A Logical Treatise on Reality: The Abstract Computer
PREAMBLE
Lately I've been contemplating the concept of reality in abstract form. I've been delving into how the brain works, advanced quantum theories on reality from the Quantum Gravity Research group, as well as my own understanding of philosophy, language and science. People need to understand how things function to be able to interpret reality correctly, I think the problem is they don't understand the structure of our existence, and how they apply in abstract.
The best way I know how to abstractly present this is by analogy. I've been playing with mathematical and physics concepts as analogies to human society - entropy, the pareto principle, and brownian motion to name a few. However, although these explain a few key concepts with society, they don't explain the whole.
So, I took a note from solipsism & the simulation hypothesis, and came to a twist on those theories. What if reality is as QGR suggest - a projection of an 8d crystal down to 4d (3d objects + the dimension of time)? If so, can we use their "code" concept to comprehend reality as an abstract complex computer system?
THE ABSTRACT COMPUTER
If one looks at the totality of existence as a quantum computer, it must have the following concepts, or systems.
SYSTEM 1: THE UNIVERSE AS A CONSCIOUS OPERATING SYSTEM
For us, our operating system is the physical universe. But what is the universe? What we perceive is merely a specific 4d projection (according to QGR) , but that projection has a set structure and a language to allow functionality. That language, as we perceive it, is math.
This is a semantic language which is flexible but still has strict rules. Some of those rules are patterns, some are constant ratios, but the rules exist.
It also has within itself a consciousness, of a sort at least. It must do, according to the logical inference results of schrodinger's cat & Hiezenburg's uncertainty principle. Something has to make observations consciously for any event to happen a certain way, under quantum rules. Whether it is an 8D superbeing, or a conscious force that permeates all matter, is largely immaterial. The point is some kind of consciousness must exist for the universe to exist.
SYSTEM 2: SAPIENT INDIVIDUALS AS PROGRAMS
Within the universe are beings who have a consciousness of their own. These are the second system - a kind of flawed quantum computer which is able to actively tap the consciousness force within System 1.
System 2 is much more limited than system 1. Our perception of what we can sense within system 1 is limited by our biology. As such we cannot comprehend existence fully on our own as individuals. This means individuals require the ability to exchange information.
SYSTEM 3: LANGUAGE AS I/O
Language provides us with the Input/Output functionality between eachother. As language evolves with time and tech, we become more informed. As we gain information, we gain insight into how others live. When we gain insight into other perspectives, we begin to better understanding of both eachother & the functions of reality.
However, even with language, individuals cannot effectively cohabit without some kind of conflicts occurring. Just like code in programming - memory leaks happen, information packets can collide, and bugs between programs crop up. Therefore, the individual flawed quantum computers (over 7 billion in humanity alone) will need a framework to work together to allow for positive sum solutions to occur consistently.
SYSTEM 4: ETHICS AS PROGRAM ARCHITECTURE
The concept of an ethic being a requirement for social interaction to me appears to be self evident. Without some kind of ethical construction to share a subjective morality across individuals, people cannot act together.
This ethic objectively needs to exist, but at present it is a flawed construction based on the concept of groups.
Most people would consider that a logical conclusion, but any groupings are just labels for multiple instances of individuals sharing some trait or ideal. They do not have a physical presence in of themselves. Rather, they borrow one virtually from the physical individuals that comprise them.
By understanding individuals as individuals instead of as groups, one can form a functional and consistent existence within the universe. Failing to do so creates a framework which will fail for at least some individuals within that reality. Usually it does so with disturbing results.
THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS ANALOGY
My end goal with this work is to begin comprehending if a logically derived ethic can be found, which also empirically works objectively for all. It is my firm belief that voluntaryism under Polycentric law fits this criteria, and I only came to this conclusion because I cannot find a logical flaw in this ethical model. I am endeavouring now to prove that this model logically functions as fitting within the framework of reality and providing an optimal framework to reduce conflict to a minimum. I readily admit that such an aim may be pure folly, but that won't stop me trying.