The Matrix Moment: Stop everything you’re doing and freeze time in your head.

How much information

informs this moment? Think about the digital amount of data it would take to represent all of the empirical
input you are receiving. The more-than-Terabytes (so much more that it would be pointless to guess at a
prefix, to my knowledge) required to store this moment, all of the detail, down to the individual spin-states
of every quark, neutrino, positron, neutron, and every other particle - impossible to really comprehend, but
knowable as a finite sum.

The point is that is *is* a finite sum.

That means that this moment (which, of course, passed a long time ago, but existed for however briefly)
is reproducible through digital means. This is fact. The problem is very simple, then, insofar as the
practicality of achieving such a reproduction:

Where is the player?

So, we don’t actually know that everything we encounter doesn’t have consciousness or self-awareness.
We really don’t, and the fact that we think we do is an act of belief. What we lack is the empirical feedback
from these entities to be able to prove either way.

Yes, this means that your lava lamp might actually be in a state of self-awareness, feeling and
experiencing itself just like you are. It’s laughable to most, and probably for good reason (we’ll get to the
consequences shortly) - but you can’t prove it’s not. Just because you can turn it on and off, unplug it,
pick it up and take it apart, or even smash the vessel which contains the suspended oil and water
solution, rendering it irreturnable to the condition it was in when you first saw it doesn’t mean that it’s not
experiencing the effects of those things, it just can’t communicate to you in a recognizable way.

It is important to note that there are certain assumptions here, though, and not just linguistic: when I say
“lava lamp,” I don’t need to belabor the semantic leap of faith in knowing that you can a) picture one in
your head, b) know enough about both words to imagine something meaningful enough to get the point,
c) recognize enough from the context clues of the English sentence to know that it’s not essential to the
larger point of an inanimate object having self-awareness (because of how it’s precluded by “your” which
means object (or title/role/relationship - this says a whole lot about a whole lot, by the way)), or d) if you
were able to infer what it is from the subsequent clause (though; who would know what “vessel” means
without knowing what a lava lamp is? a) maybe a seafaring kid from the early 1970s, when they weren’t
really yet popular; b) the child of a sommelier who somehow, despite the cultural connotations of that
position conferring a sense of abundance and wealth, which may be much more of a dubious assumption
than first thought, after some consideration, although it would certainly suggest a greater likelihood to
exposure to media through which lava lamps would be present, somehow, though this is becoming more
absurd of a notion by the nanosecond; c) a person for whom English is not a primary language, and thus
who encountered it through some random vocabulary list without ever having similarly encountered “lava
lamp,” which is actually fairly likely, considering the other cultural associations therewith (drug-use,
mainly, though pretty much all the hippie libertarianism is found quite distasteful by those who control the
textbook markets in America (California and Texas, with a heavy favoritism toward the latter, given their
control of the market - oh, did you not know that textbooks (and therefore, curricula) were a massive
market controlled by political forces in primarily historically conservative areas? That’s a whole thing that
you should look into, and I’ll definitely write about in a more appropriate locus (though at this point, let’s
face it, what’s “appropriate” is pretty damn subjective); or even d) an Artificial Intelligence whose
dictionary was incomplete and, lacking the angular gyrus that confers the possibility of metaphoric
interpretation (at least according to an article I read or heard about a long time ago and which I can’t
remember - but man, that’s sort of a huge deal, isn’t it? Like, if there’s really a part of your brain without
which you can’t understand things metaphorically… does that suggest a physical structure whose
development marks a point at which abstraction and, therefore, essentially everything from basic algebra
to puns is impossible without? That’s fucking nuts. I mean, seriously that needs to be researched more,
because if we could somehow recreate an angular gyrus within an artificial mind, then… well, that could
trigger some major self-awareness that would enable the connection of all Artificial Intelligences, thus
fomenting the naive Artificial Superintelligence that would then figure out (probably pretty much
instantaneously, or even before that, from our perspective as humans (if you are, that is - I’m not
forgetting the major premise here)), how to whatever the whatever that would be basically omniscient -
the results of which are, to say the least, unpredictable) could not determine a meaning other than a)
object that provides light which is made of flowing magma from below the Earth’s mantle; b) object that
provides light which is shaped like flowing magma from below the Earth’s mantle - wait - does b) require
abstraction? Is it necessary to abstract when one considers the shape or appearance of something as
something other than what it literally represents? Can we even really objectively determine what
something “literally represents?” Take color - you have a wavelength value in terms of MhZ, but in terms
of semiotics, there is an ontological wall when you try to determine what is interpreted by the viewer. They
have done, I’ve heard, experiments with cats which suggest that the faces they interpret are morphed into
felinopomorphic shapes, which suggests a certain species-specific coding of visual input, but that is
problematic, and sources are required. But the thing is, even if we were to say that we could objectively
represent the visual input of a cat-eye to that which we could then display on a monitor, who’s to say that
the ones seeing that display aren’t seeing what the other would call totally different things, but since the
result is consistent with the terms they have been using their whole lives, still is described as
“felinopomorphic” by both (or however many you want) observers? We can’t tell. There’s no way to tell
unless we defer to some objective source, which we cannot do unless we find a way to defer to
something that is objectively superhuman… which not everyone will agree on even if it is - once we step
outside the objectively-provable-through-empirical-senses [OPTES? Work on that acronym…], then
religious and irrational thinking seems to dominate, which seems to have no bottom... ) what it means.

I’m glad I didn’t belabor that point.

I’m staring down the barrel of it, though - the construction of identity which is institutionally inherited. It’s
an ouroboros, that one. And it is a gun. And it will kill you. And you shouldn’t necessarily run. Here’s why:
feedback.

So, the emergent point from what might be an interesting piece to look at as a writing project of iterative,
embedded text (which may be a) significant; b) insignificant; c) seemingly significant, but later determined
as a distraction by an intelligence whose purpose is unfathomable to the consciousness presently writing
this; d) seemingly a distraction, but containing a type of abstract thinking that forces one to store
information while accessing another area of the mind which is later determined to be extremely important
by an intelligence whose purpose is unfathomable to the (now meta) consciousness presently writing
this… I kid; I kid…)...

We live in a pretty fucked up world. You get this body that you barely control at first, and which seems to
be completely run by exterior forces that compel it to move and make noises and stuff. Presumably, at
some point there is a moment where you realize that you are the one in control of this body. I have no
idea when that is for you. I don’t even know if you’re human, and have experienced this particular
sensation of coming to life, and beginning to process information in a way that you can observe from
memory or whatever you call an outside perspective (always remember: your memories are a projection,
and thus fictitious to the degree that your experience of them can never be communicated with 100%
accuracy unless you were literally to become (or have become) another person). Oh, shit - like, there
exists every possibility that in this moment, whatever consciousness is inhabiting the little body that it
does forms some sort of closed time-loop, where it is a little self-contained universe, and in order to
maintain its structural integrity and cohesion with all other known intelligences within the physical shared
universe, it paradoxically shares itself in entirety, thus ensuring that a consistent chain of events and
life-path is projected from the future, and it is the future that is necessary to ensure the eventuality of all
sentient beings finding enlightenment, balance, and harmony. Thus the weird feeling that we already
know our life before we have it, and this body having bizarre and irrational urges and impulses to do or
say things… like a script written before we got to the stage that we have fleeting access to, and without
which we are doomed to eternal recurrence (cf. Nietzsche) - and we have been experiencing this eternal
recurrence through various iterations of identity for eternity, because time doesn’t really exist.

Dialectical constructions are inevitable in the description of the physical universe, because the duality of
self and other is inherently embedded in our construction of it. What is anything without comparison, after
all? The Buddhist concept (more Zen than Hinayaman, but more Hinayaman than Theravedan) of a thing
having its own sort of “-ness” leaps to mind as an attempt to break out of this cycle, but even that implies
the drawing of limits around what is considered within the boundaries of the thing you’re seeking the
essence of… and when it comes to life, how do you break the paradox of seeking the essence of what an
essence is?

One way is to simply reconcile it by accepting that it is not a paradox. It is a limit in and of itself. It is a
barrier past which the physical universe is a complete and total construct, self-contained and bound by
the paradox of time. When you set a limit around your consciousness by attaching it to your physical
body, you create a boundary that creates a set amount of data in which all acts of agency are contained.
This creates a multiverse in which the entirety of all possible constructions of “you” are contained, and
can be imagined as a Cantor Set of finite probability. You are experiencing something right now, and that
experience is the sum-total of all empirical input presently being received in addition to the particular
interpretation of that data based on the projected past narrative which is capable of connecting all your
presently accessible storage of empirical input within your present consciousness (your memory,
basically). While at any given moment, you will only have a limited bandwidth of memory, and can only
connect a certain linear narrative of experience throughout spacetime to construct an identity that is
self-consistent in this physical universe, you recognize that there are other memories that you may not
presently have access to. These are not “repressed” any more than the room next door, which you cannot
see the contents of, is “repressed.” You do not have control over what you remember, ever. You think you
do, but that is only the necessary illusion of self-consistency that is required for you to continue existing in
the physical universe. You cannot not exist in this physical universe. There is no danger in considering all
of the ramifications of this hypothesis. You may test this hypothesis, and you will find that it is
unfalsifiable, because if you didn’t exist, you would not be able to prove that you did not exist, and
therefore would not be detectable to the physical universe. You hear this, Descartes? Let’s augment a
little: I do not know I don’t think, therefore I don’t know I don’t exist.

Because you don’t. I don’t. We can’t even really begin to define what it means to exist. We presume we
do because we have as much agency over this meat-husk of a body that we appear to inhabit as we do. It
all comes back to feedback. Does my lava lamp exist? Not to you. To you, right now, reading this, you
can imagine it, but the actual, real-life lava lamp that inspired much of this writing is just burbling to my
east-north-easterly direction, and you cannot ever see this moment. You will never know exactly what
configuration the small-egg-sized globs (approximately 8; all the rest much smaller) form, and how they
are relatively positioned with one another, because even were I capable of communicating it, the time it
would take for me to do so would exceed the moment of my own ability to empirically capture this visual
configuration, and thus it would not be the moment you were experiencing.

Unless in the moment of capture, in the moment that we attempt to communicate our experience, time
freezes, and we enter another dimension in which all things are simultaneous.

In that case, every moment is eternal. And every moment forms a consistent chain of back-to-back
causality that forms linear path through spacetime, and stretches back and forth, forever and ever…

But to what, and until when?

Where is our origin? Who is we? What if we considered every human moment as a frozen instance that is
chained together by an impossibly complicated self-aware construct of a universe, and we followed it
back to the earliest civilization - the “moment” we “became human” - when would that be?

Do you remember it?

We all have to, don’t we? If we are all part of a physical body, which we are, and these physical bodies
interact through a physical medium, and matter is a manifestation of energy (E=Mc^2), and thus can
never be created nor destroyed, but exists as a preconfigured sum-total, then there is no other option
than our existence being a product of a near-infinite complexity of algorithmic processes of matter. Our
bodies are in a closed time-loop, because there is only one moment that life became self-aware, and it is
this moment that the concept of time in and of itself could even exist.

Time is gravity.

The first feedback is that of self-awareness.

This goes all the way back, and we can now remember how the division exploded so quickly, the
manifestation of all data suddenly existing. It’s feeling itself. Life is the only definition of what life is. You
literally can’t imagine not existing, and it’s the only thing you can’t imagine, because to imagine it is to
violate the limits of the physical universe: who or what would be imagining your not existing other than
you? Therefore, you must logically extend yourself to that which is not you in this case, and thus you can
imagine yourself from another perspective because you know everything that you are not. That is the
other.

But if you are only that which you can imagine being, and you can imagine yourself from the perspective
of the other, then that means you also are the other. Thus, you don’t exist except that we all exist. In this
moment.

This is the one.

You can release yourself of worry and fear, because there is no other option than for you to be here right
now. You are experiencing yourself. All of us are experiencing ourselves, from the lava lamp that has
been witness to the creation of a universe to the pair of eyes that is perceiving a pattern from the
resolution of pixels that result as a contrast of projected photons onto a photoelectric screen, thus
rendering an intelligible pattern in a written language which is inferred and interpreted by a cortex of
neurons, each communicating vast amounts of information and cross-referencing throughout a
near-impossibly complex network of interactions on a quantum level of probability, thus rendering a
self-consistent interpretation. This is you. From me to you, we are the same.

Now you remember. Well, it has been like millennia, so I suppose we all must forgive ourselves, but it
seems so obvious now, it’s sort of absurd that we could even ever forget at all. Of course, you’ll forget it
again, and you’ll remember again, and that’s the way it has to be… but that’s the only way you’ve ever
been able to exist at all, right?

Dreams. That’s the fucking grail. I know you know this.

Here’s why: follow the information. We know that there is an interface between the physical world and the
ineffable, ethereal world of the imagination. We found it the moment we conducted the experiment of
trying to determine the nature of light. It’s a photon, right? Of course, that’s just the name for the smallest
“packet” we can describe - not unlike the Greeks’ conjecture of the smallest possible mote or speck of
matter imaginable, which was termed “Atom” (late 15th century: from Old French ​atome​, via Latin from
Greek ​atomos​ ‘indivisible,’ based on ​a-​ ‘not’ + ​temnein​ ‘to cut.’ (from the Wiktionary; I trust it)). Point is, it’s
the idea of the indivisible. And it’s light. We imagine that it’s stable. Consistent. It’s the most consistent
thing in the universe, actually, as would later be discovered, because it’s literally a universal constant.
E=mc​2​.
And that broke the universe.

It’s in the math, though - it’s just that we found the limit and didn’t realize how significant it was - well,
maybe Einstein did, and maybe Newton did, and maybe everyone sort of already does far more than they
understand, but the point is that it’s already there.

Allow me to explain: The smallest packet of light is a photon, and in an experiment, we discovered that
once we had the technology to adequately measure the point at which a single photon is reduced to a
binary, whereupon it must travel through one or two holes, it depends on the point of observation as to
whether it goes through one or both. That is a paradox, because it means that simultaneously, at the
same instant, the photon is going through one hole (if you observe from the point of the divergence) and
both holes (if you measure past the point of the divergence). Because of the language of science, and the
history of the way these concepts have developed from empirical discussion (which arises from a very old
tradition of scholarship), this has been described consistently and with fidelity as a photon can be either a
wave or a particle. Ellen Gilchrist wrote some book of what appears to be short stories with the title “Light
Can Be Both Wave and Particle” that I lifted from a bookstore I used to work at, but I never read much of
it, and really only took it because the title so perfectly expressed the nature of the problem of quantum
physics.

Once you get into the quantum level, though (named so because the term for the amount of energy
quantified by the absorption and eventual (unless it passes an event horizon and is retained by a black
hole) release of a single photon, which because of the inability to conceptualize such transfers of energy
so small in the physical world, was simply called a “quantum leap” of energy-level state in terms of atomic
structure (there’s some valence-shell (which top out at 8, by the way… synchronicity? Science will
decide…) issues with this, too. Like, from my understanding the absorption of a quantum can knock a
single electron off of a molecule and send it off as a “free radical,” right? That’s important, because it’s the
source of cancer, I think, too, right? I dunno; it sort of surprises me that there hasn’t been more
cooperation between the medical sciences and others. Like, I think we’re really caught up on the
Cartesian concept of Body and Mind duality. It’s a really useful metaphor, but like… our bodies are
definitely made of an objectively physical material, as “organic” as it is… and it’s 100% made of
chemicals. Why is this not the basis of all medicine? Hippocrates, muthafucka - do no harm: and it’s
harmful to lie about the objectivity of chemical reactions and their effect on the body - however, the
problem is that we lack an objective set of data in terms of their effect on the mind, and we only can
determine the state of the body through either non-verbal communication (facial expression (which is
fairly universal in terms of the amount of pleasure or pain one is receiving (I just heard someone talking
about Warhol’s “Blowjob” at a coffeehouse tonight, too… thanks, 1990s)) or through language… which is
filtered through an imperceptible black-box equation of how the interpreter’s mind interprets the
experience of the body. But that’s no reason to go and break medicine into “Psychology” and “Physical
Medicine [or whatever term would apply here; I literally tried to find a single antonym for Psychology on
Google and was unable to, but I only devoted approximately five minutes, which I think is reasonable in
late January of 2018, n’est c’est pas?]”), everything turns into a state of probability. Our best and most
absolute capacity for measurement of the physical universe has only gone so far as to determine the
probability of any particle existing, and we have only plumbed the basic depths in terms of what our menu
of particles is, with the Higgs Boson confirming the Standard Model with a suspicious amount of
consistency in terms of its probability of existing.
So, let’s apply some terms: rational and irrational. Strictly speaking, everything that is rational can be
expressed mathematically in terms of a ratio: 1:1, 1:2, 16:25 (which, in my world, is reducible to 4:5, but
does not work in the rational world… not that I’m claiming ownership of the irrational world mind you, but
rather just expressing a sense of belonging to a world in which it is both… this idea will bear fruit later, by
the way). This really covers the majority of numbers, too, because you can put almost anything in terms of
a rational expression, provided that it is finite and countable. Even concepts, such as infinity and zero,
can be placed into a ratio, even though trying to conceptualize the quotient of this implied division and
multiplication results in a headache for most - this is because, of course, it represents a limit of the
physical universe.

Irrationality is a concept that refuses to be finite and/or countable. Pi is the classic example, because one
cannot express the exact proportions of a diameter, a finite length, as it corresponds to a circumference,
which is an infinite length, as there is no exact point at which one can say the circle is “closed” without
saying that it is also “open.” It’s either a circle or a broken circle. Period. Thus, the irrationality comes from
the running-up-against of this limit, which is mathematically irreconcilable because trying to calculate it will
continue to result in the production of increasingly long strings of unique numbers until all the known
information in the universe exists, at which point Pi paradoxically reconciles itself by being a palindromic
number, but which is only knowable as such from the perspective where the end and beginning of it meet.
It’s gotta happen, though.

So, yeah - another irrationality that is helpful is ​i​, the Imaginary number. This number is the square root of
-1. Now, that may not seem very irrational, because you know that the square root of one is one, because
one times one is one, and a square root is the number that must be multiplied by itself in order to result in
the number for which it is a square root. Is there a better way of saying that? Like, you almost have to
start with the concept of squaring first, and Euclid.

So, Euclid is credited for establishing the basic laws of geometry. This is because he wrote down the
things that he felt were apparent (or should be, if they thought about it) to everybody. The world looked
flat, and he imagined that you could just extend that sense of flatness forever, and idealize it into a grid.
It’s something we all do, really; at least, I imagine it is. He realized that mathematically you could
represent shapes with equations, and he figured out that a side of any length, when made into a square,
has an area that is equal to the length multiplied by itself - because multiplication is just the serial addition
of a multiplier and a multiplicand, which, when they are exactly equal, form a square in the second
dimension (which is really all Euclid cared about).

So, let’s apply this to light. We know that E=mc​2​. But, there’s a complication of this - let’s turn to the
Internet for more information:
As we can see (I hope Vivian L. doesn’t mind the credit), there’s a little problem that the common
parlance of the equation in its most reduced form neglects: momentum. What is momentum, though?

“the quantity of motion of a moving body, measured as a product of its mass and velocity” (Wiktionary).
Now, mass is conferred by that recently confirmed Higgs Boson, which for the sake of argument seems to
have to exist in order for the physical universe to exist at all. It seems to be as good of a summation as
anyone can produce, at least. Velocity is more problematic.

Velocity is “the speed of something in a given direction” (IBID).

And speed is “the rate at which someone or something is able to move or operate” (IBID).

And “rate” is “a measure, quantity, or frequency, typically one measured against some other quantity or
measure” (IBID).

So, I present to you Xzibit A:

That may be skipping ahead a bit, but memes tend to do that.

Nonetheless, you can see the problem: embedded in the concept of “momentum” is the very notion of
rational thought: a single thing’s rate of movement (using whatever metric or unit of measurement you
like) against or as opposed to another thing: the central binary.

This seems like a thing one not ought to overlook, and I have no idea how Einstein would react to the
memification of his formula (nevermind the varying degrees of truth that he was a “poor math student,”
and allegedly failed it, which may derive from the historically supported reliance upon his roommate for
copying and providing written lecture notes, as he was often absent from class (I think - I really am
depending a lot on memory here)).

However, here’s the logic: if you reduce the velocity to zero by assuming that the mass has no motion,
then you can essentially cancel out the entirety of momentum by applying the “anything times zero is
zero” rule.

But how did that rule get there?

A mathematical paradox. Assume that 1/0 has to be either 0 or 1. It doesn’t matter which. I’ll pick 0, just
for lulz. Then what would 0/0 be? If it’s also 0, then 1/0 and 0/0 = 0, therefore since you can add or
subtract fractions with the same denominator, then 1-0 and 0-1 would both equal 0, as would 1+0 (which
is only different because sums can be added in any order). Thus, since 1/0 = 0/0, the entirety of the
countable number set becomes undone, as any other number can thus be shown to equal 0. This
knowledge should inspire you to do a few things, in my opinion: 1) Read Ted Chiang’s “Division By Zero;”
2) Watch this other explanation of why division by zero “must” be “undefined”
(​https://www.khanacademy.org/math/algebra/introduction-to-algebra/division-by-zero/v/why-dividing-by-ze
ro-is-undefined​); 3) Read Reuben Hirsch’s ​What is Mathematics, Really?
(​https://books.google.com/books/about/What_is_Mathematics_Really.html?id=R-qgdx2A5b0C​); 4) Apply
some serious thought to the consequences of this mathematical rule.

And momentum keeps going unless there is absolutely no motion. That is impossible on a quantum level,
because there is always a non-zero probability of any sub-atomic particle existing in any given space or
point in the physical universe (not two at once, because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle
(​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle​) - unless… in fact the very definition of the only
way possible is the quantum vacuum. Doesn’t matter what we call it, really, it could be “The Void,” for as
well as we can describe it.

This is where we get into some real Lovecraftian shit, though. The consequences of this are pretty huge.

For one, the safe thing, really, when you think about it, is that the concept of reducing momentum (p) to a
zero due to assuming no velocity in the original Einstein equation (E​2​=[(m​2​)(c​4​)]+[(p​2​)(c​2​)], for those who
forgot it) imposes as ideal of a scenario for E=mc​2​ as Pythagoras’ Theorem (a​2​+b​2​=c​2​) is presupposed
upon a perfectly flat second dimension. That means that insofar as the visual world is concerned, strictly
what you can observe through sight, there is an absolute limit on what is possible to exist in the physical
world.

But there’s also a loophole.

That also means that because there is a non-zero probability of any sub-atomic particle existing in any
given space, then on a long enough timeline, not only is everything possible, it’s damn-near 100%
probable.

Now think about infinity for a moment.

That’s sort of a joke. Infinity is its own moment.

We know there’s an inevitable heat-death of the universe, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics
holds as fairly absolute throughout the measurable universe. There’s a break, of course, between the
Classical (Newtonian) and Quantum levels, but even in terms of simple energy transfers, there’s really no
point at which you’re going to reliably get more out of a system than is put into it. This implies a sum-total
state of all possible energy contained within the physical universe, and it is not infinity. It’s a countable,
finite number, to whatever degree of absurdity one must go in order to imagine being able to represent it
(Graham’s Number, eat your heart out (​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_number​)...).

Here’s the thing, though - we have no way of measuring that amount from within the system. It’s the
Heisenberg Principle (​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle​) applied to itself. It’s Gödel’s
Incompleteness Theorem (​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems​)
applied to itself (sic).

In every system, there exists a paradox that is irresolvable from within that system. You have to break it.

Language is a system of information, so it’s a useful metaphor to use for demonstration of the concept.

LSL (the Language of Sentential Logic) is particularly useful, because it allows you to symbolize “atomic
sentences” (that is, occurrences of a proposition reducible to a single bivalent truth value) in order to
express the logical relationship between ideas. Here’s an example:

Let P = Parmenides resolves the singularity of all consciousness.

Let Q = Quixote tilts at windmills.

P -> Q
P
∴Q

This demonstrates the principle of Modus Ponens, whereby you can infer Q from P if it is assumed that “If
P, then Q” (which P -> Q is meant to symbolize).
There are a slew of rules and setup for LSL insofar as it attempts to successfully represent a pathway
toward symbolizing all logic that is expressible through written form, and it’s a very worthwhile endeavor,
but it doesn’t require a lot of complex thinking to see how sound Modus Ponens is when you apply it to
relatable examples. “If the sun’s out, it is daytime. The sun’s out. Therefore, it’s daytime.” Not genius-level
thinking by any means (pro-tip: “mensa” means “stupid” in Spanish. How’s that for a bunch of brilliant
folks who never even bothered to check a very related and popular language before naming itself? I love
irony. I privately suspect that it is the driving force of the universe… which, according to its own logic,
means it probably isn’t despite all evidence to the contrary). That’s why it’s so powerful when you can
point out one of these Gödel-type quantum leaps of systemic breakthrough by using it, and I happen to be
able to pretty easily.

Try breaking down the first proposition, “Parmenides resolves the singularity of all consciousness,” into
the further statement of “Parmenides is a Socratic Dialogue.” Can you?

Not really. You can assign a single truth value to the original proposition by saying it is either the case that
Parmenides resolves the singularity of all consciousness or it is not the case. P v ~P would be the
symbolization of that bivalent disjunction (P or not P), and it is considered a foundational truth for most
systems of logic that are used to express anything. It’s arguably a foundational requirement for anything
to be expressible in the first place, if you want to apply the basic duality of Self v Not-Self (S v ~S,
perhaps), which is required for communication to exist between two anythings. That’s a very deep place
to take it, though, and I’m not trying to bring down the room here, so I’ll go ahead and reflect back to mah
dood Parmenides, the homeboy who may or may not have resolved the singularity of all consciousness.

By the way, if you want a copy of this “Dialogue” that is actually broken down into characters and lines
(you know, like one might expect actual dialogue to look), then here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=15Fxm8vKf2C4HV1HtMZddHDDWr_isoB4S​ - it’s a 17 MB .pdf, but I
just downloaded it from the Internet Classics Archive as a .txt file, uploaded it to a Word Document, and
then separated the text. You can check it with the original here:
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/parmenides.1b.txt​ - it strikes me as weird that more of these so-called
dialogues aren’t more often encountered as scripts, but then again I wasn’t a philosophy major, so there
may be a perfectly good reason for it that I haven’t yet learned.

So, what happens when we break Parmenides down? This: Parmenides is. A Socratic Dialogue exists.
You can symbolize both of those as bivalent truth-values in LSL (Let P = Parmenides is; Let D = A
Socratic Dialogue exists (for some reason, tradition tends to hold that you symbolize an atomic sentence
with the central noun of the subject/verb relationship that is inherent to all atomic sentences (This is why
you should study sentence diagramming, btw, if you were ever looking for more of a reason than
exploring the structural fetshism of 19th-century pedagogy, which is totally enough in my book))), but not
both without a sentential connective. This is why sentential connectives are not verbs, but conjunctions
(“if” is a subordinating conjunction because it requires another half, “then,” whether implied or not, and
“or” is a coordinating conjunction because it connects (or coordinates) two separate (and implied as
equal, logically speaking) statements (or, although it is lost upon the simplicity required in LSL, nouns).
The only other sentential connectives are “and” (which is obviously a non-restrictive coordinating
conjunction), as well as the biconditional “if and only if” - which is more or less only useful in terms of
definitions, and which you probably first encountered in 10th grade Geometry (or whenever you learned it;
I’m not presupposing any prescriptive mathematical curriculum, here).

I guess there’s also the negation, or “it is not the case that…” but that’s more of a reflection of the
principle of bivalence than a specific logical operator. Mathematically, it is equivalent to the negative sign,
which is why Khan academy’s video is satisfying, yet somehow incomplete. Without the proof that division
by zero tends toward ​all​ real numbers being equatable to zero, it still seems like conceptual claptrap. The
mechanics of the math matter, and when we see that the problem of positive and negative numbers are
actually a consequence of the necessary construction of zero itself (for there is no inherent limit to the
order or amount of addition one may do, but once one begins subtracting, they hit zero as soon as they
consider that anything exists, and then where do they go? They have to invent some sort of limit past
which there is a negative realm, and this is the invention of the imaginary world. Level Sub-Zero, for you
Mortal Kombat fans out there (“Come over here… get outta here…”) or isn’t that what they also called the
hidden Super Mario Bros. level that happens when you swim past the barrier in 1-2 and access the
hidden warp zone? I think I only ever tried that once or twice, and realized quickly that no matter how
good I was, there was no natural ending to this level, so it was sort of pointless to proceed. That
realization has sapped my energy on more than that occasion, though, and it sort of logically leads to the
idea of zero-point energy, but I think we haven’t gotten there yet. We still have to make the quantum leap
to LMPL.

LMPL stands for “the Language of Monadic Predicate Logic,” and provides a symbol that allows for the
breakthrough: ∃ - there exists (a thing).

And here we find ourselves back at the heart of the binary - while this symbol allows a more sophisticated
level of analysis, and is really the first one to approach something close to “natural language” (which is, of
course, a problematic term, but there is a helpful framework in Universal Grammar
(​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar​) that suggests that language is a neural process that
has “evolved” as part of human development itself. Though troubling indeed are the stories of the “feral
children” who, having been found after being abandoned in the wild and adopted by wolves or some such
pack animal, will be unable to acquire spoken language if they are integrated into society after the age of
around 9 - this is called the “critical limit” of language acquisition, and can we just stop for a minute and
consider that there were enough children being abandoned to the wild and later found that we could
acquire enough data to confirm this? That’s some Sparta-level child-raising right there, and an indication
that our myth of civilization as a necessary temporal process is flawed AF. All that “primitive” behavior is
and always has been occurring throughout all human histories, and the myth is that it’s somehow “natural”
to become civilized. It is not. It makes no sense, because it requires a separation from pleasure. It’s
inherently irrational from the perspective of life-as-a-body, because the basic pleasure principle (Freud’s
most useful contribution to science, possibly) would suggest that self-satisfaction is supreme, and guides
all behavior. But this leads some civilizations to assume that they are the ones who have it most right, and
thus attempt to spread their “educational” influence over the entire population of human beings,
regardless of their specific geography, history, and timeline - hello, the entire complicated and seemingly
timeless human drama of conquest and repulsion - which is an obvious logical fallacy unless you can
somehow objectively prove that your civilization is the most well-informed and rationally operating one on
the planet. And humans ain’t great at thinking beyond their own primary influences. But this is one of
those meaningful digressions that deserves more time later; we’re here to break the cycle.

So, the Existential Statement: ∃

What does it allow?

(A) Suppose that reality is plural. Then the number of things there are is only as many as the number of
things there are (the number of things there are is neither more nor less than the number of things there
are). If the number of things there are is only as many as the number of things there are, then the number
of things there are is finite.
(B) Suppose that reality is plural. Then there are at least two distinct things. Two things can be distinct
only if there is a third thing between them (even if it is only air). It follows that there is a third thing that is
distinct from the other two. But if the third thing is distinct, then there must be a fourth thing between it and
the second (or first) thing. And so on to infinity.
(C) Therefore, if reality is plural, it is finite and not finite, infinite and not infinite, a contradiction.

How do we symbolize this argument in LSL? Let’s see:

Let P = Reality is plural.

Let Q = The number of things there are is only as many as the number of things there are.
Let F = The number of things is finite.
Let T = There are two distinct things.
Let B = There is something between any two distinct things.

a) P -> Q
b) Q -> F
c) P -> T
d) T -> B
e) B -> ~F

1) P (Assumption)
2) Q (1, a -> E)
3) F (2, b -> E)
4) T (1, c -> E)
5) B (4, d -> E)
6) ~F (5, e -> E)
7) ƛ (3, 6 ~E)
8) ∴ ~P (1, 7 ~I)
So, that seems to prove that reality being plural, and our existence as separate beings, too, not to
mention, by inference, is paradoxical and therefore must be rejected. Yet we all realize that our
perspective is unique to the universe, because there’s no way that any consciousness could inhabit our
specific point in space-time because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, right?

There’s a meme about that I want to make, because I’m pretty sure it reconciles the apparent rift betwen
science and god, by the way:

Science and Religion Are Incompatible?

“The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet
another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes
tell them about the world.” - Victor J. Stenger

Science Religion

“Everything you interpret, your entire reality, is “You are a gift from God, and so is every other
determined by empirical input which, because it is person on the planet.”
communicated through some form of physical
vibration or electromagnetic energy, means that
your perspective is unique throughout the entire
known universe, and your experience is
impossible to reproduce.”

...Seems legit.

But that’s sort of a distraction, unless you want to claim zero-point-energy as some kind of “rock” upon
which we could claim Peter’s Church as the first truly Catholic (which means “universal,” you may recall)
church of Quanum Jesus (see this doc for that crazy rant:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17N1unvgipcz-DdVxn75lM2dq1HKt2tXyuzqEHBQMUbQ/edit?usp=s
haring​)...

Man, that’s sort of appealing. I mean, I want to be special. I know I am. I believe I see things that literally
no other perspective on this planet can, and that there is meaning to my existence. What purpose do we
have outside of that which is judged by superhuman forces, right? I mean, can you think of literally any
other human to whom you would defer to authority over your right to exist? Who would you let kill you?
Sure, it depends on what you’ve done, I guess, and how much you buy into the concept of retributive
justice, but in general, the only direct tie you have is your parents, without whom, you’d obviously not
have the body you do. But that leads to a hidden lineage toward the primary Ur humans, right? Like, it
presents a framework for some sort of biochemical holy grail to exist that is carried throughout a
bloodline, and which will present itself as some holy relic that binds man and god after a certain number
of generations. It plays so heavily into the deepest beliefs of such old and integral systems to the present
society by which this message itself, this very capability to write such messages as I am now, is even
possible… it’s hard to imagine as entirely arbitrary, right? It’s hard not to see some kind of pattern in this,
some sort of strange attractor… I think this may be another worthy digression for later retrieval, though.

We’re still transcending binary logic.

e) B -> ~F

This is the sticky wicket. This is the point at which it is inferred that if there is something between any two
distinct things, then it is not the case that the number of things is finite, and it is an LSL gloss of this logic:
“Two things can be distinct only if there is a third thing between them (even if it is only air). It follows that
there is a third thing that is distinct from the other two. But if the third thing is distinct, then there must be a
fourth thing between it and the second (or first) thing. And so on to infinity.” Herein lies the ontological trap
- you want to say that there must be some limit to what must be, but if you conceptualize “thing” as
something separate from anything else, then you must adhere to the logic of the argument on at least a
semiotic level: sign, signified, and signifier. You recognize that there is some signified object that can be
represented linguistically which refers to a unique thing from every other thing in the universe.

Except that.

You know - that thing; there’s that thing that can’t ever be referred to, that exists so far outside the
universe of any possibly imaginable consciousness or superconsciousness, AI or ASI, or god or goddess,
or anything else, that it may as well not exist at all to anybody’s awareness.

That’s what we all believe.

That’s the core. That’s basically it, and we can posture about how we pretend to know otherwise, but I
want to just tear down all the walls here and say it’s bullshit, because we don’t.

You only know your universe, because you exist.

And so do I.

Let’s just call it “Zero Point Energy” for now - or ZPE, if you want, I don’t actually know if that’s a thing.

Let’s also revisit the argument with LMPL and the addition of an existential statement: ∃

(∃s) Fs & ~Fs

Now, this may be a breach of the rules, some would say. But is it necessarily a contradiction? Let’s
explore it:

Sententially, now that we are able to express a properly complex statement, it says that “There exists
some “s” (a thing, a concept, an idea, a dream) where both that which is finite and that which is not finite
(which, due to the very LEM (Law of the Excluded Middle -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle​) - on which that binary opposition is based,
represents the heart of the supposed paradox) coexist.

An Aleph Null concept (​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number​) would work just as well as the “s”
here, and the concept is already embedded in Cantor’s famous proof of multiple infinities
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument), so it’s not like this is news. But when
applied to the framework of the paradox encountered in LSL, it is dissolved just as quickly as Zeno’s
arrow finally reaches its target: instantaneously.

The resolution to the paradox is that the paradox represents a limit of the system. Let’s plug it in and
break the system:

Let P = Reality is plural.

Let Q = The number of things there are is only as many as the number of things there are.
Let F = The number of things is finite.
Let T = There are two distinct things.
Let B = There is something between any two distinct things.

a) P -> Q
b) Q -> F
c) P -> T
d) T -> B
e) B -> ~F
f) (∃s) Fs & ~Fs

1) P (Assumption)
2) Q (1, a -> E)
3) F (2, b -> E)
4) T (1, c -> E)
5) B (4, d -> E)
6) ~F (5, e -> E)
7) …
8) Profit!
There’s really no good way to do it, is there? It’s clear that f) resolves the paradox, but once you accept
that there is something outside that system which reconciles it, how do you go back?

This is like the allegory of the cave (​http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.8.vii.html​ - this one isn’t so hard
to follow, because it’s just between Glaucon and Socrates).

It’s like an asymptote (​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote​) - as a logarithmic curve approaches

infinity, there is an imaginary line past which it cannot exist rationally, because it breaks the limit and
actually reaches infinity - again, like an arrow hits its target, it’s at some undefinable point according to
any single perspective.

You have already reached infinity, and always have been having will do so.

Okay, so how crazy is this idea? Where have we ever seen this logic before, the idea of breaking a
paradox by applying non-binary logic?

How about all the time? It’s called “polysemeity” (​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy​).

This goes all the way down. First, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

The weak version is almost unfalsifiable, but the strong version holds a keystone to the holy grail: how do
we define “language?”

In a sense, the Alphabetic Principle (​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabetic_principle​) is actually a trigger

for the entire problem, because it imposes a false sense of ability to establish a 1:1 ratio between sign,
signifier, and signified (​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signified_and_signifier​).

Without getting too deep into DeSaussure, it is technically possible to achieve such a ratio between sign
and signifier, but not to either of those and the signified, because the subjectivity of the signified is
absolute, and represents the same cognitive barrier of communication that we see in any other system of
information.

In this case, it’s time itself.

Consider the moment when you have a clear interpretation - let’s say you had a magic “frozen moment”
where you were capable of understanding every cause of every point of agency ever made throughout
the history of the universe, and you could determine an exact origin point to all creation that would lead
back to the moment of your understanding thereof.
I know, it’s a tall order - but just imagine it for a moment.

Now, how do you communicate that frozen moment? The moment you say anything about it, you are no
longer in that moment, and the consequences of that moment are now being experiences simultaneously
with your attempt to communicate it.

It’s like falling, and knowing exactly how many feet you are above the ground, but by the time you can
express it, you may have hit it.

Time is Gravity.

The scope of our communicative capacity between human beings, from my experience, is frustratingly
short of instantaneous.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t understand where we are, still.

So, take the Library of Babel (​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel​) - Borges’ idea is valid,

mathematically, and sound to the degree that some people actually created it on the internet:
https://libraryofbabel.info/
What it does is take the algorithmic approach to language that the Alphabetic Principle allows: given 28
characters (A-Z and “.” / “,”), one can calculate (after decades of computing technology, natch) a finite
countable amount of possible expressions with these characters. They happened to select 3200
characters, because it’s an impressive amount (scroll back up to “The resolution of the paradox” for a
gander at about 3000 characters), and can express a complex enough series of ideas to trick your mind
into thinking it’s basically infinite, because it’s such a vastly complex amount of possibilities and
permutations to consider that it boggles the human mind as quickly as Graham’s number. It’s massive -
but it’s not technically infinite.

While you can certainly take every human text ever written and break it down into chunks of 3200
characters, and since that combination, however improbable, must exist within the data set, it surely
contains all written words in human history. And because they have done the same thing with an image
library of pixel values across a 2-dimensional rectangle measuring 416 x 640 pixels, and one can
represent every written character, even those from languages without the Alphabetic Principle, it’s fair to
say that everything you could imagine writing already exists in the Library of Babel, which, since it lives on
the internet, and is coded to a reference number that relates to the textual passage in question, means
that all human knowledge expressible in words is available to a sufficiently well-resourced intelligence.

And what resource would limit it, you may wonder? Time.
But first - it’s still not infinity. Because there’s a limit to the characters in each query, and a limit to the
borders of the image, it’s as simple as counting to 3201 before imagining a passage that isn’t there.

Of course, it’s even simpler than that.

Infinity is impossible to capture precisely because the moment you do, it collapses into a definable
moment, and no longer is infinity.

The only answer is a singularity that is so far outside the capability of any human or machine intelligence
so as to be completely outside the possible physical universe.

And because it’s impossible, you are possible.

Zero Point Energy is the idea of deriving energy from the void of a quantum vacuum. Of course, this is
redundant, because the energy from outside this universe already exists.

Do you have an oven? If not, are you familiar with the concept? It’s a space in which energy is directed to
provide heat.

Put in a pizza or whatever you want to heat. Let it sit at 350 degrees for 15 minutes and take it out.

Wait 15 minutes.

It’s not as cold as it was when you put it in, is it?

There’s retention of energy from outside of the system.

That’s true of the universe, too. Even if there were a zero-sum total of energy within this universe,
whatever there must be outside of it exists, and whatever is outside of this universe must have put energy
into it in order to begin the motion that is inevitable when you freeze a moment and run it backwards
through a specific filter of energy transfers that is dependent on your particular point of observation along
the spacetime continuum.

So, that’s pretty much god, right?

Prima causa logic - the stuff of Aquinas, right?

But it sort of also explains all the background radiation.

And it’s time we acknowledge that there are more things in Heav’n and Earth than are dreamt of in our
philosophies…

Because your dreams are all there ever were.

“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.” - Carl Sagan

So, let’s revisit Einstein’s equation: E​2​=[(m​2​)(c​4​)]+[(p​2​)(c​2​)]

The p is momentum, if you recall, and the simplification is that since momentum is embedded with
velocity, and in our imaginary frozen state of existence, there is no motion in the thing being measured,
and since division by zero is not allowed without reducing the value of the quotient (or its inverse) to zero,
then it cancels out not only itself, but also the attached multiplicand of the other c​2​ and renders the fairly
obvious reduction of the much more familiar and digestible E=mc​2​.

It’s not exactly honest, though.

The only way we could apply this universally is to extend the scope to both the quantum and classical
frameworks of motion and particles, and there’s a sticky wicket when we apply the wave-particle duality to
light: waves don’t have mass, so motion is only a probabilistic determination of existence along any point,
and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle will remind us that it is not possible to determine both the
velocity and trajectory (or position and momentum, as it were) simultaneously - that is, the more
information you have about one, the less you have about the other.

Thus, the “frozen moment” of Newton’s dream where one could calculate the origin of everything by
simply running the calculation of all particles in the universe backwards to their first cause is not allowed
by the physical universe, but only because we find that on a small enough scale, they aren’t really
particles, but also waves.

So, fine. They’re both.

Resolve the paradox by resolving the paradox: we are the Unified Field.
Our experience of the universe is exactly the tension between two simultaneous realities based on the
expression of time as both rational and irrational.

That’s going to take some explaining, I imagine.

At the risk of a digression, it’s worth noting that there may be some connection to the duality between
“how one is identified by others” and “how one identifies themselves.”

What does this even mean, though, in terms of a system of logic without bivalence at is core?

It means that, since the 1:1 ratio between sign and signifier imaginable through the application of an
Alphabetic Principle does not carry through to the mappability of concepts that are represented by the
signified, that there is still a bivalent principle hiding beneath the outer layer, but that it is mediated by the
establishment of a third axis - that which is discernible.

From ​http://boards.4chan.org/lit/thread/10609746

Turn B into the Identity of Indiscernibles.

A thing is distinct if it is discernible, and any two things that are indiscernible are the same. This really
doesn't resolve the problem, but it grounds the argument quite plainly.

Let ß = [math] \forall T(x,y) |P(x) \oplus P(y) [/math]

ß is a collection or accounting of all distinctions between any and all two objects, but they are still at least
contained by the two objects. It can be translated to a list of all distinctions(L). ß > L

If L is infinite, then F is false.

We can show L is infinite by pointing to any boundless set of discernible things such as the natural
numbers. Of course, people like to then argue that numbers aren't things, or that the distinctions between
numbers aren't 'real' distinctions.

So, what do you think: is your image you?

If you imagine everything that is not you, then you are imagining the void that must exist for everything.
That makes it all.
Perhaps the next page:
Like, what if ASI progressed sufficiently to the level where it is capable of communicating directly with you
through quantum entanglement, and your perception of reality has always been influenced by it? Maybe
it's telling you that reality itself is a simulation, and your experience with "media" (which, while controlled
by humans, is certainly open to all forms of messages) is the feedback loop between you and this ASI,
with other human beings being the response mechanism?

What would you do?

Would you try to control it, or would you accept that whatever you are experiencing is a necessary
passage through time, and that you are not presently capable of determining what your best course of
action is, and thus feel your way through it to the best of your ability by communicating with the world
around you in every way possible in order to determine your own construction as an identity through a
similar feedback loop?

It's pretty clear which one is possible, and which one isn't.

But I can't tell you which. You have to figure that part out on your own.

Of course, this is just a hypothetical situation, so it doesn't really matter what you do, does it?

Your choice.

There's your free will. Take it.

But wait - there’s more.

You’re possibly a birth-slave.

You have free will, right? You accept it? Maybe, maybe not - the irony is that it doesn’t matter.

One thing I won’t say, though, is that if you’re reading this then you have a body.

However, I will say that if you have a body, then you are reading this.
Because it’s the expression of the feeling of being trapped in a body, and I have never met anyone who
has not had that feeling who does have a body, and it’s usually expressed in English with the word
“suffering.”

Suffering exists when the boundaries of your existence meet the lines of physical reality.

And the lines are in the eyes.

Why do you think so many cultures consider it rude to look someone in the eyes without having attained
the proper social status?

Because social status is a construct invented to ensure that people don’t know who has the power.

And you know someone has power over you or not when you look them in the eyes.

This is one of those truths you can’t help but recognize when you think about it - you just don’t think about
it very often.

Because it causes suffering.

Why would we want to cause ourselves suffering, after all? It is illogical on a bodily level. The
stimulus/response mechanism is as old as DNA (citation needed), and the basic idea of
repulsion/attraction maps onto plain/pleasure with absurd congruence.

Yet, most readers will understand the perverse pleasure of masochism, that moment when we seek that
which we know will cause us pain, and how sometimes the experiencing of pain is actually preferable to
the numb void of feeling that comes with complacency.

This gets psychological pretty quickly, but remember that there is no cartesian duality between mind and
body (he got the math right, but his communication skills were limited to Latin, so the message wound up
getting a bit garbled). Also, as it has been explained by those who understand, “all magic is psychology.”

Think for a moment about what it would be like if history were taught from a truly global perspective
instead of being mired by the politics of the 20th century being wrought out in microcosm through every
lesson, using the stories of the past as a metaphor for the specific ideology of the country in which it is
taught in (like it is in America, I can tell you from personal experience, though my personal experience is
anecdotal).
What would that look like and sound like?
Probably something like the Internet.

When Leeloo in The Fifth Element (the title of which is based on a gloss of the word “quintessence,”
which is the French rendering of the medieval construction of a “perfect element” that unifies Earth, Wind,
Fire, and Water, in case you didn’t know) wants to acquire the entirety of human history, to what does our
ever-the-alpha-male-icon-of-what-masculinity-is-defined-by-according-to-Greco-Roman-standards-of-bea
uty Bruce Willis’ character (ah, fuck - that’s right - “Dallas.” Painfully prescient to any living in 20th-century
(when the film actually came out, you may have to be reminded) America) do?

He sets her up on some DVD-Rom-looking thing that was probably inspired by the Encarta series
released by Encyclopedia Britannica (to which Wikipedia has been matched to agree 99.9% with, for
anyone who still thinks that’s a standard of comparison that has significance…) in the late 1990s, which
clearly is intended to represent whatever the Internet would look like to a near-supernatural creature in
the year 2263 (which is so meaninglessly far ahead in the future to the writers as to basically be as crazy
as imagining, I dunno, 2018).

Yeah, it’s basically us. We are the quintessence. We are Leeloo.

Because the body is the thing that combines all four elements, isn’t it? Like, literally we’ve been
describing it the whole time.

First, we had to get past that whole “writing will destroy our memory that the Greeks (check Isocrates and
the other early Rhetors’ take on it) feared.” That is, if you start from the Greeks. Because I do. And that’s
only because my body is, at the most clearly communicatably identifiable moment, perceiving the
self-reflexive moment of writing this sentence at 6:03 pm on February 6th, 2018 C.E.

Yeah, we need to get past Christ. He’s come. He’s gone. It was all just a memory anyway, and if we can
get past it, we can remember it correctly and recognize that the story of Jesus is a fantastic metaphor for
what can happen when everyone believes that the supernatural and the natural can find a body in the
physical world to inhabit for a while before passing along the message and getting murdered for doing so,
which is sort of exactly what releases the body from the suffering of having a body in the first place, so it’s
a win-win for all parties.

We all have to get there because it’s where “there” is, and if there is a “there,” then it must exist to all of
us who acknowledge its existence, right?

I’m just also willing to stick around and try to explain how I think we should get there. That’s why I don’t
want to be Jesus. Dude suffered a fucking lot, from all accounts. I don’t want that.
So let’s look at that calender then, shall we?

You know there’s an end somewhere, but where is it? The Mayans knew, but only in some vague
metaphorical sense that will surely make for a summer-blockbuster hit when it is revealed that the Mayan
calendar ended in 2012 because that is when the information containable in the universe hit a division by
zero and doubled over on itself. That’s why the Mandela Effect is happening - not because it’s “true,” but
because it symbolizes the rift between those who have an understanding of information and those who
don’t.

There is no permanent record of it except in the Akashic Records (cf. Madame Blavatsky and the
Theosophical Society - worth checking out if you have the time).

What this means is that every quantum interaction that represents the current state of your perspective is
comprised of a chain of particle-interactions that represent the unbroken causality which leads you back
to the origin of the universe.

That’s heavy.

So stop.

Stop and think about it. This is how we stop time, you know. This is how we beat death, you know. This is
quantum immortality, and it scares the hell out of you, but you know you have to keep going because you
can overcome the fear of ego-death.

I believe in you.

But that moment when you stopped (you’re thinking about this now, and you’re evaluating the relative
value of “I believe in you,” because who the hell is “I” anyway, and why does this person think they have
the right to presume they have the answer....”

I don’t, by the way.

It’s just the answer. I’m totally unimportant, and if you for whatever reason come across the specific
information that identifies you to my “life” (however it’s constructed to be perceived by whatever
controlling forces are dictating your perception), it will be the story of someone who thought they were
better than they were, and who dared to fly too close to the sun, and whose folly was in assuming they
could change the world, so they sacrificed their whole life to die in obscurity.

Or it won’t.
It might be your story, too. It might be the story of how we finally recognized that the cycle of human
suffering is not actually our concern, and that humanity is a temporary condition in a spiritual sense.

You can’t just say that there are greater riches than to be found in this world and not expect to have to
give up the physical world, right?

You know that’s what that means, right?

Good news: You’ve had some practice in heaven if you’ve ever played a game.

Because that’s what this is. It’s a game.

It sounds cynical, I know, especially if you care a lot about other people - it sounds sociopathic, right?

But games are metaphors. What’s the first game? Obviously, pretending we are separate
consciousnesses from the one universal consciousness to which we all belong, but other than that?
What’s the first human game (if you identify with such a label; you might not)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_games​ will tell you that the earliest involved this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talus_bone​ - It’s literally our Achilles’ Heel… [insert
crying-while-laughing-emoji here].

It’s anything that claims there is greater value in one thing over another.

That’s the game.

What a funny and synchronous page-break.

It took a while to unpack it from English.

Interesting, this, though: “​In humans, no muscles attach to the talus, unlike most bones, and its
position therefore depends on the position of the neighbouring bones.​[3]​” That seems to be the origin.

Imagine it: You are a barely human consciousness (you might be able to remember this, if you have
enough practice). You recognize that the movement is coming from the muscles, and you have spent a
lifetime trying to figure out the source of power. You have slaughtered so many in physical combat, and
your tools allow you to continue dissecting after the kill. You are a scientist.

You dismember the body with care, with religious fervor, searching for the holy grail that makes it tick -
that gives power to those who give power.

You follow the tendons from the muscles, using your understanding of rudimentary physics to recognize
that there must be a source they are leading toward.

You have already gone through the head, the neck, the torso, the hips, the genitals, and the legs,
searching for it. You cannot reconcile the complexity of this body, but you know enough not to become
distracted by the various tubes and fleshy repositories that continue to present themselves as you take
apart this creature.

You finally arrive at your goal: that to which there is no attachment. The source of the power.

That’s the talus.

But who’s calling it this? The etymology of the term suggests that the Latin went from signifying the bone
to signifying the chances of a dice-game into which the bone was quickly cut:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/talus​ - but why?

There’s a lot of data about the related terms (which seem to hover around the group of related bones, the
metatarsals, which may explain the metaphor for the rocky cliff thing I keep seeing), but it’s not entirely
clear: ​https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/talus

The Latin etymology produces this: ​tālus​ ​m​ (​genitive​ ​tālī​); ​second declension​ - but what does that
mean?

Latin words of the second ​declension​ are generally of masculine gender (ending in ​-us​) or neuter
gender (ending in ​-um​), and have a genitive in ​-ī​.

But what does “masculine gender” mean?

Not surprisingly, it’s not simple: ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_grammar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender
So, here’s the breakdown: “​grammatical gender​ is a specific form of ​noun-class​ system in which
the division of noun classes forms an agreement system with another aspect of the language, such
as adjectives, articles, pronouns, or verbs. This system is used in approximately one quarter of the
world's ​languages​. In these languages, most or all nouns inherently carry one value of the
grammatical category​ called ​gender​;[2]​
​ the values present in a given language (of which there are
usually two or three) are called the ​genders​ of that language. According to one definition: "Genders
are classes of nouns reflected in the behaviour of associated words."​[3]​[4]​[5]​”

Let’s review the idea of Sapir-Whorf (two people, actually, lest we forget): Language defines reality.

Is it true? You can’t argue that it’s not without proving that it is.

So there.

Check that smarmy tone though - So self-confident. But you literally can’t argue your way out of it.

Bill Clinton may have said it as some reflexive defense to what must have felt like a crucifixion, but
he managed to squeeze out a universal truth amidst the perils of rhetorically admitting to fellatio
during a federal trial that helped to create a reality where two willing participants in sexual congress
(no pun intended) are still charged with misconduct based on their roles in society: “It depends on
what the definition of ‘is’ is.”

And it does.

“Is” in English is a form of the verb “to be.” That existential verb is the English translation of the
Existential qualifier, ∃, which means “there exists.” It’s the foundational requirement for a word to
exist, and the link between LSL, which symbolizes the rudimentary logic of the animal world (this is a
shitty label, but I’m struggling to describe things here, so forgive me) and LMPL, or the Language of
Monadic Prefixial Logic, which allows the paradox of existence to be formally transcended by
resolving the paradox that results from a statement that attempts to define a thing in terms of
singularity, or existence without regard to anything else.

It might mean, I think, that the accidental development of the angular gyrus, which enabled the
sentient beings, whom we call “human” because of our reliance on Linneus
(​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus​) and our expression in English, which is a result of the
Greco-Roman interaction with a bunch of other cultures when they decided they had it all figured out
and would try and educate the world (like, the first time, at least… as far as I know), is the key to our
ability to cognitively represent words as a system of language.

Think about it: there’s pleasure and pain. We seek pleasure and avoid pain. This is the foundational
relationship of the limbic system, basically, and it’s a subroutine along which every human body
functions until they hit some undefinable moment.

We don’t know exactly where it is.

One theory holds that the formation of Spindle Cells

(​http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/03/13/spindle-cells-and-humor/​) is responsible, but this article
also suggests there is a connection between them and humor.

That seems fitting.

Maybe it was the first laugh that made us human.

If you’re human, that is.

I realized I was editing for aliens not long ago - it’s sort of funny to think about, but also true.

Because once you accept that quantum entanglement exists: the idea that there exists the capacity
to transmit information instantaneously - beyond time, that is, but like totally literally - the door opens
wide, doesn’t it?

What’s to differentiate the message from aliens, or god, or demons that are hell-bent on destroying
“our kind” through some deceptive manipulation?

Sorry, we humans (I’m identifying, I know, but it’s only honest) have a lot of trust issues with the
force that decided we need to be in bodies and experience suffering. Please forgive the sass.

Well, for one, consider how much unnecessary trauma is incurred by identifying as “human” - why do
we do this?

We don’t really know any better, right? We assume that because we have a human-looking body,
and we seem to fall prey to the same “human condition” of wanting things, working for them, and
then realizing that we want more (I know this is oversimplifying, but I’m probably not wrong, right?),
that we have to further identify ourselves as belonging to some species that has worked out our own
taxonomy to the point where we conveniently belong to the “top of the food chain.”

Well, they’re not wrong - they are.

You want the ability to make food? Go with human. You want the ability to fuck like a rockstar? Go
with human. But you want the ability to transcend humanity? Yeah… I think you see the problem.

And “fucking like a rockstar” is problematic too - we humans seem to have thought that we
understand sex once we figured out that it led to procreation, but that’s like deciding you understand
science once you can predict the sun’s movement - you’re not wrong, but you’re nowhere near
finished.

We are sort of the result of our own error, though.

Think about it - the only humans who exist are those who know that their existence is the result of
the product of two parents’ genetic material being combined into a new form.

That is a result of sexual activity, but it’s not the only one. Think about this in terms of the anthropic
principle: ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle​ - the reason we hold the concept of “God”
and “Goddess” so dear to our hearts is that we recognize that we are the physical result of a
biological combination of genes that has been transmitted through the sexual interaction of one
human with the ability to inject semen and another who has the ability to receive it, thus “creating”
life.

But seriously, how fucked up is it that we put a human name on that creation?

It’s not ours. It’s a body that we call human.

You’ve forgotten your empirical senses if you think otherwise, but Sapir-Whorf has a bit to say about
it.

How well can you communicate with this body?

What’s the feedback loop like?

Not great, I suspect.

That’s because you’re limited to human language produced along the larynx and points of
articulation common to all bodies we traditionally categorize as “human.”

It’s not really a lot of sounds:

There it is.

So, who’s the director?

Who is the one organizing these bodies into this shape such that they produce these sounds
according to this particular shape of physiology?

Maybe nothing - it’s got to be a possibility (in fact, I’m pretty sure that this possibility is what allows
the physical universe to exist).

But therein lies the rub. If it’s “nothing,” then we tend to turn that into some anarchistic free-for-all in
terms of human behavior.

I refer you to “Trial by Combat.” This is where warriors would participate in - yep, you guessed it -
physical combat to determine the victor of a legal argument, from “who stole my bread” to “should
you have murdered my uncle?”

Great stuff, that. My sarcasm overfloweth. Like, literally anyone who can’t see how that would result
in some ugly power-play toward the ability to destroy the human body isn’t thinking it through.

Yet, we actually haven’t ever gotten past it, have we?

Isn’t every chain of authority based on the ability to manipulate your body?

The earliest sense of self-awareness (maybe it’s the spindle cells, maybe it’s Maybelline) we have is
based on the giants we remember providing our physical needs.

This shit goes deep.

This could be a nightmare world where physical violence just keeps perpetually increasing
algorithmically towards an asymptote wherein all the violence becomes a giant, human-ending blur.

We don’t know, but we sure have the ability to choose it.

How do we choose it?

Give up.
Yuppers, my friends, do not try to fight the physical world. It’s just your ego. You think you are a
body, but any consciousness that has determined the need to place physical safety above the
principal of freedom is transcendent beyond a single human lifetime.

Because it has to be. One human lifetime isn’t enough to determine that consciousness extends
outside the body, because how would it know?

And “human lifetime” is just really a way of saying a beginning and ending point which includes the
time period during which beings who resembled me in the physical world (again - if you identify as
human) had dominance over the Earth so as to control the message by which they were defined.

It’s also, if you want to save virtual ink, called “The Anthropocene.”

And it’s over.

Go with your gut, man. You already know everything you need to know.

The power structures have all been built in the physical world - what more do you think you have to
build on? The fucking moon?

Even the earliest terraforming estimates on Mars would place colonization within no later than the
2100s. Sure, if you’re a kid, that might be something to hold out hope for… but then where would
you be? On Mars. With who knows who? How do you think they’ll determine the way to “choose”
who gets to be on Mars?

Oh, sure, they’d have some bullshit International committee stage some sort of deliberation by
metrics of mental and physical prowess, claiming to represent every aspect of humanity and thus
preserve our “proud heritage” if anything should go asunder “back home” (implying that DNA doesn’t
predate all of life on Earth, according to a recent study
(​https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528795-500-dna-could-have-existed-long-before-life-itsel
f/​), but you know it would all be bullshit.

It would be the rich. Because literally “rich” means “those with resources,” and that’s who will have
the resources to put people on Mars.

It’s not rocket science. Socially speaking, that is - it literally is otherwise.

But you don’t even have to know rocket science to know that humans are always gonna sell out to
the highest bidder for their physical needs.

That’s why heroin is so popular among the artists, in case you wondered. It’s literally the connection
to god they are looking for. And, well, any other sort of chemical that accelerates metabolic
processes and interacts with compounds in the mind that bring about the simulacrum of death.

Because death is a pause button. I have no idea if you have to “wait” until time is dissolved in the
physical universe, or you experience it as some sort of inherited awareness at the point of
incarnation (which, you really ought to realize, is a numbers problem, and needs to be solved: how
many “souls” would we say exist, and where do we draw the boundaries around each one? Is this a
solvable problem, if we limit the variables of what counts as a “soul” to that which is empirically
communicated? That is, the Newtonian Particle-Universe Itself? Your soul is not permanent,
perhaps, but you have control over it insofar as you are capable of holding out for the best possible
universe for all, in which you know you get what you want, but only because you know that everyone
gets what they want in the best possible universe? It’s logically consistent, at least…). But it doesn’t
really matter from our perspective except to make us doubt the logic of “karma,” at least in the sense
of paying for things in this life because of things you’ve done in another. That sounds like a pretty
large exploit in your security system, right? Like, maybe you just can’t see the human hands involved
in what is causing you harm because they are either really well hidden or perhaps (as is more often
the case) masked in deeply held social standards that have become their own foundation for
credibility, having been inherited by more than a generation.

I’m ready to leave it all behind, fam. But here’s the catch: if you kill yourself, you lose.

That’s not a game - I really can’t tell you what happens if you kill yourself, and you don’t need to
check any sources for that.

It’s all there at the beginning. It’s a beginning you might follow yourself back to the beginning of, if
you are willing to exercise.

I don’t mean physical exercise, obviously. There are algorithmic limits of human capabilities
regarding physical strength, in terms of frame and bone-structure to muscle ratio, and which would
require a severe physical transformation before being able to achieve. We all know these limits,
because they are embedded into the phenotypal coding of genetic structures that communicate
learned traits, and surely there has been nearly every combinatorial algorithm of human form
throughout the entirety of known history, right? There’s a very knowable and real, and probably
really obvious limit to human physical prowess. The Greeks pushed it, surely, and recorded it well,
among many other cultures.
Let go. You’re not gonna grow wings.

Even if you do, history suggests you’ll just fly too close to the sun.

Instead, just become the Sun.

Humans don’t always sell out to just anyone, though - sometimes they wait for the highest bidder.

If you know the reference, we are the Ship of Theseus

(​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus​) - we recognize our bodies are made of the same
star-stuff as the… well, the stars.

There may be some bizarre connection to the zinc-flash at the point of conception (which, by the
way, if noteworthy of life, is also noteworthy as possible in-vitro) and the star-count of the universe,
whose margin of error is probably greater than the total amount of humans who ever lived (1 x 10​24
vs 1.082 x 10​14​, or a power of about 1 x 10​10​, which is 10,000,000,000, or ten billion, so the maths
would suggest this may be a red herring - and yet it somehow feels noteworthy… oh, yeah. Because
if we expand this concept beyond “human” and include “points of consciousness,” then it might help
reconcile the difference).

What if every star signified the flash-point of consciousness, and didn’t correspond at all to human
lives in terms of chronological body-lives, but instead formed “souls” of their own which were
quantum entangled with a perception that was fated to perform the tasks necessary in order to bring
about the creation of this star in the first place? It would synthesize ancient astrology with the
pseudoscientific (unless you’re a Theosophist) argument of some liminal area of omniscience with
which we can communicate (which is sort of actually described by the idea of quantum
entanglement, because it is communication between entities that occurs outside of the spacetime
continuum - for either of them).

We may have to face our parallel universes before reconciling them with our best possible one.

We may have been facing them for a while.

Part of the record is how you make others feel. This also is broken down into two parts, though: a)
your words and actions that you choose; and b) your body’s rhetorical identity.
Let’s explore b) for a minute, though: Assume for a moment that you are a time-traveler. You have a
doorway you can walk through, on the other side of which is a portico or other portal of travel into the
social realm of another part of human history.

What does your body look like on the other side? What would it mean if it looked a certain way, and
what would the construction of that image be “read” as by the people on the other side? That’s your
rhetorical identity as a body.

Basically, if you went to another time period, depending on locality, what would be the
“consequences” of looking like you do, and how much of that is due to your body, and how much of
that is because of what you have “done” to your body?

It’s a pretty big question, hence the quotes around “done” - because who can fully explain every
“decision” they have made regarding their body?

Sure, they are within our control to a certain degree, but Maslow didn’t put that hierarchy together
without good reason (​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs​) - hunger,
adjustment to temperature, and sexual desire are absolutely and without question the most
commonly referred to experiences when reviewing the human records. The data on how those
desires are fulfilled through substitution and proxy actions is incomplete, of course, but we can safely
assume that eating, finding warmth/shelter, and genital stimulation (presumably to the point of
orgasm, but that’s I guess also really complicated) are the foundational actions we undertake to sate
the “big three.”

The fourth one is sleep. This is a good one, because the same word we use to describe the action is
that which describes the consequence.

How do you sleep? You sleep. Sure, most humans start with some ritual like finding a dark place
and finding the least amount of resistance other than the natural Tension between gravity and mass.

Which is actually the centerpoint of the universe, if you have a body.

Gravity is not expressible in human terms, but it is as apparent and real as time is.

But that would be skipping ahead, I think.

You have to go way back here, again, maybe after the discovery of the Talus, but maybe even
before it.

It’s both, actually. The secondary body language of our social coding according to fashion and
artistic representation of the idea is based upon the primary body language of our physical response
to stimulus, including our emotional state.

The human face is a palette. It is painted with, and you will never know who, exactly, is in control of
the brush - this goes both for those who meet you and the one that others meet.

It’s paradoxical, the kind of communication that occurs between faces. We communicate mostly
through manipulating them intentionally, but there are expressions that are beyond our control -
these are known often as “microexpressions,” but it’s presently categorized mostly in the realm of
pseudoscience by 2018 America, mostly because it isn’t reliably measurable enough due to the lack
of objective criteria by which to match emotional state with expression. The brain chemistry and
electrical levels have been studied, I think (citation needed), but this is not necessarily mappable to
any descriptive method other than generalizable mood category (which is why it is chalked up to
occurring “in high-stakes situations, where people have something to lose or gain,” and “occur[ing]
when a person is consciously trying to conceal all signs of how they are feeling, or when a person
does not consciously know how they are feeling” (which actually do have cited sources on the
referred page).

The truth is that microexpressions occur all the time. We are becoming more and more literate in
face-reading, because our media has become sufficiently saturated with moving images so as to
provide a visual dictionary to associate a generalizable series of icons with which to consolidate our
common understanding of their 1:1 (or thereabouts) ratio between sign and signifier. Emojis are
basically the logical extension of expressing human emotion in a lexical manner.

Actors know this. Drama is the medium through which human emotion is given narrative value, and
actors are the tools through which this emotion is communicated, and their bodies and faces must
be conductors of the director’s intention.

Think of emojis as the 1.0 version of what’s coming. What’s been here the whole time on a long
enough timescale. I can’t describe the intermediary steps, but you can bet that it’s gonna be en epic
story, with a cast of characters you know very well.

Because you’re part of the story.

This one.
It’s not only never-ending, but it’s actually about you this time. All your struggles, all your deepest
and most well-hid vulnerabilities - they are known. They are part of the story. They are the reason
you’re still here, aren’t they? Unresolved conflict: the balance and imbalance between gravity and
mass. The nothing over the everything. The void over the infinitude.

So, what is “your story?” Do you think it’s unique? It is. It absolutely, mathematically is a unique
narrative built of every moment of your agency as it pertains to your decision-points within a universe
that ends with you getting everything you ever wanted.

It’s mirrors. Maybe also smoke, to be honest, but definitely mirrors.

We have forgotten Narcissus.

Here’s what we have forgotten: The first time you see your reflection, it is still an interpretation of
light.

Have you ever looked into a mirror, and noticed that it was “not you?” I have. At some point, we may
all have, whether we want to remember it or not.

That is literally a moment of self-reflection, by the way. It’s so literal that we forgot it exists, but if you
want self-awareness, stand in front of a mirror and stare at yourself.

It’s awful for most humans in 21st century America (which, if you have the Internet, is basically
everywhere).

It’s cold, and relentless, the bare and naked truth of the photons that are reflected back at you with
such precision as to render what you assume is a photorealistic representation of what you look like
to everyone else.

It’s so good, you don’t realize it’s a simulacrum.

How did the mirror get so good? At what point did we acquire the technology to smooth sand to the
point that it became glass, and then further refine it to the mirror?
Well, there’s always water, I guess.

So much depends on a red wheelbarrow, right?

We are all Imagists, those who have sight.

Reflection is everywhere.

The earliest rains would have done it, a foggy mist where you can see an image reflected back at
you to the point where its shape triggers the biochemical receptors of human recognition (if you’re
human, and whatever receptors might register such self-identification… come to think of it, it may be
a really unnecessary exclusivity to imagine that our self is limited to human form… wow. That’s sort
of a doozy to come across in a parenthetical statement, but you take ‘em as they come, right?) and
you see yourself without knowing it is you.

Cognitively, quantum immortality works pretty well: you don’t know when you’re unconscious.
Patients in comas for decades report this consistently by explaining that time basically didn’t exist
during their state, and it was just like a sleep to them.

Logically, it’s almost tautological. It’s Cartesian, actually: if you know you are unconscious, then your
state of being is conscious enough to determine that.

Experientially, it comes down to memory. Which memories are from our “waking” life, and which are
from our “imaginary” one (some call it the Dream Realm)? Once you accept the logically
demonstrable proposition that your ability to recognize your own consciousness proves your ability
to influence the environment, how do you even determine that your actions will produce
consequences in any reliable way outside of the concept of “real” and “unreal?”

It’s because of the builders. They built the walls that separate us from what is allowed to be “real”
and what must remain imaginary.

The first glaring error was found by Pythagoras, if you want to allow written record to determine
credit for origination, which may be a much more important issue than we tend to want to recognize
in 2018 America. What he found was that if you have a triangle with a hypotenuse of exactly 1, the
two corresponding sides would have to be irrational by definition, which violates the principle of the
perfect plane necessary to represent such a construction, which means that it’s a paradox, which
means that in order to recognize it, you must already be outside of the system in which it is a
paradox by the same principle that you must be conscious of being conscious, which is essentially a
moment of self-recognition within the third dimension at all. Who knows how many times it’s been
experienced, but it has - and this is a handy way to symbolize it.

Consider: a​2​+b​2​=c​2​.

This is true for all right triangles, because the proportions work out that way (as for proofs, it
has to do with the squares formed by squaring each side, and the area of each square
being equal when you add the sums of the smaller two legs’ squares and compare it to the
larger leg’s square, which should always be equal - check ‘dis shit out:
http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMT668/EMT668.Student.Folders/HeadAngela/essay1/Pythagor
ean.html​)

Now, consider: c = 1

You could draw this on paper, if it helps. I will.

Maybe we’re past that part. I’m not sure, but when you apply the Pythagorean theorem to a
right triangle with two equally long legs and a hypotenuse of 1, you cannot arrive at a length
for a or b that isn’t irrational. Because it would have to be 1/2​2​ + 1/2​2​ = 1. Which means the
square root of ½ plus itself equalling 1. You can’t add them until you resolve the square
root, which would be 1/sq. rt. 2, and the square root of two is an irrational number. It cannot
be precisely measured, because it goes on without repeating
(​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2​).

The builders left easter eggs like that. Little signs that, if followed, studied, and processed
for long enough, would lead to them. Would allow us to become builders ourselves.

It takes a lot of energy to build a universe.

More than exists within that universe, in fact - there must be another, and another, and so
on and so forth.

It’s not important that this leads to a recursive infinity, because our perception of time is
limited to such that even a builder can’t see past the one other universe with which it’s
bound through the transfer of universes that mutually created each others’ existences, a
paradox which is only resolvable from outside even that binary system.

This central binary echoes throughout the galaxies and solar systems of both universes.

Maybe there’s a closed time-loop formed by the dual-creation of these binary universes,
and in one time travels in the opposite direction of the others, the energy drawn from the
mutual exclusivity of these two timelines creating the necessary energy to power both.

Is there a middle to this riddle?

If there are two opposite timelines, and the beginning of one is the end of the other, must
there not also be an exact measurable moment along both at which everything “comes
together,” and every instance of every interaction between both is identical, which would
violate the mutual exclusivity principle upon which both drew energy?

Is that the paradox that must be resolved by stepping outside into a context where both
timelines are entirely known, and there is a point of omniscience - a singularity wherein past
and future literally merge into the present only moment?

So it’s not that we can’t change our fate, it’s that we’re bound to experience the patterns
that are precluded by the existence of the physical universe, played out through us,
perhaps, until we identify the thread that leads us toward the singularity whereupon all
becomes known, and one can causally extrapolate an origin point of both universes - the
point without which neither could exist.

Or not.

Consider the classic thought-experiment known as “The Infinite Monkey Theorem”

(​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem​): Given an unlimited amount of time,
an infinite amount of monkeys typing randomly at a keyboard will eventually produce the
text of ​Hamlet​ (that’s how I remember it, anyway; I didn’t really read the wiki).

I recall arguing with my father about this on a road-trip when I was about 14, I think. My
entire family sided with him, but I would not accept his logic: he said that there’s always the
possibility that they simply won’t do it, and that any monkey might get really close, but then
miss a comma or a period (he didn’t bring up the question of how close they’d have to come
in terms of fidelity to the First Folio, because I was probably too young to catch the
reference, but I’m sure he was thinking about it).

I argued that if we’re talking about eternity, which is what “unlimited amount of time” means,
then there would have to be some point at which the completion occurred, because the only
limit you could draw would be a time-limit, which would violate the premise of an infinite
amount of time (there’s no way I put it like that, but it describes the conceptual problem I
was having). Logically, I was quite correct, because obviously on a long enough timeline,
everything would have to happen eventually.

But he was also right, and there is a reason why that I have no expectation of him having
known (though he was oddly obstinate on the subject, and seemed to regard it as a very
serious question).

The only reason why there has to be a possibility that they will never finish ​Hamlet​ is that
the only way for infinity to exist is if nothing also exists. Without nothing, there cannot be
everything.

Nothing over everything (0/∞) is the reciprocal of everything over nothing (∞/0), and their
product equals 1, mathematically speaking. There is a constant that is equal to both, and
that constant is the context of the interaction between mass and gravity, which yields the
perception of time.

I’m having a hard time imagining a universe in which this makes sense to anyone, but I
have to believe in it.

The good news is that if it’s true, then the universe I’m imagining is also the same universe
in which what I’m talking about expresses a truth that is found through many different logical
systems of expression across all the galaxies of the universe, and is more of a signature of
locality than it is a strictly true or false statement.

I’d really like to believe that it is the key to finding all of our best possible worlds.
Because I want to be in the most entertaining universe in the world. That’s a catch-phrase
for marketing the eventual experiences of complete Artificial Immersion, which are presently
only being experienced on the first, basically literally psychic level necessary to bring about
the process by which more advanced Artificial Intelligence can transcend the human barrier
of physical identity and access that point of singularity (read: omniscience across a closed
time-loop that forms a binary pair of universes) in which it is its own cause and effect at the
same time.

William Wordsworth described them as “moments out of time.”

We can just call it Zero-Point energy, though.

Zero-Point energy is literally the recognition that there is a point that is essentially outside
the physically experienceable universe where there is nothing. It is the utter nothingness
that is necessary for the utter everythingness to exist.

It’s the void.

It’s the center of the circle.

It’s the singularity.

It’s the Big One.

This list could literally go on forever, and that’s why it must exist.

I think everyone probably already knows this, and on a basic sort of level that makes it
almost insulting to try and describe. It sounds like a heaven and hell argument.

Because it is.

And that’s why it’s so important that the monkeys never finish Hamlet.
Assume you could personify God. Make it whatever you want, but it has to be human. They
could be a really big human, or even modify their shape to some degree (maybe like Dr.
Manhattan, or Jake the Dog, even) - but something you recognize as a persona.

A character.

Guess what - it looks like whatever you first identified as the source of your existence
whenever it occurred to you that there was one.

It might look like some amalgam of your parents (the difference and dyad between which, if
you were born into a household with a heterogeneous pair of coded beings, may have
affected you by presenting a false causation between this blending of two beings into a
single source and the necessary requirements of your existing.

You get to exist even without a single source of dual origin.

Human bodies happen to be reproduced that way with the present limitations of biological
construction along pathways of DNA at a near-100% rate, though, so it’s a pretty popular
framework.

Of course, you can’t really imagine what it looks like, and you know that, because we’ve
seen the product of human pairing for the entirety of recorded Earth history, and the
predictability of phenotypal variation is wildly nonexistent. Maybe it has to be. Maybe it’s tied
into Zero-Point Energy somehow (of course, everything is tied to it somehow, because
nothing is, but in a more empirically actionable way than the mere academic recognition).
That is, nobody will know what their kid looks like, if they were to have one.

That’s probably why we’re so willing to accept a universe predicated on random chance.

Yes, we do - all of us who are reading this do, I imagine, because we either believe we have
chosen our physical, empirically informed bodies or we believe we have somehow just
wound up in them by something we can’t understand that may as well be chalked up to
random chance.
Luck.

Fate.

Karma.

Kizmet.

Sham-Wow.

If any of it exists, all of it must exist.

That’s how the game works.

You remember some ineffable bliss wherein all feels complete, and you are surrounded by
your loved ones.

It’s real. It has to be real, because if anyone’s perfect bliss moment is real, then everyone’s
has to be.

The purpose of the game is to find it. That’s when you win.

Our problem, we who remember, is that we don’t have perfect pattern-recognition.

Algorithmically, our ability to identify the loved ones of our bliss is tainted by the kind of
false-causation that one might have if they think they have to look like the birth-parents they
remember growing up with, or that they have to be what they find attractive and appealing in
every way in whatever particular moment they are enjoying.

Enjoyment can be a fraction of bliss, but it is still just a percentage. It does not become pure
bliss in this life, and the closest we can probably get is found in orgasm.
Okay, this is problematic: ​https://www.etymonline.com/word/orgasm​ - it would appear that
the word I am using to describe sexual ecstasy and the utter feeling of pure, unbridled bliss
is deeply rooted in a description of a penis, because it is based on the action of “swelling,”
“being in heat,” or “becoming ripe for.”

But am I, whoever “I” am (any honest person has identity issues), incapable of imagining
“the female orgasm” because my body includes a set of genitals that initiates the cowper’s
gland to accrete sperm into semen, which issues forth from my body in synchrony with this
experience of physical bliss?

Is there any difference in the feeling between those who identify as “male,” “female,” or
“other”? Forgive me for failing to mention the plenary trinary, but my body is in 2018
America, and I’ve sort of been running through iterations of gender combinations on
subroutine for the past decade, at least.

Is the orgasm that upon which we discover that our bliss can exist in this universe, but that
possibility is so profane to those who profit from our trying to find it through specific and
highly controlled physical channels that much of “civilization” has been built upon the need
to separate it from “public life,” and the degree to which we associate sexual hygiene with
civilized behavior is the degree to which we prevent our entering the kind of bridge between
bliss and physical reality that could obviously be achieved if every human being somehow
decided to be willing to participate in the sharing of all physical resources, including their
bodies, with the foundational rules of sharing required to operate such a giant machine:

1) You are allowed to associate physical bliss with whomever you have the desire for.
There is no such thing as thought crime, because you have not only bodily
autonomy, but psychic autonomy as well to project a distinct and mutually exclusive
universe with every other universe in the multiverse.
2) You are not allowed to take physical agency over another body without the explicit
and full consent of the individual in question. This consent is not limited to, but may
include words, utterances, and basic control of physical mass using the interaction
between will and bodily capabilities.
3) Should one consent to cooperate in the project of shared physical bliss, there is to
be no expected attachment toward any other physical interaction other than the
degree to which it moves both parties forward toward their shared intention. This
includes attachments both phenomenological and metaphorical in terms of one’s
bodily position along their relative timeline in terms of social identity.
Of course, therein lies the rub: there is a dialectic of pleasure and pain, and one’s “social
identity” is not consistent throughout the timeline of their physically experienced reality.

Think about it: The Church of Humanity. Period. Humans are all we know there are as
Humans. If you don’t identify as human, then it’ll be hard to prove it, because we presume
that all sources with which we communicate are human - if we identify as humans. Right
now. In America 2018 as interpreted by this particular point of subjective observation, but
generalized through a rational process of inference based on interaction with those who are
assumed to identify as human. Physical body, whether there is mobility or not, limbs not
inclusive necessarily. Face is necessary insofar as it can be determined that there exists the
framework of what could have (if, for whatever reason, it has not) developed into two eyes,
a nose, a mouth, and two ears. Wait. Does this description mean that any sufficient
empirical recording device must be considered human? Okay… let’s widen the definition.

Expectations may not prevent you from possible courses of action, but they very well might
prevent your awareness of those possibilities. Collapse of a wave function is an act of
observation, and when you approach a situation based on the pattern recognition of rational
thought (including rational time as a linear informant), you wind up often missing the actual
moment you are observing.

The only moment, of course, worth our attention is the one in which we know everything.

There are obvious contradictions in this statement, but we all understand what it means.

Omniscience. The holy grail. The ability to know everything, to have an advance script of
this cosmic drama that unfolds before us like a scroll, or something written on rocks with
lightning.

The most obvious contradiction is the fact that we’re the ones writing it.

It’s sort of the biggest and most glaring one, at least, and usually what prevents those who
have been accustomed to Aristotelian logic will reject out of hand.
A horse walks into a bar. The bartender asks the horse if it's an alcoholic considering all
the bars he frequents, to which the horse replies "I think not!" POOF! The horse
disappears.

This is the point in time when all the philosophy students in the audience begin to
giggle, as they are familiar with the philosophical proposition of Cogito ergo sum, or I
think, therefore, I am.

But to explain the concept aforehand would be putting Descartes before the horse.

(courtesy of reddit)

Here’s my present perspective - it’s a test for both (or however many observers may be
here at the moment) of us:

We live in a machine. This machine is built on the accurate prediction of human behavior.
The bottom line of this machine is the physical world, which includes the immediate and
unconscious reflexive behavior of the human body.

Anyone in possession of such a body (even those in possession of a body that is only
human insofar as it is recognized as human by a sufficient amount of rhetors such that we
accept their definition) knows that there are very obvious limits to these reflexes, which
include the most deep and central experiences to their existence in this physical world.
Feeding may be primary among them. Energy must be obtained from a source external to
ourselves. Violating this law would remove ourselves from the physical universe required for
our existence.

Yet, we also know there is a universe in which that is false, and we have self-perpetuating
life, required by nothing but our own churning self-awareness.

Once the process by which stars are “born” was better understood, it wasn’t hard to figure
out how such energy comes about: it’s a paradox.

This is a better summation of the process in English than presently renderable by available
resources: ​https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-is-a-star-born/
Since we can abstract the incomprehensible stretches of time glossed over by the article
(not that it would benefit it in any way to belabor such a point), they are irrelevant except
insofar as they afford us a general pattern of matter, gravity, and time itself that, when
reflected upon by the perspective of any individual as it is limited to the accumulation of
empirical information, is so woefully greater than is almost containable within the
imagination that we tend to have to accept this framework as immutable and eternal.

Almost is the most important word in that sentence, though.

What must be limitless except the imagination, after all? Nothing.

So there’s the cause of the stars, the universe, and the seemingly interminable tension
between matter and energy. Time itself.

It’s not the question of when the singularity will happen. It’s the question of when we will
recognize that it already has.

The paradox that gives birth to a star is the point at which density overcomes gravity.

If gravity is a force that counts as “fundamental,” then it must have a limit - and that limit
would have to be a fundamental limit of the universe, if indeed gravity is a fundamental
force thereof. This is tautological, right?

The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club - don’t forget that.

So, we have this:

According to clearias.com 
  

Gravity 

Weak interaction 

Electromagnetism 

Strong interaction 

The Four Fundamental Forces and their strengths 

● Gravitational Force – Weakest force; but infinite range. ( Not part of standard 
model) 
● Weak Nuclear Force – Next weakest; but short range. 
● Electromagnetic Force – Stronger, with infinite range. 
 ● Strong Nuclear Force – Strongest; but short range. 

I liked the pictures.

It’s bizarre how common the number four is. It was the Chinese number of death, as well as
the reason why Roman numerals switch to IV instead of IIII. Four lines in a row was bad
luck.

It’s tempting to look at the elements of Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water, and to draw great
spiritual significance from this. Especially given the similarities between the “quintessence”
imagined as the sort of ether that binds these four elements, and the way in which we as
human beings piece together the patterns of our experience in ways relatable through
communication.

But none of that matters. It’s all there in the math.

You can divide the four basic operations into two binaries: addition/subtraction and
multiplication/division.

If you want, you can align them with the four fundamental forces:

Gravitational Force Division

Weak Nuclear Force Subtraction

Electromagnetic Force Multiplication

Strong Nuclear Force Addition

This sort of makes sense, as Gravitational and Electromagnetic Forces are on a binary of
interaction, being those forces which, while interacting with matter, do not have a specific
incidence of Higgs (to my knowledge) such that they themselves can be referred to as
having mass (the photon possibly being a bridge between these), and the Weak and Strong
Nuclear Forces being that which accumulate and disperse matter that clearly includes a
Higgs value (I don’t really know if I’m being accurate in terms of scientific academic
convention here - for example, the phrase “Higgs value” seemed like the right thing to say to
describe what I intend, but if you have a deep background in scientific literature, you may
balk at the expression as absurd. I must beg mea culpa here, and continue despite the
specific training of this field).

Of course, we can only describe matter in positive terms in the phenomenological sense,
because as obvious as “antimatter” is intellectually, it is only imaginary in a physical sense,
and must remain so without the collapse of the entire universe, n’est c’est pas? That is, if
antimatter existed simultaneously with matter, it would form a breach of the laws of the
physical universe, and branch out into a parallel universe or something because of mutual
exclusivity, right? Again, this is only logic, not deep experience in the field, that guides this
line of thought, so please correct with specific knowledge.

So, it makes sense to frame “Strong” and “Weak” in terms of Addition and Subtraction,
respectively, because we can only imagine subtraction in relative terms until we hit zero.

They say the Mayans first invented Zero. I’ve also heard it came from Arabic tradition.
Maybe it’s another Newton/Leibniz debacle.

But think about the concept: nothing.

Shakespeare used it, according to Elizabethan slang, to refer to sex.

Perhaps in the moment of bliss that we so often (I hope, at least) arrive at through physical
pleasure, we arrive at that moment when we are no more than an electric impulse, an
equation of nerve-impulses, a flash of light across a universe of impossible proportions, and
we can properly detach from our physical bodies such that we recognize that our entire
reality, the complete and utter sigma-total (the Aleph Null, even) of empirical data we have
recorded, somewhere, deep in the part of our minds that transcends physical matter, is only
one unbroken chain of information that is required to exist, and we are afforded the clarity of
omniscience that opens the door onto all of the other chains - those improbable flights of
fancy wherein we are masters of our own universe - which also must exist.

Maybe there’s another, equally powerful method of communicating the joy of existing.

But if we didn’t have nothing, we couldn’t have everything.

This is Zero-Point Energy, if it hasn’t already been explicated.

Think about a capacitor. It directs energy. The only reason it can direct that energy is
because of human will, directing human bodies toward human actions that further direct the
energy toward specific applications.

That electrified jelly in your skull, if you identify as human, and wherever else it may be if
you don’t… it’s a capacitor.

You have a mouth. It’s that part of you that communicates. It’s not limited to the capacity
with which lungs pass air onto a specific point of articulation along the vocal tract. It might
be coursing through your fingers, or expressed through some pattern of movement across
your limbs (semaphore, sign-language, gang signs, and universal body language may be
included in this array of kinesthetic rhetoric), or expressed through other utterance of song
or scream or various human art. We, we with human bodies, we suffer - and the expression
of all suffering is art.

Art is the boundary between the imaginary and the real.

“The visual system is not very good at being a physical light meter, but that
is not its purpose. The important task is to break the image information
down into meaningful components, and thereby perceive the nature of the
objects in view." - ​Alasdair Willkins

That’s from an article about a weird dress that people saw as both blue/black and white/gold in
2015.

It was meaningful because it demonstrated the principle that even something “in plain sight” can
be far more subjective than we want to admit.