Section 73 (first updated 4.29.2021)

“It’s better to do a lot of little than a little of a lot.”

Quantum Quantification of Thought

If we take seriously our physical description of rational conception, we are ultimately trying to quantify thoughts. Quantum science, for our ontology, is the quantification of thought itself. Now, as to whether thought belongs to an observer or is a phenomenon in itself is not really a distinction that we need to make in order to quantify thoughts, for thoughts are substances, and they have physical quantification in quantum science.[^1] When you think of an idea, it appears for a moment and passes into another idea, and so on and so forth, and you, through your whole life, continuously think of these different ideas, occurring one after another and passing. But what are these ideas for? Most thoughts come involuntarily, without your consideration. Sometimes you compel an idea into being, and we call that recollection or, in modern terms, memory. Yet even memory is murky, per se, and at best it is a reconstruction of a past event that is no longer present.[^2]

Yet, at a quantum state, where every action or micro-event is recorded into the fabric of spacetime, either infinitesimally within the DNA structure of an organism or as part of an environment on the macroscopic scale, spacetime contains all possible events. It is designed this way.[^3] Therefore, when you think of a thought, it passes for the observer like a car passing by, and we notice that as motion: that all things are moving away or towards, from the point of view of the observer. Thoughts also appear to operate this way, and therefore the fundamental motion of objects is similar to that of the fundamental motions of thoughts.[^4] Yet, like Zeno’s paradox shows, motion ultimately may be an illusion, and the passing of thought and coming of thought may itself be an abstraction for the observer.[^5]

For all possible thoughts that can be conjured up correspond to events, and these events are permanent, or at least their forms are permanent, in the universe. Like Plato’s Forms, we are only conceiving the forms in a finite manner, but they belong as ideals, as absolute, unchanging substances.[^6] Yet let us strip away this holy talk of them, as if they are Gods. Whether they are great in being absolute is a different topic. Here, we are just talking of them as permanent substances in the universe. The observer accesses them, and they enter into the mind and leave out, and sometimes they are actualized as a present moment for the observer.

Footnotes

[^1]: This is a philosophical claim rather than an established result of quantum mechanics. In contemporary physics, quantum theory provides mathematical descriptions of physical states and observables, but it does not currently establish that thoughts themselves are quantum substances. The claim can therefore be understood as part of the proposed ontology rather than as a standard interpretation of quantum theory.

[^2]: Contemporary research in cognitive science generally treats memory as reconstructive rather than as a perfect recording of the past. Remembering can involve reconstruction, inference, and modification rather than simply retrieving an unchanged representation of a previous event.

[^3]: The statement that every action or micro-event is literally recorded in spacetime, and that spacetime contains all possible events, goes beyond established physics. Relativity describes events as belonging to spacetime, while quantum theory describes possible outcomes and quantum states; neither theory by itself establishes that every possible event exists as a permanent record in spacetime. The idea therefore functions here as a metaphysical extension of the physical description.

[^4]: The analogy between the movement of physical objects and the movement of thoughts is especially important to the argument. In both cases, an observer experiences a sequence: one physical configuration followed by another, or one thought followed by another. The analogy does not establish that physical motion and thought are literally the same phenomenon, but it proposes that they may share a deeper structural description.

[^5]: Zeno’s paradoxes raise philosophical problems concerning motion, change, space, and divisibility. They do not straightforwardly demonstrate that motion is an illusion. Modern mathematics provides coherent accounts of motion using limits and continuous functions, although the philosophical questions raised by Zeno remain significant.

[^6]: Plato’s Forms are abstract, eternal realities that particular things imperfectly instantiate or participate in. The interpretation presented here differs from traditional Platonism by treating Forms more explicitly as permanent substances or structures associated with possible thoughts and events. The connection is therefore analogical rather than a claim that this is Plato’s exact position.

Observable Universe

The observable universe is the spherical region of space centered on Earth that contains all matter and energy whose light has had time to reach us since the beginning of cosmic expansion. The notion of the visible universe is based on the light that reaches us from the initial Big Bang. However, in space, the propagation of light is equally the same with the existence of phenomena in the universe, not only the existence for the observer but for the extender as existence. Light is the basic substance of being, and how light is manipulated in space equals the time dilation and differences of time periods in space.[^1]

The question becomes: if there are light sources whose light has not yet reached us, do they exist? The question of objectivity is a difficult one due to the subjective problem of the observer. If one is not looking at a phenomenon, it might as well not exist for him, yet it does exist objectively. Yet what it means for something to exist objectively is put into question. Aristotle resolved this by saying that it exists potentially: that if someone would observe it, it would appear to exist for him.[^2] Other objectivist philosophers, like some of the failed rationalists, tried to say that all things are objects because they exist as observed by an untamed mind, a mind of God that observes all things all at once; therefore, they still exist even if a finite mind is not looking at them.[^3]

Yet when we extend this notion into the propagation of light and the speed at which it takes to arrive at a certain vantage point of the observer, then we run into some difficulties. First, light is the fastest physical entity in the universe. Yet space, dark matter, or whatever you call it, after the Big Bang still was faster, such that light now has to traverse these vast areas to arrive somewhere.[^4] Therefore, there are exotic substances whose speed is instantaneous rather than durational. If they are instantaneous, then objectively there are worlds beyond our known observable universe, which we know exists indirectly through unobserved substances like dark energy, whose existence is inferred indirectly by the necessary existence of directly observable things.[^5]

Yet there are black holes, or areas in the universe, where light cannot be reflected off; light only enters but does not escape. Therefore, these points in space can be intermediary hurdles that disallow light from reaching observers.[^6]

Footnotes

[^1]: In relativity, light propagates at the invariant speed $c$ locally, while time dilation arises from differences in relative motion and gravitational potential. Light is not ordinarily described by physics as the “basic substance of being,” although the electromagnetic field is fundamental to nature.

[^2]: Aristotle distinguishes between actuality and potentiality in his metaphysics. The formulation here should not be taken as a direct quotation from Aristotle; rather, it expresses an interpretation of his distinction between what exists actually and what exists potentially.

[^3]: This appears to refer broadly to forms of rationalism and theological idealism in which an omniscient divine mind guarantees the continued existence or intelligibility of objects even when no finite observer perceives them. George Berkeley is particularly relevant to this issue, although he is more accurately described as an idealist than simply as an “objectivist.”

[^4]: In modern cosmology, this requires an important distinction. The expansion of space itself can increase the distance between sufficiently distant regions faster than light could traverse that distance, without those regions locally moving through space faster than light. This does not mean that matter or a physical substance locally travels faster than light.

[^5]: Dark energy is not itself directly observed as a substance in the ordinary sense. Its existence is inferred from cosmological observations, particularly the observed accelerated expansion of the universe. Likewise, the existence of regions beyond the observable universe is inferred within cosmological models, although light from those regions has not reached us and therefore cannot be directly observed.

[^6]: A black hole is not simply a region where light cannot be reflected. More precisely, within the event horizon, no future-directed path through spacetime leads back to an external observer. Light can cross the event horizon inward, but light emitted from within the event horizon cannot escape to the outside universe.

Decoherence

Decoherence in quantum physics, although it describes a physical and fundamental phenomenon, may also be understood as a description of mental or rational phenomena within our ontology. These are, in this sense, the same substances, only conceived differently: on the one hand, as physical processes, and on the other, as rational or mental processes.[^1] To expand this idea, we may ask whether quantum decoherence can help explain a fundamental rationality of physics, in which the formation of distinct physical objects corresponds, in some way, to the formation of distinct conceptions within the mind.

Quantum decoherence describes the process by which quantum systems lose the ability to exhibit observable interference between different states, owing to their interactions with their surrounding environments.[^2] A quantum system does not exist in isolation from the rest of the world; rather, it interacts with other systems, and these interactions cause information about its possible states to become distributed throughout the environment. As a result, certain states become stable and distinguishable from others, and the system begins to behave, for practical purposes, as though it were a classical object.[^3] In this sense, decoherence may be understood as a process through which the physical world acquires the appearance of distinctness, stability, and determinate form.

If we extend this idea into our ontology, we may ask whether the physical process of decoherence has a parallel in the rational activity of the mind. The mind distinguishes things from one another, separates what is continuous into discrete conceptions, and understands the world through identifiable forms. What decoherence describes physically, the mind may be said to perform conceptually: the formation of distinguishable states out of a more complex and interconnected reality. This does not mean that decoherence is literally a mental process, or that quantum physics has demonstrated that the mind creates physical objects. Rather, the analogy suggests that physical differentiation and rational differentiation may be understood as two different descriptions of a more fundamental principle of intelligibility.[^4]

“Little” Conceptions

Consider, for example, the shapes and forms of planets, and what we see in space as planets and objects, or celestial objects, as we call them. These things are understood as objects partly because that is what we are ordinarily accustomed to when we see the world directly in front of us. We encounter distinct things in our immediate surroundings, identify their boundaries, and recognize their shapes. From these direct conceptions, we extrapolate toward more universal and hierarchical conceptions of things, extending our ordinary understanding of objects into the vastness of space.

Yet this may be only a consequence of the limitations of our knowledge, or of the way in which our knowledge is organized around objects. Because we ordinarily understand the world through distinct objects, we tend to conceive of things in space as objects as well. The limits of how we conceive the world as a collection of objects correspond, in this sense, to the limits of how the world appears to us when it is understood primarily through objects.[^5]

However, this is also a question of the mind, or rather, of how our mind translates light information from space into distinct and dissected forms of energy. We observe luminous objects, gaseous bodies, and other celestial phenomena, and we organize the information received into recognizable shapes and forms. But the boundaries of these objects, and the shapes and forms through which we perceive them, do not necessarily represent the ultimate or fully true way in which the things in question exist. What we perceive as a boundary may be a physical feature of the phenomenon, a consequence of the way light interacts with matter, or a limit imposed by the resolution and interpretation of our observations.[^6]

For example, when we look at objects in daily life, we see all kinds of shapes. These are less complex objects in the sense that we have more direct knowledge of them: we can make contact with them, examine them from different angles, and perceive them in greater detail. Through this more immediate acquaintance, greater nuance in their forms is revealed, and the diversity of their shapes becomes apparent.

Yet, when we look into space, we often notice that one shape seems to predominate: the sphere. Everything appears spherical, or approximately so, and only when we zoom in further do we discover the details and differentiations disclosed within those forms. Planets, stars, and many other large celestial bodies appear spherical, whereas the structures and irregularities within them become apparent only through closer observation or more detailed measurements.[^7]

Therefore, we may propose that objects in space appear spherical because this is how our minds translate complexity, or complex infinitesimal forms, into basic and rudimentary shapes that we can apprehend. Everything is spatially reducible, in our conception, to spherical form. This is a mental phenomenon in the sense that our perception and understanding simplify complex phenomena into forms that can be recognized and comprehended. The sphere becomes a basic conception through which we understand a wide variety of celestial phenomena, even when their underlying structures are far more complex than the forms we initially perceive.[^8]

In other words, this may be understood as the resolution that the mind arrives at when confronted with complex and seemingly invariant phenomena: it reduces them to rudimentary shapes that it can apprehend. Whether these shapes are truly the ultimate forms of the things themselves is another question. We must distinguish between the form through which something is understood and the full reality of the thing as it exists independently of our conception of it.

Yet, because the world is also rational in its own structure, it may itself exhibit a tendency toward complexity expressed through basic forms, such as spheres and circles. The spherical form is not merely a product of the mind’s preference for simple conceptions. It also arises through physical processes: gravity tends to draw sufficiently large bodies toward hydrostatic equilibrium, producing approximately spherical shapes.[^9] Thus, the correspondence between the mind’s basic conceptions and the world’s physical forms may reflect both the organization of our understanding and the actual regularities of nature.

The mind, therefore, does not necessarily impose all order upon an otherwise unordered world. Rather, it may recognize and organize forms of order that are already present in the world, while simultaneously simplifying them according to the limits of its own capacity for understanding. The rationality of nature and the rationality of the mind may thus be considered in relation to one another, without assuming that they are identical in every respect.

We may consequently look at objects in space as conceptions of the mind, or as rational conceptions themselves. We call them, analogously, “little” conceptions, to denote the finite conception of infinity into discrete points of energy.[^10] The term “little” does not necessarily refer to the physical size of an object, but rather to the finitude of a conception: the way in which an extensive, complex, or potentially inexhaustible reality is brought within the limits of a distinct and intelligible form.

A planet, for example, may be understood as a “little” conception insofar as it is conceived as one distinct object within the vastness of space. Its identity is established through a boundary, a shape, and a set of recognizable properties. Yet the planet itself consists of innumerable interacting physical processes, and its apparent unity does not exhaust the complexity of its underlying reality. The conception of the planet as one object is therefore finite, even though the reality to which that conception refers may be understood through an indefinitely expanding series of further relations, structures, and processes.

In this way, the “little” conception may be understood as the finite expression of a greater complexity: the reduction of an inexhaustible multiplicity into a discrete and intelligible form. Quantum decoherence provides a possible physical analogy for this process, insofar as interactions between a quantum system and its environment help establish stable, distinguishable states that can function as classical objects. The mind, similarly, apprehends the world by distinguishing things, recognizing their forms, and organizing them into conceptions.

The fundamental question, then, is whether this correspondence between physical differentiation and rational conception is merely an analogy, or whether it reveals something deeper about the relationship between the rational structure of the world and the rational structure of the mind. If the world is intelligible because it possesses an order that the mind can recognize, then our conceptions are not simply arbitrary constructions imposed upon reality. They are finite expressions of a reality that is itself structured, even if our conceptions never fully exhaust it.

Thus, quantum decoherence may be considered not only as a physical explanation of the emergence of classical behaviour, but also as a point of departure for thinking about the fundamental rationality of physics. The world appears to us through distinct objects, shapes, and forms, while the processes underlying those appearances remain more complex than the conceptions through which we understand them. The “little” conception names this relationship between the finitude of our understanding and the potentially inexhaustible complexity of reality: the manner in which infinity, or an indefinitely complex totality, becomes intelligible to us through discrete forms.

Footnotes

[^1]: This is a metaphysical or ontological proposal, resembling forms of neutral monism or dual-aspect monism, in which the mental and the physical are understood as different aspects or descriptions of a more fundamental reality. Quantum physics does not, by itself, establish that mental and physical phenomena are the same substance.

[^2]: Decoherence occurs when a quantum system becomes entangled with environmental degrees of freedom, suppressing locally observable interference between components of its quantum state.

[^3]: Decoherence helps explain the emergence of classical-looking behaviour, but it does not, by itself, solve every aspect of the quantum measurement problem or establish that only one outcome has physically occurred.

[^4]: The correspondence between decoherence and rational differentiation is philosophical rather than an established result of quantum theory. It is best understood as a proposed structural analogy.

[^5]: This argument distinguishes the ontology of things from the epistemology through which things are known: what exists is not necessarily identical to what can be distinctly represented in thought.

[^6]: Astronomical observations are mediated by instruments, electromagnetic radiation, data processing, and physical models. Apparent boundaries can therefore differ from material boundaries, depending on the phenomenon being observed.

[^7]: Large planets and stars are often approximately spherical because gravity tends to draw their material toward the body’s centre of mass. Rotation, internal structure, collisions, and other physical processes can produce deviations from a perfect sphere.

[^8]: The claim that spherical forms dominate our perception of celestial objects can be interpreted as a claim about conceptual simplification. It should not be taken to mean that all celestial objects are spherical or that their complexity is merely an effect of perception.

[^9]: Hydrostatic equilibrium is the balance between inward gravitational forces and outward pressure gradients. For sufficiently massive bodies, this tends to produce a nearly spherical form, although the result is affected by rotation and other forces.

[^10]: The phrase “little conceptions” is used here as a proposed philosophical term for finite, discrete representations of a more complex reality. The expression “points of energy” is metaphorical unless given a precise physical definition; in physics, energy is a property of a system rather than a substance that necessarily exists as a collection of discrete points.

“Double-slit” Experiment

The famous double-slit experiment baffles the mind of anyone who understands it, and initially, it seems very difficult and complex to apprehend. Yet the reason why it is so compelling is not because the experiment itself is complex. In fact, the experiment is quite easy; it is the results, or the implications in nature that it reveals, that are mind-baffling.[^1]

The experiment itself is actually very easy. When you shoot a beam of light onto a wall, you see the reflection on the wall as a discrete measure. In other words, if I place a laser on the wall, you see the dot. The wavelength is limited by the interaction of the wall, and it appears as a dot on the wall.[^2] However, when the beam of light is placed through a measuring apparatus, say, slits, the light begins to behave in a manner counterintuitive to how objects behave during ordinary perception, bringing the notion of matter and physicality into question.

The light starts to reflect or mimic the form of the measuring apparatus (slits) and reflects that into its own form. The beam of light, after going through the slits, transforms into a pattern characteristic of wave behaviour.[^3] The implication of this is that the observer, or, in this case, the measuring apparatus, influences the nature and form of the phenomenon. Also, since the observer, in this case, is inseparable from affecting the phenomenon, the phenomenon itself therefore has an indivisible element of rationality: it operates in a rational way; it determines, mimics, or reflects its interactions into its own form.[^4]

Light, therefore, is not just this inanimate object, lifeless, but rather has life, determination, and form in its very behaviour.[^5]

Footnotes

[^1]: The double-slit experiment is conceptually simple but has profound implications because it reveals interference effects that cannot be explained by treating light as a collection of ordinary classical particles following definite trajectories.

[^2]: A laser spot appears localized because light interacts with the wall and deposits energy in a limited region. Its observed size is also affected by the beam’s wavelength, the optical system, and the properties of the surface. The spot does not mean that light has no wave-like properties.

[^3]: When light passes through two slits, the resulting distribution can form an interference pattern. Even when photons are sent individually, their accumulated detections can build up that pattern. The apparatus determines the physical conditions under which the light propagates and is detected; it does not necessarily imprint its own shape onto the light itself.

[^4]: In quantum physics, a measurement involves a physical interaction between a system and a measuring apparatus. The result depends on the experimental arrangement, but this does not establish that a conscious observer creates the phenomenon or that the phenomenon possesses rationality in a mental sense. The notion of rationality here is a philosophical interpretation of nature’s lawful, structured response to physical interactions.

[^5]: The language of life and determination is metaphorical or metaphysical rather than a claim that light is biologically alive. Light exhibits structured behaviour governed by physical laws. Whether this lawful responsiveness should be understood as a form of intrinsic rationality is a philosophical question that goes beyond the experimental result itself.

Conception

The word conception is especially important and interesting for our ontological exploration of truth because it both means the origination or beginning of anything, be it physical or mental, and also describes a mental phenomenon of apprehending the world. The two meanings are more connected than it initially seems. Conception changes physicality, is our assumption, because the mental capacity to apprehend the world, as it initially seems, is passive and dependent on an already preconstructed structure. Nevertheless, without it, there is no order or structure at all. There has to be a deeper missing link between the two; that is their synthesis, which is just how one actually explains the other.¹

To conceive, or bring into birth or existence, is not just physical states, but also rational or purely abstract states, as we say. This is the first true physical constitution of what we take to be objects of perception, material or so-called material. This comes after and is based upon a blueprint or an abstract plane of itself, in ancient Greece by Aristotle called its potential.² The universe is notably in a real state, but it is also in a potential one. In fact, it is not even really in an actual state as well, but that acts as its ideal, its aim, towards which it is tending.³

Reality is constructed of two conceptions: first, that there is always a solid presence, always existing objectively, independently of any conception; but this is only an abstraction of the conception itself, always in flux, yet while maintaining an equilibrium of itself.⁴

The conception is in an apparently static area of reality; however, this reality is neither pure potential nor is it yet actual. We can say its past is its potential, the seed for the oak tree, and its future is the actuality, the aim it is tending towards actualizing. Reality is this medium between these states of being.¹

This intermediate state is not simply a transition from one condition to another, but rather the very condition through which being comes to be what it is.² The conception exists within this apparent stillness, where potential and actuality are not entirely separated, but are instead held together in a continuous process of becoming. What appears to be static is, therefore, not necessarily devoid of movement; rather, it may be understood as a temporary equilibrium within an ongoing process of change.³

The seed, for instance, carries within its present state the potential for the oak tree, while the oak tree represents the actuality towards which this potential tends. Yet the seed is not merely its past, nor is the oak tree merely its future. Both exist within the same process of becoming, in which the present constitutes the relation between what has been and what is yet to be.⁴ Reality, then, is not simply one state of being or the other, but the dynamic relation between potentiality and actuality through which existence unfolds.

The conception is constantly changing in what appears to be a static and still world. Yet this world, at a microlevel, at its core, is in flux and much more unpredictable than what meets perception. At the core of reality, matter behaves more like how the mind behaves in the observer. They become synonymous in a quantum-entangled state, which is just to say that a fundamental state exhibits two variations of itself across distinct scales of magnitude.¹ ²

Footnotes

1. Conception and synthesis: This passage suggests that conception is not merely a passive act of perceiving an alreadyordered world, but also plays a role in establishing the order through which the world becomes intelligible. The synthesisbetween mental apprehension and the origination of existence is the central ontological problem being proposed.

2. Aristotle’s potentiality: Aristotle distinguishes potentiality (dynamis) from actuality (energeia or entelecheia).Potentiality refers to what something can become or do, while actuality refers to the realization of that potential. The ideaof an abstract blueprint is a useful interpretive analogy, although it is not an exact equivalent of Aristotle’s account.

3. Actuality and the ideal: The suggestion that reality tends towards an ideal resembles teleological thinking, particularlyAristotle’s concept of final cause, or that for the sake of which something exists or develops. However, Aristotle does notsimply treat the universe as unreal or as perpetually moving towards a single ideal state.

4. Objectivity and flux: This final claim raises a tension between the idea of an independently existing, stable reality andthe idea that reality is always in flux. The notion of equilibrium may serve as the missing link: reality can undergo changewhile maintaining a degree of continuity or order. The question is whether this equilibrium exists independently of conception or is itself constituted through conception.

Footnotes

1. The intermediate state of being: This conception of reality as existing between potentiality and actuality suggests thatbeing cannot be fully understood through either state in isolation. Reality is instead considered through the relationbetween what something has the potential to become and what it has already actualized.

2. Becoming as a condition of being: This idea has affinities with Aristotle’s distinction between potentiality (dynamis)and actuality (energeia). However, Aristotle does not simply define reality as a neutral middle state between the two.Actuality, for him, has a fundamental explanatory priority over potentiality.

3. The appearance of stillness: What appears static may conceal an ongoing process of transformation. This raises animportant ontological question: is stability a fundamental property of reality, or is it an appearance produced by thetemporary equilibrium of processes that are continually changing?

4. The seed and the oak tree: The example illustrates the relationship between potentiality and actuality. The seedpossesses the potential to develop into an oak tree under appropriate conditions, but this development is not inevitable inevery circumstance. The present therefore connects past conditions with possible futures without making the future a certainty.

Footnotes

1. The apparent stillness of reality: The distinction between the static world ofperception and theunderlying flux of reality raises an important ontological question:whether stability is an inherent property ofexistence or an appearance that emergesfrom processes of constant change. At the microscopic level,quantum systems exhibitbehaviours that cannot always be described through the classical assumptionsofdefinite properties and predictable trajectories. However, this does not mean that all matter is inherently unpredictable in every respect.

2. Mind, matter, and quantum entanglement: The suggestion that matter behaves like the mind, and that they become synonymous in a quantum-entangled state, proposes a fundamental relationship between physical reality and mental experience. Quantum entanglement describes correlations between quantum systems that cannot be explained by treating their states as entirely independent. It does not, by itself, establish that matter and mind are identical or that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. The idea that a fundamental state exhibits two variations of itself across distinct scales of magnitude is therefore best understood here as an ontological hypothesis: the possibility that mind and matter are different expressions of a more fundamental reality.

Multiverse Theory

The multiverse theory, or the idea that there are infinite versions of the universe, each parallel to one another, meaning they do not intersect each other in space but are all regarded as part of the same instance in time, raises an important ontological question.¹ How can we conceive of multiple universes as existing together without necessarily being objects that can be disclosed within a single universe?

The multiverse theory only makes sense as a conception, not as a collection of objects. For there are objects disclosed within universes, but the universe, as the disclosure of all these objects, is more of a dimension than an object itself.² It is a dimension within which the physical limits of the objects disclosed within it reach an apex, or beyond which the physical limits of objects disclosed within a particular version of the universe are distinguished by different frameworks of time.³ Or rather, if a certain set of events happens within one universe, there may be a correlated, inverse set of opposite events occurring in the other versions of the parallel universe.⁴

The multiverse, then, is not necessarily something that can be conceived of as an object among other objects, but rather as a conception through which the possibility of multiple universes is disclosed. Each universe may be understood as a framework within which objects, events, and relations become possible, while the multiverse is the broader conception that allows us to think of these frameworks as existing alongside one another.⁵ The question is not simply whether multiple universes exist as physical objects, but whether the very idea of a universe, as the totality within which physical objects are disclosed, can itself be understood as a dimension of reality rather than an object contained within it.

The multiverse theory depends on the notion that these universes are actually different conceptions rather than different objects from each other, for each universe acts as the limit of the objects disclosed within it. Between them are dark matter, dark space, etc. These areas of void that separate each universe from the other are the wormholes, tunnels between them that can theoretically connect them, as they are still part of the same simultaneous instance in time.¹ Yet they are conceptions, each a conception of different timeframes. These conceptions, then, must belong to observers.² This is the preexisting aspect of this theory.³

Footnotes

1. The multiverse and time: The idea of multiple parallel universes raises questions about whether they share a common temporal framework. Some multiverse hypotheses propose distinct universes with different physical histories orproperties, while others describe branches of a quantum state. There is no single multiverse theory that establishes that allpossible universes exist within the same instance of time.

2. The universe as a dimension of disclosure: This is an ontological distinction between an object and the frameworkwithin which objects appear. A chair, for example, is an object disclosed within the universe, whereas the universe is conceived as the totality or framework of physical existence. Calling the universe a dimension of disclosure is aphilosophical interpretation, not a standard physical definition.

3. Physical limits and frameworks of time: Different universes could, in some speculative models, have different physicallaws, constants, or temporal structures. However, the idea that their distinction depends on reaching the physical limits ofobjects is not an established feature of multiverse theories. The passage proposes that the limits of what can exist or bedisclosed within one framework may distinguish it from another.

4. Correlated and inverse events: The suggestion that one universe contains events opposite to those in another introducesthe possibility of a symmetry between universes. In physics, certain theories explore symmetries involving time, charge,parity, or quantum states. However, there is no general scientific principle that every event in one universe must have aninverse counterpart in a parallel universe. Here, the inverse relationship is best understood as a philosophical possibility.

5. Conception rather than object: The central distinction is between conceiving of the multiverse and encountering auniverse as a physical reality. We can conceive of multiple universes as a possibility without being able to observe themas objects within our own universe. This does not establish that the multiverse exists only as a mental conception; rather, it distinguishes the conceptual framework through which we think about multiple universes from the physical reality that such a framework might describe.

Footnotes

1. Universes, voids, and wormholes: This passage proposes that the boundaries separating universes maybe understood through the notion of voids and theoretical connections between them. In establishedphysics, dark matter is matter inferred fromits gravitational effects, while dark space is not a recognizedscientific substanceseparating universes. Wormholes are hypothetical spacetime structures that could, in certain theoretical models, connect distant regions of spacetime. Their existence andability to connectseparate universes have not been demonstrated.

2. Conceptions and observers: The claim that different universes are conceptions belonging to observers introduces an epistemological dimension to the multiverse theory. Each conception would represent adistinct framework through which time,events, and objects are disclosed. This raises the question of whether these frameworks exist independently of observers or whether their distinction depends on the act of observation itself. In physics, however, the role of an observer does not necessarily require a conscious mind; it can refer more broadly to a physical system interacting with another system.

3. The preexisting aspect of the theory: The term preexisting suggests that the possibility of multiple conceptions, and perhaps the observers to whom they belong, must be presupposed before the multiverse can be understood. This creates afoundational question for the theory: if every universe is a conceptionbelonging to anobserver, what is the ontological status of the reality that makes those conceptionspossible?The answer may require a more fundamental principle that precedes the distinction between observer and observed, and between conception and object.

“Bubble” Universe

A bubble universe (or pocket universe) is a distinct, self-contained region of space-time that exists as one of many independent universes within a larger multiverse. The theory suggests that the early universe underwent a period of rapid expansion. While inflation stops in some regions to form a universe like ours, other regions continue to expand forever, endlessly spinning off new bubbles.¹

Instead of a Big Bang, the universe is eternally expanding. There can still be a high expansion in the beginning that we assume is a big explosion, but it is more of an emergence outwards. This emergence, or expansion, is not like how objects ordinarily get further and further away from each other in space. For example, if we were to determine that two objects in space were moving continuously away from each other, there would be no contact between them other than the spatial extension between them that is getting larger and larger as the objects move further and further away in opposite directions.²

Yet, in this theory, we are not dealing with objects but rather dimensions of objects, such as universes. Therefore, they are in contact, yet they expand. The dimensions themselves are expanding, like a foam of bubbles getting bigger and bigger, foaming and expanding.³ This expansion is not simply a movement of objects through an already existing space, but rather an expansion of the very dimensions within which objects are disclosed. Each bubble universe, then, represents a distinct framework of space-time, with its own physical limits and its own conception of the reality disclosed within it.

The distinction is important because, if we think of universes as objects, we are forced to imagine them as separate things occupying a larger space, just as ordinary objects occupy the space between them. But if we think of universes as dimensions, the question changes. We are no longer asking how far apart these universes are as objects, but how their respective dimensions emerge, expand, and relate to one another.⁴ The space between two objects is something that exists within a universe, whereas the relation between two bubble universes would have to be conceived of in terms of the dimensions themselves, rather than the objects disclosed within them.

The foam analogy helps us conceive of this possibility. A bubble does not simply move through the space occupied by another bubble; rather, each bubble has its own interior, its own boundaries, and its own expansion. As the foam grows, the bubbles themselves change in size, and the overall structure of the foam changes with them. In the same way, we can conceive of a multiverse in which the universes are not merely objects moving apart from one another, but expanding dimensions of existence, each emerging within a broader process of cosmic becoming.⁵

This leads us back to the original conception of reality as something that is neither purely potential nor entirely actual, but exists in a continuous process between these states. The bubble universe is not simply a finished object that exists independently of its expansion; rather, its very existence is inseparable from the process through which its dimensions emerge and expand. The multiverse, in this sense, becomes a conception of an eternally expanding reality, in which universes are not merely separate objects but distinct expressions of a more fundamental process of existence.⁶

Footnotes

1. Eternal inflation and bubble universes: Alan Guth’s theory of inflation proposes that the early universe underwent aperiod of extremely rapid expansion. In some models of eternal inflation, inflation ends in certain regions, allowingbubble universes to form, while continuing elsewhere. This does not necessarily mean that our universe has existedeternally or that the Big Bang is replaced by eternal expansion. Inflationary cosmology generally describes an earlyexpansion within the broader history of our observable universe.

2. Expansion versus an explosion: The distinction between an explosion into space and the expansion of space itself iscentral to modern cosmology. In the standard cosmological model, the Big Bang was not an ordinary explosion from acentral point into preexisting empty space. Rather, space itself expanded, increasing the distances between sufficientlyseparated, comoving objects. This provides a physical basis for your distinction between objects moving through spaceand the dimensions of space expanding themselves.

3. Universes as dimensions rather than objects: This is the central philosophical proposal of the passage. A universe is nottreated as an object contained within a larger space, but as a framework of space-time within which objects and eventsbecome possible. The notion that universes themselves expand as dimensions is compatible with a broad conceptualanalogy to cosmological expansion, although the claim that distinct universes physically expand into or contact oneanother is not an established result of bubble-universe models.

4. The relation between universes: If universes are understood as dimensions rather than objects, their relation cannotautomatically be described through ordinary spatial distance. A deeper framework would be needed to explain whetherthey share a common space-time, exist as separate regions of a larger structure, or are causally disconnected. Someinflationary models describe bubble universes as regions within a larger inflating spacetime, but not all multiverse theoriesassume this arrangement.

5. The foam analogy: The image of expanding bubbles is a useful way of visualizing certain eternal-inflation models. However, the foam should be treated as an analogy rather than a literal picture of universes expanding into a surrounding material. The bubbles are not necessarily embedded in ordinary space, and their boundaries do not necessarily permitinteraction or contact.

6. Cosmic becoming and ontology: The final argument connects cosmology with the philosophical distinction betweenpotentiality and actuality. It proposes that a universe is best understood not merely as a completed entity but as an ongoingprocess of emergence. This resembles process-oriented approaches to metaphysics, in which becoming and relations are fundamental to existence. It remains a philosophical interpretation of cosmology rather than a conclusion established by the physics of inflation.

Neurological Universe

Another, deeper notion against the Big Bang does not contradict it per se, but rather puts it into greater perspective. This means that the Big Bang does not explain a comprehensive theory of the cosmos, because the energy at the beginning of the universe has the greatest concentration of force, while later, the universe slowly loses momentum and becomes cold, dead, and lacking energy.¹ Yet this sequence, from birth towards death, only describes a particular sequence and a finite duration, and cannot take into account infinite substances, which is what we are trying to elucidate: an infinite universe, not a finite one.²

If the universe is therefore infinite, a Big Bang would only be an abstraction of a single moment within its duration. For example, when I think of an idea, a neurological impulse is activated in my mind. That single, discrete neurological event of energy, observed in the mind, can be analogous to a single Big Bang event.³ There could be an infinity of these discrete energy blasts of light, like the ones constantly occurring in a single brain. It could also be happening more broadly and generally, as a universal principle occurring across all universes.⁴

Therefore, there would be infinite Big Bangs happening continuously, and these occurring together would appear similar to a brain undergoing natural neurological activity.⁵ The cosmos, in this conception, would not be understood as a single event of birth followed by an eventual death, but rather as an ongoing process of emergence, in which discrete events of energy occur continuously within a greater, potentially infinite reality. Each Big Bang would represent a particular moment of emergence within this broader process, rather than the absolute beginning of all existence. The universe, then, would be comparable to a mind whose activity is never exhausted by a single impulse, but whose existence is expressed through an ongoing multiplicity of events, each contributing to a larger, interconnected whole.⁶

Footnotes

1. The Big Bang and the evolution of energy: The Big Bang model describes the evolution of the observable universefrom an early, extremely hot and dense state. It does not simply state that the universe began as an explosion ofconcentrated force. As the universe expands, radiation cools, stars eventually exhaust their fuel, and usable energybecomes increasingly difficult to extract in many physical processes. However, the universe does not necessarily lose allits energy or simply lose momentum. The distinction between energy conservation, cosmic expansion, and thethermodynamic availability of energy is important.

2. Finite duration and infinite reality: The argument distinguishes the finite history of our observable universe from thepossibility of an infinite cosmos. These are not necessarily contradictory. The observable universe has a finite age in thestandard cosmological model, while the total cosmos could, in some theoretical models, extend beyond what we canobserve spatially or temporally. Whether the universe as a whole is infinite, eternal, or composed of multiple regionsremains unresolved.

3. The neurological impulse and the Big Bang: The analogy suggests that a single Big Bang could be understood as onediscrete event within a much larger process, just as a neurological event is one moment within the continuous activity of abrain. This is a philosophical analogy rather than an established physical correspondence: a neural impulse and the earlyexpansion of the universe operate at radically different scales and through different mechanisms.

4. Infinite energy events across universes: The possibility of multiple Big Bang-like events resembles certain speculativecosmological models, including eternal inflation and cyclic or bouncing cosmologies. In eternal inflation, inflation maycontinue in some regions while ending in others, potentially producing multiple bubble universes. However, these modelsdo not establish that infinitely many Big Bangs occur continuously, nor that they operate as discrete blasts of light. A BigBang-like event would refer to an early hot, dense state and subsequent expansion, not necessarily an explosion of light.

5. The cosmos as a brain: The comparison between cosmic activity and neurological activity introduces a model in whichthe universe behaves like a system whose larger structure emerges through many interacting events. The analogy mayhelp articulate the intuition that reality is an ongoing process rather than a single, isolated beginning. It does not, by itself,establish that the cosmos literally behaves like a brain or possesses neural activity.

6. A multiplicity of beginnings: The central philosophical proposal is that the Big Bang might be understood not as theabsolute beginning of existence, but as one event within a more extensive process of becoming. This reframes thequestion from How did everything begin? to How do particular beginnings emerge within a reality that may be moreextensive than any single cosmological history? The proposal remains speculative, but it offers a useful distinctionbetween the beginning of our observable universe and the possible origin or duration of reality as a whole.

“Bubble”-like Nature

The physicality of abstract objects exhibits a “bubble”-like nature, where each object interacts as if soup bubbles bouncing off each other. The reason for this metaphor is that, at the most basic quantum level, objects are not corruptible in the same way that they are at the macroscopic scale. At more microscopic levels, objects are more difficult to break down; the more microscopic they are, the more difficult they are to break down. So, when we reach a degree where matter is not broken down by its interactions with other matter, it exhibits very strange forms of interaction that are inconsistent with how we perceive the interactions between things at our sensible level. A good example is the kind of events that happen in a dream.[^1]

In dreams, we witness obscure physical interactions that we think will never happen in waking life. For example, someone falling off a high building experiences not necessarily the same distance that the height of the building would bring. In a dream, a 20-story building feels like it is less than one story tall, or sometimes you fall and never reach the bottom. Or someone getting hit by a car just bounces off it like a balloon, whereas in real life, their bones would be broken and their flesh mutilated. The reason why physical interactions in a dream do not bring about the same results as in waking life is that they do not need to. The purpose of the physical interaction is different. For instance, in a dream, the events happening do not matter in themselves and are only used as a means to elicit some feelings and thoughts of meaning. Events are changed by the mere change in thought in a dream, whereas in waking life, your feelings and thoughts do not directly affect or alter the physical circumstances.[^2]

The most important thing in waking life is the events happening directly in front of your senses, and thought, along with emotions, has a more indirect and long-term effect behind the scenes that does not directly alter the physical circumstances of your current experience. For example, no matter how much you believe you will survive jumping off a mountain, doing so will cause death in real life, whereas in a dream, a change in mood changes the situation of the event altogether.

The physicality perceived in dreams, for example, is closer to demonstrating the physicality of objects at more fundamental levels. The “bubble universe” theory, unlike the “multiverse,” concerns the physical composition, as in the spatial nature, of the universe at the most ultimate degrees, whereas the multiverse concerns more the temporal or formal side of the universe at the most ultimate levels.[^3]

The bubble universe theory offers an alternative view to the Big Bang theory, which states that, at the beginning of the universe, energy was dense, warm, compact, clustered, and highly active. After expanding, energy settled down to form all the stars and galaxies of the known universe. But the bubble universe idea makes its beginning before the “bang,” per se, and illustrates a picture of a vast, cold, empty space, in which universes appear and merge together, forming new ones. There is an implication that a universe emerges spontaneously and in an instant, like a bubble popping open—the opposite of a universe popping out of being. However, this is not exactly defined.[^4]

In the beginning was the vacuum. The vacuum simmered with energy (variously called dark energy, vacuum energy, the inflation field, or the Higgs field). Like water in a pot, this high energy began to evaporate—bubbles formed.

Each bubble contained another vacuum, whose energy was lower, but still not nothing. This energy drove the bubbles to expand. Inevitably, some bubbles bumped into each other. It is possible that some produced secondary bubbles. Maybe the bubbles were rare and far apart; maybe they were packed close as foam.

But here is the thing: each of these bubbles was a universe. In this picture, our universe is one bubble in a frothy sea of bubble universes.[^5]

This conception of the universe as “bubbly” entirely changes our ordinary understandings of the physicality of our world. Ordinary laws of nature make the universe appear as a linear and rudimentary set of stable actions and reactions, maintaining each other in a cyclical and therefore predictable manner. However, this kind of dynamic, although ordinarily observed through direct observation, assumes at the outset an acquaintance with how ordinary matter “feels.” Our perception of space is somewhat influenced by the most direct contacts with our most immediate environment. The orange of sensations is evolutionarily adapted to have the maximum amount of knowledge derived from it.[^6]

Footnotes

[^1]: The description of matter as increasingly difficult to break down at smaller scales is a philosophical premise of the argument, rather than an established general law of quantum physics.

[^2]: Dreams can alter perceived physical consequences because they are generated by brain processes. This comparison is intended to illustrate differences in experienced physicality, not to establish that quantum matter behaves like dream objects.

[^3]: In established cosmology, bubble universes are associated with certain models of eternal inflation and can form part of a multiverse. The distinction between the spatial and temporal or formal aspects of reality presented here is a philosophical interpretation.

[^4]: The Big Bang model describes the evolution of the observable universe from an early hot, dense state. Inflationary models propose a possible earlier phase, but the existence of other bubble universes has not been observationally confirmed.

[^5]: The vacuum, dark energy, vacuum energy, the inflaton field, and the Higgs field are distinct concepts and should not be treated as interchangeable scientific terms. Bubble formation and collisions depend on the specific inflationary model.

[^6]: The final claim reflects the idea that human sensory systems evolved to extract useful information from the environment. The wording preserves the original philosophical argument about perception and the experience of physical reality.

The passage is developing an interesting philosophical intuition: the physical world as we experience it may be only one particular mode of physical interaction, rather than an exhaustive picture of what physical reality is fundamentally like. We use the contrast between waking life and dreams to question whether the apparent solidity, stability, and predictability of ordinary objects should be taken as universal features of reality. This would benefit from distinguishing three things: the physics of bubble universes, the unusual behaviour of matter at quantum scales, and the philosophical question of how our experience shapes our understanding of physical reality.

1. The central intuition: physicality might be less solid than it appears

The bubble metaphor suggests that objects do not necessarily possess the kind of rigid, self-contained physicality thatour everyday experience leads us to assume. Instead, their identities and boundaries might emerge through interactions,with the apparent solidity of objects being a feature of a particular scale of observation.

At the macroscopic level, a car, a building, or a human body appears to occupy a stable position in space and to obeyrelatively predictable rules of interaction. A collision produces consequences constrained by the structure of the objectsinvolved. A person who falls from a great height cannot simply decide to float safely to the ground.

But our ordinary intuitions about physicality are not universal laws in themselves. They are intuitions formed throughrepeated encounters with objects at human scales.

Your argument raises an important question:

What if the physicality we experience is not the fundamental character of matter, but an emergent pattern that appears at aparticular level of reality?

This question is compatible with several established ideas in physics and philosophy, although the answers those disciplines offer differ from the particular bubble analogy we propose.

2. Why the dream analogy is philosophically interesting

The distinction between dreaming and waking life is especially useful because it isolates something that everyday experience tends to conceal: the relationship between an event and the consequences we expect it to produce.

Consider the falling person in a dream. A fall might last indefinitely, a twenty-story building might feel no taller than astaircase, or a collision might leave the dreamer unharmed. The event resembles a familiar physical occurrence, but its consequences depart from the expectations associated with that occurrence in waking life.

We suggest that this happens because the event serves a different purpose in a dream. Its role may be to evoke fear, exhilaration, vulnerability, or some other psychological significance, rather than to reproduce a mechanically consistent chain of physical consequences.

This gives rise to a distinction between two kinds of order:

• Experiential order: Events unfold according to the organization of perception, emotion, memory, and thought.
• Physical order: Events unfold according to regularities that constrain how material systems interact, regardless ofwhat an observer wishes or believes will happen.

Dreams can exhibit a degree of experiential continuity without maintaining the same physical consistency as waking life.

There is an important qualification, however. Dreams are not necessarily governed by emotions alone, and their apparentviolations of physics do not demonstrate that matter itself behaves differently at fundamental scales. Rather, dreamexperiences are generated by brain processes that can construct scenes without continuously enforcing the physicalconstraints that characterize ordinary perception.

Nevertheless, the analogy illuminates a deeper philosophical possibility: the order in which events appear to us and theorder that governs their physical production need not be identical.

3. Does quantum physics make matter more bubble-like?

Here we need to be precise, because our intuition touches on real features of modern physics but draws a conclusion that does not follow directly from them.

At the quantum level, objects do not always behave like miniature versions of macroscopic objects. Quantum systemsexhibit phenomena such as superposition, interference, entanglement, and quantized interactions. In quantum field theory,particles are understood in relation to underlying fields rather than simply as tiny, solid pieces of matter.

These ideas challenge the everyday picture of reality as a collection of little, self-contained objects moving through anotherwise passive space.

However, there is a distinction between this observation and the claim that matter becomes increasingly difficult to breakdown as we examine smaller scales.

For example:

• Atoms can be broken into electrons and nuclei.
• Nuclei can be broken into protons and neutrons.
• Protons and neutrons have internal structures involving quarks and gluons.
• Electrons, as far as current experiments establish, have no known internal structure.

The trend is not that matter becomes progressively harder to break apart at every smaller scale. The energy required toprobe or transform a system depends on the interactions involved, and high-energy collisions can reveal structures thatwere previously inaccessible.

Nor do quantum objects generally bounce off one another like soap bubbles. Their interactions are described by quantumdynamics, and collisions can produce scattering, absorption, particle creation, or other outcomes.

Yet our metaphor can still be valuable if we interpret it differently.

Rather than suggesting that quantum objects literally behave like bubbles, it could suggest that the boundaries andidentities of physical entities are less absolute than our everyday experience implies. In that sense, the metaphor pointstoward a relational picture of physical reality rather than a literal description of quantum mechanics.

4. What physicists actually mean by a bubble universe

Our description of bubble universes resembles a genuine cosmological proposal associated with eternal inflation.

In some inflationary models, an early high-energy state of space undergoes accelerated expansion. Inflation may end in particular regions through a process called bubble nucleation, creating expanding regions in which the physical conditions differ from those of the surrounding inflating space.

In a simplified picture:

1. A high-energy inflationary state persists in some regions.
2. A lower-energy vacuum state forms within a bubble.
3. The bubble’s interior develops different physical conditions from the surrounding region.
4. Other bubbles may form elsewhere, and bubble collisions may be possible in some models.

Our observable universe could, in certain versions of this picture, occupy one such region.

This is not quite an alternative to the Big Bang in the ordinary sense. The hot Big Bang model describes the early hot, dense phase of our observable universe and its subsequent evolution. Inflationary cosmology attempts to explain an earlierstage and, in some models, a larger structure within which many such regions could form.

Nor does the vacuum necessarily mean absolute nothingness. In quantum field theory, a vacuum is a physical state offields. It can possess energy and other properties.

One further distinction matters for your argument: dark energy, vacuum energy, the inflaton field, and the Higgs field arenot interchangeable terms. Some inflationary models invoke an inflaton field, while vacuum energy and the Higgs fieldhave different meanings in contemporary physics.

Most importantly, bubble universes remain hypothetical. Inflation has substantial theoretical motivation and some indirect observational support for the broader cosmological framework, but the existence of other bubble universes has not been established observationally.

5. distinction between the bubble universe and the multiverse

We propose that the bubble universe concerns the spatial composition of reality, whereas the multiverse concerns itstemporal or formal structure.

This is an intriguing philosophical distinction, but it is not how cosmologists ordinarily distinguish the terms.

A bubble universe is usually a particular kind of universe within a larger cosmological scenario. A multiverse is a broaderconcept encompassing multiple universes or regions, potentially arising from several different theories. Eternal inflationcan therefore be both a bubble-universe model and a multiverse scenario.

Still, your distinction could be developed into a different, more explicitly philosophical framework:

Dimension	Central question
Spatial or structural	How is reality composed, divided, or connected?
Temporal or generative	How does reality originate, evolve, or produce different possible histories?
Experiential or phenomenal	How does reality appear to a perceiving subject?

Our bubble-universe idea primarily concerns the first dimension, although inflationary cosmology also involves the second. The dream analogy concerns the third.

The interesting possibility is that these dimensions might be related without being reducible to one another.

6. The deeper argument: our senses reveal regularities, not necessarilyultimate reality

The last part of our concept moves toward what I think is its most significant philosophical claim.

Our sensory systems evolved to navigate a world of macroscopic objects. We perceive colors, textures, distances,movements, and impacts through biological systems adapted to our environment.

The orange color of an orange, for instance, is not simply a property that exists in the world exactly as it appears inexperience. It arises from an interaction among the light reflected by the fruit, the visual system, and the brain’s processingof sensory information.

Similarly, the apparent solidity of a table is a genuine feature of our interaction with it, but the microscopic account of thatsolidity involves electromagnetic interactions and quantum principles rather than tiny solid surfaces fitting together in theway our intuition might suggest.

This does not mean that the table is unreal. It means that the way the table appears and the physical processes that accountfor its behavior are different levels of description.

The argument could therefore be formulated as follows:

1. Human experience presents physical objects as stable, bounded, and governed by predictable causal relations.
2. These characteristics are encountered through sensory systems adapted to a particular scale of reality.
3. Modern physics demonstrates that the underlying processes responsible for macroscopic objects cannot always be adequately described using ordinary macroscopic intuitions.
4. Therefore, we should not assume that the fundamental nature of reality must resemble its familiar appearance.

The conclusion is defensible. It does not establish that fundamental matter behaves like dream objects or that bubble universes are real, but it does challenge the assumption that ordinary experience provides a complete picture of physical reality. There is also a subtle point about your contrast between thought and physical events. In waking life, thoughts and emotions do not ordinarily override physical constraints by themselves, but they can alter the physical world through bodily action, decision-making, and other causal processes. The contrast with dreams is therefore not between a world inwhich thoughts have no influence and one in which thoughts control everything. It is between different mechanisms bywhich experiences and events are generated.

7. How I would sharpen your central thesis

Let’s preserve the bubble metaphor but change what it is meant to establish.

The strongest version is not that quantum objects literally behave like bubbles, nor that dreams reveal the true physical laws of the universe. It is that our ordinary concept of physicality may be a scale-dependent interpretation of more fundamental processes.

We could express the central idea this way:

The physical world we ordinarily experience may represent only one particular expression of a morefundamental reality. At the macroscopic scale, matter appears as a stable arrangement of bounded objectswhose interactions follow predictable causal patterns. Yet these familiar properties may not describe reality atevery level. Just as dreams can preserve the appearance of physical events while transforming theirconsequences according to the organization of experience, fundamental physics challenges the assumptionthat the ordinary appearance of matter provides a complete account of its underlying nature.

The bubble thus serves as a metaphor for a reality whose boundaries, identities, and interactions may emergefrom deeper processes rather than exist as absolute features of self-contained objects. In cosmology, bubbleuniverses offer one speculative model for how distinct regions of spacetime might emerge from an inflatingbackground. Philosophically, the metaphor suggests a broader question: whether the stability and solidity of our experienced world are fundamental properties of reality or emergent characteristics of the scale at which we encounter it.

This formulation retains the philosophical ambition of the original passage while separating the metaphor from the scientific claims that might otherwise undermine it.

The question I would pursue next is this: Are you proposing that the bubble-like character of reality is a literal physical hypothesis about the structure of matter and spacetime, or are we using the bubble as a philosophical model for under standing why reality at its most fundamental level may differ radically from the reality presented to our senses?

Those are two different projects. The first requires a physical mechanism and testable predictions. The second can develop into a substantial philosophical argument about perception, emergence, and the limits of ordinary intuition.

Contact Between Universes Is Not Contact in the Ordinary Sense

When the universes disclosed within a vast vacuum “touch” one another, another universe is produced. In other words, contact between two universes produces a new event. These universes are constantly coming into contact with one another, generating new events. This is counterintuitive because, when massive objects interact in space, they can destroy or transform one another. For example, when two massive stars come sufficiently close to each other, they may merge, potentially forming a more massive compact object, or undergo gravitational collapse, potentially resulting in a black hole. What appears to be annihilation is, in many cases, a transformation into another physical state rather than the absolute disappearance of matter and energy.[^1]

Planets coming too close to one another may collide, resulting in the destruction or substantial alteration of both bodies. Yet every destruction may also involve a form of generation. Under certain circumstances, the material produced by a planetary collision may contribute to the formation of a moon or, over longer timescales, other celestial bodies. However, a collision between planets does not ordinarily result in the formation of a star. The broader point is that destruction and generation are not necessarily opposing processes; one configuration of matter may cease to exist while another emerges from the same interaction.

In ordinary experience, contact between objects does not appear to sporadically generate things into being. We tend to interpret the outcome as a necessary consequence of objects interacting in a particular way. A car accident, for example, produces wreckage. This wreckage results from the collision of dense vehicles moving at particular speeds, causing structural deformation and the redistribution of material. Yet this change in material can also be understood as a change in events. At one moment, a person is travelling to the grocery store; at the next, that person may be in a hospital. Two entirely different events have emerged from a single sequence of interactions. Moreover, the vehicles themselves have undergone a change in their event-structure: one moment, a car is intact and assembled; the next, its components are scattered across the road.

We ordinarily assume that, before contact can result in generation, there must be a series of mediating steps between the objects involved. For example, the conception of a child through sexual reproduction requires a sequence of biological processes, including fertilization and embryonic development. However, this kind of cause and effect involves a series of intermediary steps, not all of which are directly observed. We tend to recognize only the major checkpoints in a much more complex process. There are, nevertheless, other intermediary processes that occur so rapidly that the resulting transformation appears almost instantaneous. The change in the structure of a car following a collision is one such example.

The intermediary conditions responsible for the transformation of a car before and after an accident include its speed, velocity, mass, structural composition, and the forces exerted during impact. The congruence of these factors at the moment of collision produces a change in the physical structure of both vehicles. We take this change in structure to be an obvious and expected consequence of contact, almost as though the wreckage simply emerges from nowhere. It appears to be the random result of two metal bodies colliding. Yet the resulting wreckage is constrained by the physical properties of the materials involved and the conditions under which the collision occurs.

In other words, the wreckage is not an entirely arbitrary consequence of impact. It is a configuration generated through the relations between bodies possessing particular masses, densities, velocities, and structural properties. The resulting form is not simply imposed upon the objects from outside; it emerges through their interaction under specific physical conditions.

This seemingly commonsensical situation becomes far less intuitive when considered at the most fundamental levels of the universe. Nevertheless, the underlying philosophical phenomenon remains analogous: an interaction gives rise to a new configuration of events. When universes come into contact in the sense proposed here, an immense range of new relations and events may come into being. Within this speculative framework, the Big Bang could be interpreted as the beginning of a new cosmic sequence of events arising from a more fundamental process of generation.[^2]

The Growth of Conception and the Self-Realization of the Universe

When conception grows, new conceptions are added to being. They appear to emerge into existence, and their relations contribute to a “greater” totality. This process can be understood as the universe’s self-realization: the progressive disclosure of what was already present in an unrealized or unresolved form.

The universe, in this sense, is already present in its full potential, but it has not yet fully realized that potential. Its resolution consists in realizing more and more of itself. The word realize is important here because it carries a psychological meaning: to become aware of, or conscious of, something that was previously unknown or unconscious. The conception of the universe therefore grows through the development of its self-realization. It is already fully there in potential, but it is not yet fully realized in its relations and determinations.

The difference between these two conditions is expressed through time. At the earliest conceivable moment, the universe is understood as containing everything without yet distinguishing anything in particular. It is, in this sense, everything at once, but nothing has yet been singled out, differentiated, or fully disclosed. This is the primordial condition of conception: a totality that is present but not yet articulated.

As time moves “forward,” the universe appears to become less and less of itself in one sense, because its undifferentiated totality is progressively divided into particular forms. To be everything all at once, without any distinction, is equivalent to remaining unrealized as a determinate conception. If everything is present without differentiation, nothing can be distinctly picked out. The totality cannot be meaningfully apprehended as one particular thing rather than another.

Therefore, the most infinite disposition of the universe corresponds, within this philosophical framework, to its most primordial and undifferentiated conscious position. The process of self-realization begins by particularizing the universal infinite into the most finite conceptions of itself. These finite conceptions appear arbitrary because we encounter them as isolated abstractions of space, seemingly unrelated to one another: an asteroid hurtling through space, a star dying at one point in the universe while another emerges elsewhere, or life appearing on one seemingly insignificant planet while the surrounding cosmos appears devoid of life.

Yet these apparently random and arbitrary abstractions of space may be understood as finite moments in the universe’s self-realization. They are not necessarily disconnected fragments of an independently existing totality; rather, they are particular ways in which that totality becomes determinate and available to observation. The observer encounters the universe through limited perspectives, and these limitations contribute to the appearance of separation between its constituent parts.

The decisive turn in this evolutionary process occurs when a finite part of the universe develops a conception of the infinite universe as a whole. The observer, although finite and situated within a particular region of space and time, becomes capable of conceiving the universe on a scale that exceeds the immediate limits of perception. What was initially understood as the universe’s most primitive condition—an infinite totality that remained unrealized—can now be conceptually represented within a finite mind.

The infinite is thus, in a sense, realized within the finite. The universe develops a conception of itself through an observer who is simultaneously a part of that universe and capable of thinking about its totality.

The idea of zero-point energy, understood as a physical phenomenon, may serve as an analogy for this philosophical problem, although the two should not be conflated.[^3] The desire to fit the maximum amount of content into the smallest possible space has a conceptual counterpart in the attempt to fit the greatest possible number of relations and conceptions into a finite mind. The mind does not literally compress physical energy into itself; rather, it brings an immense range of phenomena into a single conceptual framework. The significance lies in the relationship between the finitude of the observer and the apparent infinitude of what can be conceived.

Contact as the Expansion of What Is Conceived

Contact, in this sense, does not refer to physical touch. In ordinary sensory experience, we observe the surface of one object approaching the surface of another until they come into contact. Contact is understood as a spatial relation between two independently existing bodies.

However, contact in the universal sense proposed here—perhaps considered alongside the speculative idea of bubble universes—is better understood as an expansion of what is disclosed or conceived within the universe.[^4] Imagine regions of reality that appear disconnected because the relations between them have not yet been established within a particular perspective. These regions resemble blank spaces in a larger picture. When content becomes available from different directions, the blank spaces begin to fill. The newly disclosed content appears to enter into contact with what was already there, producing an initial moment of connection. Eventually, the previously separate regions can be understood within a more comprehensive perspective.

This appearance of contact is therefore not necessarily a collision between two physically distinct universes. It may instead represent the disclosure of relations that were previously unavailable to the observer. What appears to be an encounter between separate realities becomes the formation of a more encompassing conception of reality.

The Formation of Black Holes

Black holes offer a useful physical analogy for the distinction between destruction and generation, although their actual formation is governed by gravitational physics rather than by the philosophical process of conception described here.[^5]

A black hole can form when a sufficiently massive stellar core collapses under its own gravity, typically after the star can no longer sustain itself against gravitational collapse. As the core contracts, matter and energy become concentrated within an increasingly small region. If the collapse proceeds far enough, an event horizon forms: a boundary beyond which events cannot send signals to distant outside observers.

From an ordinary perspective, the formation of a black hole can appear to be the annihilation of the star. The star’s previous structure disappears, its familiar form is lost, and its material is reorganized into an object with radically different properties. Yet the process does not amount to the simple disappearance of everything that constituted the star. Rather, the star’s former configuration gives way to a new gravitational structure.

In this sense, the black hole exemplifies the philosophical distinction between the destruction of a form and the generation of another. The original configuration ceases to exist, but a new physical condition emerges from the transformation. What is lost is not necessarily the entirety of what was present, but the particular organization through which it was previously manifested.

Black holes also complicate the relationship between what exists and what can be observed. Their event horizons limit the information that can reach an outside observer from within. The observer’s access to the physical processes occurring inside the horizon is therefore fundamentally restricted by the causal structure of spacetime. This offers an analogy for the idea that what appears absent or inaccessible within a particular conception may not be equivalent to what does not exist.

Nevertheless, this analogy has limits. A black hole is a physical object described by general relativity, whereas the self-realization of the universe is a metaphysical interpretation. Established physics does not demonstrate that black holes disclose new universes or that their formation corresponds to an expansion of consciousness.

From Separate Perspectives to a Unified Conception

The conception of the universe is continually growing, but we interpret this growth as the contact of two external objects that produces a new one. This interpretation is true in a qualified sense, although the underlying process may be counterintuitive.

When two objects come into contact and produce a new object or configuration, the original objects do not necessarily cease to exist. A child, for example, does not cause the parents to disappear upon birth. The new individual exists alongside the continuing existence of the parents. Generation adds a new entity or relation without necessarily eliminating the entities from which it emerged.

However, the process of conception at the universal level may operate differently in appearance. Here, we encounter reference frames distributed across space and time. Their apparent separation may reflect the limitations of our observation rather than an absolute absence of relations between them. As these frames are brought together within a more comprehensive conception, they form a fuller picture of reality.

The resulting picture is new because it discloses connections that were not apparent within each individual frame. Components that previously seemed unrelated can now be understood in relation to one another. The new conception does not necessarily replace the previous perspectives; rather, it integrates them into a larger framework in which their relations become intelligible.

When two external perspectives are brought together, they can therefore form a single, more comprehensive perspective. This offers a way to understand the maintenance of the present itself: the past, as retained or remembered, and the future, as anticipated or projected, are brought together in present experience. The present is not simply an isolated point between two independently experienced temporal regions; it is also the moment in which what has been and what may be are related within a current conception.[^6]

In this sense, the perspectives are not necessarily contacting one another as physical objects. Instead, more of their relations are being revealed. The relationship between them becomes conceived, and this disclosure gives rise to a new and distinct object of understanding.

The conception, in relation to the object, brings about a new moment of that object—not necessarily by creating its entire physical existence from nothing, but by disclosing a new determination, relation, or meaning through which it can now be understood.

The universe, accordingly, may be conceived as a process in which reality continually becomes more determinate through the disclosure of relations among its parts. What appears to be contact between separate entities may, at the level of conception, be the emergence of a more comprehensive unity. What appears to be destruction may be the transformation of an existing configuration into another. And what appears to be the creation of something entirely new may be the realization of a potential or relation that was previously undifferentiated, unresolved, or inaccessible to the observer.

The central proposition is therefore this: contact, understood universally, is not merely the physical meeting of two objects. It is the emergence of a new determination through the realization of a relation. What is generated is not necessarily a new substance emerging from absolute nothingness, but a new event, configuration, or conception through which reality becomes more fully disclosed to itself.

Footnotes

[^1]: In astrophysics, the outcomes of close stellar encounters depend on the stars’ masses, velocities, evolutionary stages, and orbital dynamics. Some stars merge, some undergo tidal disruption, and some evolve toward compact remnants such as neutron stars or black holes. A black hole is not, by itself, proof that the matter involved has been annihilated. In modern physics, energy, momentum, and other conserved quantities constrain these transformations.

[^2]: The Big Bang model describes the early hot, dense phase and subsequent expansion of the observable universe. It does not establish that our universe began through contact between two other universes. The interpretation offered here is a philosophical hypothesis, not an established cosmological mechanism.

[^3]: Zero-point energy refers to the lowest possible energy of a quantum system, including quantum fields in their vacuum state. It is a physical concept, not a mental quality in established physics. The comparison in the text is conceptual: it draws an analogy between physical ideas of underlying potential and the mind’s capacity to unify many conceptions within a limited framework.

[^4]: Bubble-universe scenarios occur in some models of eternal inflation and related cosmological theories. Certain versions permit distinct regions of spacetime to develop as separate bubble universes, and some models allow collisions between such bubbles. These possibilities remain model-dependent and are not equivalent to the claim that universes make contact by expanding what is conceived. The latter is a metaphysical interpretation.

[^5]: A black hole can form through the gravitational collapse of a sufficiently massive stellar core, though other formation mechanisms are also possible. Its event horizon marks a causal boundary, not a material surface. Black holes can also form through the merger of compact objects or, in certain circumstances, the collapse of matter in the early universe. The analogy between black-hole formation and conceptual generation is philosophical rather than a claim about the consciousness of black holes.

[^6]: The relationship between past, present, and future has been explored in philosophy through theories of temporal experience, including phenomenological accounts of retention and anticipation. In physics, spacetime is described through mathematical structures that do not necessarily privilege a universal present. The claim that past and future perspectives come together to form the present is therefore a philosophical interpretation of temporal experience, not a universally accepted physical description.

I’ve corrected the grammar and punctuation, preserved your original wording and philosophical terminology as closely aspossible, expanded the section on “little conceptions,” and added footnotes to clarify the scientific and philosophicalreferences without changing your central argument.Writing

Time Like a Floating Thought Cloud

Geometrically, when we think of time as linear, the image of a line comes to mind, extended without limit. In other words, we can say that the initial moments of the Big Bang mark the point from which the line is drawn, and that it is being extended up until this moment, in a straight manner, and beyond. However, time is not studied in this manner because we observe time as discrete moments of happening, each with its own span. Rather, the spatial extension quality of time exhibits its linear nature. That is, when you directly observe something, there is a straight continuity from the observer to the object being observed. The distance between any two objects involves an extension moving uniformly in one direction only, without a curve or a bend.[^1]

This spatial phenomenon is mistakenly taken as the general trend for the movement of time. Time is rather studied as Einstein showed through the gravitational effect of an object on spacetime. This means that time is more of a self-contained system that exhibits a measure related to the concentration of an energy source. This means that time is related to the behaviour and activity of a particular kind of thing.[^2]

This is what a science radius is: it is the measure of time disclosing the determination of a particular thing. The radius is the determination in a certain way, while the circumference of the circle is the time disclosing it, meaning its form and potential activity.

A radius is just an arrow pointing to a circle. Or rather, it is the form being in motion or being determined in a particular way. These are all qualities of the conception changing, or rather, shifting its reference frame from one point to another.

The particular determination of an object is a return into itself. This means that, when a thing acts, it is actualizing one of its possible forms that discloses it, a form that potentially belongs to it. This form is its time, hence the radius as an arrow pointing to the circumference of the circle. The conception that is disclosed within what it conceives, both being an identical duration, comes into being and then fades out into another conception.

Time Is Like a Thought Cloud

Matter is something without which a thing cannot be conceived. This is also related to the definition of the self-evident, which is when something is conceived and therefore cannot be conceived without. What cannot be conceived without constitutes a material.

For example, any ordinary substance can exist in one of the three common physical states: liquid, solid, or gas.[^3] Each of these states involves, to some degree, qualities associated with the other states. Gases and liquids are still material in the sense that they have mass and occupy space. A solid involves liquidity in the sense that it can possess malleability and be capable of change and movement. Gases involve qualities such as low density, the ability to be penetrated, and the ability to disperse. These qualities demonstrate that matter can be determined in different ways without ceasing to be matter.

Asking why something has to be one of these states, or, more generally, why something has to be material, is like asking why something needs a marker to be identifiable, or why an animal needs legs to walk. In other words, matter serves a function for consciousness. An idea must have some discernible elements to be understood as a particular thing. For anything to be communicated as something that is not everything else, it must involve discernible features that it cannot do without, features that are part of how it is presented as a present thing that exists.

“Little” Conceptions

These discernible features can be understood as little conceptions. A little conception is a particular determination through which something becomes identifiable as what it is, rather than as everything else. It is a feature, quality, relation, or distinction that allows a thing to be conceived in a particular way.

For example, when we conceive of a circle, we do not conceive of every possible quality of existence all at once. We conceive of a particular form, distinguished by its circumference, its centre, and the relation between its radius and its circumference. These determinations allow the circle to be conceived as a circle. Without them, the conception would lose the very features through which it is identified.

The same applies to an object in the material world. When we conceive of an object, we distinguish its shape, its weight, its colour, its position, and its capacity to move or to remain at rest. These are little conceptions through which the object becomes intelligible. They are not necessarily separate objects in themselves; rather, they are determinations that make the object available to conception.

A little conception can also be understood as a moment of determination within a larger conception. The conception of a tree, for instance, contains smaller conceptions: its trunk, branches, leaves, roots, colour, growth, and relation to the surrounding environment. Each of these can be conceived independently to some degree, but each also belongs to the conception of the tree as a whole. The tree is therefore not simply an isolated object. It is a greater conception constituted by relations among its little conceptions.

In this sense, the larger conception does not necessarily exist apart from its little conceptions, just as the little conceptions do not necessarily acquire their full meaning apart from the larger conception to which they belong. The relation between the whole and its parts is what allows the thing to become intelligible as a particular determination.

The same reasoning can be extended to time. A moment is a little conception of duration: it is a particular determination through which a process becomes distinguishable from what came before it and what follows after it. A moment of time does not have to be understood as an isolated point on an infinitely extended line. It can instead be understood through the activity, relations, and changes that give it its particular determination.

Time, in this sense, resembles a floating thought cloud. Its moments are not necessarily arranged as a single, straight extension moving uniformly in one direction. Rather, they are conceptions that emerge, overlap, shift, and fade into other conceptions. The cloud is not defined by a single linear trajectory, but by the changing relations among its contents.

A conception may contain many little conceptions, and these little conceptions may themselves contain further determinations. As new relations become apparent, the conception grows, not necessarily because a wholly new object has appeared, but because more of what the object is becomes disclosed. What was previously understood as a single, simple thing can now be understood as a complex relation of determinations.

The thought cloud therefore represents a way of understanding time as a changing field of conceptions rather than merely as a line extending from the Big Bang into the future. Each conception has its own determination and duration, yet it remains related to other conceptions through the processes by which it emerges, changes, and gives way to something else.

Matter, in this account, provides the discernible elements through which a conception becomes identifiable. Time provides the duration through which its determinations are disclosed. The object and its conception are thus related through the changing activity by which the object becomes present and intelligible.

Time is like a floating thought cloud because what we experience as a sequence of moments may also be understood as the changing disclosure of conceptions, each containing little conceptions that determine what can be identified, understood, and brought into being.

Footnotes

[^1]: In Euclidean geometry, a straight line provides a useful representation of spatial extension. However, this does not establish that time itself is a straight line. In relativity, spacetime can be curved, and the paths followed by light and matter are described through the geometry of spacetime. The apparent straightness of a visual line between an observer and an object is therefore not a universal description of physical space.

[^2]: Einstein’s general theory of relativity describes gravity in terms of the curvature of spacetime associated with matter and energy. Gravitational time dilation means that clocks can measure different amounts of elapsed time depending on their gravitational environments. However, time is not simply a self-contained system determined by the concentration of an energy source; its measurement also depends on the observer’s motion and the spacetime geometry. The term science radius is retained from your original argument as a philosophical concept, rather than as an established scientific term.

[^3]: Solid, liquid, and gas are the three common states of matter, but they are not exhaustive. Plasma and other states, including several quantum states, are also recognized. Liquids and gases are fluids, whereas solids generally resist shear deformation. All three ordinary states have mass, and they differ in their microscopic structure, response to forces, and ability to flow. The descriptions of these states in the text are philosophical illustrations rather than complete physical definitions.

[^4]: The idea that matter serves a function for consciousness connects your argument to philosophical questions about the conditions under which something becomes identifiable and intelligible. It does not follow from physics alone that matter exists for the purpose of consciousness. That proposition is part of the metaphysical framework developed in the text.

[^5]: The distinction between a thing and its little conceptions resembles the philosophical distinction between a whole and its constituent parts, as well as the distinction between an object and the properties through which it is understood. Whether these properties exist independently of our conception of the object is a separate philosophical question.

[^6]: The thought-cloud metaphor is not a scientific model of time. In physics, time is represented mathematically, and in relativity the relationship between events is described through spacetime. The metaphor instead proposes a philosophical interpretation in which temporal experience is understood through changing relations, determinations, and conceptions.

last updated 10.13.2026