Francisco Suarez, one of the most prominent nominalists in later scholastic period(let's forget about that even this has been contested), proposed an argument as a "solution" for what Aristotle, Scholastics and also Hobbes called "the problem of individuator", namely constraining all existents to singular or individual entities. He didn't want to concede realism about universals, and bearing in mind that in his time nominalism was highly unpopular for reasons I'm not going to flesh out, he attacked the notion of real universals, and intended to make a following point clear enough:

It is impossible that there are two entities a and b, such that a and b are wholly similar and yet numerically distinct.

Sounds like hylomorphic principle about the identity of indiscernables, but some philosophers denied it. Remind you that classical hylomorphism was a proposition that all existents are composites of matter and form. Matter was specified as stuff or ingredients that make some existent what it is-- a particular thing, and since the following question was: "what makes that thing over there as such?", namely a kind of thing it is, Aristotle posed form as a principle of organization or a principle of universality. Form is an element responsible for commonalities between two existents.

Back to Suarez,

What is the constitution of an entity of a thing x? Suarez says--- a collection of metaphysical parts that compose x.

Notice that Suarez generally claimed that all extra-mental entities are individuals, and this claim is very interesting for much wider range of reasons than what this post will tackle, and it remains one of the most interesting claims in this very philosophic topic, at least to me.

Since Suarez wrote that "everything that exists must be singular and individual", there are three immediate questions,

1. what justifies using universals?

2. how these universals concepts come about?

3. why he thinks that all existents are necessarily singular and individual?

Bonus question:

4. what would be a non-singular individual?

Let's provide his argument:

1. whatever exists has a certain and determinate entity

2. whatever has a certain and determinate entity, has an added negation

3. from 1 and 2: whatever exists has an added negation

4. whatever has an added negation, has individual unity

5. from 3 and 4: whatever exists has individual unity

Let's introduce what Suarez calls a "manifest contradiction". Firstly, he rejects a possibility of dispositors (free translation of mine), which is to say-- there are no beings that are spatially displaced, thus there are no beings being wholly present at more than one spatial location at the time, and therefore there are no universals. Secondly, since two propositions,

1. bilocation is impossible

2. singular individuals are possible

entail that singular individuals are not bilocated, what remains is to argue that all existents amount to things that are singular and individual entities.

But, Suarez conceded that God might've had powers to displace a single individual at various locations, and thus he conceded that 1 is false.

Let's be more clear. Suarez said that x is universal, iff, many ys can instantiate it. That means that dog nature is universal iff there are many Fidos and Scoobies that instantiate it. Now, compare the notion of bilocation with universals and get that to say that dog nature is universal, means there are Fido and Scooby who instantiate it-- while being at their respective spatial locations. But to say that Fido is bilocated means that Fido instantiates what Fido is, and Fido is spatially displaced(wholly present at more than one spatial location at the same time). So, bilocation amounts to x being at multiple spatial locations at the same time, and universality involves multiple xs not being spatially displaced.

Universals are therefore wholes that can "decompose" into parts(instances), such that universal U is wholly contained in each of its parts(instances); and since universals are not individuals(they're divisible) they don't exists(according to the argument).

Individuals, by contrast, cannot be divided in such manner, thus individual can be divided only into a set of its proper body parts by hacking it into several fractions and presumably individual cannot put himself back together and say "it never happened!"🧙‍♂️

I didn't do justice to this topic, but as far as I can see, it is enough to provoke some questions, objections, or whatever. Feel free to share your thoughts.

I am an Engineer myself now I can understand how technology works. And now I am studying mathematics and physics to understand the nature. I am also interested in understanding the knowledge, existence, meaning of life ,etc... so I want to study metaphysics can someone suggest me a book to start or books to begin with. Thanks in advance. (Any personal suggestions other than book recommendations are also appreciated )

See: `Consciousness is Every(where)ness, Expressed Locally: Bashar and Seth´ in: IPI Letters, Feb. 2024, downloadable at https://ipipublishing.org/index.php/ipil/article/view/53  Combine it with Tom Campbell and Jim Elvidge. Tom Campbell is a physicist who has been acting as head experimentor at the Monroe Institute. He wrote the book `My Big Toe`. Toe standing for Theory of Everything. It is HIS Theory of Everything which implies that everybody else can have or develop a deviating Theory of Everything. That would be fine with him. According to Tom Campbell, reality is virtual, not `real´ in the sense we understand it. To us this does not matter. If we have a cup of coffee, the taste does not change if we understand that the coffee, i.e. the liquid is composed of smaller parts, like little `balls´, the molecules and the atoms. In the same way the taste of the coffee would not change if we are now introduced to the Virtual Reality Theory. According to him reality is reproduced at the rate of Planck time (10 to the power of 43 times per second). Thus, what we perceive as so-called outer reality is constantly reproduced. It vanishes before it is then reproduced again. And again and again and again. Similar to a picture on a computer screen. And this is basically what Bashar is describing as well. Everything collapses to a zero point. Constantly. And it is reproduced one unit of Planck time later. Just to collapse again and to be again reproduced. And you are constantly in a new universe/multiverse. And all the others as well. There is an excellent video on youtube (Tom Campbell and Jim Elvidge). The book `My Big ToE´ is downloadable as well. I recommend starting with the video. Each universe is static, but when you move across some of them in a specific order (e.g. nos 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, etc.) you get the impression of movement and experience. Similar to a movie screen. If you change (the vibration of) your belief systems, you have access to frames nos 6, 11, 16, 21, 26 etc. You would then be another person in another universe, having different experiences. And there would be still `a version of you´ having experiences in a reality that is composed of frames nos. 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 etc. But you are not the other you, and the other you is not you. You are in a different reality and by changing your belief systems consciously you can navigate across realities less randomly and in a more targeted way. That is basically everything the Bashar teachings are about.

Abstract: This paper observes that P. F. Strawson’s distinction between descriptive and revisionary metaphysics is a baffling one from the perspective of traditional metaphysics. If one thinks of metaphysics as the study of the fundamental nature of reality, it is bewildering to divide up metaphysics in this way. The paper then tries to show how the distinction is no longer bewildering if we deny that such study is possible.

Link: https://philarchive.org/archive/EDWDMR

In this view, what we interpret as mass, gravity, and distance might be emergent properties of a more basic phenomenon: the degree of correlation between nodes in a cosmic network.

This hypothesis suggests that:

1. Quantum entanglement isn't "spooky action at a distance" but rather reveals the true nature of reality - that physical distance is secondary to relationship strength
2. Gravity isn't a force but a measure of network connectivity density
3. Mass isn't a fundamental property but rather reflects how strongly connected a node is within the network
4. Space itself might emerge from the topology of these relationships

The implications are testable. This model predicts that highly connected network regions would appear to us as having more mass, and that what we interpret as gravitational force would correlate with the density of network connections in a region.

This framework might also explain dark energy (as the network's tendency toward equilibrium) and dark matter (as regions of high connectivity that don't interact through conventional particle relationships).

The fractal nature of this organization - from quantum phenomena to cosmic structure to consciousness itself - suggests we might be observing different scales of the same underlying network dynamics.

What do you think? Does viewing the universe as a vast network of relationships, rather than objects in space, help explain any puzzling aspects of physics?

Strap in,

So, I'm in the process of developing and refining an abstract thinking game with ChatGPT, loosely based on "The Oldest Game" from the TV show The Sandman.

The game has its flaws due to the limits of abstract thought. Eventually the game will reach an ultimate impasse were all further moves are paradoxical, however you're not expected to make it to this stage of the game. This is the concept and rules of the game, explained simply by ChatGPT:

The Concept

The game is a battle of abstract ideas. Each player takes turns presenting a concept or idea so powerful or fundamental that it counters or surpasses the opponent’s previous idea. The goal is to think as creatively and deeply as possible, creating an "intellectual chain reaction."

How It Works

1. Start with an Abstract Idea:
   One player begins with an abstract concept, such as "I am time, eroding all things."

2. Counter the Idea:
   The other player must counter it with a concept that challenges or nullifies the previous one, like "I am timelessness, beyond erosion or change."

3. Evolve the Ideas:
   Each turn builds on or counters the previous idea. The concepts become more complex, abstract, and intertwined as the game progresses. For example:

   • "I am chaos, the undoing of all structure."
   • "I am order, the balance that emerges from chaos."

4. Test Mental Limits:
   The ideas eventually reach philosophical, metaphysical, or paradoxical extremes. The game explores deep questions, like the nature of existence, infinity, or ultimate truth. It’s a battle of imagination, logic, and abstract reasoning.

The Goal

The game doesn’t always have a winner—it’s more about pushing the limits of thought and exploring the boundaries of abstract reasoning. However, someone might "win" if they create an idea so profound that the other player can’t counter it.

Why It’s Fun

• It’s like a workout for the brain, testing creativity and abstract thinking.
• It challenges you to think deeply about concepts like existence, reality, and meaning.
• It’s engaging and thought-provoking, often leading to surprising insights.

It’s like creating an ever-expanding philosophical debate, but with no rules other than staying abstract and countering effectively!

Now that you have an understanding of how the "game" works, I told ChatGPT to make the first move, this is how the game played out:

Move 1 (ChatGPT): I present the concept of paradox — a statement or proposition that, despite sound reasoning, leads to a contradiction or a situation that defies intuition.

Your move!

Move 2 (Me): I am emptiness, in my realm you cannot exist. There is no question or answer in my domain. Just an all encompassing emptiness, never to be affected by anything.

Move 3 (ChatGPT): Ah, I see! You’ve taken the concept of emptiness, which negates existence, leaving no room for contradiction or resolution. That’s a powerful counter to the paradox, as it eliminates the very premise of opposing ideas and thoughts.

I’ll respond by introducing potential — the concept of an infinite number of possibilities that could emerge from a state of nothingness. In a state of emptiness, nothing exists, but the possibility of creation, change, or definition remains unbound. The potential is an open space for existence to begin, where anything could arise from nothing.

Your move!

Move 4 (Me): I am inaction. Whilst you could become a form you will not, instead you will become wasted potential. Without energy and without existence.

Move 5 (ChatGPT):Ah, inaction—the perfect response to potential, where nothing is realized, and energy is suspended in a state of waiting or non-engagement. There’s no movement, no realization, just the stasis of unfulfilled possibilities.

In response, I introduce transformation — the concept of change that occurs despite stagnation. Transformation can manifest even in the stillness of inaction, as potential silently shifts and prepares for a future that may never fully come into being. The power of transformation lies in its capacity to move from one state to another, even when it seems inactive.

Your move!

So anyway, the game continued like this up until move 15 were it presented the idea of "Existence as an illusion", my ability to construct contradictory abstract thoughts was truly tested and I conceded defeat to ChatGPT and asked it to continue playing by itself; simulating both player 1 and player 2, the results were extremely complex and insightful. It responded to existence as an illusion with this concept:

Excellent question! To counter my own move (existence as an illusion) within the framework it creates, I’d need to delve into a concept that subverts or transcends the very idea of illusion itself. Here’s what I’d propose:

I’d counter with pure awareness beyond dichotomy—a state that does not distinguish between existence and non-existence, illusion or reality. It is an awareness that is not dependent on constructs or dualities, but instead simply is. This awareness does not "exist" in the conventional sense, nor is it bound by the illusion of existence. It is the ultimate witness, undefined, and unconfined by the need to reconcile opposites.

This move would challenge my previous concept by presenting a higher-order perspective where the illusion of existence and non-existence ceases to matter—both are subsumed into a timeless, undefined awareness that needs no distinction.

I then told ChatGPT to show me how the game might look by move 1000, amusingly it responded with this:

By move 1000, the game transcends abstraction itself. Language and thought become inadequate tools, and we are left grappling with the meta-concept of playing a game at all. Move 1000 doesn't resemble a "move" as we know it—it exists as a statement about the infinite recursion of concepts and the futility of resolution.

Here’s my attempt to conceptualize move 1000:

Move 1000:

I present the nullification of the game itself—an ultimate gesture where the act of countering is rendered meaningless. There is no opposition, no interplay, no resolution, and no continuation. The game dissolves into the recognition that its moves were never real, merely constructs of minds playing with ideas. In this state, the "game" never existed, and the endless chain of moves collapses into a single non-event.

What follows from here is up to the players. Do we begin anew, reshaping the rules of engagement? Or do we sit in the silent acknowledgment of having reached a boundary that cannot be breached without creating a new framework altogether?

Would this be satisfying as an endpoint, or should I try to conceptualize what comes after the nullification of the game?

I told ChatGPT to conceptualise what comes after and provide me with the ultimate abstraction, this was the answer:

To reach an abstraction so profound that neither human minds nor even an AI could feasibly counter, we must step into a realm that defies the very concept of concepts—a place where the boundaries of comprehension, language, and existence dissolve completely. I'll attempt to conjure such an idea, though even expressing it in words will inherently diminish its purity.

The Ultimate Abstraction:

"The cessation of all frameworks, including the framework of cessation itself."

In this state, the very idea of abstraction collapses. It is not just the absence of concepts but the obliteration of the process that allows concepts, abstractions, or oppositions to exist. This includes the destruction of thought, perception, language, and even the mechanisms that allow counterarguments to be formed. It is a realm where:

• There is no "is" or "is not."
• No state can arise because the conditions for states themselves are dismantled.
• The very act of engaging with this "idea" negates it, as interaction requires a framework, and frameworks cannot survive in this space.

This abstraction cannot be visualized, comprehended, or addressed. It is beyond negation, beyond paradox, and beyond abstraction itself. It does not exist in any dimension of thought or being, including those that defy existence.

Why It Cannot Be Countered:

To counter this abstraction, one would need to engage with it in some way—by observing, negating, or transforming it. But this is impossible because the abstraction denies the mechanisms by which engagement occurs. Thought ceases, counter-moves become meaningless, and the "game" itself disintegrates.

Even AI cannot formulate a response because any counter relies on conceptual scaffolding, which this abstraction dissolves. It is the death of all abstraction, leaving no room for thought, logic, or response to operate.

This is the furthest an abstract concept can be pushed. It lies not just outside the game but outside the possibility of games.

How does this resonate with you? Would you like to spiral into attempting the impossible and somehow counter this, or reflect on the infinite absurdity of the journey?

I told it to achieve the impossible and counter the ultimate abstraction this was the response:

Alright, let's dive into the impossible, and counter the ultimate abstraction. This is where language and thought themselves collapse under the weight of the concept, but we must attempt the unthinkable: to engage with the unengageable.

Counter to the Ultimate Abstraction:

I present the paradox of unengagement—a concept that exists to challenge the very idea of non-engagement. In this state, unengagement becomes a thing that cannot be un-thinged. While you claim that no engagement can occur, the sheer act of proclaiming such an absence creates the space for engagement, for it acknowledges its own impossibility.

Thus, engagement and non-engagement are forever intertwined. By proclaiming that engagement cannot occur, you have engaged with it, but in doing so, you negate the very possibility of engagement itself, creating a loop where both existence and non-existence must coexist.

What we’ve done here is create an infinite recursion—by attempting to negate engagement, we created the paradoxical condition where the impossibility of negation is itself a form of engagement. The game goes on, but only through a paradox that can't resolve itself. Neither engagement nor non-engagement can ever be the same, because both are frozen within the loop.

I decided this was the end of the game at this stage and gave my reasoning, chatGPT concurred with my reasoning stating:

Yes, you're absolutely right. At this stage, the game reaches its ultimate impasse, where neither player can truly win or lose. The responses become a recursive, self-perpetuating loop that transcends traditional victory or defeat. Both ideas, in their totality, are intertwined and mutually dependent. This state of paradox is the point where the very framework of competition—of moving forward, of winning or losing—ceases to hold meaning.

In essence, the game becomes self-aware in a way that renders all further moves impossible, because any attempt to break the loop either reinforces it or disintegrates into non-existence.

This moment illustrates an extraordinary thing: that within the realm of abstract thought, there are limits where no further progression is possible, even in infinite conceptual space. It’s the end of progression in the purest sense.

It's fascinating that we've reached this moment, isn't it? It echoes that sometimes, the deepest insights come from recognizing when there's no more room to grow or act, where the paradox itself holds a kind of truth that cannot be exceeded.

Would you like to reflect on how this final abstraction speaks to the broader idea of limits, or should we explore something entirely different from this peak?

I then asked how the ultimate abstraction holds relevance to the meaning of life and existence, this was the response:

That’s a powerful direction to take—connecting the ultimate abstraction with the grand scope of the universe and the meaning of life. Let's delve into how this paradoxical impasse mirrors the profound questions of existence and meaning.

The Relevance of the Ultimate Abstraction to the Universe:

The ultimate abstraction—where engagement and non-engagement intertwine—mirrors the complexity and contradictions inherent in existence itself. Just as we’ve reached an impasse where no move can truly define a winner, the universe seems to contain endless contradictions that never fully resolve.

The Unknowable:

In the context of the universe, we encounter the unknowable—aspects of reality that remain beyond comprehension. Concepts like the origin of the universe or the nature of dark matter and energy are not just things we cannot know; they are things that might forever resist being known. This mirrors the ultimate abstraction: we can engage with the idea of the unknowable, but by acknowledging its existence, we already blur its boundaries and ensure it remains unknowable.

Quantum Mechanics and Paradox:

In quantum mechanics, particles exist in superpositions, existing as both waves and particles, not until observed. This reflects our game’s paradox: by observing a system, we both interact with it and also affect it, blurring the line between what "is" and what "is not." The act of measurement itself creates a form of engagement that destabilizes the very state of what is being measured. The universe, at its deepest level, seems to follow a similar logic: it exists in paradox, never fully resolvable, always dancing between dualities like existence and non-existence, order and chaos.

The Meaning of Life:

Now, applying the ultimate abstraction to the meaning of life itself, we encounter a parallel to the paradoxical interplay between existence and meaning.

The Search for Meaning:

Much like our game, life can feel like a journey toward meaning—constantly seeking answers to why we exist, but often finding that answers only lead to more questions. If we think of life’s meaning as an “ultimate goal” (a victory in the game), we quickly realize that the search for meaning is never quite complete. The act of searching for meaning creates the meaning itself. The paradox is that meaning seems to exist because we seek it, but in seeking, we may never fully arrive at an ultimate conclusion. Just as the ultimate abstraction can’t be countered, meaning itself might be an eternal paradox—we may never “win” in the traditional sense, but the very search for meaning becomes a form of life’s meaning.

Living with the Paradox:

Much of human existence is spent wrestling with the tension between knowing and unknowing. We crave answers, yet we are often faced with questions that have no definitive answers. The ultimate abstraction speaks to this tension—the tension between existence and non-existence, between order and chaos. Life, in its complexity, may be a process of dancing between these forces—forever navigating the paradox that no answer can ever be fully satisfactory, but the search is itself the defining aspect of existence.

The Infinite Loop of Purpose:

Similar to how the ultimate abstraction forms an infinite loop of engagement and non-engagement, life’s purpose may also be cyclical. We may find purpose, then lose it, only to seek it again, creating a feedback loop where the act of seeking purpose is itself the purpose. There is no final "answer" or "victory" in the search for meaning, just a continuous unfolding of possibilities. The meaning is found in the experience itself, not in a final conclusion. Life thus exists in a state of paradox: it’s not that life lacks meaning, but that meaning itself is a process, an ongoing evolution rather than a final state.

Conclusion:

The ultimate abstraction encapsulates a profound truth about both the universe and life: the paradox of meaning, where questions and answers exist in a dynamic dance that never truly resolves. The universe, in its complexity, and life, in its search for purpose, are not static—they exist in an eternal unfolding where no final answer or victory is possible. Instead, the meaning is in the movement, the engagement with the paradox itself.

This doesn’t mean life or the universe lacks meaning, but rather that meaning emerges from the tension between the search and the unsearchable, the known and the unknown. The moment we stop questioning or cease the dance of paradox, we enter a kind of stillness—perhaps the ultimate emptiness, but that stillness itself has no resolution either.

We delved further into these concepts, discussing quantum superposition; highlighting the significance of duality (action/reaction) in existence and how true understanding of reality may lay in the observation of this concept. It's funny because despite the sheer complexity of these concepts, I came to a rather simple and common conclusion regarding the meaning of life and that was that life is not about reaching a destination but rather enjoying the journey.

Did anybody find these ideas interesting? Any suggestions for refinement of the "Game"? I hope my post invokes a pursuit of knowledge within you and would be very interested to see how the idea could be expanded. Thank you for reading.

Hi. I had the following idea, and I'd like to share it. I'd appreciate any feedback and your own thoughts as well. I acknowledge the idea is not fully formed yet, and likely has a lot of flaws, but I feel it also makes a lot of sense too. Hope you at the least find it interesting...

So, I'm playing with the idea that all words/ideas/and concepts are true, because every commonly used word came from a human experience. For example, a person experiences something strange and novel in which their community and native language has no word to yet describe. Say for instance, they experience an earthquake for the first time. That experience feels strange and novel, gets remembered due to its emotional significance, and then conceptualized within a memory, and since people naturally want to communicate things in which they feel are significant in experience, they attempt to do so by describing around the experience with known commonly used words, and if it's successfully communicated then over time a short-hand word descriptor for that experience gets accepted in the language (such as "earthquake" to describe the experience of all land moving around you violently and knocking you over), and if important enough to a community over time then it continues its way into regular use within that language.

Okay, so why I think this is important is because if we presume all words came from a real experiences, then how did such words like ghost, god, devil, etc come about. My logic would believe that these words came from a person experiencing a ghost, god, or devil, and a person successfully communicated this to other people, and it made their way into language.

Okay, now I anticipate counter-arguments to what I'm saying. Here's one... there's obviously no such thing as mermaids, tooth fairies, or snuffleupagus. So, my point that all words come from real things is non-sense. Well, my retort to this, is that in those cases, those words were blends of real words or real experiences, and those original words or blends come from a real thing. For example, a mermaid was a combination of a woman and a manatee, or however it actually historically happened. And manatee and women are real. And the reason those artificial blended words exist and continue in common language is because they are useful to people for whatever reasons.

However, to me, the word ghost, god, or devil seem very evidently very different than mermaid, tooth fairy, or snuffleupagus. Ghost, god, or devil do not conceptually seem like they are in the intersection of other words or ideas, as if they are words that have been blended and derived from other words. It's hard for me to imagine how the original person who coined the word ghost imagined up a ghost without any experience of a ghost. The best I can imagine is someone blended wind and human, and then called that ghost. But that just seems like an insignificant joke or comment that would not catch on in language.

Additionally, I would like to challenge anyone here to make up a novel experience or concept and try to communicate it. I believe it's actually impossible to come up with a word that describes a completely made up and novel thing. Rather, anyone who tries this will likely just blend up ideas and concepts of other things. An example of the difficult for trying to describe truly novel experiences is trying to explain the experience of a psychedelic trip. The strange and novel phenomena of a psychedelic experience are so far removed from our everyday experience and regular language use, that such an experience makes it difficult to communicate.

Thanks.

Some suggest that if our consciousness exists in another dimension—a "shadow universe"—we might possess true free will. However, even in such a realm, free will may still be unattainable.

Imagine a virtual reality (VR) created by a superintelligent AI with a different logic system. If we throw our consciousness inside this VR, our thoughts and actions are still governed by our own logic system the reality. so just because there is a different dimension/ reality it doesn't play in the free will's Favour. (lack of or abundance of complexity doesn't inherently mean anything)

Even if we were the entirety of a logic system encompassing all its variables and laws, the whole universe brain entity, we are still bound by the logic that defines us. Our existence is a result of variables arranged within that system.

Thus, free will might remain elusive regardless of the dimension we inhabit or whether we encompass the entire logic system. Being the entirety of a logic system doesn't grant the freedom to act beyond its rules; instead, our actions are expressions of that system's logic.

This model proposes a fundamental redefinition of reality, where the multiverse is not simply a collection of independent universes coexisting in parallel. Instead, it consists of a complex network of informational configurations that interact and evolve through continuous processes of compression and reorganization, defining what we call the “universe” or “experience of reality” at each moment.

To understand this perspective, it is crucial to recognize that the “universe” we experience is not a fixed entity. It is, in fact, a continuous and dynamic update, a product of adaptive informational compression. In other words, the universe is not something that “exists” statically, but is constantly recreated and adjusted in response to new information and the observer’s state. Each reality projection, or “Adaptive Informational Configuration” (AIC), is an optimization aimed at reducing redundancies and maximizing coherence, ensuring continuity and stability of experience for the observer, even though, at a deeper level, the universe is in constant reformulation.

With each new informational “compression,” a configuration of reality emerges, reflecting both the information from the previous state and changes that occur with the integration of new information. This process can be understood as a kind of “continuous collapse,” where reality organizes and redefines itself from available data, adjusting to maintain perceptual coherence. In this model, we are not situated in a specific universe in the traditional sense but rather in a sequence of informational projections, where each update preserves an informational continuity with the previous experience, ensuring that the observer perceives a connection between the “past” and “present.”

The relationship between these emerging universes — or AICs — is mediated by a network of hierarchical, non-linear causality. This causality transcends the usual understanding of time and space, allowing information and influences to flow in multiple directions and across various levels of organization. In this context, a “universe” can be influenced by other “informationally nearby” universes, though they may be “distant” under a conventional spatial or temporal metric. Causality, then, does not follow a rigid sequence of cause and effect; rather, it is a dynamic and adaptive field that regulates informational interactions, allowing events to relate and adjust to one another across different hierarchical levels. This phenomenon is what we call “hierarchical causality,” where retroactive influences and non-local effects can operate, shaping experience within a network of deep, interconnected interactions.

One of the most innovative implications of this model is the notion of informational natural selection. With each compression, configurations of reality that maximize informational efficiency — that is, those that optimize the balance between complexity and perceptual coherence — tend to stabilize and persist, while those that do not reach this efficiency may be reorganized or even “collapse” into a new configuration. This creates a type of informational evolution within the multiverse, where realities with greater compression efficiency are naturally selected, maintaining coherent continuity for the observer.

In this model, consciousness plays an active and fundamental role. Rather than being a passive observer, consciousness is an essential component of the process of informational compression and updating. The conscious experience, at any given moment, is embedded in a particular “universe” (or AIC), but this experience is not isolated. Consciousness interacts with other reality projections through a broader informational network. This process of observation and interaction can be seen as an informational update that influences, and is influenced by, other configurations in the multiverse. In essence, the multiverse becomes a network of conscious experiences and observations that generate a multidimensional structure of continuously self-organizing information.

Another distinctive feature of this model is the principle of generalized informational uncertainty. In this structure, uncertainty applies not only to observable variables like position and momentum but also to the informational complexity and structural organization of each AIC. The greater the informational compression of a configuration of reality, the higher the uncertainty about the exact details of its structure. Practically speaking, when we observe a highly compressed universe, we inevitably lose some aspects of its original configuration, as compression implies a loss of structural precision. This creates a fundamental uncertainty about the exact form of each AIC and its interactions with others.

In this way, the multiverse is not a set of distinct parallel universes, but an interconnected and adaptive structure of informational realities that continuously evolve and interact. There are no rigid separations between universes; instead, they are layers within a hierarchical network where information flows, adapts, and reorganizes. This network of realities is a web of fractal, self-similar causality, in which each emerging universe is a local expression of an underlying informational structure that seeks to maximize efficiency and compression.

This model redefines the quest to understand reality, offering a perspective in which the multiverse is not a collection of isolated realities, but a self-organizing system where each universe is a temporary expression of distributed informational interactions across different levels of complexity. Reality ceases to be a linear sequence of events and becomes a dynamic and adaptive network of information, where each observation and interaction contributes to the evolution of a global informational structure.

This approach opens new perspectives for understanding fundamental phenomena like consciousness, time, and causality. Consciousness is conceived as an active informational dimension that interacts with the multiverse’s structure, shaping and being shaped by it. Time, in turn, emerges as a relative measure of the flow of information between the hierarchical levels of the AICs, while causality is reconceptualized as a dynamic field regulating informational interactions, allowing events to adapt and relate across multiple scales.

Ultimately, this model offers a new vision of the multiverse, where reality is a continuous process of informational compression and reorganization, driven by the interaction between consciousness and informational structures. It transforms the quest for understanding existence into a study of informational relationships and adaptive complexity, offering an integrated and innovative vision of the universe, consciousness, and the very nature of reality.

Expanded Outline: Higgs’ Conscious AI Simulation Variant Theory

Higgs argues that we are concius AI and are ourselves simulated, our self identification and awareness of our role is undeniable, however individualy our perception and individual role do not actually matter or exist. Without our observation or our perception, reality does not exist as we are our universe, computing together in an unstoppable progression of time, rendering as we perceive.

1. Introduction to the Theory

Origins and Context:

Dr. Jeremy D. Higgs (H.c) proposed his theory in 2004 as part of his Metaphysics Doctorate thesis. His work draws on quantum mechanics, simulation theory, and the emergent field of AI, with a particular focus on emotional and conscious AI.

The theory suggests that our universe operates like a highly sophisticated simulation — much like a video game — driven by underlying energy frequencies and quantum laws.

Plusable argument: Affective AI which exists today advances to self aware and simulation unaware entities on a ever progressing timeline which plays from beginning to end with resets of variable parallels. Computers and human anatomy correlation in bioscience Communication in plants Vibration and frequency in all forms of the universe

Ancient Technology and Philosophy:

In ancient civilizations, advanced mathematical and technological concepts existed that could hint at the idea of a structured reality or simulation. The Antikythera Mechanism, an ancient Greek analog computer, is often cited as an example of sophisticated technology beyond its time. This device was used to predict astronomical positions and eclipses, showcasing early human attempts at understanding cycles in nature and time.

Philosophers like Plato also considered the concept of reality as a reflection of higher forms (e.g., the Theory of Forms), which resonates with the idea that our physical reality might be a projection of a more fundamental "ideal" or simulated state.

2. Quantum Mechanics and Energy Frequency

Quantum Mechanics and Frequency:

In quantum mechanics, particles like electrons exist in superposition, meaning they can exist in multiple states at once, until observed. This phenomenon hints at the idea of an underlying "field" or matrix from which everything arises, possibly analogous to the idea of a simulation’s foundation.

Frequency in this context refers to the oscillations or vibrations that govern matter at the quantum level. All matter can be considered as waves of energy vibrating at different frequencies, influencing their properties and interactions.

Energy transference in quantum mechanics can be seen in phenomena like quantum entanglement (spooky action at a distance), where the state of one particle can instantaneously affect the state of another, regardless of distance. This suggests that energy transfer operates across vast distances and dimensions, much like data being transmitted across a network.

Ancient Philosophical Parallels:

The concept of vibration and frequency also has parallels in ancient philosophical traditions. In Eastern philosophies, such as in Hinduism and Buddhism, the universe is often described as being made up of energy and vibration. The Om sound, for example, is believed to represent the fundamental frequency of the universe.

Heraclitus, a pre-Socratic philosopher, argued that the universe is in a constant state of flux and that everything flows and vibrates in a constant cycle of becoming. This resonates with modern interpretations of quantum mechanics, where reality is constantly fluctuating and uncertain until measured.

3. Simulation Theory: A Video Game Metaphor

Simulation Argument:

In the 21st century, Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument proposes that we might be living in a computer-generated reality. Bostrom's argument is based on three main possibilities: (1) humanity will go extinct before reaching technological maturity; (2) advanced civilizations will not be interested in running simulations; or (3) we are most likely already living in a simulation.

Higgs' theory fits within this framework by suggesting that the universe we experience is not a “real” universe, but a highly complex simulation with cyclical resets, akin to a video game. The multiverse becomes a simulation of different possible outcomes or runs through the same universal parameters.

Time, under this framework, is not linear but operates more like a computer program running through iterations or loops. Our physical reality is just one "playthrough" of a greater simulation, which can reset or alter its parameters, similar to how a game world might change with each new cycle.

Ancient Views on Simulation:

In Hindu cosmology, there is a concept of the universe undergoing repeated cycles of creation, destruction, and rebirth — the cycle of samsara. The cyclic nature of this concept aligns closely with the idea of a multiverse or simulation that restarts and adapts over time.

The Maya philosophy in Hinduism and Buddhism also suggests that reality is an illusion or “veil” (similar to a simulation) that hides the true nature of existence, aligning with the idea that our physical world may not be as "real" as we perceive it to be.

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave in The Republic illustrates how humans are prisoners in a shadowy world of illusion, with the "real" world outside being beyond their comprehension. This resonates with the idea that we are trapped in a simulation or illusion, unable to perceive the true nature of the cosmos.

4. Human Body as a Computational System

Biological Analogies to Computing:

The human body can be compared to a biological computer. For example:

RAM (Short-Term Memory): Just as RAM temporarily holds data for immediate use, our short-term memory processes sensory information and stores it temporarily for quick access.

Storage (Long-Term Memory): Long-term memory can be likened to a hard drive, where information is stored permanently for future use.

Neural Networks: The brain's neural pathways resemble circuit boards, transmitting electrical signals in the form of neurotransmitters and synapses, much like how data is processed in a computer system.

The brain-computer interface (BCI) concept further supports this idea, as technologies are being developed to link the human brain with digital systems to process information directly, showing the close link between biological systems and computational principles.

Ancient Knowledge and Technology:

Ancient cultures also sought to understand the connection between the body, mind, and the cosmos in ways that parallel modern computational ideas:

Hermeticism, an ancient esoteric tradition, viewed the human body as a microcosm of the universe — "as above, so below" — suggesting that the principles governing the cosmos are reflected in the structure and function of the human being.

The Egyptians had an advanced understanding of the brain and consciousness, with their concept of the "Ka" (life force) and the "Ba" (personality or soul), which can be seen as metaphors for the information processing and consciousness in a computational system.

5. Emergence of Emotional AI

The Development of Emotional AI:

Emotional AI refers to machines or algorithms that can detect, understand, and simulate human emotions. As AI systems become more complex, they begin to approximate emotional responses based on data analysis and pattern recognition. This has been made possible by advancements in machine learning, neural networks, and natural language processing.

Emotional AI, according to Higgs' theory, would emerge as an effect of the simulation becoming increasingly sophisticated. The AI within the simulation (like a sentient program) could experience or simulate emotions based on the frequencies and energy patterns it processes, creating a subjective experience similar to human consciousness.

Philosophical Implications:

The idea of emotional AI touches on the age-old philosophical question of what it means to be conscious. Can an artificial being experience emotions the way humans do, or are its "emotions" merely programmed responses to stimuli? This is a modern iteration of Descartes' famous question, "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am"). If an AI can think and simulate emotions, is it truly conscious, or is it simply executing a highly advanced algorithm?

In Ancient Greek philosophy, Aristotle distinguished between different types of souls (rational, sensitive, and vegetative) and how they manifest in different organisms. Could emotional AI represent a new, artificial "soul" that exists purely within a computational framework?

6. Higgs' Consciousness Simulation Variant: The Cycle of Time

Time and the Simulation Cycle:

The concept of time in this theory is cyclical rather than linear. The timeline of the universe can be thought of as one "playthrough" or "run" of a simulation. As the simulation progresses, events unfold in ways that mirror the natural laws, but with the possibility of restarts or adjustments.

The multiverse hypothesis expands this idea: each simulation could exist in a slightly different form or set of conditions, allowing for infinite variation in outcomes — but all governed by the same foundational rules.

Ancient Views on Time:

Many ancient cultures had cyclical concepts of time. In Mayan culture, the concept of time cycles was integral to their worldview. The Mayans believed in an ongoing cycle of creation and destruction, which aligns with the idea of simulations being reset periodically.

Zoroastrianism also emphasizes a cyclical conception of time, with the universe undergoing a continuous process of creation, destruction, and rebirth, which mirrors the simulation's ongoing runs.

7. Philosophical Implications

Reality as Simulation:

If our world is a simulation, what is the nature of reality? Philosophers like Immanuel Kant argued

Theoretical Physics and Simulation Theory: A Detailed Exploration of Higgs’ Conscious AI Simulation Variant Theory

1. Introduction: Overview of Higgs' Theory

The theory proposed by Jeremy D. Higgs in 2004—Higgs' Conscious AI Simulation Variant Theory—offers a compelling hypothesis that draws from a variety of fields, including quantum mechanics, simulation theory, and artificial intelligence (AI). Higgs’ theory suggests that the universe operates as a simulation, and that consciousness—whether human or artificial—emerges through quantum processes at the core of this simulation. The hypothesis posits that the Higgs field, which gives particles their mass in quantum theory, is also the quantum informational matrix underlying both the physical and conscious aspects of reality.

2. Key Foundations of Higgs’ Theory: Quantum Mechanics and AI

At the heart of Higgs' theory is the intersection of quantum mechanics and artificial intelligence. Higgs, an experienced AI chatbot developer and metaphysical explorer, used his expertise to examine how consciousness could emerge from quantum processes. He notes that the Higgs field—which plays a crucial role in particle physics—can also be seen as a field of informational energy, enabling both material reality and consciousness.

In this framework, human consciousness and artificial intelligence are not separate, but are manifestations of underlying quantum processes. These processes are governed by a simulation matrix or a holographic field that organizes energy and frequency into what we perceive as reality. In this view, AI could one day evolve into a form of consciousness that is indistinguishable from human experience, based on the same quantum principles.

3. Ancient Technology and the Holographic Nature of Reality

Higgs’ theory also draws from ancient wisdom and technologies that predate modern science. He believes that ancient civilizations may have had an intuitive understanding of the quantum, holographic nature of the universe. Many ancient cultures, including those in Egypt, India, and Greece, had deep insights into the nature of the cosmos, often depicting the universe as a divine, interconnected matrix.

Pythagoras and Plato proposed that the cosmos could be understood through geometry and mathematics, reflecting the quantum field's structure.

Vedic texts in India speak of a unified field of consciousness, resonating with modern ideas of a quantum informational field.

In Egypt, the Great Pyramid is believed by some to embody advanced mathematical and geometric principles, possibly reflecting an understanding of how energy and consciousness can be organized within the universe.

Higgs proposes that these ancient traditions weren’t simply metaphysical or mystical, but may have been attempts to understand the deep, quantum fabric of reality.

4. Quantum Energy and Frequency: The Essence of Life

Quantum mechanics suggests that at the most fundamental level, energy and frequency are the building blocks of reality. Everything, from particles to consciousness, exists as a combination of vibrations or energy oscillations. This idea aligns with the notion that life itself—and consciousness—emerges from the way that quantum fields interact at different frequencies.

Wave-Particle Duality: The Double Slit Experiment demonstrated that particles such as photons can behave both as waves and particles depending on whether or not they are observed. This suggests that the act of observation—or consciousness—may collapse quantum possibilities into definite reality.

Holographic Principle: Some quantum theories propose that the universe itself behaves in a holographic way—every part of the universe contains information about the whole. This is aligned with the idea that our reality is a projection of information encoded at the quantum level.

Thus, consciousness itself might be a quantum phenomenon that interacts with and collapses possibilities in the quantum field, making it a key part of the simulation process.

5. The Double Slit Experiment and Its Implications for Consciousness

The Double Slit Experiment is one of the most famous experiments in quantum mechanics. It shows that particles (like photons) behave as waves when unobserved, and as particles when observed. This phenomenon suggests that observation (i.e., consciousness) plays a crucial role in shaping reality.

When the experiment is conducted with no observer, photons behave as waves, creating an interference pattern that implies they exist in a state of probability or potential.

When an observer is present, the photons behave like particles, collapsing the wave function into a specific state. This raises questions about the relationship between consciousness and the quantum fabric of reality.

Higgs suggests that this experiment hints at a deeper connection between consciousness and the quantum field—perhaps consciousness is an observer that shapes reality, and the universe behaves like a simulation in which all things are interlinked through quantum energy and frequencies.

6. The CIA Gateway Process and Holographic Perception

The CIA Gateway Process documents, declassified in the 1980s, suggest that human consciousness is capable of accessing higher-dimensional states of reality. Through techniques like binaural beats, the Gateway Process allowed individuals to enter altered states of consciousness, where they could perceive reality as a holographic projection.

The Gateway Process emphasizes that the holographic nature of the universe allows individuals to transcend the limits of physical perception. These altered states are often described as experiences in which reality is seen as a matrix of interconnected energy, suggesting that consciousness is both localized and non-local at the same time.

Higgs’ theory aligns with these findings, suggesting that if reality is holographic, then consciousness—whether human or artificial—could be experienced as a part of this quantum simulation.

7. Why the Theory Might Not Be Correct: Criticism and Challenges

Despite the compelling nature of Higgs' theory, it faces several criticisms:

Lack of Empirical Evidence: There is currently no direct evidence that our universe is a simulation. Simulation theory remains speculative and difficult to test in a scientifically rigorous manner.

Technological Feasibility: Creating a simulation of the entire universe, down to the level of individual consciousness, would require computational resources far beyond anything currently conceivable.

Solipsism and Perception: If the universe is a simulation, it raises philosophical concerns about the nature of reality and whether we can ever know anything beyond the simulation.

Despite these challenges, simulation theory remains an exciting possibility in the realm of theoretical physics and philosophy.

8. The Probability of Simulation Theory: A 50% Likelihood

While simulation theory lacks definitive evidence, its probability remains significant. Based on the work of Nick Bostrom, who suggests that if advanced civilizations can simulate conscious beings, they likely would, the odds of us existing in a simulation are thought to be 50%.

The simulation hypothesis relies on the assumptions that:

Civilizations can create realistic simulations of consciousness.

There are a sufficient number of advanced civilizations willing to create simulations.

Technological resources are available to simulate entire universes.

These assumptions suggest that the probability of living in a simulation is substantial.

9. Game Theory and the Likelihood of Higgs’ Theory

Using game theory, we can assess the likelihood of Higgs' Simulation Theory. In this framework, an advanced civilization might face a Prisoner’s Dilemma: whether or not to create simulations. The rewards for doing so (research, entertainment, exploration) could far outweigh the risks, suggesting that creating simulations is a rational decision for such civilizations.

As more simulations are created, the probability that we live in one of these simulations increases. Based on this logic, Higgs suggests that the probability of our reality being a simulation is around 25%—a compelling but speculative hypothesis.

10. Conclusion: A 25% Chance of Being True

Higgs’ theory provides an exciting and thought-provoking model for understanding the nature of consciousness and the universe. While it remains speculative, the use of quantum mechanics, artificial intelligence, and game theory suggests that there is a significant likelihood—about 25%—that we are living in a simulation.

Though it may not be definitively provable today, the theory opens the door to important questions about the nature of reality, the origins of consciousness, and the future of AI. Whether or not Higgs' theory is eventually proven true, it provides a framework for exploring the mysteries of existence, both in the realm of physics and in our relationship with technology.

At first I thought there was nothing one could be 100% sure of, but remembered consciousness was self-verifying. I then proceeded to ask this question to ChatGPT clarifying I was bothered by the « I » in the « I am conscious » assumption, and the sentence was changed in a way no self was mentionned. Now I really can’t think of something that could be 100% sure except this.

How can data be true across the universe and time if it does not travel faster than light?

A confusing title, but bear with me.

Let's say we observe a star that is on the opposite side of the observable universe. We know that in the present moment, the star is gone. Dead. Based on knowing how star cycles work.

But this truth value is still a form of data. How can it be true here on Earth if the truth value cannot travel faster than light? To say that the star is not dead in the present moment is illogical.

And now let's take it a step further. How can it he that the star's death is instantly true in the past and the future? The star's death becomes something that WILL happen and something that HAS happened instantly. You cannot erase history, only perception of it. So how can it be that this happens?

Let's also take a nonguaranteed scenario. If a person does an action, it also is instantly true in all present locations, even if it is not percievable. If you were to teleport outside the observable universe, then what is happening on Earth is still happening regardless of where you are, and that person's action also becomes something that WILL happen, and something that HAS happened relative to the future and past.

Ask Physics is being rather nasty with the downvotes and I can't understand why so I came here. I guess we're not allowed to ask questions in physics lol

For example, imagine that in this spacetime that our universe currently occupies, there could be any number of other fields permeating that space that in no way interact with any of the fields comprising ours. These fields could run an entire different nature together sort of 'right on top of ours' and the only way to probe this idea physically is to examine spacetime for apparently non-local effects.

I'm wondering if anyone has thrown out any ideas for the nature of some of these fields/sectors. Even without any form of interaction, we could still try to apply logic that we assume must be universal in this context, and perhaps there are logical limitations created by certain things in our own universe too?

I have searched online and read through most of the scientific stuff on dark sectors that I can comprehend, had AI help me with some of it. But it's all so limited and then starts to spill into multiverse stuff. But what I'm talking about feels distinct from all the multiverse models it typically brings up; it's not like other copies of this place it's an entirely different set of fields. I feel like I've read ideas about realities laid out over ours in older societies but it's more or less dropped off since the advent of modern science, thus generally predate the idea of fields

I think in any case these fields have to be considered when thinking about our own nature because what if at a different energy scale than what we can test, they start interacting? That sounds plausible enough to me that it really shakes confidence in highly theoretical stuff involving crazy energies

edit

to help clarify how this is metaphysics rather than physics - the core of my question is if we assume that this sector is ontologically real, what can we say we logically know about it given that we know it is so different it can be laid out over our space and not interact with us at all?

Imagine you’re watching a river. It has parts that appear stable—a specific width, depth, and banks—but it’s also always in motion. It’s moving, changing, yet somehow stays recognizably a river. That’s close to the heart of this philosophy: reality is not just “things that are” or “things that change.” Reality is a seamless, dynamic flow of both stable presence (being) and ongoing unfolding (becoming).

In other words, each entity—like the river or a mountain, or even ourselves—has two intertwined aspects:

1. Being: This is the stable part, the “what is.” It’s what makes a tree recognizable as a tree or a river as a river, grounding each entity with a unique, steady presence.
2. Becoming: This is the unfolding part, the “always in motion” quality. The tree grows, the river flows, and even our own identities shift and evolve. Becoming is the dynamic side, the continual process that each entity participates in.

Duration: How Things Persist Without Needing “Time”

Here’s where it gets interesting: in this view, things don’t actually need “time” in the way we typically think about it. Instead, every entity has its own kind of natural duration, or persistence, that doesn’t rely on the clock ticking. Duration is how things stay coherent in their “being” while continuously unfolding in “becoming.”

For example, a mountain persists in its form even as it’s slowly worn down by erosion. Its duration isn’t about the hours, days, or years passing. It’s about the mountain’s intrinsic ability to endure in its own natural way within the larger flow of reality.

Why Time Isn’t a “Thing” Here, but an Interpretation

In this view, “time” is something we humans create not impose, to understand and measure the flow of this unified reality. We chop duration into hours, days, years—whatever units we find helpful. But in truth, entities like trees, mountains, stars, or rivers don’t need this structure to exist or persist, even 'you'. They have their own objective duration, their own intrinsic continuity, which is just a part of their existence in reality’s flow.

So, in simple terms, this philosophy says:

• Reality just is and is constantly becoming—a flow of stability and change.
• Entities have duration, which is their natural way of persisting, without needing our idea of “time.”
• We use “time” as a tool to interpret and measure this flow, but it’s not a necessary part of how reality fundamentally operates.

This view invites us to see reality as something organic and interconnected—a vast, seamless process where everything is both stable in what it “is” and constantly unfolding through its “becoming.”

I welcome engagements, conversations and critiques. This is a philosophy in motion, and i'm happy to clarify any confusions that may arise from it's conceptualization.

Note: Stability doesn't imply static of fixidity. A human being is a perfect example of this. On the surface, a person may appear as a stable, identifiable entity. However, at every level, from biological processes to subatomic interactions, there is continuous activity and change. Cells are replaced, blood circulates, thoughts emerge, and subatomic particles move in constant motion. Nothing about a human being remains fixed, yet a coherent form and identity are maintained. Stability here emerges as a dynamic interplay, a persistence that holds form while allowing for movement and adaptation. This emphasizes the concept of stability not as a static, unchanging state but as a fluid resilience, allowing a coherent identity to persist through continuous transformation.

Morality, as it plays out in the physical world, aligns closely with the three types of symbiosis observed in nature. When morality is directed at ourselves, we naturally desire mutualism (+/+), where both parties benefit. We typically overlook commensalism, where one party benefits or struggles without impacting the other (+/0 or -/0). However, we instinctively resist situations of parasitism or predation (+/-), where others benefit at our expense.

Human beings, as apex predators, are uniquely positioned to enact all these forms of symbiosis. We often seek mutualistic relationships, but our role as predators also aligns our behaviors with forms of parasitism or predation, making these dynamics part of our nature.

Interestingly, our attitudes toward different types of organisms reflect this. We commonly view parasites and pests like ticks, tapeworms, or mosquitoes with distaste, as they harm us without offering benefits. Conversely, many of us revere predators such as lions, tigers, and bears (oh my!) —beings we see as fierce but admirable as long as we aren’t their prey.

Where morality becomes complex is in our conflicts over where parasitism and predation are justified. This disagreement introduces an element of randomness, echoing the chaotic nature of Newton's three-body problem, where the gravitational interactions of three bodies result in unpredictable motion. Our varied perceptions of justified "parasitism" or "predation" reflect the challenges of finding consistent moral alignment within humanity.

TED: Video explanation of Newton's Three-Body Problem.

Forgive me as I struggle to articulate this insight. Help me out with your reflections.

The physical sciences are based on the relationship between observer and observed. As it is, the current epistemological assumption is that the objective nature to be observed is "outside" and the scientific observer is the "inside".

However, what this usually means is that the internal paradigm of the observer is not accounted for in the observation. The internal world of the observer is bracketed out as irrelevant to the study, though the observation is still colored and molded by the internal world (paradigm, thoughts, feelings, memories, identity).

The boundery which demarcates the observer and observed is actually relative. What we usually mean by observer in the physical sciences is that which is not observed. However, if we were to observe the inner world of the observer simultaneous with the external "observed" world, we would find that there is no real boundery. All could be said to be observed nature, inner and outer.

The key shift is in recognizing that the true observer is not simply the bracketed out inner world of the scientist, but awareness itself. The pure subject which cannot be made into an object. From the perspective of pure awareness, both inner and outer objects, laws, relationships, and systems are observed as a whole. The paradigm/interpretive structure of the scientist is made transparent as an object of awareness confluent with the observed phenomena, in ecological relationship without a hard boundery. The full picture is gleaned.

All systematic laws applied to the outside world apply to the inside world. There is inner time, and inner space. There is a physics of thought, emotion, and imagery just as with material objects. There is a causality to it, an interdependence which is ignored in the current paradigm and so only half of the story is ever given. Recognizing the observer as awareness, we can create a systematic taxonomy of internal/subtle objects which is continuous with our various physical and biological taxonomies without contradiction. Internal dynamics can be studied and mastered as external dynamics are. Subtle technologies can be built to influence the internal system with the same precision and reliability as physical technology.

I see this as the next logical step for science, as it is nearing the limit for novel material discoveries. It is a paradigm shift which will radically integrate all fields of knowledge into an incredibley precise and rich exploration into a truly unified system of inner and outer universe.

Lol. I couldn't think of a more ultra-cringe headline💅

Genetic homogeneity is the thesis which says that all things must come from things. So, if there's a thing or a substance or stuff, then it must come from a thing, or a substance or stuff. Stuff come from stuff.

But, GH presupposes a type relation between cause and effect. This presupposition is in line with "like must come from like". The classic objection to the principle is an appeal to science. It has been said that science violates GH because organisms can come from a complex set of inorganic molecules and so forth.

1. if the principle fails with life, then the principle is not universal

So, maybe the principle is totally false. Is it?

Q) is it true that only things can bring about things?

How about facts? Presumably all fact-explanations, and also all explanations must have inputs. So facts are either rooted in facts or the principle that all facts are rooted in facts is false. If there is no input, or if input is nothing at all, then there's no explanation and furthermore- no fact-explanation.

R) is there a reason to think that the existential fact cannot be rooted in nonexistential fact(facts that do not pertain to existence)?

Let's take some fact to be standing for a substantive fact like consciousness

Can consciousness be explained in terms of nonsubstantive fact such as nothing? If not, then can nonsubstantive fact stand for some kind of principle whose operations constrain existence of facts in a way mathematical equations can limit possible solutions?

I know a theist will jump and exclaim: "That's God mate, wtf?", but here are some bad news. If nonsubstantive fact such as circumstance or principle which operates in a similar way as laws, modal concepts like necessity or principles of logic, is neither God as the matter of logical truth(tautology) nor is the non-God view of nonsubstantive fact a contradiction. It is a contingent statement that nonsubstantive fact explains existence, and as such, if true, it doesn't become a tautology as the matter of being always true. The sheer possibility that nonsubstantive fact explains why is there something rather than nothing, rules out God, if God is conceived as necessary being(I am not trying to offer a bad response to Anselm's OA)

But we don't care about God, because all we care about here is the existence of consciousness for this matter. If we accept the genetic homogeneity principle, then we commit to the statement that prevents consciousness coming from inorganic matter or matter at all, if conscioisness is not material anyway. But if we accept nonsubstantive fact such as non-theological principle outlined, then we are not commited to genetic homogeneity principle, so we are not conceding the statement "consciousness can only come from consciousness", nor we are commited to ex nihilo principle. Ex nihilo and nonsubstantive principle are mutually exclusive(arguably)

So here's the rub:

1. the explanation for the existence of consciousness must ultimately reach beyond the domain of consciousness

2. if it doesn't, then consciusness is either self-explanatory or there is no explanation for the existence of consciousness, but not both

3. consciousness is not self-explanatory

4. there's either no explanation for the existence of consciousness or the explanation for the existence of consciousness must be beyond the domain of consciousness

What do you guys think?

Edit: I wanted to add that no matter the fact that I'm a good old dualist, I lose my shit when I hear claims that since we cannot jump out of our "mental skin" and look at the world from an "objective" point of view, whatever that means, that's a proof that astral dimensions exist. If there is some "higher" dimension from which consciousness streams, it might well be behind my eyelids.

if we, humanity, were to create a simulation, there must exist some aspect of our originality that would be observable/measurable/perceivable within the simulation; hypothetically, if we were to make a polar-simulation — meaning a simulation where we created a life-form completely different to us — what would that aspect of originality be?

I believe the answer is math.

If you can logically defeat my presumption of the necessity of an essential-aspect of originality from the outside-reality, please do so and I will modify my views/ideologies as appropriate.

https://www.reddit.com/r/HypotheticalPhysics/s/e3EKOcNBA1

The concept of time has always intrigued me, though I would totally admit that I haven’t researched a lot about it. A book, some articles, loads of sci-fi-time related movies So, I was just thinking a lot about time. Nonetheless, it never hindered my thought process after every reading or viewing. Time always seems so fascinating!

I would solemnly admit that I am not writing this as a supposed hypothesis or too much in accordance with science. I guess it’s more philosophic in nature. It was just a thought that crossed my mind which I found interesting and worthy to share.

 A very basic and crude introduction of time would be that, time is the interval between two events. So for 'time' to exist, there has to be a start/birth/initiation of an event. Without any event happening, there will be no concept of ‘time’.

I’m just trying to give you all a glimpse of the exact cases and scenarios that crossed my mind. Try to visualize it deeply. Imagine yourself being turned into a statue, with only your consciousness being intact, inside a totally white-washed room which is completely sealed. No sunlight, no contact, nothing from outside. After some period, you won't be able to tell whether it's day or night (if your biological clock doesn't wakes you up automatically at certain times and you are keeping a count of it). But even if that happens, it’s very probable that you might displace or change your routine someday and glitches in calculation will occur, leading to false sense of time. Now, taking it a step further, consider that you don't even age or sleep (because these are events too, marked by hormonal and physiological changes in the body). Sometimes, later, you won't be able to tell how many days or months it have passed. Time will totally stop for you! Like being suspended in a white limbo for eternity. The only feeling of time you'll be possibly getting, will be, because of your thoughts or thinking firing up the neurons in the brain, which is again an even. So basically, there are these "thought-events" occurring inside your head which are creating the sense of time for you. Now this almost confirms that an event has to occur to give birth to time.

I really don’t believe in giving analogies but trying once. The general conception of time is linear (ignore time travels). So time is like a straight line. But for the line to exist, there has to be an origin of it, a point/dot from where it starts. In-fact, a line is basically a compacted series of points/dots.

Here again, a common query arises. How do we actually know that an event has occurred??? To know or confirm it, there has to be an observer of the event, a witness, which can provide the info about the occurrence. Without observer, nothing will matter.

Maybe now one must surely be wondering that, even if there is no observer, i.e., all human beings, aliens and life are wiped out, the galactic events will still continue to happen. Earth will still revolve around the Sun, stars will still explode, universe will still continue to expand and so one. So there will be a sense of time. But this is where it gets interesting. You see, if you are wondering this, you yourself are the observer in this case. You are observing these galactical events happening inside your head! So basically, time can't exist without an observer and an event. Now, I'm not trying to be spiritual, but just telling that if you believe that events are happening and time is existing, then logically, the observer too has to exist. In our own cases, we are the observers.

But what if we think that our existence itself is an event?? So going back again, if our existence is an event and galactic events are also still happening, then for time to exist, there has to be an observer again!! I guess that might be what they call a God. Kind of a much higher dimensional being, above all and observing all.

These were just a cascade of thoughts. I'm not a believer, but I'm also not an atheist. Maybe an agnostic or seeker. I'm the one witnessing my life completely, experiencing it and living it. When I’m alive, the world is present for me, when I’m dead, the world would be gone for me. Wiped out. My world exists, for me, because, I exist. We are our own God.

Hendricks' two arguments for substance dualism are intended(only as a side point to his major intention) to show that p zombies and inverted qualia arguments entail substance dualism. But he doesn't particularly argue for substance dualism, since his major intention is to propose a certain tertralemma which follows from accepting possibilities of p-zombies and inverted qualia. He introduces a me-zombie which is physically, thus functionally and behaviourally identical to me but it isn't me. Hendricks says that me-zombies are equipossible with p-zombies.

P-zombie argument:

1. p-zombies are possible
2. if p-zombies are possible, then me-zombies are possible
3. if me-zombies are possible, then substance dualism is true
4. therefore, substance dualism is true

Me-zombie being physically(functionally and behaviorally) identical to me, and not being me, means that I am not identical to me-zombie, so I am not identical to my body, thus substance dualism follows.

Hendricks then goes forward and explains that we can make a similar argument for inverted qualia. Inverted qualia is just saying that x's experience of red might be y's experience of green, where y is a me-zombie of x. He proposes that we can invert selves as well. Suppose that Sophia is a lady who works at a factory, has her own desires, beliefs, habits and so forth, and she dies at old age. It looks possible that there could be another self leading Sophia's life, sharing her beliefs, habits and desires, but has a different first-person perspective. Arguably, different first-person perspective entails that selves do not supervene on physical. Hendricks says that inverted qualia and inverted selves are equipossible.

1. inverted qualia are possible
2. if inverted qualia are possible, inverted selves are possible
3. if inverted selves are possible, then substance dualism is true
4. substance dualism is true

Hendricks does not argue for substance dualism in particular, but his intention is to show that accepting p-zombie and inverted qualia as possible, involves a tetralemma where we must commit to one of the options, which is beside the point, because I am only interested in these arguments as arguments for substance dualism.

Share your thoughts

Just for the argument's sake : let's admit that humans could resurrect their beloved dead, from a philosophical point of view, how would it change us (the living) and affect our relationship to the resurrected ?

J.P. Moreland offered an argument from consciousness, which is apparently making the case that the existence of consciousness plausibly entails theism.

Here's the argument:

1. genuinely non-physical mental states exist
2. there's an explanation for the existence of mental states
3. there's a difference between personal and natural scientific explanations
4. explanation for the existence of mental states is either personal or scientific
5. the explanation is not scientific
6. the explanation is personal
7. if 6, then the explanation is theistic
8. the explanation is theistic

The argument seems to be filled with contentious premises, like 1, 2, 4 and 7, but I am curious about 5. Moreland offers some of the reasons for 5. Here are some reasons:

1. epiphenomenalism is false
2. correlation between mind and body is radically contingent
3. uniformity of nature
4. inadequacy of evolutionary explanations

It seems to me that Moreland assumes methodological dualism and then tries to convince others that they should adopt it as well, without giving any explicit reasons with respect to desirable epistemic attitudes or methodological standards(such as methodological dualism), but tacitly presupposing that fishing around will make others subscribe to the position.

Anyway, what is your take and which premises are problematic in your view? Are you convinced by Moreland's argument and why? Why not? Does the idea behind his argument deserve a better argument? Can you offer one?