Communicating With My Selves [9 May 2020]
“Thoughts to come back to” Note
Related: reality, importance, determining absolute examples
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Inspired some reading “Confucius – the secular as sacred”]
What is right is what doesn’t break the mechanism.
What is right (or good/comes from the truth) is what doesn’t break (or damage/go against/”grind”, unless for the purpose of improving) the mechanism (a good and efficient system)
Ideas like “right and wrong,” “good and evil,” etc. are ones that I’ve kind of started distancing myself from. They’re so subjective, and scale can change everything. However, the closest things that I’d call universally “good” are progress and improvement – the act of moving forward. We’ll periodically return to this idea and expand on it as we address other points.
The next part of the statement says “is what doesn’t break.” But before I can explain this, I have to explain what it is that is breaking. The “mechanism” is a metaphor for society ~ everyone works together like gears. There’s a few levels to this metaphor.
First, just like our own technology/mechanisms, society is continually going through change.
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
[Long tangent sort of relevant, but too wordy]
~A few discussion points come out of this change. First, though we may make the mechanism of society at a given time “state of the art,” our understanding of how things work grows, so there is always a need for “upgrades” or changes. However, just like with upgrades and changes to our tech/tools that we use and are familiar with, there is pull back since it’s new and unfamiliar. This can slow down progress and dictate when society is ready to change and improve as a whole.~
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
One reason change is necessary is because, though a mechanism or system may be designed perfectly, ideal conditions might not be available and there may be improper use. Because of this, general upkeep and little “tune ups” or clarifications to the system/mechanism are required between big changes or “upgrades”.
I’m getting tired, so I’m making a quick bullet list of my main ideas
Breaking/damaging the mechanism is related to the idea of “improper use”
Improper use due to ignorance is different than improper use for personal gain/malicious reasons.
Even beyond that, breaking the mechanism/system for the sake of seeing what happens is another level to look at.
-the previous three points bring interesting/complicated questions in regards to being good/right/etc. We can always learn from experiences (and thus setting the foundation for future progress), even ones resulting from people damaging or misusing the mechanism that is society.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ideas on perfection: When you think about it, the idea a perfection is appetizing. However, I hate perfection in practice. To me, perfection is boring.
First of all, when something is perfect, that means we can’t learn anything more about it, and it can no longer be improved on. From an engineer/scientist’s, this is both boring and could put me out of a job.
Second, when something is perfect, that means it can be perfectly replicated. So what makes something special is the flaws.
Third, the idea is imperfections and intrinsically found in all things (looking at perfection from a materials perspective)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Different levels of enjoyment and how it’s relayed to different levels of consciousness
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The idea that scientists/engineers are the best models to fulfill their purpose -> they are most efficient at answering question & collecting data/info.
Related? The idea of “god” creating the universe to see how we would react to it being similar to the idea of artists creating art to see how people react
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our ability to extrapolate/make assumptions/interpret data, how this makes us unique, and how these both can have positive and negative effects
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m writing this down due to an interesting reaction I’m experiencing. I was skimming through news article titles, and got drawn into the story about a (woman – in par’ces b/c not sure if related to the cause) Mexico mayer who was shot to death in her own home on her first day in office. I don’t know why, but this story just weighs heavy on me. The actual writing wasn’t too compelling, but something about the narrative itself presented in the article made me feel incredibly sad. But it was more than just sad. It was a sorrowful disappointment (or maybe a disappointing sorrow); a tightness, like a fist reaching into your chest, slowly gripping until it feels like you can’t breath.
I wanted to write this down to see if i can narrow down the reasons I had such a strong reaction to this random story. Does it have to do with disappointment in crime throughout Mexico? Maybe it’s the fact that her chance to make a change was taken away before she could even try. Looking at it from pretty far away from this line of thinking…
Coming back to switching levels of perception/POV
Look at the teachings of reiki
The act of performing reiki: Going to (or opening yourself up to) a higher level and bringing that energy back down
Also consider what/how/why techniques like grounding and meditation do/work
You use grounding to reset when you feel out of control. 2 initial thoughts came to mind: 1) you are bringing yourself to a “lower” level of perception. Things become smaller, and your reality becomes your surroundings rather than your thoughts/worries. 2) it’s interesting that you put your feet on the earth to… point to sky… meditation (finish previous idea if you remember later).
In raising your level of perception, you are able to better separate yourself from your physical self. This may sound like high/whimsical/mystic language and ideas, but what I’m really describing is daydreaming. However, as you continue to raise your LoP, imagine you are climbing up a ladder.
The further away from the ground, the more unsafe, unsure, and/or unstable we become. And once we get too afraid, we have to ground ourselves, else we risk falling off the ladder. Also, our level of prep affects how high we can “climb the ladder” or raise our LoP. Continuing with the ladder metaphor, it’s like quickly setting up the ladder on uneven ground vs flat ground vs putting a sandbag down to hold it in place. One way of preparation could be mediation
(*a little side note, just like you can get a lot of stability by having someone hold your ladder, you can get to a higher LoP with the help of someone else, i.e. a reiki master/performing reiki)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have a viewpoint that there is nothing inherently evil. Something that just came to mind to think about is the idea that the bible often describes god using the seven deadly sins (e.g. jealous, wrath)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My catalytic personality
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“God’s” meaning for life -> and how my interests are starting to line up with it
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God vs. Higher dimensional beings. God would be the rule of the universe, the natural laws, the code that determines all outcomes. However, we confuse “god” with powerful higher dimensional beings. So the judaic “god” would actually just be a higher dimensional being, not the actual god of our universe. He has powers far beyond ours, even to the point that he can alter the natural laws. However, he is not all powerful due to the fact that he must change the natural laws before doing something that would break them, this breaking the universe
-also, “god” answers the question “why?” while a higher dimensional being answers “how?” What I mean by this is god can answer any question that starts at the beginning, similar to “what would happen if I did ‘x’ then ‘y’, and why does it happen?” whereas higher dimensional beings answer questions at the end like “how do i make ‘x’?”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bigger than infinity
The idea behind this stems from the assumption that the mind is infinite.
This is still a really early thought, so most of my ideas on this subject are mostly half-thoughts, incomplete, and very ambiguous at this point.
In the instance of infinity, all things are possible. Among these possibilities is that something is impossible. This “impossible thing” is what is bigger than infinity
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The importance of logic to emotion and vice versa
-logic to emotion corresponds to an object and a force.
-logic has a bit of a physical property to it, or rather it follows a particular physical law – inertia
-logic tells us that if something is working, we should keep doing it
-if we are in a progressive state, we will continue to progress…….slow down
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\\\~
The ability to see multiple wavelengths of position probability -> YouTube pbs idea
We naturally filter out the less probable positions, but that doesn’t mean we are not observing the less likely positions.
Mankind has developed multiple ways to turn off these filters in order to get a more complete and true picture of the world
-these range from natural to chemical: mediation, drugs, religion/spirituality, science (we create machines that don’t filter out the data we want, eg SEM microscopy)
The big bang imagined as an explosive underwater -slowmo guys inspiration
~would explain the vacuum of space
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What if we are actually able to create new forces, physical phenomena, etc. just by imagining them. Things we describe as magic, through the combined efforts of everyone, become real in the form of science.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I tend to borrow the feelings of those around me. I think this might have been something that has been going on since i can remember. The reason for this is because i would either have too extreme or incorrect/no responses to different stimuli, but i was smart enough to notice how different i was. As i borrowed feelings, i began to study the subtle differences between emotions that people tend to group together (e.g. sad vs depressed).
Funnily enough, my initial trouble with understanding feelings has required me to study feelings extensively, and turning into a very important and powerful tool for me to get through life. Some benefits include: ability to read people, ability to hide my emotions from people/make them think I’m feeling something else (this makes me very difficult to read), and the ability to artificially induce and control feelings (this let’s me quickly adjust to new/unfamiliar situations – if i don’t know what to do, i induce feelings from another experience), among other things.
-i tend to make up characters for different situations. Though most of the time a base set of personality traits stay with me, but the motives and responses of the character become my own. That’s why I’m so confident that i can do anything as long as i make the right character for the situation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think my subconscious might have more control over my life than i thought. I’ve had a feeling calling to me for awhile now, telling me i was ready to move on from case, but my rational side refused to accept that possibility. Maybe my subconscious put me in that state because i was going against my actual wants or it knew i was done there
-i guess David Bowie did this too. He describes how he would get bored and move from project to project, never making an identity for himself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*whenever i use the terms “god” “heaven” or anything religious, I’m not implying the Christian view of the world is the correct one. I just tend to use these words to describe complex and abstract ideas since i was raised catholic and these are the most familiar examples of abstract ideas. If you want, you could easily replace other religious ideas (as i did by mentioning reincarnation), or another way that is more palatable, such as more scientific/mathematical concepts.
For example, often when i say “god” when I’m writing, I’m actually referring to scientific ideas, such as god representing the big bang, the natural laws (or the “code” of our world), the concept of evolution, the concept of infinity, and the universe itself. The reason for this is because if you look at how people describe “god” and try to make it work with our scientific understanding of the universe, you see that there is a lot of overlap. For example, god created the universe and life = big bang and evolution. I could i explain this more and provide more examples, but I’m too tired right now.
What people think hell is might actually be earth. When i say this, I’m not implying everyone here is getting eternally punished, but rather that we confuse earth with hell. One image or definition i often use for heaven is the state of being in perfect unity with god. You are so close to him that you experience him completely.
So how does this relate to my initial hypothesis? Well, when we die, our consciousness goes towards good to reconnect with him. However, do to God’s perfection, he is unable to take in something imperfect. Your consciousness may remain near (which i assume feels great), but you will never be able to be truly one with God, and thus never achieve true and everlasting satisfaction. So in order to get rid of the imperfections, the consciousness returns to some reality/world/simulation to better itself. This process repeats until the consciousness is complete and perfect.
As I was writing this, two thoughts come to mind. 1) The process that i described is very similar to reincarnation, with nirvana representing heaven. 2) The more I described this, the more i realized i was describing purgatory.
So if I described purgatory, what would hell be? Well if heaven is a perfect and complete unify with God for eternity, then hell should be the opposite, i.e. the total and eternal separation from God. I’m not sure how this would look/feel/etc. One possibility is complete and total destruction of one’s consciousness. The reason this makes sense to me is due to the parable about getting paid a day’s wage no matter how long you work. So this means that, as long as you are able to think, you will be able to turn towards the path to God.
*expanded-idea: i don’t believe that we will ever truly get into heaven, ie be one with god for eternity. However, I believe that it is possible to become unified with god, but no matter what something will happen that will result in you separating away from him, if only temporarily. And there are a few reasons for this.
1) That would explain how life/creation/the big bang happened: before the big bang, there was one perfectly unified “thing”. Since we can only distinguish something relative to another thing, this state of unity would actually be a void of nothingness. Another way to look at this is through matter. The only way particles can be destroyed is when it collides with its exact opposite particle (eg matter & antimatter or electrons & positrons). I may come back to this idea, but I’ll move on for now.
2) I don’t see things as inherently good or bad. The only thing that i world consider calling truly good is progress/improvement. The want to not only know, but to improve and create is what drives us humans. We are continuously trying to moving forward, and we feel incomplete when we no longer can.
This may also relate to the idea of hell being the point your consciousness gets destroyed. When your consciousness loses the ability to move forward (towards god, perfection, infinity, progress) it no longer has a purpose. As everything else continues to move forward, the consciousness is left behind, being swallowed by the darkness that is nothingness. It is engulfed until it becomes indistinguishable from the dark nothingness. At this point, the consciousness is gone, but more than that.
As far as everything else is concerned, it never even happened. That consciousness did not exist. This is a really complex and abstract idea, but i may expand on it in the future because I’m already starting to see how this can help solve some holes in my understanding of time, infinity, multiverse theory, and a lot of others. I may have stumbled upon a very powerful tool
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pendulum theory vs. Metronome theory
Early [January – May] 2020 Thoughts & Questions
“Theories” Note
Theories
Opposing forces theory: there are 2 forces in opposition: 1 for chaos and 1 for order.
Immortality theory: immortality has already been discovered in the form of having children. There is a saying that goes something like there are no original thoughts. Everything you think is the result of something that influenced you in the past. I don’t completely agree, but there is some truth in it. But if you take this to be true, if we really are just a result of others’s ideas, are we really different people completely or just a continuation of another conscious?
Traveling energy/obstacle/nucleation theory
Consciousnesses in a closed space
-the power of “confidence”
-charisma may be a better word
-the ability to alter reality
-think of shrodingers cat
Time-space blanket
-“time” is a type of energy
-like energy, it cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be converyed
-this “time energy” holds the
universe together; since the
universe is always expanding, it can
be explained by the “time energy”
being converted into another form
of energy in our world
-look at Disney world as a large
scale example
-sub theory of to depict it: imagine all things in our universe are on a blanket. Different sized things sink deeper into the blanket than others. However, these things are constantly pushing down on this “time-space blanket.” Just like a lot of materials, creep cam set in. That is, continuously applied force that wouldn’t cause deformatiom does due to how long it was applied. This presents itself in this theory as celestial bodies sinking deeper into the blanket. This slow but steady sinking expands the space, so the distance for the energy to travel is longer?
-maybe time isnt the blanket but the energy holding it together?
-sub sub theory: this sinking into the blanket might somehow be related to why time seems to go faster as we get older. (This isn’t really as solid as the rest of the theory, as it’s more likely that time seems to move faster since, proportionally to our lifetime, things are getting shorter-eg 1 hour as a baby is much greater a % of its life than an adults life. Also, the amount the time-space blanket expands is most likely not significant enough for us to feel it)
The .exe theory: also explains why confident people do well – focusing on failing causes the person to subconciously “execute the program” to mess up
The answering a single question theory: one being/thing is trying to answer a question or solve a problem. He’s using all people as different “experiments” to see which is the best way
The inception/the rick&morty car battery/material genome theory: the inspiration for the names of this theory stem from the use of different&created levels of realities of existence. In inception, each additional dream level exponentially increases the ratio of time in the dream to real time. In rick&morty, rick creates a battery that has a world who’s sole purpose, unbeknownst to them, is to create energy for rick. However, they end up creating a similar world to power their own world. Taking a few ideas from both, it is possible that we were created to find tons of data really fast. However, we have gotten to the point where we are creating supercomputers to do the same thing for us.
Rick&morty car battery theory 2: what we perceive as time passing is really just an outside force siphoning energy away from our universe
Technological Singularity (TS) Already Achieved Theory: TS is the point when AI will be able to advance itself faster than humans can, leading to exponential growth of AI. If we look at ourselves as really advanced computers/AI, we’ve already reached this point. We are continually creating new tech to solve problems and improve ourselves. We are evolving faster than natural evolution could ever hope.
-subtheory: maybe the “god” or creator of our universe left the world to us since we could now change the world as much as he could, but at a much faster pace. It’s not necessarily that we are more powerful them him. On the contrary, it is because he is magnitudes of power more powerful than us that he doesn’t have to worry about things like time. Since we have a much smaller lifespan, we need to be as efficient as possible; continually perfecting or methods throughout the generations.
Sub-concious Gene Activation Theory: people have genes that are active and not. Our Sub-concious may decide which genes in our children are activated during pregnancy depending on how we feel about the world/its needs. Could explain the increase in homosexuality: overpopulation
Nirvana is at absolute zero
The localized story their: in stories, you know that a world exists, but the entire world doesn’t come into the story or affect the story unless it serves a purpose. For example, sherlock Holmes takes place on earth, but almost all of hours stories take place in London, while other settings are only mentioned when it fits the story. This allows the story to flow without unneeded details getting in the way. Similar to this idea, our world might be a localized story. Almost everything (in terms of life/intelligence) happens on an isolated planet, and even beyond our planet, the observable universe isn’t even the whole thing. Add to the fact that things like dark matter and dark energy make up more than the observable universe, it would be similar to telling a story that takes place on earth but only focuses on a single household.
The patch/update theory: the “seven days of creation” could be seen as seven “versions” or “updates” god made to the world
The multiple computer theory: (an explanation to the multi-verse theory)
The Frisby principle: users a group of people throwing a Frisby to describe the complexity and number of variable involved in any given observation
The DNA Programming language theory: ties in with the idea that our bodies (and now that i think of it all living things e.g. cells) are computers. Dna is the language which our bodies interprets.
The multi-multiverse theory
The no constants theory: assuming the idea of relativety is correct. ..
Significance determined by relative change theory:
Why it’s good that not everyone cares about all of the same causes:
Finite is existing theory: anything we perceive has to be finite (COME BACK TO ELABORATE), so if we are ever able to feel, see, or encounter “god”, in that instance he or a part of him is finite
The wandering consciousness theory: different consciousnesses may control one body throughout a lifetime (likewise, one consciousness may control many bodies). However, you/the body/the consciousness never realize it since the consciousnesses all express themselves using the data found in the body’s brain. (Imagine a computer used by different people)
The multiverse of experiences theory
The physicality of probability theory: (inspired by the single photon interference video) probability is a physical force/particle/wave/whatever that we’ve unintentionally learned how to measure – that is, most people assume that statistics is more about observing and making predictions rather than measuring physical properties. What this means……………. …
-look into the relationship of this idea to that of the wavefunction collapse (explains the idea of how measuring something changes the outcome)
-also connect this to the idea of people creating reality by observing something.
-“It’s almost like the universe is allowing all possibilities to exist simultaneously but holds off choosing which actually happened until the last instant.” (Matt O’Dowd, “The quantum experiment that broke reality”)
-“There’s an interaction between possible realities that is seen in the distributing of final positions in the interference pattern. “
-may also consider thinking about dark matter/energy
The sub-/super-wavelength theory: (inspired by “Is quantum tunneling faster than light” video). The deBroglie(db) wavelength(WL) describes how well determined an objects position is. A large wavelength means high uncertainty in position, a small WL means a well-defined position. What this could mean is that we can only experience WL with certain db WL. WL that are too big “move around” too much while WL that are too small are in such an exact position, we can not observe it.
-When I say having “such an exact position” makes it unobservable, I’m imagining an application of the plank length(PL).
-The PL is the highest (resolution?) in the universe ~ the shortest distance between 2 points that we can measure/has any meaning to us. That means that it’s the shortest length that we can observe something/consider something actually exists. Let’s say theoretically there is a particle that is smaller (or whose position uncertainty is smaller) than the PL ~> to us it physically doesn’t exist. ~> so this particle whose position uncertainty is to the degree of uncertainty <PL is too exact to be observed.
-subsub point: this also could have interesting implications. If something’s position moving faster than the speed of light is too uncertain for us to observe, maybe we’re “moving faster” than another observer’s “speed of light.”
– consider energies as well, not jus WL. Looking at the significance of the energies of the waves adds a few interesting possibilities/explanations.
-One thing this could imply is that the reason we cannot travel faster than light is that it raises our energy level to a point where the probability of our position becomes too uncertain.
-another possible explanation: we know that speed can affect the length of an object. Maybe something with a db WL moves outside of our observable range.
-another possibility: our spectrum of db WL is traveling at a certain speed through ecaps(my made-up term for the “space” of different “spaces” “universes” etc). Let’s assume ecaps is filled with its version of black/worm holes or whatever ~pretty much anything that can take you really far instantaneously (thus changing your position). Let’s call these position changers “jump holes.” Throughout ecaps you can measure the “jump hole density (jhd)” ~that is, the amount of jump holes per unit of space (eg. Area (2D), volume (3D), or higher dimensional space). The higher jhd means that there is a higher chance of going through a jump hole, which means there will be higher uncertainty in its position. Along with the jhd, another variable would affect the position uncertainty: speed. The faster you go, the more likely you will run into a jump home, also increasing your uncertainty.
-this could imply that things moving faster than the speed of light go through jump holes before we can observe them.
-SUBSUB THEORY: we primarily define our universe using space and time. If there is a plank length (space), maybe there is an equivalent value for time. What this value would say is that there is a time short enough that anything that happens faster than it doesn’t really exist and isn’t apart of our reality/universe. To keep it simple, I’ll call this measurement of time the “plank time.” It would be closely related to the speed of light, although it may not be it exactly. If the speed related to the plank time is in fact not the speed of light, then I’d call it the “plank speed.”
-something to consider: dbWL depends on its momentum (mass * velocity ; dbWL = h~planck’s constant~ / p~momentum~). This could lead to another extremum value ~> “planck momentum”. This could also mean there is a “planck mass” ~> a planck mass could explain/determine radioactive decay and why the heavier elements are more unstable.
-one last consideration: if the db WL determines the uncertainty of an objects position, does that mean that we are not always physical/part of reality depending on how fast/what energy level we are?
-this could also be applied to the multiverse theory: if the time observed affects the outcome, does that mean looking at an event at another time will affect the resulting outcome and change it from the first time observed?
The quantum bookends theory: (Inspired by “Planck’s constant and the origin of quantum mechanics” YouTube video) In classical physics, everything can be infinitely divided. So what does that mean? One thought is that in classical physics there is no such thing as the “smallest” of anything (There are apparent flaws to that statement that I may come back to discuss). On the other hand, in quantum physics there is a “smallest thing” ~> I’m making a few logical leaps right now, but what I’m taking this to mean in this situation is that set packages like photons and energy levels allow for an absolute minimum and maximum to exist ~> quantum physics ~at least in our universe~ allows beginnings and ends to exist
The recalibration theory:
Dark energy uni
The Neumann Probe Theory: (inspired by a pbs spacetime video) a Neumann probe is one that can be sent out to another planet and replicate itself using the resources present. What if we’re Neumann probes?
The arbitrary limits theory
The archaeus theory: (works with the ideas of god as infinity, simulation theory, a few others)
The probability-imortality theory: deals with infinite passage of time leading to infinite possibilities. When we are dead, we are unaware of this passage of time.
The warp theory: this theory (at least to start with) deals with 2 possibilities: warping dealing with time travel and warping dealing with altering your positional probability
The infinite god vs. The engineer theory: recalling back to a previous theory that “god” is like an engineer that is constantly improving which we observe/call evolution. Combing this assumption with a few other ideas lead to some interesting possibilities. Making the following assumptions: 1] the judaic view of god (i.e. an infinite and all powerful good) exists; 2]
The inertia of energy theory:
-inertia states that an object in motion will continue in that motion until an outside force interferes; it’s pretty much physic’s way of proving that things don’t like change. Applying this idea elsewhere could have implications to how .
-In this case, inertia is being applied to energy. So what do we know about energy? Energy wants to go to it’s lowest level; that fact is what drives the universe. However, what if the reason energy always looks to go down is because its “inertia” is going down. If so, it is possible that energy used to constantly try to increase/reach higher levels
—2 sub theories
1.) The time when the change in energy’s inertia took place could be known. It’s possible that this occurred at the big bang. If this is the case, we may be able to simulate what “happened before time”
2) entropy may be closely tied to this subject. Before energy’s inertia changed, maybe entropy was constantly decreasing rather than increasing.
The “inside joke” theory: In an inside joke, humor can be found in something not inherently funny due to the unique context/symbolism/association one has with it. So what? I think there may be something(s) throughout the universe that acts kind of like an “inside joke” to all creation; something that all things experience the same way. A more relatable (and crude) example that came to mind is that saying that basically says “you’re never too old/smart/mature to laugh at a fart joke.” Though this may not be the best example, I think it does a good job at understanding the sentiment.
So let’s say there is this “inside joke;” what could it mean? My first thought is that an “inside joke” woven throughout all of a creation is really just the creator adding his personality to the creation. No other meaning exists other than the creator’s vision. This works well with a previous idea where i stated that if a “god” exists (in whatever -assumably- incomprehensible form), “god” may be found where the legitimate one and only answer is “just because.”
The dominoes theory: Just like people who spend hours setting up huge designs of dominoes, just to push the first one down and watch it all fall down in 30s.
Taking this idea to the largest scale, what if the “time before time” (i.e. the time before the big bang) was when everything was being set up and arranged (energy level increasing). When everything was in place, a little “push” set off the big bang – the point where the “dominoes” begin to fall (energy goes toward lower levels). We observe (and can even measure/predict) this “falling chain of dominoes,” and we call it entropy, specifically the continuous increase in entropy (*side-note: I’m not sure whether entropy is the actual chain of dominoes, or if it’s more of a descriptor, e.g. it describes the “motion of the dominoes” -> describes the path energy takes as it lowers levels).
Earlier I described the time before the big bang as the “time before time.” What if the “push” to start the big bang was the introduction of time to the system. Whatever exactly time is is difficult to say. Maybe time is just another form of energy (possibly the highest point that could be reached?). Or possibly it’s a force. Hell, it could even be just a .exe file being “clicked,” or variable that was defined in the code that makes up our universe (if you decide to look at it from the computer/simulation view).
Lastly, what could this mean about our end? Well, maybe after everything “falls down,” all the “dominoes” are picked back up and set up. This could be another explanation to the “multiverse theory,” as the dominoes would be set up in a different order/arrangement.
The cause-effect-observation theory: related to: defining reality by observing the world around us; the question “if a tree falls in a forest…”.
-“An unbroken chain of cause and effect that can be traced back to the big bang”
-when this chain breaks th
The shared resources within multiverse theory:
The too big / too powerful theory: explains why energy is going down. Making self weaker to become more precise
The maturing theory: “god” (or evolution) is maturing. See creation go from “cool” to more practical
The DBS theory for 1 god
-so I’m not 100% sure what I originally meant by this, but one possibility is the idea of an “all-powerful god” creating weaker beings with god-like powers to efficiently distribute his power accross its new creation
The Different Selves Theory: Someone once asked me of i thought people could actually change. The way i see it, we’re all changing constantly. These changes appear small and barely noticeable, so people don’t notice them. However, I argue that people are changing far more than they think. I see it as changing to a “different self” or identity, something closer to a multiple personality disorder, though much less extreme. These different selves can be very similar and complementary to each other, and that’s why it’s difficult to notice a change in self. However, they can be very different as well. We attribute these sudden and extreme changes to things like depression and anxiety. This makes sense, since these two things are caused by am imbalance of chemicals in your body. But what causes your body to change its chemical balance? There are many possible reasons, but i hypothesize it could be caused by an actual change in one’s self.
After coming up with this line of thinking, I want to revisit the original question: “do you think people can change?” My answer is still yes, but I’m going to explain why people think it’s ‘no.’ When people start to make changes, they’re staying in a certain self that has set a specific goal. However, a different self may not care about the original goal, so you stop and feel like you haven’t changed. What really happened is that you only changed one of your selves, which, depending on which self it is, may be the one you spend the least time in. If you want to make a permanent change, you have to make that change in all of your selves. The way I envision it is like climate. If you live in Canada, you’d expect it to be cold in December. But let’s say on a random day in December it happens to 70F. Just because it was different one day doesn’t mean that the overall climate has changed, just that one day out of one year. However, global warming showss the other end of the spectrum. We are seeing an increase in temperature around the world, and we see the changes that are coming with it. But along with this, just because there are certain periods that follow the climate, doesn’t mean that global warming isn’t occurring. This also occurs when people revert back to their old selves, thinking that a change isn’t occurring when it really is.
-another thought that I might come back to is the possibility of different selves preventing other selves from changing. Just because you want to change doesn’t mean other yous want to change. Think of it like Bruce Banner vs. The Hulk. There are multiple comics based on the idea that Bruce wants to kill himself, but The Hulk prevents him from doing so since it is not in The Hulk’s best interest. He could care less what Bruce does or wants as long as out doesn’t affect The Hulk negatively.
The impossibility theory: I feel as though I look at imagination as more than most. I think that if you can imagine something, that means it exists and is possible to create it. However, not everything is possible in our current world/universe. For example, we……. end-> basically the theory is that there was something that wanted to be done in “god’s” realm of existence that is impossible based on the parameters and natural laws of that realm, so he created a new realm, our universe, to bypass these restrictions. I find this interesting because we do the same thing in our world – we create movies/games/stories that encompass new worlds that we as people created. These worlds have new natural laws to let us do things like travel faster than light, cast magic, etc. Some might say this is not the same or doesn’t count, but I say it is a perfectly valid possibility due to the fact we don’t know how long this tree of realities extends. For all we know, we could be in a video game ourselves – the result of a higher being creating the “code” for our realm of existence.
The Boredom Theory: there are some who would believe that a world without pain would be great. However, I think it’d be awful after a while. For one, we determine good/bad, big/small, etc. by comparing two things. If there was no pain, no bad things to compare to the good, we’d have to continually increase our happiness/joy/whatever exponentially to continue to feel the same, let alone better. This results in a “power-creep” esque rise in “good feeling” that cannot be feasibly maintained without getting rediculous and having previous feelings become meaningless. Think of it like DBZ; every arc a new villain appears. However, in order for the new enemy to be a threat, he must be significantly stronger than the previous one. So when you finally get through one arc, all of that tension and awe in power you had about the previous villain disappears since clearly he wasn’t that strong. You eventually get to the point where you become so powerful that you become god (which is pretty much happening in dragon ball super). And so this leads to the boredom theory: if there was truly an all-powerful/all-knowing god, he must have been bored as hell. What joy is there if nothing bad happens and you know the answer to all questions instantly? Do as a result, “god” purposely made himself weaker. He took away his omnipotence and omniscience by giving us free will. He no longer controls everything, nor knows everything that we will do (which is interesting because this would imply he purposely removed information from his existence so that he could be surprised again). This act of giving up power shows that though we are currently going towards improvement, the end result will most likely be something reaching the status and power of a “god”, enjoying it for a while, realizing what the previous “god” realized, and then repeat the process
-the appeal of drugs and alcohol support the idea of boredom being a driving force to making oneself weaker. We change the variables so we don’t know what happens.
The balance theory: everything in the universe is balanced. We see it in our natural laws: for every action, there is an opposite and equal action. We also see it in the creation off matter/energy: whenever a particle is created, an equal but opposite particle is created as well (matter vs. antimatter).
Now getting into a more spiritual look, couldn’t we describe a state of perfect balance as ‘god’. There are a lot of thoughts and theories that result from this assumption. One initial thought, for example, is the idea of yin&yang and how it relates; Another idea, the thought of a utopia = perfect/no pain would also imply no pleasure
The failed terraforming theory: something that humanity will have to deal with is finding planets that we can live on. Other beings may have done so already, but they did a shotgun approach where they terraformed a lot of possible planets and then decided not to use earth. This could be that earth was not the best, or that earth’s conditions didn’t meet the other beings’ needs
The next perfection theory: mechanically, life is practically perfect in terms of engineering. Now that mechanically we’re set, our job is to perfect digital engineering
The probability manipulation theory: higher dimensional beings are able to manipulate the probability of events, making near-impossible events conveniently happen
The absolute value of meaning theory: absolute statements are equally true in the equal but opposite, just like 1 is as equally far away from 0 as -1
The light moving through a dark void theory
The metronome theory (as opposed to the pendulum theory)
The perfection-limit theory to reality: a state of perfection exists; however, to us, it acts as a calculated limit that we will approach infinitely. This means that perfection exists, but it is impossible for us to perceive it. One possible reason for this is that the perfection limit line is also the limit to our reality. We cannot perceive perfection, because at the instance of perfection, everything we perceive as our reality would no longer exist.
The perfection-limit theory on reality (continued):
-as i wrote this, i started thinking that this limit could also define/describe what time is and how we perceive it. If this theory is correct, then as far as we as a consciousness are concerned, time is infinite because we cannot percieve the end
-this also brings to mind a quote describing death. I forget who said it, but he said that he is not afraid of death because if he exists, then death does not. However, if he dies, then he cannot know, for if he did know he was dead, he wouldn’t truly be dead. He ends it with something like “Why would I be afraid of something that cannot exist if I do?”
-expanded idea: Once we hit the perfection/reality limit, we are no longer in the same reality. Everything we know will instantly be different, and the rules of the new reality would be established. However, this new reality has no idea it has just been formed. Since there was an instantaneous change in realities, it appears as though the new reality has always been in existence.)
The no original thought/thought combination theory
-another possible name:coin theory or coin orientation theory
The Creation via Observation theory: 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.
–(*explanation attempt #2)
Anything that is observed cannot be absolute. The only thing that every observer agrees on 100% doesn’t exist. The act of observing creates a new point that in itself can be observed. If this point exists, it must be observed. Because of this, the original thing thought of being absolute is no longer absolute, as the one observing the newly created point must be able to observe both the original observer and the thing he was observing. As a result, nothing that can be observed can also be absolute. So if something is absolute, it cannot be observed. If it cannot be observed, than it doesn’t exist.
Time as a measurement of the change of distance/space theory:
The actual physical priorities of time, how they work, and what they mean in the context of the universe is incredibly complex, abstract, and thus, is difficult to actually understand what time really is. One idea i have for what time is and how we can physically describe it is as a unit of measurement of the change of distance, similar to a meter or an inch. The way i think of it is that time is the distance we travel through the universe, and more specifically, space-time. Since we’re constantly traveling through space, we feel the passage of time, because we feel a change in our position.
One concept that really confused me when i first learned about it was time dilation. The idea that two clocks could go out of sync the further away they are didn’t make sense, because i figured position shouldn’t affect the mechanical workings of the clocks. But i think this idea as time measuring distance helps explain it.
I imagine space-time like a sheet, and planets, stars, etc. make an indent on that sheet. The more massive the object, the bigger the indent. ….《COME BACK TO EXPLANATION LATER》
Progress Update: Theory Of Being And Perspective [10 August – 4 September 2020]
♡Sugar☆World☮ 