Suspended animation, you’re not in the annihilation of death but you’re not really alive either in duration. A sort of hibernation stasis of the soul until infinite passes through its reoccurring closed loop.
You’re born in 1986.
You die in 2070.
You come back again in the year 1986 all over again but without any previous mental memory.
Infinite closed feedback loop or echo where it’s just the same sequence and numerical pattern forever. Everything is always the same unchanging repeating itself forever.
Every single life you live is always the same forever on eternal repeat. You technically live forever but you just don’t get the pleasure of passable memory to really enjoy the ride of eternity.
(Unless you find a way to cheat the cosmos with all of your memory intact from the previous life. Ultimate cheat mode because you already know everything that will happen well in advance before it actually happens. We could only be so lucky.)
I am not so sure about that, because from what I have studied regarding past lives it seems most people who do past life regression have clear memories of being a different person in the past. Reincarnation seems to span multiple lives, not only repeating the same life over and over.
Plus what you say could only be possible if there were no parallel universes at all, and I am operating under the assumption that there are indeed parallel universes, although how all that works I really don’t know. I just know that somehow it is a thing (the Mandela Effect all but proves it, to me anyway). Also the idea of parallel universes is elegant and beautiful, it has both aesthetic and philosophical value in my eyes, and is supposed by lots of complex math shit I don’t really understand. So… meh, who really knows. But I like it. And of course reincarnation has been an idea since forever with tons and tons of anecdotal evidence supporting it.
Parallel universes could or could not exist, nonetheless it only matters what happens in the one we inhabit. For all we know all parallel universes are their own separate infinite feedback loops transpiring in simultaneous fashion. It’s also probably why one being from one universe cannot inhabit another one, classic time continuum paradox.
Also, yes it’s true people talk about having multiple previous lives and it’s possible they’re all just wrong where there’s only the one.
There’s reincarnation it’s just you’re stuck in your own body and flesh forever on repeat.
I disagree because I do firmly believe that reincarnation exists, that at least some people transfer into another human body and life after they die. Maybe certain animals also transition ‘up’ into humans via reincarnation, that is another idea some believe. Past life regression is real and too many people have talked about it for me to dismiss it as nonsense. I also believe time travel is probably real and some people have gone back to different periods of time and ended up stuck there or remained there for one reason or another.
I think this universe is a simulation and it is not impossible to do weird stuff like the above, it is all just knowing how or being subjected to those aspects that we humans and our current science don’t fully understand yet. It’s not like science is even studying any of that stuff (well only secretly inside governments do they take these things seriously, outside to the world they mock it and make fun of anyone who takes it seriously).
So given the above taken all together, I begin to see certain facts of the worldview emerge, a general structure or shape of how this reality might work and it accords very well with the notion of parallel worlds… and yes it is possible we loop inside the same life, that is block theory as far as I know and that could indeed be true on some level or in certain contexts within the overall reality.
I don’t fully understand how it works, but what I see is the waveform’s amplitude (distance from 0) means a likelihood of finding a particle there if the waveform were to become collapsed. A higher amplitude would mean a greater likelihood. Interestingly, this seems to fit with what the AI was saying about how creating more parallel universes does not add more energy but only “thins out” the existing universes or decreases overall amplitudes of other branched universes, which does not actually affect those others in terms of what they experience because everything in those universes is thinned out proportionately.
But how that applies here is: as more branched universes are created, other universes’ amplitudes decline. This may not impact those universes directly BUT it does make it less likely that they will become ‘realized’. In a way it seems like creating more parallels spreads out the possibility of each one becoming real.
I am not sure what that means though, other than to simply view parallels universes as not really existing like we exist here but more like ideas, potential realities that are waiting to see if they happen or not. At every moment there are X number of potential realities branched metaphysically off of this one, but they do not exist yet, they are like shadows or ideas of our reality; whenever a new branch is created it reduces the likelihood of (some or all of) the others. Then all branched parallel universes could be seen taken together as a vast superposition of all possible waveforms into one massive waveform that is additive. Like a million notes being played at once across near-infinite musical scales, whatever that audio wave would look like.
Maybe what we experience as the current universe, the real one, is part of that overall superpositioned waveform but it is, at any given moment, or represents at any given moment the highest probability across the entire waveform? I wonder about CERN, maybe what they figured out how to do is shoot energy outside of this universe into another nearby one in such a way that increased the probability of that parallel universe being the real one, i.e. increasing its amplitude above that of our own universe, and this instantly shifted everything into that parallel. The parallel became reality, the old universe we used to know vanished. Most people forgot and never even noticed, but somehow there was some miss-overlapped decoherence or maybe trace coherences across subtle quantum patterns in our minds (like how physicist Henry Stapp thinks it is ions individually accelerated to near-light speed through neuronal ion channels that introduces quantum-level effects into the brain and this is related to consciousness itself). Somehow, some of us still remember how things used to be.
When CERN shot energy out of our world it went into a parallel, and it would have been most likely to have done so into a parallel that was already close to our own. Things like “Fruit Loops” vs “Froot Loops” for example, a very small change that can explained by the moment of decision by the person who originally coined and patented the phrase for his cereal product. He was contemplating two options for his product, Fruit Loops or Froot Loops. In our original universe he had picked the first one. But then when CERN made a parallel universe the prime reality within the waveform superposition by upping the amplitude of that parallel, suddenly that “became real” and it happens that in that parallel past the creator of Fruit Loops had instead chosen to call it Froot Loops (because of the clever repetition of “oo” there).
Hundreds or thousands of tiny examples like that occurred, shifted instantly once the parallel universe’s amplitude was increased and it became the prime reality. Hence the “we” that existed in that parallel (only in suspension, as a kind of frozen dream perhaps, or simply in potentia within the waveform’s stored information, not yet “realized”) was suddenly animated into reality while the “we” from before vanished (this goes back to the idea I had about cloning, since the new “we” is a direct instant “copy” of who we were in the other universe that died)… except that some remnants of the old universe were carried over into the new one. How is that possible? Maybe it is an artifact of how unnaturally CERN was playing around with the amplitudes within the waveform. Maybe it isn’t supposed to work like that and the parallel with the greatest amplitude is supposed to emerge naturally as the net sum effect of all individual waveforms within that universe, like the sum total of all thoughts or decisions or intentions at any given moment will determine the amplitude… CERN bypassed that natural process by artificially splitting subatomic particles in ways they would otherwise never be split, and this released massive energy from our world and shot it somewhere else.
I dunno, just some thoughts about how I see it could work. You said, “So far I am still on the idea that, given a super-positioned particle as an amplitude distribution, and the amplitude relates to probability, the concept probability is meaningful only if there is the criterion of either/or.”, I think this is true because there is always an either/or. The either/or is basically for each parallel (each individual probability wave within the overall superpositioned waveform that is all such waves together), for each such wave (parallel universe in potentia) it will either be the prime reality or it will not. This maybe changes based on how amplitudes change within the individual waves. But I would think that becoming the main reality is not a collapse of the waveform but rather an elevation of it into primary status, in such a way that it becomes far more likely that here, in our macro-existence of waveform collapse into what we experience as material reality, time and space etc, the continually-collapsing front of the wave as it moves forward across existence is more likely to come from the primary wave (the one with the greatest amplitude), but of course it is possible it might come from somewhere else (hence why we do have the power to alter reality with our decisions, we are not merely slaves to causality of the past). Stapp thought that every time we make a clear decision we cause the entire past to instantly rearrange into a different quantum structure that made is causally inevitable over all of the past that we would end up making the decision we made; a kind of reverse causality.
The front of the waveform traveling across existence is collapsing whatever it is coming across, or the wavefront itself is continually in a state of collapse like the leading edge of a tsunami as it impacts the beach, while the rest of the wave behind it continues to build up. In that analogy the beach is continuously receding at the same rate as the wave is transiting, perfectly balanced so the entire wave itself never actually collapses. “We” are that point of balance where things are collapsing constantly from moment to moment, probably from one Planck time to another, and in that space what we experience as reality ticking across time from moment to moment is being created. The distribution of probabilities behind that rests upon various amplitudes fed back into the wave by the sum total of all influences of what is inside the wave, like our decisions.
I also wonder if other things might affect the probabilities, like a kind of prioritization or VO-based selection mechanism. Certain outcomes that represent ‘better’ results to the overall superposition might be more likely simply for that reason of being less catastrophic or representing less overall change, friction or entropic loss.
True, I agree and this explains how one reality arises out of the sum total of all possible realities. One of the possible realities is ‘larger’ (its overall waveform has a greater amplitude) and this is more or less objectively the case. Although mayube there are more relative results, maybe there are even more rarefied higher-order, higher-dimensional meta-waves of probabilities of probabilities all taken together, multiple universes all condensed into informational waves at higher levels. That would be cool.
I’m not really sure I have it right or even close to right, it just makes sense based on what I know thus far. But I do try to think at the highest most holistic level possible, totality of being. Clearly I am still an individual subjectivity so my ability to do that will inevitably be filtered somehow through that individual subjectivity lens.
Your approach might be the better one, starting with the subjectivity and filtering the totality through that. Because we already know the subjectivity, it is us, who and what we are; therefore perhaps there is less chance of error filtering it the way you do, objective through subjective, rather than doing what I am attempting to do which is trying to see the objective directly as such and for its own sake and then secondarily filtering any subjectivity through that.
Yeah, this idea is basically impossible for us to grasp, we have finite minds as Kant pointed out yet we are trying to ideate something that is not finite. Weird. But we do our best. I guess my point was that there’s really nothing impossible at the level of existence itself, for the totality (whatever it is) with regard to anything that happens in our experienced world. Think about it like a comic drawing his comic book characters: If those characters were alive, really experiencing living beings in a world that to them was totally real, well that comic can draw anything he wants. Sure there is energy requires for him to write a new chapter to the story, but that is just part of the entire overall context and situation, that energy is already baked into the net system as totality-as-such, by definition, because the comic is already written, the characters already exist. This alone tells us there is enough energy available. For the comic himself, writing a new story or changing an existing story simply involves shifting some of the already-existing energy in a new way, and he can write and draw literally anything he wants. The comic book characters may be used to certain natural laws and ways things work, maybe they think it is clearly impossible for someone to fly through the sky with nothing but their body, but then the comic book author writes a new part of the story and introduces Superman. Suddenly this becomes part of their reality. Nothing was violated other than the expectations of the characters of the story.
That is kind of how I see our reality. We are the characters in a larger story being ‘written’ into existence by whatever is going on at the highest totality level. But at that level, with regard to anything WE can or might experience here as part of our own experiential lives and world, there is basically nothing that is impossible. It simply needs a reason to be “written” like that, in a new way. So all supernatural stuff, science fiction, time travel, I mean anything we can possibly imagine is not impossible by definition of the fact that we can imagine it. That does not mean it is going to happen, but it COULD happen and if it did happen that would not represent any kind of contradiction.
Like with the heat and cold thing, certain physical outcomes we experience or experimentally setup might be impossible without certain heat and cold parameters that are difficult for us to create, but from the perspective of the totality itself all of those difficulties we face don’t really mean anything. The totality could alter things instantly in a way that makes those difficulties vanish, and TO THE TOTALITY ITSELF it can do or arrange for the same outcomes we are trying to produce but in a way that, for totality, experiences none of those same difficulties that we did. Hence why humans should not attempt to “play God” because we simply cannot play the game on that level. Sure we might be able to gain some God-like powers for ourselves, CERN for example, but only at extreme cost and risk, whereas God itself, the totality, can do any of that shit easily with no problem at all. Even if we became gods we would still be puny litlte mortal gods, like gods that require to have all this extra shit plugged into us feeding us with artificial energies and other weird stuff to keep giving us our powers… God itself, the totality, is simply already god-like “for free”. We would never achieve that unless we could somehow transition up into higher dimensions to merge with totality itself, which even if that occurred we would probably stop existing as the kind of beings we are right now and lose all of our previous thoughts and interests like the silly human strivings to become gods that so many of us have in our hearts.
(Edit, this post was too long so I had to split it into two posts. Please see the post below where I continue)
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.
Any context. The operative word was not the universe. Its about the matter itself, or you can break it down further into quantum physics.
The point is that doesnt matter what framing you use, universe, multiverse, dimensions or whatever, the foundational structure or geometry is not removable. You cant end it, you cant remove it, you cant undo it, or anything else.
To our current knowledge, it simply is and it will persist, no matter what.
Im stil stuck on the idea that the amplitude represents the probability of one particular collapse.
If all these universes can come into being, then what does the term ‘probability’ refer to? Then indeed the amplitude is an empty concept as the AI agreed, although for a slightly different reason.
So I am not sold on the idea that one probability cloud can manifest as different outcomes.
Also the experiment at Vienna it talks about, sho3ed only that a photons mass could be temporarily separated from its probability-carrier, or whatever I should call that, but not that then this probability carried could do things independently of the mass. All it could do was return to the mass.
Yeah, that. I think.
And then cost/benefit here can be see in terms of dissonance and harmony.
In that total-waveform paradigm yes, I think that’s what it would come down to.
My issue of distrust with the Mandela Effect is how it deal strictly, or almost strictly, with media, representations, images, names, etc. This is an oddity.
But it’s so freakishly weird. The one I am bothered by most is the Le Penseur statue, which I remember distinctly as being a quite noble posture but is now just a bored slouch.
I am not necessarily on board with the CERN connection, I mean, who is to say what caused it? Not sure if CERN holds that kind of power, they just managed to cause into existence a tiny bit of gold.
Here again I am stuck on the difference between proven local specific wavefunctions and the great cosmos as one. I know Cern can fuck with specific waveforms, but I dont know how that translates into the great cosmic one if it exists.
Yes, that seems to me to be so, but then,
This is pretty fascinating.
I like that.
Yes, I see.
I wonder, can it be based on the results?
Or it is located on a point on the wave that represents a greater amplitude?
Very possibly. Maybe there’s no end to it.
Meaning there’d not be a discrete totality?
Ive actually been refusing to acknowledge, or be certain of, a discrete/coherent totality.
Im not positively saying it does not exist, but that I can not infer it from what I know.
Yes and it is interesting how and where these methods meet.
I was wondering of you had any conception of what a totality-mathematics would look like, where the general integrates the local.
Yes but this is the top down perspective, doesnt it?. I rather think the totality relies on the work of the ‘cogs’, which are in my view, as perspectives (commanding Relativity) ontologically primary… stuffs.
Hm but can we really use this analogy of a comic book?
Because we must infer that something does change inside Supermans entity, even though it is not drawn on the page, for him to defy gravity.
Again Im not sold on the top down approach. I don’t believe we were created by a higher entity.
I think that all that happens has to obey ‘laws’ set by the requirements of being itself (you know the basic law I believe in) but that we do not know all the implications of the basic law.
But this is my anchor, the minimal definition of ‘a being’; a capacity to select, or be selective about, interactions, absent which everything dissolves.
This precedes matter vs consciousness, energy vs solidity, object vs subject, lie vs truth, etc. It applies everywhere to &all that can be said to exist&.
So again, Im not sure about that.
I think the existence of all that exists, including God, if He indeed exists! must follow from the ground-principle.
No I believe it comes at gigantic cost.
If you manage to pull it off it wasn’t so silly! Or was it?
When i view a higher plane from far away with filters on too,
i see cords of light between multiple realities and timelines.
The loops recycle their energy and material.
There is near-reality, distant reality, etc.
Some timelines have more support than others.
Super aliens work on that level most.
Humans have a small effect (magic),
Which arises beyond the ordinary sometimes.
Magic is all about energy and theories of reality.
Meanwhile, Nietzsche’s answer to Kant’s categorical imperative:
Live in a way which you would like to relive forever.
I see (and have seen all my life) little clusters or orangish-red electron looking particles that swirl in an amorphous pattern either in front of me or when my eyes are closed. I have to try to see em… concentrate and kinda look for em… then they appear. A swirl will last about seven seconds, then the particles disperse, and it disappears. I could pull one up right now. Size scale is about that of a half-dollar coin about eight feet from your eyes.
Where does happiness come from? Do we live wanting to serve others forever? Or do we want to have our own self forever? Isolation can drive people crazy. Example : solitary in prison. Humans need to have some interaction. Do we need to save the world? If we can’t live it?
damn I miss him. I hope he is having fun somewhere, jiving and grooving through the aesthetics of being.