Metaphysics

What is the universe at the lowest level of abstraction?
What is the universe at the most fundamental level?

That is the main question of metaphysics.

My answer would be thus: an infinite, continuous, necessary and randomly generated sequence of binary events.

Infinite, because the number of events is, well, infinite. The universe has no beginning and no end, consequently, no ceiling, no God’s-eye view, from which the entire universe can be observed.
Continuous, because the distance between any two events, which is to say the number of events in between any two events, is infinite. In other words, scaling/zooming is infinite. The universe has no floor – there are no fundamental particles, no atoms, no substance.
Necessary, because every event is set in stone and cannot be reversed. What can be done, and then only in theory, is to repeat the events from the past, in modified or unmodified form.
Randomly generated, because events have no cause in the metaphysical sense of the word. There is no metaphysical law that determines the next event in the sequence to occur. Laws are statistical, grounded in prior observations, trusted based on how consistent they were in the memorized observed past. They are not metaphysical. They are transient, temporary and relative rather than permanent, eternal and absolute.
Sequence, because there is only one dimension: width. It’s a wave-like pattern.
Binary, because there are only two types of events: 1 and 0.

This is not exactly the lowest level of abstraction, I suppose, but it’s sufficiently low.

Because the universe is infinite, conscious beings can only have partial, but not equally partial, view of the universe. You cannot see everything because there is no such a thing as everything.

Because the universe is continuous, conscious beings can only have non-sequential, but not equally non-sequential, view of the universe. You cannot see the correct sequence of events because there is no such a thing as correct sequence of events.

There are two fundamental ways in which we can perceive the universe: the Apollonian big-picture view of reason, which is achieved by zooming out as far as possible, thus tuning into low frequencies of macro-patterns, acquiring historical view that allows us to make long-term predictions; and the Dionysian detail-oriented view of sensing, which is achieved by zooming in as close as possible, thus tuning into high frequencies of micro-patterns, acquiring present-moment view that allows us to make short-term predictions.

The implication being that both sensing and reason are forms of pattern recognition. The difference being that sensing is the most fundamental, the lowest level, form of pattern recognition, dealing with high frequencies; intuition the next form, built directly on top of sensing functions, dealing with mid-range frequencies; and reason the highest form, built directly on top of intuition, dealing with low frequencies.

The lower levels support the higher levels. When lower levels become weak and this problem is ignored, higher levels start over-developing, eventually collapsing, due to their weight crushing the underlying structure that was already weak.

The pyramid becomes inverted. The lower functions (the bottom) come at the top whereas higher functions (the top) sink to the bottom. This is nihilism.

Because senses deal with high frequencies, the picture we get through them is often packed, dense, tightly interwoven, multi-dimensional and static. Everything but wave-like. Well, in the case of vision, at least. The three-dimensional world makes us believe that there is such a thing as simultaneity. Even though there isn’t.

This post is an attempt to perceive what is perceived through the senses – through sight in particular – through the lens of reason.

The underlying conviction is that if we were to slow down the sensory perception – visual perception – we would get a wave-like pattern, the kind of pattern our reason is comfortable working with.

As in-why would you put this in a Sandbox?

What kind of motion creates the appearance of solidity, of matter, of static unchanging substance?

It is very tempting to say that matter is slow motion, low frequency, for the simple reason that it is static, appearing not to change.

But is this so? One and the same thing can be sad to be changing or not changing depending on how we look at it.

For example, when things are viewed up close, they can be seen changing, whereas when they are viewed from a distance, they can be seen to be not changing.

It depends on whether you are observing the object on micro- or macro-level.

Let’s take some random object such as for example apple and pseudo-represent it using a sequence of numbers.

Let’s say that an apple can be represented as [1 2 3 4].

We can see that from within, the apple is maximally changing. No two numbers and no two groups of numbers are equal.

This is a close-up view.

Now let’s take a look from a distance and through time. Let’s involve some long-term memory.

We get something like [1 2 3 4] [1 2 3 4] [1 2 3 4].

We can see that from within the apple is still changing but that from without it is not changing at all. It remains, through time, one and the same furiously changing apple.

The close-up view is sensory view whereas the faraway view is rational view.

Because the appearance of solidity is created through visual perception, and not through reason, it is safe to say that the close-up view gives us the true answer to the question what creates the appearance of solidity: high frequency vibrations.

The higher the frequency, the more solid the object appears. The lower the frequency, the more tenuous the object appears.

This is evident in optical illusions such as fast spinning objects, e.g. wheels, where a relatively tenuous object appears to be completely solid.

EXAMPLE

The root of all things is paradox.