Consider an acorn, inside of which there somehow resides an entire oak tree

To keep things interesting, I occasionally start thought experiments on the relationship between finite and infinite from within the singularity, in a sense transporting my mind into infinity and "looking back" upon the finite experience rather than the way we usually do -- from within our everyday finite experience looking into the infinite singularity and wondering how it works. This can be insightful.

acorn with an oak tree inside of it

From this perspective, I see quanta as particles being projected as a thin layer of perception outward from self-separated Observers onto an Indivisible Consciousness. It's not easy to maintain this thought experiment because it's kind of like turning one's dualistic mind inside out upon the focus point of a singular heart, but the perspective can be sustained briefly in order to catch a glimpse of things "objectively."

The singularity I'm describing here is, say, a vast field of pure consciousness, out of which individual finite observers arise briefly. The field of consciousness has a contiguous relationship with every single so-called quantum from within its center. (I mean the center of the quantum, not the field, whose center is arguably "everywhere"). There is no separation between quanta when they are seen from within the field -- they are all "one" not only because they are all being observed simultaneously by the One, but because the One has never lost sight of a single quantum out of the uncountable ultratrillions of quanta which fill the universe and connects them all into Oneness.

For a more tangible example, consider an acorn, inside of which there somehow resides an entire oak tree, bearing thousands of acorns, each acorn of which contains their own oak trees, bearing acorns, bearing oak trees, bearing acorns, and so on. All in the space of an acorn which you can hold in your hand. The way I see it, two acorns are connected by a single golden thread running through their centers, a thread so fine that a particle accelerator the size of a solar system couldn't interact with it. This same single golden thread knits together all acorns, indeed all seeds of any kind which have life within them, along with all life. Let's say for the sake of poetry the thread is woven, and that "life is a fabric through which breathes the gentlest breeze imaginable" -- to be more gentle is to not exist. This breeze is the breath of the One, and all of us feel it instantly and continually. We call the experience of this breath life, among its many names.

When John Wheeler (as remembered by Richard Feynman in his Nobel speech) once recognized that "all electrons are actually a single electron moving rapidly through timespace," he was hinting at this kind of singularity. I tend to think his hunch has some merit.

Thus when we look at a photon, we're not looking at something which is separate from us, and is the smallest particle we know how to measure, so small it has no mass and moves at the speed of light. Rather, we're reaching outward with our perceptions -- sending out a perceptive photon of our own, so to say -- and intersecting infinite Oneness with our rather strong excluded-middle-tendency to encapsulate a piece of Oneness into a tiny particle-sphere which is somehow separate from Us.

From the way I see things, quantum physics is giving us plenty of evidence that we create the photon -- or at least the "outer shell" of it, the particleness of it. Until we create it thus, what we call the photon is contiguous with the infinite field of consciousness, unseparated. We do this using our animal brain, which through a billion years of evolution has learned to do this kind of thing with incredibly fine detail -- the eye has evolved at least 11 separate times, for example, because engaging with photons like this is an incredibly useful thing to have around, evolutionarily speaking. We have ears which do similar things with a slower frequency of the Oneness, fingers which do similar things with another range of frequencies, and guiding all of this, a prefrontal cortex where our consciousness is lately awakening to a whole new dimension of even more delicate sensitivities with which to interact with these perceptions.

When quantum physicists look at the double-slit experiment and see that they can transform a wave into a particle by thinking alone, they may currently baffle themselves, but not the Oneness within them, which recognizes there is neither wave nor particle -- but that BOTH of these perceptions are being projected outward upon Nature, who beneath all their perceptions moves according to a legal system well beyond Newtonian, and if this perspective is correct, well beyond quantum physics, or to be really precise, beyond legal systemizing itself. Nature responds by collapsing the wave function. From this view, very abstract things of mind like axioms, mathematics, laws, counting, naming things, even words themselves, are simply temporary tools which help shape our perceptions of the quanta, which are, together, ultimately simply a filter through which the One observes Oneness in its plurality forms.

If this thought experiment is true, science will be able to experimentally find smaller and smaller quanta forever, until we one day consciously choose to stop doing so*, and instead engage with Oneness directly, whereupon we shall behold ourselves from the other side of the filter doing all that we already do, only all that more elegantly because once the perception of separation fades, we become the dance of perfection which we always were. I don't pretend to understand how we retain our identity thereafter, but I've heard rumors that we do.

From this angle, a computer is merely another way of organizing our perceptions more finely than a hammer, but is still essentially a tool which helps us relate with our own essential Oneness through that filter of Manyness which surrounds our body-centered perceptions. Hence, I think calling God a computer on any level is like calling Noam Chomsky a bucket of sand. I would say it is better to start calling the bucket of sand "Chomsky potentia" and go from there, than to do the reverse.

*on an unrelated note, at about this same time, I think "the largest prime number" will be discovered, and no more will be discovered thereafter, because they are no longer useful. It'll be awhile.

10:00 p.m. - 1:48:29 AM 10/5/2017 331.

Note: this article sprang out of my response to the statement "There is no good counterargument for digital ontology" and the general approach in this insightful article:

Posted in Everything, Neural Nets and AI Stuff, Postinfinity Tergiversation, Pre-Preprint Stuff on Oct 05, 2017