 You mentioned Schopenhauer, which is excellent. I feel like the idea of nothing more fundamental than the will, the inner nature of everything. I love that one. I love the one eye of the world that looks out from every creature. I love that one as well. So, you know, given the case of Schopenhauer and yourself, I mean, we now have significantly more than 100 years ago had, especially thousands of years ago for talking like the Vedic Rishis and stuff. We have significantly more access, especially under our revelation of quantum mechanics and whatnot. It's just giving us more and more access to what we believe is that nature of reality. So let's talk about this. You've written about this quite a bit now. I find this subject to be really deeply interrelated between consciousness and physics in the sense that this is about the bottom-up panpsychism and cosmosychism that's occurring, a fundamental consciousness as a universe-wide field. And would it be fair to say that there's some sort of an abstract mathematics that are happening infinitely far away and that it's emerging an illusory holographic space-time? Just on a point of terminology, you alluded to bottom-up panpsychism, but you really meant cosmosychism. Bottom-up panpsychism, also called constitutive panpsychism, what they would say is that every elementary subatomic particle is conscious, but there is no universal consciousness. There are only casillions of little tiny microscopic consciousnesses. I think that's an untenable view. The only tenable view is the opposite. There is only one cosmic subject and individual subjectivity is an illusion, which is the view I subscribe to. That would be a form of cosmosychism. Now, the mathematics. Well, Alan, I think mathematics is how we describe things. The fact that mathematical truths, which are so intuitive to us, so intuitive that it's like self-evidence to us. It has to be true. 2 plus 2 is 4 almost by definition. There are a number of much more subtle nuanced mathematical truths that we are absolutely sure are correct. And this psychological intuition happens to apply perfectly to the dynamics of the world out there. I mean, this in itself is extraordinary under materialistic metaphysics, because there is no reasoning principle why our axiomatic rules of thought should be the rules according to which the world out there evolves and moves. Under idealism, it's not a problem because it's a mind out there as well. Actually, it's the same mind in the division is the separation is an illusion. So our axioms of thoughts, those rules of thought that we consider self-evident apply to the world because it's the same mind that is behind the world applying those same axiomatic rules of thinking. But then we use this fact, this similarity between how this equivalence between how we think and how the world behaves. We use it to our advantage to describe the behavior of the world according to these axioms of thought. And that's what we call mathematics. We are describing the behavior of the world. And what I think ultimately informs us of is of how mind behaves. That's what mathematics is telling us. Mind has some inherent patterns of behavior, which a Jungian would call archetypes of behavior. Jungians went as far as to say that the axioms of mathematics were archetype in nature. Marie-Louise von Franz wrote a book I think in 1974. I think it's called the number and time. I'm not sure anymore about the title, but they explored this notion to which I subscribe. The archetypes of minds are the fundamental source codes. That's one way to put it. Another way to put it would be to use a vibration analogy. When you pluck a guitar string, it vibrates according to one of its normal modes of vibration. It plays certain notes, but not other. And that note depends on how long the string is, the elasticity of the string. So mind has its normal modes of excitation. Once mind gets excited, it gets excited in certain ways and not in others. So there are these archetypal fundamental modes of behavior in mind. And I think mathematics, by giving people direct inner access to those templates, allows us to describe from the outside as well how the world behaves. And it gives us profound hints to what mind is and how it comports itself. Interesting. So it's more accurate to say a bottom-up panpsychism, given what cosmopsychism currently describes itself as, but if... Or you could say it's more accurate, I would say top-down panpsychism. Is a top-down panpsychism. Oh, interesting. From mind. From a universal mind, from an individual mind, as opposed to from microscopic minds to us. Okay. Oh, interesting. Okay. Interesting. So a top-down panpsychism from universal mind through us. But there is some interesting... So the feedback sort of function isn't necessarily from an abstract mathematics that are happening beyond the quantum field level. And then they're going through this process of the unfolding and unfolding, as like David Nome would say. But it could... Or from this universal consciousness level, or this infinite consciousness level. So it could... The idea is that it could be doing the unfolding and folding from... Those seem like the same thing to me as well in that macro-micro sense. That's why... Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. I see how you're visualizing it, because there are laws of quantum mechanics and microscopic laws you're thinking in terms of the bottom up. I understand that. I think the way to visualize space is misleading when you go down that path. The laws of quantum mechanics apply to all space, everywhere. Yeah. These are fundamental laws. In modern physics, we even don't talk anymore about the literal particles. We talk about excitations of a field. Particles are little ripples on a field, like ripples in the water. There is nothing to the ripple, but the water. In the same way, there is nothing to a particle, but this field. Today, we still didn't manage to reconcile the different quantum fields. So we still talk about a set of them. But there is a very strong intuition in physics that they are actually all facets of one field. And this one field is not spatially bound. It doesn't have a size. It is the entire universe. I was about to say it encompasses the entire universe. It is the entire universe. And the laws apply to this spatially unbound field. So even if you talk about microscopic laws, a term that we use, because we are not able to separate and bring these laws into focus on microscopic objects, they are hidden behind their own interactions. So to see them, we need to look at a microscopic system. But this is an artifact of our ability to detect something. That something in itself is not microscopic. It is the behavior, the template of movement or vibration, the archetypes of a spatially unbound quantum field, which is the universe. The laws of quantum mechanics are not even local. So when we talk about microscopic laws, we are just saying that we can't discern these laws unless we look at very tiny things. It doesn't mean that the laws are only in the tiny things. No, they are in front of you right now. They are making this screen in front of you and be able to exist and do what it does. It's just that we can't discern them at the microscopic level. But the laws are not microscopic. They are universal. Yeah, okay, this is very interesting. So like an implicate or like a source code or an infinite consciousness or cosmic consciousness, it pervades absolutely everything always and that it's not... This part of it's interesting. You mentioned this. There is a sort of potentially power law of the most common abstract mathematics, the relationships that are going on and that those most common relationships emerge in the holographic illusory space time as the most common archetypes. Yeah, go ahead. Yes. Okay, now you hinted at one of the most difficult topics in science and philosophy today. We do not have consensus about how the laws of quantum mechanics which we discern at the microscopic level, how they somehow give rise to the classical laws of physics like Maxwell equations, Newton's equations. Why do these equations approximate so well the behavior of the world we see and how do they emerge from a purely probabilistic framework, which is what seems to apply at the most fundamental level? Now on purpose, avoiding the word microscopic, I'll talk about the most fundamental level, how does the orderliness of macroscopic laws arise or emerge out of the probabilistic behavior of nature at its most fundamental levels? We do not have a clear answer to that. There are many attempted answers. I'm right now reading an excellent paper by a member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, the leader of a quantum physics group in the University of Vienna, which I think is one of the most promising avenues of investigation now. We have a cubism, which is another attempt to make sense of this, but it's an open question. Somehow that probabilistic behavior at the most fundamental level preferentially leads to the emergence of recognizable regularities, which we call laws of nature. And then that leads us into recognizable phenomenological states. So then there's that relationship. So in a sense, we can say that there are specific, there's a feedback mechanism that occurs where the more that I, as my illusory individual, become more causeless joy and imperturbable peace, the more that I become that, the more that I cause a feedback loop to this source code that then makes the abstract mathematical relationships more in the emergent direction of that causeless piece, causeless joy and imperturbable peace. We do not know if and how these feedback mechanisms work. We haven't been able to model them, but I think it would be extraordinarily implausible to say that the direction of influences here is only in one way, points only in one way. I think it's extraordinarily implausible. I think it's almost a virtual certainty that there are feedback mechanisms in operation here as well. Because we've known from complexity sciences, for instance, that it is feedback mechanisms that give rise to complexity. And boy, is this world complex. So there should be feedback mechanisms operating at every level here, including endogenous experiential states that are providing feedback mechanisms in a way that we haven't been able to model and do so clearly yet. We could say that then that feedback is potentially the idea of the co-creators that we are these. We have a co-creative relationship with reality. This is an extraordinarily sensitive topic. So it's so easy to be misunderstood, when you talk about this. So bear with me. There is an approach in physics, a very conservative, very level headed, I would say, unassailable approach for interpreting quantum mechanics. I would say it's not even an interpretation. It's an acknowledgement of what quantum mechanics is saying, which is called relational quantum mechanics by an Italian physicist called Carlo Rovelli, who has written a number of very good books. And what Rovelli says is that if you bite the bullet of quantum mechanics from experiments, then there is no physical quantity, no physical entity that's absolute. They're all relative. Everything that's physical is relative to an observer, is relative to a point of measurement, which then immediately raises the question, well, if everything physical is relative, then is it relative to what? Whatever it's relative to, it can't be physical, otherwise you're getting to infinite regress. So if you understand this, you will immediately come to the conclusion that what is really out there is not physical, it is mental, and physicality is relative to mentality. And that's how physicality arrives from an interaction between two segments of mind, at least two. Physicality is relative to mentality. That's what quantum mechanics seems to be suggesting. The mentality part I added, because I think it's inevitable. It's the only other thing we know of next to physicality. But quantum mechanics seems to be telling us quite unambiguously, especially after a superb experiment in 2018 that sort of closed all loopholes, that physicality is relative. Relative to what? I would say it's relative to mentality. So in so far as each person is an observer, a different observer with a unique perspective, then your physical world is fundamentally different from my physical world, because my physical world is relative to me and I'm taking a different perspective. So we all inhabit different physical worlds. And our physical world, and bear with me, don't misunderstand me yet, I have to complete this thought. So of course we co-create our physical world, because it's relative. It arises from an interaction between our personal dissociated mentation and the transpersonal mental states out there. It is from that interaction that our physical world is created. So we co-create it, we are half of the equation. However, we describe our respective physical worlds in mutually consistent manners. You also would say, well, there is a moon at night, there are stars, there are trees, there are cars, you know what I mean. So the other part of the equation seems to be transpersonal mental states in which we are all immersed. Can we change that? I would say all indications are that we can't, because otherwise I would just conjure up the world to be much better than it is now, and I seem to be unable to do that. I don't seem to be able to create my own reality fully. And I understand that that's not what you're claiming either. You're not saying that we all create our own reality, you're saying that there is some degree of influence. So I would say there's a massive degree of influence as far as the physicality that surrounds you is concerned, but what ensures that your physical world is consistent with mine and with everybody else's is this transpersonal ocean of mentation that is out there. And then can we as individuals influence that ocean of transpersonal mentation? I personally think very little, if at all. Some of the greatest minds of all time have influenced that and made everything much better. I am open to that idea. But then you could say, well, I influenced the world in trivial ways. Like if I use my arms and I move a rock, I've influenced the world. What you mean is something deeper than that. I mean Michelangelo, you know. I'll go along with that. But that's not what we mean, right? What we mean is can your inner attitude influence the physical world through non-physical means? In other words, not through the use of perception and everything that correlates with perception. Can a thought, can a inner feeling influence something non-locally? Perhaps there is some evidence that this could be the case arising from research on so-called side phenomena. For instance, at the University of Virginia in the US. But I'm tempted to think that that influence is rather limited. Let me give you another example on that is even something as simple as like if we have the spectrum from Michelangelo to something very simple. It can be something along the lines of when you are with another person, especially if it's a family member or a friend. The idea is that everything is inextricably connected in this knot of life and that if one has that equanimity, that immovable peace that causes joy, just by that simple phenomenological state can significantly affect what the other person's experience is. And so that slowly in a sense it takes the suffering out of the knot of life. How is that? How does it take the suffering out? Because by your phenomenological state being that causes joy and imperturbable peace, it butterfly effects to the other person. Yeah, in that knot of life. All of a sudden, the other person feels your peace and then they themselves also take the notch down. And we all know of the scenario where if you go a notch up, they go a notch up and it just versus bringing it. So you slowly work out the misery and the suffering and the needless replaying of the worst possible archetypal phenomenologies. Yeah, this section has been super, super interesting. In this last bit, is it possible to say that the like there is a wherever everywhere is this source code implicate cosmic consciousness, infinite consciousness, non-spatial, non-spatial everywhere or nowhere. Yeah. Yes. Okay. So we have this non-spatial God, it's everywhere. Yeah, or nowhere. So so now this idea that from this source code implicate, et cetera, from there, we have a we have a we have a power law of the abstract mathematical possibilities that exist. And then from there, it's possible that there is the emergence of phenomenological states and that we have a direct feedback potentially influence on that on those abstract mathematical states by in a sense, we can drive the knot of life anywhere from a simple relationship making it better to being like a Michelangelo or an Elon Musk in trying to drive some sort of massive artistic or technological revolutionary change to better the world. Well, look, I think what you're hinting at is, is our does our influence extend beyond the visual or perceptual cues that we provide? I mean, you have that you had that example of a discussion that escalates. You could say, well, it escalates because each participant is providing obvious visual cues to the other. He's speaking out there, his eyes are going wide open, he's just stipulating more. But what you're hinting at, if I understand you, is that beyond the perceptual cues, beyond your physical action in the world, there is a direct influence between your inner states and the inner states of other people, and maybe the inner states of the universe at large, it's beyond the visual cues. So that's correct. I see you're not in so that that my interpretation and you call that a transpersonal ocean. Well, in so far, as there is a direct influence between you and something outside you, it's going through a transpersonal field. Yeah, field ocean. Yeah, I like that. Yeah, yeah, the drop in the ocean analogy. Yeah, an ocean, a few of these are all metaphors. Anyway, you get my meaning. Can that be happening? I think it can. It's a personal opinion. I think people who deny that that's happening are in a position to deny it, because usually that happens together without the visual cues and physical effects that we produce just by being in the world. Just by existing, we displace air. We occupy a certain volume in space. So because these things always go together, the so-called trivial influences, which are visual, perceptual cues and your physical presence in the world and the direct, more subtle influences, it's very hard to tease them apart. So we can categorically say that there are these more subtle influences as well. That's why it's so difficult to categorically say, yes, they exist, because it's difficult to tease them apart from all the other things that are happening. I think there is some research indicating that these subtle influences do occur. But they are not massive, because if they were massive, I mean, give you an example. If I knew that war is about to happen, I would immediately see it, meditate, concentrate and stop it from happening. But I can't do that. I can't stop world hunger. I can't stop the devastation of the environment that is happening around the world today. I can't stop people from getting sick. I can't stop my loved ones from dying from cancer and heart attacks. So somehow, the so-called physical way of influencing, which does not entail a direct inner connection, but just your action in the space-time framework that we call the physical world, those seem to be overwhelming in relation to the more subtle channels for influencing things. I think it's just an observation. It's not even an opinion. It's an observation. And that's what makes it difficult to categorically pin down this other thing that might be going on. And the thing is, if it is going on, then it opens up a whole lot of other degrees of freedom. So it's important to know whether they are actually going on or not. It almost seems like a fool's errand to try and say that it doesn't go on in the sense that even the simple, beautiful, imaginative idea of a rock star electric car company that may take two decades to actually get into solid production worldwide does end up that started just as that imaginative idea now is able to distribute tens of thousands and more of what one could call the top quality electric vehicle across the planet, which then somebody else does, in a sense, exchange that value of money for the vehicle. And so then they themselves, they've basically taken what was an imagined idea that they themselves are now purchasing and now it's in there as something that they use every day. And so, yeah. And that same thing is true about basically everything and Steve Jobs is one of the ones that said that these devices, the phones and computers and but everything else as well, were literally imagined by people and executed by people that are just like you. And so that's why the idea is, there is of course a bell curve and there are people that are extremely conscientious and that are that can abstractly reason and then that have emotional intelligence to work with teams and stuff like that versus other people that don't but there's all these mixes in between and and so people have the possibility to make things even incrementally better even at that at that person level.