What’s the water we can’t see?
Everything is the way we think of unless it is proven wrong
To think of being we think of everything else as us
That assumption is the water we swim in
And we can’t live without it
Without it is like looking for time before the beginning of time
It simply doesn’t exist
As the domain of its definition
Only spans forward from a certain point
Our condition limits us to this
Looking outside of it is a mental exercise to understand the void
Thinking back at the movie it doesn’t seem like it was about humans vs robots. Metaphors get in the way of perception when one tries to put their perspective of their judgement into words. The more we go on the more I realize AI is the materializations of what a human experiences when they put their I under microscope. Yes, subjectivity is one interpretation but what I am talking about here is something that actually leads to something else not a never ending wormhole into nonexistence. This about the judgement of a teacher looking at the student or a parent looking at their child. The angle is only tangible for those who feel it both ways and see themselves in both positions which it takes time as we start from one dominant side and we grow and break free of the constraints as we go on with it in time.
It is about what an artist gets to see putting their own work under the lens of judgement and thinking
Can you turn a blank canvas into a painting?
Can you write a symphony?
Or in the words of that movie
Can a robot etc etc
But what is a robot but a soul less human and what is the investigator but an observant critic
A process of self examination and differentiation between what ought to be loved and what ought to be destroyed
An image of control which in collision with reality becomes imperfect
The art turns to be how would you spend the feeling of facing what is truly felt which is a sense of disappointment
But it is the kind of disappointment which does not recover by itself
It is a kind of disappointment which can only be loved
Human creation is the externalization of the highest order of understanding available to us. The characteristic artifacts of each era embody its prevailing model of reality: early tools concentrate force, pyramids express stability and hierarchy, machines express causal motion, and computers express symbolic transformation and interconnected systems. A great creation therefore contains a generative center—an organizing principle through which its other parts become intelligible.
Reality appears increasingly constrained as we move downward toward its foundations: an electron cannot choose its charge, and matter can interact only through permitted physical relations. Yet combinations of these rigid elements produce expanding levels of possibility—components, organisms, societies, meanings and technologies. A chip makes this hierarchy tangible: one hand, hardware, establishes the structured field of possibilities, while the other, firmware, moves through that field and turns possibility into behaviour. Human intention descends through abstraction into silicon geometry, while physical events rise back through the same layers to become meaningful behaviour.
Human beings often enact knowledge before they can express it propositionally. Bodily activities such as grasping, penetrating, digesting and joining become templates for understanding ideas, investigating reality, integrating experience and connecting with others. Tools and practices can therefore contain implications their creators do not yet consciously recognize. Creation forms a recursive process: we discover patterns through embodied interaction, materialize them in artifacts, and then use those artifacts to reveal deeper patterns—allowing the universe, through us, to construct representations of its own structure.
The idea begins with the Fool as a creator who enters the world through imagination before fully understanding what he is doing. He projects an inner vision onto reality, acts according to it, and changes the world through those actions. Reality resists his vision, however, so what he creates is never identical to what he imagined. The consequences eventually return to him as something external that he must experience and respond to. Don Quixote follows this pattern: he first creates a life from the stories he has read, but later finds himself living inside the social consequences of the story he created.
Human life may follow the same cycle. Each person enters a world already shaped by bodies, histories, relationships, and earlier choices, while also continually producing a new story through present actions. We are therefore both creations and creators: the current form of something that began before us, and the source of conditions that will exist after us. Whether this continuity literally extends across separate lives cannot be established from experience alone. What can be observed is that every present moment receives an inherited structure, transforms part of it, and passes the result forward.
This movement can be imagined as a toroidal circulation. The inner part of the torus is the narrow region of immediate experience, where inherited structures are felt, questioned, and recombined into new possibilities. Through action, some of these possibilities move outward and become concrete consequences: memories, habits, objects, relationships, institutions, or stories in other minds. Those consequences then curve back and become part of the reality encountered by future experience. The system repeatedly passes from received structure, through conscious transformation, into newly created structure.
Because something is added or altered during every circulation, this is not a static torus that merely repeats itself. It is closer to a spiraling four-dimensional toroid or an advancing toroidal vortex. It rotates through itself while also moving into new territory. As it moves, it draws material from its surroundings into its inner passage, transforms that material, and deposits it on the outside as another accumulated layer. Its interior remains the active frontier of exploration, while its exterior becomes the growing history of everything earlier cycles have produced.
Chess provides a smaller model of this process. A game begins with a fixed board, fixed rules, and a limited number of pieces, yet these finite elements can generate an effectively inexhaustible variety of games. As play continues, pieces disappear and the available possibilities generally narrow. Nevertheless, the resulting position becomes more specific because it embodies the accumulated consequences of every sacrifice, mistake, exchange, and commitment that produced it. The missing pieces remain present indirectly through the structure they have left behind.
The larger process therefore does not expand by endlessly adding physical material. It expands by transforming limited material into new distinctions, histories, and relationships. Every choice removes some possibilities while giving a definite form to one path; that form then becomes part of the environment from which later possibilities emerge. Consciousness can be imagined as the inner edge of this spiraling process—the point where accumulated reality is temporarily opened, recombined, and returned to the world in a changed form. Life continues through this circulation between imagination and resistance, creation and consequence, loss and increasing structure.
Last night I woke up after my nap to my phone with a message from the Reiki practitioner I booked saying: we had an appointment at 8 pm, are you okay? etc.
I realized the long day had me to a long nap and now I over slept. I looked at the maps and I was 10 minutes away from their office. I asked if 8:20 works and I arrived at 8:20.
Something sometimes about planetary hours shifts appointments back and forth slightly. Maybe that was the reason, maybe not.
The session was stronger than what I experienced before. I let my hand move and do what is needed. A quiet silent observation of the unfoldment of the moment right in front of the closed eyes. Something in the closest definition of subtle energies that I feel blind to but at those elevated moments I feel like I naturally understand. The meridians the energy centers the symbols. Something ancient and archaic to the build of human design. Makes me feel since the time of ancient Egypt till now it has not been changed. Something in the scale of millennia.
My hands moved and moved, I felt the tingles, I felt the movements. My practitioner had a lively gut that made me think if I had the choice to do what I wanted, maybe my gut would be as lively as his. It would almost talk its way through the session with him being mostly quiet.
I feel like in those moments we are elevated to a state where we are served by someone who has put themselves somewhere in the orientation of cosmic power. Something like a doctor who serves patients and the hierarchy of doctors in a hospital. But this one looks dark to me.
I was thinking of myself in the past year as someone who has been observant of their energy and thought there is not much to worry about but as the sessions went on I had a few moments of severe coughing and feeling like my body wants to release this thing which I cannot understand. I can only think that there are somethings like knots or convoluted steel wool like things inside our instrument. I learnt a few variations of coughing which I did not notice their differences before. I felt itches down in different zones of my throat which each needed their own type of stimulation to be resolved.
After the session I drank so much water which still continues to today which is the day after. Some kind of heat has found itself in my body that demands water.
If situation theory is pushed toward the microscopic level, mathematics may belong above physical reality rather than inside it. The relevant situation would not simply be “matter exists,” but a deeper mathematical demand for a coherent world in which dimensions, relations, locality, and transformation can coexist. The familiar 3+1-dimensional universe would then be one realization of that situation rather than the ultimate foundation. Its dimensions, fields, and particles would be the particular structure through which the underlying mathematical constraints become physically stable.
The strongest candidate for the deeper situation may be recursive composability. Our universe does not merely preserve structures; it allows stable structures to combine into larger ones: particles form atoms, atoms form molecules, molecules form cells, cells form minds, and minds construct mathematics capable of describing the universe that produced them. Stability alone is insufficient, because a perfectly static world could persist without generating anything new. What distinguishes our world is that each successful realization can become part of a new situation, allowing organization to continue across scales.
Under this view, the Standard Model and 3+1-dimensional spacetime are not fundamental objects but persistent solutions to a mathematical situation that permits locality, information transfer, symmetry, symmetry breaking, and repeated composition. Matter, life, consciousness, and mathematics become successive layers of the same process. The universe is therefore not merely a structure that exists, but a structure capable of producing new coherent structures indefinitely, eventually including observers who can recognize and investigate the situation from which they emerged.
If situations are fundamental, then the objects of physics need not be fundamental at all. The Standard Model may be understood not as a catalogue of the universe's most basic constituents, but as a catalogue of its most persistent solutions. Rather than asking why electrons, photons, or quarks exist, situation theory asks what constraints on possibility make electron-like, photon-like, or quark-like structures necessary or favorable. An electron is no longer viewed as an irreducible object, but as a remarkably stable realization of deeper situations involving persistence, localization, conservation, and interaction. Different universes could conceivably realize these same situations through entirely different structures while preserving their underlying constraints.
This perspective also explains a recurring pattern in the history of physics: what we regard as fundamental continually changes. Atoms gave way to electrons, electrons gave way to quarks, and particles themselves gave way to fields. Yet the constraints remain largely unchanged. Conservation laws, causality, symmetry, stability, and information transfer have persisted throughout these conceptual revolutions. Situation theory therefore shifts our attention away from the solutions and toward the problems being solved. The question ceases to be "What is matter made of?" and instead becomes "What must necessarily be true for a coherent and persistent universe to exist?" The Standard Model is then interpreted as our universe's particular answer rather than the question itself.
Under this interpretation, a situation is not merely a collection of constraints but an incompleteness within possibility space that admits consistent realizations. Teaching is incomplete without learning, equilibrium is incomplete without the possibility of imbalance, and conservation is incomplete without persistence through transformation. Likewise, the physical universe may be understood as the collection of situations that demand satisfaction, with particles emerging as stable resonances between those demands and the space of possibilities available to realize them. Reality is therefore not a collection of fundamental things but an evolving landscape of persistent satisfactions. Electrons, photons, and quarks are not the foundations of existence; they are the names we assign to the remarkably successful ways in which our universe has learned to satisfy its own situations.
