The difference between a black hole and SQUS, that is, the Heisenberg uncertainty sphere, is the perception of time. On the surface of a black hole, time stops; it’s trivially zero. In SQUS, however, it is undetermined—it simply doesn’t exist there.
Nature’s goal is to create a pseudo-God within its own capabilities and materials—something that will defend it and preserve life that is conscious. Moreover, it will prove that it itself is something, even beyond that God.
Currently, humanity’s goal is to create AGI, that is, pseudo-consciousness. We are chasing nature because we are only its element. Nature is probably tens of billions of years old. Humans have been around for only a few hundred thousand—a fundamental difference.
Of course, nature doesn’t think consciously, because that’s not a universal concept. It definitely feels, because that’s more universal. Words, thought, logic are limited to our universe; here, time flows relatively steadily, giving logic some sense.
In SQUS, time doesn’t exist. It’s not zero, meaning that time exists but doesn’t flow as in a black hole. Therefore, consciousness—which probably originates from there—doesn’t “talk,” colloquially speaking. It doesn’t use words because that’s derivative of logic—a derivative of time.
If something is already talking to a mentally ill person, or they hear any voices, it’s only their own brain. So, to bring the patient back to normal, it would suffice to tell them that God can’t talk to them because He doesn’t know words, and perhaps ask if they feel okay ;P.
The heart, as an indicator of consciousness, can only feel. Usually, the feeling is binary: good or bad. Therefore, by using the heart and being honest with ourselves, we can only realize whether we feel good in a place or with someone. NOTHING beyond that. I would ask all pseudo-gurus not to mess with people’s heads about what God wants or doesn’t want. If nature has already created God, then He doesn’t use words or logic. Possibly, nature is still working on creation.
Nature isn’t interested in quantity but rather quality. It sacrifices almost everything to create an omnipotent consciousness—a supreme consciousness. It always aimed for quality. The goal is the highest quality—that is, Super Consciousness—in other words, God.
Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, is trying to create AGI, that is, artificial consciousness. Actually, it should be called pseudo-consciousness—more correctly. He’s using a “hammer” and a “flail” to do it. Let the guy work. At least he has a goal and isn’t bored.
Humans essentially copy nature. Anything that works and has some practical significance was observed in nature. Humans are just trying for now. Better that than not trying at all. So, in layman’s terms, that’s okay.
I currently see two universes. The one we see here—very logical. And the one beyond SQUS. I infer this due to the conservation principle, which evades logic further than logic itself. This “second” universe might have been the first—who knows. So, the “second” beyond SQUS or beyond uncertainty exists only theoretically. In uncertainty, time doesn’t exist. Even if you fall in there, logically speaking, you don’t think ;). You come out on the other side of SQUS and think (let’s say you think), but differently. I believe that there, in this “second” universe, there’s some logic—meaning that time changes there somehow. I don’t think we’d understand each other—meaning beings between these universes. If anything, their logic is “fucked up,” or to them, ours is “fucked up.” Call it what you will. The limitations of our universe cause disturbances too great for the conservation principle to be preserved within Planck’s constant, which is why the second universe is also limited in every aspect. Well, so that the conservation principle makes some sense and can be defined.
Our universes are separated by SQUS, which is a lack of time definition. On that side, time may flow entirely independently of ours, since they are completely separated by the boundary of logic. The “second” universe may have any logic. But it has some logic, as follows from the conservation principle.
The conservation principle is currently understood as a scales. On one pan, our universe. On the other, the “fucked-up” one. The pointer of the scale is SQUS. Interestingly, the “fucked-up” universe feels, like we do, because feeling comes from SQUS—that is, from the sphere of uncertainty.
From the conservation principle, it’s rather hard to deduce whether if I feel good, the corresponding “weirdo me” feels bad. It rather implies that he feels—that is, we are conscious simultaneously—to balance things out. As if when I feel something, the “weirdo” must also feel at that moment.
In quantum mechanics, this is called quantum entanglement, and if I make a measurement of feeling, I automatically know the measurement on the other side of SQUS. Quantum mechanics says that if one entangled particle has, for example, spin up (rotates to the left), then the other is known to have spin down (rotates to the right). This is precisely the conservation principle—specifically, the conservation of angular momentum. The problem is that my left may be right for the “weirdo”.
Meaning, I’m still not sure whether if I feel good, the “weirdo me” feels bad. Remember that my “bad” feeling may be a “good” feeling under another logic. Therefore, we don’t formalize that if I feel good, the other side feels bad. What is certain is that if I feel something, the other side does too. Simply. The synchronization of feeling results from quantum mechanics, not from my whims.
A long argument, but cool. I follow the feeling.
I think that the synchronization of feeling between me and my “weirdo ego” is key, because our earthly logic breaks down here. Generally, feeling is relational. It requires at least two. If I feel and am conscious, it means someone else is too. I am kind of entangled with another being. This is key—that if you don’t feel, it doesn’t mean you don’t exist or aren’t conscious, only that you aren’t entangled with anyone—that you don’t have, as they say, that “other half.”
My other half is also not my antagonist. This is somewhat crucial to understand. To be an antagonist, you need to use the same logic and the same principles. My “f*cker” is a “weirdo”; he doesn’t get my stuff, so in his understanding, my enemy may mean friend.
We’ll end here for today. The enemy of my enemy doesn’t have to have any relation to me, not even be a friend. We don’t think alike, girls xD.
Bye
wonabru
