Thursday, October 21, 2010

Top 10 Thought Provokers

I love to think.  I love mysteries.  I love mind-blowing ideas.  I love stimulation of the mind.  That’s all the preamble this list needs.   Let’s move on, my top ten thought provoking topics…


“Can God create a stone that he can’t lift?”

I already talked about Omnipotence Paradox before in the second essay of my “Innocent, Until Proven Guilty” piece.  It’s the cleverest argument I encountered that dismisses an existence of a God.  By that simple question, I was stumped (for a while).  If God can create and then creates a stone that even He can’t lift, then he ceases to be omnipotent; he would no longer be all-powerful if there is something – this stone – that he can’t lift. In contrast, if God can’t create such stone that even He can’t lift, then he is not at all omnipotent in the first place because there is something that he can’t create.   Either way, it was a thesis that seemed to destroy the idea of an omnipotent God.  If omnipotence is an impossibility, then there can never be an omnipotent God (that created the universe), and therefore, since God should be an omnipotent being, then there is no God.  The logic seemed to be perfect. 

But the premise is actually fallacious.  The “omnipotence paradox” argument was never applicable to use on God in the first place.      

If asked: “Can God create a stone that he can’t lift?”  The correct answer is “No, he can’t and won’t.”  God’s omnipotence or being all-powerful should NOT be associated to being able to do everything.  In fact, aside from creating a stone that He can’t lift, there are other things that God can’t – and won’t – do.   God can’t sin.  God can’t lie.  God can’t cease to exist or destroy himself.  God can’t make a “square circle”.  There are actually things that God can’t do.
God’s omnipotence means he is able to do everything… THAT is in accordance with his will and nature.  God can’t sin because he is holy (holy, holy).  And he can’t make a “stone that he can’t lift” because it is logically ridiculous.  C.S. Lewis said that the idea of the Omnipotence Paradox – asking God to create a stone that he can’t lift – is as absurd as the idea of asking God to create a “square circle”.  God is not above logic, which will allow him to make a “square circle”.  And God is neither below logic, in which logic has authority over God to forbid him to make a “square circle”.  Rather, logic is part of God’s nature because he is a God of order.  God is logic.  And God can’t and won’t do anything contrary to his nature.  As much as He can’t sin because He is holy, God can’t make a “square circle” or a “stone that he can’t lift” because He is logic and order.

A shape cannot be both a square and a non-square (circle).  The Law of Non-contradiction (or just simple common sense) tells us that “Something cannot be A and non-A at the same time and at the same relationship.”  Thus, a shape cannot be both a square and a non-square (circle).  God can’t be both holy and unholy.  And God can’t be both a God of order and a God of disorder.  And since everything God does is in accordance to his will and nature, he can’t create a “stone that he can’t lift”, not because he is not omnipotent or powerful enough, but because it would be contradictory to his will and nature of order.

By these arguments, we can now conclude that though Omnipotence Paradox is logically clever, it is however, logically inapplicable to the context of God’s omnipotence.  It is also unfair.  A particular musician can only play one type of musical instruments, let us say, he can only play wind instruments.  But though he can only exclusively play wind instruments, he can play them magnificently and brilliantly.  Now, you asked him to play a guitar – a string instrument.  Of course, he can’t play it.  You then said, “Ha!  Then you’re not a good musician after all.”   Is that fair?  Omnipotence Paradox is like that.

Nonetheless, the Omnipotence Paradox provoked me to thinking (and thanks to the writings of C.S. Lewis and R.C. Sproul, Jr. for helping me out to get around it). 


The “Ship of Theseus” notion was first tackled by Plutarch.  It tells of a ship – the Ship of Theseus – that had lasted for one hundred years and was still seaworthy after all those years due to regular and perfect maintenance.  As soon as a part gets old, broken, or rotten, it is quickly replaced.  Therefore, a hundred years later, no part of the original ship remains. 

(For those who didn’t understand…) To make it simpler, imagine that this ship is only made up of 4 parts… let us call them A, B, C, and D.  As a part becomes old, broken or rotten, it was replaced.  First, A was broken and replaced by E.  Then part B became rotten and was replaced by F.   Later, C was replaced by G.  And last, part D was replaced by H.  Now, instead of parts A, B, C, and D, the Ship of Theseus is now composed of parts E, F, G, and H after 100 years.      

Now the questions that rose from this are: a) does this ship – after 100 years of replacing parts – still remain the same Ship of Theseus or is it something new entirely?; b) if not, when did it stop being the same ship?; and c) if the original and old parts of the Ship of Theseus (i.e. “parts A, B, C, and D”) were used to make a new ship, which of the two vessels is the real Ship of Theseus or has the right to call itself as the “Ship of Theseus”?

Fascinating, right?

The idea can also be interpreted or applied on other concepts or systems or groups as well, like bands.  Given a hypothetical 5-man band, which we will call, er, “Band”.  “Band” is originally composed of VocalsA, GuitarA, BassA, KeyboardsA and DrumsA.   Now “Band” would experience several lineup changes.  First, VocalsA leaves and gets replaced by VocalsB.  Then, GuitarA leaves and gets replaced by GuitarB.  And so on, until eventually a few or none of the original “Band” members consist the band.  Same questions will arise, as above.   

The “Ship of Theseus” debate is a pretty interesting for the discussion of how can the parts of a system (or group or organization) contribute to its identity.  What gives a system its identity, its parts or its design?


This proposal is simple: it is possible (even probable) that we are actually living in a computer simulation.  Silly thesis?  Actually, the arguments for it are not absurd.  This idea was popularized by the epic The Matrix Trilogy (which will go in history as among the best movies ever made) but this idea predates the movies and was always a popular thought experiment for philosophers and scientists. 

The inspiration for this thesis is when Rene Descarte questioned how he can he be sure that the sensations he feels are his own and not by illusions caused by a demon.  This would lead him to his legendary epigram “Cogito Ergo Sum” or “I think, therefore I am.”  However, when it is realized that the brain can be stimulated by electrodes to think, this seems to make “cogito ergo sum” moot. 

Let me use the “brain in a vat” hypothesis for this discussion.  There are other hypotheses that propose the great possibility of us actually existing in an illusionary Matrix-type reality, like “Simulation Hypothesis” and “Dream Argument”.  But let me use the “brain in a vat” since I like it most among the other theses because it is more comprehensive and because all other such theses are similar to each other in its premise anyway.  So, let us consider the “brain in a vat” hypothetical scenario:
Imagine that a mad scientist (or a machine – to make it eerily similar to the Matrix concept) removes a person’s brain from its body and put it in a vat of chemicals that can sustain its life.  This brain’s neurons are then connected by wires to a computer which will send electrical impulses that the brain receives from different stimuli.  Since life activities, interactions, experiences, the five senses, and all information is filtered to the brain, then reality can be simulated!   That brain – or that person which the brain was disemboweled from! – would be able to “live” life as if it’s a normal conscious experience. 

Therefore, how can the brain know if it’s in a skull or a vat?  How can we tell that what we are experiencing is indeed real and not a simulation of a machine that sends signals to our brain that interpret it as if we’re living in reality?  We actually can’t.  Thus, we can never be able to dismiss the possibility that we are actually living in a “Matrix” world.

Since we can never tell if we exist in a reality or a simulated reality, we can’t do something about it.  Empiricism becomes inutile in this context.  And, again, all left is faith.  We can only have faith that what we are experiencing is reality and we should live as if it’s reality.


UFOs.  The Dyatlov Pass mystery.  An inner Earth (i.e. A world below us a la “Journey to the Centre of the Earth”-scenario).  Jews are out to take over the world.  Jack the Ripper.  Springheel Jack. Nikola Tesla’s mysterious and unknown inventions – in which the “death ray” is the most famous among them.  The Abominable Snowman.  Area 51.  Ancient Egyptian artifacts found in the Grand Canyon.  The Lost City of Atlantis.  Alien’s connection to the building of the pyramids of ancient Egypt.  Bigfoot.  The Philadelphia Experiment.  Vimanas.  The Flying Dutchman.  The mystery of the Chase family vault.  The Bimini Road.  Shadow people.  The Loch Ness Monster.  9/11 Twin Tower attacks were planned by the USA.  Haunted places.  The Bermuda Triangle.  CIA created AIDS.  Roswell.  Mayan 2012 Calendar.  Mu.  Lemuria.  Amphibious creatures helping the Sumerians hasten their dramatic civilization advancement.  Existence of a dinosaur-like creature called Mokele-mbembe in Congo’s forests.  Nostradamus’ predictions.  The Oera Linda Book.  Alien’s connection to the Nazca Lines.  Human spontaneous combustion.   Kaspar Hauser.  Lost world of dinosaurs.  Ape-Human hybrids of the ancient times.  Lost cities of gold.  Yamashita treasure.  The Green Children of Woolpit.  And more alien-related stuff.                   

Most people are vulnerable to the charm and thrill given by such mysteries.  And I am one of those people.  Sometimes the proposed theory or explanation on a certain mystery or the proposed mystery itself sounds absurd.  Absurd but mind-blowing.  That’s what gives them their charm.  They are mind-blowing.  Some of them even have some evidences, which make us think of their validity as truth.

Personally, the Moon Landing Hoax would be my favorite.  Conspiracists have concrete and sensible arguments with this one. 


Of course, a moral or ethical move is to choose the right thing to do.  But sometimes the right thing to do is quite difficult to do or quite difficult to define.  Sometimes one would have to do something unethical or illegal or contradicting to another moral code to do the right thing.  It’s not always “to steal or not to steal”, but it can become as complicated as “to steal to save an innocent life or to not steal and let an innocent life perish.”  Morality is complicated.  Not all moral dilemmas are simple choices between definite right and definite wrong.

In a though experiment called “Trolley problem”, a villain tied 5 innocent people on a track and a trolley is moving out of control towards them.  However, there is one (and only) option to save them.  There is a lever that is accessible to you, that if you pull it, it would direct the trolley to another track.  But there’s a catch: a single person is tied to that track.  Thus, if you pull the lever, you would have saved the initial five men but would result to the death of another man.  Would you take the utilitarian approach of “the greatest good for the greatest number” by pulling the lever and saving 5 lives at the cost of 1?  Or would you be passive and let it be?  If you pull the lever, you would have saved 5 men but would have done an immoral act – you will be instrumental and partially responsible to a death of one man.   But not pulling the lever would be equally immoral since by inaction, you allowed 5 men to die when you have the option to save them.     

Another popular and interesting thought experiment on morality is the “Jack Bauer scenario” or the “24 scenario”. 

You haven’t heard of it?  Fine.  It is actually called the “ticking time bomb” scenario.   Here, there’s a nuclear bomb hidden in the city and its timer is ticking closer to zero.  There is no more time for evacuation and the only way is to defuse the bomb.  You are able to catch the terrorist that has hidden the bomb or has the knowledge on where the bomb is hidden.   Would you resort to torturing him to get that information?  Would you go to the extent of resorting to torture that terrorist’s wife and children when he refuses to crack when you torture him?

Again, I repeat: morality is complicated.  In real-life situations, there would be scenarios where one has to compromise one’s moral codes to do the right thing.  The epigram of Salvor Hardin (a character of Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation”) says, “Never let your set of morals prevent you from doing what is right.”  Sometimes, there are no “moral” options at all.  Circumstances like choosing the “lesser evil” is a reality. 

Thus, it annoys me when people speculate that they would have done better in someone else’s shoes in a particular moral dilemma.  The popular of which is “I would have not eaten the apple if I were Eve [or Adam]” as if they would have done better.  I also find people who scorn the statement “the end justify the means” arrogant, hypocritical, ignorant, or annoying… or all of these.  These people deny that there are situations where the only approach for a good end is an “end justify the means” approach.  Although, it is actually true that an immoral action is not erased at all by the good or right end it brought.  The doer has to suffer the consequence of that action.  However, the good end it brought should not be discounted at all especially if this immoral act is the only available option to bring that good end.  The observers have no right to condemn the doer and they should just leave the judgment to authority.  And as for the authority, though the doer has to answer for breaking a law or moral code and that the authority is not at all required to pardon him, authority still has to consider the good end the action brought when passing judgment (that’s why Black Ops agents, when breaking laws or rules to bring peace and security to their nation, are almost always readily pardoned by their president).

For people who are fortunate not to experience such difficult moral and ethical dilemmas, they should not act as if they would have done or would do better in such situation.  They should be thankful that they don’t experience such difficult dilemmas.  Personally, I am thankful that I am not in the shoes of people that have to decide on hard moral problems.  I prefer to just think about hypothetical moral scenarios rather than experiencing them.  Simple moral dilemmas are hustle enough, what more of complicated ones?


Time travel is everybody’s favorite.  This is probably because of fiction’s continues creative usage of time travel as motif or theme.  We are all fascinated by the possibility of travelling through time.  The idea of going to the past – to “change the present” or to get the answers on historical mysteries – or going to the future – to satisfy our curiosity of what is going to happen or how things would turn out – is very charming indeed. 

Time travel, though, is still closer to science fiction than concrete scientific and technological possibility.  Albert Einstein, who is probably the brightest mind to be authority on the subject, proposed that it is only possible to time travel to the future and travelling to the past is impossible.  According to Laws of Physics, as we know it, specifically the principle of special relativity’s time dilation (time “slows” in velocity), a one-way trip to the future is the only potential. 

Another argument we can use to dismiss time travel to the past is: if it became a possibility in our future, why haven’t we heard of a time traveler coming from the future?  If time travel to the past is possible, why haven’t any of our descendants from the future traveled to their past – our present?  Giving this thought, it’s a good enough argument to dismiss, at least, time travel to the past.

I already tackled about the some concerns of time travel – time travel’s romances, the charm of paradoxes, relationship of time travel with creation of new realities, etc. – in a past essay, and you may want to check it out.


In Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” universe, a mathematician named Hari Seldon developed a mind-blowing science called “Psychohistory”, a science that combines history, sociology, and statistics that would make prediction of future historical events possible.  Psychohistory dwells on the premise that though it is impossible to predict the actions of a particular individual (due to the complexity of every individual’s unique psyche), statistical principles can be used to create a model – converting historical factors to statistical and probability equations – that when applied to the mob of humanity as a whole can evaluate and predict the general flow of future events.    The behavior of gas was used as an analogy for the behavior of the mob of humanity.  A scientist would find it near impossible to predict the motion of a gas molecule, but he could predict the mass action of gas very accurately (this behavior-predicting principle is known in Physics as Kinetic Theory).   

For Psychohistorical predictions to be accurate, it has two (basic) foundational axioms: a) “that the population whose behavior was modeled should be sufficiently large” i.e. at least 50 billion people (Psychohistorical Science applied to an individual or small group would be unsuccessful to predict future events), and b) “the population should remain in ignorance of the results of the application of psychohistorical analyses.”  In the last “Foundation” novel in chronology, another assumption was proposed which was not acknowledged by Hari Seldon when he was formulating his model.   This axiom should be “that human beings are the only sentient intelligence in the galaxy.”  Seldon probably did not thought of it because it’s trivial or he never at all considered that there might be other beings aside from homo sapiens in the galaxy. 

In the story, using psychohistory, Hari Seldon deduced that the quintillion populated Galactic Empire is doomed to fall and humanity would go to a 30,000-year Dark Age.   Thus, Seldon created the Seldon Plan which would reduce the span to 1,000 years.  His plan was to create two separate Foundations (ergo the title) – the first concentrated on science and technology and the second concentrated on psychology and mental powers –  to preserve human knowledge and insure a “Golden Age” after the thousand year Dark Age. 

However, Psychohistory’s predictions – though generally accurate on general events of humanity – can be thrown off sync by a statistical anomaly: a deviation of an individual from the mean.  In the story, it was a psychic mutant named the Mule.  To “fix” this statistical anomalies and to put the Plan back into its original flow are the responsibilities of the Second Foundation, in which the members possess the appropriate psychic powers for the job.

Psychohistory, though still a science fiction concept, can provoke pondering on its potential to be a workable science.  I suggest you read Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” novels (as well as the “Galactic Empire” novels and “Robot” novels which served as prologues to the series) to appreciate more the beauty and incredibleness of Psychohistory.


Some scientists think that the identity of the 20th century’s scientific achievements is summarized by the theory of relativity, quantum theory, and chaos theory. 

In my list of quotes, I summarized Chaos Theory’s idea as “Complex systems, though as if acting randomly, have an underlying order in it. And simple systems, though can easily be predicted in theory, can produce complex behavior. Thus, in chaos can be order, and in order can be chaos.”  It all comes down to the realization that systems of Creation as we know of are complicated; “small” factors that seem trivial could create accumulating long-term impact on the system’s run, thus, it would be difficult or even impossible to predict such system’s behavior.  This principle of tiny factors being able to significantly affect a system’s overall behavior  is popularly known as the Butterfly Effect.  The Butterfly Effect is the basic Chaos principle.  The field of study known as Chaos Theory attempts to have a working model to predict the behavior of these chaotic systems. 

I think Chaos Theory is mostly intended to disprove the existence of God.  Some use it to “cover up” the flaw of a non-Creationism theory: accepting that order can arise from chaos.  Since Chaos Theory tells us that in chaos can be order, and order can be chaos, they then conclude that chaos and order are the same thing.  Thus, the order in Creation can happen by chaotic chance.  Ironically, though, I see it differently and wrote an essay on how Chaos Theory principles actually candidly tell us that the only alternative for the complex systems of Creation to work orderly is the existence of a Sovereign God.  Though Chaos Theory is called “Chaos”, its purpose is actually to find order in what appears to be chaos.  And since God is Order (see: no. 10), there is order in Creation’s system because he created it.  And whatever seems to appear as random behavior – “accidents”, “twist of fate”, “luck” –  or chaos (in its literal sense) we encounter in this life, there is actually underlying order in it because they are all working under God’s will.  Chaos Theory’s quest is to find order, which will lead to Order, which is God.          


Another thing that we humans love to think or speculate about is “what ifs.”  What if I did that?  What if I didn’t do that?  What if I got there sooner?  What if I got there late?  What if this or what if that.   And the charm of alternate universes is from “what if” scenarios.  In fact, comic books did “what if” scenarios on their characters and storylines.

Speaking of alternate universes and comicbooks, alternate universe is the favorite convenience in serialized long-term fiction, especially comic books, to take care of continuity problems.  Since some comicbooks are already many decades old, already had many storylines, changing writers, and the brand being marketed through different mediums (i.e. TV, movies, books, games, etc), things might get confusing for readers because of the different versions of characters or storylines.  Thus, they use “it’s an alternate universe” approach to fix that.  Makes sense.

Aside from comic books, alternate universes are also used as motifs or subjects in other types of fiction as well.  Thus, alternate universes are more known to be associated to Science Fiction than real Science.  However, alternate universes are actually seriously considered and respected in Science, especially Quantum Physics.      

The idea for alternate universes started with string theory (which states that all matter and energy – since Einstein proved they are the same – are, at the basic form, made up of “strings”), but the equations with string theory does not work when taking into factor the origin of the universe (don’t ask me the technical details, I’m no physicist).  This flaw on string theory would lead to its extension or evolution to M-theory, which now theorize that all matter (and energy) or the universe is made up of a “sheet”, and eventually, to a hypothesis that there are many universes.  The equation for “origin of universe” now fits when a “multiverse” factor is used (again, do not ask me the technical details).

Aside from this “origin of the universe” view, a Many-Worlds theory also rejects the Copenhagen Interpretation in which particles can change behavior at will.  Ok, let’s first tackle the Copenhagen Interpretation.  In an experiment called the “double slit experiment” (which we might remember from our physics classes), an electron is fired to a wall through two slits.  Electron, which is a tiny bit of matter, when shoot through a slit would form this pattern:
And, presumptively, if two slits are used, this should be the pattern:
But instead, what they got was an interference pattern like those made by waves:
The mathematical conclusion was there are times that the electrons go through one slit, or sometimes go through the other slit, and sometimes (here’s the good part) go through both slits at the same time – which means existing in two places at once! 
Wait.  It gets even stranger.  When they try to put an “observing” or “measuring” device to find out what’s it all about, the electron behaved in its expected pattern!
It was like the electron was playing a joke on them.  If it is being watched, it behaves in its expected pattern.  If not watched, it becomes a cloud of probability of going through slit one, or slit two, or simultaneously.  From this, Copenhagen Interpretation concludes that all possibilities and alternatives are reality, all co-existing simultaneously.       

In a thought experiment called “Schrödinger’s Cat”, imagine a cat sealed inside a box for one hour with a radioactive element and a vial of poison.  There’s a 1-out-of-2 chance that the radioactive element will decay during that time, and if it does, the vial is designed to break to release the poison which will kill the cat.  Since there is an equal chance for either scenario, the theory is that the cat is both dead and alive at the same time before the box is opened (after an hour) to see what actually happened.  The point is, again, all possibilities and alternatives can exist simultaneously at the same time.   

Many-worlds theory put it in a whole new level.  Instead of accepting that all alternatives and possibilities can exist at the same time, Many-worlds theory claims that, indeed, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, but they exist in separate alternate universes that do not overlap with each other.  Thus, the interferences in the electrons in the double slit experiment are caused by their bumping into particles of another universe.

So, what do this all mean?   Multiverse, baby.  Some universes might even have different laws of physics.  Some universes may have no “physical” manifestations like planets and stars.  And some universes are like ours.  In fact, there are different versions of people and history as we know it.   For every action done, every alternative or option that existed, every possible scenario, down to the subatomic level, they happened differently.  In a parallel universe, JFK was not assassinated.  In a parallel universe, the South won the American Civil War.  In a parallel universe, the USSR never fell.  In a parallel universe, the world power is the Philippine Empire.  In another universe, you might not have read this top ten list.  In another universe, I haven’t written this.  In another universe, your father might have never met your mother, and you wouldn’t have been born.  Since possibilities and alternatives are infinite, the amount of universes is probably infinite as well.  And speaking of infinite…       


Infinity is a concept that, I believe, is underrated.  It fails to excite us when mysteries should excite us, and infinity is the greatest mystery of all.  We fail to understand that infinity is the epitome of the unknowable.  It is something that our human minds cannot and will never contain or grasp.  Infinity is mind-blowing if we get its significance.

I think infinity bores us because we encounter it first in a math lesson.  “A number divided by zero is infinity (N ÷ 0 = ∞).” It is associated with mathematical numbers.  Yes, primarily it is associated with numbers, and only right so, but it is distinct with other numbers.  We learn early in our schooling that numbers can never end; that, theoretically, a certain number or quantity will always find a number or quantity higher than it.  Thus, ∞ means the endlessness of numbers.  However, because of this, we treat ∞ as if it is a real number – at least, psychologically, even sometimes theoretically.  We should understand that numbers are quantity, but infinity is unquantifiable.  We treat ∞ as something greater than the largest number we can think of.  Though, this is correct, that is not the whole picture.  Infinity is not a quantity or number, because it is unquantifiable.  A number plus one will have the sum of one number greater than the original number. Infinity plus one is still infinity.  In fact, I don’t think an “infinity plus one” is applicable at all as if infinity is a number that can have a one added on it.  Infinity is unquantifiable.  Ungraspable.  Unending.  Unexplainable.  I am not even convinced on the appropriateness of using the concept of infinity in a mathematical equation. 

In fact, infinity is so big, so ungraspable, that I can’t even describe how is it that it is so ungraspable.... a human mind would explode.

However, let me use illustrations on how “big” infinity can be (though it will still fail in comparison to the actuality of it).    Example, you may know the all individual even numbers, which would mean that you know an infinite number of items. But it would also mean you don’t know a single odd number, and that would mean that you would, at the same time, be unaware of an infinite number of items.  Yup, big time headache.   Also consider the “monkeys and typewriters” theorem.  This theorem suggests that if an infinite number of monkeys were made to hit the keys of an infinite amount of typewriters in an infinite amount of time, the product would be, at some point, the complete works of William Shakespeare.  Absurd?  That's the potential of infinity.  And another way at looking (and appreciating) infinity is Hell.  Infinity makes Hell terrifying because it means eternal – never ending – burning and torment. 

And let us not forget the perfect case study in which infinity can be illustrated: God.  God is the epitome of infinity.  He’s everything what the concept of infinity is.  He transcends time and Creation that He has no beginning and no end.  He’s omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.  No words can describe him.   An eternity is not enough to completely know him.  These concepts about the bigness of God are all impossible to comprehend and imagine by the human mind.  And this just makes knowing God more exciting, because there is always something new to learn about him; He is infinite and mind-blowing – the perfect thought provoker.    

1 comment:

Tormik Godsbane said...

One thing. I have a question for you though i may never see an answer. How do you think that infinity doesn't end? When you talk about infinity you state that this very human idea(infinity) is god. But it is a proven Fact that also nothing is forever, that everything has an end. So think this that when you die you will have no perception of anything no math, no memories, or anything to see, touch, taste, hear, or smell. that sir is infinity's end.