I understand the principle, but aren't there general rules that are specific for this reality, independent of one's interpretation of it?
Quoting: Ambra 25480041 How could there possibly be? "this reality"
is "one's interpretation".
Quoting: Chaol Thank you for your reply. I anticipated it simply being "There is no newborn!" :)
My question is then, how does "one's interpretation" develop and build upon, unless there is a frame of reference or anchor point stemming from "this reality"? Is it a random interpretation, born out of nowhere? Or is there on some level a [shared] "construct"?
In my "solo" trip of my reality, did I make all the interpretations up? If the newborn is exposed to some influences in the womb, as you mentioned, then there must be a pick up point somewhere. A sort of "shared meme".
Please, bear with me, while I am trying to understand, as I find this thread quite valuable.
What I mean is, the example above is what a newborn does. No values, names and classifications attached, while he is exploring this physical world where everything is new. Yet a wall is still solid, the floor still hurts if he falls and cries, gravity works while he drops his toy, and the toy ball he is holding is still round. He may not have names for it, but he is interacting with the same kind of physicality.
Quoting: Ambra 25480041 None save for a newborn knows what a newborn does. Not even if we could remember being a newborn.
However, from day 1 it is safe to assume that the newborn already is beginning to represent. (Especially after being exposed to language, sounds, expressions of emotion, etc., inside of the womb.)
There are a few scientific articles that show that a newborn does not perceive the world as we do. Up until about ~2 years old, I think. This may explain our general lack of memory of ourselves when we were babies, as the representations would be very different than the kind that we now formulate.
Quoting: Chaol Let's say that the poor newborn hits a wall. None knows what he thinks and how he interprets the wall... However the mother sees the newborn cry.
At this point, the options I can think of at the moment, are:
1 - The "mother" is on a cosmic schizophrenic trip, believing she has a [nonexistent] crying baby, who just hit the [nonexistent] wall.
2 - The newborn has no interpretation of the wall, which to him does not exist, so he crawls through it [creating an alternate reality split]. To the mother, however, the wall does exist, so her logical step is to see the baby crying in her reality.
3 - Each point of perception (individual) uses a shared framework to create their interpretation. In the case of this Planet, the shared framework is dense physicality, where a wall is just solid, and when you hit it, it hurts.
The mother does not know what the baby is thinking, nor how he sees the world. But the baby is crying, because they are sharing the same "construct", and the wall is there for both of them.
Looking at reality with the eyes of a newborn is a great idea, which will rekindle curiosity and exploration, but can we really bypass all the "natural laws" of this physical world?
Quoting: Ambra 25480041 Can you name one that is outside of your perspective?
If not, then the only "natural law"
is perspective.
Quoting: Chaol Does it need to be outside of my perspective?
If I am merely observing a consistent, coherent, regular pattern, which appears to have the characteristics of a "natural law", the observation alone has now made it part of my perspective, but that does not change its nature as a general pattern.
The question is, was gravity already there as a building block of this construct (physicality on this Planet), or did I make it all up because there is no construct at all? If so, how did I come up with it?
In any case, I would say that the law of conservation of energy is outside my perspective, because it is what defines my perspective.
I am bound and condemned to perceive only what takes the least amount of energy to perceive. I cannot perceive otherwise, no matter how I wish it different. I can only go to perception-gym and gradually create logical steps, which consume the relative least amount of energy in incremental fashion. You said that the contrary is a universal no-no. Which implies that there are universal/natural laws.
Thank you Chaol for more clarity on this. :)
Quoting: Ambra 25510283 I hesitate to answer these kinds of questions because of their implications. But I will do so anyway. Perhaps we are more ready than we were before.
One's interpretation does not develop and is not built upon. The interpretation is the geometry of relationships, and all have an equal value because there is nothing actually there.
There is no evolution, no change, and nothing is actually happening.
A thought experiment, if I may...
Imagine that you are in a one-dimensional, empty room. It is completely dark and there is nothing to perceive. Let's call this room Geniisys. Boom! You have named it something, creating the first relationship. This thought, this possibility, creates the second dimension. You write the name, Geniisys, in the air as you name it. This outlines a space. You now have three dimensions. You utter the name into the space you have formed, creating farther varieties of relationships. This goes on ad infinitum until all the stars, dust, light, culture, and tricycles are created. You are simply creating relationships out of something that does not exist, and this is endlessly recursive.
The above is an illustration of perspective. You take two things that do not exist to form a relationship that "does" exist (or at least one that you can perceive). You do not perceive of the things directly (because they do not exist) but only your relationship with them. This relationship does not really exist, either, but the value that seems to be created from the relationship is something that we can use, and thus seems real.
That which exists is true and cannot be perceived. It is beyond perception and without perspective.
So in a way we are experiencing our relationship with that which does not exist. There is an infinite variety of these experiences and perceptions because it is impossible for us to define this relationship.
Although these relationships seem to change it all happens simultaneously (as it is an illusion). It is your perspective that seems to change, not the relationships.
That is the nature of perspective.
So instead of evolving or building upon something you are perceiving the next logical relationship, so to speak. This does not happen in time. It seems to happen in time because you are experiencing these relationships at the speed of perception.
Independent of the illusion of time there is neither change nor evolution.
All of these things, you could say, are hitting you at the same time. You are simultaneously in a distant star 40 trillion years into the past (5 billions years by your measurement) and here and now eating cereal. However, you are only able to perceive one relationship at a time. You naturally perceive what is most related to an other perception.
This "one" relationship could include countless other relationships. You could be perceiving 500, 5 trillion, or 5 relationships right now, but it would still be a single relationship.
But you perceive it as one relationship, and it is perspective.
In this way what we consider evolution or building upon something is including more relationships into this geometry (what I call an expanded perspective, although that is a misnomer).
Right now we are surrounded by things we have represented. They may seem to appear separate from us, because we have made them so through our representation and logic, and thus interaction and potential energy.
When we "un-name" something and take away the representation we realize more of this
nothing and instead of perceiving a relationship with it we absorb it into our perspective, so to speak.
That is to say, instead of it being perceived as being separate from us and something with which we can have a relationship we realize we are that thing.
In this way we build upon it by absorbing it into who we are (taking away the relationship). But at this point it cannot be perceived and we cannot know about it.
The more you cannot perceive something the more it is the source of who you are.
There is no shared construct. It is there but it does not exist. (Apologies, but English has its constraints.)
There is no newborn unless you are the newborn :)
Your perception of the newborn is the newborn's total existence. There is no need for further values to exist unless they need to. This would be a waste of energy. When you are not perceiving the newborn crying, baby does not. If you are talking on the phone with someone who has a newborn, neither the newborn nor the person are there in physical form. They exist only as they need to in your perspective (a certain range of what you'd call the audio spectrum, for example).
We perceive that which is most relative, yes. But we also do not perceive that which is not relative. The bottom of your foot may not be relative to your current experience. If you're not looking at it now, for example, it need not have color, texture, etc. (There is no need to render it, as one person on this thread has suggestively illustrated.)
The potential for the "shared construct" is there but it is always unused and does not exist. When you perceive of something else you are actually perceiving of yourself (because it is your perspective).
It's quite difficult to grasp that one, for most. "Of course my friend exists! I just spoke with them!" But you do not know of your friend outside of your current perspective. In fact, there is nothing you could have perceived outside of your current perspective. Outside it, there is nothing.
Gravity is not there. Only some effects of what you would consider gravity. If you're not measuring light at this particular instant, for example, it has no speed. When you want to measure light then the speed will become relative to your experience and you will see a value. (The speed of light is actually the speed of physical perception that will change in a bit, but that's an other story.)
You came up with the idea of gravity because it is logical to your perspective. Things are relative to the ground you walk on, usually, so things tend to stick there. Gravity is the same as living where you do, or thinking what you are, etc. It is an effect of perceiving things that are relative. The same force that attracts also repels. (It doesn't do either, but only seems to.)
The law of conservation of energy is not actually outside your perspective nor does it define it. It is the only method by which we perceive. That is to say, 'perception' and this law is the same thing.
In this way you are bound to perceive that which takes the least amount of energy to perceive. But it does not mean you are limited. It means you have only to make something relative to your perspective in order to experience it.
You are actually experiencing all things simultaneously, right now.
But you do not perceive it. The nature of perspective is this energy conservation.
The moment you begin to perceive, you could say, is the moment when you perceive what is nearest to you first. Looking "over there" first is for the curious and is certainly possible, but it would take an infinite amount of energy to do so. (It's not a law, but you'd most likely give up long before you experienced results.)
Yes, you can only go to perception-gym and gradually create logical steps. But, 2 things:
1) If you can figure it out, you can relate one thing to an other, seemingly unrelated thing
2) You have all the time in the universe *lol*
Personally, I don't think I'm very patient. That's where Ecsys comes in.
Keep in mind that everything contains everything else (so to speak, even though most things are not fully-realized) so it's just a matter of finding that thing (or experience, whatever) in what is most relative to you now.
The table you're sitting at has all of the properties of the newest spaceship. You just have to find them :)