So I wrote this while I was stoned last night:

so I wrote this while I was stoned last night:
>the soul's existence hinges on whether the arbitrary rules of how universe are like a funnel or flat. the funnel: all physical effects,etc related to effects at a lower level down to the smallest point which contains the rules of that universe directly. larger organizations of particles have no rules on them, only apparent rules from the cascading effect of the small level rules at the singuarity. or where there is a soul: flat. higher organized particles have rules governing them as do their smaller level components. then it is possible for an actual (((something))) to form at the level of complexity and connectivity of say a human brain. not actual material, but like the ghoulish light eminated by a blackhole, hawking's radiation. the brain emits virtual particles which make up the qualia of experience. in other words your conciousness does not do anything, serve any purpose for the brain's function, or allow for free will, it is simply the raw feeling emitted from the machine that is your brain from observing and task-solving

is is feasible that all the "rules" of the universe are specifically at higher levels of complexity/size rather than all being based on subatomic particles? something that could potentially point to this would be that we still don't have a theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics. perhaps general relativity actually isn't based in smaller scale interactions but is specifically a large scale phenomenon (although I suppose higgs-boson would contradict this)

t. psued.

What?

Top tier shitpost.

Holy shit dude, I think you might be on to something here...

>souls
>funnel universe
>flat universe
>complex human brain
>qualia
>free will
>consciousness

Literally pseudobabble. This is called pseudoscience trip. DUDE WEED LMAO kids do this all the time. You should throw away that garbage unless you want to become retarded.

And how would you test this?

He can do that by getting stoned again.

>§4.121 Propositions cannot represent logical form: it is mirrored in them.
What finds its reflection in language, language cannot represent.
What expresses itself in language, we cannot express by means of language.
Propositions show the logical form of reality. They display it.

>§4.1212 What can be shown, cannot be said.

>§4.122 In a certain sense we can talk of formal properties of objects and states of
affairs, or, in the case of facts, about structural properties: and in the same sense
about formal relations and structural relations.
(Instead of “structural property” I also say “internal property”; instead of
“structural relation” “internal relation.”
I introduce these expressions in order to indicate the source of the confusion
between internal relations and relations proper [external relations], which
is very widespread among philosophers.)
It is impossible, however, to assert by means of propositions that such internal
properties and relations exist: rather, they make themselves manifest in the
propositions that represent the relevant states of affairs and are concerned with
the relevant objects

>§4.124 The existence of an internal property of a possible situation is not
expressed by means of a proposition: rather it expresses itself in the proposition
representing the situation, by means of an internal property of that proposition.
It would be just as nonsensical to assert that a proposition had a formal property
as to deny it.

That's almost as bad as what OP wrote, I mean real "what can be shown, cannot be said"?

Like how can we know if things can be shown if our eyes aren't real are real?

well to be fair I had had a few blunts and a very potent edible

DUDE WEED LMAO.

Stupid fucking animefaggots

>haha man im so high dude

So basically the question is whether the rules of physics originate from some kind of singularity or if they are (to some degree) self contained in matter?

not exactly, by singularity I meant that the laws of physics come down to small particles, like say the higgs boson causing gravity. the "flat" universe is where there are "rules" that only affect specifically larger scale/ more complexly arranged matter. I thought this could be a potential explanation for why general relativity is impossible to apply once you reach a certain scale.

sounds like something I'd find in Quora

>weed
>anime
>pseudobabble
All hail OP, king of the fags

I also write dumb shit when I'm blazed, but I keep most of it to myself.
& Humanities was a mistake.

>so I wrote this while I was stoned last night:

So why did you feel the need to mention this and immediately discredit the following statement?

>not taking this seriously on any level
Sorry OP, people here are pseuds without a grasp on any sort of philosophy or science.

That's the basic question people have been asking forever. Materialism vs Metaphysics. If you go by relativity as a REAL explanation for the universe, rather than "the math just magically fits bro BUT IT'S WRONG", then one can continue to extrapolate past the fourth dimension (we are already doing this via Many-Worlds Theory, which tries to unite quantum mechanics and relativity).

I'd say that the belief in a flat universe is as cogent and intelligent as a belief in a flat earth. You must purposefully eschew logic and reason to do so. Consciousness and qualia are important, essential parts of the universe we leave unexplored because "lele the basic thing through which we are able to explore the universe and our own minds IS AN ILLUSION IT DON'T MATTER"

Pseuds who don't believe they are people need to be burned

Unironically this

>Sorry OP, people here are pseuds without a grasp on any sort of philosophy or science.
You think that this mess written by some kid while he was high is something supposed to be taken seriously and yet you argue that it's the other people here who have no grasp on philosophy or science?
As if being high would miraculously lead someone to some kind of deep or meaningful insight. Just how old are you, you pretentious internet-""intellectual""? Fifteen?

"Miraculously"

No, the human mind is contained within the confines of the universe and works off the same basic properties. The basic gist of what the OP is getting at is the basic gist of what many people have been getting at, in many different ways, for thousands of years. Being unable to parse a particular package for any meaningful data or information is a failure on your part. The OP is grasping at things they don't have the language or knowledge to fully explain, but that doesn't mean he is not allowed to think about these things, especially while on mind-altering substances that shift perspective.

Do you throw away mythology and religion and metaphysics because you live in a modern world of science and literality? No. The people who came before us were not nitwits, they simply lacked the breadth of knowledge to riddle at the universe from a place of arbitrary nuance. At first there was nothing, and then light. Seas had to come next, and with seas the sky. Plant life. Animals. Man. The exact details of this are sketchy, but you can pull dilated knowledge from Genesis, for example. Now we have enough built up knowledge to pull in the Big Bang, planetary formation, the evolution of life, etc, but it's the same general knowledge and concepts.

There is nothing special about intellectual pursuit that makes it the domain of the initiated only, you pseud. OP is vaguely pawing at things, and desu he's more right than Presentist Materialists are.

As I said, relativity implies a literal 4th dimension in which time is extant as a whole block-object. Many-Worlds, an application of quantum mechanics, mandates a 5th "imaginary" dimension to time. String Theory goes far and above, into dimensions literally incomprehensible in scope and meaning. OP is grasping at "higher levels of complexity/size", whereas most pseudo-intellectuals go with the Materialist, Presentist "the mind is an illusion of material".

Physics disagrees.

I'm glad something good came out of this thread.
would you mind defining presentist materialism? the only results I'm getting are related to literary criticism.

Also, could you explain why you think these extra dimensions show that consciousness is an actual "thing" and not just the interactions of neurons? I hope I've understood your position correctly. I know vaguely about string theory but the extra dimensions have always confused me.