Is Nothing Something?

Sometimes, I think, there is nothing I can think, that hasn’t been thought before, given my circumstances.

But then again, my circumstances are unique. As are all of ours.

But now particularly.

From what I can see, and from what I have been taught…much of all our circumstances have occurred within the peripheral of, all or nothing.

But now I think, I straddle existence between all and nothing – seeing both and seeing that, it’s not a certainty that it is all or nothing. There’s a whole lot in between.

And seeing that there is stuff in between, is only the beginning of forever. Because there’s more infinity traveling towards nothing, than trying to maintain the journey that you see.

So I have learned, not from myself but from life itself, that we are bound to be drawn to nothing. To want, to learn, to know, more about what nothing is.

It seems nothing, is the thing, I want to know about.

 

 

‘Even the birds are chained to the sky’

If you want to know how the universe is, watch a starling murmuration.

 

Watching unique parts arrange,

presiding back, where beauty’s from.

And knowing nothing, quite the same,

from unique parts, is chaos born.

 

Undisturbed; appreciation.

 

Observing this, one could relate

one’s own experience.

Unique part, myself creates,

yet still I see the us.

 

And seeing we, and knowing that

to move is not unique.

Unique disturbed, from part to part,

chaotic beauty, lays in between.

Realisation and Distraction (2nd edition)

img_4042

Realisation and distraction,
the curse of one another.
The curse they know because they are,
but equal to each other.

Growth of each, extends the curse,
dilutes the truth they stem from.
But look at what’s diluting them,
the substance extending – its will to diverge.

What misconception this creates –
expansion despite resistance.
Expansion is resistance –
the substance is the curse.

But one is roots and one is fruit,
the fruit is tempting time.
It welcomes its neighbours, seeks to recruit.
While the roots are the ones to dine.

Each stem from common substance,
the roots create fruit in abundance;
must therefore be the same.
The fruit is the roots to gain.

The Dependencies of Collective Determinism 

I don’t think this all means nothing, and getting to this point is precisely the reason why I think this.
The will to survive has taken us on an extraordinary journey, in the physical sense and in the conscious sense.

Consciousness being an extension of the physical self, which is itself physically created, however we cannot comprehend it, because it is comprehension.

Just because we cannot recognise consciousness as a physical manifestation, doesn’t mean that it does not exist in the same way that a molecule of blood does. Ok consciousness is not an element of the universe but it is created by elements, in the same way that light is created from combustion, electromagnetism and other reactions. 

Thought is an energy by product of neurotransmitters and physical pathways in the brain. Thought can be determined by deducing the possible outcomes of the energy created in a brain under specific controls. Background information is required in order to understand the structure of that persons brain given the environment that they have developed in. But I’m sure presumptions can be made in order to predict quite an accurate outcome.

An analogy that might go some way to support this idea is that within our bodies similar processes are occurring all the time that we give no such regard to as we do thought. For example heat generation through the process of respiration. This is a biproduct of mitochondrial activity in our cells which escapes into the outside world. It is not of physical essence.

Back to my original thought…
An explanation of human consciousness often reverts back to religion, or a creator. Which works pretty well from a survival perspective because it creates, or provides purpose for morality and also fear. Diminishing the harsh animalistic natures that only consider the basic needs of the body. Thus encouraging an environment where the collective recognise their potential. The idea of a creator keeps the animalistic instincts at bay during this period of growth. But that is all it is doing, keeping them at bay, which quite frankly means that there is not a creator of the kind we imagine because otherwise why would this diminished attitude towards individual survival have come about?
The predicament we now find ourselves in is that the very thing that has softened our attitude to others…created our consciousness…is also the thing that continuously demonstrates itself to be the rational or ‘logic’ for a return to our animalistic instincts.
This observation quite clearly solidifies the belief that religion is a product of consciousness, consciousness is a product of survival; and when a product of consciousness fails to do what it was created to do, the consciousness attacks and adjusts its understanding of survival. 

The problem we have is that the development of conscious beliefs occur over varying lengths of time and are isolated to various collective groups which means that the attack or shift in belief systems do not occur simultaneously amongst all peoples.
Under this premise it is easy to comprehend how irreconcilable wars are triggered if one group of conscious thought is at a different stage to another’s 

So therefore I do not despair at the loss of a benevolent creator, because there was no such thing. In fact I live in hope that we are collectively moving towards a greater understanding of the purpose of survival. The will to survive is beauty itself and I don’t mind being part of that process, for whatever reason. It’s surely out of my control.

Entropy and Time

Continued discussion on reverse predictability (see previous blog ‘entropy and the singularity’).

Shared entropy that exists between the possible microscopic configurations of combined macroscopic environments, is only shared up until the point that the actual configuration is realised. Once this occurs, when viewed retrospectively – this outcome is the only possible outcome. This is because time makes the process irreversible and unchangeable. It HAS happened.
But what if we can use this logic to infer greater insight into probability – can this work in ‘reverse predictability’s’ favour? The random outcome which does occur, creates irreversible change in the microscopic and macroscopic environments, changing the shared entropy in a unique way. If we know all the possible microscopic configurations of the shared entropy, then we can also know how each configuration, if achieved, would change the micro and macroscopic environments. There is a vast number of possible configurations…it’s a three dimensional matrix made up of all the shared entropy configurations. This vastness of possibilities cannot be predicted (they are equally likely), and then when the magnitude of the universe is considered, the matrix of possibilities is infinite.
But infinity will always convey an infinite number of possibilities. Why don’t we use the physical corrosion of time to visualise the behaviour of infinite probability?
Look at how time changes the direction of infinite probability. Each irreversible outcome, eliminates that precise event from ever occurring again. From this perspective, we can look at all things that have happened and know this:

1. They were possible in the past;
2. They are no longer possible in the future – although there are still infinite possibilities in the future, these are not included in that vastness;
3. All the possible outcomes that were equally likely to occur, but didn’t, do two things – they either also become impossible in the new infinity of possible outcomes, or they remain possible in the new infinity.
4. So the outcomes that did occur, and the outcomes that are no longer possible because of the outcomes that did occur, exist in a non-existent world, in parallel to the infinite future.
5. This is helpful for reverse predictability because the eliminated non-existent outcomes are finite – we can travel back, layer by layer, reducing possible outcomes based on the destruction of time.

I don’t believe this demonstrates the possibility of infinite parallel universes. The opposite in fact, I think this demonstrates that the universe behaves exponentially, but the exponential behaviour is not linear – it is three dimensional, swaying through infinity. However the definition of exponential is expansion – expansion from what? Exponential growth of zero is zero, as is 1. You need 2 for exponentialism to exist.

If we can’t fathom how something can come from nothing, then why don’t we deduce what the only possible outcome was, from two possible outcomes? The macroscopic environment that created the outcome that did occur, is the same environment that contained the equally possible configuration of the outcome that didn’t occur. This is the singular state that sparked the exponential growth of the infinite universe. God knows what this is 🤔 any ideas??

Entropy and the Singularity

Reverse Predictability

The foundation of this idea is the concept of entropy, formulated by:

Entropy is a measure of microscopic configurations (Ω) that correspond to a thermodynamic system in a state specified by certain macroscopic variables.

Assuming that each of the microscopic configurations are equally probable, the entropy of the system is the natural logarithm of that number of configurations, multiplied by the Boltzmann Constant (kB), which provides consistency with the original thermodynamic concept of entropy – and gives entropy the dimension of energy divided by temperature.

Considering this, my thought diverged to the more general accepted rule that energy = change. The volatility of an object in its environment dictates the capacity to change and how it will change. Meanwhile entropy governs this process, or predicts it…

Entropy can be understood as a measure of molecular disorder within a macroscopic system. The number of possible configurations that molecules could assemble is equally probable and so the ones in which it does take are random, in consideration of that macroscopic environment.

So my idea of reverse predictability uses this certainty in order to deduce non-random configurations. This is not to say that they are likely, but that they demonstrate a predictable existence because of their environment. There is something that isn’t random about the entropy of each event. If all the macroscopic factors are halved (…crude example), then the variance in entropy must be relevant in predicting how the macroscopic system/state behaves?

There are outcomes that were possible in the first environment, that become impossible in the new environment, and the new environment creates possible outcomes that were not possible in the previous environment.

Therefore we have certainty in the differences that exist between the two environments. By identifying the outcomes that cannot be achieved in both environments, we can deduce the outcomes that can occur in both environments – the shared entropy.

Shared entropy is the number of configurations that are equally likely to occur microscopically, even where macroscopic influences differ. Depending on the number of macroscopic influences that are involved in identifying shared entropy, a level of predictability can be set out based on the number of configurations that are possible for all macroscopic environments.

Furthermore if there are configurations which are shared with other configurations that do not simultaneously occur as part of the shared entropy of all (more than two) environments, then the different macroscopic environments that cause these configurations have their own shared entropy. The below diagram helps to demonstrate this:

shared-entropy

Hypothetically speaking, the configurations/outcomes that can occur in A, that don’t occur in B, or in any of the other macroscopic environments, by deduction can only occur in A’s specific macroscopic environment.

If there is an equal chance of all configurations occurring then it doesn’t matter if out of all the possible outcomes, only a handful of those can only occur because of that environment…but if there is an environment where a lot of events occur simultaneously then the resultant microscopic configuration (outcome) is more likely to be within the shared entropy range.

We can monitor events and changes to macroscopic factors so as to alert us to the level of shared entropy of specific microscopic configurations in relation to their macroscopic influences. So if there is a large spectrum of macroscopic factors, and there is still shared entropy, then those shared configurations/possible outcomes are more likely to occur because those macroscopic factors are influencing the same subject matter.

Conclusion

It is agreed that entropy represents the random configuration of molecules subjected to a determined set of macroscopic factors. Presumably it can also be agreed that varying sets of macroscopic factors working on the same set of molecules simultaneously, impacts the hypothetical perfection of entropy (complete randomness and equal likelihood). It is therefore contradictory to say that microscopic configurations have the same equal likelihood of occurring when there are also configurations that can occur in one, but not the other macroscopic environment in isolation.

So the configurations that occur when different macroscopic factors are at play, signifies that although those outcomes are random to that environment, they are the more likely outcomes in consideration of the combination of macroscopic factors at play. By this logic then we can say that hypothetically, the greater the different macroscopic environments at play, the more likely the shared entropy configurations/outcomes will occur.

I think this process is identifying the unlikelihood of the macroscopic environment to arrange itself in such a way that the resultant microscopic outcome is predictable, rather than random or equally likely. But we don’t need this unlikely macroscopic environment to occur, we just need to know where shared entropy exists, and the most unlikely combination which produces a single shared outcome, is the starting point of reverse predictability, the singularity.