(Continuing from the above post)
Sorry that was a long aside. Not sure where that all applies to any of the topic, lol.
By now I hope what I had said about this makes more sense. I am not examining zero point energy or anything else physically from within the confines of our world and human level experience, rather I am just thinking abstractly about the higher level of totality itself. From that higher level, the sort of barriers and difficulties we face would really not mean anything at all. Like with the comic book example. To write a story that has infinite energy would only require the same amount of original energy or impetus by the author as it would to write any other story. The content is basically malleable by infinite degrees. That is another example of coding, which I think gives further credence to the idea of simulation. Physical properties and outcomes in our world might seem very significant and difficult to us, but in the background it’s all just code… and the coder can write whatever code he wants to create whatever outcomes. When you’re inside GTA it might seem a very difficult task to get a mission done, but from the coder’s perspective that’s all just code. No big deal. And most of it is already written anyway. It’s not like the coder, or totality, needs to re-write what already exists, they simply tweak things here or there. A few relatively small code-changes can produce incredibly different results for the beings on the screen, on the inside of the code which for them is their objective physical world.
I’m not sure it makes sense to say the universe is an object, since to be an object seems like the result of an act of objectification which takes place at behest of something capable of doing that. The only thing capable of doing that for the universe itself would be… just the universe itself. Since nothing else exists other than itself, on that level. So the question is: can the universe itself make of itself an object? That is like asking if a human being can make of itself an object? Well yeah, but only in partial ways.
And yeah objects are always relative or compared with other objects, or things they are not.
Cool insight by Abstract 
damn I miss him. I hope he is having fun somewhere, jiving and grooving through the aesthetics of being.
You said, “You may be right about all of this but its an enormous step from observing the empirical reality of particles as probability distributions to the model of the universe as one.” ← yeah, very true. I am attempting to do the latter, describe a model of the universe itself coherently as a totality and then from that point of view analyzing what things like particles or worlds might mean. Maybe that is too daunting of a task.. but for me, the way I think tectonically and how I philosophize, it is just the way I have to go about it. For better or worse.
Yes, this is fucking gold (pun intended). Relativity imposes upon “non-relative” reality. Indeed, anything objective is probably just another level of relativity. Everything is comparative, that is basic self-valuing too. Nothing is only “one thing only” but sets or stages of comparatives arranges as rings or orderings of values, hierarchies of meaning.
“Relativity itself is at the core of the ontos” ← fucking yes.
That thing you said about the electrons in gold is fascinating, can you expand on that more? Gold is an amazing element.
Very cool how we each come from somewhat different perspectives or methods, but end up arriving at the same or similar conclusions. I think both approaches can work well together.
Yes, I agree. We are doing some of the work unlocking content within that layer, or at least trying to do that. A lot of the knowledge is hidden, ‘occluded’ from view and must be dug out with serious effort on our part. I think luck plays a role too, although I feel weird saying that because I can’t really explain exactly how or why I think that.
Abandoning flat objectivity for a more subtle view involving normative criteria, yes I see this is needed. That move, or transition as you called it, is even necessitated by simply understanding what self-valuing and VO even mean at the more basic level.
Becoming a pure totality is not possible, but then again we are already a more or less ‘completed totality’ within and as ourselves, self-valuingly. VO might hold the key to unlocking further descriptions of the waveforms and how they work, for example. Leading to better understanding of totality, indeed even totality itself must conform somehow to VO requirements. Hence that idea you ended with below about cost and cost-benefit ratios.
Yeah, that is the stuff we should look at now. I think we have more or less reached the point of going in that direction.
Nice. The cost relative to totality itself, to the larger waveform, and how certain possible changes impact the overall structure. How that leads to weighted distributions of valuing across the totality.
Look at what another user published earlier today, about agency. He outlined how agency is that from which ethics comes, and this happens at the level of reality itself. Ethics is not just a human creation but something core to what agency is and means. I agree with what he said there. We can apply that way of thinking to the topic here: the totality, whatever it is, must weigh or assess (value in terms of itself) any possibilities, any changes. This happens beforehand to some degree, and might also happen afterwards if totality itself is not perfectly accurate in its predictive abilities. Cost-benefit could mean something like what is in the greater net good for all possible worlds. Or for certain possible words that are closer to the ‘center’ of totality, which are perhaps being realized along another wavefront-collapsing we are unaware of (gods, angels, higher beings?) occurring in other ‘dimensions’ beyond our own.
I also really like how you incorporated the golden ratio and that line of considering aesthetic proportional geometry. I totally agree. Beautiful proportions are baked into our existence, that is beyond denying. Even our human ability to find other people pretty or attractive is based in large part on proportions, symmetries and curves for example. There is a more or less theoretically ‘perfect curve’ to a woman’s thigh, and the more an actual woman’s thigh approaches that theoretical perfection the more attracted we will be to it. There are endless such analogies demonstrating this point all across nature.
Ratios in proportion like that arising into beauty, what for us humans is experienced as beauty because we are essentially phenomenological beings (meaning-driven), occur also for simple mathematical reasons of efficiency – cost-benefit. Fractals for example. So so many examples of fractal patterns in our world, and for good reason. The golden ratio is a fractal, when it is squared it gives exactly itself +1 with no remainder. It is the only number that does that. 1.618033988… ^2 = exactly 2.618033988…
The proportion or length unit of 1.618033988… squares to create a 2D geometry out of the 1D line segment it started as, and there are unique properties built into that resultant square including absolutely perfect ratios between its various parts. This is again, a kind of spiral. These deeper logics inside the math are that from which the physical world emerges, and for obvious reasons. It is just more efficient, and leads to more coherence, more information and more meaning. More ‘stuff’ can be fit into a smaller space because that space is already organized in such a way as to contain fractal repeating patterns and loops in which crevices can be hidden derivative or subtler orders of information, details that emerge via ratio-decoding for example. Hidden codes as it were. Also it creates resonances between layers and between different parts of layers. Most likely this kind of sacred geometry extends all the way down to the Planck scale computing going on, which forms the basis of the simulation matrix as I see it. But also consider the waveforms themselves: sacred geometry also has to do with specific frequencies and numbers that translate into waves. Audio waves, visual waves of colors, and perhaps even probability waves in quantum waveform superpositions underlying our very reality itself and governing more or less which potential outcomes realize and become reality vs which do not.