THE PARADOX ENGINE AND CONTINUITY

Referring to previous text about the Paradox engine.

 The problem with continuity is about: How can it be experienced from the inside perspective of the universe that the accumulation of realities follows each other in a steady stream where the most similar moments are adjacent to each other. Why, then, does it come that time seems to be continuous? Each reality seems to be the result of the previous ones.

One solution to the problem may be that continuity is an illusion. It is based on the idea that the different realities do not really follow each other linearly. Time and continuity come from an illusory connection between similarity and proximity. That is, the more similar these realities are, the more they appear to be close to each other.

All moments arise outside of time in a single cascade of mutually independent realities.

Something (What is this something?) is looking at these. From within these, they are interpreted in a series. They are thus perceived exclusively from each other. This exclusivity organizes them from instead of flashing up in a single moment to existing in a queue. This sequence of moments that have arisen is interpreted as time.

 All moments are here one at a time and never come back because, statistically, a different reality is more likely to be considered, alternatively that they are consumed, which leads to an interesting question: Assuming that there is an infinite number of objects and that the variety of objects is infinite. All items are shown to one viewer one at a time. Will the exact same variant ever appear more than once? Response options include:

1. Yes, because they get endless chances to appear.

2. No, because the options are endless.

3. In the case of realities that have arisen, it does not matter. This is due to the connection between similarity and proximity, which results in the fact that if several completely similar moments occur, they are placed directly next to each other in the queue. It doesn't matter how many they are. The point is that they are interpreted as a single moment. They seem to the viewer to collapse into one and the same reality. According to the principle of similarity and proximity, the distance seems to increase with decreasing similarity and decreasing with increasing similarity. Then the proximity becomes complete, or, in other words, the distance becomes zero. In the chronological perspective, these moments occur simultaneously. The consequence is that an arbitrary number of perfectly equal moments is reduced to a single moment.

 This reduction can also be expressed in such a way that between perfectly equal moments there is no change. For time to be interpreted, a change is required. The bigger the change, the more time. Since there is no change, there is no time. Hence this simultaneous placement in the queue of identical realities into one.

Back to the question of what is it that looks at reality?

One explanation could be that observers and observed reality are different sides of the same phenomenon. A reality only arises when it is observed, and that is an observer, only when there is something to look at (observe). For objects and events that are not directly considered, they are considered indirectly because they are part of the same structure. (See text on structures and reality).

Does this mean that for every reality generated by the Paradox engine, an observer is also generated? If in that case, an unlimited number of realities is generated, then. It also generates an unlimited amount of viewers. Is the number of viewers limited to one reality? In that case, these are also within a parallel queue one at a time, one observer for each moment. It also implies the illusion of a continuous observer who is a series of independent observers. Our common perception is that we are a collection of continuous and parallel observers. A possible explanation for this assumed illusion of parallel observers or multisubjective observers is that it is instead a series of solitary observers. What gives the illusion of parallel viewers may then be the division of attention focus into different channels. In that perspective, there are no individuals, but those who are perceived as distinct individuals in the trembling work are super-individual. What appear to be distinct individuals are different inputs and exits to and from the same source. It can perhaps be compared to a mycelium whose fruiting bodies are the fungi we see in the forest, which is one and the same organism.