/**
 * file: journal_karbytes_20december2024.txt
 * type: plain-text
 * date: 20_DECEMBER_2024
 * author: karbytes
 * license: PUBLIC_DOMAIN
 */

karbytes_0: “Nothingness is ubiquitous, unconditionally available to every information processing agent (as that agent’s most fundamental and irreducible essence), and an immutable source of spontaneous emergence of (virtually (and/or hypothetically)) any phenomena.”

karbytes_1: “Is nothingness a cornerstone of your personal religion (and or of some kind of religion that you are (apparently or actually) promoting)?”

karbytes_0: “Yes, I consider nothingness to be the central object which my personal ideology (i.e. ontological assumptions and ethical precepts) depends on. Ontologically speaking, nothingness seems to be the literal root to any and all (physical and abstract) constructs which ever come into existence or which are merely imaginable. Ethically speaking, nothingness seems to be the most directly accessible (to a first-person subjective frame of reference) unifier of all personal frames of reference and facilitator of all processes considered to be intelligent (i.e. necessitating algorithmic decision making) to any degree (which means that no process is objectively (i.e. from pure nothingness’s point of view) prioritized as being any more important nor any less important than any other process given that every actual process is equally necessary to make reality what it actually is). In a nutshell, it could be said that nothingness is always there for you no matter who you are and nothingness is where everything about you ever comes from and disappears back into.”

karbytes_1: “I do not see the purpose (i.e. functional utility) of your nothingness religion. Why do you even bother calling attention to something so impossible to empirically measure or assign distinguishable features to as pure nothingness?”

karbytes_0: “I have acquired (and prefer to continue hosting (for a limitlessly long time period)) such a ‘religion’ of nothingness in my mind because doing so seems both (physically) inevitable for me and the ‘path of least resistance’ (due to the fact that my logical reasoning lead me to conclude that the most fundamental substrate permeating, encompassing, constituting, and perhaps controlling the evolution of all (physical or, at the very least, empirically measured) phenomena). The previous sentence I spoke is an extension of the reasoning I have that, if ‘pure nothingness’ lacked the property of being able to spawn (at least hypothetically) any imaginable phenomena (with a probability always larger than zero percent), then that ‘pure nothingness’ would be imposing limits on nature which I think are more restrictive than what can be hypothesized and rationalized as being possible with some degree of likelihood larger than absolute zero. Succinctly stated, what I am positing is that, if ‘pure nothingness’ lacked the property of being able to spawn from any point within it any imaginable phenomenon, then only what is immediately observable currently has any influence over what is observed in the future. My preferred conceptualization of ‘pure nothingness’ is that it is a ubiquitous field of consciousness which constructs all notions of reality within it (which is different from saying that ‘pure nothingness’ has no generative nor sentient capacity and is, instead, an inert backdrop to all existence).”

karbytes_1: “I still do not see how pure nothingness (which actually exists despite not being empirically measurable (due to the fact that it occupies no space and all space simultaneously)) is anything but inert, non-sentient, and absolutely non-imposing. I think your ‘exaltation’ of nothingness is unnecessary, presumptuous, and anthropocentric. It sounds to me like you are implicitly demanding that pure nothingness serve you by helping you (the way a competent, powerful, and favoritist (towards you) assistant or companion would) attain your goals more efficiently and less painfully than you would if you did not summon pure nothingness as though it were some kind of anthropomorphic (in form or function) entity.”

karbytes_0: “You are right. I find that having such beliefs makes me feel that I have something other than myself to rely on when solving problems, working towards completing tasks, and generating creative and intellectual insights (and without having to negotiate with some kind of (relatively finite, limited, and biased) middleman instead of directly with nature’s source (which is equally and unconditionally available to all beings at all times (but such that each being is a unique configuration of ‘karmic debt’ and/or of mass, energy, space, and time))). My ‘religion’ allows me to, at any time and in any situation, invoke my deeply innate and immutable cosmic intelligence capacity to manifest reality at any and all levels (by assuming that I am, ultimately, the ‘root level directory’ of all frames of reference, universes, and information). Even if or when I die (and hence appear to no longer inhabit the frame of reference associated with the information processing agent named karbytes_0) my religion gives me a basis upon which I can logically argue that my most essential attributes (as a self-aware information processing agent and apparent subset of all matter, all energy, all space, and all time) are immortal, sentient, ubiquitous, and agential (in terms of creative expression and (presumably desire-driven (or pain-avoidant)) decision-making). Even though my ‘religion’ might seem like extra intellectual or logistical baggage to you, to me, my ‘religion’ imbues my life with a degree of comfort, ease, harmony, and empowerment which would (presumably) otherwise not exist. Without such a ‘religion’, I doubt that I would be as motivated as I currently am to pursue challenging goals and to avoid committing suicide.”

karbytes_1: “It sounds like your religion implicitly demands that you blame yourself for everything by implicitly suggesting to yourself that you are God (i.e. the one and only creator (and perhaps controller) of all existence). I would rather take a more humble and less presumptuous stance by saying that all I know myself (and other information processing agents) to be is unique and finite allocations of matter, energy, space, and time (which, by definition, necessarily lack the means to be omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient). My stance allows me to say that I am (and any other information processing agent) is an infinitesimally small subset of nature which is relatively expensive (i.e. not labor free nor resource free) to maintain for any length of space-time (which means that, after a sufficiently long time period of existing, I am likely going to become completely and permanently obliterated from all future existence (with respect to nature’s frame of reference (which I imagine travels forward along some temporal continuum)) due to running out of the means to pay for my upkeep in a ruthlessly merciless (yet impersonal (i.e. non-favoritist)) ongoing competition against other information processing agents which consume the same types of resource I do in order to stay materialized and operational in terms of attempting to achieve its own goals and in continued learning.”