Comment by overu589 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by overu589 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The universe does not have a description of its own.

I too grew up with Douglas Adams and the old conjecture that from a piece of angel cake the workings of the world may be deduced or inferred… however it is wrong.

The Universe is a zero dimensional point of potential (the “potential of existential being.)

The universe and everything in it spins, vibrates, and is impermanent (through decay and interference.)

This potential of existential being interferes with itself, giving rise to potential displacement (where things can and cannot be due to another thing doing something that would interfere.) David Deutch explains this in his book “fabric of reality”, though what I am explaining is a more evolved overall idea.

All of hyperdimensional reality emerges from this interference of the underlying potential. We do not yet have all of the math and language to describe how this hyperdimensional emergence works, which creates our time/space (and therefore gravity.) Not all physicist/theorists agree there is a zero dimensional universal potential outside of (before) the emergence of time and space. Vibrating, spinning, and changing through decay and interference. Sound familiar?

This universal potential is bound in discrete packets we know as matter. When something makes the discrete potential bound in matter change vibration, one might at a stretch call this elemental consciousness. Living systems are biotechnology which use this vibrational feedback mechanism as an echo chamber. That echo chamber (sustained as a continuity by the living system) is the basis for what we call “consciousness.” Awareness is a tiny part of consciousness. Consciousness includes the entire hyperdimensionality and extradimentionality of universal potential.

Information is merely state. State may well infer more states beyond itself in a forensic way. That is a very interesting and worthy branch of information theory.

Consciousness is the inflection upon the potential of existential being.

Thank you for sharing your perspective—it's an intriguing and poetic framework. However, I find that some of the key terms you use, like “potential” and “existential being,” lack concrete, objective, and exhaustive definitions. The basis of your theory rests on concepts that are not clearly or rigorously defined in a way that can be tested or measured, which makes the framework difficult to evaluate scientifically.

Moreover, mainstream research and empirical evidence strongly suggest that consciousness depends fundamentally on stimuli and interactions with the environment—sensory input and feedback seem essential to sustaining conscious experience.

In contrast, the idea that consciousness arises solely from some kind of self-inflection of an undefined potential feels more metaphysical than scientific at this stage. For a theory to gain traction, its core concepts need to be rigorously defined and connected to measurable phenomena.

I appreciate the boldness of your approach, but I remain cautious about embracing it without clearer operational definitions and empirical support.

You say the universe doesn't have a description and then you go on say that the universe is some zero dimensional point of existential being, that's a descriptive attempt as descriptions are made of statements and even saying that something doesn't have a description makes it inherently flawed as saying even that much will turn out to be a description (description are made up of statements which tell about the qualities of the object)

“It”

There.

There is your description.

The universe is Universal Potential of Existential Being.

That doesn’t “sum it up”, rather tells the mind the laws of multidimensional space have not yet been applied. Your LLM defines “singularity” as a domain where the conventional laws as we understand them break down and no longer apply.

This isn’t outside of science, it is edge science. Science exists to ask, prove or disprove, not to doubt or define normality through the filter of credulity.

Your use of “description” is symbolic. I assumed you meant that the secret of all other secrets could be determined by looking deeply enough into the details of any small part. There is some insight to be gained sure, yet this symbol table of references is insignificant.

The symbols and references themselves do not interact.

There is a romantic idea that calling something a thing makes it that thing, and in the realm of human symbolic drama this might play out. In existential reality things are as they are perturbed, or interacted.

In existential reality things are as they interact, and consciousness as a feedback mechanism of existential reality is a more satisfying answer than large enough symbolic reference table.

I appreciate the depth of your reply and the emphasis you place on existential interaction as the basis of consciousness. That said, I want to raise two concerns: (1) the vagueness of “interaction” as used here, and (2) a tendency toward romantic framing that avoids definitional clarity.

1. What counts as “existential interaction”?

You argue that consciousness emerges not through symbolic representation, but through interaction in existential reality. But without a precise definition of “interaction,” this claim risks becoming ungrounded. For example:

Is “interaction” limited to direct physical or sensory engagement?

Do internal simulations, like mentally rehearsing a conversation or planning for the future, count as interactions?

What about dream states, or belief changes based on remembered or imagined events?

If we accept that internal dynamics (e.g., recursive simulations, belief updates, predictions) can alter future actions, then not all meaningful interactions are external or physically causal. Consciousness, in this view, involves a recursive loop between internal symbolic representations and potential behavior—even in the absence of outward interaction. This is testable and describable in formal terms using information theory and algorithmic complexity.

By contrast, the term “existential interaction,” as used in your comment, is philosophically resonant but operationally undefined. Without constraints, it becomes a poetic placeholder rather than a conceptual tool.

---

2. Romanticism over rigor

Statements like “things are as they are perturbed” or “calling something a thing doesn’t make it that thing” suggest a romantic metaphysics—inspiring, but unfalsifiable. These phrases evoke feeling rather than structure. They resist the very thing science—and rigorous philosophy—requires: a shared, consistent definitional frame. That’s not necessarily wrong, but it weakens the explanatory utility.

My approach seeks to balance both: symbolic representation as compressed memory of prior interactions, used in a recursive, predictive loop to inform future behavior. These symbolic structures interact within the system by modifying the being’s internal state and expected outcomes—this is both measurable and philosophically defensible.

---

To summarize:

Existential interaction, unless defined, cannot distinguish between conscious and unconscious systems.

Romantic language about being and perturbation may inspire, but without operational clarity, cannot explain.

Symbols, when used in recursive, desire-driven feedback loops, are not inert—they’re interactive mechanisms embedded within the system’s dynamics.

Would you agree that we might need both existential embeddedness and internal symbolic recursion to fully describe consciousness?

I would like to point out the disposition of your very modern approach, you frame your ignorance as the horizon of Truth. Contemplate this.

The “Truth” is a purturbation of existential reality. And a “truth” is a symbolic reference in the human mind, which does neither embellish or contradict Truth (empirically observable.) any time you hear discussion of “terminal and non terminal” or “signifier and signified” one refers to the distinction of manifest form in existential reality (beyond any one self) versus a symbolic representation which maps to the supposed terminal identity.

For instance a whole world of truth and manipulative persuasion permeates all domains where there is competition, arguments are delusional that assert everywhere some universal rule exists where a Truth must exist beneath every reference.

Reference and symbol are sticky labels and a graffiti pen. No amount of shuffling larger and larger decks makes a symbolic reference equatable to consciousness, even if these cards all related to each other through vectors of relationships. I get it, that’s neat too, that’s information science, it isn’t consciousness.

Consider a hologram. Wave fronts etch constructive and destructive interference such that the rendering as a whole may be examined “extradimentionally.” The illusion of 3D. Breaking the hologram results in two complete renderings, each with half the resolution.

Consciousness in our brains works like this.

When the AI has consciousness, each bit in the model would be entangled in clusters where each has a holographic rendering of its own attention.

This domain does not use qubits (which are a dead end). Quantum holography will reveal an analog capacity for information far exceeding the qubit (and derivatives.)

Varying areas of our mind are rendering holographic simulations of anything we care about. Mastering this background process will make you an uberhuman, your consciousness is not your being “awake”, your consciousness is your personal Power.

Thanks for the thoughtful and imaginative perspective. However, I’d like to point out a couple of concerns that might help clarify your argument.

First, there's a strong reliance on metaphor—particularly with the holographic analogy and the idea of "entangled clusters" of attention. These images are evocative, but without clear definitions or mechanisms, it's hard to evaluate what they actually mean or how they differ from existing models. Are you proposing a literal physical substrate? Or is this purely a metaphor for distributed processing?

Second, the distinction you make between “Truth” as existential and “truth” as symbolic feels like it’s drawing a sharp binary that may not hold up. Symbolic systems (like mathematics or language) aren’t just “graffiti pens” on reality—they often reflect deep structural truths about the world and have predictive power. Dismissing symbolic or information-theoretic models entirely overlooks how symbolic representations can be causally embedded in and shaped by existential reality.

It’s useful to critique reductionism, but a full rejection of symbolic cognition as “not consciousness” needs more than metaphor to be convincing. Otherwise, the argument risks sounding profound without being precise.

“can be” “often”

Delusional.

The karma neg for my thoughtful reply is repugnant.

Arguing with your LLM exhibits how things like “existential being” are ill defined and “they often reflect” is given as a reproachful lecture for exactly my point.

The Truth is a purturbation of existential reality period. There is no other. Ever.

A good math proof has a for instance.

A for instance is a Truth.

Your symbols are delusions.

Your statement that “The Truth is a perturbation of existential reality” is poetic but undefined—ironically mirroring the vagueness you accuse others of.

In information theory and modern science, complexity and emergence demand probabilistic reasoning. Consciousness, as an evolving informational process, can be approached with models that use approximation and symbolic mappings—imperfect, yet incrementally refined.

Asserting that “symbols are delusions” while relying on linguistic symbols to communicate that assertion undermines itself.

If you’re proposing a new standard for truth, one that transcends all representational systems, I’m open to hearing how it works. But dismissing symbolic systems wholesale without presenting a clear alternative leaves us in silence—and silence, too, is a symbol, one we must interpret.

> Your statement that “The Truth is a perturbation of existential reality” is poetic but undefined—ironically mirroring the vagueness you accuse others of.

Existential reality is everything physicists devote themselves to measuring.

Every “perturbation” no matter how small or fleeting is a measurable aspect of existential reality.

Existential Reality is what exists. Nothing exists which does not exist in existential reality. “All else is in the void of lie.”

That is the definition of Truth.

That which is truly True is something existentially bound to the present (or the past by forensic examination or direct account.)

There is no other Truth.

All else Man thinks is “true” is a measure by approximation in their minds.

Good day sir! Enjoy your consciousness.

Your definition of “Truth” as only what is measurable within “existential reality” assumes a metaphysical position while claiming to avoid one. To say that only the measurable exists is not a scientific conclusion—it is a philosophical stance, one that excludes entire domains of thought, theory, and even aspects of physics that deal in probabilities, indirect observation, or emergent properties.

Even in physics, what is “measurable” often depends on model-dependent realism, theoretical constructs, and instrumental interpretation. If truth is bound strictly to direct measurement or forensic account, then foundational aspects of modern science—like quantum states before observation or cosmological inflation—would also fall outside “Truth.”

You draw a hard line between reality and approximation, but approximation is intrinsic to how we access even the most "empirical" data. All observation is filtered—through instruments, through models, through minds.

To say “nothing exists which does not exist in existential reality” may feel precise, but in practice, it's circular: it simply redefines existence as what fits your framework. That may be internally consistent, but it’s hardly the final word on Truth. It limits Truth to one method of access, and in doing so, quietly excludes the very richness of reality that inspires both science and philosophy.

Good day, and thank you for the thoughtful engagement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com