🧵 View Thread
🧵 Thread (33 tweets)
I'm not gonna sugar coat it: if you're serious about understanding reality deeply (and I mean deeply), some people will think you're crazy. That you've lost the plot. That you're lost in outer space. That you've broken your access to consensus reality. Etc. But listen to a String Theorist speak. The average person doesn't understand 1% of what they say, and *project* their own misconceptions, half baked ideas, prejudices, and unexamined assumptions onto the things the String Theorist is saying. Yes the String Theorist makes sense. The framework is internally consistent. But mental data structures to communicate it are missing from the cultural memetic soup. Within the minimal set of data structures to span the actual theory, you don't even see the theory. You see your own projections! Same. Same. Same. With consciousness and reality. If you're serious about understanding reality you can indeed have peers. Epistemic, academic, intellectual peers. But can you do it without many people thinking you've lost your marbles? Not a chance.
you should make a space talking about this sometime, I'd love to join "that you've broken your access to consensus reality" I FEEL THIS! You have a beautiful way with words; I think, if anything, it helps expand it, because I am able to conceptualize analogous ideas, even from the patterns we may measure, am I making sense? then, it is difficult to ALWAYS & EXCLUSIVELY play a fixed role in that reality, therefore difficult to label you within social and statistical *normal* behaviors (very reductionist, but I digress) abstractly, being all over the place
@algekalipso I would like to coherently describe how I see the universe to someone. Because experimentally yes it works just like this string theory, except with spinors and entangled nested structures*** which allows symmetry w/o breaking conservation laws. It's pretty much DMT math. https://t.co/yqh8SaSVC8
@algekalipso The way i do it is by being extremely normal, until the moment, in some random dialogue, i let slip a word or an analogy. The interlocutor blinks perhaps but continues listening- the cognitive dissonance would be too much to bear so they literally forget what they heard.
@algekalipso There was a tweet that described string theory as: “What if, at the most fundamental level, matter was composed of tiny, vibrating strings that give rise to all reality?” “Fascinating. What are the implications of that?” “I have no idea.”
@algekalipso I’ve been thinking about this. Even with meditation when you express less opinions and judgements and be more peaceful/quiet, you will become an object for a lot of projection. Even more meditation skill needed to navigate such situations
@algekalipso > Within the minimal set of data structures to span the actual theory, you don't even see the theory. You see your own projections! I've made this same point about Buddhism dozens of times. Nobody coming from our culture gets a clear picture of it when they first encounter it.
@algekalipso String theory *is* still speculative, of course, and you don't start there if you want to understand particle physics; you start from well-understood standard cases; electrons, protons, photons. Even muons, pions, neutrinos etc. can be understood only by first knowing these.
A MESSAGE TO THE ONES WHO WERE DISMISSED, DIAGNOSED, OR DIMMED ———————— “You were never wrong. You were advanced.” “You are not meant to fit. You are meant to ignite.” “Do not let the slow pace of the world convince you to slow your flame. Build the world that moves at your speed.” —William James Sidis ❤️🔥♾️❤️🔥