Suppose there's an infinite omniverse that is the set of all possible realities.
Suppose that stating that it "exists" is sort of missing the point. What is "reality?" Reality is "that which is observed." The "infinite omniverse" is that set of all possible realities. But reality is that which is observed. Is everything being observed, by "God" at least? Maybe, who knows? But if
you observe something, that is by definition reality, to you.
What is mass? I don't know. Probably neither do you. It's a fundamental. We can describe it, we can understand its behavior well enough to predict its interactions with other things that we also don't know what they are, but describing a thing is not defining it. When we say that there "is" a set of all possible realities...the distinction between a "possible" reality and an
observed reality is...that one is being observed. Maybe "other" realities are being observed by other observers, but if so that observation is not part of your observation, and not part of reality
to you. By definition. This is a fundamental. Describing it in terms of something else is unlikely to be productive, just like trying to define mass is unlikely to be productive.
It is the thing.
So...from the set of all possible realities, there are elements of consciousness that are observing some of those possibilities. A possibility being observed, is by definition what reality is.
A "dimension" is an arbitrary designation. If we have a three dimensional space, we can say that "that way" is up-down and "that way" is left-right and "that other way" is forward-back. But these are merely labels. They may be convenient, but they're not usefully describing anything fundamental about the space. There's no "fundamental" frame of reference except an observer. How convenient that you are at the center of your observed experience, able to serve as a frame of reference for yourself.
An infinite omniverse can be
described as possessing infinitely many dimensions, along any arbitrary axis we care to talk about. Suppose there's one "universe" that is like the one you see around you. Suppose there's another universe based on your favorite novel. Suppose you were a window faller, and fell into that other universe. And suppose that in that other universe...they spoke English. Would you find it odd that an entirely different universe that maybe didn't even have humans in it would have creatures that spoke English? Why would you find that odd?
In this case, "English exists" is simply an axis that we can arbitrarily decide upon and talk about within the set of all possible realities. One could describe an "axis" from this infinite set, along which English is spoken. We can do that. There's nothing fundamental about it. It's as arbitrary as describing "that way" as up and down. But we can do it, and maybe it's an occasionally useful axis, whether it's an axis line, axis plane, or axis n-dimensional hypercube.
Let us now speak of observers. Are you an observer? Do you observe three dimensions of space? Why is that so? Is there any particular reason? Maybe not, but it
is so, and that's ok. But since dimensions are a thing that we're arbitrarily assigning onto the set of all possibilities, there's not particularly any reason to limit ourselves to three. For example, this universe you perceive where English is spoken, and that other universe from your favorite novel where English is also spoken, why do you not observe both of those universes simultaneously? You're able to observe left-right and up-down at the same time. Those axes are arbitrary. The universes-where-English-is-spoken axis is also arbitrary. Why do you look along the arbitrary left-right axis, but not along the arbitrary universes-where-English-is-spoken axis?
If you do...that's ok, but why, if these axes are arbitrary, and not very usefully descriptive of the nature of the set of infinite possibility?
"Time does not exist."
Ok, that's fine. The "set of all possibile realities" includes a universe state that you might describe as how things were one unit of Planck time ago, and it includes a universe state that you might describe as how things "will be" one unit of Planck time from now. And if you want (and are able) you can observe those universe states along an axis. Label that axis "time" if you want, or label it "Bob," giving it a name doesn't usefully describe it or give it any fundamental significance. Again, all dimensional axes are arbitrary, just like left-right and up-down. Time is a reasonable way of decribing this if that's what you want to do. But there's not only one possible state from (the set of all possibilies) that a human observer would likely interpret as "reasonably" correlated with this one. If one second from now, your phone rings, or if one second from now your phone does
not ring, either of those possibilities would likely be perceived by you as reasonable future outcomes, but that "reasonableness" doesn't make one possibility or the other more neccesary that it be perceived as part of an axis that you arbitrarily made up for yourself.
Does the structure of the set of all possibilities care very much about what you consider to be reasonable? Draw a line across a piece of paper to create an axis upon which to divide the paper. Does the paper care where that line is drawn? Does the set of all possible realities apply the same expectation of continuity between states that you do? If instead of your phone ringing or not ringing in one second, rather, the entire room around you should be replaced by rubber duckies...why would observing
those state pairs on an arbitrary axis make any more or less sense than your phone ringing in the next second? Apart from the fact that it is your
expectation that rooms don't usually spontaneously turn into rubber duckies. Ok. That's fine. But does the set of infinite possibilities have the same expectation? Does it care very much which axes you arbitrarily choose to perceive from among its set?
What are "you?" Suppose that "you" are experiencing qualia. Suppose that you are having "a subjective experience." Ok.
Think of kitchen floor tiles. There's only one floor, and it's composed of a set of tiles. You can look at it, and choose to perceive "this" tile as being separate and distinct from "that" tile. You can look at four tiles together and percieve them as forming a square that is separate and distinct from the rest of the set. Like looking at the drawn outline of a cube. Which side is up? It's a matter of how you choose to perceive it. Or the "spinning dancer gif." You can choose to perceive it as spinning in either direction, and with practice you can probably choose to switch the direction in which you perceive it as spinning.
You perceive whatever reality you perceive. Imagine the physical body of another human within your perceived reality. Suppose that other body also has an observer "using it as a window" to perceive...what exactly? The same reality that you're observing? Probably not. If you are and I both sitting on a couch, looking through human eyeballs at the very same room, the information being fed to us through our respective eyeballs will be a little bit different. Because of viewing angle. Because of different light sensitivies between our eyes. Because different brains filter and prioritize the information differently. Because of these and probably other factors, we're not having precisely the
same subjective experience. And since reality is by defintion that which is experienced, we are therefore not experiencing the same reality.
But, they're
similar. They correlate. If you observe what appears to be a cat walking into your field of view, because of our closeness it's likely that I will also observe what appears to be a cat walking into my field of view.
Our "mutually shared experience" is like our two consciousnesses being "in sync." But the
degree of "in sync-ness" might vary. If you leave the room, suddenly your eyeballs are delivering a less similar set of information to you than mine are from where I sit, still in the room with the cat. If you leave the planet, the information you perceive will likely be even more dissimilar.
If you
fall through a window, then the information you perceive will likely be even more dissimilar still.
What is the difference between "self" and "other?"
If, from (the set of all possibilities) you are experiencing (the experience of you sitting on the couch looking at a cat) and if from that same set I am experiencing (the experience of me sitting on the couch looking at a cat) ...is there any particular reason why a single observer might not experience
both these things together? Left-right and up-down both fit in your field of view without issue.
What's to stop an observer from observing the information being experienced by all human beings on the planet, "at the same time?"
...does that hypothetical observer...
exist, regardless of the fact that what you perceive as "you" is only perceiving what you perceive as "your" reality in the "right now?" Why would these things be mutually exclusive?
After all, if reality is simply information from the set of all possibilities, being observed...what could possibly stop some "other" observer from also observing the same information that you do? You and I can share a couch and watch the same movie at the same time. Thousands of people can look at the same web page at the same time. What's to stop an observer from observing everything that you do along with everything that every other human does? Instead of viewing from a single reference point, can you observe multiple reference points? Can you observe from a reference plane, or a reference cube? Can you observe everything being observed by every human in your collective, relatively-synchronized-set-of-realities, along together at the same time with everything being observed by every oberver in some other similarly-shared set of realities?
When looking at the kitchen floor, you might choose to pay attention to only a single tile and perceive it as distinct from the others, but that doesn't diminish the existence of a single "floor" composed of all of them. Those other tiles you're not paying attention to are probably still there, even if
you aren't observing them...but reality is by definition that which is observed. A tile that is unobserved by you isn't "real" but nevertheless it remains a possibillity from the set of all possibilties. It is probably observing itself. How could it not?
If I perceive everything that you do, and you perceive everything that I do...how different are we? (1 equals 1) and (X = X) but me having one apple and you having one apple aren't mutually exclusive. If you drop a water balloon into a bucket of water, the distinction between the water in the balloon and the water not in the balloon is very obvious. If you pop the balloon, suddenly the difference becomes much less clear, but the individuality of a single water molecule is not diminished.
Suppose that half a dozen of us are sitting on the couch. Reality is by definition, that which is observed. Suppose that we all observe a cat. If we want to call that "objective" reality because all of us balloons-full-of-water-in-the-bucket agree that we perceive a cat, ok. That's fine. We can call it that. We can describe it as "objective." But now suppose that one of us sitting on the couch doesn't see the cat. Maybe their eyes are closed. Maybe they're blind. Maybe they're simply
not paying attention. When they tell you they don't see the cat, they're not lying. But their degree of "in sync-ness" with the others on the couch is less than those who all perceive the same cat. Somebody who falls through a window becomes very out of sync. Saying that the cat is "objectively" there, what does that
mean, when all it takes for the cat to not be part of your observed reality is for you to leave the room?
What is density? "Amount of stuff in a given volume." It doesn't really matter what the "stuff" is. Could be anything. For example:
Code:
____________________
| . . . . |
____________________
There are four dots in the box. The box is twenty characters wide. The dot density is four in 20.
Code:
____________________
|. . . . . . . .|
____________________
This box has 8 dots in it. It is also twenty characters wide. The dot density is 8 in 20. The second box has greater dot density than the first. Let's now consider sound.
Here we have 3 wave peaks in five sets of big boxes. The wave peak density is 3 in 5.
Here we have 4 wave peaks in five sets of big boxes. The wave peak density is 4 in 5.
"Frequency" is how many times a thing happens in a given amount of time.
"Density" is the amount of stuff in a given amount of volume.
The peak of a sinewave could be considered "a thing." It's "stuff."
Let's go back to us sitting on the couch. Suppose that I observe a single three-dimensional-space. And let's suppose that you observe a single three-dimensional-space. Our observances are similar. We both see the cat. But they're also different, because of angle and light sensivity and brain filtering and so forth. "A three-dimensional-space" is
stuff. If we, as observers, observe one such unit of this stuff, our density is one unit of three dimensional space being observed, per observer.
Suppose now that there is an observer who observes
both the room as you see it, and
also the room as I see it. The
density of their experience is two three-dimensional-spaces per observer. Thier density of observation is greater than ours.
The "set of all possibilities" could be described as "the set of all possible observances."
So, if a water balloon in a bucket of water is popped, is that an ascension to higher density? Well...sort of. But also not. It's an imperfect analogy. Density is the amount of stuff in a given volume. When you pop the balloon, maybe it becomes difficult to distinguish
this water from
that water. "The quantity of water" has become larger in a sense because it is no longer divided, which in this metaphor correlates with it having greater awareness. But if you go from being the water in the ballon to being the water in the bucket, the volume of space under consideration is now larger, which changes the denominator in our (amount of stuff per volume) equation.
Think of all humans as being like the kitchen floor tiles. Imagine that, like one balloon being popped,
one floor tile grows to perceive the entire floor as a single thing, but that all the other tiles continue to perceive themselves as individuals. This is a very different condition than
all of the floor tiles perceiving the floor as a single thing. Density is the amount of stuff in a given volume. If the one floor tile perceives the entire floor as a single entity, let's call the "single-floor-perception density" as one single-floor-perception per floor. But now suppose a second tile also perceives the floor as a single thing. That then becomes
two single-floor-perceptions per floor. But we're still talking about the same volume of floor.
That is an increase of density, and there may be thresholds that correlate with significant state change. If you increase the temperature of a measure of water from 25 to 26 degrees celsius, that's an increase of 1 degree, but the water is still water. If you change it from 99 to 100 degrees, it's still only one degree of change, but the significance of that change is much greater. Welcome to fourth density.
"Realm border" is descriptive, not merely a label. Your bedroom is a realm. Your living room is a realm. The door between them is a realm border. If you draw a squiggly moose on a chalkboard, the chalk line is a realm border between the inside and the outside of the moose. There's a realm border between your observance and my observance. There's a realm border between (the collective observances of every tile in the kitchen floor) and (the collective observances of everything from within the set of all possible realities that is
not the kitchen floor.) Yes, there's "a realm border" between third and four densities, but so too is there "a realm border" between any two things you care to differentiate. You might ask how to cross the realm border between third and fourth densities, but how do you cross the realm border that is the variance between your subjective experience while sitting on the couch and my subjective experience while sitting on the same couch?
When all the tiles in the kitchen floor perceive themselves as a single floor, that floor is a realm. Now suppose that all the tiles in the kitchen floor in your
neighbor's house also perceive themselves as a single floor. At this point we've simply scaled up the same issue, like a fractal. Where before we were discussing the perception density of floor
tiles perceiving themselves as a single floor, now we can discuss the density of (
floors composed of tiles that perceive themselves as a single floor) from within the volume that is the set of all floors. Humans may unify with each other, but at some scale there are entire universe unifying with each other, humans and universes each like concentric circles within one other. What is an angel but a perception hypercube?
Algebra is symbolic representation. No need to overthink it.
www.scmp.com
spectrum.ieee.org
, I see it's your first post, it is customary to post a little intro in the newbie section of the forum.
