Thread by @Deepneuron

1. This is the first tweet of many about what Runiversic is.This thread will be continuously updated to measure its development.Runiversic is the subject that I propose gets placed alongside Language,Science,Philosophy and so on. Its core includes the phenomenon and its nuances🧚

2. In order to understand why we need it in the first place, there's a short answer and a long answer. The short answer is that science doesn't respect subjective data as useful data. In order for data to be useful, it needs to belong to some repeatable, controlled set of events.

3. The scientific method has its roots all across the history of humanity if you're intellectually honest enough. From Native Americans, to the Greeks to modern times we have relied on some version of this idea of repeatability and consistent objective observations.🧪🤖 Fun fact:

4. The father of the modern scientific method is Sir Francis Bacon. He concluded that anecdotal evidence was useless. So he wouldn't want you to waste his time with your silly UFO stories. He wanted repeatable data because he believed in the objective nature of reality. This was

5. a good call 400 years ago. Oddly enough, the concept of what would turn out to be the modern scientific method was put forward by Bacon in 1620. So exactly 400 years ago. This led to huge advancements: it inspired Galileo, we developed quantum mechanics, space travel and so on

6. All thanks to the fact that if you don't look to hard at Reality,everything checks out with respect to the science we use for the most part.We can agree on objective measurements of properties like the color of a car that passes by or the speed of light.But there's a problem..

7. Sir Francis Bacon had no idea how ruthlessly mind boggling and unforgiving quantum mechanics was. A lot of the key mathematics that allowed for its existence hadn't even been invented yet. Forget the idea of it. Quantum mechanics is the physics we use to describe Reality under

8. a very powerful microscope: the physics of the atomic world. One of the most profound aspects about quantum mechanics is the development of it. And how philosophy and hardcore physics played a role in some of the greatest debates in physics.See, heavyweights like Einstein,Bohr

9. Heisenberg were at a cross roads at how to interpret the counterintuitive results of quantum mechanics. Before QM, they were used to the classical world: the world that you and I experience on a day to day basis.When we interact with real world objects, there is only 1 of each

10. For example, you never had to walk into your grade 1 class and worry that your teacher would exist in multiple places, or even vibrate so fast it would be hard to tell if there was even one of her in the first place!So the classical world is relaxing per se. We can predict it

11. without being physics geniuses for a large number of problems. When someone throws a ball at you, you don't have to solve dynamics equations to figure out where it'll land, you just do it. It makes sense where it will go, that's classical physics.The world of the "large" or..

12. more accurately, the world of "large numbers of atoms" otherwise known as "macroscopic scale". For some reason the world at a macroscopic scale follows classical physics rules. It's "logical", relatively speaking. One last thing worth noting about this is that the difference

13. between when Reality stops behaving classically and instead behaves quantum mechanically is one of the most heavily contested topics in quantum physics and theoretical physics in general. All we know is what the math tells us which is that: there is some wave function in QM..

14.denoted by the Psi variable depicted above.This wave function encodes every possible measurable that one can measure about some system thats prepared in a quantum mechanical state. An electron not being measured (by a scientist's eyes, detectors, etc) is a good example of one.

15. Another way to look at it is, the wave function describes a system before it's disturbed either via an interaction intervention or measurement.This is the fundamental problem these amazing scientists argued over.That for some reason, an interaction intervention or measurement

16.seemingly meant quantum mechanics included the role of the observer. In this case thats our scientist and their set of instruments+measuring apparatuses.We say that when a measurement is made,the wave function collapses and chooses a definite,singular value for its measurables

17. even this is debated, as some say the wave function never collapses and that physically-real,real world measurements are actually just our local measurement and there is a whole "multiverse" that realizes the remaining possibilities encoded in the wave function.Mathematically

18. the wave-function can be described as a linear superposition of basis states where each basis state corresponds to some measurable you can measure the system to be in but never both at the same time.Consider this:imagine if a car driving by enters your field of vision and you

19. are tasked with the job of recording what color the car is. Now this is a funny car..every time it drives by, it will go back to its starting point and drive by again. So you'll see the same car over and over but you still have to record its color when you see it.Also,the car

20. follows the rules of quantum mechanics. Which means it exists in a superposition of the color "green"& "red" when it hasn't entered your field of view. In other words,the car is not being disturbed or measured by any sensors including possibly speed detectors or your eyeballs

21. if the car is an equal superposition of states, then 50% of the time you record it as it drives by you, it'll be the color green. And the remaining 50% of the time it drives by, it'll be red. This is already not normal in the real world, but if you replace color with spin it

22. is actually true in the world of quantum mechanics and you can observe such behavior going on with the fundamental building blocks of all matter. Going back to the car, let's say you start to wonder to yourself, "if the car randomly changes colors, when does that happen?How?"

23. "Does this mean the color of the car even exists before I record its color? What color is it before I record it?"

While these are harmless questions, the founders of quantum mechanics fought hard over what the answers were. There were 2 camps fundamentally. The "realists"..

24. and the "Anti-Realists". The realists were bent on sticking to what the world of classical physics taught them. Which means they believed in a few key assumptions about Reality:

1.That you can only disturb a system if it is nearby, by interacting directly with it (Locality)

25.

2. They assumed that physical Reality exists even when it isn't being measured. That as long as one can know the outcome of a value of a measurement with certainty and *not disturb the system*, that systems properties were considered an element of physical reality.According

26. to Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in their seminal paper where they coined the "EPR Paradox",quantum mechanics if true violated this concept of locality and realism (called local realism).The implications were scary, they had run into a theory of physics that made them question

27. what can even be said to exist when it's not being measured. Einstein famously remarked regarding all of this, "I would like to believe the moon is there when I'm not looking at it." This was Realism, and their definition of it was very specific.

Decades later a physicist🧑‍🔬

28. named John Bell realized that we could create experiments based on violating what's called "Bell's Inequalities (BI)" in order to test which camp was right.This was super exciting and it was discovered only in the 60s.The idea was that if Bell's inequalities are violated,then

29. local realism cannot be true. If they aren't violated, then the Realists (Einstein et al.) were correct about their assumptions about the world. It turns out, we've been able to experimentally violate these inequalities time and time again. So we have empirical proof that

30. the assumption that a system not being disturbed, not being measured, has properties that are elements of physical reality is wrong. Where physical reality is the world you experience through your 5 senses. This obviously bothered anyone who thought too hard about it...here

31. we see the thinking that led to Einstein being famously wrong about quantum mechanics. It turned out that the phenomenon of quantum entanglement is real and allows for the violation of Bell's Inequalities,which again implies that local realism is wrong. It also means that the

32. only thing we can say is physically real is whatever we measure. And if all we measure is what we experience through our 5 senses, then that is all we can say is real. Nothing more, nothing less. Are you sitting in a room?Then I'm saying there is nothing that is real outside.

33. Even if I built the world's most advanced photon detector, it is my eyes and 5 senses that measured it. That's not to say the human,or human consciousness plays a role in quantum mechanics. It may be that anything can "make a measurement", even rocks.But we know for sure that

34. you and I are constantly measuring the world into existence. And if all we measure is all that is physically real then even our dream world is physically real.When we dream, we can't say we're measuring the waking world.We are not. I can't stick my hand out and grab an orange

35. and bring it back into my dream to show to my dream characters as proof the waking world exists. Relaying memories of the waking world wouldn't be enough proof and I would probably seem crazy to the dream characters. This conundrum is a testament, in my opinion to the nature

36. of the wave function and quantum mechanics as a whole. All we can say is real when we dream is:our dream characters, the landscape we find ourselves in and sense, forces we feel, technology we interact with and so on.Anything in any other world like the waking world-not real.

37. Now going back to Sir Francis Bacon and his idea of an objective reality..other than Bell's inequalities, there are even "stricter" inequalities that test the following assumptions about Reality: Whether we have free choice (F), Locality (As defined earlier) and (O) which is

38. The assumption that there exists an objective, shared reality where we can all agree upon objective facts. If these inequalities, called the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequalities are violated in experiment, then at least 1 of the 3 assumptions F, L and O is wrong.

39. This is a super hard experiment to perform so it took longer.But as of just 1 year ago this experiment was carried out and the results were astonishing. It turns out that those inequalities were violated too,which means even the idea of there being a shared, objective reality

40. Is thrown into serious suspicion. If we are to learn from the mistakes made by the greats like Einstein, then just because we want to believe in the (O) assumption of an objective reality, doesn't mean we should believe it to be true when the evidenc is hinting otherwise.This

41. brings us back to the scientific method.If there is likely no shared or objective reality,and we can have instances where a quantum physics experiment can be conducted with multiple parties disagreeing on what happened in the same physical experiment they were all present for

42. Then we have to seriously question how applicable the scientific method is for studying the full nature of Reality. If it's true at the microscopic scale that each observer can disagree and have conflicting objective facts(imagine recording a red car while your friend insists

43. that the car was green and from their perspective it really was green) then this likely to scale to the macroscale. We're constantly putting larger numbers of atoms into a quantum state with no end in sight. So it's very possible there can exist exotic macroscopic states that

44. can be measured by multiple observers and have vastly conflicting objective facts about the event or measurements. In the case of UAPs, some might disagree on color fundamentally (organge vs white), the experience one has with the occupants inside authentic UFOs and so on..🛸

45. which might be examples of observing our microscopic experimental results but at the macroscopic scale instead.Invoked by some other extremely advanced intelligence.Ultimately,the bleeding edge of quantum mechanics has showed us that we need to innovate and think differently.

46. We see that it's possible none of us are sharing the same objective reality. That we can disagree on fundamental facts.We see that all that we measure is all that we can reliably say exists.Putting this all together...Runiversic is founded on the belief that all Realities are

47. equally real. If you are in the dream world it is just as real as the waking world, the DMT world, NDE and so on. Which implies all of these realities merit study. Therefore Runiversic is, "The study of all Realities".Where each one comes with its own set of science,math etc.

48. Within Runiversic, there are a few core perspectives that everything is based on:
1.Subjective experience does matter and that data is relevant
2.If we believe in subjective experience,our dream characters and characters in all realities do as well
3. All Realities are real.

49. So what are the implications of taking such a stance on Reality? Like any other subject of study, we aim to study and exploit some aspect of nature for ideally, the benefit of all mankind. And we assume certain things as we did above, about the way the world works. Science 🔬

50. assumes a mathematical pattern behind the physical aspect of nature. The moon moves relative to Earth the way it does based on mathematically describable principles reflecting the 'physical aspect' of nature. Language assumes the ability to encode and decode human thought. 🧠

51. Runiversic assumes that all that is real is what we measure. And that whatever reality we measure is as real as any other reality. This means that if someone sees a dream character while sleeping, that character is to be considered as real as you or I. We assume that it has..

52. some level of sentience or unique perspective not accessible to us. Since it has its own level of intelligence, we can study all the things it might or might not do. As well as all the topics or thoughts it might be able to exhibit. We could also measure the dream character's

53. ability to control the physical environment and one's perception as well. Normally a dream character will act passively or respond in a nonsense manner. Runiversic considers this data on something that is real. Now we can apply different techniques from AI such as NLP and map

54. the words and sentence structures our dream characters use. Given enough data, we would be able to get a better understanding of the level of intelligence, and the content our dreams tell us. All because we are taking the same reality we're used to, a little more seriously.🤔

55. The beauty of this way of thinking is that suppose now a person is sleeping and they "wake up" (they believe they woke up), to a group of seemingly Alien beings.And they decide to take the person onto their craft as well as communicate with them. Science would consider this..

56. data of little to no use for them. Even if this data was coming to them as a story from a very credible person.Meanwhile psychiatrists and psychologists would rule it out as sleep paralysis and tell you not to worry about what you went through.This is fair within their models

57. but Runiversic says that the entire experience was real. And that those "Aliens" are to be described as their own separate entity where we treat them like a physical, real-world entity. This allows us to perform even meta-analysis on the data coming in as long as we don't let

58. our judgements get in the way of obtaining the data in its rawest form (even if it's just a description coming from an observe like a human). For example it doesn't matter in our model, if the underlying reason is sleep paralysis or something else. Claiming such things about

59. reality is meaningless. When the person experienced that "abduction" scenario, they weren't measuring the real world. They measured "Aliens",which as far as that person was concerned, were objectively and physically real.Thus we first seek to describe what is being told to us

60. in the most precise, rigorous and unbiased manner possible. Then we categorize the experience and as many aspects of it possible. Did it look like an ET? Did it look like a specific kind? What color was it? What are the traits of the person who experienced this? And so on.🔬

61. If the category doesn't exist for what you're looking for (maybe someone saw a weird pink mist with 12 eyes in their experience), then we make a new category based on that and move on to the final step. Which is that what cannot be explained by current Science, Language and..

62.Philosophy must then be rigorously updated so a sufficient description of the experience can exist for furthering the Runiversic goals (which we will define in shortly). Once done, we reiterate and attempt to describe rigorously the entire experience with absolute precision.

63. This is the Runiversic method:

1. Describe, do not explain
2. Categorize the data
3. Explain the data

We repeat these steps until we have a better understanding of the underlying phenomena we are dealing with. Since we aren't discriminating people's experiences a priori..

64. we end up working backwards and forcing at the minimum, a new kind of source of human innovation.We can attempt to mimic in real life the technology used by what we perceive as an "Alien" intelligence during whatever state we encounter them: waking, dream, psychedelic, etc.