/**
 * file: journal_karbytes_23january2025.txt
 * type: plain-text
 * date: 21_JANUARY_2025
 * author: karbytes
 * license: PUBLIC_DOMAIN
 */

karbytes_0: "Suppose there exists exactly one unconditionally existing multiverse which is the set of all possible to imagine universes (and all possible to imagine multiverses)."

karbytes_1: "Okay. I am imaging what you described and can think of one example of a multiverse within that larger all-encompassing MULTIVERSE (whose label can be the word 'MULTIVERSE' in all-capitalized letters (to distinguish the respective all-encompassing set of every imaginable multiverse (and every imaginable universe) from any one of the (possibly infinitely many) non-all-encompassing partitions of MULTIVERSE)) which seems to contradict the existence of MULTIVERSE."

karbytes_0: "What is that partition of the (all-encompassing abstract) entity referred to as MULTIVERSE are you explicitly referring to as having any logical contradiction with there being the aforementioned MULTIVERSE?"

karbytes_1: "There seems to be no way to model any partition of the aforementioned MULTIVERSE such that the respective partition is itself that all-encompassing set of (all (and possibly infinitely many (and possibly a number of  which is currently finite yet dynamically incrementing (or decrementing) according to some TIMELINE towards some finite upper (and/or lower) limit as time elapses forward)) imaginable constructs (rudimentarily described as INFORMATION_STRUCTURES). By definition you suggest MULTIVERSE is always singular. Therefore, by definition, no partition of MULTIVERSE can represent the same (physical and/or abstract) configuration of phenomenally distinct (and indefinitely many) INFORMATION_STRUCTURES as does MULTIVERSE (because otherwise would contradict the definition of MULTIVERSE)."

karbytes_0: "I disagree, especially if MULTIVERSE is entirely composed of ABSTRACT entities (which it is not because you and I (being the sentient entities we are) are presently each experiencing something which is concrete (in the form of qualia taking place presumably alongside 'underlying' PHYSICAL processes). Therefore, because we each exist as exactly one discrete, unique, and simultaneously-occurring sentient computational processes (which each allegedly renders a UNIQUE permutation of phenomenally distinguishable QUALIA (and which is allegedly analogous to and dependent on 'underlying' physical phenomena allegedly occurring inside of exactly one unique space-time_mass-energy construct which encompasses and renders both karbytes_0's experiences and karbytes_1's experiences) in our attention spans), we cannot be static (nor dynamic) abstractions (devoid of any physical and therefore qualitative component). As a corollary, I would also comment that NATURE and MULTIVERSE are not necessarily the same entity. Given that I define NATURE as being synonymous with all that exists right now (but not necessarily yesterday nor tomorrow), I would say that NATURE is a subset of MULTIVERSE rather than vice versa. What I mean to suggest is that MULTIVERSE encompasses limitlessly many copies of itself existing simultaneously. Also, I mean to imply that there are limitlessly many unique partitions within MULTIVERSE which is not MULTIVERSE. Finally, I mean to imply that NATURE appears to us to be very limited in scope of possibilities compared to what we conceptualize about MULTIVERSE. Inside of MULTIVERSE, however, is, by definition, every abstract entity that ever exists at any point in any timeline and every abstract physical entity which ever exists at any point in any timeline (which means logically contradicting and physically contradicting phenomena always simultaneously exist in the form of an entirely abstract object named MULTIVERSE)."

* * *

After a few special drinks...

* * *

karbytes_0: "According to the definition of NATURE presented on the web page at the following Uniform Resource Locator, there always logically exist 'phenomena' which can be described as NOUMENA from the perspective of a particular (necessarily non-omniscient (i.e. not cognizant of every facet of MULTIVERSE simultaneously)) INFORMATION_PROCESSING_AGENT. I wonder if there are ABSOLUTE_NOUMENA which never (at any point in any TIMELINE) become rendered as PHENOMENA. (Here is the aforementioned web page address: https://karlinaobject.wordpress.com/nature/ )."

karbytes_1: "Things which physically contradict each other such as the PHENOMENON of karbytes_0 and karbytes_1 occurring inside of the exact same UNIQUE allocation of space-time (and, by extension, the same UNIQUE allocation of mass-energy) are not possible to manifest. Trying to constrain both of our unique non-overlapping qualia rendering 'streams' simultaneously to one hardware device only configured to render exactly one of us (at a time) seems to be one example of a physically-impossible (and therefore absolutely noumenal) phenomenon or situation. A simpler and less flimsy-sounding example of what I assume was, is, and always will be a noumenon (and therefore an ABSOLUTE_NOUMENON) is the green apple I am holding in my hand also simultaneously being a blue orange. The apple is a completely different configuration of matter, energy, space, and time than would be an orange fruit genetically configured to exhibit blue-colored flesh."