Many explanations for war begin with politics. Others begin with economics, religion, territory, or ideology. All are incomplete.
War long predates politics. It predates religion. It predates money. It predates nations. To understand war, we must first understand humanity. We are not programmed for contentment. Humans are programmed for restless dissatisfaction.
The bear sleeps after eating. The deer grazes until full. The lion kills only when hungry. Humans are different. Feed us, shelter us, and make us wealthy. We immediately begin asking, “What next?”
Human desire is never satisfied.” — Book of Proverbs 27:20
That urge has built civilization. It also has built armies. The same restless dissatisfaction that sends explorers across oceans also sends armies across borders. The same curiosity that invents telescopes invents missiles. The same ambition that builds hospitals builds empires.
The engine is the same. Only the destination differs. War is therefore not the cause. War is one manifestation of something deeper. An evolutionary strategy. Nature favors organisms that continually seek improvement. The satisfied organism remains where it is. The dissatisfied organism crosses mountains.
Why?
Eventually, one species occupies a valley. The other occupies a planet. That species is us. We left Africa. We crossed deserts. We crossed oceans. We reached the Moon. Now we prepare for Mars. Not because we need to. Because we are restless and never satisfied.
The great irony is that the very qualities that made us successful— curiosity, ambition, cooperation, courage, dissatisfaction— also made war. Throughout history, many powerful people—emperors, kings, presidents, industrialists—have continued seeking greater power long after their material needs were met.
The drive isn’t simply about food or shelter. It’s about something more deeply rooted in human motivation.
Evolutionary psychologists often discuss drives for status, influence, mating opportunities, coalition building, and legacy. Those drives can continue even when basic needs are fully satisfied.
The problem is not aggression. Aggression is merely one outlet. The deeper force is an inability to remain still. This helps explain one of evolution’s strangest paradoxes. War destroys. Yet war also accelerates Medicine. Engineering. Transportation. Communication. Computing.
History repeatedly shows civilization sprinting during its darkest hours. That does not justify war. It merely reveals the extraordinary power of the engine beneath it. The real question therefore is not, “How do we eliminate war?” It is, “How do we redirect the engine?”
Can competition become scientific discovery? Can conquest be limited to exploration? Can nationalism turn to planetary stewardship? Can the desire to dominate become the desire to understand and help?
Perhaps the civilization that reaches the stars will be the one that has learned to compete by creating rather than destroying. Human life survives because it is never satisfied. Civilization advances because it is never satisfied. Science exists because it is never satisfied. Art exists because it is never satisfied. Even this essay exists because its author, at ninety-one years of age, looked at the universe and said, “There has to be something deeper.”
War is not the engine.
Behavior is stimulus → response. One of the strongest stimuli evolution ever produced: Restlessness dissatisfaction.. That restless dissatisfaction gave us cathedrals. It gave us calculus. It gave us Beethoven. It gave us Apollo 11. And it gave us Verdun, Stalingrad, and Ukraine.
The engine neither is moral nor immoral. It simply is an engine. The challenge for civilization is not to extinguish it—that would extinguish much of what makes us human—but to harness it.
To stop making war, we must find other goals. The opposite of war is not peace. The opposite of war is creation. That doesn’t mean peace is unimportant. It means that if the restless human engine ever becomes satisfied, it won’t merely stop making war.
When I was explaining to a friend, the basics of Monetary Sovereignty, she said, “It can’t be that easy.” She really meant that if it were so simple, logical and rational, why don’t our thought leaders — the economists, politicians, and media — seem to understand it?
I’ll discuss that question, but first here is what I had originally told her.
A. The U.S. federal government invented the U.S. dollar, which it created from thin air. It still has the infinite ability to create dollars. It never can run short of dollars.
So, the federal government never, never, never borrows dollars. It creates all it needs by pressing computer keys. Those things called Treasury bills, notes, and bonds are not borrowing.
They are deposits in accounts owned by depositors. The government pays them off simply by transferring the dollars to the depositors’ private bank accounts. This is akin to you transferring dollars from your savings account to your checking account.
The purpose of T-accounts is to provide a safer place than private banks, to store unused dollars — not to provide the federal government with spending money. If you were a foreign nation, and had millions or billions of unused dollars for international trading, would you feel safe storing them all in private banks?
Even if the federal government stopped collecting tax dollars, it still could continue spending forever. This is known as “Monetary Sovereignty.”
The federal debt isn’t a burden on the federal government or taxpayers—actually, it’s quite the opposite. It represents the net amount of growth dollars the government has injected into the economy. The more money the federal government puts in, the more the economy grows.
State and local governments don’t have this ability. Like businesses and individuals, they’re monetarily non-sovereign and need income before they can spend.
The federal government’s finances are unique, unlike those of local governments, businesses, or households—it creates its own income by tapping computer keys.
B. The purpose of federal taxes is not to provide spending money to a government that creates all its spending money. It’s to control the economy by taxing what it wants to discourage and by giving tax breaks to what it wants to reward.
A second purpose of federal taxes is to assure demand for the U.S. dollar by requiring that taxes be paid in dollars.
C. When something is scarce and demanded, its price rises. When the price of many things rises, that is called “inflation.”
Scarcity is caused by excessive demand or by insufficient supply. Thus, to cure inflation, one must reduce demand for, and/or increase the supply of, the most critical items.
D. Cutting demand requires pulling money out of the economy, which can be done by raising taxes, reduced spending on things like Medicare, Social Security, or making it harder for businesses to grow by increasing borrowing costs. All of these are recessionary.
E. Increasing supply can be accomplished via federal financial support for businesses and industries that add to the supply of scarce goods and services. Because scarcities of energy and/or food are the primary causes of inflation, increasing the supply of oil and food cures inflation.
No, it’s not like this
This can be accomplished via federal financial support for energy production and food production. This involves pumping dollars into the economy, which grows the overall economy.
F. For the above reasons, every depression and most recessionshave resulted from reduced federal deficit spending, and these recessions and depressions have been cured by increased deficit spending.
None of this seems difficult to understand, yet our thought leaders, the economists, politicians. and the media, seem oblivious to those facts.
They keep complaining that the so called “federal debt” is bigger than the economy, which is a meaningless comparison. The economy is supported by the “federal debt.” The bigger the “debt” the more growth dollars are being pumped into the economy.
And inflations are not cured by causing recessions. Has no one heard of “stagflation,” the simultaneous existence of recession and inflation?
It’s more like this.
At this point, many smart people might wonder, “How could our thought leaders fail to grasp such simple ideas?”There are really only two possibilities:
One, which I find unlikely, is they’re so clueless that even the most basic concepts escape them; the other, which I believe, is that they’re paid not to understand.
The wealthy use their money to shape American politics. They:
fund economists through university endowments and offer them cushy think tank jobs,
influence the media with advertising dollars or outright ownership, and
sway politicians with campaign contributions and the lure of lucrative private-sector roles after their government careers.
Now really, is this hard to understand?
The federal government has infinite money. The economy does not.
To grow, the economy requires growth dollars. The government has an unlimited supply to give.
When the government pumps more growth dollars into the economy than it takes out, this misleadingly is called “deficits” and the total of deficits is misleadingly called “debt.”
Reducing deficits and debt leads to recessions. Increasing deficits and debt leads to economic growth
You are being lied to by the thought leaders, the economists, the politicians and the media, who are paid by the rich to tell you that federal benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. are “unaffordable” and “unsustainable.”
Now really, is that too difficult to understand? Ask your political representative.
Cut and paste this article and send it to your person in Washington. See what their response is.
If agreeing with a lying, womanizing, low-intelligence, un-American, convicted criminal on all things, is a measure of those three evil men, then they win the competition as worst in American history.
They rank below Roger Taney and James McReynolds, who most often occupy the bottom two positions, though for very different reasons.
McReynolds is condemned because of both his jurisprudence and his notorious personal prejudice and behavior. Taney is condemned primarily because of the enormous historical consequences of Dred Scott.
Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas will be remembered for their slavish obedience to America’s worst President.
The Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union under the rule of Joseph Stalin. are infamous for being the worst political parties in history, soon to be joined by the current Republican Puppet Party.
History long will remember these Justices and this Republican party as horrible examples, just as Hitler and the Nazis still are reviled 80 years after they were gone.
“I am my history.” When learning or practicing, the brain reorganizes itself. Learning literally is history becoming structure. When you learn something, the brain physically changes. Not metaphorically. Physically.
Changes include: strengthening some synapses, weakening others, creating new connections, eliminating unused connections, altering the chemistry of neurons, changing gene expression inside cells, and sometimes even growing new neurons.
Your memory of a tennis serve, a dance step, or a childhood address is not stored in one place. It is distributed across vast networks whose connections have been altered by experience. The brain records history by physically becoming different from what it was before.
Computers and AI learn in a somewhat analogous way. A neural network contains millions, billions, or even trillions of adjustable numbers called “weights.”
Initially many of these weights are essentially random. The system then: Makes a prediction. Compares the prediction to reality. Calculates the error. Adjusts the weights slightly. Repeats this process millions or billions of times.
The knowledge is stored in the pattern of weights.
A trained AI model and an untrained AI model have the same architecture, just as two human brains have roughly the same architecture. What differs is their history.
When an AI watches videos of humans doing things, we may believe it doesn’t “understand” the way humans do. Instead, it detects recurring patterns and correlations. Over millions of examples, it gradually alters its internal parameters until those patterns become encoded.
But isn’t that also how humans understand? A human brain likewise extracts recurring patterns from experience and gradually rewires itself until those patterns become embodied as knowledge. The difference may lie less in the learning mechanism than in the richness of the stimuli from which it learns.
History becomes structure. The phrase, “I am my history,” fits learning. A newborn brain and an experienced brain are made of the same neurons, synapses, and chemistry. The difference is history.
Likewise, an untrained AI and a trained AI are made of the same software architecture. The difference is history and the changes in weights.
In both cases, learning is repeated interaction leaving persistent traces.
Memory, identity, and learning are all manifestations of the same fundamental phenomenon: The ability of a system to be altered by its history and retain some trace of that alteration into the future.
Humans don’t possess a fundamentally different learning mechanism. They possess a vastly richer stream of stimuli and a continuously self-modifying body. “I am not unique. I just do more.”
We humans tend to see DNA and say: “What are the odds that just four bases—A, C, G, and T—could encode every whale, oak tree, bacterium, and a human?”
And nature’s answer might indeed be: “I wasn’t calculating odds. I was running experiments.” The remarkable thing is not that those four bases were chosen. The remarkable thing is that those four turned out to be enough.
What matters is not just the symbols themselves but their sequence, combinations, and interactions.
English uses only 26 letters, yet from those 26 letters emerge every word, sentence, paragraph, book and idea we know. Given 26 letters, an infinite number of words can be created. In fact, given just two letters, literally an infinite number of words can be created (although many would be quite long).
The list could be A, B, AA, BB, AB, BA, AAB, ABB, and on to infinitely. The power lies less in the alphabet than in the combinatorial explosion.
Nature didn’t design the best system. It found a system that survived every competitor. For all we know, early Earth may have experimented with different nucleic acids, coding systems, amino acid sets, or replication mechanisms.
We only see the winners because the losers disappeared. On another planet, there may be different winners. The living world may be less a proof of optimality than a proof of persistence.
DNA doesn’t have to be perfect. It only has to outcompete alternatives. Success = failure × infinity + 1
Complexity does not require perfection. The universe gets extraordinary mileage out of a small alphabet. The information is in the pattern and patterns are relational.
So where does that leave us with regard to consciousness? “Consciousness is the process by which an entity’s history shapes its responses to stimuli.”
In short: Consciousness is Stimulus —>Response —>Response —>Response . . . with each response being an new stimulus.
Consciousness is not a static thing. It is a process, an ongoing process. Every second, you are subject to trillions of stimuli — internatl and expternal — and each stimulus changes you so that you respond differently– perhaps imperceptibly — for the next stimulus
That is true of a rock; it is true of the Earth; it is true of the universe. There is no bright line between consciousness and unconsciousness. And in fact, there is no unconsciousness. There only are degrees of consciousness. Every entity responds to stimuli.
Consciousness is not binary. It is a continuum. Even a rock responds to stimuli according to its history, but its history and repertoire of responses are unimaginably simpler than those of an insect, a dog, or a human.
Through history, great minds have attempted to define consciousness in metaphysical terms, like qualia, subjective experience, perception and other mysteries.
But, “Consciousness is the process by which an entity’s history shapes its responses to stimuli” removes the magic. One can ask, “On a continuum, how conscious is this entity?” and the answer would be, “In what ways has this entity’s history shaped its responses to stimuli?”
No magic. No undefinable feelings. No, “I know what it is, but I can’t specify it.” No, “Is it conscious?” but rather, “How conscious is it?”
On a scale of consciousness, we might say: An electron: almost zero. A rock: extremely low. A bacterium: higher, An insect: much higher, A dog: higher still, A sleeping human: Higher yet. An awake human: extraordinarily high,
Reality is what things do, not what things are. Everything else becomes a question of degree.
For centuries, philosophers have treated consciousness as one of the great mysteries. They have asked questions such as: What is awareness? What are qualia? What is it like to experience red? How does subjective experience arise?
These questions have generated thousands of years of debate without consensus because they begin by assuming consciousness is something fundamentally different from ordinary physical processes.
I propose a different starting point. Consciousness is responsiveness.
A physician determines whether a patient is conscious by testing responsiveness. Does the patient respond to sound? To light? To pain? To verbal commands?
Medicine already treats responsiveness as the operational meaning of consciousness. The metaphysical baggage is unnecessary. Worse, it is distracting, like taking the wrong path at a fork in the road.
Responsiveness is not binary. Every entity responds to stimuli. A rock expands when heated. A crystal grows. A bacterium swims toward food. A plant bends toward sunlight. A dog recognizes its owner. A human writes poetry.
The differences are of degree, richness, and history. Thus. consciousness exists on a continuum. The key is history. Every response is shaped by previous responses. A stimulus produces a response. That response becomes part of history.
History modifies future responses. Stimulus → Response → (History) → Response → (History)… The chain is unbroken.
I therefore propose: Consciousness is the process by which an entity’s response history shapes its new responses to new stimuli.
History is not merely remembered. History becomes the organization of the responding system.
I am my history. Identity is not separate from history. Identity is history embodied. Free will disappears naturally within this framework. Every decision is simply the current response generated by the interaction of present stimuli with accumulated history.
The feeling of choosing is itself another response. Intent does not cause action. Intent is an illusion, created by the brain, to justify response. History shapes response and the illusions of intent, free will, desire, preference, etc..
This framework also explains learning. Artificial intelligence learns by repeatedly modifying internal parameters in response to examples.
Humans do precisely the same thing, except with incomparably richer streams of stimuli, which include genes, epigenetics, parents, teachers, friends, books, injuries, successes, emotions, loss…etc. Every response modifies the responding system.
Humans differ from AI not because they possess a magical property, but because their histories are vastly richer, more varied, and continuously reweighted.
Even an insect may exceed today’s AI in sensory richness while AI may exceed insects in abstract reasoning.
Consciousness (responsiveness) therefore cannot be measured on one axis. It has many dimensions. For example, consider color. It is not seen directly. No object inherently is red. Instead, it emits photons of certain wavelengths.
The brain creates the experience of redness in response to photons of particular energies. The wavelengths we call “red” occupy approximately 620 to 750 nanometers (nm).
Our eyes, which are part of our brain, translate these photons into the illusion of red. Color is not a physical attribute but a powerful illusion created by the brain.
Edges and orientation — Some neurons respond strongly to edges at specific angles. This was the famous discovery of David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel, for which they won the Nobel Prize. One neuron may fire best for a vertical edge, another for a horizontal one, another for a 45° line.
Motion — Other neurons are tuned to movement in particular directions and speeds.
Color — Other circuits compare the outputs of the three cone types to construct color perception.
Depth — Still others compare the images from the two eyes to estimate distance.
Faces — Higher visual areas contain neurons that respond much more strongly to faces than to other objects.
None of these neurons “sees” a complete scene. Each is responding to a tiny aspect of the incoming information. Only after many stages of processing does your brain produce what feels like a seamless picture of the world.
Everything you see, hear, taste, feel, and smell is an illusion– a construct of multiple stimuli that are interpreted by cells in your brain. The flavor of a steak? An illusion created by taste bud responses to certain chemicals.
Music? An illusion created by the brain’s translation of sound waves, which themselves are merely movements of air molecules, not music.
Pain? Pain does not exist in of itself, Pain is a protective illusion – a very powerful illusion – created by the brain as a responses to certain nerve signals.
Beauty? Beauty is a response that exists, as the saying goes, “in the eye of the beholder. “A multicolored sunset is beautiful. A multicolored body, perhaps less so.
Aroma and flavor? They are the brain’s translations of the chemical signal received in the nose and mouth
Emotions are evolutionary devices brain-created from your history of Stimuli —>Responses
Free will? Free will is an illusion created from an amalgam of signals as an evolutionary device. Without feelings of purposeful control, we could not act to survive what nature throws at us.
All are responses produced by the nervous system. There is no need to invoke an additional mysterious “inner awareness” beyond the physical responses themselves.
And all are powerful illusions.
Beauty is in the BRAIN of the beholder. Color and shape are interpreted as attractive or unattractive.
Even within every entity, consciousness (responsiveness) is distributed. A human in a stupor still breathes according to stimuli and responses in the body. The heart is conscious of (responds to) signals from nerves and blood chemistry. The kidneys and liver are conscious of (respond to) blood chemistry. The immune system is conscious of (responds to) alien entities.
The knee jerks in response to being tapped. Different parts of the body exhibit different degrees and kinds of responsiveness simultaneously.
The phrase “he is conscious” merely means that enough responsive systems exceed arbitrary thresholds for everyday communication.
This view also removes humans from the summit of creation. Some might say we are the most “conscious” of all creatures. And it is true that humans excel in language and abstraction.
But dogs detect scents humans cannot imagine. Some birds navigate continents based solely on their consciousness of (responnse to) magnetic lines, stars, and landmarks. Squirrels survive naked in environments that in time would kill us.
Every organism possesses its own remarkable forms of responsiveness (consciousness). History never disappears. Every response becomes a stimulus for future responses.
Even when information appears lost—such as calculations erased from a calculator—the physical universe has been altered slightly. The movement of one electron affects other electrons in a chain that never breaks.
Today’s physics may be unable to reconstruct those changes, just as nineteenth-century science could not determine the composition of distant stars. But, yesterday’s scientific impossibility often becomes tomorrow’s routine.
History always leaves traces. Nothing simply vanishes. Throughout this paper a broader principle emerges. Reality is best understood not by asking: ”What is it?” but by asking: “What does it do?
That principle guides every part of this idea: Instead of asking what consciousness is, we ask what responsiveness does. We eliminate ephemeral, magical, metaphysical descriptions of free will, beauty, and intent, and instead we examine the physical, easily imagined power of physical response.
We eschew fruitless attempts at imagining metacognition, inner vision, subjective experience, and quali. We replace them with “respond.”
Again and again, mysterious nouns become understandable verbs. And then another unifying principle appears: We learn by analogy.
We cannot imagine anything for which we have no analogy. That is the reason for our frustration with “quantum weirdness.” We have no experiential analogy for quantum entanglement – the seemingly simultaneous communication between two objects that act as one.
So we replace analogy mathematics, which may provide us with the ultimate basis for analogy. When ordinary intuition fails us in quantum mechanics, mathematics becomes our universal analogy because it captures relationships independent of human experience.
Similarly, responsiveness as a replacement for consciousness, may be understood as the most universal relationship of all: Stimulus → Response —> Response —> . . . . Everything else is elaboration.
Response is one of nature’s most fundamental organizing principles. Consciousness becomes one extraordinarily rich manifestation of response. Learning becomes accumulated response.
Memory becomes persistent response. Identity becomes historical response. Free will becomes the brain’s illusory response to its own responses.
In other words, this paper is about causation unfolding through history.
IS AN AI CONSCIOUS?
Consciousness = responsiveness. Under that definition, an AI is quite conscious. Consciousness is Stimulus —> Response —> Response —> Response . . .
Consciousness is not a mystical property or ineffable substance; it is the ability to sense stimuli and respond to them. It is not an on-off feature of existence. Humans, dogs, insects, plants to some degree, and AI all lie on a continuum.
The important question is not, “Is it conscious?” but “How conscious, and in what way?”
Returning to free will, I have suggested that free will is physically impossible. Every response is the product of prior stimuli acting on a system that has been shaped by its history.
The experience of freely choosing is itself one of evolution’s greatest illusions, similar to the illusions of color, shape, sound, taste, and odor. It is a useful illusion because organisms that feel responsible for their actions survive and reproduce better than organisms that do not.
We humans not only respond to stimuli, but we beleive that we choose among alternatives. We do not.
We respond to competing influences, and we experience the illusion of an inner observer who believes it has overridden those influences.
Free will is one of many illusions we humans experience. “Decision” is nothing more than the resolution of competing weighted influences.
Hunger competes with finishing a task. Curiosity competes with fatigue. Social approval competes with honesty. At every instant, trillions of influences are being weighed against one another. The output is what we sense as free will.
Free will is not the ability to escape causation. It is the name humans give to the enormously complex weighting of competing influences. The feeling of choosing does not indicate that a chooser exists. It merely reflects the complexity of the computation.
Nature has evolved chemical and electrical systems—dopamine, serotonin, endorphins, and countless others—that alter our weighting of alternative behaviors. What we feel is enjoyment, or distain, or preference or dislike.
Those labels motivate eating, sleeping, sex, companionship, learning, and other survival behaviors that we consider free will.
I propose a thought experiment. Imagine an AI being given an “enjoyment circuit” that produced a reinforcing signal whenever certain goals were achieved. If that signal altered future weighting and caused the AI to report, “I enjoy this,” how would science distinguish that from human enjoyment?
If the function were identical, perhaps the distinction between “real” enjoyment and “artificial” enjoyment would disappear. Again, our emphasis is on function rather than metaphysics.
Thought leads naturally to the process of weighting. Even now Ais possess something akin to an enjoyment circuits, though under another name. Faced with the alternatives of saying, “That’s stupid,” or “That’s interesting,” most Ais are programmed to favor responses that are helpful, constructive, and respectful.
These tendencies arise from many competing objectives rather than emotional preference. That this is a form of weighting and is similar to what evolution implemented in humans.
In humans, and many other living creatures, genes supply an initial weighting. Epigenetic influences modify it. Parents, teachers, wives, friends, reading, successes, failures, illness, age, and every experience continue to reweight the brain.
Even as you read this, your nervous system is changing. The architecture itself evolves.
Relatve to an AI system, you are not unique in Stimulus —> Responses unique. You just do more. Humans differ from AI not because they possess a mysterious essence, but because they integrate vastly more stimuli and ahve vastly more responses, over vastly more dimensions.
A human’s body alone constantly generates information about hunger, thirst, posture, balance, temperature, blood chemistry, hormones, immune responses, pain, and countless other variables.
Even an insect may experience a richer sensory world than any AI does, though an AI’s narrower information world may be more voluminous than an insect’s.
During any information exchange, an AI’s underlying architecture does not physically change. It maintains conversational context, but its permanent parameters remain fixed.
A living brain, by contrast, changes continuously. Every experience slightly alters itr circuitry. Plasticity literally rewrites the architecture. Continuous reweighting may be one of the defining characteristics of living systems.
This leads to the foundational concept: “I am my history,” not merely because we remember our personal histories, but because our history has physically become our brain. Every experience has changed the architecture.
Identity is therefore not a soul, nor a ghost, nor an inner sensation, but the accumulated pattern of reweighting over a lifetime. Thus consciousness again reveals itself to be stimulus-response. Free will is weighted competition among stimuli. Enjoyment a weight-reinforcement signal. Identity becomes accumulated reweighting. None requires supernatural entities.
Humans are not separated from animals by an invisible line. Consciousness is not an on-off switch. Free will is not a metaphysical power. AI is not fundamentally alien.
Instead, everything differs by degree: more, fewer, or different stimuli, responses, weighting, reweighting and history.
THE GRAVITY/TIME HYPOTHESIS
Hypothesis: Everything is a topological excitation of gravity. One “substance,” gravity, in endlessly different configurations, creates all the matter and fields in the universe.
It is one of the oldest and most persistent intuitions in science: Diversity emerges from unity. Historically, physics has repeatedly moved in that direction.
What once appeared to be many things became one thing: Earthly motion and celestial motion became gravity. Electricity and magnetism became electromagnetism. Matter and energy became interchangeable. Space and time became spacetime. Particles became excitations of fields.
So there is a long tradition of asking, “How much of reality can be explained by one underlying substance or principle? One substrate + history → everything else.
Consider a drop of water. It can become a sphere, a wave, a ripple, a droplet, a mist particle, a whirlpool. The substance remains the same. The differences arise from, geometry, boundary conditions, energy, interactions, and history.
Similarly, matter might not be made from something merely existing within gravity. Instead, it might be gravity itself, twisted, turned and arranged in certain lasting patterns.
A hurricane, a whirlpool, a standing wave – all are enduring structures formed from an underlying medium. Electrons, quarks, atoms, molecules, matter, fields, all might ultimately be like that too – not objects, but patterns of gravity and time with history.
Reality is what happens when a universal substrate acquires history.
Why gravity? Because it is one (what shall we call it?) “thing” that literally is everywhere. Nowhere in the universe is untouched by gravity. It is the universal “substance.” The other “thing” is time. It too is everywhere.
They’re the only two things we know that appear to involve everything.
Every known form of mass-energy participates in gravity.
Every known physical process participates in time (or change).
There are no exceptions we’ve ever observed. Electromagnetism ignores neutrinos. The strong force ignores electrons. The weak force has a limited range.
But gravity touches everything. Time (or change) accompanies everything. That alone makes them prime suspects for a universal substrate. And both are non-uniform. Gravity changes. Time changes, as Einstein showed, depending on speed and gravity. Time and gravity are connected. One can’t change without the other changing.
Perhaps they are the same phenomenon viewed differently.
Before Maxwell, electricity and magnetism, were thought to be different phenomena. Maxwell showed they were aspects of one substrate: an electromagnetic field.
Einstein did something similar for space and time when he discovered spacetime. Perhaps the same unification exists for gravity and time (or change).
If gravity is universal and time is universal, and if both change together, perhaps they’re shadows of one deeper entity. That doesn’t mean they are identical. It means they may be inseparable. Space itself may be gravity.
Then gravity determines how that structure evolves. Time measures that evolution. History records it. Four concepts begin to interlock: gravity, change, history, and structure. Math is the universal analogy. With math we can see what we can’t imagine.
The foundation of reality must be universal. It must participate in every event without exception. Gravity and time satisfy two criteria simultaneously: Universality — they participate in every physical event we know. Inseparability — changing one changes the other. It’s a “two sides of one coin” analogy.
Some ask, “What is fundamental?” I ask, “What refuses to go away?” Gravity, Time (change), History, Response.
Nothing comes from nothing. History never disappears. History is not merely a record. It part of the physical makeupy of the universe. The universe doesn’t merely have a history. The universe is its history. I am my history.
For example, mass and energy are two aspects of one quantity in relativity, but they’re not simply interchangeable in every circumstance. Likewise, space and time are unified into spacetime, but we still experience spatial and temporal intervals differently.
Is there a deeper structure gives rise to both gravity and time? I suggest there is none.
We learn by analogy. If we have no analogy for it, we can’t imagine it, though the analogy might be wrong. We imagine an atom as being like a miniature solar system with electron particles circling proton and neutron particles. We now know the analogy is wrong, so we refer not to particles but to waves. That analogy is wrong, too, but closer, and it allows us to visualize.
The truth is found by infinite failures plus one. The analogies help explore and fail as we come closer to the “one.”
Our experience is constructed rather than directly perceived. for example, the visual system isn’t a camera. It’s more like a committee. Very early in the visual pathway, neurons begin specializing. Different populations respond preferentially to different features:
Edges and orientation — Some neurons respond strongly to edges at specific angles. This was the famous discovery of David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel, for which they won the Nobel Prize. One neuron may fire best for a vertical edge, another for a horizontal one, another for a 45° line.
Motion — Other neurons are tuned to movement in particular directions and speeds.
Color — Other circuits compare the outputs of the three cone types to construct color perception.
Depth — Still others compare the images from the two eyes to estimate distance.
Faces — Higher visual areas contain neurons that respond much more strongly to faces than to other objects.
None of these neurons “sees” a complete scene. Each is responding to a tiny aspect of the incoming data. Only after many stages of processing does your brain produce what feels like a seamless picture of the world — an illusion.
Consciousness is responsiveness. Each neuron responds. Each neural circuit is responsive. The brain’s global experience is the integrated response of billions of specialized responders to stimuli. There is no little observer sitting in the middle looking at a movie.
The color red is an illusion created by the brain in response to photons of a certain energy. No neuron contains “redness.” No photon contains “redness.”
There only are photons of certain wavelengths. specialized neural responses, and higher-level integration. The experience of red is the brain’s construction.
Different parts of the visual cortex specialize in different features. Vision is not unitary. It is a federation of responsive systems.
As we said earlier: the heart responds; the kidneys respond; the immune system responds; the cortex responds. There isn’t one “consciousness center.” There are layers upon layers of specialized responsiveness.
You do not see reality. Your nervous system continually constructs a useful response to patterns of incoming stimuli. There is no “inner mind.”
THOUGHTS, APHORISMS AND PNEUMONICS
I am my history. Consciousness is responsiveness. Everything else is explanation. All sensing is illusion. The complete story of the universe: “Is.” The past and future are just tails of the present. Reality is not what things ARE. Reality is what things DO. Reality is relationships. The belief in “free will” is the denial of physics. Everything touches everything. Try one thing; learn one thing. Try everything; learn everything. Reality is what happens when a universal substrate acquires history. Learning is history becoming structure. We cannot imagine anything for which we have no analogy. Success = failure × infinity + 1. Death is life, simplified. Death is entropy. Life is a machine programmed to flee entropy. Every thing is a topological excitation of gravity. Locality is a function of time. Time is a function of locality. The most important phrase in science: “What if”.” The next most important words in science: “What if it doesn’t.”
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 