People make a big deal about not caring what anyone thinks, and then they become spiteful dolts over the silliest things. It's as if what they really want is to warn others not to care what they think, so they can opine recklessly in reaction to others. The old two-way street clogs up. Many seem, by this prosaic "not caring" heroism, to be admitting their own opinions tend toward jerks of the knee.

I care what people think, and that's in part because my thoughts are worth something; I want people to care what I think in turn, given that I care what they think.

It isn't that *I* think it, or that I *think* it, but that I have put a lot of care into the thought. That is why I think others should care, and it is why I care.

When there's some issue that's polarized, people tend to model this mentally in "black and white," ie, binary. That mistake drives a lot of polarization. And it usually is, in fact, a mistake.

I'd say when you're considering A or B, it would be much better to think of it as a qubit rather than a bit.

It isn't ALL A, NO B versus ALL B, NO A, usually. Not necessarily. It could be A. It could be B. It could be A and B in different amounts or at different times (or for different entities or goals). It could be neither A nor B. It could be 50% A, 1% B. It could be 100% A, 100% B. It could be 0% A, 0% B. Get it? This is how qubits work.

Even if the reality is 0% A, 100% B, it helps to understand why A might appear true, might seem like a more compelling explanation, might be easier to understand or remember. Just as we shouldn't think only in binary, it's also true that when we explain why an incorrect view is maintained by some people, we shouldn't only ascribe malicious motives, or only ascribe innocent ones.

When you smash particles together, sometimes you get bigger particles. In effect, this is how all the elements are formed by stars.

It doesn't seem counterintuitive to me that when you smash *enough* together, what you get is new spacetime. In other words, spacetime would be a little analogous to diamond versus charcoal - smoosh together enough under enough pressure and heat, and you get this special result - not just a new form of matter, this time, but spacetime itself.

That's what I think. Black holes synthesize spacetime, and then all that stuff that fell together bounces out into the new spacetime created, and it looks - or can look - kinda like what we see around us in the universe.

It's only one (cosmogonic) hypothesis but I've never seen one that makes more sense to me.

Bonus 1: The math of black holes says that spacetime inside the event horizon is stretched just about infinitely, so the volume inside is much larger than the volume (as seen from) outside.

Bonus 2: When scientists estimate the amount of mass-energy in the observable universe and put it into the equation for the event horizon of a black hole, they get a radius that's about as big as that of the current observable universe. (That seems a little tricky or coincidental, though, because the observable universe is expanding fast, yet its mass-energy is believed to be constant. However, maybe all is not lost for that line of argument, because while the universe is expanding, so is the observable universe - that is, over time, we will catch photons from parts of the universe we cannot yet observe. If the correspondence between estimated mass-energy within the observable universe and radius of observation were to tighten up with better data and stay consistent over time, that would seem like a strong argument.)

Have you ever tuned a musical instrument? Take a guitar, for example. You play two adjacent strings. If you fret the lower, bassier string in the right place (generally the 5th fret, with a single exception - don't worry if this makes no sense - on the B string, which is usually fretted in the 4th position to tune the next string to E rather than F), the two strings should play the same note. Now, they will not actually sound the same. The strings are different thicknesses and they're positioned differently on the fretboard, all of which will lead to different overtones. Even though the resulting sounds *will* be different, almost everyone will be able to tell that the notes are the same, and typically they won't be aware of those little sonic (overtone) differences in a performance.

Until they have to do the tuning themselves. Then it can be difficult - much like hearing that a sung note was hit (or not) versus singing it oneself (which takes practice).

What usually happens is that you play the two strings together (appropriately fretting the lower one for the same note) to compare the sounds, then you adjust the higher string until both strings sound the same - which you can feel as a sort of relaxation, as the two sounds stop clashing and merge. But you won't be sure. So then, guess what? You intentionally mess up your work: you retune that same string a little higher or lower, until it definitely sounds out of whack. And you do the same in the opposite direction, going out of tune on the other end.

Basically, you figure out what position to turn the tuning nut to so that the string is definitely too high, and then on the other side, what position is definitely too low. Now you have a tolerance range. In between those two out-of-tune angles of the nut (amounts of rotation, similar to clock hand positions), you have some wiggle room. Some of that wiggle room, if you pay close attention, will also sound a bit out of tune. But just hearing the two ways your tuning can be wrong (too high, too low) brings immediate clarity to the process. And in a pinch, you can simply turn the nut to about the middle of that range, a trick that's unlikely to fail. It will sound surprisingly good and solid and tuned, simply because you picked the spot halfway between "definitely too high now" and "definitely too low now."

This sounds very specific, doesn't it?

What if I told you that much or most of life is something like this tuning process?

The universe is made of signals - waves - cycles - circles - orbits - vibrations.

Almost everything is tuning.

When you learn something, your neurons are tuning.

Does it look like the two strings of a guitar, and the too-high, too-low, find-the-middle-of-those process? Not outwardly. But inwardly? Maybe.

Hierarchy is useful for getting stuff done. But - and this is the part some cads forget - it is a game. There is virtuality to it. You're at the top of one hierarchy and at the bottom of another. And it's by agreement, not by default or by divine decree. Some people think they're at the top of every hierarchy. That's called being stuck up, but it's even worse than what it's called. In some ways it's good that #45 has demonstrated so painfully to most people alive how hideous it is to believe you are at the top of every hierarchy. No one is. No one's even close. That makes thinking you are all the more ridiculous.

Finding Are Us

Different people bring out different sides of you. That isn't artificial at all. It's discovery. And you can think about the two "new" people who appear when two characters talk, and how it's a discovery for each and each other, so actually four discoveries. 1 -> 2 -> 4.

1 person -> 2 people relating -> 4 discoveries

Mind the Q / Mind Trait Q

A common way people lack empathy is failing to understand that a difference between two people can last a lifetime. Imagine you have a friend with trait Q. You may think you know what that is, but they have always had it, and you never had. For you Q goes away when you forget.

For them it never does. And because it is always there, it affects them in all kinds of ways. Imagine Q combined with every other thing that appears in life. Prima facie, any of those could interact. You forget Q exists; they get surprised by interactions between Q and life.

Now you tell them they don't make sense because you fail to remember Q, or when you remember Q, you fail to appreciate that even they are constantly surprised by interactions between Q and other things. You know enough to know you don't know, but then you say "You make no sense."

Or, worse, you distort what you hear and observe, and you leap to inferring all negative motives (prejudice in one of its many guises), giving a convincing appearance of intentional deafness. Rather than learn something or simply understand where another person is coming from, you decide that it's your job to judge what's relevant and important and understandable.

If this is your approach, don't be surprised if that person concludes that you're being stupid and insensitive.