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?

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.

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.