### Infinity is larger than 32 or even 64

This is the real problem. I an attempt to understand the universe a method has been chosen that reasons from what is perceived as certainty and extend there to a perfect certainty. That is why it fails. When dealing with anything in the universe, no matter how simple, it is ∞(A) + ∞(B) = ∞2 which is (C) and as a result the concept application of math as A + B = C is failed before it even starts. There exists no item in the universe which is A and is not infinite, except in the imagination of the human. This why I say that math can be modeled by the universe, but math cannot model the universe. A failed premise expounded for thousands of years. It is only when the puzzle is near completion is it possible to see where the process has failed. I have gained something new today. This image from a java sample makes me think of the fact that many things can be seen in many ways and the strange thing is that simply because a person has only one way to see, he assumes that there is no other sight to be had. I seek infinity and of course I will never find it, but what an interesting process it is.

By studying languages and this implementation as a chemical computer, it is obvious that digital logic is not up to the task of managing the universe. Now that I see the effect of infinite logic, it makes all attempts to emulate life and the logic of human life impossible to complete. I understand why it is hopeless to attempt to model or analyze or describe something that is infinite with a state wise approach. Analog logic is no better, because it is not really infinite in its interaction. There is only one thing which is infinite in its action and that is what nature has chosen.

It now seems that what is being is done is to create a more and more realistic puppet and as a result it will always be a puppet and cannot become infinite by digital steps, no matter how many CPUs, or how much ram, or how many options. The logic must begin infinite and proceed from there.

I think this fascination with perfect logic began with Aristotle and has a certain charm for a person due to their nature, but it is not valid and that should be obvious in the gyrations that must be applied to get from A to B in a perfect way. Quantum mechanics may be a way to express the infinite in some ways, but it too suffers from a foundation that seems to imply that there is a clear integer like solution and there is none.

I proceed now to extend language in the infinite scope with a method that starts infinite and progresses from there. Many things are chosen because they please the observer and though that may be reasonable in an existential sense, it is not a path to real understanding.

Digital computers are very good at what they do in being state wise complete and that is good because it allows certainty at least in the scope of where it can reasonably be applied. It bothers me that I didn't realize this before. There needs to be a completely new type of device that operates at the level of the universe and is not perfect or quantized. The only purpose would be for implementation of a thinking device. I want a device which could be tasked with solving the equations that define the universe and achieve that. Oh well, live and learn.