This paper proposes a formal, information-theoretic model of consciousness in which awareness is defined as the alignment between an observer’s beliefs and the objective description of an object. Consciousness is quantified as the ratio between the complexity of true beliefs and the complexity of the full inherent description of the object. The model introduces three distinct epistemic states: Consciousness (true beliefs), Schizo-Consciousness (false beliefs), and Unconsciousness (absence of belief). Object descriptions are expressed as structured sets of object–quality (O–Q) statements, and belief dynamics are governed by internal belief-updating functions (brain codes) and attentional codes that determine which beliefs are foregrounded at any given time. Crucially, the model treats internal states—such as emotions, memories, and thoughts—as objects with describable properties, allowing it to account for self-awareness, misbelief about oneself, and psychological distortion. This framework enables a unified treatment of external and internal contents of consciousness, supports the simulation of evolving belief structures, and provides a tool for comparative cognition, mental health modeling,and epistemic alignment in artificial agents.
This is a theoretical framework I've been developing to define consciousness using principles from information theory and algorithmic complexity. The idea is to measure conscious states in terms of their information-processing structure — using bits rather than normalized entropy — and to distinguish between conscious, schizo-conscious, and unconscious states as formally different information objects.
I’m especially interested in:
Whether this aligns with or diverges from models like Integrated Information Theory or predictive coding.
How this approach could interface with machine consciousness or computational neuroscience.
Feedback — especially criticism or alternative formulations — is very welcome. I’m treating this as a living model open to revision.
Arranging cards referring to each other does not become complex enough for “self awareness.”
Consciousness is the potential of existential being inflecting upon “itself.” Our biotechnology leverages this feedback loop to cling to our “continuity of existential being” which would be our identity and sense of self survival.
The substance of consciousness lies dormant in all things, and life is a technology which animates and extends this property.
Modern information and complexity theory have some bottlenecks. Entropy for instance is the distribution of potential over negative potential. Through constructive and destructive interference state boundaries are created. The number of states is created by (“emerges from”) potential (in whatever form) interfering with itself. Thus entropy is potential distribution not number of states available. States available can change through perturbation and decay. The universe is not “information” the universe is potential resolving into information (state) through entropy in the moment of now.
[for instance]
The universe has a description of it's own, atleast that can be agreed upon(self evident truth) and that description can also be called the information about the universe
, awareness of that is Consciousness,this seems agreeable (any counter thoughts?) and the model in the paper is just descriptive in nature
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is a sad devolution and this ghost account negs me for my considerations.
Truth is a purturbation of existential reality.
Thoughts feelings and beliefs are shit.
It may be good shit. It may be sublime shit. If it does not exist existentially it has no business being confused with Truth, it is exotic shit.
I love my share of exotic shit.
You don’t have to agree with me about consciousness
What I say about Truth is self axiomatic and only refuted my a moron.
A moron. An idiot. Someone stupid.
These are objectively and imperically defined as one who confuses bullshit (shit) for Truth.
Truth is a purturbation of existential reality. A “truth” in the human mind is a “meta” (symbolic), justifiable only by its unembellished consistency (not contradictory) to Truth.
And Truth is a purturbation of existential reality. A purturbation of existential being.
I have to say “Truth and Law is worth murdering another Man over. Bullshit, never.”
You're making an elegant but brutal distinction between existence and symbol, Truth and justification. I respect the urge to treat reality as sacred and thought as ornamental. But even your statement — 'Truth is a perturbation of existential reality' — is itself a symbolic construct. So the paradox remains: to speak of Truth, one must enter the realm of exotic shit. Where do you draw the line between a symbol that reflects a perturbation, and one that merely pretends to? Or is the line unknowable?"
The argument would benefit from clarifying what “perturbation of existential reality” really entails. Is it sensory? Is it phenomenological? Is it measurable? That would move this from poetic metaphysics to rigorous ontology.
Only in the most obvious context that we are using a symbolic language communications strategy.
Exotic shit is where mind grows. Objective existential reality, aka “true Truth” is as hard core straight edge as it comes.
This word “integrity” is a gauge of consistency with true Truths. It means a representation which does not embellish or contradict any true Truth. This can be creatively or crudely articulated (expressed) yet the “do or die” imperative remains, this must accurately represent an occurrence in existential reality.
OR IT IS A LIE!
Those other things which confuse you, such as how dreams logic or poetry can be not Truths thus must be threatened as LIES are your apprehension.
We are complex creatures who approximate for our successes. Beat the averages and you’re doing better than most others. By definition. Our “truths” only need to be good enough to get us by, even if they are more convenient than correct. Most of all when they are pleasant. This is a part of humanity.
When it comes time for someone to die for lying, remember: True Truth is a “perturbation” of existential reality (that’s what the stack of bibles is for right? In case only God knows.) Why someone did it or what they felt is not the true part of Truth however it may be a human truth to have such experiences.
And perturbation is exactly what the English language word means.
Any disturbance whatsoever is a manifest Truth of existential reality. Anything measurable whether or not anyone has the ability to measure or if it got measured at all. A disturbance of existential reality is what physicists are all very excited about.
The Truth is it having occurred, and the “truth” is our best effort to approximate through discovery. If your “truth” is too wildly off you are incorrect, inexperienced, or a fraud. Keep practicing.
All scientists do is worry about this very same question about perturbing existence. What is there to know, how do I find out? How do I interact with the phenomena? Does it make predictions? All questions about true Truth of objective existential reality, only knowable through perturbation. That is, some kind of reaction. Any kind, even not what was expected or clearly understood.
And we all argue about every detail and context and interpretation and extrapolation and application and moral consequences and so on. This is the symbolic correlation bit. It also happens and is important to humans, however not to Truth! Truth don’t care. If Truth must suit the tastes, it is a sign of corruption.
True Truth isn’t an ultimate answer, it is a happenstance in a long line of whatever comes of whatever goes. The forensic science of piecing that together only cares about existential being however interpretive the apparatus of our minds must be.
Do not feel threatened that we all dwell in this in between place of quasi truths. Only be concerned with how you affect the world, for that is the truth of your Truth. Philosophically or otherwise. Every idea worth having develops in its own time.
18 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 54.8 ms ] threadI’m especially interested in:
Whether this aligns with or diverges from models like Integrated Information Theory or predictive coding.
How this approach could interface with machine consciousness or computational neuroscience.
Feedback — especially criticism or alternative formulations — is very welcome. I’m treating this as a living model open to revision.
Arranging cards referring to each other does not become complex enough for “self awareness.”
Consciousness is the potential of existential being inflecting upon “itself.” Our biotechnology leverages this feedback loop to cling to our “continuity of existential being” which would be our identity and sense of self survival.
The substance of consciousness lies dormant in all things, and life is a technology which animates and extends this property.
Modern information and complexity theory have some bottlenecks. Entropy for instance is the distribution of potential over negative potential. Through constructive and destructive interference state boundaries are created. The number of states is created by (“emerges from”) potential (in whatever form) interfering with itself. Thus entropy is potential distribution not number of states available. States available can change through perturbation and decay. The universe is not “information” the universe is potential resolving into information (state) through entropy in the moment of now. [for instance]
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Truth is a purturbation of existential reality.
Thoughts feelings and beliefs are shit.
It may be good shit. It may be sublime shit. If it does not exist existentially it has no business being confused with Truth, it is exotic shit.
I love my share of exotic shit.
You don’t have to agree with me about consciousness What I say about Truth is self axiomatic and only refuted my a moron.
A moron. An idiot. Someone stupid.
These are objectively and imperically defined as one who confuses bullshit (shit) for Truth.
Truth is a purturbation of existential reality. A “truth” in the human mind is a “meta” (symbolic), justifiable only by its unembellished consistency (not contradictory) to Truth.
And Truth is a purturbation of existential reality. A purturbation of existential being.
I have to say “Truth and Law is worth murdering another Man over. Bullshit, never.”
True Truth is brutalist.
> is itself a symbolic construct
Only in the most obvious context that we are using a symbolic language communications strategy.
Exotic shit is where mind grows. Objective existential reality, aka “true Truth” is as hard core straight edge as it comes.
This word “integrity” is a gauge of consistency with true Truths. It means a representation which does not embellish or contradict any true Truth. This can be creatively or crudely articulated (expressed) yet the “do or die” imperative remains, this must accurately represent an occurrence in existential reality.
OR IT IS A LIE!
Those other things which confuse you, such as how dreams logic or poetry can be not Truths thus must be threatened as LIES are your apprehension.
We are complex creatures who approximate for our successes. Beat the averages and you’re doing better than most others. By definition. Our “truths” only need to be good enough to get us by, even if they are more convenient than correct. Most of all when they are pleasant. This is a part of humanity.
When it comes time for someone to die for lying, remember: True Truth is a “perturbation” of existential reality (that’s what the stack of bibles is for right? In case only God knows.) Why someone did it or what they felt is not the true part of Truth however it may be a human truth to have such experiences.
And perturbation is exactly what the English language word means.
Any disturbance whatsoever is a manifest Truth of existential reality. Anything measurable whether or not anyone has the ability to measure or if it got measured at all. A disturbance of existential reality is what physicists are all very excited about.
The Truth is it having occurred, and the “truth” is our best effort to approximate through discovery. If your “truth” is too wildly off you are incorrect, inexperienced, or a fraud. Keep practicing.
All scientists do is worry about this very same question about perturbing existence. What is there to know, how do I find out? How do I interact with the phenomena? Does it make predictions? All questions about true Truth of objective existential reality, only knowable through perturbation. That is, some kind of reaction. Any kind, even not what was expected or clearly understood.
And we all argue about every detail and context and interpretation and extrapolation and application and moral consequences and so on. This is the symbolic correlation bit. It also happens and is important to humans, however not to Truth! Truth don’t care. If Truth must suit the tastes, it is a sign of corruption.
True Truth isn’t an ultimate answer, it is a happenstance in a long line of whatever comes of whatever goes. The forensic science of piecing that together only cares about existential being however interpretive the apparatus of our minds must be.
Do not feel threatened that we all dwell in this in between place of quasi truths. Only be concerned with how you affect the world, for that is the truth of your Truth. Philosophically or otherwise. Every idea worth having develops in its own time.
Truth is the hardest core. No bullshit.