Very correct. It’s like sentience is in existence’s shadow. In my method, X is the individual, B is their environment, AE is how they interact and impact their environment, and (F)AE are the initial conditions that allow them to interact with their environment. The individual is beholden to their initial conditions, and the individual acts on their environment with the idea of choice, despite the initial conditions setting their path on a butterfly effect.

Technically it was destined for you and I to chat, as both our initial conditions ‘(F)AE’ led us here. But we had the illusion, or delusion of free will ‘X’ and choice ‘AE’ on our environment ‘B’ to compensate for this seemingly inevitable meeting ‘(F)AE’ using what I call the ‘Certain Uncertainty Principle’ of time.

> Supersymmetry cannot be produced through chaotic processes.

But…. It can? ‘Chaos’ is systems highly sensitive to initial conditions, and is a consequence of viewing an environment outside of superposition and within linearity.

I think a lot of the information on the multiverse takes a linear perspective to a non-linear environment due to the researcher's bias of perceiving in a linear plane. I believe more research on the multiverse should involve an understanding of paradox through quantum mechanics. Time is nonlinear, spacetime is infinite, and the quark is in superposition. Linearity bleeds into many human understandings of mathematics and physics, like the myth of 'the edge of the universe', which is a paradox of linearity in a non-linear plane. Superposition leads to nonlinearity because superposition is the ability of a quantum system to be in multiple states at the same time until it is measured within our own periods ‘time crystal system’, and measurement is a product of scalar-analysis noting times impact on progression and/or regression, AKA growth and/or decline. The universe expanding implies an ‘approaching’ infinite due to the limits of linearity not being capable of depicting a true state of ‘superposition’ the more macro a variable is on progressing space-time.

How can one exclaim supersymmetry can not arise from a chaotic environment when ‘chaos’ is seemingly the linear development of said non-linear supersymmetry? Especially if we consider fractals like the Mandelbrot set as being somewhat linear manifestations of a bifurcative chaos system? That doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.

> The only indicator that our mind exists outside of our body are the measurements we take with an EEG and PET scans. We never consider where that energy goes, where our thoughts go, or for that matter, where they come from.

I have a couple diagrams, systems, and personal forms of mathematics I have showing this! It’s cathartic to see an article state the same thing. Although I still don’t understand how they say chaos theory doesn’t account for this, when humans are the definition of living in a chaotic system. This is the metric I analyze politics through, as it acts as an objective manifestation of subjective mechanics being fostered by both internal and external systems highly sensitive to initial conditions. When one analyzes politics like this, it takes the shape of both objective and subjective fractal-like formations, especially when one attempts to note these interactions outside of a linear framework.

I very much agree. People view ‘consciousness’ like it’s some mysterious organ, when in reality it’s more like a reinforced feedback loop of system-interactions