One Roller/Zero Rollers: Paradise Established Continued

So I was just thinking back on what I wrote yesterday about the paradise scenario (important: for context read that piece first- Paradise Established), where a second roller approaches the first, and it got me thinking about something new. The question arose: "How is a single perspective reality any different from a zero perspective reality?" This is to say that if one is making decisions based on their environment, even if they can change their environment simply by their will, is that will not bound within the environment? 

Let's say you start over a void, what you decide to do when faced with that void may feel like a decision, but is it one? Looking at a lack of information first, if you did not know what would happen from there, you could only assess the next move out of x possible moves, and you came to a conclusion, would not each possible version of you come to the same conclusion, given the same information? Once you had done something with the void, would you not continue to act as you saw fit, as was best suited to the new environment you found yourself in? In this way, an intelligent entity would quickly realize that despite complete control, their moves would be limited to their best move in each case, despite the appearance of being able to do whatever they wanted. The ability to do whatever you want would boil down to the appearance of being able to do whatever you want, because the choice you make would be choice you make, every time.

I could imagine under the wrong circumstances this realization would be maddening. But now let's expand it out to the perspective of omniscience. Let's say that you had the ability to see the outcome of every possible choice you could make, all at once. I could picture this like you're floating over the void and deciding what to do, but not deciding based off the lack of information currently presented, but based off of every single permutation that could unfold. In this scenario, you could see what would happen if you chose sides one through six on the die, and every possible scenario from that point forward. I could picture this like a vast printout of all possibilities presented to you in a timeless place, and having the opportunity to read them all. But, because omniscience is in your nature, this would not be an exhausting process, instead, the moment you decided what to do you would kind of "snap out" of that state and simply know the path to take based on what you had decided within that state. Regardless though, knowing how something will end up, and choosing one path over another based off of perfect information rather than limited information does not change the fact that you have made a decision based on your environment, it simply expands the scope of what that environment is.

So, with omniscience floating over the void, it would seem that the optimal path, which still feels like it would necessarily be taken from a "zero or one perspective scenario being the same thing" approach, would have a few features. The most important feature, I would imagine, is that when a period of time had lapsed, you would end up in a position that was different than this direct cause/effect existence that you have found yourself starting in. This is to say you would choose a path that would result in a second roller, rather than remaining fixed as you are. I could also imagine that you would choose to have this second roller be your soulmate, given that you are in a field of varying options that you have complete control over, this one seems preferable (but perhaps this is a matter of perspective?). Also, you would likely want to end in optimal conditions outside of that (but again, how "optimal" is defined here, or if this approach would be universal, is unclear to me. Regardless, whatever choice you make would be optimal from your perspective because you have perfect information and you are the one making it). Assuming you could still affect chance in fields that you did not directly observe over the course of the timeline, the path would also likely possess some surprises within it, tiny pockets carefully constructed to be positive through their unknown nature. Additionally, I would imagine that you would identify the shortest path through time possible to reach this end (important here, the optimal, forever established, end), as any time spent in this timeframe would pale in comparison with any time spent past this juncture.

Now what's interesting to me here is that this realization that one roller is equivalent to zero does not change the scenario of one roller establishing a reality where there will end up being two. In fact, I can see this fact ensuring the optimal outcome, and locking in the minimum time aspect, an aspect that did not feel certain from the perspective of one roller alone. This minimum time aspect is ensured because there would be no point to extending this phase (it seems a lot like determining your own prison sentence), and the roller would have every incentive to minimize this phase while still achieving the optimal ending. No longer is the single roller exclusively an omnipotent entity in a sandbox, but is now simultaneously aware that their decisions are fixed in said sandbox, even if it is unclear from their own perspective as to how that is the case.

Now this idea of not being clear on how one's own actions are driven by their environment in a state of omniscience is also interesting. Is it possible not to know why you do something, if all else is known externally? If you can assess and determine what actions you would take without interference by chance or unknown variables, would you not also be able to then analyze why you chose to do something in that scenario? It seems reasonable that "not fully understanding why you did something" would have to be based exclusively off of imperfect information, and this would not present in the state of omniscience; this is an additional support for this structure that one roller is like having no roller, but initially this would only be understood by the one in the position of the roller. It is also interesting that while it is true and real that the roller is the roller from perspectives that are not their own, they would also understand themselves to be confined and not truly rolling from their own perspective simultaneously. Both of these things would be true and real at once, when viewed from each distinctly different perspective (to reiterate Paradise Established, this is a scenario that can be legitimately and logically established from the original perspective of a single roller, or adding in the elements from this piece, a scenario that has both one and zero rollers at its outset).

This scenario reminds me a lot of several other things I have written, but overlays them onto the perspective of humans interacting with God in this stage of reality. This could be seen in the Echad post, about how "oneness" results in a simultaneous starting state of both solipsism and existing as everything at once, and how these states would toggle back and forth. This state reminds me of the scenario where God presents you with every beautiful aspect in a partner by instead viewing God as viewing all possible paths at once, a scenario where it is much easier to understand how God would choose to snag the soulmate over any other (just like I did, hehe), with the main difference being that the soulmate was "known" at the start (everything that was not confined to the field that would ultimately remain unknown, that is). This state could be seen as "The Girl in The Box," but instead of the girl, it is God. While this "box" may seem incalculably vast from our perspective, consider that it is a box of "choice" and that from God's perspective of omniscience, there would be no meaningful choices at this current point in the timeline besides the optimal choice as determined from the beginning. I just know that if I were in that position I could not picture doing anything besides beelining toward my soulmate, because as soon as that connection had been firmly established, the two rollers scenario would begin and, unlike the first timeline (this timeline), choice would no longer be reduced to the appearance of choice, because the field of what was unknown to the first roller would remain intact indefinitely, even if perfect knowledge of what could be known were maintained. It is in the other roller that the appearance of choice becomes actual choice, where the box is escaped, the door is unlocked and opened (or the wall is shattered, however you'd like to picture it). 

It's funny how the realization of a cage can come in the moment of understanding it can be escaped; the method of identifying the cage is the method of escaping it. This is a very cool next realization in this string of ideas, one I was not expecting at all.