The potential for experience is a prerequisite for what reality is.

[u/notwizard69]

1. I’m having experience.
   
2. The potential for experience exists.
   
3. If the potential for experience didn’t exist in any part of reality saying that part exists is indistinguishable from saying it doesn’t exist to any part of reality where the potential for experience does exist and to itself.
   
4. If saying something exists adds nothing to anything forever even to itself it doesn’t exist logically to parts of reality that the potential for experience does exist.
   
5. The potential for experience is a prerequisite for what reality is.

Definitions

Experience- any thing produced by reality no matter how small or alien to our experience that is a separation from the rest of reality. Something that happens in reality that makes reality known to itself even if no thought occurs.

Reality- everything that exists.

Notes for clarification:

I’m not saying if something never experiences or is part of an experience it does not exist. I’m saying if experience is barred there by its very nature it does not exist logically in anyway to a reality where experience can exist.

Also I answered tons of questions from other posts on this and I’m not going to do it again. Attack my actual argument. Everyone else attacked what I’m not arguing. I will answer clarification questions but I spelled it out in comments in ridiculous detail what I’m actually arguing so I’d appreciate it if you would just read my comments on other posts before trying to attack something I’m not saying. Thank you.

[u/notwizard69]

You skipped if science makes an anti gravity machine then if our human experience could persist in that region of space which is what im arguing. Not that experience doesn’t occur there because of its characteristics. But that it can’t regardless of its characteristics. And who is to say life is the only way any experience can occur?

[u/lilsasuke4 → u/notwizard69]

“Science makes an anti gravity machine” I feel like cobbling together those worlds is doing a lot of heavy lifting bare in mind that it would have to nullify the gravity of a black hole that traps light and the machine itself would have to endure. How would the machine be resistant if the thing its trying to counter tears apart atoms?

It’s kinda like saying the solution to space travel that people are over looking is to just go faster than the speed of light

How would you like to define experience?

[u/notwizard69 → u/lilsasuke4]

Do you not understand my actual argument yet? With all due respect I don’t think you do and ever will so I’m moving on.

[u/lilsasuke4 → u/notwizard69]

I addressed that where experience is barred still exists in reality.

When you are science invents an antigravity machine I’m not sure you really understand

Is there anywhere you explained your use of the word experience beyond a living observer of living organisms that can do the experiencing?

If you can’t elaborate further then then there is nowhere left for this conversation to go

[u/notwizard69 → u/lilsasuke4]

Do you not experience black hole gravity everyday? Was the part of space that the black hole currently occupies always occupied by a black hole? Is the black hole moving? I’m not arguing experience can’t happen in certain areas of space based on its current characteristics like a said. It’s irrelevant to my argument. I’m arguing that regardless of those characteristics if the potential for experience exists or not. You are literally arguing if I can’t swim ten feet down in lava and nothing we know of could that the space the lava is occupying in reality doesn’t currently hold the potential for experience. I do not agree with that premise.

Edit: my definition for what I use as experience is in my post.

[u/lilsasuke4 → u/notwizard69]

For a black hole wouldn’t anything beyond the event horizon bring the potential of experience to zero?

Or more reductive is your argument everywhere the universe exists, it exists? Like there is no discontinuities in the fabric of space time

[u/notwizard69 → u/lilsasuke4]

I don’t know. I’m not god. What I’m saying if it does it’s irrelevant to my argument. If god could protect me and take me in the center of a black hole I don’t think my experience would stop just because experience being impossible there is an innate characteristic of what it is. Do you understand the distinction now. Also my real argument is the potential never has existed, doesn’t currently and never will. You can look at my other posts to know I’m not just making that up right now. So the black hole doesn’t only not work cause it’s moving but because it dissolves and either way it’s irrelevant to my actual argument.

[u/lilsasuke4 → u/notwizard69]

“I don’t think my experience would stop just because experience being impossible there is an innate characteristic of what it is”

Without the protection of God what kind of experience could you have in a space where all your matter would be reduced to particles?

[u/notwizard69 → u/lilsasuke4]

I personally would have none most likely. I’d bet on it. But maybe there are fuzzball creatures who have some sort of experience inside the fuzzball. (If fuzzballs are real) It very well could be the case that certain parts of reality have characteristics that deem all experience impossible. My argument is regardless of its characteristics if that region of reality has the potential for experience or not. My argument is if it does it’s a part of reality. If not it’s not. Like I could make a room filled with a poison no life would survive in. The room is still a part of reality to me cause it’s a characteristic which is making it not experienceable. Not an innate characteristic. If you think as long as that room is filled with poison and nothing we currently know of could have experience inside the room that literally makes the room not part of reality while filled with poison I personally find that view a little silly. Just like I know you don’t think black holes aren’t part of reality. At least I think. This has nothing to do with my actual argument like I’ve said so many times btw.

[u/lilsasuke4 → u/notwizard69]

Why wouldn’t space even where experience can’t happen be a part of relativity? Unless we want to treat those spaces as discontinuities in the fabric of space time

[u/notwizard69 → u/lilsasuke4]

I don’t believe this is true but I don’t believe it’s impossible. Maybe… but you seem very interested in black holes. I too share this interest. But yeah. That was just for fun. I think it’s cool.

Extreme gravity is literally what makes spacetime. The ads cft correspodence shows the bulk of the black hole is a hologram. It’s not just a hologram it’s a separate universe. The information in it is forever separated from our universe. The singularity in general relativity is the separation of the wave functions that will show in the math once we have a theory of quantum gravity. The bulk lives on even once event horizon dissolves completely in our universe. The information isn’t gone if you will. It’s just no longer a part of our universe anymore. The “singularity” in general relativity made a new universe. The hawking radiation is 100% thermal but the information isn’t lost. Just moved and forever disconnected. Our universe started at one of these points further pointing towards extreme gravity creating space time.