__________
If you zoom in far enough on space or matter, you would expect there to be a fundamental level, particle, or building block. Zoom in far enough and there has to be a building block which cannot be broken down into any smaller pieces. Otherwise it's just be an infinite division of threads making the whole and you could never find the smallest piece. Maybe the smallest level is energy which forms particles, or something like that, but for my thought experiment this is irrelevant. This energy is still bound to time and space.
So, presuming that there is a most fundamental level, you have these tiny 'bits' that make up physical reality. These bits, you have one over "here" and another over "there", and with however many quadrillions placed next to and on top of one another in this formation, you eventually can form an atom, and with enough atoms you can form molecules, and with enough molecules you can form a drop of water, and with enough drops of water you can form an ocean.
But we have established that these 'bits' are the smallest possible building blocks. Therefore we would have to explain the space between them, or connecting them. And we would have to explain the time it takes for an object to traverse from one to the other. Any delay in travel from one to another adjacent to it would be a gradation between the two and thus represent an even yet smaller building block. And so the whole process would start over and we would be left with an infinite well of a microcosm which can never be fully probed. No smallest building block.
Therefore, on this level, one 'bit' next to another bit would have to be all there is. There is no space between them, to move from one to the next is to instantaneously jump or teleport to it, with no point of traverse in-between, nor with any time... simply instantly. It is the most fundamental level, it cannot be broken down any farther. If you continue to break down the space between bits into smaller gradations, you eventually have to concede that this break down is infinite, and therefore motion is not even possible. For a bit to move from one bit-space to another, it cannot be able to take the first step if we infinitely break down the distance between bits into smaller subdivisions, otherwise you're left with never being able to explain on what level something begins moving at all. Every time you say "Ok, here, on this tiniest scale, it moves from A to B" you are forced to concede that there is an even yet smaller gradation between that A and B, composed of smaller units, across which this object or bit is traversing. And you'd never be able to find that end. Therefore there is an eventual level which simply cannot be broken down any farther, and therefore this bit literally teleports instantly from one location to another, from A to B, otherwise motion becomes impossible.
Space no longer exists, nor does time, not as anything we understand anyways.
In addition, we have the difficulty of explaining what exactly this smallest 'bit' is made of. What is it composed of? What is it's material? But we can't say this! Because that necessitates an even smaller, more refined level. It has to be something entirely unified with itself. We can't even say that this bit, itself, takes up a certain amount of space, even. Any measurement of it's space breaks down space into smaller chunks, which we can theoretically measure out, and then proceed to cut this smallest bit in half, creating smaller pieces, which would prove this smallest bit is not in fact the smallest bit, but is instead composed of something smaller, which makes it up, thus allowing it to be cut in half. At the same time, this suggests that this smallest bit is in fact infinitely small. But how is that possible? You could never zoom in far enough to see it. In other words it exists outside of the spatial construct completely. It is non-spatial, it is just a conceptual point. A vector. A psychological entity.
Actually, how can I even properly say these bits are "next to" each other? My thoughts are breaking down a little here, but the questions that come to mind are things like "what are they next to each other in?" "how can they exist in any framework which might arrange them if they are the smallest building blocks?" "how can you separate these two tiny 'bit' points in space if there is no longer any scale of space between them?" or time, for that matter.
The point here is that I can't. They're not spatially or temporally separate. All these bits exist in the same singularity. The inevitable implication of what this means is - yes - the entire universe exists in this one singularity. This one single point: you, me and everything we know, without space and without time.
 |
| "— (3:14. everything that god made, that will be forever.)" |
So..
then I think about the big bang. This idea of everything exploding out of a single nothing. Out of a singularity.
Did it really explode? Or did it just appear to explode, to us? And doesn't this idea of a singular existence make a whole lot of sense of a lot of things? Like mind/consciousness, or quantum concepts, for example. Like we are experiencing something that could be compared to a computer program, which has projected for itself an artificial 3D environment, which does not actually exist in reality, and is really nothing more than information on a CPU?
That gets ahead of myself. Back to the big bang. What separates one piece of matter from another, in this ideology I've constructed, is not space and time, not truly, but rather a cognitive distinction between one thing and another. I look to my right and I say "That space is over there" and I look to my left and I say "While that space is over there." But they're not. They're both right on top of each other and in the mind alone.
I have taken a singularity and I have imagined it to be multiplied. With more than one, numbers now become relevant, (they did not exist before such a point) and I can count... 1.. 2.. 3.. From counting I can form a theoretical grid, an idea of one dimension.. x.. and another... y... in which this multiplied singularity can be arranged. 1, 2, 3, this way, and that. Add another dimension... z... and I have an entire 3D construct.. space. Add another, why not? We can have 4 dimensions, 5, 6. As many as we want. Maybe I decide one spatial construct is divided from another spatial construct, yet connected, and they all flow into each other with subtle changes. And this we call "time." We've already established that time is impossible, but through perception we can create it here. It's all just distinctions in information in a singularity.
So did this universe or big bang really explode? Or was it a perception which "exploded"? While everything actually remained in one singularity?
I mean, what is with consciousness? It makes up our entire existence, and nothing is outside of it, for us. And yet it somehow seems strangely attached to this matter. But what is it? This idea seems to suggest that this consciousness is a property of reality. A property of the singularity. It's indistinguishable from the entirety of the universe, or multiverse, or whatever it is. Without it, space and time cannot be made possible. (or rather into possible experiences)
Maybe said another way; reality is virtual, and the mind or consciousness which is spawning it is the whole entire fundamental basis of it. It is it.
So, what happens with things like quantum entanglement is that these two particles which appear separated in space, yet strangely connected, they are actually both merely contained within the framework of this mind or supercomputer type of state, and the information can be directly and instantly written to both, because they both exist as nothing more than information, as distinctions between a singularity and itself. A virtual framework of space. And all information boils down to nothing more than one thing and another, 0 and 1, black and white, binary. This information even including time and space. All equally being the same. Just an informational construct.
I am trying to take this farther.. Ask more questions.
How is it that, if space and time are in actuality completely impossible and don't even make any sense, how is it that I perceive and experience them as if they are very coherent and sensible? I look around my room, and I make a distinction in my mind between one direction and another. It all seems a very real and tangible phenomenon.. the distinction between the two, I mean. But I guess it's just information. I mean one dimension splits up into a gradation going out in one plane, creating an idea of separate spaces, other dimensions are added to this (y, z) to create different directions, and the difference between one direction and another is, simply, nothing more than another distinction, another piece of information, another way of dividing things up. And at a certain point of analyzing the difference between one dimension and another, things seem to cease making sense to me. Like what is one dimension on it's own, exactly? And how do you add one to another? Where is it being added? And at this point it begins to break down so much that I start to ask myself, "What am I even talking about?" Maybe it's all just meaningless distinctions within a mind, afterall. Just numbers and counting. It's like when I wake up in the morning, and reality doesn't even make any sense. Like.. in my own right, I exist in a different reality, not simply a different universe or dimension, but a whole different mentality, self contained and sensible within itself, and the nature or senselessness of this one does not make sense (rightfully so) until I readjust myself to it. (fully wake up.)
As I look about my room, making a distinction between one direction and another, I notice how the human construction of the room helps make things simpler for me. We humans like to make these artificial homes which are nothing more than extremely simplified boxes. Like x, y, and z dimensions. Isn't that a little strange? I mean we came out of the jungle, where everything is chaos and arbitrary and a mess, yet we are so attracted to building these super mathematical, geometrical, reduced, simplified forms. It reflects something of the attraction of the psychological, I think. Of pure concept. Something we aspire to, in our consciousness. This is sort of a tangent..
What about emotions? I wonder. I mean not just the petty superficial ones separating one need from another... hunger.. fear... excitement... suspense... boredom... petty sadness... petty joy... petty anger... But rather... the sense I have that there is something which is important. That there are certain things which do matter and are important. That we can't just act like it's all just meaningless distinctions, is what I guess I am trying to say? The way a person behaves, for example. It can become either meaningful or meaningless, depending on the specific way they act. Or is this not important? Is this another illusion? I don't even know how to approach this question..
What makes one thing feel so intensely wrong to me, and what gives another thing meaning? And how do I defend this? I can't really write the definition for this. I can make superficial distinctions and say "there, see, this one has one certain aspect of it which separates it from the other, that is why it's important." because such distinctions are superficial and thus meaningless... x, y, and z. 1, 2, and 3. black, grey, and white, one moment and the next and the next, etc. It's all the same. But it's not! One thing is meaningful and the other is not. So do you see, how can I define that? It feels, to me, anyways, feels, that there is something fundamental, something more fundamental then this surface of superficial distinctions, which is being expressed. And the way in which objects in the material, temporal world are used kind of... symbolize it.. express it, maybe.
Yes, you can still reduce meaning to a binary system. Love and unlove. Meaning and lack of meaning. Good and bad. Just 0 and 1. Yet my actual experience, which is somehow connected to my consciousness and yet seems to exist nowhere at all within this construct, (from no source, or place, or time) tells me otherwise. It tells me that there's something more there. I can make a million distinctions between a million petty things, and there is no sense of meaning required. Nor should there be. Just sterile distinctions. Yet nevertheless I still feel something, in the bowels of my being, in some sort of non-locality, something that can't be explained by mere simple distinction, and it is this something which I call "meaning."
To put another way; in a world of arbitrary distinctions/information, there should be no sense of anything. It should all be hollow and uniform. Why would there be any sense there? Yet there is a sense of something, and I know this because I experience it.
And, furthermore, this "sense of something" speaks with it's own authority. It says - intrinsically within itself and directly to my consciousness without any space or time inbetween - that what it is is something which is.. purposeful. Useful to some greater part of my own being. Meaningful. Representing something on a grander scale than the petty and arbitrary reality which has been constructed here, and serves a purpose for this higher level, which furthermore I should be very happy about, because it is based upon something which this higher part of my own being as well wants or needs.
 |
| "Cathartic" |
I don't know why my being wants this, it just does. I don't know what the point of it is. This "something", which seems so totally tied up to this sense of love I have. This sense of wanting to... have things be in their right place, to be done right. What drives that, exactly? What's the exact definition of that? This amorphous sense of.. wanting to care and be cared for, I guess? But how is that expressed exactly, through form? I mean, we're just arbitrary objects in a world of multiplicity, how can anything mean anything like that? How does form create that compassion? Why do I feel that compassion and caring in some forms, and not with others? Even as an arrangement of notes in a song, I can feel a sense of kindness and genuine warmth or a sense of unloving fear or aggression, and it's very distinct. Why, even when we take something.. like a hug for example.. I can feel different ways. One person may hug me and I might feel genuine compassion and understanding, etc. But another person may do it and all I feel is their ego and need for attention and greed and superficiality. And the difference between these two experiences which are so identical - both a hug - makes all the difference between a sense of meaning and a sense of the destruction of meaning.
What is it that this meaning is? What does it mean to love, I mean? What is that about? What is the higher purpose, not the shallow reasoning? It seems something about.. recognizing and giving homage to the importance of others. Yet I could then take that and ask, what is the purpose of that exactly? What is this 'importance' of conscious beings used for, in the grand scheme? Why is this importance important? What does it mean?
Trying to ask questions that get so incredibly fundamental and abstract becomes very confusing, making it hard for me to even look the question in the face directly. I don't think we are used to it. In order to calibrate my mind to this I have to develop a different way of thinking and perceiving, a different way for my thoughts to operate.
No comments:
Post a Comment