Cat

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

Fractals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Secret Life of Plants

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

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