Sense, Essence, and Existence

I extended my AI image project to the previous Neptune cycle as well. Not sure if that was as successful, but kinda cool nevertheless.

https://s33light.substack.com/

Link to Part 2 at the end.

Using my hypothesis of generational identification by astrological sign of transiting Neptune, I plugged the years into this prompt:

“please create a super-realistic photo collage of what the world was like between the years y1 and y2”

The results are wonderful/terrifying.

Generation Sign y1-y2

__________________________

Pioneer ♈︎ Aries 1861-1875

Missionary ♉︎ Taurus 1874-1889

Lost ♊︎ Gemini 1887-1902

Interbellum ♋︎ Cancer 1901-1916

Greatest ♌︎ Leo 1915-1929

Silent ♍︎ Virgo 1928-1943

Boomer ♎︎ Libra 1943-1957

Gen X ♏︎ Scorpio 1955-1970

Xennials ♐︎ Sagittarius 1969-1984

Millennials ♑︎ Capricorn 1984-1998

Gen Z ♒︎ Aquarius 1998-2012

Gen Alpha ♓︎ Pisces 2011-2026

Enjoy!

Because our legacy scientific assumptions have erroneously elevated tangibility over other sense/aesthetic modalities, we have misinterpreted quantum mechanics, relativity, and the role of matter in the chain of causality.

So for example, when we think we’re detecting photons/light, we are actually only detecting the tactile-haptic footprint associated with public sharing of illumination sensations (visibility/brightness qualia).

The sensation/feeling/image/sound/quale/thought is what is ‘waving’ (regularly increasing and decreasing in intensity or varying in quality), but there is no actual “wave”.

I think that it works like a stadium “wave”.

Reality is made of physical particles the same way that broadcast TV shows are made of static.

“We have shown elsewhere that part of metaphysics moves, consciously or unconsciously, around the question why anything exists. Why matter, or spirit, or God, rather than nothing at all? But the question presupposes that reality fills a void, that underneath Being lies nothingness, that dejure there should be nothing, that we must therefore explain why there is de facto something. And this presupposition is pure illusion, for the idea of absolute nothingness has not one jot more meaning than a square circle. The absence of one thing being always the presence of another which we prefer to leave aside because it is not the thing that interests us or the thing we were expecting suppression is never anything more than substitution, a two-sided operation which we agree to look at from one side only: so that the idea of the abolition of everything is self-destructive, inconceivable; it is a pseudo-idea, a mirage conjured up by our imagination.”

- Henri Bergson

We don’t live in a physical world…and neither does physics.

The only world we can ever know is generated by, for, and within conscious experience - which is misinterpreted and abstracted in physical theory behind concepts like ‘frame of reference’ and 'contextuality’.

It is, after all, perception alone that frames, refers, contextualizes (temporal causality), and entangles (spatial locality). The sense of touch and memory put the physics into physical theory.

There is no speed of light, just a latency of tangibility that scales to the nesting of reference frames by size.

There may be no ‘particles’ but particle rendering functions of a certain sense modality (tactile-haptic).

Iron, man

Recently I learned that the element iron has the highest nuclear binding energy on the periodic table, meaning that the energy of an iron nucleus (26 protons) is the more different than the sum of its protons and neutron than any other atom.

I had already learned about the “Iron Peak” - that atoms with fewer nuclear particles than iron are easier to combine with fusion and atoms a higher atomic number than iron are easier to break apart with fission, but I didn’t realize the connection to iron having the greatest difference between the nuclear binding energy and the sum of the parts that make up the nucleus.

Metaphorically, I think of Iron Man (the song, not the comic book or movie) - an archetype of solitude and self-possessed isolation. The iron atom is actually the most ‘nuclear’ energy while nuclear fusion and fission are actually methods of exploiting those elements with very low nuclear energy…those atoms that are least self-isolating and most ready to sacrifice themselves for a greater group or more groups.

Interesting also to contemplate the significance of 26 as somehow the optimal group size for physical strength or unity in plurality. Iron is what matter, in some sense 'wants to be’ if it can. Stable, strong, magnetic, conductive…the most mattery-of-matters.

“Iron contains such a number of protons and neutrons which produces, due to the balance between the attractive strong force and Coulomb repulsion between protons, the maximum binding energy per nucleon.” - unattributed