In the universe, the impossible occurs infinitely often,
everywhere, at all times, under all conditions.
Apeiron Centre (AC): The Center of Infinity or the Infinite Center is the first philosophical organization in the world that studies the idea of infinity in intimate contact with the finite as presented in our physical universe, society, and mind. Far from being an unsolvable absurdity, the principle of infinity, which is the most radical of ideas, can resolve the problems of life and answer the questions of our finite, inadequate world.
Anaximander, the Greek Ionian philosopher (sixth century BCE), asserted that the principle and substance of all existing physical bodies is the Infinite One, which he called the Infinite (to apeiron). He defined the Infinite as that which is intermediate between two elements and hence is internally unbounded without internal distinctions. He equally defined the Infinite as that which is a mixture (synthesis) of all elements. As an intermediate thing, the Infinite is neither finite nor infinite, and therefore is indeterminate, or impartial. As a synthesis of elements, the Infinite is both finite and infinite and therefore complex and balanced. Following Anaximander’s powerful insight, which was shared by Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Plato, and which is in opposition to the finite-analytic ontology of Aristotle and Kant, the Apeiron Centre assumes the following about the physical body:
The standard position of mainstream empirical science is to exclude the infinite and its inverse, nothing (zero), which is the infinite according to division. Nature or the physical body is simple and finite and nothing finite is infinite! There is no infinite body, no Infinite One!
This Aristotelian finite-analytic worldview is incapable of understanding the physical world’s indeterminate and complex nature and generates in science infinitely regressing absurdities. Given the crisis in the finite-analytic foundation of empirical science, the new trend is to return to the first thinkers of Greece (the school of Ionia), India (the Upanishads) and China (the school of Tao), who laid down simultaneously and independently the first spiritual foundations of humanity. These three regions formed at the dawn of philosophy (sixth to fifth century BCE) the axis of the apeiron, or Infinite One. According totheir first intuitions about the physical world, which were the most powerful and true, the Infinite One is the principle and substance, the source and destination of the physical universe. As a complex principle, the Infinite One ensures the unity of the physical whole’s opposite poles, the finite and the infinite, as well as the permanence of its life and motion. As a complex substance of all things, the Infinite One allows us to affirm without absurdity that (a) everything finite is infinite, (b) that all finite quantities have infinite magnitudes, (c) that a finite spherical body of radius 1 is simultaneously infinite (according to extension and division).
Finally, we call, infinite-synthetic paradigm the emerging non-Aristotelian model of the physical universe according to which everything is complex, verifies synthetic principles of existence, and is both finite and infinite. Because the infinite-synthetic paradigm abolishes one-way time and its analytic hierarchy generating unsolvable conflicts, it is regarded as the natural response to society’s contradictions and evils.
 CF: Kirk, Raven, Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, p.110).
That which is internally unbounded without internal distinctions and boundaries is the infinite according to quality of Anaximander. It is also the infinite of the globalization of our human society, which is a process of boundary breaking and community making. Breaking political, economic, social, cultural, racial, genetic, organic, psychical, and spatiotemporal boundaries permits us to discover the hidden unity of apparently different things, that which is common and universal among individuals and makes of them a permanent unified whole - that is, a boundless community that exists and continues to exist in space and time because it obeys unifying universal principles.
The organization of our society according to common interests and universal laws reflecting the unifying principles of the infinite universe is the common and universal program of globalization and of scientific progress thought of as an inductive process of universalization-globalization.
A society without internal boundaries and yet bounded by unifying principles is an infinite spherical body governed by the equivalence principle, according to which the distribution of wealth - of matter, energy, and information on the spherical surface of the body, is continuous, universal, and uniform, the same everywhere in all directions at all times.
If time and history generate opaque and hermetic boundaries among the individuals of the world, then breaking the boundaries through scientific progress and successive globalization will bring in the ultimate future:
▪ the end of time taken as the generator of hermetic boundaries
▪ the complete development of the universal as idea and as experience and
▪ the emergence of a universal community composed of simultaneous members in continuous communication
Since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers, we have known that life, society,and the physical world exist and can continue to exist if, and only if, they obey unifying principles that (a) hold the world together, (b) allow communication between its members, and (c) stabilize its disruptive variation and imbalance.
If we fail in our globalization process, human society will decompose itself into discontinuous, isolated individual parts increasingly diverging from each other and in war of all against all. It will then be the global collapse of all civilization. We have failed in our globalization (a case of destructive globalization) (a) when we lose our individual identity without expanding it; (b) when we open our particular limits that separate us without fixing our universal limits that unifies us; (c) when we increase society’s disruptive mobility without enhancing her cohesive stability; (d) when we develop artificial power at the expense of our natural power; (e) when we concentrate wealth without distributing it; (f) when we compress the entire scattered world within our mind without composing it; (g) when we unify things without discerning them, and discern things without comprehending them.
The last boundaries that scientific progress is breaking are the genetic boundaries between individual organisms, the material boundaries between individual organisms and non-organic matter, and the psychical boundaries between the finite conscious and the infinite unconscious self.
In the first case science breaks the genetic boundaries between individual species by communicating genes among microbes, plants and animals. This in turn creates a community of organisms that are complex wholes having their individual genomes increasingly extended and enriched through the continuous exchange of their genes.
In the second case science breaks the boundaries between organic and no-organic matter by translating the genetic code of the individual organism into the universal language of as and bs. The universal matrix a = b of the cell’s genome, which is simultaneously the matrix of the mind and of the physical universe, will in turn provide the unifying framework for obtaining a universal cognition and communication across categories: organic and non-organic matter, space, light and mind. The universal matrix or equation a = b, will celebrate the unity and continuity of space, matter, light and mind. It will describe how the variation of a unit of space generates material, electromagnetic and mental effects as well as how the variation of mind generates electromagnetic, material and spatial effects.
In the third case empirical science breaks the psychical boundaries between the finite conscious and the infinite unconscious in order to establish a continuous communication between them such that the infinite forces of the unconscious infinitely extend the finite mental faculties of the conscious independently of external cause - of an artificial machine or a transcendent God.
The meaning of globalization, which is an inductive process of empirical science moving from the finite individual to the infinite universal, is to recompose the physical object’s wholeness, which is decomposed by the corrupting force of time. In fact, time decomposes the wholeness of life, nature or physical object into an aggregate of isolated parts (the individuals) deprived of unity and communication and which we call contradictories occurring successively in time. For instance, at the beginning of our observable world, the corrupting force of time decomposed the spatiotemporal whole into the opposite parts of space and time, where space is the horizontal axis of simultaneity and coexistence, and time is the vertical axis of succession and impossible coexistence.
Time also decomposed the electro-gravitational whole into the conflicting parts of light and matter (the cosmologists call this the decoupling or light and matter). Matter was decomposed into the conflicting parts of gravitational and anti-gravitational matter and light into electromagnetic and nuclear energy. Then through Darwinian evolution, time decomposed life (taken as a community of communicating wholes or cells) into an aggregate of isolated individual species in competition.
If we think of time as being a deviation from the physical world’s natural state, which is a community of wholes in continuous communication coexisting independently and prior of time, then inductive globalization can be regarded as a restoring force aiming to mechanically restore the physical world’s natural state. Thus, the ultimate end of inductive globalization undertaken by science is to arrive at zero time, that is to say, at zero corruption or zero decomposition, where life, society and the physical world emerge as a permanent community of communicating wholes connected by the equivalence principle.
Will economic growth grounded in the law of diminishing costs bring about the end of work, of capital, of land (matter) and time, regarded as costs in the production of wealth?
Time is not only a principle and force of corruption that determines the particular individual; it is also a cost in the production of wealth. In the post modern phase of political economy, the law of diminishing costs, dramatically poses the problem of how to produce a finite amount of wealth with minimum cost, that is, with minimum time, and hence with minimum work, capital and land(or matter), which are compressed forms of time. The limiting point of this indefinite diminution of costs is the power to produce a good without engaging the above costs, in other words, free of cost.
Is such an ideal state possible? In so far as the law of diminishing costs is a logical consequence of infinite Nature’s principle of least action, according to which every physical being behaves in a way that minimizes its action, then the above ideal state is a natural end that will be necessarily realized in our particular case because it already governs the entire timeless physical world.
According to Aristotle, an accomplished being possesses its good without exercising action, whereas an imperfect being possesses its good by means of multiple actions exactly the way the human body does. A body can remain healthy without any exercise, another body will obtain its health only after vigorous effort, whereas another body will have no health no matter how vigorous the effort may be. (see On Heavens 11,12 292a, 25).
The above reflections lead us to conclude that the intrinsic meaning of economic growth is to obtain wealth and health at zero cost, namely with zero work, in zero time, which we call economic singularity. In fact, the possession of wealth and health by every human being must be spontaneous, effortless and natural, like respiration. The moment that we add work and effort to respiration, we are by definition, ill!
Only within the context of a global federal government that unifies the scattered members of the Euclidean world into a universally communicating spherical whole, can effortless possession of wealth and health by every human being, be a universal human right.
On Infinite Public Debt and Its Self-payment
Is there any limit to society’s endless growth of public debt in an indefinitely expanding world? And if there is an end, is this end the collapse of society or is it society’s ultimate liberation from public debt generating external constraint?
There is a tremendous amount of emotion involved in people’s attitude toward public debt. Like sex and religion, public debt is a popular subject. But what is the philosophical meaning of public debt? When do we have public debt? Is public debt vicious or virtuous?
We have public debt when there is a difference and an inequality between public expenditure (consumption) and public income. If public consumption C is greater or increases faster than public income I such as C > I, we have a public deficit entailing a public debt. In a finite society ruled by the principle of inequality and linear time whose economic manifestation is the law of increasing deficit either because of increasing consumption or decreasing income, public deficit and debt necessarily grow and have a depressive effect on society.
The growth of the public debt proceeds by constantly deferring its payment, which constitutes a debt added to the initial debt. We have thus the increasingly depressive case in which public energy and public wealth decrease with time, thereby putting an increasing burden and constraint on society and on later generations. We call this, the law of diminishing public wealth. It is the correlate of the law of increasing public deficit that characterizes our time-conditioned society situated in an indefinitely expanding hyperbolic or Euclidean world.
Now, is there any limit to society’s seemingly endless growth of public deficit and debt in an indefinitely expanding world? And if there is an end, is it the collapse of society because of the exhaustion of its income and available energy? Or is it the definite payment of the public debt and society’s ultimate liberation from obligation and constraint?
In a spherical world free of linear time, there is no problem of accumulating a public deficit and debt. They increase until they reach the sphere’s greatest area and then, while still increasing they diminish to zero at the antipode. The public deficit is spontaneously converted into a surplus that pays off the public debt. The infinite public debt is simultaneously a zero public debt freeing society from all burden. The same thing happens with time; while still progressing, it diminishes to zero at the sphere’s diametrically opposite point. Because on the timeless sphere every point is simultaneously its antipodal point, and every sense is inversed into its opposite sense without absurdity, we can also assert that at every moment the public debt is self-paid and that the spherical world has no hole and no loss of energy.
What does this mean to the economy of our time-conditioned society which is inherently programmed to increase without limit its public deficit and debt and to generate an ever-larger hole within its public wealth? It means that the solution to society’s infinite public debt occurs beyond our Euclidean time-conditioned world. Indeed, from a higher dimension we observe the whole of our Euclidean world, that is, our Euclidean time-conditioned world as a timeless spherical whole that spontaneously and continuously pays off the endless increase of the public debt of our incessantly expanding and consuming Euclidean world. This payment is realized by using Nature’s renewable resources, which are infinite and free from impurities (waste) because they are continuously recycled.
The state in which we have an unlimited public consumption with a limited public income or, to put it another way, a limited public consumption with a zero public income, we call infinite or maximum wealth. It is a generalization of our actual telecommunication system that enables each individual to have an unlimited communication with a finite cost (for example, with a finite payment), which is equivalent to the complementary case of a limited communication with a zero cost (with a zero payment, say). The state of maximum wealth constitutes the first step toward the civilization of infinity occurring on the surface of a permanently rotating spherical world and whose structures reflect the eternity of the spherical whole. Indeed, the structures of such an ideal civilization operate analogically to the spherical whole, that is, continuously in a costless, debtless and effortless way free of the second law of thermodynamics.
Instead of trying to understand why there is a public deficit in an indefinitely expanding society, and determine how to convert it into a surplus that pays itself off without affecting the expansion, the experts curtail public consumption and therefore expansion in the hope that the deficit too will be curtailed. What they create, however, is a contracting recession that instead of eliminating the deficit eliminates life itself!
We take the infinity point of view in which public debt in an expanding economy is virtuous and constructive under the condition that it is paid off by Nature's renewable resources. So what we propose here, then, is to get out of the Euclidean-finitist-analytic paradigm, governed by the second law of thermodynamics and observe human society as a spherical whole endowed with the endless recycling capacity of infinite Nature. In such an ideal society expansion and public consumption are unlimited because a finite and constant amount of resources is continuously recycled.
What then should economic authorities actually do? They should eliminate all the public debt of human society by creating a global monetary surplus whose value would be guaranteed by Nature’s renewable resources. Because infinite Nature taken as a whole or universe is the foundation of all things, it is necessarily our only real and inexhaustible guarantor.
© 2012 All rights reserved
Anaxagoras (fifth century BCE). Greek Ionian thinker who asserted that since opposites come out of one another (for instance, something comes out of nothing and vice versa), they must have been present in one another always. It follows that everything is present in everything and that external or determinate causality upon which empirical science is grounded is an illusion.
Anaximander (sixth century BCE). Greek Ionian philosopher who defined the infinite (to apeiron)as “that which is internally unbounded without internal distinctions”, that is, that which is indeterminate, infinite in quality, beyond categories and hence all-inclusive. The infinite is neither finite nor infinite and therefore is indeterminate and impartial. The infinite is both finite and infinite and therefore complex. Because the infinite is the common substance and principle from which all things originate and to which all things return, its form is spherical.
Aristotle (fourth century BCE). Greek philosopher and farther of analytic logic. He employed analytic principles of thought to show the absurdities of infinity and motion. If infinity and motion are real properties of the physical world, how can we save infinity, motion and the physical world from destructive analytic criticism?
Chinese thinkers of the school of Tao (sixth to fifth century BCE). Tao, the way and principle of heavens, is the unity and interpenetration of opposites called contraries. Every being in the infinite universe is a complex indeterminate whole, which is both female (yin) and male (yang) and neither female (yin) nor male (yang).
Democritus (fourth century BCE). Greek Ionian philosopher who asserted that atoms are finite bodies that move with infinite speed in the infinite void.Moreover he asserted thatthere is only one kind of natural or original motion, namely that of vibration. However the one-way backward and outward acceleration of our observable universe contradicts the natural and symmetric motion of vibration. How can we solve this conflict?
Heraclitus (sixth century BCE). Greek Ionian philosopher who lived in Ephesus. He identified God with Logos (proportion), which similar to fire unites opposite things and ensures that change between opposites will be proportional balanced and continuous. According to Heraclitus the unity of things escapes our particular perception; it lies beneath the visible surface and depends upon a balanced action-reaction between opposites.
Plato (fifth-fourth century BCE). Following the Pythagoreans, Plato asserted in his Philibus that nature has united in every being the finite and the infinite (not-finite). However, in virtue of what principle is this primitive unity of opposites true? How can every being be both finite and infinite while avoiding absurdity? Is this unity of opposites a principle of the mind (faculty of synthetic reason) or a principle of the physical world? Is it an essential or an accidental, a real or an apparent principle of nature?
Pythagoras (sixth century BCE). Greek philosopher from the island of Samos who asserted that two principles, the limited and the unlimited, govern all bodies, that everything numbered by the whole 1 is a complex unity of opposites, of the limited and the unlimited. In the Pythagorean system, the unlimited is an even, female number and the limited is an odd, male number.
Indian thinkers of the Upanishads. Indic sacred scriptures principally written between ninth and fifth century BCE. Their exposed doctrine asserts the unity of the inner self or soul (atman) with the outer ultimate reality (Brahman) through contemplation and meditation.
If the outer ultimate reality (defined as the sum total of an infinite number of outer realities) has an infinite extension and the inner self or soul (defined as the sum total of an infinite number of inner realities) has a zero extension, then from their unity emerges the real magnitude 1 of the physical whole 1, which is the ratio between its greatest outer part and its smallest inner part.
©2009-2012 Apeiron Centre - all rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission in prohibited