https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization

What is the connection between depersonalisation and religiosity, spirituality or mysticism? In an extreme form depersonalisation can cause severe mental illness and confusion. But what about mild depersonalisation? When people talk about self-transcendence in terms of connecting with others through humility, identifying with a common cause such as a soldier fighting for his country or identifying yourself with a collective identity like a religion, I often feel that would entail reducing part of your own personality in order to incorporate an external entity. As people grow elderly their capacity for spiritual ways of thinking naturally increases. Depersonalisation is not the same as derealisation which is where you view your perception as fake. Depersonalisation is loosely described as a loss of your sense of freedom and lack of ability to control your own agency; as if you were a passive observer of yourself. That sounds similar to the philosophy of determinism but here it seems to be used in a different context. Instead of being determined by the material world, your personality is being determined by whatever are your metaphysical or spiritual views.

We measure the length of objects relative to standard quantity such as a metre and not the amount of space it occupies in our vision. I couldn't tell you the actual size of my computer if I compared it only to how much of my vision it takes up. This would always change depending on how far or close it is to me. Therefore there's no way to visualise a true external object without qualia because it doesn't make geometric sense in our consciousness unless it merges to a point of perspective. We can only use shared units in a co-ordinate plane to describe external objects.

An infinitude of time would mean that if the multiverse were random like the Boltzmann brain scenario then a deterministic system like our universe is possible to create from of a foundation of randomness seeing as everything conceivable happens an infinite number of times in an infinite universe. We could turn that on its head and say that if the multiverse is both infinite and deterministic then the starting point of subjective time is unknowable due to the immense timescales. Thus the specific beginning of time in our particular universe relative to the multiverse is random or arbitrary. So it's possible to reconcile determinism and randomness through a hypothetical multiverse.

How could a deterministic system become random or vice-versa? That's the dilemma at the heart of quantum mechanics. Usually infinities and infinitesimals can render equations undefinable or negligible such as dividing a number by zero or subtracting infinity from infinity. Space in our universe is finite and objective time only stretches back to the Big Bang but what about subjective time? They say an observer in quantum mechanics doesn't have to be human and any detector would suffice. Although in that case could a micro-organism or a fish be counted as a non-conscious observer in quantum mechanics? Then subjective time of parallel streams of life could possibly be interpreted as an infinite quantity. Therefore when it comes to reconciling determinism and randomness we could speculate that subjective time might be infinite even if objective time is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undefined_(mathematics)
https://www.philforhumanity.com/Infinity_Minus_Infinity.html
https://www.space.com/whats-beyond-universe-edge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Maybe it's possible to create different competing versions of scientific antirealism depending on which variables(s) are perceived in an immaterial way.

Panpsychism where photons are equivalent to our qualia could bypass the combination problem of consciousness because our visual perception of external reality would be ready-made before the signals even enter the brain.

"the combination problem: the problem of how objects, background and abstract or emotional features are combined into a single experience."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem

The chaotic, random quality of the beat distracts our attention from all of our previous thoughts such that we are more receptive to the lyrics whenever they arise. It temporarily destabilises and relieves the stress of our ordinary thoughts which might be interpreted cathartically. In reducing our concentration for whatever was our previous mental activity we can therefore use the music to refocus with more power on the lyrics. This creates a more potent effect compared to listening to the vocals alone without the background instruments or electric music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDgU-rMkVNU
Dj Splash - You Spin Me Right Round (Remix)

Only light from our eyes and sensory nerve impulses from the body penetrates the skull.

I was thinking more to myself about dualism. We could distinguish between two types of dualism: spatial dualism and temporal dualism. Spatial dualism has a limitation in that if consciousness is geographically distinct from the brain then it still has to penetrate the skull somehow in order to read the contents of the brain. Temporal dualism would have to rely on the mind being in a different timeline or timezone to the body; as if it were always 30 seconds ahead for instance. Everything is visible to our consciousness but our consciousness is invisible to everything else!

I watch a lot of these driving and walking videos of foreign cities on YouTube when I'm bored. An easy way to visualise a stationary observer appearing to move is to watch a motionless screen of someone moving in a consistent manner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8XyxasuTGw

"e = 0
The coefficient of restitution exists as a number between 0 and 1. In a perfectly inelastic collision, the difference in the velocities of two objects after a collision is zero because those objects stick together. This means that the coefficient of restitution for a perfectly inelastic collision is e = 0."

Asteroids colliding into each other may have melted together and so the collisions might be inelastic. Therefore could asteroids perpetually colliding into each other create planets without the need for gravity?

https://www.bardweb.net/language.html
Shakespeare is amazing and ingenious at all aspects of the English language bar concision! Nowadays we have a very standardised way of structuring sentences. We are taught from a young age to keep sentences short and use lots of punctuation to avoid confusion. So maybe a historically loose way of connecting phrases meant people compensated by elaboration through vocabulary. In other words our modern language was holistically carved down from complexity rather than being built up from simplicity. Basic physical associations between some words and their referent objects may have been the final state rather than the beginning state of affairs for a language's evolution. Other languages have very unique ways of structuring sentences rather than mere differences in vocabulary. Perhaps this could influence different styles of creativity in how we each connect linguistic concepts.

What if our perception is a simulation but it's based on a real physical reality?

That way light would describe everywhere the matter isn't located which we can use to infer where the matter is hiding.

An electron emits a photon when it moves into another orbital. In other words when it jumps across empty space in the atom it releases light.

We don't see matter with our eyes; we see light. How matter and light relate to each other is not fully certain.The atom is made mostly of empty space. Then is it possible to say light is also the shape of empty space inside the atom? The colour would then change depending on the density of particles in the atom on the surface of the object.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc4xYacTu-E
(6minutes 40s mark)
The pencil attracts the Earth a few trillionths of a proton.
(10minute 40seconds)
There can be vertical deflection where the down direction of gravity has negligibly differences.
(24minute 20seconds)
Time moves faster for your head than your feet.

An astronaut dropping an object on a spinning asteroid might perceive it as falling diagonally to the ground. Under this way of analysing gravity the Earth is just so massive that there wouldn't be any visible horizontal component to the falling entity.

I think we're individually, subjectively observing an objective, shared reality. That is to say there's a physical world out there but we don't perceive it first-hand; we view it in a secondary way after our unconscious sense organs first analyse the data. The subjective existence of a subjective reality is like idealism where the physical world is alleged to be imaginary and there might not be quantitative overlap in all of our perceptions. An objective existence of an objective reality implies super-determinism where both our own thoughts and our perception is completely intertwined and materially reducible.

When we learn to draw as children we're tempted to leave a white gap between the sky and the ground. Then the teacher reminds us that they meet at the horizon! The ground gets smaller in the same way that objects get smaller from perspective. The difference is the ground is much larger than the objects on top of it. We look at the ground from head height and parallel lines meet at infinity so we can interpret depth from an apparent change in height. So parallax can be gleaned from not only horizontal displacement between eyes but also height differences in each eye's perception. If we keep our head still and use only our eyes to look sideways at a car travelling on a straight road located perpendicularly to our line of sight, then one eye will always be marginally closer to the object than the other unless it's the moment where the car is directly in front of us. Therefore the car will look to be going slightly downwards until the midpoint where after it passes us by will then seem to veer upwards relative to our subjective visual field. This is an additional parallax clue. Another example of this is where you can tilt your head 45 degrees as you look with slanted eyes at car straight ahead moving up a hill.

You'll have the same initial centripetal velocity as the Earth's surface when you're about to jump and at maximum height off the ground you'll have a microscopically higher centripetal velocity.

The mass of the object is negligible in comparison to the mass of the rotating surface.

The top of the cliff would be objectively travelling faster than the bottom of the cliff because velocity is proportional to radius. The relatively small cliff height is added to the radius from the bottom of the cliff to the core. So an object hanging in mid-air would “fall behind” the faster speeds of higher regions.

Astronaut dropping feather and hammer on Moon:

Centripetal velocities from the Earth’s daily rotation wouldn’t depend on mass. It’d be like air resistance was the sole source of gravity.

I’ll try to be more mathematically precise without getting bogged down in calculus! So the impression I get from Euler’s force is that it would be like the roughness of Earth’s surface. This could be approximated to be the same as the Moon’s jagged surface. So we could compare you being beside a steep cliff on Earth compared to the moon. The cliffs are of equal length; perhaps 50metres. So would I be right in saying the resulting Euler’s force is not the absolute value in outer space but only the difference in centripetal velocity between the top and the bottom of the cliff? Perhaps we could pretend there was only the deep crust and the Earth’s mantle was hollow. So the cliff will be travelling around 27 times faster on the Earth compared to Moon relative to the rest of the Earth; if you know what I mean?

Perhaps an analogy is where the ground moves under you like a treadmill as you walk passively forward!

By comparison the moon spins 27 times slower than Earth and has 1/4 its radius. Roughly ac=v2/r so the Earth’s centripetal acceleration is 27v2/4r greater than the moon = 27/4 = 6.75. Gravity is actually 6 times greater here than the moon so it’s not too far off! I didn’t square the 27 and made v constant because it’s interdependent with gravity which is what we’re looking for. It’d be as if we’d begin with the Earth rotating at the same rate as the moon. A vast arc of the moon is rotating in line with a tectonic plate on Earth. We could draw it as if the moon was inside the spherical diagram of Earth. We then accelerate Earth’s radius by 27. We’re not looking for absolute gravity but relative gravity between the planets. V is relative to the core and not surface displacement.

If Earth’s rotation doubled in speed where we had two mini-nights a day, would that have any physical effect besides sunlight hours? If the Earth stopped rotating about itself, would we just have nightless days and dayless nights like Iceland?

We don’t see the full extent of the orientation of the Earth’s plane we’re rotating in unison with. We can only see as far as the horizon. The Earth’s surface is divided into vast plate tectonics, mountain ranges, rift valleys, ocean trenches and so forth.

We don’t see the surface of the earth rotating when we throw a ball straight up into the air. But the deep layers of the Earth’s crust below us are always in rotation. So when the ball is at maximum height it’s now marginally above a different point of the Earth’s mantle. It’s so far to the Earth’s core that microscopic deviations above the surface get amplified relative to deeper layers. Could this differential rotation help gravity?

“We know it’s not mathematical hocus-pocus because these kind of sums appear in physics.”


I don’t know the context of where these equations are used. I’m wondering is it the specific answer that’s important or the consistency in which it’s used? So hypothetically if they used a different answer but modified every single other equation there is in maths to conform with the new result, then would this new number still work in physics? In other words might there be an interdependency involved with other infinite sequences?

Randomness can be inferred when the process that caused it is unknowable, infinitely complicated and hence unpredictable or else if it was caused by something unconnected, dissociated that doesn’t make sense and is therefore illogical.

It’s like the entire sequence is unreal even from the very beginning rather than towards the later infinite part at the other side.

An interesting feature of the -1/12 result is that it’s legible which is surprising given the infinite number of possibilities. For instance it’s not an unreadably incomprehensible number like the number 1 trillion 2 billion and 3! This implies if the answer was caused by a hidden process that it would have to have been in operation since the beginning of the infinite addition. This doesn’t appear to be the case when we add the early numbers 1+2=3 and so on. So the answer wasn’t randomly selected out of all available numbers in the sample space of the infinite sequence. The -1/12 answer just appears ad hoc in the whole scheme of things! It’s random in the illogical sense of the word rather than the unpredictable sense.

We can’t make perfectly random sequences with chaotic mathematical equations and therefore random number generators have a spectrum of unpredictability. What if it were the other way round where we had to check if a sequence was truly random? If there was primordial randomness in our reality, how could we tell?

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14321616/is-it-possible-to-prove-if-a-sequence-is-random

Perhaps the equations have their own sense of humour! Not technically random but capricious and whimsical!

I’m not a mathematician but I remember reading that all of the infinite number of natural numbers add up to -1/12. Maybe there will be a counterintuitive answer in the future. Or maybe it’s a sarcastic result that suggests maths has conscious and immaterial features. The result is irrational in the semantic sense of the word; as if it were arbitrarily picked out of thin air! The square root of -1 is an imaginary number that has no physical analogy even though it’s a useful abstraction. Can there be some “absurd” elements to maths?

Science often conveniently approximates the world as physical seeing as physical objects are by definition impersonal and objective. Historically science was always committed to experimentation, counter-argumentation and the logical analysis of data but not necessarily materialism. For instance a platonic interpretation of mathematics isn’t based on materialism but on the reality of abstract numbers. Subjects like psychology and social science are still objective even though they deal on a more holistic, abstract and metaphorical scale than physics.

Our voice in our head can sometimes be guided by subvocalising and so our motor system is in sync with our consciousness.

If we had the capacity to mentally time travel forward then we could skip the disordered states of dreams and only remember our organised conscious thoughts. This would decrease entropy.