The Reflections Theory of Memory

When you close your eyes and open them again, you are most likely not shocked by your immediate surroundings. Why? Because there is usually nothing out of the expected, that is, you remain in the time and place where you would have expected or believed that you last left off before you closed your eyes. But what you do not question further is why and how you came to expect the continuation of your existence in this particular point in spacetime after opening your eyes – not just your existence in this particular point, but also your existence as you.

The key is that you cannot prove or disprove the state of existence of anything or any event unless you are constantly perceiving it and/or direct evidence of it. Assuming you could not possibly perceive every and any event simultaneously forever, there always exist an infinite number of possible alternate events that could have happened, are happening, or will happen outside of your perception. Therefore the way you choose to interpret, invent, or interact with your memory of the past dictates the way you exist in the present. But what is memory exactly? And what is its relationship with reality?

How do you know if what you remember as having happened actually happened in reality or whether an alternate story happened instead that led to the same exact outcomes? Or perhaps you only ever came into existence in the present moment with your memories pre-installed into your mind? And what about a moment into the future when the present will inevitably become the past? Depending on the level of skepticism you raise toward your continuous existence from the past to the present moment in such a particular time and place as such a particular person, however, you have varying degrees of ultimately unlimited freedom to manipulate the reality of the state of your existence depending on what exactly you are able to convince yourself into believing.

There seems to be an obvious but inescapably circular relationship between the perception of memory and the reality of the past. Compare the reflections of physical objects through mirrors with the recall of events through memories. A real object serves as an initial source of light that is then reflected onto a mirror and then into the perceiver's eyes. If the mirror is perfectly flat, then the image transferred from the mirror will be a perfect mirror-imaged representation of that object. However, if the mirror is warped or colored, then the image reflected off of that mirror into the perceiver's eyes will not be of accurate resemblance of the real object.

The only way to know whether an image reflected by a mirror were an accurate representation of the original object would be to directly look at the original object and compare it with the reflection, just as the only way to verify the accuracy of a memory of an event would be to look at a recording of the past. But the point we revisit is that unless we constantly perceive the original object or the recording of the actual event in the past, there is no way of proving or disproving the true state of anything outside of conscious perception. In other words, if you closed your eyes and stopped all your sensory perceptions, then the external state of reality may as well be the equivalent of the internal state of your mind.

What's more, even if not on a metaphysical level, the encoding of events in human memory is already contaminated with all sorts of secondary information that form the subjective human realm of experience, such as emotions or thought – if memory were a mirror, it would most certainly not be a flat one. Also our recall of the past is not usually a direct remembrance of an event through one memory, but instead through the memory of a memory of a memory and so on. The farther away from the original object or event, the more mirrors, the more room for manipulation of the reflection of an image, since any or all mirrors along the set of mirrors reflecting light from the original object to the eyes of the perceiver could be warped. 

In the end, what reaches the eyes of the perceiver is not an image of an event but a reflection of a reflection of reflections which may or may not bare any accurate resemblance of the event that actually happened. So memory does not teach you anything about your current state of existence by giving you accurate information about the past – it's not a matter of knowing about the past; it's purely a matter of believing what you think you know about the past. No matter what may have happened in the past, it is only through recalling them in the present moment through perception that they even begin bare any existence at all. And for that matter, any memory is as good as another, so long as they lead to the same outcomes.

On the other hand, changing the past to affect the present and ultimately the future may not be a matter of changing the outcomes, but changing what you choose to believe as the reality of the process. Existence and identity are never dictated by the past since they can only ever be defined by how you choose to perceive your past within the present moment. In a circular way then, the past seems to be dependent on the present as much as the present seems to be dependent on the past, at least theoretically - but in a world where there are no true or false answers, what difference would it make? In a subjective universe where the exact way any given set of events happened in the past can never be objectively proven, all that could ever matter is how you actively perceive that set of events as having happened in the present moment. 

Here is a list of questions to constantly consider:

Who was I yesterday?
Who will I be tomorrow?
Who am I today?
How many times have I lived my life?
How many times have I lived the same exact life?
How many different lives of different people have I already lived?
Have I ever actually lived, or have I been stuck in this very moment for all eternity?

In a universe where nothing can even seem to exist objectively without first being subjectively perceived, it matters not what anyone else tells you they perceive; it matters not what you think you have perceived; it matters not what you think you perceive. All that matters is what you believe you perceive.

Ignostic's Interpretation of Religion

An over-asked question - if religion teaches us to love and accept, why does it seem to cause so much conflict? From my own ignostic perspective, I think that what any religion attempts to teach is ultimate acceptance with the goal of ending all suffering, giving meaning to life/what we encounter in life, and providing answers to questions. In my opinion, all that you need to know/understand in order to be able to “accept” unconditionally is this: 1) There is no good or bad, only thought makes it so. 2) The finger that points to the moon is not the moon.

However, this is not what most religions seem to be interpreted as. Any religion comes with its own set of specific beliefs, strict rituals that must be followed, and rules that must be observed at all times. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about any of these activities, and their purpose is to help the one who caries out the actions be able to accept and find a meaning to their life. So everything is fine if you understand that, but it becomes problematic when you do not realize what your belief is trying to do for you on a deeper level (acceptance), but instead overemphasize what seems to be conveyed on the superficial level of language and human interpretation (the finger that points to the moon).

Belief becomes the origin of conflict when one side believes that what they belief is the objective/absolute truth, and the other side believes that as well. Both think that they are only trying to do the other side “good” by “enlightening” them to the “truth” and the “real path to liberation”, does not understand why the other side just won’t understand what the first side does, but completely miss the whole point of acceptance - “there is no right or wrong”, “the finger that points to the moon is not the moon”.

Consider how musical notes on paper help you interpret a piece of music, but the notes are not the music - nor are the combination of notes played by an instrument, nor even the interpretation of melodious sounds by the mind. You can play the same piece of music with whatever instrument in whatever way you like and listen to it however you like, and no one would ever say that it’s “right” or “wrong” to play or interpret the music a certain way, and there is no “inherent meaning” in the music aside from what arises from the interpretation of music on a personal level, whether from the original composer or someone else.

There is no way to know how any other person interprets the same piece of music, let alone know whether your interpretations are the “same”. There is no way to know what the “music” “actually” is, and all you can ever know is that the music is what you’ve interpreted or perceived for yourself. This does not mean that any interpretation can never be a “real” interpretation but that the term “real interpretation” is just rather strange. Any interpretation is just as meaningful as another (or just as “real” if you will), and no interpretation is ever “meaningless” or “false”.

The bottom line that you realize though, is that even “there is no right or wrong” and “there is no objective truth” are ultimately still views, which become beliefs. The more you believe in one certain set of beliefs, the less readily you will be able to understand (if at all) any other set of beliefs, which is the problem that I’ve realized that I’ve run into - I’m afraid I’ve taught myself to become so strictly ignotic that no matter how much knowledge I ever gain of another religion - or better yet, of anything at all - I will never understand anything at all - there comes the paradox (that scientists hate the most): that you’ll never understand anything unless you believe it, but when you believe you no longer understand.

Q&A

Q: "The only way for something to “not exist at all” is for no one to have ever even thought of it." is this necessarily true? what about all of the concepts that seem exist prior to our discovery or "awareness" of it? The field of mathematics, the numbers, concepts or sequences and series that infinitely exist, are we creating the patterns or do you think the patterns exist and we discover them?"

A: “The only way for something to “not exist at all” is for no one to have ever even thought of it.” Is this necessarily true? What about all of the concepts that seem exist prior to our discovery or “awareness” of it?

In short, something that exists now or in the past or future “exists” and therefore does not “not exist”. For something to “not exist at all” means that it never existed and never will exist, so math and the like that you’ve mentioned simply do not fall under this category. But of course that’s just another “definition” with zero relevance to “necessary truth” whatever that means, and right now I’m only arguing for the sake of the definition of “non-existence” I’ve created, which is in the grand search for meaning, supremely pointless, although not necessarily uninteresting.

On the other hand, whether mathematics, logic, and the like are “discovered” or “invented” is up to personal interpretation. There is no way of proving it, and since proof is based on logic, what it the point? Ever if we were to assume they were “discovered”, how do you know with certainty that they “existed” prior to discovery? The whole point is the existence of anything outside of awareness, whether in the past or future (or that would be non-sensical anyways because does time really exist outside of awareness anyways?), cannot be proved or disproved.

Perhaps you could try and distinguish things this way: that which has been “discovered” and exists in the present moment exists or does not exist with uncertainty in the past when it was not yet “discovered”. But in order for something to not exist definitively, it must not exist in any time, not in the past, now, or future, i.e. if can never “be discovered” because it does not exist, and in order for this to be true, no one must ever be able to think of if. So I suppose a slightly better way of trying to word it might be “the only way for something to “not exist at all” is for no one to have ever thought of it or ever be capable of thinking of it.” - which includes not only its possibility of existing in the past but also in the future.

I guess some people argue that the only things that “exist” are the things that exist in the “present moment”, but I don’t know what that means because I have no idea what “present moment” means or if it’s possible to have an infinitesimally small increment of time or if time even exists, and the existence of time outside of human perception can neither be proved nor disproved so long as you’re perceiving as a human. And of course this once again becomes a debate about what the word “exist” is defined as and the many other problematic words with definitions that it comes with.

Q: Why is it that various geologically isolated cultures “created”/”discovered” the same abstract patterns?

A: How should I know? Maybe it’s a property of the brain? Maybe we’re all aliens? Maybe we’re just all the same person? Maybe those things existed somewhere in the universe before? Etc., etc., I could come up with as many theories as I desire, but none of them could be “proven”, could they? And even if they could, what is the point of “proof”? What is “proof”?

Q&A

Q: "Elevated self importance in that the natural human tendency to relate all to one’s personal existence. Can you really assume your omnipresence? it seems that a major component to your conception of reality is the ability for there to be a manipulation in the space-time continuum or the fabric of some sense of reality as a result of human mental manipulation (hinging the reality of a phenomena {observed=unobserved} on the presence/lack thereof of your sense perception. also,The thing is about paradox’s is that they do not defy existence so much as they defy the reasoning made in the deductions prior to, My pointing out of the paradox was more of a means of making you question the conclusion in that single theory, can every possible chance (in the same multi-verse) exist at the same time? is there a line to be drawn on that separates the realms of reality if, by this reasoning, their existence contradicts? Non-existence is hinged on existence, you cannot have the concept of existence without the concept of non existence because with no contrast or polar opposite one can not know of either side. ( ex. We dont know what Cold is without measuring the amount of heat, vice versa, you dont know what light is without the existence of darkness) Parallelism may not be feasible because one can not know the outcome of said probability unless all other possibilities never happened. or to stretch even further, The existence of one universe may be hinged on the non existence of all others, or our knowledge or existence in one universe may be hinged on our non existence in others."

A: To clarify, all I assert is you cannot prove or disprove the existence of anything that is not consciously perceived by yourself. This has absolutely nothing to do with how or whether “human perception”, either sensory or mental is capable of experiencing whatever happens to exist. So no, I don’t believe “elevated self importance” according to how you’ve defined it is at all a key to what I posit - again, all I’m saying is whatever you do not “perceive” (through thought, imagination, comprehension or whatever other form of non-human perception that cannot be understood through human experience), its existence can neither be proved nor disproved. There is a big difference between simply “observing” something, that is, to consciously perceive it in one way or another and to “observe through human perception” - to assert that all that could ever exist lies within the set of the latter would obviously be short-sighted, and is not what I posit. In other words, by supposing that that which cannot be perceived cannot be proved or disproved to exist, it does not in any way exclude the possibility of experience that has not yet been experienced or comprehended previously.

You cannot know what light is without knowing darkness, but there is a very important distinction to make that involves “conscious” perception or awareness of what you are perceiving. That is, a person who has been blind from birth supposedly “perceives” darkness for his whole life, but you cannot say that only darkness exists for him and not light, not because “objectively” (whatever that means) darkness can only exist with light, but because he has never been consciously aware that this perception of absence of light was in fact a perception. For him, the existence or non existence of light can neither be proved nor disproved, but only understood theoretically and not experientially, and the problem of existence again becomes simply a matter of what you are willing to define as existence.

Your question - in a single theory, can every possible chance exist at the same time? - Why not? Is this not at the heart of quantum mechanics? In the absence of the act of “observation” (perception, consciousness, whatever you want to call it), all possible outcomes exist simultaneously, and yet upon observation the wave function collapses altogether leaving only a single outcome. It seems like the debate you are raising is only a matter of what to define as “reality” - only the collapsed wave function because it is not within the human realm of comprehension to understand what it means to have all possibilities exist simultaneously? Is this not the very supposition you were arguing against when you question the absurdity of “elevated self importance” in the set of all possible universes? On a grander scale, probability itself is just another human-comprehensible theory. What has whether or not something is consistent with “probability theory” as comprehended by man got anything to do with the vast sea of other possibilities that cannot be comprehended? Why should comprehension be a premise of perception?

Q&A

Q: "I'm not sure the sci-fi depiction of reality is feasible. What if there are billions of universes that exist in the theoretical realm, (the realm of perfection as plato called it, of the fibinacci sequences nature, and time) their existence is arguably just as real as ours, simply the collision of probability and predestination and manipulation by man(free will) determines the path of the reality we perceive subjectively."

A: What exactly is “the sci-fi depiction of reality”? Infinite universes already exist in the theoretical realm, and their existence as “real” depends entirely on your definition of “real” which becomes quite a meaningless distinction. Does “objective perception” have any meaning at all? To perceive is an inherently subjective act unless of course you suppose that all you perceive is all there will ever be, which can neither be proved nor disproved, but in the case that it’s true, there would be no distinction between objective and subjective, would there?

Q&A

Q: "It seems that you have this conception of elevated self importance in your multi-verse theory. Why is it that one's self has to permeate through all layers of the multiple universes? (multiple realities of one's self) In your theory it seems that parallelism and adjacent universes is key, but in a system of billions of different possibilities is parallelism even possible? ex. A "universe" where a multiverse exists, being parallel to a universe where there is nothing but singularity=a paradox."

A: What do you mean by “elevated self importance”? And what does “one’s self” mean? True, it would be absurd if my “identity as a person” had to permeate through all possible universes, but unless I am consciously aware in that universe, I cannot know that it exists. Of course I could suppose that there are infinite other universes where I am not consciously present, but once I think about the existence of that universe, am I not then present and part of that universe which exists in my mind? Once you observe something, it intrinsically changes from unobserved to observed, and unless I simply assume that such universes without my conscious observance do not exist, and thereby not think of then, then they cannot exist as universes without conscious awareness - obviously a paradox. But what does it mean to be a “paradox”? What is wrong or right about being a paradox? Why must being paradoxical entail non-existence?

In a system of “billions of different possibilities” but not infinite, how should I know whether parallelism is possible or what that even means? Why would it? Why wouldn’t it? But in an infinite set of possibilities, obviously it must.

Vis Imaginativa

Science - what ever happened to the experimentation of mind and reality through first-person exploration with the power of imagination? Where is the hope in an all-objective method when reality can only be perceived subjectively?

Uncertainty is the Only Certainty (Death is NOT)

I saw a picture of this flying public artwork thing by Sebastian Errazuriz, and it intrigued me a little - it seemed to carry a lot of conceptual significance. (I’ve been questioning the significance and interpretation of conceptual art and design more and more ever since the time I approached that fashion designer guy to tell him how intrigued I was by his geometrically complex constructions, only to awkwardly find that he had no idea what hyperbolic geometry was and that his inspiration came purely from what he thought to be visually interesting, but this is different.) This flying all-caps sentence was extremely interesting to me not for the content itself, but the extent of further inquisition it raises - “death is the only certainty” - is it really now?

What I mean is not that there could be other certainties in life, but seriously, how could anyone ever assert that “death” is a certainty if no living person has any idea what death even is? I’ve come to realize that whenever anyone speaks any sentence, my mind immediately asks a million why’s and why not’s so quickly that it escapes my conscious awareness, but the most important ones pop out to my attention. This one especially. “Death is the only certainty” - forget the “in life” part, that makes it even more incredibly nonsensical, but sometimes I simply do not understand how people could completely overlook so, so many questions out there, making billions of assumptions every nanosecond of their lives without ever.. wondering - it’s absolutely incredible.

I have no idea how people, especially philosophers and other people doomed with a bunch of “knowledge”, just go around making these statements, statements of all different kinds, all consisting of words and concepts, concepts that they have absolutely no understanding that they have no understanding of, as if they had the slightest clue what they were actually talking about - this is just bizarre. But forget whether the people will ever have any hope of understanding. What I’m interested in is the curiosity of the statement and why/how it could possibly seem like a “true” statement to anyone.

“Death is the only certainty.” Rule #1: If you’re making a statement of any sort that you believe to have any relevance to anything at all, you have to understand what the words mean. Rule #2: Words about fundamental things have little meaning if any at all simply because by nature you have no idea what anything means, especially not if you want to put it in words. (Well, of course these rules have no meaning either, but the point is that I am frequently really bothered by the seemingly extreme ignorance of educated grown-up people, and I would like to point them out just in case.) So anyways, “death” - what in the world is “death”? Forget death, you want to say that it’s the state of ceasing to be alive? Well what in the world is “being alive”? What is the state of being “alive”? What does it mean to say that I am “alive” if I have no idea what it means to be “dead”?

Now, there is a very big difference between what it means to “be dead” versus the action of “dying”. The flying sentence seems to be talking about the latter. So we as “living” people have plenty of knowledge of what it means to die, perhaps physically, perhaps spiritually perhaps both, but not only do we know nothing about what happens after the act of dying, but there is in fact *no* possible way of knowing unless you are already in the state of being “dead”, and I mean exactly that. There are a series of infinite issues concerned with the state of “being dead” that basically reduce to 1) the act of other people dying outside of yourself has absolutely nothing to do with what it means to either “die” or “be dead” yourself 2) the act of “dying” as far as the word seems to be concerned, is the transition from being “alive” to being “dead”, but how on earth can we possibly begin to understand what it means to “die” if we have no idea what “alive” and “dead” are, i.e. 3) “I am alive” is an assumption - how in the world would I know if I’m “alive” if I have no idea what it means to be “dead”, in other words it’s just as meaningful to say “I’m dead” as it is to say “I’m alive”.

If you think about it, it could get as complicated, confusing, nonsensical, and completely meaningless as you want, but really all this is really doing is just creating another infinite set of unfalsifiable models of existence/reality/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. That’s the fun in these sentences that concern the fundamental nature of reality (which is really completely meaningless because it is all meaningful and vice versa). 

So start from the sentence “death is the only certainty in life” - bull shit!!! (But the most meaningful bull shit ever because it is completely meaningless, obviously, which is a good thing.) Everybody is going to die - false - but not true either, just unknown, uncertain, and completely meaningless. People “die” (or seem to anyways) outside of yourself, but just like anything else, that’s go absolutely nothing to do with dying with respect to myself. And now let me just create a few more fascinatingly magnificently terrifying and amazing theories of “life” - I could write a mansion full of books on this - novels, fiction, but not really, or not at all. Actually I’ll just write another post devoted to that.

Point being, “death is the only certainty in life” - what in the universe!?!?

Computers & Aliens: The Abstract (as opposed to the concrete)

Continuing on the topic of placebo universe, i.e. why is the placebo necessary/why can’t you just believe without believing in something? Basically, it’s a concrete vs. abstract concept. Concrete (or supposedly concerte) concepts are a lot narrower than abstract concepts, which is also why abstract models become what I would call “higher level” on the hierarchy - because they encompass more by becoming looser.

What is a concept? How do you define any concept? When you give (or attempt to give) something a “definition” or “meaning”, it becomes more concrete, i.e. you seem to have a better “grasp” of what something is.. but really? Sometimes the opposite happens, and you realize how absurd it is to attempt to define anything at all, and you’re then left only with abstract uncertain unfalsifiable ideas. Ok sure, but then why do most human beings seem more accustomed to concrete concepts even though there’s no real “meaning” in that? Why is concrete preferable and more statistically apparent in thought patterns than abstract? Or what I mean is, why do the things that constantly swirl my mind hardly ever (if not never) stir any attention at all in the vast majority of other people in the universe? Is it because they’re not “real” people?!

I’d like to bring the topic to the human discussion of “mind”: What is mind? What is an intelligent being? What is having consciousness? In particular, computers and aliens: Can a computer have a mind/be consciously aware? Does intelligence exist outside of earth? These are all questions that human beings LOVE to ask, and seem to gain much pleasure from attempting to answer, but from my perspective, it’s absolutely absurd!!!!

Humans talk about minds and intelligence as if they had the slightest clue what “mind” and “intelligence” even are (just like they talking about what God is or isn’t). They invent definitions for what they think “are” mind/intelligence, which are clearly nothing more than “definitions” and then they have a battle of definitions and languages that touches on absolutely nothing beyond language and conclusions that have nothing to do with minds and intelligence at all. Actually that’s even the better type. Most people don’t even seem to think that far, that is, they don’t even attempt to concrete-ify the already abstractly existing ideas of mind/intelligence, but jump directly to the assumption that mind/intelligence is and can only be what we as humans “know” as mind/intelligence even though they clearly have no clue that they know nothing about what mind/intelligence is.

I’m really tired of people going after computers/robots and aliens having “human consciousness”. You “people” find it so difficult to form an abstraction of the concept of mind that you don’t even realize that you’re still caught up in the human bubble of experience that’s got nothing to do with what conscious awareness even means. Stop trying aliens out there that will comprehend in the exact same way that human beings do, because if they do, then they’re not even extraterrestrial intelligence anymore, they’re just human beings! And stop asking whether computers can be intelligent, whether they have the capacity to experience things the way humans do - if they could really do all of that then they’d be “human beings”, not “computers” and that’s got absolutely nothing to do with whether they’re consciously aware either!

Please, people - actually know what you’re talking about (i.e. know that you know absolutely nothing about anything at all) before you go of explaining things as if you had a clue what an explanation even is. Oh the trouble/joys of incomprehension of (human) comprehension.

The Inverted Spectrum Problem of Language

And finally, this - probably one of the most powerful of all realizations - I’ve been debating quite some time whether to document this one at all since the very documentation of it would be completely ironic.

Language is a tool of communication. Language is a bunch of words organized in meaningful patterns. How do we learn language naturally? By hearing it and then utilizing it once we infer the meaning, over and over again. But the point is, when you learn your native language, you learn the meaning of a word by inferring it. The majority if not all words are learned by inferring the meaning through the context, hardly ever if not never through a given “definition”. In other words, there is no “definition” to any word or concept, but only the word itself. Words and the combination of them are then used to communicate as though they replaced the actual meaning of anything at all - as if an explanation through language is the equivalent of a “meaning”. 

But what is “meaning”? It seems as though you could give that question an answer, as if meaning had the same meaning to each and every person even though you have no way of possibly getting into another person’s mind and perceiving the meaning of meaning through their conscious perception (and even if you did, how would you know? since you would have given up your own conscious perception and forgotten completely that you aren’t actually that other person). Point being, meaning is a completely subjective experience of a word. Not just the meaning of “meaning”, but the meaning of any word at all.

Yes, you could attempt to give a definition to any word and ignorantly believe that you just proved that you agree on the meaning of that word with other people after checking that your definitions indeed match, but what in the world has that got to do with anything at all!! The definition is still a definition made of words, and how in the world am I supposed to know whether you comprehend that strand of words the same way I do? More straightforwardly, my red is red, you agree that red is red, but I have no possible way of knowing what “red” actually looks like to you. Same with any word, hence the “inverted spectrum problem of language”.

Anyways, that’s all trivial understanding, the point is - the conflict caused through disagreement in belief - how does this make any sense at all? How could you even infer that someone has a belief contrary to yours when you don’t even know how that person comprehends the words he/she is speaking to you to convey his/her beliefs? For example, a reasonable number of people seem to dislike the way some religious people attempt to spread their beliefs. They dislike it because the religious people tend to explain their beliefs as though they were the one and only true “truth” even though there is clearly no way of knowing what truth even means when you’re inside the box. Well then the problem is, however, that it is not that religious person who is making you comprehend his/her words the way you are, it is you who is comprehending the words.

So take the sentence “if you don’t believe in god, you won’t go to heaven” if you disagree or if you agree with it, what are you actually agreeing with? Do you actually think that you agree with the idea, the belief that someone else has attempted to implant in your mind? Or course not! The only thing you ever comprehend from that sentence is what your mind comprehends for itself, it’s got not the slightest thing to do with what the person who said it “meant” at all. What does the word “god” entail? What does the word “heaven” entail? What if you happened to disagree with religious people on what “god” and “heaven” meant even though you agree or disagree with that sentence? You can’t know anyways, so how could it possibly matter?

Too often religious believers will tell you that you must have faith in order to experience the extraordinary. They will describe the supernatural spiritual awakening that they’ve experienced, and their indescribable encounter with god. Atheists will immediately combat the idea, dismissing it as ludicrous because it does not survive the scientific method - which advocates the “objective” perspective in everything. But what you don’t realize is that the religious believer says you need to experience it for yourself. They do everything they can to describe /their/ experiences, and what /they/ think that you should experience or believe - yes, but using what? WORDS! How on earth would they know how you happen to comprehend/believe the words they spoke to you, and how on earth would you know what they comprehend/believe compared to what you think they comprehend/believe from their words?

Doesn’t anyone actually realize that we live in a world of unfalsifiable assumptions? The finger that points to the moon is not the moon. What is the moon? Something that’s not the finger pointing at it. It’s completely ridiculous that there are so many disagreements, conflicts, fights, wars, over whose finger is actually the moon. Actually, it’s absolutely insane. I don’t understand any of this. Humans are such bizarre creatures, sometimes I believe that they’re not real at all - they’ve got no consciousness. Well, maybe it is like that then, is it not? The only people who are actually conscious are the ones who understand that all that could possibly be understood is that there can be no understanding at all. How strange - I wonder how I ever got to this universe to start with..

Time Without Human Perception

Continuing the topic of - what the heck is spatial position when your eyes are closed - - what the heck is the passage of time when you have no perception?!

How do you know that time is passing by? The second hand on the clock moves. Stuff moves. There are sounds. There are actions. Okay so what about when you close your eyes and eliminate all sound - well yeah of course you know that time is still passing my because you perceive your thoughts - thoughts moving by, thoughts. But what about when you eliminate all thoughts and simply sit only as the observer? How do you know that time is passing by? What does it then mean for time to pass by? If there is no sight, so sound, no thought, what is left to perceive? Do you then perceive nothing? Does time then stop existing?

Well first of all why should we assume that there is nothing to observe without sight, sound, touch, taste, smell, thought, feeling? Is that really all that we perceive? What about the perception of time? What about the perception of space? What does that mean? Is the perception of space and time only a by product of our perception through other senses? What becomes of - what are - space and time when you’ve got no normal perceptions left to observe the universe with? 

Does time stop? Is that what they call being entirely “in the present” when you lose all sense of passage of time? Is it then not only a metaphorical portrayal of the moment, but instead a literal one? And when the normal way of perceiving is non-existent, wouldn’t it be absurd to suppose that the rest of the universe does not exist? Or would it be absurd to suppose that it did? Does the universe exist independently of my perception? Or rather, does it exist independently of my conscious perception? Well the answer to the latter is most certainly uncertain and unfalsifiable, but the answer to the first one - as long as I am still consciously aware, then I obviously still observe something, and that something is the universe, so the universe still exists, but in a way that is entirely different from what we “assumed” it to be under our normal way of perceiving.

How many times do I have to repeat the phrase, the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon (it’s just a finger pointing). Your perception, your description, your model of the universe is not the universe, but it is all that your universe will ever be - what you believe it to be, that it is. But the question is, how do you escape perception and perceive the universe? That’s the universe I attempt to explore a little further every day, every hour, every minute.

The Universe Without Eyes

Anyways, what I wanted to wrote down was this:

1) When you close your eyes, how is it that you know where the different parts of your body are? When you close your eyes, you still feel your fingers, your hands, arms, body, legs, feet, yes. But more importantly, you still feel their relative position to each other - why/how? Is it only because you remember where your hand goes and where your foot goes, etc.? Well that sounds absurd does it not? Yes, you feel them, most certainly, but HOW do you feel RELATIVE POSITION? How do I know that when I close my eyes, my feel aren’t positioned above my head? How do I know that my hands aren’t 5 kilometers away even though I can feel them exactly as they were when I had my eyes open and saw them half a meter away from my eyes?

2) How is living in a 3D world relevant at all once you close your eyes? What does position mean when your eyes are closed? Distance, direction, dimension, how do I know that there are 3 dimensions when my eyes are closed? Well, I don’t, obviously. But then how to I begin to comprehend anything in 3 dimensions with a relative position to be when my eyes are closed? Yes, perhaps I’ve only seen things in 3 dimensions when my eyes are open, and therefore I only have experience of perception in 3D in “real vision”, but how has this got anything to do with the way I perceive anything when my eyes are closed? 

I’ll attempt to document the ideas I got from these questions later, but the bottom line is, how the hell do you even start comprehending anything in the normal human perspective when you haven’t got any eyes? What in the world is the universe even when you don’t have to see it through “eyes”?

Opposites and Field

What is the difference between presence and absence if there is no definite way of defining the properties of the background? On a separate note, the naming of a charge as positive or negative is completely arbitrary, and there is no inherent absence or presence of “charge” in that sense just because the electron has been arbitrarily decided to carry a “negative” charge. Both positive and negative charge carriers carry charge, they just happen to be opposite charges (whatever that means) and cancel each other out when present in equal quantities. Same goes for particles and anti-particles, they’re the exact same thing except in the presence of equal quantities of both, there are no particles. Ok, that’s just for things that have an exact opposite, but that’s not really what the question is asking at all - what about things that don’t have opposites, where the only contrast is the absence of that thing?

What the hell am I talking about? Well, photons, for example, have no anti-particle. The presence of photons indicates the presence of light in an otherwise photon-less background (which is defined as a non-photon saturated.. “space”, I guess). In a dark room I see a beam of light, but what is the difference between seeing a beam of light in a dark room and seeing a dark line in an otherwise light (i.e. photon) saturated room? Seems like a pretty stupid question - obviously in one room there are more particles present (and at the opposite locations) than the other, but what if you just change your definitions such that “particle” actually means “absence of background (i.e., empty space?)” and “background” to mean “absence of particle” (assuming that the background in the second room is completely saturated by photons, which I don’t really know what that means, but anyhow..)?

What about just talking about the universe of a perceiver? So, when you walk into a room with a fan on and you stay there sufficiently long and then you turn the fan off, then suddenly you “hear” silence, which really just means all of a sudden you realize that you were actually in a room where the background was filled with sound waves, and then you sensed the absence of sound waves. When you turn the fan back on, you then hear the fan because the background was the absence (rather than) presence of sound waves. In other words, unless there is a disturbance to the state of the room, you would never know what was present or what was absent, and once there is, it’s only a matter of definition of whether hearing things is a matter of “hearing” or “not hearing”. That is, if we’re only concerned about how things are perceived (which is all we could ever be concerned about anyways), then there should be no difference between saying “when I hear people talk I’m hearing sounds” vs “when I hear people talk I’m hearing silence” depending on your definition of sound and silence. 

So whatever, what relevance does that have to anything at all? Is the background in the above image actually black or white? Keyword being “actually”. This is a trick question, but not really, it’s just a stupid question because what do you mean by “actually”? The question assumes that there exists independently (of perception) an “actual” universe where there are definite truths (which may or may not be true) but in any case is completely meaningless to argue since you CAN’T know the answer. Usually however, there is either more “presence” or more “absence”, and the one of which there is more we call “background”. (So in this case, I guess most people should think the background is white. But again, this is a rather meaningless distinction - black board, white board, who cares? as long as you can read the words.)

So what’s the point? Indeed, what IS the point? Is the presence of meaning only meaningful if we assume an entire universe of meaningless background or is the absence of meaning the only actual meaning that is present in the universe where every infinitesimally small occurrence is incredibly meaningful? More simply put, what does “meaning” mean? Do I really care? Reader - do you feel the official feeling of “trippiness”? Or should I say, the lack thereof, assuming that there is no real reason why some experiences of perception should be categorized as “trippier” just because the other experiences were experienced more regularly? Does anyone know why people are so distinctively unphased by the “usual” when there is clearly just as much of a reason to feel bewildered by what you usually experience as there is to what isn’t usually experienced? Naturally, the subsequent discussion would be of “what does it really mean to be good or bad”, but I leave that to the future and proceed to -

The Higgs field. Standard Model says that this is what gives particles their mass - the “presence” of a ubiquitous field. But if a field is everywhere, what’s the difference between being there and not being there? Seems like a stupid question - charges behave differently in the presence of an electric field - but then what’s the point of supposing the “presence” (i.e., existence, but I don’t know what existence means, we’ll skip that for now) of a “field”. Well, I suppose a field is (obviously) just another mathematical construct, an “interpretation” of “what is there” but then again “what is there” is/can only be what you define (and furthermore believe) to be there, right? What do I know? I need a better understanding of field (theories).

Theory as Art and as Escape (1)

Sometimes people don’t seem to understand why/how there is so much for me to think about. It’s like, once you’ve drawn a conclusion - which I seem to have (i.e., there is no objective truth in anything at all, and reality IS exactly what you perceive through belief subjectively) - what’s the point of continuing with all this theorizing of reality? What’s the point of theory if it’s just that? Where does it ever get you?

Well, I think I have two answers to these questions that aren’t really related: 1. It’s not as if I’m after some sort of answer (as I’ve mentioned over and over again), I just like becoming immersed in the process of it, thought. The product is always secondary if of any importance at all. It’s like art. 2. It’s not as if I can’t see reality in the “normal” not bewildered state that most people seem to see it, it’s kind of like a search for any possible reason at all to live in a reality, to morph my reality to something that is completely detached from “ordinary unquestioning perception”. It’s like a vessel, like an escape. From whatever reasons, I cannot stay put in “reality”.

I will elaborate:

1. I think I have come to believe that philosophy in the academic sense is terribly boring and rather meaningless. I cannot read “philosophy”* even though I guess you would classify what I write as philosophy wouldn’t you? Maybe I should just give it a different name. I’ll just call it theory. Theorizing. I am a theorist. That is what I’ll say I do.

I would like to speak of philosophy as a medium and compare it with a set of watercolors. Academic philosophy is like when you focus on all the techniques of painting and try to figure out and argue which techniques are better and which will allow you to paint the best picture of the universe and such. Theorizing (what I’m calling it) would be like just painting freely and losing it and not caring, just going with it for the sake of it just because the process is so incredibly captivating, and then ending up with some sort of picture of the universe that happens to be amazing anyways. Yes, you see the clear bias from my words, but I’m not arguing that academic philosophy is objectively meaningless. I don’t want to argue or “prove” anything. That has no point to me. It’s just my view on art. I do not think the former use of watercolors is what art is, and to me theory is an art where the medium is reality itself.

I think a great many people paint for the sake of perfection of skill and satisfaction in the production of a precise painting, but I don’t think that is what artists do. It seems strange to go and ask an experienced artist “Why do you paint?” “What is the point of continuing with painting if you already have such skill and have decided which techniques are your preferred?” “Where does painting ever get you?” So why should you ask me the same questions when reality is my set of paints? Don’t you understand the point of painting at all? Haven’t you ever painted anything yourself? Do you not know/can you not relate to what it feels like to paint?

I fear I have already presented myself as a terrible romanticist, but it pains me to think about how much the world (of artists) is missing out on the unbelievably extraordinary medium of reality. Talk of creativity - paints, pencils, music, words, whatever, those are just media, as is reality. But what is reality? With what could you possibly create with more freedom, more space for vision, more enchantment, wonder, than with the manipulation of reality itself?! How could anyone not realize!?

And then you would probably say, “What do you mean “manipulation” of reality? You can’t just change reality the way you create whatever you want on paper when you paint with watercolors.” But you would be missing the point! You can manipulate reality though! That’s what you do all the time! And I am NOT talking about it as if it were some sort of figurative thing. It is absolutely LITERAL!!*** (also see: reality the strange loop) You change reality into exactly what you (at the present moment) believe it is**. That is your creation. It is your work of art, just like everything else.

And how could I not be constantly addicted to this most inordinately immense field of freely floating imagination? Where would you possibly find more room for imagination than in the state of reality itself? This is infuriating! It’s like the most enjoyably possible explosion of my brain and my mind. It’s like, “Ughhhhhhhhhh, I can’t! All I can do is stare..”

But anyhow, this is why I don’t especially enjoy reading academic philosophy, academic “reality”. It’s like painters and painters painting so many paintings and for the primary purpose of presenting their painting as THE painting of the universe. That is absurd. It’s a painting. We enjoy its distinct aesthetic profoundly, but not nearly its attempt at persuasion. There is no “best” painting. The act of “comparison” based on subjective perceptions is bizarre. There are only paintings, all marvelous, magnificent, magical, each and every single one. That is why you keep on looking, living more paintings. Why would you just stop at one?

//Part 2 to be continued…//

*Most if not all of it angers/infuriates me. I cannot handle the restricted/narrow-mindedness of it. Can’t you at least leave your human mind behind first before you start floating in theory?

**This is why the inverted spectrum applied to perception of present moment time create a whole convoluted “mess” of overlapping realities assuming that other minds do exist, and other “realities” of all different natures would exist at the same instances in time (in space?). How? What?

***But of course - this is my universe, and this is what I believe. (And yes, of course it’s circular? What isn’t? What’s wrong with circularity? What’s not wrong about being non-circular?)

Speed of Thought Transportation and Eating

The previous couple posts were pretty disorganized, but basically the main idea is this - How (HOW!) do people go about their everyday lives without constantly being bewildered by the state of anything at all?

So when I start talking to any given person at any given time, I have a million things to start questioning, such as whether or not you exist, whether or not you actually have consciousness, etc., but in particular I was thinking about the question, if I assume that you have consciousness and do actually exist, how do I know that you are currently perceiving the present moment that I perceive as we continue with our exchange of words?

When I ask you a question, and I get a response, I am assuming that it is because you at this instant understand what I told you and you are attempting to communicate your thoughts to me. Yes, it is already a huge leap to assume that you even understand anything at all, but how could I possibly assume on top of that that you are in fact comprehending at this very instant? Furthermore, how do I know that I am comprehending and reacting to what I think you have just said at this very instant I am perceiving and not that this has already all happened to you in some other distant point in time, but I am only currently perceiving it in my instantaneous “present moment”?

It’s easy to make a physical comparison with the speed of light and how it takes information from the sun about 8 minutes to reach the earth, and so at the instant that humans on earth can receive and information at their “present” is has already happened on the sun. But that’s just a physical comparison. I’m not saying that there has to be some sort of physical medium for thoughts to be transported from mind to mind or anything like that, it’s just that, how can I assume?

Well, as with any question that I ever linger upon, that’s just the question. It’s absolutely no surprise, in fact it’s the only thing that’s ever expected (although I should never assume always). “How can I assume?” You can’t. It’s that simple, you just can’t assume (or not assume, or assume to not assume, or whatever). That’s all there is to anything, really. How much easier could it get? So I just go ahead and make as many hypothetical theoretically possible and unfalsifiable universe models in my head as I please.

But why? Is everyone’s question. “Why? What’s the point?” Well, “why not” is always the response, but that’s not really a response is it? But isn’t it? Why not? Because isn’t it in human nature to attempt to understand what you don’t already think you do? Well, maybe that’s the problem. Most people in the world think they understand everything that goes on in their everyday life, which is absolutely absurd! They start eating, put food into their mouths, chew, maybe comment how good or bad it tastes, and swallow! And they just swallow! Without ever being bewildered by the thought of what it means to eat, to taste, to feel hungry at all. They know the experience, but they’ve never understood it or ever seen the need to “understand” it at all!

What in the world does it mean to be hungry? What do you mean “am I hungry”? I don’t even know what it means to exist, how could I even begin to attempt to swallow a mouth full of food without becoming completely overwhelmed in attempt to understand what it even means to be hungry?!

And then they’ll probably combat me with the practically appropriate response “why does it matter?” “What difference does it make?” “Why should I care?” “What good would it do me to know what it means to be hungry? It is an absurd question to start with.” Well, I don’t know. I just don’t understand how this question could possibly not be of importance, and that’s when I stop talking. Change the topic. You wouldn’t understand. You’ve lived in your experiences of the universe for too long, haven’t you? But haven’t I? Why haven’t I become brainwashed yet like all the other grown-ups, and even children in the world?

Or better yet, I just wouldn’t ask you what it means to be hungry before we begin a meal. I don’t think you would understand. People don’t really understand because they think they do. The people who think they understand everything must know the least.. Or never mind it’s probably more like a Gaussian distribution for some reason. (Like with people who don’t actually know that they know nothing, like rocks and stuff, and people who know they know nothing on opposite ends of the spectrum, and people who think they know mostly everything but know actually nothing and don’t know they know nothing in the middle where the peak is.) People are just strange.

Inverted Spectrum II - Time

So back the the problem: Inverted spectrum does not just apply to colors. It applies to all perceptions, including the perception of space, time, and consciousness itself (well, yeah). I focus on the idea of the inverted spectrum problem as applied to the perception of time.

So just because I am perceiving the present moment instantaneously at this exact moment, how do I know that you or anyone in the world is also perceiving the same exact “present moment” at this point in time. You would always agree with me on “what is red” and likewise, you would certainly agree with me that “now” is now, but does that even have any meaning at all? So at this present moment - say 11:42:37:09 AM (UTC+8), Wednesday, August 22nd - that I am experiencing as the present moment, how do I know that you’re also perceiving this exact moment at the time that I’m perceiving it? Why should our times be synced? Why shouldn’t they?

(Of course this goes into a bunch of complicated problems such as whether time even exists at all, whether other people’s minds exist at all, etc. And also, there’s always the “I have no reason to assume why not” argument (that infuriates me, because please - actually listen to my argument. I never said I was arguing that we should assume that we all perceive different times or different colors or whatever. All I’m saying is that you can’t know if we do or don’t. I never said we had to choose a side. In fact I explicitly argue that neither side can be right/true. The nature of subjectivity.) But let’s just disregard that. I am only thinking about this problem because it brings me pleasure to be puzzled by it, and we’ll see what happens from there.)

So at any rate, if you didn’t perceive the present at the same present moments as me, does that imply an argument on the side that the mind is a separate entity from the body? Does it matter? How does this affect free will and causality? Do all conscious beings need to perceive the present in the same frame of present in order for free will to exist? Well, for “free will” as we know it, that seems to be the case, but already we have a million other problems because of our ill definition of “free will” - yet another definition. Free will is just a definition of something. It’s a human invented concept, just like logic and all other things.. 

Well, just because we invented a definition for the term “free will” does not necessarily imply that something such as what we define as “free will” does not exist in the universe, but that somehow seems unlikely because don’t all definitions have to be consistent, and if any description is internally consistent, does that not imply that it cannot be a complete definition? So point being, definitions are completely useless, meaningless, and irrelevant. Ok, let’s throw away the problem of “free will” and just theoretically suppose what it would be like in a universe where conscious perceivers perceived present moments at different present frames.

So like most other theoretical universes (where I can be sure of no nature of other people’s conscious perceptions) that I’ve thrown myself into, this one also seems quite lonely if I suppose that I’m the only person in the whole entire universe who is perceiving this present moment at the present moment.. What happened/happens to everyone else? That leaves room to suppose that I could indeed be everyone and everything in the whole entire universe, and there is no such thing as separate, different people with different conscious minds, because as “you” are reading this post in your present moment, that may not be my present moment or anyone else’s present moment at all. And so if there is no reason why any present moments should overlap at all, there is no reason why I can’t believe that at some point in time, I could experience every single present moment of every single conscious being in the universe. When “you” are reading this post, that is actually “me” just in a different location in space time and consciousness and reality.. But it’s still in the same universe. You can’t get out of the universe.

Yes, but again that’s just a theoretical universe, and I have absolutely no grounds to either believe or not believe the truth in it. There can be no arguments to prove or disprove a theoretical universe, so in the end it is a choice, isn’t it? The universe exists in the exact way I choose to believe.

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…?

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.

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.

Timaeus