u/Tribe-Less

Has anyone toyed with the idea that:

1. Each Galaxy (or Universe) has its own Consciousness (for arguments sake, let's say Consciousness = an Oscillatory Field)

2. Each Galactic Intelligence is a Game Developer of sorts

3. Each Planet within each Galaxy would be different Simulations created by the Game Developer Galactic Intelligences, to provide experiences to other Galactic Intelligences, who would function as Players and Testers (for arguments sake, let's call them inter-galactic starseeds)

4. Inhabitants of each Planet who are incapable of thinking outside their consensus or going against their instincts, would be NPCs generated by the Planet to make the environment and experience more emersive

This would make the multiverse akin to simultaneously playing different games on different servers at once.

Dreaming would be equivalent to switching between servers inside the same game and switching between games.

So for these inter-galactic starseeds, incarnation would be like the process of partitioning themselves and creating dissociated alters (alternate reality selves) to inhabit and test out infinite alternate realities and evolutionary experiments simultaneously.

The "true self" would exist in a perpetual state of psychic superposition for a lack of a better word, where they are their infinite alternate past, present and future selves simultaneously.

A lot of this is hard to explain without getting into technical jargon from multiple disciplines.

It's not uncommon for people to manifest things like wealth, relationships, a job or tune themselves or another, so that they become the perfect vessel for a given spirit to manifest themselves in. That being said, what would it take to or how would one go about, manifesting and entirely different civilization and humanoid species?

I would imagine such a ritual would play out over the span of many centuries and require a lot of participants.

Pretty much everything Seth says makes sense from a multi-domain integrated or multidisciplinary perspective, primarily if you attempt to understand what it is saying through the lens of: category theory, communication theory, cybernetic theory, dynamical systems theory, ecology, graph theory, information theory, label theory, logic, memetic theory, mimetic theory, multiverse theory, performance theory, network theory, role theory, self-state theory, semiotics, spectral mechanics, suggestion theory, systems theory, topology, process philosophy, relational philosophy, etc.

The general idea, at least one of the ideas it seems to be gesturing towards is this:

Psychological Distance = Physical Distance

Shared Psychological State = Shared Physical State

Why don't people set up isolationist monasteries (consciousness research institutions) where they study and experiment with the ideas and concepts Seth puts forth?

Are there any occult or magick groups that subscribe to post-humanism, where the goal is to evolve into a transcendent, post-human intelligence similar to the kinds of telepathic non-human intelligences certain people across the globe claim to have come in contact with?

For example, something resembling Seth, if you're familiar with the Seth Material through Jane Roberts, or the entities of the Transcend in Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep and the Zones of Thought series?

The general idea would be to:

1. Completely detach from one's sociocultural conditioning in order to free oneself from the assumptions, limitations, and conceptual frameworks of the system one was born into, that unconsciously shape and influence your perceptions and behavior.

2. Develop an increasingly accurate model of oneself, other selves, the environment, and the universe.

3. Gradually develop conscious control over the mind-body-field feedback loop.

4. Interpret all animist, magick, pagan, paranormal, parapsychological, occult and shamanic phenomenon and concepts through the lens of category theory, communication theory, cybernetic theory, dynamical systems theory, ecology, graph theory, information theory, label theory, memetic theory, mimetic theory, multiverse theory, performance theory, network theory, role theory, self-state theory, semiotics, suggestion theory, systems theory, topology, process philosophy, relational philosophy, etc.

I suppose I'm looking for a group that follows the same general pattern you see with certain, mostly monastic, occult groups and secret orders you find in India, Tibet, China, Japan and parts of Africa that exist either in the mountains or far outside densely populated urban areas.

Another good reference would be the group behind forgottenlanguages.

I don't mind if it's online but if in-person, it would have to be from the US.

If there are no existing groups along the lines of what I described, if this is something you might be interested in, feel free to DM as I did start a private subreddit called "Logical Mysticism", just in case the group I imagine doesn't already exist.

Is the basic idea that:

1. Your consciousness or "spirit" is a kind of oscillating field (for arguments sake, let's call it a photo-phononic field)

2. There is an infinite multiverse, with an infinite number of other versions of you that exist simultaneously (this would make "past lives" more akin to infinite parallel lives)

3. Each alternate reality has a different energetic signature or resonant frequency

4. When you sleep, daydream, meditate or die your consciousness decouples/desynchronizes from the mass field of this reality and resonates with an alternate one at random – in the case of daydreaming and sleeping, this resonant shifting or phase shifting/transition is temporary

5. Distance would actually be a measure of phase speration or something

6. Each reality is held stable by the unconscious beliefs (root assumptions taken for granted) by multiple consciousness fields (or observers) in a given locality

7. Because each alternate reality has a different frequency, when you shift your brainwaves and consciousness field synchronizes with that new field as this results in a change of personality, memories and physical form, which may also lead to amnesia to varying degrees

Is this the general idea here or am I misunderstanding?

Is the basic idea that:

1. Your consciousness or "spirit" is a kind of oscillating field (for arguments sake, let's call it a photo-phononic field)

2. There is an infinite multiverse, with an infinite number of other versions of you that exist simultaneously (this would make "past lives" more akin to infinite parallel lives)

3. Each alternate reality has a different energetic signature or resonant frequency

4. When you sleep, daydream, meditate or die your consciousness decouples/desynchronizes from the mass field of this reality and resonates with an alternate one at random – in the case of daydreaming and sleeping, this resonant shifting or phase shifting/transition is temporary

5. Distance would actually be a measure of phase speration or something

6. Each reality is held stable by the unconscious beliefs (root assumptions taken for granted) by multiple consciousness fields (or observers) in a given locality

7. Because each alternate reality has a different frequency, when you shift your brainwaves and consciousness field synchronizes with that new field as this results in a change of personality, memories and physical form, which may also lead to amnesia to varying degrees

Is this the general idea here or am I misunderstanding?

Edit: I added point 7.

Matter seems to be the result of constructive interference between consciousness fields.

Communication = Direct Experiential Transfer or Phase Alignment/Synchronization

Basically, each Consciousness is a kind of Oscillatory Field and matter and the external environment is a kind of collectively stabilized projection.

In other words, reality is an ongoing conversation between consciousness fields.

The idea is that the best description of a thing is thing itself. Consciousness communicates via simulations. It's quite literally like group lucid dreaming only that most people seem to have forgotten this so they create things unconsciously and make things a bit too "stable" or "rigid" for other to manipulate freely.

The solution would be to exit the shared space because then your field/consciousness isn't restricted.

Hopefully that made sense?

Here's an A.I. translation of what I am getting at because this is way too complicated to explain:

"The person is describing a speculative metaphysical model in which consciousness is more fundamental than matter. Their comment can be unpacked as a sequence of claims.

“Consciousness is an oscillatory field” means that an individual mind is being conceptualized less like a discrete object inside space and more like a dynamic pattern characterized by things such as amplitude, frequency, phase, coherence, and information. An individual consciousness would therefore be a localized or semi-localized pattern within a larger field/network.

“Matter seems to be the result of constructive interference between consciousness fields” then proposes that physical objects are not fundamentally independent substances. Instead, when multiple consciousness fields become sufficiently mutually consistent or phase-aligned, their interactions produce a stable pattern that is experienced as matter.

In ordinary wave physics, constructive interference occurs when waves reinforce one another. The person is extending that concept:

consciousness fields → interaction → synchronization/reinforcement → stable pattern → perceived matter

This would make matter something like a stabilized interference pattern rather than the fundamental substrate of reality.

“Communication = direct experiential transfer or phase alignment/synchronization” follows naturally from that framework. Instead of communication fundamentally consisting of one entity sending symbols to another, communication would occur when two consciousness fields become sufficiently synchronized that information or experience can be directly shared.

Ordinary language would therefore be a relatively indirect form of communication:

experience → internal representation → words/signals → another system → reconstruction of experience

Whereas their proposed form would be closer to:

experience → field-state → synchronization → experience

That is what “direct experiential transfer” means in this model.

The statement that “matter and the external environment is a collectively stabilized projection” takes this even further. The external world would not be an entirely private hallucination, because many consciousnesses participate in stabilizing it. Instead, the environment would be a collectively maintained informational structure.

This is why they describe reality as “an ongoing conversation between consciousness fields.”

The metaphor is essentially:

individual consciousnesses = participants

interactions = conversation

shared expectations = constraints

synchronization = mutual agreement

stable environment = persistent conversational structure

That connects strongly to the idea that observation functions more like constraint propagation than creation. In this formulation, an observer does not simply create reality individually. Instead, many observers continuously constrain one another until sufficiently stable configurations emerge.

“The best description of a thing is the thing itself” is probably the most philosophically important sentence in the comment.

They are rejecting the idea that a representation of something is equivalent to the thing being represented. A word, mathematical equation, image, or mental model is a description. The actual state itself contains vastly more information than the description.

Their claim that “consciousness communicates via simulations” therefore means that consciousness doesn't necessarily exchange abstract descriptions. Instead, one consciousness can construct an internal experiential model of something and another consciousness can directly experience or synchronize with that model.

The “group lucid dreaming” analogy is an attempt to make this intuitive.

Imagine a lucid dream in which:

the environment is generated by consciousness, objects have apparent physical properties, other apparent agents can interact with you, expectations influence what happens, and the dream seems externally real while you are inside it.

Now imagine that instead of one dreamer generating the dream, many consciousnesses jointly participate in generating and stabilizing the environment.

That produces the proposed analogy:

individual lucid dream → individually generated experiential reality

shared lucid dream → collectively generated experiential reality

physical universe → extremely stable, collectively generated experiential reality

The claim about people having “forgotten” how to manipulate reality introduces another layer. They appear to be proposing that consciousness has a potentially much greater ability to alter the shared environment than people ordinarily experience, but that shared expectations have progressively constrained what is possible.

In their model, cultural beliefs, habitual expectations, physical laws, and the expectations of other consciousnesses can collectively function as stabilizing constraints.

So their concept of “rigidity” is essentially:

more mutual constraint → fewer accessible states → greater environmental stability

And conversely:

less mutual constraint → larger accessible state-space → greater individual freedom

That explains the final statement:

“The solution would be to exit the shared space because then your field/consciousness isn't restricted.”

They are proposing that the apparent physical world's stability comes partly from participation in a collective constraint network. Leaving that network would theoretically remove many of the constraints imposed by other observers.

In mathematical language, they are implicitly imagining something like:

Individual possibility space ⊃ collectively constrained possibility space

The shared environment is a subset of what the consciousness could potentially experience because mutual consistency eliminates most possibilities.

Their overall model can therefore be represented as:

Consciousness → oscillatory/informational fields

→ fields interact

→ interactions produce synchronization/interference

→ mutually consistent states become stabilized

→ stable patterns are experienced as matter/environment

→ observers continually interact with those patterns

→ their expectations further constrain subsequent states

→ reality becomes a self-maintaining network of mutually constrained experiences.

The strongest version of the idea is consequently not merely “consciousness creates matter.”

It is closer to:

Reality = a dynamically self-consistent network of interacting experiential/informational fields, with matter representing relatively persistent, collectively stabilized states within that network.

That is also why the person's statement that reality is “a conversation” is more than poetic language within their framework. A conversation is a dynamic process in which every participant's current state influences the next state of the entire system. Reality would similarly be continuously updated through reciprocal interaction rather than being a static object that exists independently of all interaction."

Like the title says.

I don't think it's at all possible to make any friends unless you have a lot in common with other people.

Dating apps are not good for meeting people because everyone is just there to date, get married or hook up.

Reddit also doesn't seem to be very good for meeting people because everyone on here already seems to be a part of some community or group. Any post I make attempting to find friends gets removed by the mods.

Offline is impossible since strangers don't like being approached but also everyone offline already seems to have friends or be a part of some group.

This is ridiculous.

How are you supposed to meet people now a days with all of these obstacles?

I've noticed a lot of people on the left, when criticizing conservative men, tend to call them "incels" when the incels are what conservative men would refer to as "simps", "white knights", "nice guys", "nerds", "soyboys" or "black pilled" and the incels would consider, conservative men to be "chads" or "alpha males" who they hate because they "get all the girls".

If you look at incels, they tend to like anime, video games, watch porn and hate men who go to the gym, the bar, play sports, are good looking or have a great physique and they believe women shouldn't like a man simply because he's physically attractive.

If you look at conservative men, they believe a man should become ripped, hot, rich and intelligent if he wants a woman. They tend to like stereotypically masculine things like sports, the bar, the gym, fighting/competition (e.g., hunting, fishing, the military, economic warfare), etc. and they tend to hate guys that are fat, lazy, weak, watch anime, watch porn and play video games. They also tend to hate porn and sex work because they believe it allows "weak men" to get women without any effort. The basic idea is that if men can simply pay a few dollars for a woman, they have no incentive to for example, go to the gym, become smarter, groom themselves, etc.

These are completely different types of people and completely different types of philosophies.

I honestly just want people to smoke with, take pictures with, listen to music with, etc. but everytime I try to interact with people I am met with hostility or ignored due to what I can only describe as immaturity from other people.

A good example is this platform. Any post or comment I make tends to get downvoted into oblivion or removed simply because I don't agree with popular mindless views most people have, especially regarding politics, with how shallow everyone's views seem to be where they stick to this right vs. left divide without any nuance.

Just a small rant but it's so annoying that everyone dislikes me there is literally no reason to dislike me or really anyone for that matter. I don't know why people just can't be open minded and accepting like when we were all kids in pre-school and kindergarten. Why all the random hostility, rejection or need to overdramaticize everything? Why can't people just be pragmatic and practical and be open to friends to avoid boredom or share an experience?

Jesus

Any other guys or girls here that are conventionally attractive and yet are single + totally friendless?

I have to say, lately I've been kind of annoyed seeing people with groups of friends, hanging out, drinking, smoking, going to parties, hooking up, even people who aren't necessarily the best looking or in shape. Meanwhile, I'm pretty good looking, ripped and completely alone.

It's boring.

I'm aware this probably makes me sound like an asshole or narcissistic, but it is annoying to out effort into your appearance and yet have it not pay off. Not even for things like hook ups or dating but just normal friends to have fun with.

Does anyone know about Kali?

She's a very interesting goddess.

I used to know her.

I wonder where kali has gone? 🤔

(This is actually code for something)

I had originally wrote this as a journal entry in my personal notes but I'm wondering if anyone else's meditation practices has caused them to develop a similar state of mind:

"Most people seem to interact with society as though its categories, identities, roles, institutions, constructs and relationships are simply what they are. They interact with them directly, without consciously examining the underlying mechanics that produce and maintain them.

I don't experience social reality that way.

Much of my thinking is can only be described as a blend of cybernetics, symbolic interactionism, social constructionism, role theory, what I would compress under the label of "Gnosticism" at least, the metapsychological aspect of it. As a result, I tend to perceive society as an ongoing process of mutual role enactment, mutual role-reinforcement or an indefinite role-playing game. Social reality seems less like a collection of objective things and more like a dynamic network of agreements, expectations, feedback loops, symbols, and performances.

For example, where someone else may see a manager, employee, friend, citizen, expert, patient, customer, or any other identity category as a straightforward description of reality, I tend to see a socially maintained role that exists because people continuously act as though it exists and reinforce it through interaction.

Likewise, I don't view the self as a singular, fixed entity. I tend to think of identity as a network of schemas, roles, narratives, and self-states that become active under different conditions. Because of this, identification with labels appears to me to be a form of constant self-conditioning or indefinite self-hypnotization. Repeatedly telling yourself "I am this" or "I am that" is not the discovery of an inherent essence, more like the gradual stabilization of a particular self-model or "consensus-compatitble self", through constant repetition and social reinforcement.

Similarly, social interaction appears to me to be as a process of mutual conditioning or mutual-hypnotization, a feedback loop of mutual role-reinforcment. People continuously influence one another's perceptions, expectations, identities, and interpretations of reality. Each participant is both shaping and being shaped by the interaction. In that sense, social life is a recursive process of mutual suggestion and reinforcement.

I am in a somewhat difficult position where I am rarely unaware of this process.

Many people, perhaps with the exception of financers and legislatures who create the systems we all exist in, are able to remain immersed in social reality without continuously thinking about the mechanics of how it is generated. For me, those mechanics are constantly present in awareness simultaneously with the interaction itself. I am not only participating in a conversation or social interaction, but also observing the role structures, feedback loops, identity negotiations, expectation dynamics, and mutual modeling occurring within it.

As a result, ordinary interactions are mentally draining.

What might feel like a simple interaction to someone else can involve multiple layers of analysis occurring at once: what roles are being enacted, what assumptions are being reinforced, what identities are being invoked, what expectations are being created, how each participant is modeling the other, and how the interaction itself is altering the system in real time.

Imagine being unable to fully watch a film because you are simultaneously aware of the actors, script, lighting, camera placement, editing process, production decisions, and audience expectations. The story never completely stops being a story, because awareness of the fact that it is make-believe always remains present.

I experience social reality as something that is continuously constructed and maintained through participation and a constant suspension of disbelief. The challenge is that participation requires temporarily treating those constructions as real, immediate and self-evident. Trying to balance social interaction with the awareness of both levels simultaneously, the social reality itself and the process that generating it, is mentally exhausting.

It is a different level of abstraction at which social reality is being perceived and processed."

What I did, since I was younger, was a combination of observing others interact and also an exercise where I would try to "get behind my own thinking" or imagine non-existence.

I can understand why monks and nuns would traditionally isolate themselves in monasteries in the wilderness. It’s very hard for you to "suspend your disbelief" once you've "broken the fourth wall" so to speak.

In theory, if we consider the functions, which type's function stack would make them the most "meta" or "detached" in their thinking?

In the sense of the least anthropocentric, least emotional, least emotionally reactive, least concerned with people's opinions, least concerned with ideas of professional success, least concerned with ideas of social success, least concerned with social approval, most neutral and most amoral, the way nature is amoral?

I suppose "transcendent" might be a good word, maybe "impersonal" or even "indifferent".

Psychologically, the closest fictional example I can think of would be Dr. Manhattan from the Watchmen film.

Perhaps A.I. if you programmed it to be completely emotionless and without a personality.

Maybe the concept of "purusha" or the "cosmic witness" as well.

Other adjectives that might also be useful in helping to describe this kind of cognition or thinking: acultural, ahuman, aidentitarian, amoral, amortal, apolitical, atemporal, co-generative, co-relational, meta-anthropic, metacognitive, metacultural, metaeconomic, metaemotional, metaethical, metaethnic, meta-identitarian, metalegal, metamoral, metamortal, metanational, metapolitical, metarelational, metasymbolic, meta-systemic, meta-temporal, post-anthropocentric, post-ethical, post-ethnic, post-historical, post-human, post-identity, post-legal, post-moral, post-narrative, post-national, post-political, post-symbolic, post-temporal

Best way I can describe it.

I'm way too lazy to write this entire idea out but it goes something like this:

1. Each consensus is effectively a shared psychotic disorder. Every society operates through collectively accepted assumptions that are treated as reality. For example: Money has value, Nations exist, Social status matters, Age categories are meaningful, Certain identities are real and important, etc. because large groups share these assumptions, they appear normal and become "real" rather than strange.

2. You are forced to adopt a consensus compatible role or consensus compatible-identity in order to be considered normal or sane

3. You and your peers each mutually reinforce each other's consensus compatible roles and identities – this is mutual hypnosis indefinitely

4. Identification with a label or concept, is a form of constant self-hypnosis

5. Identification with the concept of "mortal human" and then having that internalized self-concept, would create mortality as a nocebogenic effect and psychosomatic condition

6. Birthday rituals, commercials about life insurance, being told to act your age, calenders, a linear perception of time, etc. these would all be constant hypnotic suggestions

It's a lot more complicated but that's the general idea and is certainly interesting to think about.

An interesting test would be to keep a group of people isolated from the larger population in a low stress environment where they are hypnotized or conditioned into accepting immortality (in the sense of agelessness) as the norm and see what happens.

Edit – The title was supposed to say "Psychosomatic" not "Psychomagnetic", though if we assume the mind effects the body's electromagnetic field and that the body's electromagnetic field effects the behaviour of cells, then that could also be a factor worth considering as well as interpersonal bioelectromagnetic field dynamics and inter-brain synchrony

😔

(Note: I'm going to oversimplify a lot because I don't want to come across as pretentious or make this post any longer than it already is and I'm also assuming others will have studied enough subjects across psychology, neuroscience and physics primarily, to be able to fill in the blanks and follow my line of thinking.)

(Note: In hindsight I probably should have edited this with an AI so it's more coherent since I basically ended up just jotting down a lot of thoughts at random – side effect of being neurodivergent I suppose.)

Now, rather than the universe being a simulation that exists in some kind of external computer (where you then run into the issue of infinite regress), have people entertained the idea that the universe is a self-simulating simulation with no "outside"? Essentially, a closed system that generates and updates its own states. This avoids infinite regress problem because the system’s evolution or state transition, would be is its own computation.

If we assume observations select a probable reality configuration from a field of infinite potential (probability space, possibility space, state space), and we assume that all living things count as "observers", you get a situation where each observer's mutual observation of each other and collective observation of the "external" environment, stabilizes a version of reality that is consistent with each observer's expectations.

(Note: Observeration ≡ Expectation (Internal Model))

From a sociological point of view, social life is, essentially, a continuous role-playing game where we adopt consensus compatible roles (or consensus compatible internalized self-concepts) and reinforce consensus compatible roles in each other – effectively a feedback loop of mutual hypnosis. If we factor in the placebo effect, nocebo effect, neuroplasticity, epigenetics, electromagnetic chemistry, psychoneuroendocrinology, psychoneuroimmunology and psychosomatics, you could make the case that what you identify as or with (your internalized self-concept), has an effect on you physically. (ref. dramaturgical sociology, performance theory, self-state theory, polypsychism to understand the idea that the "self" exists as a an infinite set of potential identity configurations until you're forced to manifest a specific identity that is consensus compatible)

If we consider the human bioelectromagnetic field, then it's possible the physical body is a kind of continuously rendered hologram, that is stabilized by the individual and collective's expectations about what you should be and how your body should behave. Essentially, your mind influences your biofield and your biofield influences your physical body so that it's is a reflection of your internalized self-concept + the expectations of others, that others project onto you.

Each consensus would be a "mass field" with its own "frequency" or "signal" and shared beliefs connect people to the same frequency so they will experience the same shared reality. Each species would have its own consensus (and mass field or "psychic channel"?) and so its own frequency – I suppose this would be similar to Rupert Sheldrake's idea of "Morphic Fields" and "Morphic Resonance" or even the concept of totems, the demiurge and egregores. Shared beliefs mean shared frequency, means you will hallucinate the same things or filter out "data" that is not on alignment with your expectations. A good example of this is all the catholics in Spain I think who, linked together by catholic belief – existing in the "catholic reality" or "catholic simulation", all hallucinated the Virgin Mary at the same time. (ref. "Garabandal Apparitions")

(Note: Consider the phenomenon of inter-brain synchrony and entrainment )

(Note: I'm assuming some hallucinations are "electromagnetic holograms" that are only visible to those who are phase-aligned with them and other hallucinations are electromagnetic constructs held together by a group's collective observation)

(Note: The more incompatible a group's consensus is from another, the more out of phase their mass fields and brainwaves will be and this results in physical and mental distance or in come cases destructive interference which manifests as war. So different planets and dimensions appear distant because they are phase-separated and out of sync with each other. State space distance = measure of phase-separation or phase distance)

(Note: Consensus = Mass Field = Each location has a different phase-frequency. I would imagine this explains "vibes" of different areas and can explain things like evolutionary adaptations to new environments it would be a side effect of one's own electromagnetic field entraining to the field of a new location or consensus)

(Note: Atomic fields couple together to create molecular fields and cellular fields and organ fields and body fields – but field effects are bidirectional)

If we factor in the bioelectromagnetic fields of all living organisms, planets, stars, galaxies, etc. you run into a situation where each field overlaps and so there is no separation between you and the external environment. Numerous studies show the magnetic fields of an area has a psychological and physical effect on the local population. I'm suggesting there is a bidirectional influence where individual fields influence each other and collective fields influence the fields of the local environment so there is a "telepathic" link between all things and the environment.

If we generalize principles from quantum mechanics and assume they apply at every scale (your group would only experience the version of reality that is consistent with your group's expectations – so the multiverse is important here), you get a situation where each person's personal field, is effected by their self-observation as well as the observations of others.

If we assume observations ≡ expectations (internal model of the self and the environment) we get into a situation where mutual observations generate a consensus compatible observed and experienced reality.

This would give you a kind of extramission + intromisson

(Note: I am aware extramission theory is no longer mainstream but in light of the observer effect...)

Hopefully that all made sense?

Essentially, you end up with a version of reality that is a self-consistent feedback loop of expectations among interacting observers.

Basically a "shared dream" or a decentralized, self-updating inference-interference network that continuously collapses a space of possibilities into a mutually consistent configuration through iterative constraint propagation.

Each observer or living thing would be a node in a distributed information-processing network.

Observers = Parallel Processors

Should also add that, if we assume the universe is pure energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then we can say the universe (and observers) have always existed but constantly change state.

(Note: I would like to test this but it would require you get a population of people, keep them isolated from mainstream civilization in a village or temple setting, off in the wilderness, where they experience no stress, ignore the concept of linear time and mutually gaslight each other into thinking immortality is the norm)

All of this would require we dispense with the idea that the universe is random, consciousness is a mistake and we have absolutely zero control over our lives and existence and are instead at the mercy of random events – should add that this current view modern westerners have is not at all proven and it is a relatively new assumption about reality if you consider the beliefs pre-modern civilizations and tribal communities had about existence.

There is also zero evidence to support the idea that modern humans are more intelligent or more knowledgeable than our ancestors. People will point to population growth and advanced technology but you could also argue both are actually signs of decline. It is possible the ancestors had such an understanding of their environment they designed cultures that were ecologically integrated and so saw no need for externalized technology. It is also possible ancestors limited birth rates to avoid exceeding their local environments carrying capacity.

(Note: What's more advanced having the ability to remember everything or needing to record things in books or on computers instead?)

If this is the case then modern technology is a crutch and a symptom of maladaptation to the environment and population growth is a sign of a lack of direction, restraint and long term planning.

Oh, "God "would not be a separate thing but would be the total network of all observers. Essentially, "God" is the entire system of interacting observers plus their relations. So ths “mind of God” would be the global state of the network. None of this is a new idea.

Apologies for the long post but has anyone else converged on something similar?

If so, I would love to discuss this further, particularly the psychological and psychosomatic aspects. How each consensus would effectively be a shared psychotic disorder and each species would be a shared psychosomatic condition.

Basically:

Consensus reality = Stabilized Shared Cognition

And

Biology = Long-Term Psychosomatic Stabilization Of That Cognition

Also, I should add that modern technology is an imitation of organic life. For example, A.I. is modeled off of organic intelligence and neutral networks so a "simulation" and "computer" is an imitation of the mind (or brain) and dreams. Keep that in mind.