It is not existence which is inferred in any sort of biased way. Existence is just true. It is the connection of events and the truth of your slightly more tenuous claims, like memories and causes and effects, that are in a sense inferred without a rigorous meta-certainty, because we have a general understanding that things do evolve through non-random cause-effect relationships, and that via the experience our objective selves have gone through and via the designs of our hardware hardened by nature, our most tried and true tools for discernment of meaningful truths will tend to be correct and persistently useful to our life.
Discussion
And we can inspect these tools, as I have and do, again and again, and refine them with further data and logic, data and logical forms which by the way, exist.
They say in quantum physics:
"The wave function collapses to a single photon when it is observed or measured"
So if what I call myself in this moment as being a single photon, it (me aka the photon) is only because it was being observed or measured.
Had it not been measured, then nothing is influencing the, what I would define as the unconscious, objective self.
Yeah that's an interesting thought experiment. I didn't attempt to answer that. There are lots of ideas about this, even that free will may happen on a particle level and each observation is also a decision to traverse to a certain alternate reality wherein that is the state of affairs for your identity and the quantum entanglements thereof, where every individual is simultaneously carrging out the same thing and infinite branches of a multiverse are traversed by observer-choosers. Every single person or thing you interact with is therefore real and is a version of them that coincides with your choices that you make. The choices they make that are also observed by you are subject both to your choices and to theirs. They make choices with multiple inputs just as you do. It's a logical selection process, like going through a menu of progressive choices in a multiplayer rpg, where the options are affected by players and the players are affected by options.
Or perhaps there are not infinitely many versions for all these choices, but instead a similar process is happening in the space of possibility.
Observation in quantum mechanics also perhaps just sets up a frame of reference and inspection wherein you attribute a definite meaning to the particle in relation to its various attributes which are inherently dependent upon context. Matter is objectively real, but what comprises it is analogous to aspects of wave phenomena which are actually quite mundane to behold in classical mechanics. It's not all quite as trippy or gobbledegook as it sounds. I personally think things don't just pop in and out of existence or even in and out of intrinsic definiteness, on a fundamental and intrinsic basis, with observation. I strongly suspect that that is a misreading of the science.
“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the Weather.” - Bill Hicks
Like watching the TV, and you get this erry feeling that he's legit talking directly to you.
Which would be an outcome of this realization.
No, that's just solipsism and projection.
I for one believe in diversity. Fuck collective "oneness" and "reality is a dream" bullshit.
I think there is a greater than 0% likelihood that I have jumped realities more than once in my current lifetime. I think I've even seen multiple realities emerge into one, where I question this shadow's reality's existence. Like who da fuk is that? (Like a cat looking in a mirror), except it wasn't a mirror.
sounds legit lol, cat glitches indicate they changed the Matrix code.
Sure, but it could be under my control just the same, or maybe a dance.
It's always a dance. Some things are under your exclusive control, or almost entirely so. Some things are effectively outside of your influence entirely. Everything is on a sliding scale between those extremes. Property rights tells us what should be under your exclusive control and what should not be. Possession tells us what is under your exclusive control.
If you start to believe you are a god and can change the universe outside of what you possess, on a whim, into a fully coherent and properly designed system, I can tell you right now, you're gonna violate some property rights and fail to do what you want along the way. Megalomania is a dangerous, foolish, and evil game, as is the mere assumption of reality denying assertions (such as the ones megalomaniacs like to proliferate to be taken up by useful idiots). I don't think this is what you're implying, but I'm saying it anyway just in case you or anyone else reading this starts to go down that path.
If you check out #softwar, as nostr:nprofile1qqs8a474cw4lqmapcq8hr7res4nknar2ey34fsffk0k42cjsdyn7yqqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7gzjcuq is recording as an audio book, it mentions the origin of control over unclaimed resources, and walks you through how that proliferates.
I think there are only two options: control or acceptance, and anything in between is an unclaimed resource. That's how I would define property rights.
I accept my shadow self to which I hope to understand in depth. This is growth.
Control requires significant energy, and I'm a lazy fuck 😂.
I'm not familiar with what you mean by acceptance, and what is our universe of discourse here? You mean as regards all of your possessions? All of possessions of anyone? I don't know your brain, not enough info to understand what you said.
Right, which is why I reference softwar. The book defines energy capture at the cellular level, but begins at the origin of life, and expands all the way to nation states. For example, the evolution of a mouth. It not only defeats your opponent, but you claim it's resources as an atomic action.
So without providing all the context, it states bitcoin or proof of work (I forget which) is like a mouth. And explains why this is the case. I think it defines information as a form of energy first, which never existed as energy until bitcoin. I can't rewrite the chapters well enough from my passing glance of it. Sorry.
I rather think that other people's property being consumed is not a part of me.
But if you want to think that way, I guess that's fine ??
My homesteading theory revolves around exclusive control of information, entropy in the computer science sense of the word. People homestead bitcoin through proof of work and also through people voluntarily relinquishing their sats directly to your public key hash, as an example. You control the bitcoin by having all of the information requisite to exclusively control the sats.
Some light reading 😂
"physical power is still the primary means through which they settle territory disputes and resolve conflicting abstract beliefs about property rights. They write rules of law to define property rights, but then they use physical power to solve disputes about what the “legitimate” rule of law is, or what the “right” property rights should be. While there are many examples in everyday life where law successfully settles human intraspecies property disputes, what people often overlook is the long history of physical disputes that were used to instantiate those laws (in other words, our property rights exist because of the wars fought to establish those property rights)."
- Softwar
"Every organism can be attacked; therefore, every organism has a BCRA. An organism’s BCRA is a simple fraction determined by two variables: the benefit of attacking it (BA) and the cost of attacking it (CA). BA is a function of how resource abundant an organism is. Organisms with lots of precious resources have high BA. Organisms with less precious resources have lower BA. On the flip side of the equation, CA is a function of how capable and willing an organism is at imposing severe physical costs on attackers. Organisms capable of and willing to impose severe physical costs on neighboring organisms have high CA. Organisms that are not capable of or willing to impose severe physical costs on neighboring organisms have low CA. Higher BCRA organisms are more vulnerable to attack than lower BCRA organisms because they offer a higher return on investment for hungry neighbors to devour. Organisms therefore have an existential imperative to lower their BCRA as much as they can afford to do so by increasing their capacity and inclination to impose severe physical costs on neighboring organisms. An organism can’t just devote all their time and energy towards increasing their resource abundance and expect to prosper for long, because doing so would cause their BCRA to climb"...
-Softwar
And it goes on and on about organisms adapting to this law of nature, among other things.
I think depending on property rights as the fundamental mechamsims is ignoring the watts aspect of what it takes to control a resource.
As far as other people's property, the BCRA is fundamental, and libertarian property rights is abstract power. I just like having this perspective rather than assuming that if I respect other people's property that the reverse will be true. There is so much to think about here, but if I am a plant, and I grow above another plant (using the watts that I collected already), taking light away from the below plant, did I infring on the lower plant's property rights? In a court case, that may be the case. Water rights for example has rules to account for this. As humans we have to deal with both physical power and abstract power. Nature doesn't care about abstract power.
I'll read later, heading to bed soon. Thanks for the discussion 🤙