What is Reality? & What is Reality? Self-manifestation

[hitthelimit]

 This is texts and video 

on
What is Reality? & What is Reality? Self-manifestation

What is Reality?

Dear Visitor! Unless this question is the meaning of your whole life, this entry is not meant for you. Do not waste your time.

Many people try to answer this question, but immediately they encounter a serious problem. For example, a heartfelt voice on a video announces that at first there was nothing, followed by a bang, and somehow all this just appeared. Or perhaps there are references to the facts of quantum physics, and, as if they explain something, conclusions are drawn out about the illusory nature of it all. Or otherwise, a multitude of other ‘logical’ solutions for this question are construed. The problem in all of these approaches is that an attempt to give a definition of Reality creates a result that, by definition, or by agreement, belongs to this Reality. Such attempts are doomed to fail, and, alas, I am not even inclined to discuss this unfortunate fact.

 

For listeners who are completely confused by this introduction, I will note that everything that we say is based on certain axioms, sometimes explicit, and sometimes hidden. The most important, elusive, inconspicuous and ineradicable axiom is the idea of ​​Existence. Other smaller axioms, like Time and Space do not deserve any mention at all. The idea of ​​Existence is so intrusive and indestructible that in his time Descartes decided to carve this axiom into stone, giving rise to the notorious phrase "I think, therefore I am." The phrase, of course, is completely devoid of meaning beyond the agreement on its meaning.

 

If you are trying to answer the question “What is Reality?”, then you need to reconsider the axiomatics of your worldview statements. If this is not done, then we hear that which we hear in all attempts to define Reality - nonsense, which only makes sense within the framework of an agreement that itself exists .. oops, in an already existing Reality.

 

If you are guessing the main revision target is the axiom of Existence, then you are correct. The rejection of the idea of ​​Existence demolishes everything. In this way, the voice was correct to announce that in the beginning there was nothing. But what's notable is that you cannot say that then something has suddenly appeared. There was nothing, and nothing is. And this means that there is no... you! There is no one who raises the question and no one who tries to answer it. There is no answer to the question. There are no semantics, meanings, nothing! And this is of course is true, because there is no Existence. If you postulate at least some existence, then you immediately encounter an absolutely insoluble paradox. But otherwise (with no Existence) there are no paradoxes, and still there is anything you may like! Including Reality.

 

So, I gave a very clear definition of Reality.

You do not understand anything?

Let's do it again.

 

Imagine that there is (virtually, of course) some algorithm that is prone to self-realization. For the simplicity of a mental experiment, let it be an algorithm of a cellular automaton. Imagine that there is nothing else in this imaginary world, but this virtual algorithm. At any moment of its implementation, there is to be a succession of sections of algorithmic sequences, which IS Reality. Is this sufficient to be called "Reality"? True, this Reality will be somewhat imperfect, but is our Reality perfect?

 

In order to answer the question “What is Reality?”, you need to learn how to create one spe

cific model. Namely, it should be understood what we mean when referring to Existence, and where it is coming from.

 

The answer is equivalent to the definition of Reality: any array of algorithmic sequences is Reality. Therefore, there are all kind of realities, and they do not overlap. They all exist virtually, based on their virtual algorithms.

 

There is no Reality in general, common to all. There is only a Reality of a particular complex of algorithmic solutions.

 

But what does it mean?

The conclusions that follow from these simple arguments, in fact, kill.

Everything is subject to revision.

 

Namely:

Reality exists as a self-agreement regarding Existence, Time and Space. Without this basic triad, everything degenerates into an algorithmic analog of white noise. Thus, Reality is a greatly simplified version of the basic algorithm; it is “fools meaning”, roughly speaking.

 

Further, in Reality there is no determinism. Everything on which science is based, actually has no basis. So why does science work? Because science is what enters reality from the solutions of the basic algorithm, after they were filtered through self-agreements of Existence, Time and Space. Remember, at the dawn of quantum mechanics, this filter underwent a significant weakening. This entire triad of agreements was called into question, but Reality survived, not least due to imperfections in the current design of people’s psyche.

 

Is it clear now? If you have really began to understand, then your first and legitimate question should be this: isn't the author contradicting himself when urging us to create a model adequate for understanding what Existence is? If you are asking such a question, then you are making progress. The answer is simple: I'm not saying that you can learn anything at all. Moreover, the algorithm has been long deployed in its entirety, and this (your understanding) will either happen or not.

And now for everyone's favourite question: is this hypothesis falsifiable or not? Partly, yes. It fully explains the great silence of Cosmos - the Fermi Paradox. Moreover, it answers questions with regards to civilizational prospects by pointing out natural restrictions on the maximum level of complexity of its constituent units (in other words, people).

What is Reality? Self-manifestation

Look closely at the screen. What you see is not just an all-time greatest trick, but simply the greatest trick, for this is how realities appear.

 

We begin with two plates riddled with regularly arranged holes (suppose plates are of infinite size).

 

Now, we stack them one on top of the other, very closely, and then turn them a little with respect to each other. The hexagonal structures that you see are a result of a well-known phenomenon known as interference. The question here is this: do these hexagonal structures exist? If they do, then how?

What's the problem you may ask? In our initial conditions there are two plates with holes as well as a description of their mutual arrangement, both of which could be described by some simple mathematics. But notice that hexagonal structures are not specified in the initial conditions! Nevertheless, we can clearly see them.

 

The observer

 

We - see - them. Notice that we do not describe them as "existing", but rather simply say that we see them. But we are very specific, as well as complicated, systems. What happens when we remove ourselves from the picture altogether?  

 

Imagine an ant creeping on top of our design with hexagonal structures, from time to time stepping into one of the holes. The pattern is thus sensed by the ant, validating the existence of the hexagonal structures. But the ant is also a rather complicated observer. And what if, apart from two plates shifted relative to one another, there is nothing at all? Are the hexagonal structures there or not?

 

The birth of Reality

This is not a trivial matter. Where did the hexagonal formations come from? There are two answers to this question.

 

The first answer is that they did not appear, because they do not exist in the initial conditions of the system under consideration. This is practically obvious.

 

But what about the fact that we can see them? This brings us to the second answer, and this answer is absolutely stunning! Combinations of initial conditions can give rise to certain additional fixed conditions, which are much more intricate than the original ones. Thus, the mathematics of our "hole fields" that describe the initial planes can, under certain manipulations, generate mathematics of hexagonal structures. Let’s call this new result a derived algorithm. Namely it is within this derived algorithm that these hexagonal structures exist for us, for ants, and in general by themselves. This is the essence of self-agreement. We can call it “self-manifestation”. And this is the reality.

 

Levels of evolution of derived algorithms

 

If the original algorithm is sufficiently diverse, then the number of levels of derived algorithms can be very large. We call this emergence, without ceasing to be surprised how this "new" appears, and why it can not be reduced to a simple source. Emergence can not be reduced to anything simpler without destroying the derived algorithm at its base. Therefore, the answer to the question "this beautiful sunset, which I observe now, can it be described in simple elementary events?"is both “Yes” and “No”. Yes, in the sense that it is present in the possibility of mathematical manipulations at the level of the basic algorithm. And no, because the "beautiful sunset" is only in the framework of the derived Space-Time-Existence  algorithm.

 

Qualia

The latter answers the riddle of Qualia. The notion of "beautiful sunset" is qualia, which can not be reduced to anything simpler, but this does not mean that it “really exists”. It exists insofar as there are many levels of derivative algorithms that act for us as semantic crutches, simplifying the original Reality from the level of "white noise" to the level of "meaningful Reality."

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube