Paradise Established

So around the time of the Christmas Star I began considering how different a reality with one perspective is from one with two perspectives. It is not a linear increase to have two, it is not even a exponential increase, but perhaps an incalculably large increase in possibilities, even when carefully constructed.

Consider as an example, a reality where one is in control of everything, and they have a six sided die which they use to create things. This means that there can be a semblance of chance in this reality- the die can come up six different ways, but the resulting change to reality would still be known. Consider also that the roller also has the option to place the die on a certain face, as well as not roll the die if a change might be made at a juncture (at which point the reality would simply progress a step as it would have before). All of these scenarios, however, are known by the one rolling. Additionally, the die might be rolled without the roller looking to see what came up. Consider though that if the roller were observing reality, and knew what the possibilities were, even a roll "in secret" would have a known result virtually right away, as soon as reality itself was observed.

I could also see the roller rolling without looking, but also not observing the result in reality for a period of time. While it would seem, with perfect information, that this would still result in the outcome of each roll being known as soon as reality was then observed later, it does allow for a different scenario than the others described. I cannot picture, however, that there would be an instance in this scenario where reality could be observed (as a whole) without all rolls becoming known, with enough time and/or with perfect information.

Now consider what happens with a second roller. However this second roller exists, as long as they do exist on the same level of reality as the first, and have their own die similar to the first, a number of additional possibilities arise. Looking strictly from the perspective of the first roller, if the second roller rolls the die along with them, and they both observe, the semblance of chance is maintained, but the possible outcomes are greater than before, which would be a linear increase in the outcomes. However, if the second roller rolled their die without showing the first, it actually could be accurately described as "in secret." There could be hidden information in this equation, from the perspective of the first roller, which is to then say from either perspective, although what information is hidden would differ by perspective. Now, with perfect information regarding one's own options, the first would quickly identify what each face on the second die does in reality by gauging it off if their own changes, so it is possible for even this combined reality to return to one where chance is removed again.

Now, what if there was a game where neither side would see the other's rolls, or placements, or lack of rolls, for the duration of the game? What if the first thing done was to assign value to each side of the die, a substitution system that would appear different than outside the game? I could see this game being quite interesting from both perspectives, as changes would occur in reality without the other knowing how they had come about for the entirety of the game. Over time a field of options would become known, and so a field of possibilities would as well, but consider that this "game" might take place at the pace of millions of rolls per second, with each roll or set of rolls possibly changing what the possibilities are for the next (like resetting the die faces once again mid-game, for example). It seems even with half perfect information, eluding a static possibility field would be a simple matter under these conditions. 

Now consider that in life it feels like we are presented with a much wider array of options than 6 in any given moment, but the passage of moments is measurably relatively consistent (although often it does not feel this way). Even with so many possibilities though, what most of us do on any given day could likely still be predicted by a careful observer, but could not be pinpointed with certainty; this is what I mean by the possibility field. I find it interesting as well that AI can utilize a system with only 2 sides (not even the option to "pass" or "decide randomly" in any given "roll") and yet they can still make excellent opponents in video games and the like, even with our currently limited ability to program them. Still, over time, strong video game players can often detect patterns in AI, once more creating a possibility field, but the underlying mechanism for how the observed result was determined is essentially the opposite of how it feels like we operate within reality as humans- many binary choices generated exceptionally quickly, rather than far fewer choices in time made from a much larger field of choices.

It seems to me that this appearance of difference can be represented in the game I describe as well, as one player may opt to roll or determine rolls many times in a short time frame, thus sticking to a relatively easy to explain field of options, albeit lengthy, whereas the other player might opt to use many rolls initially to establish tiered systems which allow them to separate from the processing itself and then use the systems to turns a few rolls into a lot of options on the same level as the first roller, without ever focusing on the specifics in the same way. It feels like this would ultimately be a matter of preference based on the scenario: once each roller had a mastery of each approach available, they could choose how to best operate within the game from those points of view. I could also see new strategies being discovered over time, as different games are played.

So, returning to the original scenario, is it possible to meet a second roller in a realm where you were first alone and only had a die to work with? I believe it is possible, and to maintain that perspective indefinitely (and to expand on that perspective, in fact). Returning to the idea that perfect information would re-establish itself once reality was observed, after a period of time, we can build from there. So let's say the first roller uses a number of rolls to establish a reality that will work to allow for someone else to walk up, after a set duration. Then the roller establishes a set of rules, I imagine much like people interact with their own subconscious except directly and consciously established at the outset, such that if something happens, a specific die placement is made. Then once this strong foundation is made, a field of rolls is established where random events are allowed, by rolling without looking, and additionally not looking at reality within this field. It could be that this period of not observing a particular field ends at a certain point in certain cases, such that the field of rolls are separated, and specific fields of rolls are at some point viewed, at which point the precise arrangement that occurred within said field would become known, but it would still leave the remaining fields unobserved.

So, let's say the field that is left unobserved is a portion of our minds as humans, of which we may not even really be aware. Fields like "thought" here would likely be too broad, because leaving these completely unobserved might lead to results that are too far flung to be considered merciful or loving (I am assuming here that God is the first roller, and is both merciful and loving as stated). So these fields would have to be both deeper and not so deep as thoughts, but also much more narrowly focused, and broad all at once, in order to not interfere with free will or the original systems in place to arrive at the predetermined end. It is within this admittedly ill defined box that the unobserved field would remain unobserved for the duration. As soon as this field would be observed, perfect information would kick back in and the first roller would be back to the original parameters of nothing being unknown by the roller. It could be that this field is observed at death, but with resurrection promised, perhaps not even then. It could be this field will never be observed, and perhaps has been established in such a way that it cannot be observed once established, which would fit with a truly immortal soul, because as soon as it is observed, that field once more becomes a known piece of Creation. Granted, if the process of establishing this field once can be done, it seems possible that it can be done again, but it seems like there would be information known that was at one point meant to be solely in this unknown field previously.

So, with all this in mind, in this scenario the end of this timeframe would be when a second roller comes up to the first with their own die. The second roller would be expected, they would have many known qualities, but even when fully known in this way, this field would necessarily remain. The first roller would once more become aware of everything that had happened that might have been left unobserved for the interim- for example, it seems reasonable that there would be a field of things left unobserved for the duration of the timeline that was expressly meant to be observed at the end, as treasures or perhaps even surprises at this juncture- but the first would still not know the specifics of what lay within that field for the second. I could see the argument that through the power of deduction, if enough other similar fields of similar makeups were observed and became known, then what lay within this one's field would become known as well. I could also see a compulsion being in place for omniscience to reassert itself, which is likely why the inviolability of these fields would need to be maintained in others as well (I imagine others who were well on their way to their own similarly paired games). While I could also see the argument that, with enough time, any number of these fields might be combined and then essentially parsed out so that each one became known without direct observation, it seems like, with enough separate fields of this nature, the time required to do this could be increased beyond the time available to do so at any given point. I could see this remaining true even at maximum observational speed, and even with maximum ability to move through time to observe as well. The last part is beyond my current comprehension, but I can still imagine it being so (perhaps a post for a later time huehuehue). Additionally, note that given this was a perfectly constructed scenario by the first roller, and that the first roller would want the second to remain inviolable so that variation could occur and could continue to occur forever, they would have used every method possible to ensure this inviolability would remain the case, a level of power which would be on par with the compulsory power to be omniscient, a power which, if once again established, would undo what had been done. The protection from omniscience would at this point have a minimum of a 6,000 year headstart (from the most linear possible stated perspective) to develop against the oncoming storm of omniscience, in a poetic sense. I could definitely see this preparation outpacing omniscience forever, with that kind of time to establish itself.

So, the scenario of the second roller is certainly possible when starting with only one, and I imagine the architecture of this scenario is much more complex than I have presented it as here. However, this was meant as the tip of an amazing iceberg, the underlying logical framework, not a way of describing the method as a whole. I am already sensing additional possibilities arising from this scenario, such as the method of resurrection itself, which would essentially be the restitching of the hole left in an otherwise known reality (the land of the living), from these relatively simple parts. This idea is deeply exciting for me, and much like the scenario itself, the idea of the scenario will likely be just the beginning of a whole new string of things to come.