The Odds

I was reminded today of a question that I posed myself last night, as I was falling asleep, where doing a highly desired activity meant a 1 in one trillion chance of something catastrophic happening. The question is: Would you do it, and would you do it repeatedly? The final question, though, is: would you enter into eternity repeating this action? The final answer should be no in every case, if the actor were aware and rational, because the joy of the likely result will, at some point, be cut short by catastrophe, and the experience of the final event will taint and overshadow the experience of the joy before it. So why would a choice, so obvious when offered once, or even offered many times, become certainly dreadful when offered infinite times? The answer is that, when offered infinite times, every outcome occurs (until an outcome that halts the repetition occurs). While each outcome has weight, based on their odds within the field, they are all represented within the field- everything with a non-zero value. If one outcome shifts everything to hell and ends the rolling of outcomes altogether, then hell will be the final result, even if the chance was always infinitesimal for that result to occur. Said another, more neutral, way, if one path is weighted as good or bad, and continues the repetition process, and a second option is weighted as good or bad and halts the repetition process, the second option will be the final result in the string. If the string must persist with the first result, and the second result eclipses the first, then the second result will be known as the meaningful result in the field, ultimately, regardless of its rarity. Likely, this "eclipsing" function will dilate time as well, minimizing, or possibly even erasing, the weighted value of the first result, from one's own perspective, once the second result is seen. If this occurs, then the second result was always the meaningful result in the field, regardless of if it was known or not.

As I wrote, the message crystallized that others were looking for rarified fields. It seemed like the specifics of each result was not the focus here, but perhaps the proliferation of the volume instances of a scenario, when viewed from a timeless perspective. This is like those if->then graphs, or like seeing a six sided die represented visually as six dice, in order to indicate a roll, one image with each side up. In the case I was picturing, the goal seems to be to have that graph end up as large as possible, regardless of the specific outcomes represented. So a one in one trillion chance would have one trillion final iterations, one of which is unique from the rest. This graph would be more preferable to this group than the graph with six outcomes, like the graph with G64 outcomes would be far more preferable than the one with one trillion outcomes. It seems like, at this stage, identifying a singularly rare result is the easiest way to generate such a large graph, so that may have been why the focus was on this type of solution. My suspicion is that, ultimately, a "crunchy" graph is what is desired, with many rare results, perhaps to represent "random" in an agreed upon meaningful way, like step two in the process of this graph generation. While meaning can be vaulted far beyond the confines of present human definitions using this method, I have yet to conceive of how meaning can be infinitely vaulted, in order to fill eternity without becoming overwhelming (exceeding one's capacity to process), or dropping asymptotically to zero. This aim of essentially codifying "meaning must be retained, with beauty abounding" sets a kind of integral of all iterations of all such graphs, and acts as its own prime example of what such an infinitesimal outcome can achieve, if comprehended, and perhaps agreed upon from a place of comprehension, within reality.