posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 09:53 PM
A thought on the notion of matrix has to do with the underlying geometry.
Is it a freely re-configurable [flexible] geometry/topology that is totally internally self-referencing or is it something with some degree or
extensive cross referencing [is it relatively rigid]?
If [non-quantum?] physics is to be taken at face value, when an event happens at one place in the Universe [reality?] it eventually [usually at light
speed] has effects elsewhere in the Universe/system. 'Gravity' [conventional definition] causes mass bodies in reasonable proximity to have effects
upon one another.
I will guess there are other independent Universes somewhere, but they may quite possibly [or not] be where we will essentially have no connection nor
access to them.
Which would require that our Universe/system must have some limited span/domain/range of cross referencing. Its roots can not be infinite, except
possibly where numerous universes share the same concentric infinity(s). But the non-infinite roots could be very, very, very deep or not. Like a roof
truss, there is cross bracing, but it is neither solidly infilled with wood & it by itself [generally] does not extend to the floor/ground.
If you have a topological surface of some number of dimensions that is totally self-referencing/connected & yet flexible in its relation to anything
else, It probably retains consistency. A flexible [surface?] topology could have any external form, but could not allow any bifurcation of its defined
It has no fixed relationship to its context, only to itself.
In standard physics, retaining/maintaining continuity of connections is best facilitated by not changing the external relationships. Like metal & many
materials can take some flexion, but at some point of stressing & re-stressing the material may break [lose coherence/connection/bond].
Some materials can take a great deal of flexion, for extended spans.
Also engineering designs, such as interlocking chains or hinges are designed so the elements are not internally stressed nearly as much as the
relationship between interlocking elements is changed, to minimize each element's internal stress.
Retaining a fixed relationship with its context aids longevity.
Arguably it does or may have linkages with its context as well as the requisite connections/references to itself.
Now as in a roof truss, if one fills in a cross connection & then another & another it becomes indistinguishable from a solid slab of wood. Then
further if each of the trusses is melded along the length of the ridge it becomes a massive piece of wood. It becomes arguably more weight than it
would every be worth to support as a roof. Further if the room below this solid chunk of wood is also filled in with wood, then the structure can
facilitate nothing internally & could only serve to support something on its exterior. [Kind of like some of those Mayan temples or the Great pyramid,
lots of stone, with a small amount of interior space created.
If a universe [reality?] is infinitely cross-referenced it probably can not be sustained. It might easily be a horror to live in or experience.
Even in a computer program simulation, if there is infinite cross referencing it will never be able to process anything. Usually in computer programs
they are designed for the minimal-sufficient referencing/computation.
Your experience notably exceeds the expected perceptual range(s).
But keep in mind what you may be seeing may not be a complete autonomous 'reality', but bits, chunks, pieces that may fill some chaotic span of
'trash' between this & some other coherent reality.
Interestingly, if that view were true, that is not to say you might not be able to salvage something from it, something that could be quite useful,
applicable or even treasured by yourself or even for the rest of us if you choose to share it.
Your experience may be yanking your chain of expectation, or desire. Whether that is by design of some external mind or just random circumstance would
be difficult to fathom. But keep in mind, most of us enjoy occasionally yanking one another's chains. Sometimes wickedly maliciously, even
vindictively, & hopefully more often gently & with easy recovery. And we may not be alone as a quasi-intelligent species.
The universe we implicitly concur that we live in, seems to be highly consistent in terms of its physics. And if that is true then we have something
where we can apply strategic methodology. It has useful, agreeable coherence.
While it is possible to have some surface [self-referencing] reality that is very coherent and simultaneously externally flexible it can't help but
be somewhat more fragile [much less dependable]. Leaping to or into it would range from risky to perhaps suicidal. Even if it hangs together under
stressing, it would entail learning a whole new set of behavior criteria for you to learn before it might be reasonably safe or useful.
Conversely i will say that if a given reality/universe is somehow growing in its cross-referencing parameters it could have a tendency to collapse in
upon itself. Blackholes come to mind.
So i suppose the optimal idea might be you want a reality/universe/system where the cross referencing remains relatively constant.
i also will speculate that we have some kind of discrete time instant passage.
If we had to run an infinitely continuous gauntlet of time to get from one instant to the next, time simply could not pass.
I suppose modularity might also prove useful both for repair & possibly expanding its extent of a reality/universe system.
sort of like double entry bookkeeping without actually certifying & documenting each individual penny that is transacted.
There must be some range(s) that might be argued are reasonable for acceptable operation.
I suppose in your life, if it works for you, then who the hell is anyone else or everyone else to tell you otherwise, as long as you are not
transgressing other people's lives.
If however it is uncomfortable, frightening or dangerous to yourself or others, then it is quite surely something to address & attend to.
One shouldn't be too quick to make presumptions about what you are seeing/experiencing, but that would also include you.
There is an interesting case that Ramachandran [a leading British brain scientist] where brain damage caused a man living with his parents to feel
think & believe they were imposter replacements when he saw them, but when he talked to them on the phone he knew/felt/believed they were his 'real'
Our reality belief system is a function of our emotions.
Which has to be a cause for pause in any thinking person.
Generally i will guess our emotional beliefs are at least workably close to what intellectual discernment would confirm,
but look at Iraq. No WMDs, No terrorists, yet viewing the American public they express no expected outrage, anger or shock,
even after probably a million civilians have been killed, that will inspire all new sources of anti-American anger & hate,
as well as at least a 1/2 Trillion dollars have been spent on just the immediate invasion & occupation.
Obviously our societal perception, response has been highly warped from any kind of accountable, rational, orthogonal relationship with the facts.
Somehow we have become highly dissociative from the quite frightening facts of reality.
In all likelihood it will come to bite us on the backside, & we will feign innocence & shock.
Sadly it will probably hit future generations, who were not culpable.
So when these same expert idiots are telling you what is real & what is not real,
take it with a HUGE grain of salt.
But when you are presuming what you are seeing is totally real the way the Universe is, take that with a large dose of salt as well.
It is always more complicated than we will ever imagine. Let's hope we are lucky & the metaverse is for whatever reasons, is gentle & not too painful