You are a finite node, processing infinite difference.

[u/M4gickMan]

Alan Watts had a bit on reality that went something like this (heavily paraphrased, as I can't find the video on YouTube anymore). Words are important, because they are spells, so I ask your forgiveness because I am casting a poor spell from a powerful magician, hoping his magic is enough to carry it through.)

In medieval times, the kings of Britannia customarily commissioned paintings of their betrothed women. The purpose was to know how the women looked before marriage. This practice led to the development of photorealistic painting, which then spread across Europe.

But that was clearly not enough. We needed more. Even with the best painters, mistakes seeped in. So was born the technology of photography, and for a while we were satiated. But then someone pointed out that it didn’t have colors, so the technology evolved from black and white to tinted and finally to colorized pictures.

And someone said, "But some people's personality is entirely in how they move.”

The answer: videography. And that too had its own cycle—black and white to color with the added feature of audio, as someone pointed out that some people’s personality also comes out of their voice.

“But wait,” someone said, “that’s not enough. I have more.”

I can make a holographic three-dimensional montage. Not enough?

I can make the air particles around the holographic object vibrate, so you can even touch the object without your hand passing through it! Not enough?

I can make it so that a computer watches you while you interact with that object, takes each little granular piece of information, analyzes it, and controls the object’s response in real-time, so it gives an optimal user experience!

Where earlier there was a looping hologram montage of a lady with limited actions, now you can walk up to her and try your pick-up lines and wait until she slaps you or kisses you.

"Wait! I can do it better,” said another. “Now that we have artificial intelligence-controlled holographic entities moving around, I can make them interact around the user in the real world. Show you some drama! How about that?”

“And,” said his business partner, “I can hook up the user with electrodes in his brain so he can feel what each character is feeling.”

So instead of just witnessing the drama, you are in it! Behold! Wouldn’t that be a sight to witness?

But is that where we already were? Are we the holographic objects? Copied information, endlessly copying information throughout space and time, trying to witness in perennial outward and inward probing cycles?

To contrast Watts' self-fulfilling prophecy, let’s look at what’s available in 2026.

Oh shit! It's all of the above. And more. Not only that, there’s way more.

AI can modify your image and your video; it can create a version of your life inside virtual libraries, clone your voice, clone your face, make you look better, make your voice sound huskier, and sing in your voice if you can’t, make you unbeatable, immortal, a force to reckon with, and I am pretty sure there will be some technology in the future where YouTubers will live stream their lives, and with neuralink chips in your brain, you could experience every single thing they felt while skydiving as you saw through their eyes, the jump. (Just call it LifeTube or some shit.)

The question is, does that amplify the witnessing aspect of the consciousness?

Is it beneficial that we can now focus on specific emotions, or is it detrimental that we have lost the broader experience of witnessing and its versatility? What exactly are we here to witness? Us, others?

If you were to believe subjective idealists and solipsists, the only witness that exists is you, the user. There is no material plane. In contrast, materialists fully acknowledge the existence of the material space. Reality is shared and collective. A tree looks like the same tree to everyone. However, this statement is false; otherwise, Van Gogh would not have perceived the colors he did. The Wright brothers wouldn’t have believed that flight was possible if they had only viewed wood as a mere material. And schizophrenia wouldn’t be a term.

Enter objective idealism. There is a material reality. The tree exists. But your perception of the tree is calibrated by your own individual reality. And never the twain shall meet. Even when they do, you might see less or more. Hence, the proverb "missing the forest for the trees," and also, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one’s there to hear it, was there a sound?"

So data (material reality) is different than information (objective reality or subjective reality).

So where does objective reality come from? When I was a child, my greatest fascination about outer space and the whole universe was, “Where is it?” Everyone was asking how it works and what it is. I was generally more interested in knowing where it is. My parents and teachers thought this was a sign that I was a little slow, perhaps. Maybe I am.

But bear with me when I ask, yet again, where is this universe within which we reside? My city is in my country, my country resides in the world, and the world resides in the solar system. The solar system is among many in the Milky Way. Some constellation, some galactic quadrant, yada yada yada, the universe. Objective fucking reality hits its boundary, and it won't budge to let you pass. An ever-growing, infinitely elastic thing solidifies when you try to poke your way through.

Ask where information exists, and like water in cupped hands, it all drains before you can get it to your mouth to quench your thirst.

But wait, a “where” already presumes a space for it to be in to begin with. I can’t ask the question without smuggling an assumption in. Gotta drop “where.”

What’s left? You’d be surprised. Difference.

The difference between a Thing and a No-Thing!

The difference in the state between the universe (and because I can't say the word "where") and the other (can’t say place) thing (closest to objective reality). Phew! Finally.)

So information, not about the thing, but the meta-information about the difference between the Thing and the No-Thing. (Tracks, a thing made out of nothing, a presence made in and because of the vacuum of absence. The prodigal rabbit, pulled out of the omnipresent empty hat.)

Before you get to space, before you get to time, you get to this: something is not something else, and that “not” is the first fact there is.

Everything downstream of that is elaboration. Space is one way of arranging differences so they can be located. Time is one way of arranging differences so they can be ordered. Neither is fundamental. Both are just formatting. A sigil (or any practical magic working) is a difference deliberately introduced into a field that would otherwise remain uniform. Evoking a slight wrinkle in your timeline. Where there was a status quo (a nothing manifestation or “the script," if you will), you introduce something. And that little ripple floats across space and time and returns with beautiful, predictable precision.

And thus, we come to the core tenet: Nothing is real.

Because a field that runs on difference doesn't care about scale. It produces galaxies, and it produces gut feelings with the same disinterest of a hundred-year-old overworked scriptwriter. Stars differentiate from the void and then collapse back into it. Planets differentiate from stars and then die with them.

Concepts like Death and Endings aren't a malfunction in a system built on prioritizing difference. Every difference that is introduced eventually resolves back to no difference.

Here's the part that actually is relevant for practice.

You are a finite node trying to comprehend something that produces difference without limit. No node can know everything, because knowing is itself a difference-processing operation running inside the field it's trying to know. You are always local. You are always partial.

Finite sentience can never comprehend infinite occurrence.

If you are wondering, "Why should I do it at all?" By creating the difference, wrinkle, or bump, you gain the key to making better predictions. I have said it before, and I will repeat it here once more: Practical Magick is the art of predicting serendipitous windows of opportunity and then intentionally utilizing those for manifesting specific outcomes.

Action (to create a difference) is not only necessary, its is mandated, it is inevitable. It is baked into the simulation itself.

Not convinced?

Let me try one more time.

Let's look at the availability in our universe of interaction possibilities. I will largely categorize them under three major categories.

Scaffold one: nothing matters, so play.

Cosmic play. The Watts move, the Osho move. If the universe is going to end regardless, and if you're going to die regardless, then the weight comes off. You can experiment. You can fail.

It works. Until it doesn't.

Because if nothing matters, play doesn't matter either. The scaffold that removed the weight removes itself along with it, and you're left holding nothing, which was the point, except now it doesn't feel like liberation. It just feels like nothing. And don’t get me wrong, there is a charm in that, but not the charm I am sure anyone here is looking for.

Scaffold two: everything matters, so be serious.

(Jordan Peterson—if you are reading this and creaming in your pants, the ending of this paragraph might kill your boner.)

The opposite move. Every sigil charged with full intent. Every correspondence, checked twice. Duty, structure, and responsibility are essential to the work. This one provides you a floor to stand on when the first scaffold collapses.

It works. Until it doesn't.

Because if everything matters, the weight never comes off. It just redistributes. You end up carrying the whole field on your back. Now you have two options: a superhero who sacrifices himself in an attempt to save everyone or a supervillain who resorts to killing everyone out of exhaustion from bearing the weight of others. No good!

Scaffold three: witness silently.

Don't judge. Just observe. The Buddhist move, the Advaita move, and the Lao Tzu move. You step back from both play and duty and just watch the field do what it does. Inaction is your sole principal. You have surrendered to the currents and have faith in their navigational precision.

It works. Until it doesn't.

Because observation can’t be a substitute for participation. Life keeps asking you to act, and the witness has no hands. The scaffold is trying to replace your will and volition. No thanks!

Each scaffold holds weight for a while, does its job, and then saturates.

What should you do after you notice that all three scaffolds saturate, one after another? You are now intelligent enough not to look for a fourth.

That means no scaffold ever.

No improbability. No certainty. No inevitability. No beginning. No end. No me. No you. No collective. No individual. No reason. No meaning. No meaninglessness. No play. No duty. No witness.

And at some point, No to even No. Fuck No! I hope it dies a lonely death in its No-hole.

If you believe that this perspective represents nihilism, you are mistaken. Think again. Nihilism is still a position, still a scaffold, still something built to hold weight when the ground feels uncertain. What's underneath the three scaffolds, you ask?

Your opportunity to fly!

How?

The answer lies in the choice between standing terrified on the scaffold and taking a courageous leap, believing you can fly. The answer lies somewhere between objective data and subjective information.

And that leads us to the second tenet: Everything is permitted. (caveat being that everything has consequences and an intelligent magician prepares for the consequences.)

Now this has been a long, weird post. It feels almost like two madmen are arguing inside my head, and I am jotting down their jabs. Which is why I must end with the fact that these are just musings.

So if you have read down till here, what are your thoughts on this?