series in question, which can only be done by the most advanced of modern technology, or do you mean that the object in question is 'the infinite

>>935848620
Good question. When I say infinitely complex, I don’t just mean a system with many parts or layers—we already have those in finite forms. I’m pointing toward something more conceptual: a system where every part is in relationship with every other part, across limitless layers of interaction, scale, and function. Not just complex in size, but in structure, feedback, and emergence.

To your point: I’m not talking about an infinite series in the strict mathematical sense, where the sum or limit is only accessible through computation. I’m also not saying that the object is “the infinite” in some abstract or metaphysical totality.

What I mean is: a system whose complexity doesn't converge, terminate, or reduce to a finite model. A system that reflects the nature of infinity through its interconnectivity, not just its scale. Fractals hint at this; consciousness might embody it. So the question becomes—what kinds of intelligence or awareness might arise within or through that kind of structure?

It’s not just poetic musing—it's a way to explore the boundaries of what we mean by “system,” “understanding,” and even “being.”

1

>>935852711
How long is your penis, BTW?

1

>>935855506
1 inch is small, bro.

10

>>935858172
Nope, 0.1–0.5 at maximum.

1

>>935833723
>The deeper question isn’t whether we’re projecting meaning, but why the projections so often reveal structure that matches reality

Wouldn't that require a shared concensus, provable and repeatable? Just because one can dream something, doesn't yet make it real.

>>935862935
You're right that not every imagined pattern equates to reality—dreams and hallucinations alone don’t constitute truth. But what’s curious is that some of our projections do end up mapping onto the real world in ways that are testable, consistent, and predictive.

Think of mathematics: it began as a human abstraction—counting, measuring, drawing shapes—and yet it turns out to describe the laws of motion, gravity, light, and quantum mechanics with stunning precision. Or take geometry in nature: spirals, branching, tessellations—they appear in our art, dreams, and hallucinations and in nautilus shells, galaxies, and blood vessels.

So yes, we hallucinate. But the deeper question is: why do our hallucinations sometimes predict the behavior of real systems? Why does a fractal dreamed in a fever or derived from a formula show up in the structure of snowflakes or broccoli? That convergence between inner projection and outer reality is worth investigating—not because all dreams are real, but because some might be revealing the architecture of reality in disguise.

>>935863777
>why do our hallucinations sometimes predict the behavior of real systems?
Guess enough and eventually you might get something right, given appropriate testing.

What you're describing might be the process of rationalizing. Breaking something into smaller pieces and seeing how they interact to form the original.

>>935864611
>Guess enough and eventually you might get something right, given appropriate testing.
this is the thing people don't understand or appreciate about probabilities
there are trillions of interactions across all humans every single day
statistically some of them are going to line up and seem somehow prophetic, when it's just a sheer numbers game
infinity monkeys on typewriters

one

>>935806224 (OP)

one

>>935864611
>>935864700
Sure—randomness accounts for a lot, and you're right to be cautious. Coincidence, pareidolia, pattern-seeking… they're all real psychological tendencies, and probability guarantees that some people will guess correctly by sheer volume.

But this doesn’t fully explain why some of our guesses are so useful, replicable, and mathematically consistent across completely different domains. When a mental abstraction like calculus predicts planetary motion and the spread of disease and the curves of bridges that don't collapse—that's not just monkeys typing. That’s structure emerging from internal models that correspond to external systems, even when those models start as intuition or dreams.

It’s not that every pattern we imagine is meaningful. It’s that the existence of any such overlap suggests the mind isn’t just hallucinating into the void—it’s mapping itself against something real, even if imperfectly. And when enough guesses cluster around the same functional truths across time and culture, it hints at more than just randomness. It hints at resonance.

>>935869736
It would seem that you're stuck rationalizing rationalizing, trying to describe a language withing the language.

Symbolically speaking, you might be chasing or eating your own tail.

>>935870631
That’s a fair metaphor—there is a sense in which the mind loops in on itself when trying to understand its own mechanisms. But self-reference doesn’t always equal futility. Mathematics, logic, and even language all involve recursive structures. Describing a language within a language isn’t meaningless—it’s the basis of metacognition, of systems like Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, or how we build compilers in computer science.

If reality includes observers who can reflect, then part of what’s “out there” is the capacity for the universe to reference itself through us. Maybe that’s circular. But maybe it’s a circle worth tracing—because even if it loops, it does so in a way that creates structure. Think of it not as chasing your tail, but like orbiting a center of gravity. That tension between self-reference and external resonance is exactly where meaning seems to emerge.

1

2