Cat

There is as much uncertainty about the cat inside the box from the outside of the box as there is uncertainty about everything outside the box from the cat’s perspective inside the box, i.e., complete uncertainty. We are the cat.

Fractals

I think that fractals are the coolest and/or only thing(s) in the universe. They’re so cool and weird… I want the ability to see fractals everywhere, recursion, that stuff, but the weird part is that we’re (“we”) already experiencing fractals everywhere, aren’t we? Well, I shouldn’t talk about reality as if it existed as just one single thing for “us”. I mean “my” universe and reality in which I already know that everything’s just going to exist the way I believe it to because I believe that if I believe a belief then it is reality, these circular things..

But if it’s always going to be this conclusion anyways, why do I even bother to think about it? I guess it’s just fun to get lost. I don’t care about answers. I only seek them for the sake of not being able to find them. Please, the last thing I want is an answer. All I want to do is keep on thinking.

(Side note: I think I should probably do a fractal inspired collection for my next project.)

How does a relativistic particle perceive a non-relativistic particle?

I would just like to point out again (to myself) that velocity is just a unitless number, since time carries the same units as distance in 4-dimensional spacetime, and the speed of light  just a conversion factor of seconds into meters, both of which are arbitrary units.

So what implications does this have to the question “what is a universe with only spacetime and photons”? In an exclusively radiation filled universe, can space and/or time exist? If so, how? Can/does empty space exist in between the photons? How can a photon exist as a (point) particle when it exists everywhere along its path simultaneously (i.e., what does it really mean to exist as a particle and a wave simultaneously)?

So I think I concluded that time only exists for non-relativistic particles and therefore does not exist for relativistic particles in the previous spacetime post so it makes no sense to talk about motion or moving for a universe with only photons since that entails rates of distance per unit time. Or rather, all motion in whatever universe is just a ratio in the photon’s perspective. We non-relativistic particles perceive relativistic particles as “moving” but they perceive us as “ratios”. What does that mean? What does it mean to “perceive something as a ratio”? I think that the photon (or neutrino or whatever) would be just as clueless about what velocity means as we are about what this ratio thing means..

Well, Einstein asks “what happens when we catch up with a beam of light” but what he really asks is “what happens to the perception of a non-relativistic particle when it reaches the same velocity as a relativistic particle”. What happens to the second half of the question “what happens to the perception of a relativistic particle when a non-relativistic particle suddenly acquires the same distance/time ratio as the relativistic particle”? Wasn’t that part of the deal too since in relativity everything is relative and so you shouldn’t just be questioning things from the absolute perspective of a non-relativistic particle? Did that second question get answered along the way/was I just not paying attention??? Uh…?

Why can’t you just try and see what you’re not used to? Why are people so amazed by things that they don’t ordinarily experience when what they ordinarily experience is already infinitely out of the ordinary for anything that does not experience what we ordinarily experience? Does it really have to take a non-human to realize how infinitely bizarre the human reality already is?

It’s pouring cats and dogs outside right at this moment!! (Oh, and you there - don’t you know that you DON’T need drugs to realize this? It’s your thoughts that bring you there, not those chemicals! Chemicals are just part of your thoughts. It’s all circular. Psychedelia is not an exclusive property.)

The Secret Life of Plants

This book of artwork by Anselm Kiefer reminded me of some things. Whenever people ask the question “can _____ have consciousness”, they never actually ask that question. What they are asking is “can _____ have “human” consciousness” - this has absolutely nothing to do with the former question. It’s an absurd generalization to assume (or classify, rather) that “all forms of consciousness” must exhibit behavior or experiences such as “thought”, “emotions”, and “senses”. These are things that humans perceive through human consciousness. Just because something “thinks” differently from what we are used to calling (or experiencing) as “thought” does not (ABSOLUTELY not) mean that _____ does not “think”.

The whole AI debate is no more than a grossly exaggerated grand argument of DEFINITION, nothing else. I hate it when this happens, and the debaters never realize that they’re getting nowhere besides disagreeing on their definitions of “consciousness”. No matter how specific, how elaborate, how clever you think your definition is, it is a “definition”. It’s got nothing to do, nothing at all to do with anything at all. Absurd, just stop. I don’t attempt to undermine anyone’s definition of anything. What good would that do anyone, and what understanding would I ever gain by merely creating definitions and more and more that contradict each other? Why did philosophy have to evolve into this kind of “stuff”..

How can space or time exist without physical objects and vice versa?

Space and time are the same - I don’t understand how they could exist without physical objects, just like physical objects could never exist without space and time. But we always talk about space and time as if they came before physical objects, how do we know that it wasn’t because of physical objects that space and time existed. But of course that’s a rather pointless question because it’s presupposing the existence of time for there to be an order to things, or it could just be asking the question, is time necessary for causality? Can causality exist independent of time? Association can, but can order? Order exists in space, but space and time are basically the same type of thing, they’re both media, for storage of information.. And I begin to be reminded that this must all just be a problem with the limitations of language to explain the concept that we already understand, have always held, in our way of experiencing or perceiving, but that cannot be conveyed through thought in the form of language. Or “thought” is only language, a product that “happens” but is not caused? At least not by intention. But arguing about all this is meaningless because of the nature of “truths” anyways, so just leave that.

Back to the problem - How can time exist without physical objects? I seem to have defined* “time” as the order of events happening between physical particles**. I said, if there are no events, how can there be time, how would we know if there were time, and more importantly, what difference would it make if there were or weren’t time if there were no events to happen anyways? And how could there be an event without a physical particle? Well, a physicist would say, that’s silly! Light exists, and light is not a physical particle. It could well be a particle, but it is not physical, and it takes “time” for a photon t travel from a point in space to another point. But that’s silly too! The time it takes for light to travel from one point depends on the reference frame of the observer, the motion, the relative velocity of the observer in the reference frame, but if no physical particles existed to be a observer in a reference frame, then how would we know how much “time” it takes for a light beam to travel from one point in space to another point in space?

Is saying that other photons exist in other reference frames to observe other traveling photons stupid? Time does not exist in the reference frame of a photon. For a photon there is no such thing as time, no such thing as velocity, no such thing as motion. But then what is a world completely devoid of physical particles but filled with empty space and photons? Does it even make sense to suppose the existence of empty space when the only existing particles are non-physical (by virtue of the same argument of time)? We, as perceivers only used to experiencing and perceiving a universe with both physical and non-physical matter could imagine a universe filled with empty space and photons, with photons moving from point to point at different “times” some before, some after, and at first sight it seems perfectly sensical, but immediately on second thought, how could this possibly be?

How could photon 1 start traveling from point A “before” photon 2 starts traveling from point A if time flowed for neither of them? Or imagining of that scenario requires us to “be there” to observe it, even if it is only a scenario in our heads, but by being there, we are the physical particles there to “observe” the photons. Photons cannot be observers because the act of observation seems to require “time” or at least anything that we, as human perceivers, could possibly imagine. But then isn’t it pointless to “think about” the non-existence of physical matter anyways? Since you would never be able to imagine it because the very act of imagining it, perceiving it, trying to perceive it at all creates its existence.. Just like everything else.. But what if it’s completely “internal”? Having nothing to do with the physical world, but only with what “goes on” in the mind?

What is an event in the mind? It requires no physical objects at all! It requires no “real” physical objects, but then are we saying that just because a physical object that exists purely in the mind if not “physical” at all simply because it is not “real”? It seems that everything and anything “real” has the exact same properties as everything and anything “imaginary” except that one is real and the other is imaginary; one exists in the “real world”, and one exists in the “mind”. So I don’t think that just because an imagined physical object is not real, it is not physical, so to say. And so we are going in circles once again, trying to “imagine” the unimaginable but circularly causing the imaginable just because we are “imagining” the unimaginable, which is not being “imagined”.. I think that the conclusion always gets to the same basic point - that creation creates itself, everything and anything creates itself and itself and itself, and back the the problem of zeros and ones and ones only creating ones and zeros only being zeros all over again. Everything is so unimaginably “simple”. “Simple”.

*Not a good thing. I use the term “define” loosely here. I don’t want to give anything a definite definition.

**By “physical particle” I really just mean non-relativistic. I’m not really sure what being a “physical” particle would entail anyways (as opposed to an “imaginary” particle?) not sure why I just completely forgot about the term “non-relativistic”. Sorry.

One and Zero

What is the nature of numbers? What do numbers mean? How can numbers exist? How can anything besides the number one exist? Everything is a multiple of one thing, but slicing one thing in half gives you two, two of one, and there is always still a one, nothing else but “two” ones, not a “two”, but “two” “ones”. One has a fundamentally different property than two, three, or so one. Anything above “one” is only an invented “concept”. One is the only thing that exists, and multiplying it or dividing it only gives you more of “one” but nothing else.

But you cannot do anything without something to start with, that is, only ones can come out of ones, and only zeros can come out of zeros, but what does it mean to multiply or divide anything by a zero? The difference between a zero and a one is that one exists, and one does not exist at all. One signifies everything and anything, and zero signifies nothing at all. So are zero and one the only things that exist objectively? Must they be objective? But how could zero and one be subjective? How could existing and not existing be subjective? 

(And then a strange feeling of existence like computers, everything as computers, and codes, patterns as everything.)

Muse

We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There’s no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we’re the imagination of ourselves.

Many Moons

Timaeus