Where an observer observes an observer...

Ok. On that fundamental level, an unrealized issue is apparent in the two slit optic experience, where interference effects seem to suggest a prototype of elementary intelligence, where the patterns imply some elemental level of subatomic intelligence where at times the resulting pattern mimic wave, at other times particle behavior. At this level there may be indications that the personality of the self my have corresponding actions of behavior. This has been suggested.

So perhaps consider the ‘refresh’ aspect of the equation. Analogously your pc monitor displays info, goes black ~ stops to get new set of information, prior to displaying the next image on the screen. This has been likened [and i concur] to how the universe deals with its informations, and as such the quantum effects you describe are perhaps less [i state] a perception of how physical quantum objects work, but instead are a set of sub-quantum behaviours.

As the blank screen in universe terms has no physical computer behind it retrieving information, we cannot denote the quality of physicality or objectness to the informations and behaviours at that level of reality/preceding physicality.

I’d ask, which comes first, the universe of composed objects, + its behaviours and informations [also behaviours], or the composing pre manifest [before becoming an object] informations?

I think we have to say the pre-quantum informations and behaviours [observation is also a behaviour as are forces and polarities] are primary, otherwise you have to instead have an object as primary?! …And change of/to that object [which presumably would be impossible due to said objects singularity] then occurs how? It seems like an infinitely regressing argument, because you need behaviours/information to make any change to an object.

_

It is infinitely regressing, as Strawson, and Russle have experienced in either side of the spectra. This regression into whatever it is in consciousness that Youmay want to define as the pre reflexive with its own set of rules, a plasma of undefinable and absolutely regressed non matter, may yet still exhibit the intelligence or intelligence likeness, in the very most basic level. I debate the suggestion, however , which comes first, I would imagine it is as within, as without times pace at an near absolute’s limit.Once that limit is reached, it could not become an absolute, since it’s probably axiomatically impossible to reach that state. Therefore, if You define that as God, then it is an imperfect God, at least in exhibiting it’s existential qualifiers. It’s manifestation, is inherent in those qualifiers, there is noting beyond or behind that, since that would entail an absolute singularity. An absolute singularity could never afford that kind of state, unless it could escape the confines of absolute bounded ness. the ideal as ab absolute, bound meaning, has been transcended by limiting that idea to within an infinitesimal proximate to that ideal. that is enough to set the stage for being to existence. The absolute being is a nothingness from which no escape is possible. that is hell.

A contemporary novel reflecting similar metaphors can be read in Laszlo Krasznahorkai’s ‘Siebobo there Below’. I was surprised how close the analogy of a closed circle manifests in this novel.

I’d expect them to be comparative and correlative. The ‘plasma’ info has the same reality as the physical info, in much the same way as the image on your pc monitor has the same reality as the information to which it derives. For an information or behaviour at one level you need the exact correlative information at the other. A physical behavioural information must have its conceptual or some other kind of pre-[physical]informational information.
I’d suggest that pre-information [let us call it] is not conceptual nor behavioural information, neither mental nor physical. This because we do have duel parties in reality. In-fact i think we thus have trinary informational parties, pre-info + conceptual and behavioural/physical information types.

These are the three kinds we observe in the world, no?

Accepted that it is ‘axiomatically impossible to reach that state’. I agree it should be pointed out that before and after are relative positions. Yet for classification purposes such to define our reality and to denote some approximation as to the parties, we have to separate it all up some how.
In the lateral perspective there is a before and after, the pc monitor is blank before it can show the image of the information it has. The refresh rate of a universe [maybe in a multiverse] would be blank before displaying its information. This is self contradicting because reality is fundamentally non-lateral.

The universe has a curve, one which i cannot describe, but somehow stretches between our notions of finite and infinite. Even if our notions are imperfect, reality is somehow making that curve. Perhaps the curve between informations is the reality? The thing between the infinite and finite, where those two concepts don’t themselves have any reality apart for informational.

I don’t see this as an abyss. But it would be if reality was the information.

_

An observer onserves how an observer observes an observer who observes how an observer observes an observer who observe how an observer observes an observer who observe how an observer observes …

BBB_usw.jpg

That’s more iterations of the same thing, observers aren’t like infinite mirrors imho, because the act of observing changes the two or more parties. Hence you get relative differences e.g. respective to direction and force; analogously we can imagine observing particles as like balls bouncing off each other at various tangents and speed, each with a given effect respectively ~ though its not actually exactly like that.

Only responding to the op, Amorphos. So I hope noone’s said what I’m about to say.

Last night when I was asleep, I had a dream about my own consciousness. Told me about the lack of inherent existence - did I truly exist, or was it all a projection on me? Was I the form, or was I a formless form with the form imposing itself on my bloblike spiritual essence? The electroatoms in my brain, giving me form. But do I have an inherent spiritual form, it feels like even as formless the blob has form of its own blobness.

Are my parents the absolute truth? We dont have empirical evidence to go by, we just have gut feelings. It feels like I am special. It feels like I couldnt just be rebirthed as some random suburbanite faggot when I die, that I will rebirthed into someone special, that my parents feel like absolute truths. But I dont want to live this same life again. I hate everything.

Nothing makes any goddamn logic anymore.

If I can see blue in my own brain, is blue the absolute because xrays could = blue but blue is xrays, blue is blue. There could be an inherent need to percieve, that blue will impose its blue pengas on the world, i am the world, the spiritual infinite finite entity which is compressed but not compressed trapped inside my earthly brain.

I cant tell whether somethingness or nothingness is more hell. Is pain nothingness or somethingness, well it seems like a repetitive somethingness, is boredom nothingness or somethingness, well it seems like stress which is somethingness, is unconsciousness nothingness or somethingness, seems like nothingness, but it don’t exist. Flow is it something ness or nothingness, flow is heaven but is it somethingness but aint it nothingness or is it nothingness. what is hell is it the c fibres

realisation seems to be stepping back. step back to see the scale, images form from the pixels. God comes in when he says “This form is better than that one. C fibres are pain, this image is good, water is good and flow is good. Why because I said so”

behavoirs, movements are a product of stepping back, u see the motions rather than the frames
its all an illusion
events all go back into the mud in which they came
some times id imagine myself and body dissolving into the water, my eyeballs floating about

you think, THIS DAY WILL BE DIFFErENT
I WILL GET SoMEWHERE
But you never get anywhere, its back where u started, same day as before
Same day as before, just with a new randomized bit of flavors…
a procedurally generated reality…
There is no getting anywhere, its all slidding back down the cliff
sinking into mud…body becoming one with the dirt…
simply orgasmic

youtube.com/watch?v=tSVeDx9fk60

Entities do not need to be sentient to love them. Free will is the curse of the land, the ego delusion, the apple from the serpent of eden.

if an entity is in your consciousness, you are that entity. like a dream, when u see people in 3rd person, u feel like you are them. But when free will is in the picture, entities seem out of your control, so u dont feel like u are them anymore. When someone is dead, a part of you is dead. it doesnt matter if they were ever sentient. You are god pplaying with your toys. When toys dont do what you want, you get mad, they are broken toys. but perhaps you made them that way or perhaps you didnt make them at all, perhaps they really are broken. perhaps the toy maker was unconscious and didnt even know what he was doing. but just by observing that person, you are that person. only reason u feeel yo arent is because they have a delusion of free will. it s a powerful delusion, you can actually convince someone to feel pain if you keep hammering it to them certain ideas. Like if the toy treats you as if you are not sentient, when you are sentient, you can feel as if you are worthless, as if the toy has power over you more than you do. Its almost Godlike, with no logic other than spiritual logic - Pain is pain because I said so, and theres no empirical explanation for it - c fibres give you pain simply because i say what pain is and pain is pain.

Not quite as repetitive as groundhog day but still procedurally generated.

Trixie

Its all a projection on you, and you exist. At least an experience exists, though I doubt there is a physical ‘you’ unless we consider that to be the consciousness, but that can also be broken down into other factors. We are left with an undeniable reality of being, but there is no way to say what that is.

If its like this world then surely its ‘like attracts like’, and so you would get a similar birth. There is an equal chance it could be random, especially when we consider that your birth could be good and then your life could get shit ~ due to unforeseen circumstances etc.

I think rebirth is ridiculous, but then again so is the world and hence its creator if it has one.

I think we have discussed your other points elsewhere, but you didn’t reply or notice some things [as usual].

Only the day itself is repetitive, the man’s behavior can be whatever he wants making everyday largely different. Initially, it’s all repetitive, until he realizes it gives him an infinite immortality then he starts to really live, going to extremes, converting the negative repetition into a positive security…had it not been for the day repeating over and over, all the other days after that, ironically would of been more repetitive, thus never really living…or realizing

not really an accurate model of reality.
Its wrong for two reasons.
One, I might want to ump off a bridge, just for the hell of it, but then I dont die and I fracture my spine and have to be in the hospital for a long amount of time. I dont get an instant reset like GTA Groundhog day where he can beat his cheating ex wife and rape anyone woman he wants with no consequences, because its GTA groundhog day.

Second, if you have no consequences, you have hedonism GTA syndrome, where exciting things become boring because you have Godmode and theres no riskreward mechanism to make the game interesting.

Dont recall and dont feel like wading thru posts, so its up to you.

Yeah, it wasn’t based on reality, i was just talking about the movie, in some sense it can be an extension of suicidal expression in continuation. Although it can be based upon reality if you factor in reincarnation, changing the day to life, but that is not certain. I’m not sure if it better or worse than reality, it seems repetitive, or there is a repetitive nature to it, but in reality you slowly die, which i think is the problem, not the repetitive nature in itself, but the fact that you slowly deteriorate within repetition. It’s like old age is similar to insomnia, where insomnia the body is tired, but the mind wont switch off, and old age where the mind wants to switch off but the body just doesn’t die, so they wait, they warm their body’s by the fire before they take the final leap, or sit in shopping centres feeling apart of the social scene, in some kind of trance like comfort holding onto a lost youth. Everything becomes simple, or returns to being simple…depth has passed them, or they have passed the attempt at depth, i guess they are no longer trying to live in terms of discovery and wonder, but wish to prolong a simple comfortable day over and over, as long as they can.

I think if you stimulate your mind now and build an understanding based upon reality and preserve an interactive memory of it all, then you can possibly avoid the mundane reality of old age.

Ill tell you what, nothings gonna be mundane about my old age, lol! My grandpa was quite an adventurer in his old age. When you’re old, what the hell do you got to lose?

It doesn’t even have to be based upon reality actually, im pretty sure madness is more interesting and fun than typical mundane old age, this is probably why nature rewards old people with dementia. It’s like the brain has abandoned the person’s conscious control because they didn’t do the brain justice in terms of stimulation, the brain takes it upon itself and has a blast, leaving everything else behind. I don’t blame the brain for doing that. I’m pretty sure not giving a fuck about dying allows you to actually live longer (depending on what you do), but more specifically in thought, reduced worry and anxiety, which is usually natural for older people. My grandpa is in his 80s, he still works out a little bit and drinks cider regularly, no illness, no baldness, not even receding hairlines, still fairly aware with a sense of humor…it’s fairly impressive. He’s not really adventurous though, he’s a hermit like me.

Personally, survivalism seems interesting and fun, it’s like facing the ultimate reality, no security, you adapt and grow. I have always had this natural affinity to the wild, so maybe one day i will pursue it, i will porbaby go teh camper van route first, to get my feet wet, then full force into nature and never return to the civilized world, i will do this when my mother passes away, and that is where i will die as a final resting place.

This is of course requires a certain level of acceptance of death though, which I think is natural for all people as they age, whether it is realized or not. This is a good thing in my mind, it allows you to be free, free from freedom itself, it’s like facing the universe in preparation, or just rediscovering what reality was like before the conditioning of humans into the sheltering. Last year, I went to a local beach with a friend at midnight, something i have never done, it was so unusually different from the daytime, the sea’s darkness had a great depth to it, and you can slightly see and hear the crashing waves, the coldness was perfect. It was real and amazing, but it pulls you into reality, it lets you know how mortal you are. It was rather thrilling. It makes you want more and more, you feel super lost at first, perhaps the idea of all this is to comes to terms with your mortality is relation to the world, the world being the like some kind of comparison operator between you and your own death. Some people have to return to reality in order to appreciate the modern civilized world, if they ever make it back.