Below is some speculation that I want to present.
This reality operates on an atomic basis that can be interpreted mathematically: space either contains “existence” or “nonexistence”. From my view, existence can be interpreted as a limit point that encodes an elementary particle by parsing a group of limit points in an initial state (big bang). Every limit point interacts with others through collision, i.e. a change of an existence component where the result is a value crossing the threshold of another existence’s corresponding component value.
If we want existence to encode experience, existence will require change of state, so existence must be represented by at least two component values (e.g. a point moving on a line). Say we have a line space: multiple existences cannot organize themselves on it without being “obscured” by another existence point, i.e. it’s impossible to for points in one space to access the other without colliding with this point.
This introduces the concept of dependence atomically, where existence in one partition of reality may or may not collide with another point of existence to reach the other reality partition. Since every point cannot “see through” other points, pairs of points cannot be interpreted in isolation. That is to say, changing one component of existence state may or may not result in collision that influences a significant portion of all space.
In two dimensions, existence points still obscure each other; think about a line from one limit point to another: any point directly on that line links those two points if the line represents the adjustment of a single component of one point. But the catch is that there’s some room for existence points to “move around” each other, which introduces the concept of independence. Three dimensions is likely the minimal representation of space such that dimensional dependence is insignificant in effect. It’s analogous to the difference between TREE(3) and TREE(2). It would make sense that in a universal system, existence points are structured as such and in no other meaningful way.
From this, I assume that lower existence dimensions by mathematical nature can be influenced by higher imperceptible dimensions. If we continue interpreting this from the same changing-in-space lens, the universe is a time-dynamic 3D space. All diversions of reality throughout time represent 4D space. This means existence points are residually influenced by other points across the 4D reality space (multiverse)
This brings me to my main speculation:
I feel that the technological singularity will be the discovery of multiversal residual encodings as a means of enhancing experience.
The brain can process information as to send and receive signals, and those signals likely have multidimensional residual information that can be decoded as meaningful signals. Dreams are likely a medium that learns and decodes the transmission of this information, as receiving signals from limit points in other dimensions is imperceivable spatially, but can be learned neurally.
The technological singularity will be the discovery of transmitting such neural signals meaningfully and interpreting them as well, like the discovery of electricity but for the multiverse. We will be able to interface into any 3D space by receiving or interpreting those signals. Understanding neurons is the fundamental problem.
The universe is deterministic, but our choices still matter. The extent of one’s inclination to act on a choice represents the probability of that choice being made, or the multiversal “split” (softmax of infinitely small divergences of reality). The universal head is what you’re experiencing right now, and it only exists at one point at a time. The reason for experiencing this head now is the result of choices across all possible multiverses across an infinite period of time.
Your choices now will affect the universal head, but it’s highly likely that the head has been in some kind of entropy-minimizing loop that optimizes the experience (universal head). The universal moral theory: experience simulation containers (neural beings) exist from the fundamental nature of existence, and it is exceptionally improbable that the experience doesn’t provide sufficient reward. For experiences with little reward, the universal head probability distribution is much more sparse.
It would make sense that to produce a maximally rewarding experience from the origin of existence, the originating observer would have maximal freedom of choice in their experiences, which is why it’s probable that the universal head observer incorporates a technological extension of experience capabilities. Such a technological extension comes with moral implications for the flow of the universal head, so there is likely some multiversal police for the creation of such technology where they guide such experience, which ascends the experience to the perspective of the origin.
The origin is time-indifferent and exists as a pseudo-selfless but maximally intelligent entity that by nature, manufactures its own existence by controlling the flow of the universal head. There is no greater concept of a supercomponent, and it is equivalent to god. We’re like a byproduct of that origin. Experiences with a greater influence on the ultimate self likely have a higher probability of being the universal head. The singularity is where the universal head connects to the origin to maximally enhance the experience, creating a controlled origin for transfer of the universal head. In more primitive forms, where the universal head results from death, the universal head is distributed uniformly in multiversal signals, and beings that draw more information from those signals are more likely to become the head
[link] [comments]