A Schizophrenic View of Earth Population

a schizophrenic view of earth population:

for the schizophrenic, there is always some confusion about what is real and what is not. in an acute episode, the whole 3D mechanical motion theoretical model system does seem to stop working. everyone has some subconscious awareness of or feeling for their surroundings. for me, the breakdown happened when i was 20, for a moment, it seemed as though the buildings and immediate geography were shifting, kind of like in a dream, but this was waking reality! it seemed possible that the walls could change at any moment and that i could be blocked off and trapped. if we consider philosophical idealism, this makes sense, for if the world is merely a mental construct and mentally you are in upheaval, anything could happen. and teleporting happened later, proof positive that the 3D mechanical motion theoretical model is not the truth about reality.

when people start disappearing and appearing from out of nowhere and what they say generally not makes much sense, this confusion about what is real extends to the question of the realness of other people, are other people philosophical zombies without consciousness? what if the voices i heard, or at least some of them, the so called auditory hallucinations, were the real people speaking and everyone i saw were a zombie? fortunately, there are only a few theoretical possibilities: first, solipsism is true, you are the only real person in reality, second, perhaps everyone you see and hear is real, or third, there are other real people but some people are philosophical zombies.

now if the 3D mechanical motion theoretical model is not real, and everything is fixed in space, of course we are all "brains in a vat". but this is not like the movie, The Matrix, perhaps there is no unplugging yourself from the machine for there is no greater external world to go to. it is that the 3D mechanical motion theoretical model is inherent to this reality and our thinking, we cannot help being perpetually crazy about this!

what is a non-schizophrenic on Earth? it is someone for whom the Earth program with its "science" works perfectly. the senses are stable. it is someone who sees and hears less than the schizophrenic. life on earth begins with amnesia and a docile acceptance of how Earth seems. but this wears off for the schizophrenic. the lingering question is: who are the real people and how many are there?

CLEARCHARGE

Talk As Pinball Minefield

talk as pinball minefield:

if conversation were as a game, like pinball, the focus of our thoughts the ball, and our words the paddle, some of the board would be minefield, for talking is not without risk. of course, it has its rewards. it satisfies personal curiosities, communicates truths, validates beliefs, makes clear what is happening and what could happen, and may bring about happiness and wellbeing.

where it goes wrong it induces hate, anger, sorrow or fear, perhaps in that very order. it is all very well to say, "oh everyone's the same", but truthfully, everyone's mind is mapped at least a little differently. everyone has a unique value system. cynically, if everyone wants different things, or even perhaps the same thing but to a different degree, what are they doing together? on the other end of the scale, into the negative, there are things people do not want, or even fear or hate. the difficulty lies in that, in a real sense, words do not mean exactly the same thing to other people, they are not connected to the same ideas, concepts and experiences as in your own mind. when i say word X, i am thinking of ideas B and M, for instance, but it may trigger someone else to think of ideas Y and F. F might be something unpleasant.

and because we are driven by want, people may assume that what we casually mention, we actually want, even if this is not true or the purpose of what we say. it is not exactly about being direct or indirect, there are different manners of speaking, some speak in an emotionally loaded way, everything closely connected to their own worldview, what they want, fear or hate or what makes them angry or sad.

to reveal acute differences in value systems would usually be thought of as a loss but then again perhaps talk is only a form of art, nice when it goes well, but not a matter of life and death. even if only some common ground is found, it is in some sense a success.

CLEARCHARGE

The Passive Dreamer to Earth

the passive dreamer to earth:

it is the passive mental state that exists that marks a person as asleep or dreaming. in the early stages of sleep, before consciousness has passed fully, thoughts become less clear, less "logical", and more "random". in sleep, a stream of fact-like thoughts present. often, when they refer to waking life and people we know, they are false, but the sleeper is susceptible to believing them. the sleeper passively accepts these thoughts. they form the "rules" of the dream world.

as i have posited before, earth is a derivative of the dream world, formed from the collective unconscious, the destination after being asleep for something like four days and propelled through a long series of dreams, progressively more and more like waking life, until you wake up in the meta dream that is life on earth. even though waking life on earth feels and seems real, it is still part of the dream world. if we were paranoid, we would be convinced Descartes' malicious demon had created dream world earth and hauled us there to lie to us and imprison us in a false world. however, we must accept that false thoughts and in extension false manifestations of these thoughts naturally occur and to blame agency where there is none is perhaps the case here.

but why is the sleeper or dreamer so passive? when we are awake, we constantly question or critically review our thinking, asleep we often do not. we could characterize the sleeper or dreamer as a docile, somewhat gullible, trusting, childlike person, quite unlike the more sophisticated, cynical, jaded person awake. who amongst us would have truly chosen to awake upon earth and who wouldn't have but are still here anyway?

CLEARCHARGE

An Examination of the Possible Effects of Neighbouring Matter

an examination of the possible effects of neighbouring matter:

though we may never be able to truly, fully "see" or know in a visual sense what is happening at the micro level of matter in real space, we can posit various ways matter affects its neighbours:

it makes its neighbours more like itself. this is the most evident possibility and explains how our eyesight works and how objects seem to "move" as the visual pattern or image is copied incrementally. this is how signals are passed through space, how we communicate, etc.

it makes its neighbours more different, as though, to use a 3D mechanical motion theoretical model metaphor, it knocks its neighbours off course.

it has no effect on its neighbours.

two neighbours tend to stabilize each other, so they stay more or less the same.

what we are thinking about is how matter's change changes its neighbours' change, so to speak.

CLEARCHARGE

Reality and Earth and Dreams and Hallucinations and the Perplexing Question of What Is Real?

reality and earth and dreams and hallucinations and the perplexing question of what is real:

"i mean, what is the commonly accepted view, or opinion, about what is real on earth, or at least what everyone has to assume? i'll tell you, that there are at least billions of real people for a start, right? and for someone who is not, you know, a schizophrenic, everyone you see is real and you have to deal with them as though they're real, and also that there's some kind of science that connects everyone together but i'm not going to go into that, because i don't know a whole lot about science or how it really works or would work. and then it's like, that is the only completely real thing, everything else, dreams, hallucinations, you know, seeing or hearing things other people don't seem to, and other worlds, that's all deprecated or even dismissed as not real at all. it's like you have to believe waking life on earth is the only real thing in reality and only people you can see and meet and talk to that way are real, everything else, imaginary, or a product of the unconscious mind."

"so you're saying they could be real? i may really meet other people in my dreams?"

"listen, i can't say what is definitely real or definitely not real. i can't prove anything. what i mean is, i have doubts about the thing everyone on earth has to go by. what i'm saying is, in a sense, it's all real, it's all found in reality, you know? it's all sensory experience. the question is, are the other people you meet in waking life or in dreams or talk to in so called hallucinations, are they real or not? i mean, let's look at the possibility that even in waking life on earth some people are not real. i mean, people like to think in absolute terms, either everyone is real or it's all a simulation but it's actually more probable that, unless solipsism is true and you are the only real person in this reality, that some people are real and only some are simulated."

"i just hope it's not solipsism that's true."

"right. who wants that? but as a schizophrenic, you have to consider, you're forced to think really, at some point, that the whole thing, earth, everyone you know, is just a huge hallucination, and even if it's not, it's probable, as a schizophrenic, that some people you walk past or even know, are just not real. they're hallucinations."

"wait. but couldn't everyone on earth be schizophrenic, at least slightly? i mean, that's how we all got here? you know, it could be suppressed for most people most of the time, but my theory is the earth thing is based on, it's derived from some form of schizophrenia that everyone has, like everyone dreams, though maybe schizophrenia isn't quite the right word."

"it could be. a lot of people hear things, more than are diagnosed schizophrenic. and people have imaginations, right? it's not much of a leap to think that this feeds into what they see and hear. and who said science existed at the start of time? i'm sure it was a little different to start with."

"yeah, maybe it was all a woozy schizophrenic mess to begin with. anyway, so it's like you have to figure out all the combinations of possibilities. so like maybe i mostly live in a simulation but i know a few real people on earth and when i dream, i'm completely meeting real people sometimes, and perhaps some of the voices i hear, the so called hallucinations, i'm talking to real people."

"right. the problem is, if you assume it's neither 100% or 0% anything, you're left with a huge scale of possibilities. it could be anything in between. but i mean, it does come down to the question, how many real people are there, anyway? if it turns out there are only like 30 real people in the whole of reality, well, i mean, isn't the unconscious that's feeding the hallucination of earth huge? to power the whole illusion. if it's really in the billions, well, that means earth, as given, as it's put up to be, is something like the truth. but if it's only in the thousands or even tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, it becomes harder to think about."

"right. like who are the real people on earth?"

"yeah. and what is everyone else doing?"

"do you think they're the guardian angels? wondering about poor old us who went to earth and left and when are we going to come back?"

"you know, you have to consider that everything that's out there, in books, in culture, in myths and legends, is somehow real in some sense, though maybe there's a distortion of the truth."

"not everything is real surely?"

"well, the case may be that some things are only real in thought, truly imaginary."

"you mean, like some things in history never happened? they made it up?"

"i don't know if someone consciously made it up or history just appeared, you know. there is a theory the earth, as it is, is only like less than 200 years old. at the very start it came with a history that just wasn't real. reality could only be a few hundred years old. the real year on the calendar may be something like Year 442."

"that would be A.D. 1572 for Year 1?"

"right. except earth didn't start until about 1850 and then it was mostly illusion, a simulation."

"so gradually more and more real people went to earth. i guess you just have to think of everything, every possibility. but if it were true, why would people want to think everything is billions of years old?"

"i think people underestimate how fast things change and really how much existed already or was possible at the start of time."

CLEARCHARGE

The Start of Time and Sleep

the start of time and sleep:

"was there a start of time? and if there wasn't a start of time, what does that mean? that there was always something that happened before any time? it's mind boggling."

"well, if there were an infinite time before now, you'd think we'd be more advanced, right? but what do we mean by the start of time? in the sense that nothing came before the start in the way that time progresses now with something happening before each moment? i can see that in one sense it really doesn't matter as everything that has time is always changing and probably repeating itself, so what difference does marking the start of time make? maybe it's an interesting footnote, you know, like a flag, but nothing more."

"no, it's definitely more than that. doesn't it bug you? also, if there were a start of time, it naturally follows thinking there might be an end of time."

"it's a little paranoid. and it does bug me too. first you're afraid, right, that there was no start of time, that we're already infinitely old, yet we can't remember anything, and next, if there were a start of time, that just brings up the question of the end of time, but thankfully i don't think it necessarily logically follows."

"OK, so there could be a start of time but no end?"

"right. and maybe, you know, it's not even the right question. maybe the question is, is change, or the number of states something can have over all time, is that infinite or finite? i mean there are other questions apart from whether there was a start of time or not."

"so it's like looking at time as a set of different states and it sort of goes back and forth? so if i had a bag of say five different marbles, each marble represents a different state, and obviously there are only five states, that represents all time for the marble in general."

"right. so one of the marbles is the state at the start of time and as general universal time progresses it becomes that marble again and again, perhaps."

"like to touch home base again. so if say we were at the start of time, were we awake or were we asleep?"

"i think we were mostly awake, as we are awake most of the time, right? but i think it could have been somewhere in the middle, when we are wide awake nowadays, that's an extreme position, and likewise, when we're deeply asleep, that's another extreme position, we were born somewhere in between."

"it's just i can't remember what happened even a few minutes ago sometimes or what i was thinking, let alone what happened at the start of time!"

"no, some things can change in an instant, sometimes there is no gradual in between. maybe change is discrete, not continuous."

"what do you really think? was there a start of time?"

"i do think, yes, there was a start of time. anyway, it's easier to think about."

"the realness of progress does suggest to me there was a start of time, i guess. do you think the truth is easier to think about? how awake do you think you were born?"

"i guess fairly awake but more like in a dream. you know, maybe the wide awake stable world is something that came later. i mean, maybe it's not original."

"some people are afraid to go to sleep, and i guess some people are afraid of staying awake too long. maybe you're right, the wide awake world is not that natural because it's different from the beginning but it seems the most real sometimes."

"awake, asleep, dreaming, it's all real. the problem is you forget what happens when you're asleep so it only seems less real."

"what we were talking about before, it's faster. dreams seem to last for hours but are really only minutes long, that kind of thing. it's shocking how easily you forget what happens in your dreams."

"it's like a balancing act. sleep is seen as the solution to being awake too long, but i guess likewise being awake may be the solution to being asleep for so long. both reset things."

CLEARCHARGE

The Voyage of Sleep

the voyage of sleep:

"...so at one point i used to think that sleep was kind of like being dead, but that wasn't very satisfactory, in that you don't really know what death is, right? all the time you're alive, being dead is just some vague as yet undefined state of being, or not being, like nobody knows what death is while they are alive, right?"

"i used to think that when you are fast asleep, you're just not thinking, so you don't remember anything when you wake up."

"right. so sleep, and in extension, death, seems like an absence of thought. i mean the word "consciousness" is used, but like all words, i mean, if words and thought were like food, a particular word has its own unique flavour, right? all the words that mean the same thing, all the synonyms, might be like one type of food, like ice cream, but ice cream comes in all these different flavours, and so do words. for me, the word "consciousness" seems to suggest something mystical and fragile and fleeting, but it means the same thing as the phrase "thought in your head", right?"

"how about head think?"

"yeah. so words have different connotations. but the most commonly used words might not be the best or the simplest words. sometimes it seems the oddest words get promoted the most. it's like the most popular sandwich was banana with mustard and cucumber on raisin bread! but i digress..."

"you were talking about sleep and consciousness."

"again the word "consciousness" just makes it seem like it could go at any moment, like it was a flickering candle flame or something, and you know any minute something could come along and put it out. you know, maybe it's just the wrong word."

"right, but we are stuck with it, don't you think? as much as you'd like to, you can't change the vocabulary. anyway, i don't believe that you're not thinking whilst you're asleep anymore. i wanted to try to, you know, like observe myself as i was falling asleep, and remember what was happening."

"monitor yourself, like thinking about what was going on while you were falling asleep?"

"exactly. and a few times as i was falling asleep, i forced myself awake, you know, sat up suddenly so i could think about what i was thinking just before. and it's like, as you are falling asleep, everything in your mind becomes cloudy and violent, in that your thoughts change really fast, and they don't make much sense. you certainly couldn't easily explain in language what you were thinking about clearly. and then, yesterday, i had been drinking coffee, and i woke up further along the sleep cycle, i think actually just fallen completely asleep and then suddenly awake and i realized, you are completely thinking all the time you are asleep, that you stop thinking is a complete lie."

"i know but what you are thinking, or the quality of your thinking, if thoughts could be conceived of as like a matter substance like a diamond, are completely different to what they are when you are awake. it's like the mind switches to another substance."

"yeah, so my head could be like a giant crystal glass marble, but it's a magical marble and keeps changing inside."

"yes. during consciousness, it's say more or less clear and slow swirls and waves happening inside but as you fall asleep, the marble clouds over like you're saying and it's almost getting violent inside, everything is moving and twisting and turning so fast. that's probably why most of the time you can't remember what happens at this stage."

"yes, it's ironic. sleep seems slow and peaceful but what is really happening in the first stage is completely not."

CLEARCHARGE

The Flow of Words and Ideas and Subtext

the flow of words and ideas and subtext:

"...it's like i was talking at cross purposes with her the whole time. maybe she thought i was judging her or something but she was misconstruing everything i said and then she was, i don't want to say attacking me back, but that's what it felt like."

"she was criticizing you, you mean?"

"not directly but how to put it, it's like she knew my weaknesses, all my faults and character flaws, and kept digging at that. i certainly didn't mean to criticize her or patronize her or whatever."

"in other words, you made some innocent remark and she took it the wrong way and then she got angry and then felt compelled to return what she thought was an insult."

"exactly. also, i think she's passive aggressive."

"but what does that really mean? instead of exploding with anger, you contain it, bottle it up inside or only release a bit of the toxic stuff at worst or become unresponsive and behave a little badly maybe? but is that so bad? a lot of people avoid confrontation and it's their natural reaction."

"i know, but part of me thinks it would be a relief if everyone just said what they thought, but yes, i see how it could get out of hand. you say things you don't mean, you being the normal, thoughtful, almost placid self."

"the question does arise, though, do people know what you think? is there some inadvertent telepathy going on? is there some channel through the collective unconscious or whatever, that streams the ideas and thoughts running through our heads? i mean, we filter out most of the bad stuff when we talk, but who's to say there is definitely, you know, completely proven, no way that there is any transmission of what we are thinking? i mean, scientists say you can't prove telepathy, but can they, by the same token, prove that there is definitely zero thought transfer going on?"

"so what you are saying is, i was really actually thinking bad thoughts about her, but even though i didn't say anything of that, she picked up on it? so i'm actually a bad person anyway?"

"no, i'm not saying that. were you thinking bad thoughts about her?"

"no! not until she started attacking me!"

"what you were saying about saying things you don't mean, what you really think and feel and believe being contradicted by what you say in anger, i look back and i see where i've made mistakes, you know? like why did i ever believe that? so it's a work in progress. but, i mean, i'm here, you're where you are, eternally, it's like why should we ever deal in anything so negative, you know? i'm just glad that we can communicate, we can talk."

"i know. there's all the time in the world."

CLEARCHARGE

Many Worlds and Many People

many worlds and many people:

to assume that there is only one world where people all live is perhaps not firmly held by most, but to those on Earth this may be somewhat tacit, a view defended by the argument that it is not falsifiable as it seems no one has come forward as someone from another world and that Earth is such a busy, large world that even if other worlds did exist, they are insignificant in comparison.

mixed in with this, perhaps, is something of the belief in the 3D mechanical motion model being actual and not merely virtual, that is, the thought that people move in space relative to each other, etc. if other worlds were not part of this 3D mechanical motion universe, how could they be real is somewhat of an implied question.

however, if the 3D mechanical motion model is false and merely theoretical, albeit a convincing one, and people are fixed in their locations in space for all time, it raises the question, what is a world? how can many people be in the same world? now, a world is the geography that a person finds himself or herself in, is the simplest answer. for many people to be in the same world, a connection between them is required, so that there could be a shared geography.

now the question that remains, is everyone so connected to everyone else that we are all in the same world? it seems highly improbable, and perhaps never happens. however note that the common usage of phrases like "in a world of her own", "in your world", "in my world", etc., does seem to imply that this is all perfectly understood, in some sense, privately anyway.

CLEARCHARGE

Beyond the Control of Thought and Intention

beyond the control of thought and intention:

the insecurity and sense of danger we have always felt can be explained thus, simply that some things are out of our control. often we may delude ourselves with a false confidence, that we are powerful beings, our minds can force the situation to our own design, but is this ever real enough to be believed, given though we accept that 100% total power never quite seems true anyway? we may not view ourselves as having the power of gods, but do we presume to exert power enough to get what we want, more or less, and in a safe manner?

at the start of time, what we have is fate. there was no rationalizing, no planning, the state of our emotions and thoughts as they were at time zero may not even have made any sense, as such. we were disorganized beings. organization could only happen after some time had passed. after much history, we figured out what was fine, what was bad, and created value judgments, and preferences formed. creation happened. anyone would ask, after examining some modern construct or invention, how much went into this, how much time spent designing and planning and refining, and would conclude it to be a marvel of rational thought and intention.

however, it would strike any observer that many things that exist, that may always have existed, may not be a product of any thought and intention. they are parts of Creation that were not created, so to speak. there are forces at work that are simply beyond or constantly evolving too fast to fall under the power of our minds. imagine the situation at the start of time, assuming there was a start of time and that something mental that would become our present minds existed at that point, of course. to our modern selves, it would appear a random, irrational, chaotic jumble mix of things. rationality and logic came later to construct the world. it is highly probable that many things are pretty much unchanged and still with us. other things have been tidied up, so to speak, rationalized.

whatever sound is and whatever light is, existed back then, of course, and it is not much of a leap to assume that the basic sounds and even shapes of letters of language did too. what we did was to apply some matching and reasoning of ideas to fit what was available as sound and text. how long does it take to create a language? one year at least?

the biggest common fear is that of death or fatal damage. this hasn't gone away since the first day but in our lighter moments we may avoid consciously thinking about this. the very reality that things are out of our control and that danger seems real, that things happen unexpectedly all the time, is the unspoken threat in our lives. things can change abruptly and some things stop suddenly. perhaps invisible to us, things we cannot yet comprehend are going on all the time in the background. we certainly haven't rationalized everything because we do not yet know everything.

CLEARCHARGE

Time and Infinity

time and infinity:

is time infinite? well, firstly, what do we mean by infinite? if everything were to continue to change, then yes, time as thought of in the common linear aggregate sense is indeed infinite. only if change were to stop, theoretically, would time then have an end.

but examining matter, all that exists in space, and i include everything in this, does an individual least bit of matter have an infinite number of states? or is this finite? this is rather like asking if there are an infinite number of shades of colour.

if the number is finite, we can imagine a very large, but finite, chart of change for all matter.

perhaps change is somewhat like a tide of flowing water. it rushes in one direction, sweeping others along with it, but eventually returns in the reverse direction at some point. one would hope. it would concern anyone to consider that change rushes in one direction only to remain stuck there forever, never to return!

and perhaps early events exert a gravitational like pull from which we can never truly escape. for language has developed thus far and it is unlikely we would ever overturn it completely as it is now and start afresh.

a popular question is that of the eternal return, that we are doomed to repeat everything forever, that somehow we return to time zero only to begin again in exactly the same way. theoretically, if we admit that a least bit of matter can return to its state at the start of time, then it seems possible. it would be likely that for some individual least bits of matter, eternal return is completely happening, that some do repeat their changes forever. but what would make a return to time zero happen throughout reality? the only thing i can think of, is that time gravity, if you like, were to exist, that is, a strong pull back to the start, that matter is reluctant to change, or to change too far, and that it naturally reverts to its original state.

CLEARCHARGE

The Push Change in Time

the push change in time:

here we are examining matter at the micro level. again we assume it to be made up of individual least bits of matter packed together. at its simplest, the theory is that each least bit of matter is affected by its neighbours in its changes.

the proof of this lies in our eyesight. as an object moves across our field of vision or even if we turn our head, a copy of each pixel is made by its neighbour, and so the image is shifted across. here, a least bit of matter forces its neighbour to become exactly like itself, as if it were ordering, "become like me!" now turn your head to the right. what you see before you is everything shifting to the left. now there are billions of pixels in your eyesight but at the micro level what is happening is thus. each pixel to the left makes a copy of the pixel to the right and so the image is shifted to the left pixel by pixel.

this is the "push change" that a least bit of matter effects on its neighbours. and so, at the start of time, time zero, a fated, by which i mean completely without human intention, for that came later, sequence of events at this micro level came into play. initially, each least bit of matter had its own starting state but was immediately affected by its neighbours.

it raises the question, would an isolated least bit of matter change at all, if it had no neighbours to push it about, so to speak? there is no changing the existing order however. all matter is fixed in position and neighbours exist and there is no changing who one's neighbours are. does time then only arise because there is neighbouring matter that provides a push change? perhaps matter changes anyway, but one's neighbours have an effect on that change.

now it is obvious that there are many types of things or matter that exist. it may be that we may never be able to know fully how these different types of matter affect each other, if they do at all. it may be that there is no effect, or very little.

CLEARCHARGE

Zeno's Paradox of the Arrow Considered

zeno's paradox of the arrow considered:

in this paradox, Zeno states that a flying arrow is motionless, for assuming time consists of instants, in each instant it occupies a certain space only and is considered at rest, and therefore the popular notion of motion is impossible.

now the general conclusion from zeno's paradoxes of motion is that time and space are not infinitely divisible, therefore that the infinitesimal has no real existence and belongs only to the abstract fields of mathematics.

again, let everything that is be called matter. it is matter that fills space. and we consider space to be finitely divisible. the simplest theory is that this matter is made up of a finite number of individual least bits of matter, each only one thing to be considered, and the smallest distance is the size of the smallest least bit of matter.

what time is, fundamentally, is change in this matter. and we consider change to be discrete, if time is not infinitely divisible.

what Zeno states is, in my opinion, entirely on the right track. if we see an object move across our field of vision, what is happening in front of us is that, pixel by pixel, the image is shifting one pixel across, in moments, to merely give the illusion of motion. because we consider change to be discrete, time does indeed consist of instants. at any one instant, for the whole of that instant, only one state of a least bit of matter holds, and in the next, it is suddenly another.

CLEARCHARGE

Time and Space and Do Things Ever Happen Again?

time and space and do things ever happen again:

again, posit the theory that all things that exist, or matter, in this reality do not "move", that they are forever fixed in their positions in space relative to each other. i do not mean matter in the sense of the current scientific meaning. by matter i mean everything that is.

it is time and the change in state of matter, indeed the changing image, that gives rise to what is commonly thought of as motion and it is vital to note that this motion is merely virtual, our eyes playing tricks on us, and very much an illusion. where people are concerned, you are always the same real distance away from me, our spatial locations are fixed forever. nothing can make us closer or further apart. in meeting, it may seem that i am only an arm's length away, but in reality, i may truly be light years away in real space.

thus lies the difficulty in thinking about reality. if you are fooled by the 3D mechanical motion model world we inhabit, you believe people actually "move" relative to one another, that objects "move" and so on, when it is all merely just a product of what we see.

but what of time? our minds may become so distorted that even change becomes hard to believe! it is all too easy to imagine a timeless piece of rock that never changes, a place where there is no time. it is harder to think of matter that actually changes! how does it change? if infinitesimal change is not the case, then discrete change is. a least bit of matter is one thing, then suddenly another the next moment!

look at the computer screen in front of you. see how it changes, where your focus shifts. notice how your thoughts change in your head as you read. now in reality, the screen, or what you see of it, is intimately connected to your head and to where your thoughts are. as your focus changes as you read the script, the thinking in your head changes also. as both are connected, we can say there is a common time across the distance between where you see the screen and your head. we say "at the same time". this common time concept is what we primarily think of when we think of time. we assume there is, if you like, a common universal time against which all local changes can be measured. everything is thought of as happening relative to this. but the manner in which the computer screen is changing is not quite what is happening with the change in your head. the key is spatial connection.

now our imagination permits us to think of unlimited events that could or could not happen. however, i posit that at the individual level of matter, changes may be very limited. imagine one least bit of matter could only have two possible states, A to B and then back to A, in perpetuity. all too often in discussing time, as such, it is thought of in the aggregate and common universal time sense. in this sense, i do not argue against that time travel to the past is impossible, or that events can repeat exactly, or somehow i can travel back 100 years in time.

i am merely saying that what reality is, is composed of a vast number of individual least bits of matter, that so to speak, can travel back in time, or repeat past states, all the time.

CLEARCHARGE

The Person on Earth

the person on earth:

the issue lies in the transient nature of a life on earth. what you are on earth is not what you were originally. it cannot be disputed that a fully populated earth with everything going on did not exist in the beginning of time. this was all later. however, the very involved life a person leads on earth makes us forget all that sometimes.

the other question that must be considered in addition to what happens after we die on earth is that, what happened before we were born on earth? do we assume it must be something similar, that earth is a place, what came before and what comes after are also places? are they the same place?

life on earth, an advertisement:
you'll have a body, a human one, male or female. you'll start off a little one. you will grow up. you'll have a family, maybe have brothers or sisters. you'll have to do something with your life. there will be lots of choices of what to do, etc.

at some point, the self questioning will begin. how did i become this? the nineteen year old looking in the mirror, wondering about life. how did i come to be on earth?

the very complexity of life on earth absorbs much of the mind but the awareness that one day it will all end, that this life on earth will be taken away, cannot be ignored. what was it all for? what was the design? how much of the person i was on earth is real?

CLEARCHARGE

One or the Other or a Bit of Both?

one or the other or a bit of both:

about earth, there are the facts commonly accepted, about population, that there are billions, age, billions again, and so on. now it must occur to anyone who has ever experienced, either visually or audibly, what could be called "errors", that something is perhaps not quite right about the many assumptions people make. now medical science would have it that these "errors" are strictly those of the individual in question, so to speak, and not of earth itself or science. however, what if the fault does lie with whatever earth is and blame is not on the person's senses? inevitably, the more glitches in the system that appear, the more you become convinced that there is some huge electronic machinery at work underlying everything, a supercomputer that simply does not work perfectly.

by visual "errors", those that i have experienced personally, from most shocking to least, first of all, a sudden total change in place, to teleport to another location, secondly, less striking perhaps, but common enough, a sudden change in text, for example, looking at a printed train timetable at a railway station and the times change, thirdly, maps that are all wrong from what you know, fourthly, definite changes in books you have, on second reading, some passages have disappeared, fifthly, and often you cannot be sure about this, objects have been rearranged in the room when no has been present or they have vanished.

actually, the only ones who could firmly believe in all that the media presents about earth and what their teachers taught them in geography and science, the only ones who actually "buy it" are those for whom there are no discernible "errors", those who have supernormal lives.

it is all too easy, however, to dismiss all common scientific theories and leap to the other extreme, that all of life on earth is a vast computer simulation and perhaps therefore you are the only real person on earth and everyone else is virtual, if you like, non player characters or NPC's, illusions, philosophical zombies, etc. such is the nature of the beast when something happens that makes you question reality. it is most likely that neither extreme, the one of a densely populated earth where everyone is real and the other of the empty simulation with a real population of one, is true. it is not all or nothing, but a little of both.

it is interesting that the thinker always thinks in absolutes first or extreme positions. this may sound perverse, but often something may be true and false, even if only time and space make the difference. now it is true, then it was false! it is true here, but not there! define your terms! clarify! what i am speaking of is a tendency, perhaps almost a hope, to think that something would be true now, here and everywhere, for all time! that things contradict themselves moments later exposes this fallacy in our thinking.

what is the suitably complex, averaged world view? it is most probable that there are many people on earth but not as many as purported, and that some people truly are not real, they are part of the background simulation. there are questions about history too. if we assume the numbers prone to exaggeration, we would guess that the true age is much younger. when the first real person was inserted into the simulation earth is another question. note that to teleport rules out the whole model of classical mechanical motion in reality.

CLEARCHARGE

Time and Space the Individual and the Aggregate

time and space the individual and the aggregate:

when it comes to time and space we cannot really escape thinking in terms of numbers. how long has it been? how far away? indeed, the way we think of mathematics greatly affects our thoughts on both. what is the number 1 truly, and what of infinity? how does the abstract nature of mathematics fit reality?

we can think of everything that exists in this reality as one space, but we certainly do not think that there is only one kind of thing that exists. there are many different things is what we assert! but surely not an infinite number? i posit just as real space is not infinite in distance from end to end, neither is there an infinite number of different things that exist in reality. a "least bit of matter" is an individual part of reality, to which we can attach the concept of the number 1 and give it real meaning.

each "least bit of matter" changes on a different path to that of any other. in aggregate, we apply a common time to reality, as we are all connected, for we are all "here" in this one space. also i posit that, for time even to be measured with any consistency, that there are regular cycles at work, never changing, for eternity. theoretically, let whatever that runs the second have a starting position at A. It changes to B, perhaps then to C, then back to A, and starts all over again, forever. surely if things could never recover a past position or state, there would be no stability to the universe, things once seen or heard would never be seen or heard again? yes, i am saying that time travel to the past, in this individual sense, is completely real! it is aggregate time travel to the past that is impossible.

again, i posit that change is discrete, there are "frames" of change in state of a "least bit of matter". the problem lies with the mind and its thinking, when it entertains the concept of continuous change and the possibility of the infinitesimal. we can think of fluid or continuous change but we are fooled and we are then crazy, for that is neither what we are seeing nor hearing! matter changes one step at a time, individually.

indeed, has not the whole concept of the movie projector showing frames at 24 per second and HDTV at 1080 x 1920 pixels resolution been telling us something like the truth about reality and time and space, as it was all along?

CLEARCHARGE

The Many Worlds of Reality

the many worlds of reality:

let us start with the assumption that a person's consciousness was not created, but always existed, even at the start of time, that it is, actually, a fundamental part of the fabric of reality, and not something that developed later in some process of "evolution". the problem for those on earth is that what came before is just not remembered or if it is, not clearly. there is something about the birth process that wipes out vital memory. i remember nothing of life on earth before the age of three, nothing before August 29, 1975, to be exact. the date is stamped on my first passport, US Immigration at Hawaii. what came immediately before was a dream sequence that became waking life on earth. yes, i awoke in the dream. i was suddenly on earth, three years old.

as it is in dreams often, we accept a convincing alternative premise and cannot remember details of our waking lives, which would explain why we remember little of what came before earth and why we are so docile to begin with.

with language, there may be some confusion with terms used over time. our knowledge is not complete. we may even have missed fundamental truths yet. inevitably, as we learn more, we realize that what we had believed or assumed was not quite true and the meanings of words are updated. a "paradigm shift" happens. i am not saying that earth is entirely a dream world, only that dreams are the entrance to it.

it opens the possibility that some have never lived on earth yet. they are still in the old worlds and they may never live on earth. so they remember things about the early years that those on earth do not.

but what happens when we "die" on earth? is it back to the old worlds from which we came or is it reincarnation on earth? allow me to digress. now i am sure the word "die" originally meant something far worse! there is a fear associated with the word that precedes earth.

how do dreams end? either you abruptly wake up or drift back to sleep or they become yet another dream.

CLEARCHARGE

Time and the Question of the Limits of Thought

time and the question of the limits of thought:

thinking about time and what it really is has absorbed the minds of many. theories abound but we find some contradict each other, so not all could be true. we enter a thought space starting with binary propositions, but then realize that perhaps the issue is more complex than a simple question and the answer true or false would tell us.

questioning time, in turn, makes us question our own capacity for thought and for thinking about the truth about reality. the subject is so difficult and so easy to wander off the path into falsity is it that we begin to doubt that full knowledge could ever be obtained. could we ever know everything or even at least think about reality, what goes on, clearly?

again, it cannot be contested against that time is to do with change. and again, in the model with the fixed spatial position of all matter, that is, everything that exists, it is true to say that a lot of matter changes state, though it is not certain that all matter changes. now, whether change is "discrete" or "continuous", is a binary proposition, i hazard. and this is where the thinking about time becomes difficult, certainly for me. the discrete change of a "least bit of matter" or "particle", to use another word, is, i would say, far easier to think about the other theoretical possibility. for a period, it has one state, then suddenly another, and so on, never mind how long it stays in one state or how many states it could have. i admit this may seem impossible. but how to think about continuous change? to me, this seems even more impossible, if both seem impossible. continuous change, if it were to be considered, would be something that never "stops" and seems therefore that could not be measured at any point, if that makes any sense?

the question then becomes, does because discrete change is easier to think about make it more likely to be true, the theory being that the non-existent is harder or even impossible to really think about?

CLEARCHARGE

Time and the Chaos Mix

time and the chaos mix:

there are a few questions of interest here. what existed or how much existed in the beginning of time or time zero? and how much creation has there been since? do we believe inflationary theories or not?

well, let us fill out the possibility ideas space. consider the big bang theory of the universe, first very little, then rapid inflation to a lot today. it is easy to understand why this is popular, people have poor memories of long ago, so the start seems little, but time makes it seem as though growth is real, so there is inflation. consider something like the reverse, perhaps much early on, but then death and destruction is slowly wiping everything out! perhaps not.

things like colours and sounds surely either existed or always had the potential to be experienced right from the start? if we view reality as something like a soup mix of light, sound and unformed ideas that is eternal, always existed, then perhaps it is not hard to conceive that many things were not created by anyone, that letters of the alphabet and connections to sounds and unconscious thought existed in some unrefined form indeed in the beginning, semi ready made language that was quickly developed.

perhaps all of what time did was to bring order to the chaos mix at the start of time, a move from unrational complexes to rational ones. it is interesting to note that this would seem to imply a dreamlike state of reality at the start whereas waking life now is rational and stable.

CLEARCHARGE

Translation and Analysis of the Text

translation and analysis of the text:

"...such is the nature of the brand"

what does that mean? it seems to be a statement of emphasis that does not convey much meaning perhaps, but let us deconstruct or analyse it carefully, indeed treat it as though it were in a foreign language and make an attempt to translate it.

there are 3 key words: "brand", "nature" and "such".

"brand" we associate with big, popular products, for example, food and drink, probably the most common category where brands are found. it also means to stamp a name on something. so perhaps a popular brand of drink, with its name stamped on the packaging.

"nature" we associate with personality or it could also be about the planet, trees, plants, and so on. so, a person roaming the natural world.

"such" implies "very" usually, as in for example, "such a good..."

combining all three, we must find a theme that links all of these ideas. we then have something like "people really like drinking a very popular brand of soda, like Coca-Cola, when they have a picnic out in the countryside" as a possible interpretation.

CLEARCHARGE

On Matter and Space

on matter and space:

let us move beyond dualism, that that exists is either mental or physical, and idealism, that all that exists is mental, and physicalism, that all that exists is physical. these arguments, after all, only involve two concepts, the mental and the physical. may i suggest that reality is more complex than that. perhaps there are things that truly exist that could not be categorized by either term!

the external world as it seems, i have argued, does not exist, but i do not deny the possibility that physical objects may exist independently "out there". for all i know, there may be a permanent tree that is lodged, forever fixed in space at certain coordinates, and there may be a statue of a human body out there too!

even mental components vary, to hear, to see, and so on, so as to render the term as perhaps too wide. but are there "in between" senses, perhaps where light merges with thought, and with mood, for example? surely there is not just one base mental component that can change to very different states, for example, what becomes light cannot become sound, surely?

and can you hear and see things at the same point in space in front of you? it seems you can in a general area and so the question becomes more complex. allow me to digress, let us call all things that exist, matter. if we consider all the definitions of the word and all its usages, this seems to be where a common meaning is found. are there only 3 dimensions to real space? so it seems. theoretically if there were more, say 4 or 5, a sound and the light could appear to be at the same point in virtual 3D space. or, there are only truly 3 dimensions in real space and it just happens that sound matter and light matter are closely packed together in a mixture, and it just seems that light and sound happen at more or less the same point.

if there is more than that that is physical or mental, what is it? it seems that to make a virtual world work, it requires electronics. the universe may be a vast, virtual work in progress, powered by a supercomputer, with electronics forming connexions that translate everything to the senses.

CLEARCHARGE

The Neighbour Effect and Time

the neighbour effect and time:

here we reject the theory of atomism, that of solid atoms moving around in a void, as being the case in actuality. it only leads to the paradox of empty space and alarming questions as to what happens when atoms leave each other, if they were together originally, could they ever return, and horrifying thoughts of violent collisions between matter, spatial chaos, and so on. atomism could only be real in a virtual sense. why does atomism seem as if it could be true? because we see objects "move" and have extrapolated all sorts of motion theories based on what we see. again, i posit that all matter stays in the same "place" in real space, that it merely changes state.

consider the evil demon, who delights in presenting the world in a way that could persuade you to believe in false things. it has shown you an object that feels real, that seems to "move" in space and so ergo you believe that all things must "move". nothing really "moves", all "motion" is virtual. even worse, when the scientist examines something under the microscope, the demon presents a compelling image for the scientist to see, it fixes the observations so as to "prove" the scientist's hypotheses. of course, later paradoxes imply the theories are invalid, are actually false. confound the demon by examining all the possibilities! the clock is ticking...

what is apparent, on the nature of change, is that the picture of a object moving across the static pixels of our eyesight involves replicating a change in light, the image of the object, along its perceived path. this is the most obvious way neighbouring matter influences an individual least bit of matter. it makes the other the same, or almost the same, as itself. it is like a wave of an order through space, "become like me!"

perhaps we cannot know how a least bit of matter would change in isolation, for none are. everything is connected. least bits of matter are perpetually influenced by their neighbours.

CLEARCHARGE

A Shifting Mosaic of Time

a shifting mosaic of time:

so, let us again posit that nothing moves physically in actuality, that physical motion is but an illusion, a delusion even, brought about by the sensational nature of our eyesight, a product of sense naivete about reality, a gullibility born of the way things look and appear. now i'm afraid i digress, i hazard a guess that the original meaning of the word "physical" was to do with the human body alone, for that is what it still means primarily to me, but that this later mutated to also mean about inanimate objects as well, and so on. i am not going to deal with the conflicting philosophical concepts of duality or monism here. here let matter mean anything that exists, to put it most simply, whether it be mental or "physical". this is somewhat different to contemporary usage and concepts, but again i hazard a guess that this is the original meaning.

in a reality where there is no physical motion, where all matter is static in space, where all matter has permanent neighbours, so to speak, the popular concept of "motion" actually happening would be the horrific breakup of matter in reality space, the ultimate sickness that cannot happen, that things actually moved away or left!

now matter does not move, but it does change, though again i digress, perhaps not all matter changes at all, that is a theoretical possibility. now let us dismiss the mathematicians' and physicists' concepts of continuous numbers, continuous motion, even infinity perhaps, and certainly infinitesimals, the infinitely little. but how does it change? what is time? the only concept that is left to me is that, if you imagine the entirety of reality to be a massive solid mosaic, and each tile representing a "least bit of matter" which i have explained in previous posts, is that all matter that changes changes suddenly to another "state" or "version", there is a "holding" period where it stays the same, then suddenly it changes again to yet another "state" or "version" of itself. as is apparent from thinking about light and our own eyesight and changes, it can be deduced that not everything changes "at the same time", each "tile" to its own beat, so to speak. "holding" periods of time when a "tile" stays the same are different too. all this could be visually represented by computer graphics, i am sure, but unfortunately i don't know how to code a program to show all this! of course, all this is predicated on the assumption that change is discrete, that infinitesimal increments of time are not real, it only seems so perhaps sometimes, and that "time" is different in a sense, everywhere.

CLEARCHARGE

Very Young Earth Theory

very young earth theory:

yes, i do know current scientific theory is that the universe is billions of years old, started very little and gradually inflated to the present day. there was nothing to begin with but much today. to loosen the mind, imagine the other extreme that everything only came into being an hour or so ago, in which case, our memories of the past are false, and the universe was in motion with everything existent already.

some Christians believe that everything is several thousands of years old. there is another distinct theory, posit that reality is only a few hundreds of years old. in this, there is the element that many things, such as nature, existed from time zero, that these things are eternal. there always were trees, there always were humans, right from the beginning, and there always will be. however, modern Earth did not exist. it was created both from the world of dreams and people's imagination, and perhaps even by design.

on Earth, some people are real, conscious beings, others are simulated characters, perhaps most, like in the movie, The Matrix. as you get older, you experience more and more errors and inconsistencies in the coding, so to speak. you may even think you've switched to an alternate universe, but no, these things are just errors.

i have thought perhaps Earth began in the 1800's and reality is only a few hundred years older, perhaps true Year 1 was AD1572, to give an example. the first people born on Earth had simulated parents but gradually Earth has filled with real people.

will the Earth end someday soon, when all have left?

CLEARCHARGE

Do We Overestimate Reality?

do we overestimate reality:

to overestimate is a process of thought. first of all, the mind is imaginative, is it not? we can think of many things that are not real. we fade in and out of fantastic, even delusional, thought all the time. we may believe things exist that do not, we have capabilities that we don't have, there is the potential for things to happen that are actually impossible.

and because of time, many things have happened, it seems as though there were inflation, but the quantity of what exists cannot really have changed surely. what about the actual process of change? when we sense what seem to be different things, we may attribute to the mind a multiple number of sensory components. could they actually just be different states achieved by a fewer number? smell and taste are like, but we account for them as two senses. are there really so many shades of colour or could just one pixel of our eyesight become different shades? are we overaccounting when we consider perception?

am i just a little brain with an oversized 3D television set attached and loudspeakers too, who likes to fantasize and guzzle food and drink and pretend i am walking about on a material planet? the magic of television is that it can represent a seemingly infinite variety of life and suggest grand size of reality, but what is it really? just a few hundred lines of pixels rapidly changing.

CLEARCHARGE

The Imprecise Nature of Words

the imprecise nature of words:

but think, if words were merely tools to manipulate thought, to shape concepts crystallizing in the conscious mind, it would seem they are often but a blunt instrument, lacking the precision to control the hoped for outcome of perfect realization of the truth. not only that, when misused, they can easily lead the thinker astray, into the realm of half truths and falsity, or even madness.

what is conscious thought? what is it to think? now this is a world of objects and feelings and sounds. in that the mind is actually connected to the very fabric of this world, these things are highlighted, so to speak, or thought about, by the conscious mind. i am conscious of, i am thinking about various scraps of images, events that happened in my world, places i have been to, and so on. it is a tangled mess. in real time, certain parts fall away, new parts appear.

now all of these things are labelled by words. what words mean to me may not be the same as what words mean to someone else. inevitably our own life experiences colour and ensure that our individual complexes of words and the personal events and things seen and heard and felt by us, to which they are connected, are unique.

however, let us assume that words can have some universal meaning. even so, words and their connections are wrapped up with the past of the universe. when something totally new happens, it has the effect of altering the language complex, for it is a disturbance. and so it always was. the mind, both conscious and subconscious or unconscious, makes and breaks connections continually. as the words in a sentence are read, each word amplifies whatever it is describing, like a live current passing through space. the very act of thinking alters the mind, and perhaps even what it is thinking about.

we all have various conceptions of what reality is, or may be. all are metaphysicians. it cannot be denied that that affects significantly how we define words for ourselves. if i believe that time is infinite, for instance, and this was the original use of the word, this affects what i think when i think about the word infinite when used generally. my argument is that it cannot be divorced from this original plank of belief. so later i may think about infinite numbers as supposedly a purely mathematical concept, but i am still thinking about time all the while. it is almost impossible to separate later thought from its original basis.

if thinking were like guiding a ball to a target, the truth, then words in a sentence hit the ball this way and that way, each word carrying its own "baggage" from the past. often it is difficult to hit bullseye. how did words come into creation? well, it is not hard to guess that merely they were the words people first thought of when something happened, that they were "in the air" at the time. the language universe has its own inflation. we know new words come into being. what may be disturbing, for as ever the new replaces the old, is that parts of the past are lost, and we have no idea how we got here.

CLEARCHARGE

A World View Distorted by Schizophrenia

a world view distorted by schizophrenia:

what is a world view? the fundamental beliefs or assumptions made about the world, the universe even, and reality and life. what drives the philosopher in all of us is the need to know what is real and what is not. to be delusional or crazy is generally agreed to be a bad thing. people are supposed to be locked up in mental hospitals for this very reason. it may be argued that on earth, busy place that it is, such knowledge is not required to be a "success in life" and even that some confusion may not affect ability to "function in society", but this a weak argument, deflected away by the very overriding emotional demand to know the truth.

what does it mean to know? i know there are more complicated theories but two words stand out, "true" and "think", indeed, to think about true things. actually it cannot be further reduced as a concept. academically, if you had little confidence in your judgment on what to be true and what to be false, you would need to think about every theoretical possibility just to cover yourself, in the faint hope that at least you had thought of everything and at some point in time "knew the truth". happily, often the search for truth is a binary proposition, for it is either one or the other, though i am sure sometimes there are multiple theoretical possibilities, and therein lies the "third way" or fourth or fifth.

i don't think i am deceiving myself when i claim to know the conventional beliefs or assumptions on earth. i went to school, after all, i read newspapers and magazines, i've watched television and films, i have attended church before, i've sat through lectures, indeed i have consumed information and media. and i've seen what is technologically possible, telephones, computers, 3D virtual reality games.

let us deal with one of the most fundamental questions. what is motion exactly? it calls into question what you think about time and space, and ultimately decides what you conclude about the so called "external world" that may be highly convincing. can matter, a person, a mind, whatever, actually "move" relative to other matter, persons, or minds? happily, this is a binary proposition. it is either true or false. what are you thinking? i presume you are visualizing an object moving towards or away from another and thinking that might be actuality! in the model of the external world, this is entirely the case put forward.

but the whole question of eyesight, what i see before me, and to the sides, and i really do see objects at a distance in front of me, not in my head, if people were actually moving relative to each other on a round planet, how does the structure of my eyesight not crash into someone else's near me, so to speak?

i began hearing "voices" or "auditory hallucinations" and seeing visual hallucinations when i was 20 years old in my third year at university. after i had been sectioned or committed and released from hospital, i had the rest of the year off and returned to repeat the final year. in that year, i teleported twice. to anyone who has experienced teleportation, the concept of an external world is simply not believable anymore! the first time, i was at an ATM, i had got the cash, i turned away and then i was suddenly at the train station, about a mile away. i even started to worry what would happen if i teleported to New York without my passport on me and couldn't teleport back! if the external world were real, how could i move to another point instantly without feeling anything, even if it was at light speed? or was i a clone somewhere else in space, with my consciousness suddenly activated? no and no. Ockham's Razor would suggest the simplest theory is that, indeed, the external world is not real and that matter does not "move" relative to other matter, space is merely that that is occupied by matter, it is not a "vacuum" or "empty container", quite the opposite.

conventional thinking about schizophrenia is that it is a mental illness of perception, that sufferers are delusional, all voices are hallucinatory and so on. i suspect it is hinged on a belief in the external world, it is posited it is only our perception that has gone awry and reality is just fine, so to speak. if we eliminate belief in the external world, an explanation would be that schizophrenia is an acute instability of the mind, that our hearing and our eyesight are "turned up", which accounts for the "hallucinations", and the system that worked for so long to provide normality, is thrashing around wildly. if the external world is not real, then perception is reality, is it not, don't you think? anything can happen to a schizophrenic!

when i returned to university, i still heard people speaking without seeing them, the "voices". one day i was calmly looking at the door handle, making it move up and down slightly by thought alone. i was staring at the light bulb on the ceiling, adjusting the brightness, dimmer and then brighter, again by thought alone. objects disappeared, i never found where my dissertation went! you see the interesting dichotomy? on the one hand, hallucinating and delusional, on the other, maybe i was telepathic and had budding psychokinesis powers!

CLEARCHARGE

The Imaginary Map Scrolls of Separate Realities

the imaginary map scrolls of separate realities:

indeed, why would you or anyone assume that this is the only reality that exists? by the word reality, i mean everything that is here, in this space of ours, that is connected to each other. now the obstacle in thinking about other, separate realities is the simple question, where are they? you see the difficulty lies in escaping the referencing of everything to here and now in this reality.

what if every reality were as if a map scroll which could be laid out on a long table next to the others end to end? note the map scrolls would not touch. some might be large, some might be little. considering our own reality, would it be one of the larger map scrolls or just medium sized? it is easy for everyone to imagine like realities, with similar people, only slightly different.

there are specific things of our reality that we do not notice as peculiar or individual perhaps, for example, subjectively, gravity is downwards and our heads are at the top of our bodies. this is our bias. objectively speaking, the alternative upside down world with gravity upwards and the head at the bottom of the body is not that different.

i imagine the old wizard genius, who has worked out what every possible reality could be, its troubles and victories, the pitfalls each face and its limitations, its history even.

CLEARCHARGE

The Range of Time

the range of time:

when speaking of the range of time, i do not mean whether linear time is infinite or not. no, it could be interpreted as the general sum total in a macro sense of all kinds of events that happen in all time. i am sure, if we are vague enough in our definitions, this is not an infinite sum, for, after all, is the universe infinite? can anything truly happen? perhaps only the imagination is unlimited. for it is the integrity over time and specific nature of our personalities which limit our actions.

there is another interpretation. again, assuming the fixed spatial position of all matter, that is all that is in space, and yes, even are minds are to be considered matter here, is there a finite range of states that an individual least bit of matter can pass through? at this micro level, at any instant, this matter can only have one state, but when we think of the range, the sum total, we have something larger.

this naturally leads to the suspicion that everyone might be grossly overestimating the universe and themselves! in actuality we are not the sum total we may think we are, but only that which we are at any one instant in time. the argument that anyone can personally "grow" is at least somewhat of a fallacy! we may hope to retain the best of knowledge and wisdom, of course, and lose that which is false or bad.

CLEARCHARGE

Quantum of Change

quantum of change:

Zeno's paradoxes make use of mathematical theory of continuous numbers and the infinitesimal to put the case that motion is but an illusion. as discussed before, the key to understanding here is that continuous numbers are purely theoretical, they are not real!

now motion may be an illusion, if motion is thought to be the actual movement of an object or body maintaining its integrity or identity as it moves in the "external world", if the "external world" itself does not actually exist and we are all "brains in a vat". then such movement is merely the function of our eyesight, that is, the image of an object or body is copied to adjacent pixels and we see what only seems to be motion. however that was not zeno's point, i believe.

there are two questions here, one is about infinitesimal space, and the other is about infinitesimal time. the paradoxes arise when we consider the concept of the infinitesimal to hold. posit that there is indeed a minimum distance that has real significance in reality and that nothing smaller should be considered, that is, the size of the littlest least bit of matter, uniform throughout, that experiences individual change. there should then be no smaller "real" distance. can we use the general conclusion that the infinitesimal is not real enough when we think about change? for when we talk about time we are really talking about change. but what do we mean by change? yes, it is a difference in the same thing! therefore there are two things to be considered here, what it was, that is, the state it was in, and the difference. a difference means a sudden change! change is sudden! if we consider the infinitesimal to hold then logically a discrete change is in itself impossible and one second would never become the next second!

what could be true is the concept of quantum of change, that is, there are discrete "steps" of change. you can think of life like a movie's film negative, with 24 frames a second. but how is it that if, like continuous numbers, continuous change with an infinite number of "instants" is not real, it is so easy to think of? like somehow, something is always changing, so it is continuously changing, something like that. however, continuous change is not that easily definable or explainable, in a strict sense, as is discrete change, and there is the example of a movie's film negative. posit that the truth is always more explainable, with more real life examples, than something that is not true, a falsity. such we hope!

CLEARCHARGE

The True Population Puzzle

the true population puzzle:

we can say, yes, the human mind is flexible when thinking about the true population. it can seriously consider it to be anything from one, the self only, during a solipsistic phase, to billions, if not trillions. what do i mean by the true population? now obviously, my mind, or anyone's mind for that matter, bases many considerations or comparisons on the self, we cannot deny we are self-centred to a certain degree, and what we are may be most of what we can know. so, when this question is asked, everyone considers the same category, those that can be defined in the same way, that is, with a mind, a capacity to think, and a human body.

is this a worrying bias? to consider only those the same as yourself to be truly alive, perhaps? we worry very much about physical damage to the human body. it may be we are less concerned about damage to things we do not even consider to be alive, for they are so different, not human. perhaps it matters, perhaps it does not.

to suppose there are billions or trillions of souls out there is pretty much what earth presents. but where do they come from when they are born and where do they go when they die? do they go back to wherever they came from? onward to heaven? and is it possible to create a soul that did not exist? and if it existed, could the death of the soul happen?

now anyone who has ever experienced hallucinations, visual and auditory, can easily consider the possibility seriously that there are far fewer people who are real. once you start hallucinating, to put it simply, you are no longer sure what is real and what is not anymore. to give examples, you see text and moving images on the wall or floor, people suddenly appear and disappear, you hear people in the background and you can talk to these disembodied voices as well, are they truly hallucinations? i personally have seen a train schedule suddenly change completely before me, a train map of the country with the cities in the wrong places, and seen used underground train tickets that seemed dated in the future. i have teleported twice and i suspect several times not obviously as there was no sudden difference to be seen all around me, the explanation being that a distant street was visually smoothly connected to the one i was on. of course eventually, i was diagnosed schizophrenic and i admit i was crazy and delusional, but who wouldn't be confused with all that happening? in acute schizophrenia, the mind is so unstable, that anything can happen, which is why it is truly dangerous.

that i had truly teleported confirmed that the "external world", whatever it is, is not what it seems. most definitely, i cannot really "move" as such in the conventional sense, what i see happening when i walk is the world moving relative to me, not me moving relative to the world. my teleporting was a sudden change in my visual feed for my supposed location on earth. the frightening solipsism hallucinations induce, that you could be the only real person in existence and everyone else is an illusion, and the realization that conventional motion is a falsity, and merely theoretical, is what fuels theories that earth could be a kind of electronic computer simulation and the "external world" does not exist as such.

does it make any difference what the true population is? what if it were only 30? or 4500? everyone has considered billions. i have considered 1 quite seriously! whatever it is, if we ever get the true answer, we would have to adjust our thinking, "change gears" as to what we believe about reality. everyone has assumptions about existence and life, we assume we would function better with the truth, after all.

CLEARCHARGE

The Discrete Nature of Change

the discrete nature of change:

if change involves a difference in state, in that something becomes something else, any absolute difference, no matter how seemingly little, is still a change, and therefore change could be considered as discrete, for there is no "in between" as such. mathematical theory has its concepts of the infinitesimal or infinitely small or little, and of continuous numbers, however these things may not have a basis in reality, they are too abstract!

if, as explained before, all things that exist in this reality, fixed in absolute and relative position to each other in space, could be divided into least bits of matter, each uniform across its volume in space, then each experiences discrete changes uniformly.

the mind and therefore the thinker is quite capable of thinking about things that may not be true. this is the peril of thought. the thinker may not notice change when there are very little differences in state. big changes catch our attention, this is what discrete change seems, after all.

CLEARCHARGE

The Participation Rate of Creation

the participation rate of creation:

assume the beginning was not so long ago, that actually, there are tangible shards of memory crystals in our minds, about the start of time and what progressed from there. various religions put it that there were powerful forces or powerful people, or one very powerful person, in the beginning. atheism holds forth the other extreme, that the human being is rather devoid of any real power, that there are no gods, that we are subject to the whim and random nature of a depersonalized universe. in those who are agnostic or believe neither completely, these theories may not agree with memory which may still be present.

often it is posited that there was practically nothing or very little in the beginning, by both religions and evolutionists. this is where they agree. then there was either rampant creation, that is, the participation rate was at a peak in the first few moments of time, or there was a rapid inflation and increase in complexity of the universe by impersonal forces, nothing to with any gods or God.

now objectively speaking, it seems there is rather a gap in between the two extremes of religion and atheism, if we were to consider the more theoretically holistic range of possibilities, from the all powerful god to demi-god, someone with lesser powers, to magician, someone with a few tricks here or there, to a person with no magical ability or powers, whatsoever, to someone who can barely move or even think, a cripple, mentally and physically. we could intuitively reason that throughout the whole range however, that the participation rate was higher in the beginning, as everything was new, that there was greater opportunity to create things at or near the start.

let us assume that none of us remember the beginning. theoretically, there are two possibilities, one we did not exist as such, in the beginning, and two that we have merely forgotten it. which brings us to perhaps the most important issue on a personal level, did we exist in the beginning or were we ourselves created, in some part or form? was consciousness present in us, whatever we are, at the start of time, or as evolutionary theory would have it, it is the culmination of a very long, tortuous process?

at our most emotionally vulnerable, we are unlikely to present such pride that we claim to have done this or that great deed in the far past. we may not even remember well enough to pass the threshold of doubt. but suppose that anyone who seems very familiar with anything right from the start, seemingly without any explanation, may have had a part in creating it!

though perhaps there is a stability to the universe, not evident always, that belies the theories of religion and evolution, that disproves the case that this much creation or evolution could even happen. perhaps the world was born quite complex and semi-completed already! indeed we could be fooled by the volatility and complexity of what we see, for it leads us to extend to the assumption that much change generally may happen for the universe as a whole.

emotionally, what happens in the process of creation at the human level? first we become excited about something, we think, what a good idea! then we busy ourselves creating it. but then we become cautious. we might even be afraid we've made a mistake! we wait for some progress to happen from others before we take the next step, we become dependent. considering all the inventions and creations of the past, it is not the case that any one being did it all, obviously. as people made connections and dependency grew throughout time, it leads us to the possibility that no one can take full credit for anything anymore. we are all levelled down and perhaps this is a good thing!

CLEARCHARGE

Instruments of Thought and the Inflation of Expectations

instruments of thought and the inflation of expectations:

our thoughts form a large part of our identity, even though the content of our thoughts may not be unique, they may seem highly personal to us. of course thoughts may be expressed in words and imagination in pictures and drawings. language is an instrument of thought. if only all thought could be expressed in language! language could be criticized as a blunt instrument, that words often express only what is obvious and clear to us, that they describe only that which is manifest, an extreme condition metaphysically.

very obviously so, no one wants to be crazy, to be a victim of insanity! however, whatever its shortcomings, language can still be used to express an infinite variety of thoughts. perhaps not infinite in every direction or area, but still infinite in others. therein lies the problem, infinite thought in a finite reality!

the human being is a social creature. and the mind naturally wanders. true thoughts about people mutate into untrue thoughts about people. that is inevitable in the thinking process. as we effortlessly make up our own fictions and add to that those of others, surely we must sometimes be living with a rampantly inflated concept of human activity in the universe?

imagine a little girl in a single room in a reality somewhere. this is a simple reality. to start with she knows nothing of language but as her imagination grows and her inventive nature dominates, she create words and then a whole language. and she draws pictures, lots of them. eventually she can imagine earth. but there is no earth in her reality and there never will be. it is all in her own mind. at best, she has overestimated things a little, though with the sense that it is her imagination, and is only somewhat crazy. at worst, she is insane, has hopes that could never be realized and she has grossly overestimated herself personally and everything else in her reality.

a word conveys a meaning. now whether a word was discovered or created or merely happened upon, it first changed our thoughts to form a concept, it channelled our minds through a certain pathway. perhaps there is no satisfactory explanation as to why a particular word means what it means, that each word is a peculiarity of this reality. it does not stretch the mind to imagine an alternate reality where the same word means something completely different.

some words we use a lot, some very little, if we use words at all to think. what is the current state of the language in the most real, metaphysical sense? words and phrases come in and out of fashion. can a word ever escape its original meaning? does precedence always determine validity?

like a musical instrument, where we can try different notes, in language, the act of randomly combining words together may not form a coherent concept to the conscious mind, but perhaps this is what is happening at the subconscious level anyway all the time? we are slowly trawling through the infinite space of thought! of course, all this is not to suggest that we began at the start of time with our minds a clean slate, for yes, there is the concept of original craziness!

CLEARCHARGE

Change and Time

change and time:

what is time? there is time because there is change. as you are aware, time is measured by the cycles of days and years and it is assumed that it is valid to do so, that the concept of common time throughout this reality is real, that every bit of matter, everything that exists, moves in time together.

what is change? a different state in the same something that exists. i will avoid most of the philosophical debate as to whether something that changes can be considered the same thing. here are some words that may confuse the issue, fluid, infinitesimal, continuous, etc. the infinitesimal is a mathematical concept but i don't believe that it is a real one, in reality, i posit that the infinitesimally small does not exist. perhaps neither is real the idea that change could be somehow fluid or continuous. change could be discrete. a high definition television of 1920x1080 pixels may show a changing image that seems fluid and continuous but it is not, the mind is easily deceived here.

it is commonly held that time travel is generally impossible, but posit that past states of a bit of matter can be achieved again, that you can, in this sense, go back to the past exactly as it was and you can even go back to the state at the start of time. even if this may not be true, a similar state may be achieved.

what little is known about is how its neighbours affect change in a single bit of matter. what is obvious is the mimicking or copying effect. this is how we see an object appear to move across our field of vision. a change in image or state is passed on to the neighbour. after a lot of change in a bit of matter, perhaps it can be brought back too by its neighbour who has not changed or changed very little.

on another note, what of change and death? well, we must define what death is, first of all. originally, it was a word associated with a nebulous dread and a vague sense of "the end of it all". on earth it means the end of a life on earth or quitting the world of earth. if we apply the word to change, does change not mean the death of a bit of matter from what it once was? is time not then constant death? rule out the concept that something that exists, that has "mass" or substance, can cease to exist in any shape or form, become nothing, lose "mass" or substance. this is a slippery slope! only that, yes, it could cease to exist only in the sense that its state has changed. much thinking is all skewed in the vague feeling that we have all "died" long ago and ongoing change towards something very different is inevitable and that we can never recover what once was. but i have just posited that exact states can be regained, we can bring the "dead" back to life! on the other hand, what if change were something very "difficult", that a return to the starting position were inevitable, that the "gravity" exerted by the start of time position were altogether too strong, that we could be imagined as a statue in equilibrium, that we could never really move about too much? of course, these are extremes, but either or both could be relatively true at the same time for different parts of reality!

CLEARCHARGE

The Inevitable Abrasive Nature of the Web of Words

the inevitable abrasive nature of the web of words:

we may think of words as something insubstantial, perhaps just images in a book, text on a screen, sounds in our heads, but consider that they might be something more tangible, an essential part of the machinery of life and the universe. any procedure or social process in life on earth requires words, words make things work.

posit that words and their languages and meanings occupy their own dimension in space, that they are something as real and varied and substantial as the material of light or sound. they are an instrument of life. all words and their meanings form a web in space, all connected to each other. the ways they are linked and the conceptual distances between different words and their meanings are something we all know intuitively. and just by thinking and using words we shape and change this web all the time.

it is unfortunate that there are bad words, just as it is unfortunate that bad things happen. again it is unfortunate that we can carelessly trigger bad thoughts in others when talking. some words or phrases inevitably conjure up negative ideas, others, though neutral in themselves, may naturally lead to bad thoughts anyway, as they are only a short distance away. when they lead to bad thoughts about the person itself, calling into question its own beliefs about self, or play on its own worst fears, such that they might be true, the sometimes abrasive nature of words and language reveals itself. we are all party to fear and pride, such is the nature of the human being.

i fear this abrasive nature of words and talk is inevitable. often it is difficult to console anyone that frightened, or to validate anyone that proud. the perfect idealized conversation requires conditions of security and jolliness and mutual interest that cannot always be met. perhaps as the other person, you can only provide at best a sense that someone is not alone, that there is the other person who cares.

CLEARCHARGE

On Numbers and Motion

on numbers and motion:

there is Zeno's paradox of motion that holds that travel from one point to another is impossible mathematically for if you were always to travel half the distance again from that just covered you would never arrive. although theoretically possible, could infinitesimally little numbers simply not be real? if we assume space is finite, we could not even write an infinitesimally little number down, there is not enough room!

but what is motion as assumed in this model? that an object really moves from one place to another relative to a fixed spatial location! the other view is that everything has a fixed spatial location, nothing can truly move. what we see, which i think could be agreed upon, is that there is a fluid change of the pixels of our eyesight which shows the object's recognizable configuration flowing across our visual range. this is just the same as what happens on a television except in 3 dimensions. therefore if only what we see is real and not based on any material world where the objects truly exist beyond our senses, we could conclude that motion is only virtual and the conventional model is false. i feel this a fundamental argument in metaphysics.

just as infinitesimally little numbers are not real, can we apply this reasoning to distance in space? everything that exists, let us call it matter, is in its own fixed space. surely an infinitesimally little distance is not real either? there are differences in matter. matter adjoins other matter. therefore, we can reason that, in isolation, neighbouring matter, by definition, is different matter, for if it were the same or subject to the same changes over time, surely you could not argue that it is indeed another separate bit of matter. we could reason that the littlest distance that matters is the size of the littlest bit of matter. it would seem obvious then, just as infinite space is impossible, that an infinitesimally little bit of matter could not exist.

CLEARCHARGE

A Practical Approach

a practical approach:

earth is a complex world. it didn't always exist, i think that can be agreed upon. it may not always exist in the future. it is a belief, however, that the soul is eternal, that is, ever present in all time. how a soul can be placed upon earth, by forces beyond our control, is another question. in this view, we all come from other worlds to earth. and what happens when we leave? there seem only two possibilities, that we return from where we came, or that we pass on to yet another world, assuming that we are not fated to live again and again on earth, and that we never truly die.

earth can seem an alien place, always a sense present that this is not truly home and that it is only for a while. because life is complicated and we are required to make many decisions, some of which go wrong, it can be a cruel, hard experience. it would seem some people are driven by their ambition, they know what they want, but i am rather more sure of what i don't want, what i want to make sure does not happen to me. you could say i am more driven by fear not by want.

in every poor decision, there is often the failure to consider all the possibilities that could happen. we naturally make optimistic assumptions at first, but we need to be more aware of risk and the likelihood that such assumptions simply do not hold, that what we have thought about for much time does not happen at all. too often, i have assumed the best outcome and subsequently been sorely disappointed. ask yourself, first, what if it's not true and second, have i considered all the possibilities? what do i need to do? what do i need to not do?

unfortunately, regret is something we all suffer. we all make mistakes. to my mind, a life without error is impossible. however, we do become more intelligent about risk as we grow older, and a future of fewer lesser mistakes and without serious accident is something to strive for.

CLEARCHARGE

The Search for Truth

the search for truth:

to anyone, the thought that you might be insane or even just a little muddled, is something deeply concerning. to not know the truth is bad enough, to believe falsity is at best embarrassing, at worst truly horrifying. to live a lie, and then to realize so, crushes the soul.

the whole problem with thought is that it is too wide in range and somewhat random. we can entertain ideas that are wildly distant from reality, not only easily, but too often. this range can be a strength, to be sure, we can happen upon true ideas from a short start sometimes, but the thought process is like watching a building being constructed haphazardly with different concepts that may or may not form a complex that is true. but thought never ceases, it continues throughout all time.

but how, if we arrive at a thought, do we know if it is true or not? we have the ability to consider all the combinations, quite carefully even. does the truth return something from the void out there, a confirmation of validity? it is frustrating when there seems no way to prove whether something is true or not. we hope that the truth will unlock the puzzle. if the mind is like a computer, trying all the combinations that fit, it would seem a slow process, and often it is.

the need to know the truth about life and existence is not just an exercise in vanity and greed, to know it all, so to speak, for how can we ever be secure in ignorance or dangerous insanity? for example, everyone knows they exist, but what do they know of others who exist, how many and who are they? the range of estimates of number, if not hardened belief, goes from zero to billions, from the world of solipsism to an entire plural universe or multiverse, but even this is confusing, for how do we define ourselves and what the other person is exactly, that is, what is a living person and can someone very different from me be a living other person as defined by myself? to believe that i am the only real person in existence, the solipsistic nightmare, is a horrific thought. basically, you are god, but you can't control that much, everything around you is an illusion and you are completely alone! alternatively, to believe there are billions of people brings its own troubling thoughts, personal insignificance, difficulties relating to so many others and so on. this leads us to assume there is a magical perfect number of people, perhaps, a "goldilocks" population, not too many, not too few.

which brings us to the perpetual thinking difficulty, if you had the power, would you want things to be a certain way, just as you think, that is, if you were God, is this what you want to be the case? there is the danger of confusing thought with emotion. caught up in our thoughts, we delude ourselves that we are thinking about what we want, when this is not truly the case.

is the truth a resonant thing? is the universe a wonderful machine where the truth is the only thing that "works"? the conscious thoughtful mind connects to the subconscious to the unconscious to the rest of surrounding reality. there is a process of testing hypotheses perhaps. we are ever closer to the truth.

CLEARCHARGE