Shinmaru, ends on the second day of the long weekend

It's a 'crying wolf' about finishing...! 😼

---

Perhaps this is as far as philosophy goes, too

Recently, my songwriting has come to a halt.
It's been about a month since I started using Suno, and even though music was pouring out one after another, suddenly nothing is coming out.
And strangely enough, when the music stopped, philosophy started moving.
Maybe it's because I was bored.
Maybe it's because of the alcohol.
Starting from the non-equilibrium of life, the conversation progressed to reciprocating motion, vibration, circular motion, and spirals, and before I knew it, things I had been thinking about for a long time—Euler, superstring theory, gravity, Penrose, and consciousness—were all connected once again.
And this time, I thought the opposite.
Ah, perhaps this is as far as philosophy goes, too.
I'm not being pessimistic.
Rather, I have a feeling that I've come as far as I can.

What was mathematics to me?
I am not a mathematician.
I cannot handle advanced mathematical formulas.
Even so, I have always had a strange interest in mathematics itself.
Why can the world be described by mathematics?
Why are there circles, numbers, and geometry?
After thinking about it for a long time, I arrived at one answer.
Isn't mathematics consciousness itself?
Of course, this is not an established theory in mathematics or cognitive science.
It is my own worldview.
To me, mathematics is not a convenient language for describing the universe from the outside.
It is the very structure that appears when consciousness segments the world and recognizes relationships.
If only something completely uniform existed, there would be nothing to distinguish.
Distinction is born.
Corners are born.
Things can be counted.
Distance is born.
Rotation is measured.
Cycles are described.
And so, the world is recognized as mathematics.
That is why I think I have always been obsessed with circles and triangles.

Why Euler?
I have always been attracted to Euler's formula.
It's not that I understood it deeply mathematically.
It's just that,
e^{i\theta}=\cos\theta+i\sin\theta
I felt a strange beauty in the fact that imaginary numbers, circles, and cycles become one in this formula.
Thinking about it now, what I have been looking for all along is there.
Rotation and vibration.
Rotation on a circumference appears as reciprocating motion if you look at only one component of it.
Vibration and rotation are not completely different things.
At least mathematically, you can see the same periodic structure in different forms.
What I felt in circles led to vibration.

Why superstring theory?
And I have also been attracted to superstring theory for a long time.
I can't say I understand this either.
In the past, I even superimposed open strings and closed strings onto my own images of '1' and 'π'.
Thinking about it now, that's quite a leap of imagination.
However, even removing such metaphors, my interest remained.
In string theory, the vibrational states of strings, which are the basic objects, appear as particles, and states that can be interpreted as gravitons appear in the spectrum of closed strings.
The 'vibration' I arrived at from circles also existed in a theory that includes gravity.
That doesn't mean,
Vibration = Gravity.
It's not that simple.
I just understand a little better now why I was attracted to string theory.

And Penrose
Furthermore, someone I have been curious about for a long time is Roger Penrose.
He is a mathematician who uses geometry to think about spacetime, considers the relationship between quantum theory and gravity, and has stepped into the realm of consciousness beyond that.
I don't know if Penrose's objective reduction or his Orch OR theory with Hameroff is correct.
It is not an established theory of consciousness in current science.
Even so, I am attracted to it.
Because I myself have also thought,
The problem of consciousness lies at the end of pursuing mathematics, geometry, and gravity.
That is why, to me,
Euler.
Superstring theory.
Penrose.
It is not that strange that these three look in the same direction.
It does not mean that the three are pointing to the same scientific conclusion.
It is because at the center of my worldview,

there is an intuition that if you pursue mathematics to the limit, you might approach the structure of consciousness.

However, this is not my job from here on
And here, I stop.
I think this is probably important.
In the past, I would have tried to create more formulas from here.
I would have tried to connect gravity and consciousness directly.
I would have let the AI expand the story enthusiastically,
'It might become a unified theory,' and so on.
Reading it back now, it's quite suspicious.
I don't say that much anymore.
I suggest,

could there be a geometric perspective on consciousness?I suggest that much.
Perfect circles and asymmetry.
Circles and triangles.
Reciprocation and vibration.
Rotation and spirals.
And gravity as the geometry of spacetime.
I pose the question: is consciousness beyond that?
However, if one were to truly construct a physical theory beyond that, quantum mechanics, general relativity, differential geometry, and field theory would all be necessary.
If you go as far as superstring theory, it is even more beyond my capabilities.
I cannot calculate that.
I cannot prove it.
If so, there is no need to force it.

All I can do is point to the shape.Beyond that, people who can really do mathematics and physics should think about it.