/**
 * file: karbytes_09_april_2024.txt
 * type: plain-text
 * date: 07_APRIL_2024
 * author: karbytes
 * license: PUBLIC_DOMAIN
 */

Last night while I was laying down in a dark and quiet park area next to a patch of wilderness and a building which looked reminiscent of a Japanese zen garden building, I had the following thoughts:

I am grateful for the free water. 

I am grateful for the free electricity.

I am grateful for the free food.

I am grateful for the free air.

I am grateful for the human body I am housed in.

I am God living in a home which karbytes built for God to live inside of. It is nice to have a place to call home. Thank you karbytes!

* * *

This morning while savoring a cup of coffee which I bought from a cafe and gazing up at the (mostly clear) blue sky, I had the following thoughts:

I am glad that there are multiple parts of my mind which each have their own unique perspectives and propensities. I am glad they can argue with each other about what is the best use of my time, energy, and material resources. I noticed that each part seems to have compelling arguments which I cannot disagree with (which means that I ultimately do not necessarily favor one part over another on a consistent basis). Instead of favoring one part over another, I skip around rather spontaneously in terms of which part I show favor towards (and if I did not favor one part over another at times, I would be incapable of making decisions and would, hence, probably need to be put in a psychiatric hospital and be regarded as functionally comatose). 

Related to what I said about not showing any particular favor towards one part of my mind over another (in general and over a time period no shorter than one week), I thought that, ultimately, no part of my mind is morally or intellectually superior to any other part of my mind because all of those parts feed off the same intelligence and material resources and each of those parts is 100% logically correct within the limited context of its own uniquely corresponding ideological and ontological conceptualizations. In a broader context, it can be argued that there is ultimately no objective moral framework by which to clearly distinguish "right" from "wrong" because such values are dependent on there being some kind of goal for some information processing agent to strive towards attaining (and, for each goal, there arguably always exists some contradictory or incompatible goal). 

On an even more general (or abstract) level, I feel that all logic (whether about morality or ontology) is fundamentally communicable and comprehensible as finite programmatic statements (but the actual "program runtime instances" which each emerge from "executing" a particular "block of code" are unique (in terms of space, time, and energy allocation) and each more complex than what that "block of code" encompasses). 

To put it succinctly, I could argue that every phenomenon is fundamentally "composed of" ones and zeroes (given the premise that all of physical reality is really a computer simulation and that there could be limitlessly many of such layers of virtual reality (whether nested, parallel, or looping) such that there is no base layer which is not fundamentally reducible to discrete binary fluctuations of energy) but what is constructed from specific (and perhaps finite) sequences of ones and zeroes is seemingly too complex to fully reverse engineer within the same universe (but I really do think it is possible for an information processing agent such as myself (i.e. karbytes) to jump from one layer of reality (i.e. one universe within a set of many universes) to another layer of reality and reconstruct the entirety of one universe inside of some other universe which has more computational resources available in it by which to build that digital replica of every atom and every atom's timeline(s?) of the original universe which that digital twin is a verbatim physical replica of.

These are just some ideas and something fun to think about. I do not intend for what I wrote in this journal entry to be interpreted as logically infallible or as an absolutist ideological doctrine. This is just philosophy (and philosophy is little more than speculative thinking about existence in general; especially in an abstract and broad manner).