Before you start reading, I will remind that this is not Georges Bataille, neither Gabriel García Márquez, nor Philip K. Dick. It’s an article that could formally belong to consciousness studies. By someone’s definition that encompasses psychology, philosophy, physics, sociology, religion, dynamic systems, mathematics, computer science, neuroscience, art, biology, cognitive science, anthropology, and linguistics. Nevertheless, as one of the greatest men ever said: “Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited – imagination encircles the world!“
“Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it – in a decade, a century, or a millennium – we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise?” John Archibald Wheeler
“Inside of a fractal, angles are preserved and size doesn’t matter. In a fractal based universe we can think of massive objects being exactly the same as small ones. Given enough time, this naturally implies necessary repetition of finite matter.
How could it be that we are looking at ourselves?
We can all agree that there are too many phenomena called “weird”.
Let’s see how when we shift from materialist POV some of these problems might disappear.
I address this problem in an
older post quoting Joscha Bach’s and some others’ thoughts on property dualism.
Physicalist idealism will help us further.
Now, what’s up with brains and fractals?
“The consensus among mathematicians is that theoretical fractals are infinitely self-similar iterated and detailed mathematical constructs, of which many examples have been formulated and studied. Fractals are not limited to geometric patterns, but can also describe processes in time.”
“An infinite fractal curve can be conceived of as winding through space differently from an ordinary line – although it is still topologically 1-dimensional, its fractal dimension indicates that it locally fills space more efficiently than an ordinary line.” [wiki]
Sabine Hossenfelder, German physicist known as a debunker of any theory that smells like pseudoscience miles away, to my personal surprise, expands on a thought how there is much sense in thinking about our universe as a brain.
Another interesting information is the one I heard in vsauce on consciousness: the number of Planck lenghts that fit into the lenght of a neuron equals the number of neurons whose length can fit the universe. (I cannot support his claim with a reference, but I find him serious enough to add this to this article as a fun [potential] fact).
I would encourage Sabine to debunk this, and share a thought on why strings could not represent consciousness. That could certainly contribute to research and help us answer important questions, or leave them.
Sabine writes:
“Sure, we don’t know what consciousness is. But we do know that the only things we’re reasonably confident can think – brains – have a lot of connections, and send a lot of information back and forth through those connections. Even leaving aside that we don’t understand consciousness, high connectivity and rapid signaling seem conductive to thinking. That the universe is structurally similar to the brain raises the question whether it has similar thinking capacities.“
“The universe, however, is different from the human brain in a number of ways, notably because it expands, and its expansion is speeding up. If galaxy clusters were the universe’s neurons, then they’d be flying apart from each other with ever increasing speed – and they have been doing so for some billion years already.”
What holds the universe together? Gravity!
Again we arrive at the fractal nature of the universe. We have to presuppose that if we observe a brain-like structure in our heads, there must also be other brain-like structures that exist on both much larger and smaller scales than that in which we find ourselves. Only way we are connected is, guess again: gravity.
Ok, how does this relate to double subject fallacy?
Penrose diagrams: How consciousness becomes quantum gravity & vice versa
“t (time) in relativity is simply the direction in which light cone is oriented”. That is the direction in which we as a conscious observer parse the ruliad and collapse the probability wave.
“Near a massive body, direction of light cones curve, “time” is bent towards the centre. Due to curvature, after crossing the horizon, notions of time and space seem swapped.”
Just like with time, with consciousness it is impossible to move backwards, we are doomed to move forwards where our future necessarily lies, from singularity to the other.
On the other hand, quantum gravity represents time as universal and absolute, it is entanglement between all possibilites. Following the ruliad – outside of our timeline, everything possible has already happened, all the possibilites played out and they are potentially contained inside of a supermassive black hole.
Since current science methods are unable to describe both consciousness and gravity from a “natural” perspective, let me help out by reminding that we just need to switch our perspective:
Materialism is not the only aspect of reality that we are dealing with. As I explain a previous essay that went viral, both real (matter) and imaginary (ideas) notions are natural and can be explained with physical laws. Changing our perspective on consciousness as being physical will help us further.
David Pearce is also on the team claiming that quantum field theory describes consciousness. Qualia Research Institute is a rocket that might overturn direction of applied ontology.
Just like time is perpendicular to space, so can consciousness be perpendicualar to quantum gravity (QG). What if the mystery “graviton” is the peak of a consciousness vector parsing the branchial space?
Could the graviton be a glue binding subjective past and subjective future states that constitute one’s conscious experience? That would explain why it is not found, because it exists in our imagination?
Essay: Gravitation as the Natural Language of Consciousness
To try to summarize, QG represents probability under which a certain event (qualia) will happen in an observe’s consciousness within the branchial space. It is an abstract space consisting of entangled qualia in which each has a probability/gravitational value corresponding to a unique conscious observer. Check out the essay for more details.
At a certain point, just like time after crossing the event horizon becomes a spatial dimension (Penrose diagrams), so does consciousness become a gravitational force. But what kind of gravitational force and why is this necessary?
If we suppose the Ruliad is a proper way of looking at all probabilities as a state, we must assume that conversion of consciousness into quantum gravity (as we said, state of probability) already happened and that we as bodies in spacetime experiencing general relativity are on our way there – towards the inevitable future – the black hole, which is also the beginning of our story.
(Related read “Cycles of Time” by R. Penrose)
Consciousness (attention, wave-function giving rise to the holographic screen) and quantum gravity:
Two sides of the same coin?
0/1) outside of the black hole = spacefree time, consciousness = the observer. classical, linear, materialized manifestation.
1/0) inside of the black hole = timefree space, quantum gravity, the observed. static and timeless, unmanifested probability.
*Esoteric but necessary question to point out:
Is the second situation describing the so-called “third eye”, the actual inner self? This entity is something to which one can connect to by thought and introspection, whose activity rises in the default mode network, “the third eye” which is not limited by the embodied notion of passing time that exists within general relativity?
Reference to Stephen Wolfram, author of “the Ruliad”
“Another critical thing about our perception of the universe is that we believe we are persistent in time. that is, even though in every successive moment we are made of different atoms of space, it is our belief that we are the same us at the next moment as we were at the previous moment.”
– Wolfram in conversation with Joscha Bach
Wolfram continues: “One thing with electrons is that it seems that each electron is the same, whether that’s really true is not clear. For example, black holes: there are things we know from general relativity about sort of the fact that with black holes it only matters what spin and mass of the black hole is, more or less, but inside there can be a great civilization that was in some solar system around a star and the whole thing collapsed and that whole thing’s all been crushed into a black hole. There could be lots of different things inside of black holes but to the outside they only expose certain things. It could be very much the same with electrons, there could be close analogy with black holes that are structures in spacetime and electrons which we also think are structures in spacetime – both sort of made of space.”
“It’s a little disappointing when we think the following thing; that the vast majority of activity in the universe is concerned with knitting together of the structure of space, and all the electrons and things that we care about, there’s some tiny little piece of froth on top of the main activity in the universe which is kind of knitting together the structure of space.”
I wrote in the post about strings (sines), waves, and circles:
Matter only ever happens in the moment of perception of manifestation of light, everything else is our subjective past and future states (imaginary component) that bind our individual universes together in one sensible, coherent story. That is what is potentially bound by the massless graviton.
I’ll finish with adding on how this connection contributes to explaining
double-subject fallacy:
Me And My Brain: What The “Double-Subject Fallacy” Reveals About Contemporary Conceptions Of The Self, YOHAN JOHN
“Being aware of the double-subject fallacy should help us talk about mind and brain more clearly: in a materialist framework the brain as a whole cannot be a separate subject from the self or the mind. But there may be a second message in the double-subject fallacy — one that we might want to be more wary of. It is the idea that the self can only ever be unitary — that the body cannot contain multiple selves; that there is only ever one subject with which a person can identify. The unitary self may be more of an ideal that a real state. Maybe we should take seriously the idea that a self can sometimes feel divided into multiple subjects: one for each of the unpredictable forces that seem to pull at the body.”
Experiencing multiple selves can be observed a disorder of consciousness which is one way of looking at schizophrenia. I am curious to learn more about holonomic brain theory and how it relates to schizophrenia. End goal would be to incorporate it in the theory of evolution of consciousness. It is challenging to describe a link in between nervous system, more precisely the watery enteric nervous system, gravity and consciousness, but my mind is on it. Or is that what’s on my mind? You see, never good.
“But dualism, properly considered, is not a position about supernatural souls per se, but about perceiving a separation between the body and a qualitatively different something else. Mainstream scientists and philosophers call this something the mind or consciousness. In the humanities the word ‘subjectivity’ is also deployed. “
“In addition to the traditional subject — “me”, the self, the mind — there is a second subject, the brain, which is described in anthropomorphic terms such as ‘knowing’ or ‘hiding’. But ‘knowing’ and ‘hiding’ are precisely the sorts of things that we look to neuroscience to explain; when we fall prey to the double-subject fallacy we are actually doing the opposite of what we set out to do as materialists. Rather than explaining “me” in terms of physical brain processes, dub-subbing induces us to describe the brain in terms of an obscure second “me”. Instead of dispelling those pesky spirits, we allow them to proliferate!”
Stay tuned with the crackpot!
Thoughts on Evolutions 
Leave a comment