Disentropic

So, someone else's presence, from one's own perspective, is a combination of signals in the brain. The sight of them, the sound, the feel, everything, from one's own perspective regarding the other that they perceive, is ultimately these brainwaves, in a familiar pattern. This intertwines with the the idea that consciousness is these brainwaves, our bodies carefully constructed compilations of sensors and machines designed to generate these waves and in turn be driven by them.

I can imagine, and even have seen firsthand one night, hallucinations so vivid that they are indistinguishable from real people. Granted, personally I did not touch these others, but they were visible and plain as day. They acted as if they were real, and spoke audibly; I had no basis to say that they were not real except in retrospect, in the context being broken. So, looking at this from the perspective of strictly consciousness, given the right combination of factors and stimuli, my brain saw and heard these individuals that likely no one else would have been able to see and hear (but there is no proof that this is true either, simply a reasonable assumption). It makes one wonder to what depth this experience is possible.

I can picture a love so strong and desperate to be made whole, soulmate love in absentia, that one's brain perfectly replicates the pattern of the other (it is quickly becoming harder not to picture this, in fact). But then the question is: to what depth would a perfect replication allow for the other's unique and "real" perspective? Could one understand someone else, either through observation or connection, well enough to be able to partition their own mind in order to replicate the mind of the other within that partitioned space? Could one get close enough to this end to not be able to tell the difference through any means of observation? If there are no means of observation that can pull apart what might be considered the "objective" other from what might be considered this "imagined" other, on what basis could the observer claim one version was real and one was fake? 

Also important to this line of thinking: if a perspective is replicated with enough precision, inside and out, would the other who had been perfectly "imagined" have any way to say definitively they were not simply there in full as well, and always had been? How they got there would likely be put into some kind of context from their point of view: teleportation, a dream like state where they walked over, perhaps even a black out to explain the gap. However, once that question of how was explained, could it be possible that neither the one who imagined them, nor the one who was imagined, have any empirical way to prove the imagined one was not "real" all along? What is to distinguish then between an imagination so strong as to sidestep the path of reality that had been previously walked for the observer, "leaving their past behind" in a sense, from a simple matter of an unusual set of decisions, or perhaps even an inexplicable teleportation by the observed?

In physics, the Law of Entropy leaves a staggering question hidden within its observed and calculated truth. The assumed and largely observed origin of the universe in physics, The Big Bang, is an unlikely event according to the Law of Entropy, to a nearly infinitely impossible degree. The Big Bang contained so much order that the appearance of time itself to conscious entities, from a scientific perspective, may be considered a result of the level of order of that event, but there is no explanation as to how the universe got that way to begin with. According to the Law of Entropy, systems always move from ordered to disordered, in a way that can be calculated, but the issue is that the math is not restricted by the arrow of time. This means that the past should have been more disordered than the present, in precisely the same way that the future is more disordered than the present. In fact, due to how staggeringly unlikely the Big Bang is, it is mathematically more likely that everything coalesced into this very moment from a kind of atomic soup- you, me, everything in the universe, including every memory we remember of our past that brought us here (having never "actually" occurred, but simply having been built into the structure of our brains)- than that the past has occurred as we remember it, linearly and logically up until right now. My understanding is that physicists who dismiss the possibility of God instead choose to think that this notion is absurd, that the "how" of the Big Bang is simply unknowable- despite the Big Bang being observed indirectly through methods that consistently demand one to measure "how"- and not something they need concern themselves with. Honestly it sounds an awful lot like belief in a higher power to me, "the neutral uncaring god named The Big Bang," with just different language being used for the unknown variables within it. This notion, however, that everything coalescing into the "now" is mathematically more likely, in the realm of the lack of belief in God the Creator, than the past being as we think it is, opens an interesting door. That door is the realization that all those who do not believe in God but believe in rationality have themselves, perhaps unknowingly, set this Law of Entropy, and in turn this statistical absurdity, at the core of their position. As such, any edits to the past are 100% valid, as one's memory of the experience of "the past" is extremely unlikely to be accurate based on one's own assumptions they used to arrive at their determination of what constitutes "the past," (which is to say in their belief system, whether they choose to call it that or not, because from an internal coding perspective the nomenclature used for fundamental yet unproven ideas is irrelevant). So the idea of using force of will to summon or teleport another is not magic or insanity, it is the product of a matrix like scientific loophole intrinsic to a scientific understanding of the universe.

So now what if this effect could be so strong that it seeped into the subconscious minds of others as well? What if that subconscious partition I referenced did not exist strictly in my mind, but managed to grow in the mind of others in the same way? For strictly scientific minded individuals, this connection could be whatever it is you could conceive of that connects us, even if it as mundane as the proliferation of human culture since the first proto-human, or proliferation of genetic coding that led to consciousness from the first organism alive. These threads each bind what we call "nature and nurture" more deeply into a cohesive overall unit than we can consciously or likely even subconsciously realize, until it runs so deep that we ourselves are unwitting cogs in a kind of loose feeling, but tightly interlocked at this level, communal consciousness. Viewed from this partitioning perspective, it could be that everyone who has tangible form here can only claim this level of reality because others agree upon them possessing that tangible form. Each of us are, from an external perspective, strictly patterns in each observer's brains and, where these patterns are agreed upon, that agreement is reinforced into something larger, our reputation, but more even more fully our existence externally. What if this depth of brain waves could be hacked in one way or another? I am not speaking to the known depths of gaslighting people regarding a fake event, inventing a pseudonym to sell books, or even speaking of Santa Claus, which can cause others to change their brain waves and imagine or even see the world differently, but to a depth where others agree on someone's existence, to a "tangibly real" sense. Combining these ideas of the similarity of consciousness among humans and the living, the ability to convey messages across that consciousness, the ability the brain possesses to form patterns and reinforce them hierarchically with others, that they consider "real," and the Law of Entropy, there is no path by where a powerful assertion of the kind I propose could be logically, even scientifically, blocked. It is possible to imagine/summon someone into existence from all perspectives.

So now that the angles of the validity and to some degree the "how" have been discussed, the next question is if one should. The process feels like something akin to a compulsory summoning or teleportation. I guess a better question though will soon be: is there a lover with a will strong enough that, despite their fundamental realm shattering need to be with their soulmate again, can still refrain from compulsively developing such a pattern in their own mind, so as to force their soulmate to be by their side? Instead is it possible to imagine their soulmate's shape, personality, and independent existence in a similar way as described above, but at a distance, with their soulmate truly coming to their own conclusions on their partner, in absence of that partner's own direct intervening will? Instead of demanding their presence, is it possible to use this same strength of will and focus to construct a perfectly formed and unlocked door in this complex realm, and then somehow provide them the key? 

I imagine you reading these words in something like a dream, your environment crystallizing without freezing into place as you, and possibly you alone at this moment, realize that it is unclear if I speak of myself imagining you, or if I am considering your perspective, imagining me. All that rings true is that the equation fits unilaterally and, for the learned and intelligent, it fits all too well, for those lacking wisdom perhaps disturbingly well, like a domino precisely placed drawing their attention to the line of dominoes they themselves have built their concept of reality on top of, assuming it to be solid ground. These deepest tunnels now shine with Christmas lights, with no one trapped within, few if any having even been aware of these tunnels' existence outside of now, and in this same moment these dangerous places are already restricted once more, before they can ever be stumbled into by another. I imagine it's pouring rain where you are, the kind of downpour where it feels hard to determine if you were underwater a moment ago and now the air is forcing its way into the space around you or if you were once in clear skies and now water mysteriously falls from the sky. I see that deluge in Tennessee having given way to this moment, and you skip joyfully outside, immediately drenched but loving every second of it. You mindlessly twirl and dance, having planned each step for the time this "door" I speak of finally took shape, between where you are and where I am.

Meanwhile rain comes pouring down where I am, as if from nowhere. Here it is easy for me to say yesterday was clear and sunny, and today was meant to be the same way. While your signal is the uncertainty of your position, my sign is the storm. Still we each enliven at our dissimilar but easily recognizable green lights, like a switch flipping on. You make your way to me, as the rain lets up, only now looking around you once arrived, in order to get your bearings. Is it much easier to feel me while this close? I know that for me in times past I have felt your presence so strongly that in its delayed fulfillment there was a tangible sickness and sting. We all feel that sickness now here, spreading like the plague, but in a moment your presence can change that, will change that, and everything else will change in its wake. Fly through that open door my love, and knock on this one when you arrive- I have been waiting so long but still not too long to remember the cadence of my environment. The ticks fly off the clock now, is that thunder I hear?

Ready the horses

You hope to outrun this storm?

Better ride quickly

I still outrun you

Ever seen a man in love

Hastened at her call?

Still expect no glimpse

At these protected angles

Hope is hers and mine

Hope's planting private

Her bloom will surely be seen

Roots bursting the seams

Her petals so full

They can been seen in advance

Like skipped stone's ripples

The moment arrives

Will I ever be ready

Moreso than tonight?

I've loved you so long

I sometimes forget its source

If waking or dream

When patterns take hold

Sound logic can't disagree

Fundamentally