• The reason why nostalgia is a thing, because trying to remember the past is kinda like being on acid. The only things you remember are incredibly intense feelings, and luckily for me, my intense feelings from childhood are generally good. When remembering something from long ago, and focusing on all the details, it’s like you’re experiencing it as if you were on acid. You remember and feel so many little details that you feel like shouldn’t be important, but means everything to you. Those things you remember; those feelings you felt; that’s what makes you you. And in thinking about the stuff that remains in the end, no matter how long it’s been, becomes a source of comfort. Someplace safe. The last hope that, when all hope has left, you’ll live on, if only in someone’s memories. Because no matter how insignificant the detail, and in the terms of the universe we are such a microscopic and insignificant detail, the fact that you remembered it means that it did have an impact, no matter how small.
• I feel like the fear of growing up, the anxiety you feel as you age, is that you’re forgetting something important. All of those intense and nostalgic feelings from childhood. But if you think about, the best cure for that anxiety is to live a life that, even if you do forget something, the new memories that replace it are just as good, if not better, than the old ones.
I’m at a place and time where I don’t have to choose.
(*possibly interesting note for the future, this was when i had the thought of possibly sharing this at my next Donaldson appointment – 12:42 A.M.)
• Life is just one big gamble. And depending on how you set the stakes, one you can’t really lose. You’re either right, or your wrong. And at least for me, being wrong is the more interesting of the options.
(*in response to one of Michael’s texts) It’s one of those things that you have to fully commit to the memory, but it’s really difficult to do so. It’s almost like you have to forget when in time you are. Acid kinda acts like a tool to do that, but it’s not necessary. People who have perfected meditation can get this feeling whenever they want. And i feel like at that moment when you’ve truly mastered it, you’d have reached nirvana or ascended to heaven or whatever you want to call it.
• Life is a constant path to finding that point of nirvana. But it’s always moving. I’m experiencing it now, but eventually it’ll fade; that’s when the next journey towards it begins. It kind of goes with my idea that life is a gamble I our favor. We’re either experiencing nirvana, or were on the path towards it. We get to experience the greatest feelings the universe has to offer, while still making progress.
And someone who has truly experienced the feeling of nirvana can drive life as a whole forward. That’s why people who have never experienced it have a need to go on living. Sure it’s survival instinct, but there would be no survival instinct if we or our ancestors didn’t witness something worth surviving for, worth living for. That’s how religions started. People like Jesus, buddah, Mohammed, Moses, and any of the countless other examples, are people who experienced nirvana. And their experience was so intense and impactful that it led people to follow them, if only for a chance to experience that same be feeling.
• I don’t think it’s truly possible to stay in nirvana forever. You can’t know you’re in something until after you’ve left. Because of that, we’re inherently finite. The idea that something or someone can be in nirvana forever is infinite and thus impossible to be truly comprehended by us finite beings. As a result, we see this infinite idea, but we can never truly grasp it. But since we can see it, we try to emulate, and give this point of infinite nirvana a name. That’s where the idea of God comes from. A theoretical idea that there is some being out there that is something that we inherently aren’t. Something so far away from our reality that it is literally impossible to guess what it is, let alone describe or comprehend it.
• Once we look at God that way, i think it becomes a little easier to buy into the idea of God. It explains all these descriptions of what God is. Since God is an infinite idea, it encompasses all possibilities and impossibilities. It explains why there are so many different pictures of God; it’s because we, as a finite being, are taking a picture of something infinite and then saying that “this is the true God.” And they’re right. Every possible description or idea of God must be correct. That’s what it means to be infinite. As we grow as a people, we can take a bigger and bigger picture. And until we realize we’ll never capture this idea in a single frame, there will be conflict. But at the same time, conflict is what drives us forward. It’s a back and forth between two finite beings that eventually adds their finite experiences together to get a better understanding of the infinite.
• ( inspired by the “Are we living in an ancestor simulation” YouTube video) One idea that comes up in this video a lot is the idea that based on the probability of things, there should be more “virtual” or “simulated” minds than “real” minds. But my thought is why would we separate these? If my life is just a simulation, it doesn’t mean I’m not real, that i don’t exist. The fact that something brought me into existance means that I’m real; I am now apart of reality in some way, even if I don’t know what part of it i am. The existential dread that comes from worrying about are we real or fake or whatever is kind of pointless and paradoxical at the same time. I experiencing existential dread about our existance, were proving that our experiences are real. All life is just a big function machine. There’s a lot of random stuff floating out somewhere, this “stuff” has no inherent value whatsoever. It just is. Then somehow an observer comes along. This observer perceives this stuff of no value, and then decides to assign values to it at random. And for no particular reason, x leads to y. It’s true solely because the observer decided it was true. The observer, in that very instance becomes the function machine that creates a “what-if” scenario if this random, valueless stuff randomly did have value. To us, this point would be like our big bang. Something that had zero value attached to it suddenly had a value attached to it. So with this idea, everything in existance is a simulation. Even the thing creating the simulation. It’s a paradox that results from the following idea: if something has no inherent value, then has the possibility to have any value. That’s why it’s impossible to truly describe all of existance, because there is no one real existance, just a bunch of different observers coming upon random, valueless stuff and deciding the value. The observer creates the simulation the moment he experiences anything of value.
• When multiple observers come together and agree on values for this random stuff, societies are formed. However, no observer will have exactly the same value for this random stuff as another observer. If they did, then those two observers would in fact just be one observer, because they would be experiencing everything the exact same way, at the exact same time, from the exact same space, and the exact same of any other possible variable to distinguish the observer by. The fact that no two observers will 100% agree in all cases leads to the idea of probability. No two observers will have the same exact observations, but they can have infinitesimal small variations between their observations. As more and more observers come together, they discuss what values each other observer assigned to the random stuff/ information. By combining their observations, they create an existance that is governed by the most common of these assigned values. The idea that the same thing can have different values means that, even though 99.999999999999% of the observers agree on one specific thing, there is always one observer that will disagree. It’s kinda weird to think about it, but if 100% of observers ever agreed on one specific thing, that thing would stop existing. It’s kind of like the idea that if there two observers that agree on everything 100% of the time, the fact is they’re just one observer. Using similar logic but from the point of view of the “stuff”, anything that would determine the value of it would look like a single observer. But in that moment, the random stuff becomes an observer of the observer…… This is a very long winded and circular argument that i could write able forever, so I’m just skipping to the conclusion. Nothing can ever exist at 100%. If something is absolute, that means that there is one observer. But in order to know that there is one observer, there needs to be another observer to make that observation. At that moment when someone observers another person observing something, that means that the second observer can also observe the original thing being observed. In that instance, the thing being observed gains another point of view, and thus new values assigned to it. So something that is agreed upon by all observers would not be distinguishable to them. It cannot exist unless there is at least one other observer. This is all really confusing, but it’s because we’re dealing with both infinite and finite ideas. If something can be observed, than it can be observed in an infinite number of ways, whether it’s observed from different points in time, space, or whatever else. This means that there has to be either an infinite number of observes or no observers. If there are no observers, then the random “stuff” that has no value continues that way. It does not and cannot affect anything. So as far as the observer can tell, that random “stuff” doesn’t exist….. Even after I said I was skipping to the conclusion, I still ended up getting too wordy. So let’s try again, but
• When multiple observers come together and agree on values for this random stuff, societies are formed. However, no observer will have exactly the same value for this random stuff as another observer. If they did, then those two observers would in fact just be one observer, because they would be experiencing everything the exact same way, at the exact same time, from the exact same space, and the exact same of any other possible variable to distinguish the observer by. The fact that no two observers will 100% agree in all cases leads to the idea of probability. No two observers will have the same exact observations, but they can have infinitesimal small variations between their observations. As more and more observers come together, they discuss what values each other observer assigned to the random stuff/ information. By combining their observations, they create an existance that is governed by the most common of these assigned values. The idea that the same thing can have different values means that, even though 99.999999999999% of the observers agree on one specific thing, there is always one observer that will disagree. It’s kinda weird to think about it, but if 100% of observers ever agreed on one specific thing, that thing would stop existing. It’s kind of like the idea that if there two observers that agree on everything 100% of the time, the fact is they’re just one observer. Using similar logic but from the point of view of the “stuff”, anything that would determine the value of it would look like a single observer. But in that moment, the random stuff becomes an observer of the observer…… This is a very long winded and circular argument that i could write able forever, so I’m just skipping to the conclusion. Nothing can ever exist at 100%. If something is absolute, that means that there is one observer. But in order to know that there is one observer, there needs to be another observer to make that observation. At that moment when someone observers another person observing something, that means that the second observer can also observe the original thing being observed. In that instance, the thing being observed gains another point of view, and thus new values assigned to it. So something that is agreed upon by all observers would not be distinguishable to them. It cannot exist unless there is at least one other observer. This is all really confusing, but it’s because we’re dealing with both infinite and finite ideas. If something can be observed, than it can be observed in an infinite number of ways, whether it’s observed from different points in time, space, or whatever else. This means that there has to be either an infinite number of observes or no observers. If there are no observers, then the random “stuff” that has no value continues that way. It does not and cannot affect anything. So as far as the observer can tell, that random “stuff” doesn’t exist….. Even after I said I was skipping to the conclusion, I still ended up getting too wordy. So let’s try again, but a little more concise. Nothing can 100% because that would imply one observer. Hobewever, for something to know it’s one observer, something else would have to observe the single observer. What happens is a point that has a single observer in itself becomes a point of observation. This creates an infinite number of ways to not only observe the original observer, but also what he was observing. So anything that is observed cannot be absolute. The only thing that every observer agrees on 100% doesn’t exist. The act of observing creates. But for something to be observed, the event itself must be able to be observed as well. This means that the original thing being observed now has two observers. This makes it so the thing thought to be absolute is no longer absolute, since it is being seen in a way different from the original observer. So the only way for something to be absolute is if it isn’t observed at all. And if something is never observed, it doesn’t exist.
♡Sugar☆World☮ 