I finally got through this! I'm really glad I did. I have been reading a lot about the idea of consensus reality. It explains a lot, but didn't quite feel right. I do believe in objectivity. But the objectivity you've presented here is almost the validity of subjectivity. Subjectivity as ontologically real.
Thank you for this. Now I need to go buy a compass!
Been thinking more about this. I use a warped t4 as a cosmic model. Is the capacity to bend word lines cyclicly the way that you understand info breaking causality? I realized last night that information which properly anchors itself via acceleration in the Goldilocks zone never has to degrade or die in singularity even if that’s what happens to matter configurations. Under this lense the Bible is kinda a map of how “high fitness” information moves through time cyclically and by contrast “low fitness” information does not. Is this close to your model?
That’s a very good question and detaching the information from the carrier is the right move. This is where things get kind of complicated. In order for the synchronicity model that I’m using to work, there has to be some kind of instantaneous information transmission or something like an absolute reference frame or hierarchy of reference frames (which the angel’s pyramid suggests; there are frames that are more absolute and frames that are less absolute).
This is the revenge of Isaac Newton in the same way that Relativity itself is the revenge of Claudius Ptolemy.
As a thought experiment; it’s implied by the axiom that “nothing is random” that if, for example, the star Betelgeuse went supernova, that would happen at a time that was in some manner synchronistic. It would be relevant to concurrent earthly events and would not occur “for no reason.”
But that event has a massive optical delay owing to some light centuries of distance between us and the star. This means there would have to have been something akin to foreknowledge of what would be happening here on Earth by the time the light from that supernova reached us.
So we have two presuppositions here that can’t both be cosmically true:
1. Information cannot travel faster than light.
2. Nothing is random.
So we have to revise one of these premises in order to allow for true cosmic synchrony. This is why a complete ontological shift is required to fully explain synchronicity. Mechanical causality and by extension, instantiated information both have to be in some way epiphenomenal.
I'm no expert by any means but under GR I don't think those last two points statements are mutually exclusive. The light cone only sets an asymptotic boundary from YOUR OWN point of reference but not all points of reference.
One worldline can technically be cyclical relative to a more linear one, just never cyclical relative to itself. If there's a natural selective pressure towards the preservation of cyclic causality, it's reasonable to assume that we bisect these cycles regularly, and we notice most when the bisection angle is very narrow. It's essentially a more complex way of hypothesizing that information patterns that accelerate objects might have a hand in their own conception, even if that retrocausal link is tenuous.
Most sources say this isn't possible, but they'll also claim that accelerating 0.5c and then stopping resets your light cone. What happens after 2-16 such units of acceleration? From any given perspective it has to stop at 2 units, but that's really just saying we can't see what happens after that point. The people who say this isn't possible are correct from our frame of reference.
I might be very very wrong, but at the very least I'm suspicious about the standard intuition about asymptotic boundaries.
Didn't understand why people "would not want their names publicly associated with such ideas" at first; but then realized one only has to remember what happened to Jung when he strayed too far from the treaded path.
Exactly, there was actually a section in this post where I said just that, but it got too speculative and off topic so I took that bit out.
It was really revealing reading what Isidor Rabi said regarding Oppenheimer’s interest in Hindu philosophy. It kind of gives away the common sentiment:
“Oppenheimer was overeducated in those fields which lie outside the scientific tradition, such as his interest in religion, in the Hindu religion in particular, which resulted in a feeling for the mystery of the universe that surrounded him almost like a fog. He saw physics clearly, looking toward what had already been done, but at the border he tended to feel there was much more of the mysterious and novel than there actually was ... [he turned] away from the hard, crude methods of theoretical physics into a mystical realm of broad intuition.”
It’s pretty clear that he thought these were entirely incompatible worlds, and as far as we know, Oppenheimer was not reading mysticism into physics or anything openly, he was just interested in it, and even that was regarded with some amount of disapproval.
May I recommend, while driving trying picturing the other vehicles around you as point on a mental map and build a 2D model and then a 3D model later after getting the hang of it, to reduce your blind spots and increase your escape routes while driving.
This is a small way to put into practice in the real world of what you're learning/reading.
At the slowed and sped time section, I realized that the closer our consciousness and perception is to that of gods, the slower and more wide our bandwidth for perception becomes. Thats why those who are spiritually dead have time fly by them and their lives pass in a flash. Such a measuring stick can be used to infer what actions and decisions bring us closer or farther from the devine. Its like measuring the position of the sun/time of day relative to the casting of your own shadow.
I've come to believe that time, like space, is multidimensional in and of itself. What do you think? From what I've gathered, time is at least 3D... My understanding is that:
I think you're on the right track, but the trouble is that second time dimension is going to be univariate.
For example, we can do a time dimension for my timeline, then a second dimension for, say, temperature.
So I start my day inside. Then I go outside. We would plot that as me advancing forward along the time axis at a constant rate and then suddenly swerving to the left of the graph as my temperature coordinate drops (it's colder outside).
In another possible timeline where I stay in and turn up the heat, my timeline instead curves slowly to the right as the house warms up.
But even though you can technically plot all possible timelines on that graph, it doesn't properly represent all possible events. It only represents all possible thermal events.
We can think of a chronology as a type of sentence made up of events. Think then about the latent space accessed by the GPT-5 family out of which all its possible sentences can be constructed. It spans tens of thousands of dimensions.
That's just the set of possible sentences -- a subset of all possible timelines. If you want to graph the set of all possible timelines, at the bare minimum, you need a manifold larger than GPT's latent space. So, what you need is an n-dimensional potentiality manifold where, n ≈ ∞.
I was thinking more along the idea that x & y are relative to z. If x is a story, y is all the possible versions of that story whereas z is an entirely different story altogether. Thus a y coordinate can only be above or below the x-axis. If it's behind than it's a different narrative...
That works as a visual analogy, but from a strict, technical perspective, what you're doing there is intuitively collapsing or flattening a very high-dimensional space into a low-dimensional representation.
I wrote an article on this called "time is a place" on August 20th. Why are so many people, who are completely unconnected, having compatible downloads of abstract metaphysics simultaneously. It's like we are bubbles on the surface of the world, rising and falling in sync as something beneath the surface makes ripples with its movements.
This is very dense, very interesting. I suspect I will be re-reading this a few times over the coming months. I am still new to the Puzzle method.
Your scientific posts have made me rethink my approach. I have adopted an instrumentalist approach for a long time, only seeing science as a tool for building things. I think this was good at the time. As you explained, it does seem that the deepest physics is hidden from us and that pop science is intentionally obfuscated.
Given that, for the unskilled it can be wiser to leave the labyrinth altogether rather than risk a wrong turn. There is nothing new under the sun, and the ancients did not need physics to leave the cave. So I don't think we need it.
All of these ideas about reality being observer-dependent aren't new. Berkeley was talking about that in the 1600s, and believed the only reason reality seems to exist outside our perceptions is because God is omniscient, God sees all things and that's the only reason your car is there in the morning when you haven't been watching it.
But, individuation as far as I understand it is about integrating all of the parts of yourself. There is a part of me that believes science is true because I use it every day, and it would be good to be able to see spiritual truths in it.
Bit of an oversimplification on my part, but generally true. I’ve been interested in higher dimensions since I was very young and I can tell quite quickly when someone doesn’t know how to think about them or when and why it is appropriate to invoke them. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the concept though
Wow. Thanks. Will be chewing on this for the rest of my life.
Great piece. Got me thinking about the “the self as a centre of narrative gravity” concept I’d read about previously. ❤️
I finally got through this! I'm really glad I did. I have been reading a lot about the idea of consensus reality. It explains a lot, but didn't quite feel right. I do believe in objectivity. But the objectivity you've presented here is almost the validity of subjectivity. Subjectivity as ontologically real.
Thank you for this. Now I need to go buy a compass!
Been thinking more about this. I use a warped t4 as a cosmic model. Is the capacity to bend word lines cyclicly the way that you understand info breaking causality? I realized last night that information which properly anchors itself via acceleration in the Goldilocks zone never has to degrade or die in singularity even if that’s what happens to matter configurations. Under this lense the Bible is kinda a map of how “high fitness” information moves through time cyclically and by contrast “low fitness” information does not. Is this close to your model?
That’s a very good question and detaching the information from the carrier is the right move. This is where things get kind of complicated. In order for the synchronicity model that I’m using to work, there has to be some kind of instantaneous information transmission or something like an absolute reference frame or hierarchy of reference frames (which the angel’s pyramid suggests; there are frames that are more absolute and frames that are less absolute).
This is the revenge of Isaac Newton in the same way that Relativity itself is the revenge of Claudius Ptolemy.
As a thought experiment; it’s implied by the axiom that “nothing is random” that if, for example, the star Betelgeuse went supernova, that would happen at a time that was in some manner synchronistic. It would be relevant to concurrent earthly events and would not occur “for no reason.”
But that event has a massive optical delay owing to some light centuries of distance between us and the star. This means there would have to have been something akin to foreknowledge of what would be happening here on Earth by the time the light from that supernova reached us.
So we have two presuppositions here that can’t both be cosmically true:
1. Information cannot travel faster than light.
2. Nothing is random.
So we have to revise one of these premises in order to allow for true cosmic synchrony. This is why a complete ontological shift is required to fully explain synchronicity. Mechanical causality and by extension, instantiated information both have to be in some way epiphenomenal.
I'm no expert by any means but under GR I don't think those last two points statements are mutually exclusive. The light cone only sets an asymptotic boundary from YOUR OWN point of reference but not all points of reference.
One worldline can technically be cyclical relative to a more linear one, just never cyclical relative to itself. If there's a natural selective pressure towards the preservation of cyclic causality, it's reasonable to assume that we bisect these cycles regularly, and we notice most when the bisection angle is very narrow. It's essentially a more complex way of hypothesizing that information patterns that accelerate objects might have a hand in their own conception, even if that retrocausal link is tenuous.
Most sources say this isn't possible, but they'll also claim that accelerating 0.5c and then stopping resets your light cone. What happens after 2-16 such units of acceleration? From any given perspective it has to stop at 2 units, but that's really just saying we can't see what happens after that point. The people who say this isn't possible are correct from our frame of reference.
I might be very very wrong, but at the very least I'm suspicious about the standard intuition about asymptotic boundaries.
Interestingly this would imply that even massive systems might behave like quantum ones, just infinitely slower from our point of reference.
Didn't understand why people "would not want their names publicly associated with such ideas" at first; but then realized one only has to remember what happened to Jung when he strayed too far from the treaded path.
Exactly, there was actually a section in this post where I said just that, but it got too speculative and off topic so I took that bit out.
It was really revealing reading what Isidor Rabi said regarding Oppenheimer’s interest in Hindu philosophy. It kind of gives away the common sentiment:
“Oppenheimer was overeducated in those fields which lie outside the scientific tradition, such as his interest in religion, in the Hindu religion in particular, which resulted in a feeling for the mystery of the universe that surrounded him almost like a fog. He saw physics clearly, looking toward what had already been done, but at the border he tended to feel there was much more of the mysterious and novel than there actually was ... [he turned] away from the hard, crude methods of theoretical physics into a mystical realm of broad intuition.”
It’s pretty clear that he thought these were entirely incompatible worlds, and as far as we know, Oppenheimer was not reading mysticism into physics or anything openly, he was just interested in it, and even that was regarded with some amount of disapproval.
May I recommend, while driving trying picturing the other vehicles around you as point on a mental map and build a 2D model and then a 3D model later after getting the hang of it, to reduce your blind spots and increase your escape routes while driving.
This is a small way to put into practice in the real world of what you're learning/reading.
At the slowed and sped time section, I realized that the closer our consciousness and perception is to that of gods, the slower and more wide our bandwidth for perception becomes. Thats why those who are spiritually dead have time fly by them and their lives pass in a flash. Such a measuring stick can be used to infer what actions and decisions bring us closer or farther from the devine. Its like measuring the position of the sun/time of day relative to the casting of your own shadow.
I've come to believe that time, like space, is multidimensional in and of itself. What do you think? From what I've gathered, time is at least 3D... My understanding is that:
x= An individual "timeline"
y= The multiplicity (pile) of "timelines"
z= Narrative (or multiplicity of narratives)
Thanks for all you do!
Be well.
I think you're on the right track, but the trouble is that second time dimension is going to be univariate.
For example, we can do a time dimension for my timeline, then a second dimension for, say, temperature.
So I start my day inside. Then I go outside. We would plot that as me advancing forward along the time axis at a constant rate and then suddenly swerving to the left of the graph as my temperature coordinate drops (it's colder outside).
In another possible timeline where I stay in and turn up the heat, my timeline instead curves slowly to the right as the house warms up.
But even though you can technically plot all possible timelines on that graph, it doesn't properly represent all possible events. It only represents all possible thermal events.
We can think of a chronology as a type of sentence made up of events. Think then about the latent space accessed by the GPT-5 family out of which all its possible sentences can be constructed. It spans tens of thousands of dimensions.
That's just the set of possible sentences -- a subset of all possible timelines. If you want to graph the set of all possible timelines, at the bare minimum, you need a manifold larger than GPT's latent space. So, what you need is an n-dimensional potentiality manifold where, n ≈ ∞.
I was thinking more along the idea that x & y are relative to z. If x is a story, y is all the possible versions of that story whereas z is an entirely different story altogether. Thus a y coordinate can only be above or below the x-axis. If it's behind than it's a different narrative...
That works as a visual analogy, but from a strict, technical perspective, what you're doing there is intuitively collapsing or flattening a very high-dimensional space into a low-dimensional representation.
So zoom out? Thanks! ❤️
I wrote an article on this called "time is a place" on August 20th. Why are so many people, who are completely unconnected, having compatible downloads of abstract metaphysics simultaneously. It's like we are bubbles on the surface of the world, rising and falling in sync as something beneath the surface makes ripples with its movements.
This is very dense, very interesting. I suspect I will be re-reading this a few times over the coming months. I am still new to the Puzzle method.
Your scientific posts have made me rethink my approach. I have adopted an instrumentalist approach for a long time, only seeing science as a tool for building things. I think this was good at the time. As you explained, it does seem that the deepest physics is hidden from us and that pop science is intentionally obfuscated.
Given that, for the unskilled it can be wiser to leave the labyrinth altogether rather than risk a wrong turn. There is nothing new under the sun, and the ancients did not need physics to leave the cave. So I don't think we need it.
All of these ideas about reality being observer-dependent aren't new. Berkeley was talking about that in the 1600s, and believed the only reason reality seems to exist outside our perceptions is because God is omniscient, God sees all things and that's the only reason your car is there in the morning when you haven't been watching it.
But, individuation as far as I understand it is about integrating all of the parts of yourself. There is a part of me that believes science is true because I use it every day, and it would be good to be able to see spiritual truths in it.
So, thank you again!
I'll take that as a Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange%27s_four-square_theorem#Proof_using_the_Hurwitz_integers
https://zerophilosophy.substack.com/p/note-on-diagonal-method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_projective_plane#Duality
Bit of an oversimplification on my part, but generally true. I’ve been interested in higher dimensions since I was very young and I can tell quite quickly when someone doesn’t know how to think about them or when and why it is appropriate to invoke them. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the concept though