# Info Part 22 of 24 (1,651 words) 1. Pure mathematical consistency. 2. Physical possibility according to our current best theories. 3. Actual realization or observation in nature. These categories overlap but are not identical. A mathematical structure may be logically consistent without corresponding to any known physical reality. Conversely, a mathematically motivated idea may initially lack observational support yet later prove physically real. The relationship between mathematics and physics is also more intertwined than a simple “language versus filter” analogy suggests. Mathematics does not merely describe candidate physical theories; it often constrains them. In modern physics, requirements such as symmetry principles, anomaly cancellation, internal consistency, and mathematical well-posedness can eliminate theoretical possibilities before experimental testing occurs. In this sense, mathematics serves not only as a descriptive tool but also as a source of constraints on what may count as a viable physical theory. Examples often cited as mathematically conceivable but physically problematic illustrate this complexity. Perfectly rigid bodies conflict with relativity because they would permit instantaneous transmission of information. Faster-than-light signaling is generally regarded as impossible within relativistic physics because it would enable causal paradoxes. Negative mass appears in certain mathematical solutions of gravitational theories and remains a topic of speculative investigation, but no confirmed physical examples are known. These cases are not merely “forbidden by physics” in an arbitrary sense; rather, they conflict with specific theoretical principles or lack empirical support within our current framework. At the same time, a lack of observation alone does not imply a violation of natural laws. Black holes, antimatter, gravitational waves, and the expansion of spacetime were all predicted mathematically before they were observed. Something unobserved today may be impossible, technologically inaccessible, extraordinarily rare, hidden behind observational limits, or simply undiscovered. Ultimately, mathematics defines a vast landscape of logically possible structures, while physics seeks to determine which portions of that landscape correspond to reality. The boundary between the mathematically possible and the physically possible is shaped by both empirical evidence and theoretical consistency, and that boundary can shift as scientific understanding advances. For that reason, a mathematical construct that does not currently correspond to anything observed is not automatically outside our universe’s natural laws - but neither does mathematical consistency alone guarantee physical possibility. Would any “progress regarding any new Science Physics-related discoveries/breakthroughs/frameworks/progress” have taken much longer without AI use? What ultimately gives rise to the subjective felt quality of emotion, and are those feelings emergent or non-emergent? May reality contain higher levels of organization (e.g., organized structure [e.g., hurricane comprised of molecules] comprised of quantum things) “beyond or too mathematically complex for” current humans’ grasping/tools, possibly even regarding universe-span? Is “all is one” incoherent when meaning “no existence of distinctions at all”, but “all is one” has coherence when meaning “there are varying aspects of ‘the one and only’ reality and that aforementioned reality has everything as its parts”? Can a human originate “a coherent consistent logic that is entirely different from Mathematics/English and does not align with any basis acquired via observation/experience acquired via our universe/reality” (genuine logical novelty from scratch)? Symbols don’t have to directly reference physical objects, the mind capable of generating and manipulating abstract symbols at all was/is itself shaped by existing in this universe. The abstraction being untethered doesn’t mean the mind performing it is. Whether mathematics itself is independent of reality is a separate philosophical question from whether humans can originate mathematical or logical concepts completely detached from reality. Even if mathematics exists independently of our universe, it does not automatically follow that a human mind can access or originate mathematical concepts without any influence from the universe that shaped that mind. Symbols or abstractions don’t have to directly correspond to a physical object. The mind generating and manipulating those abstractions developed within a particular reality and acquired its cognitive tools through interaction with that reality. So even if mathematics is “alien to” or independent of our universe in some abstract sense, that would not by itself show that a human can originate a coherent logical system whose foundational concepts carry no trace of the cognitive resources, experiences, or conceptual frameworks ultimately derived from living in this universe. What extra exceptions are required to be added to “a singularity state of ‘no existence of distinctions at all except temporal progression’” that would enable that singularity to go Big Bang? Is a human’s sleep-dream generated by that human’s own brain? Is a human’s sleep-dream solely (being) that human’s own mental activity? Does any particle ever lack extent of motion over any nonzero interval? So, do “particles moving” occur “universe-span in simultaneity”? Do various causal chains occur “universe-span in simultaneity”? Are there currently able to be parts of the universe where “no causal chain is happening at a location-coordinate of/in the universe” while “a causal chain is happening at a different location-coordinate of/in the universe”? Are the “CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background)” and “The 21cm Hydrogen Line” the top two best “observable/physical things for ‘utilization and reference’ that are not absent anywhere in the universe”? Isn’t each existence in the universe always simultaneously never-at-classical-rest, even when it comes to stationary quantum states? Current physics provides no clear example of a non-abstract physical existence that is known to be “‘absolutely static’ from any one instant to the next instant” in the strongest possible sense. But physics has not conclusively proven that such is logically or metaphysically impossible. For how long right after the Big Bang did life not exist in the solar system until “the right conditions were met” in order for life to form, which resulted in life forming? The solar system did not exist immediately after the Big Bang; it formed about 4.57 billion years ago, whereas the Big Bang occurred about 13.8 billion years ago. Thus, for roughly 9.2 billion years after the Big Bang, there was no solar system in which life could arise. Even after the solar system formed, Earth likely remained lifeless for several hundred million years before conditions became suitable and life emerged, with the earliest evidence of life dating to at least about 3.5–3.8 billion years ago. Would quantum physics still be a structure and behavior of the physical and natural world if mind, imagination, and consciousness never exist/existed? According to mainstream physics, yes. Quantum physics is currently understood as describing the behavior of physical systems rather than depending on the existence of minds, imagination, or consciousness. Under that view, stars, atoms, radiation, and quantum processes would still occur even in a universe that never contained conscious beings. Can our universe possibly currently simultaneously be “with finite information content, perfect records of all prior states, unlimited storage and processing capability, and an enabler for the acquisition of complete knowledge of the governing laws”? No. Regarding conscious existences, do different substrates permit different classes of signal exchange and therefore different participatory capacities? Regarding no causality during Planck time, doesn’t change-occurrence (e.g., expansion/cooling) suggest “underlying enabler of change, ordering principle, or transition structure” (e.g., Indefinite Causal Order) was likely so during such Planck time? Is there any uncaused phenomena (e.g., Radioactive Decay) that doesn’t require a prerequisite (e.g., the universe)? Is “a BCI information-extraction device that obtains info via extracting it” plausible/feasible? Or does the info always need to be being thought about in order for the BCI to be able to obtain that info? Does “experiencing backwards (T1→T0)”=one’s experiences reverse-propagate, one is ‘passenger of experience’ “observing ‘already present-in-own-brain info’” via the ‘outcome’ arrives before the ‘prediction’, making authorship/evaluation impossible? If “experiencing backwards (T1→T0)” means that conscious experience itself traverses an already- existing sequence of brain states in reverse order, then outcomes would indeed be encountered before predictions, conclusions before inferences, and answers before questions. In that sense, the experiencer would not be generating those outcomes within their experienced direction of time. They would encounter informational states that are already present in the brain state being traversed. However, saying that the experiencer is “observing already-present-in-own-brain information” may be too strong. Observation, evaluation, interpretation, deduction, and judgment are themselves cognitive processes. Under a strict reversal, those processes would not be experienced as constructive activities. The subject would not first receive information and then actively work on it. Rather, each instant would simply contain whatever conscious (if the “experiencing backwards (T1→T0)” setup even enables being conscious) content belongs to that instant’s brain state. Likewise, saying that the outcome arrives before the prediction is broadly correct, but the reverse experiencer may not even experience these as an “outcome” and a “prediction.” Those labels arise from relating multiple states across time. The reverse experiencer may lack access to the temporal organization needed to identify one state as the result of another. For the same reason, authorship would not merely become difficult; the ordinary experience of authorship could disappear altogether. Authorship normally involves experiencing oneself as contributing to the production of later states. In a reversed experiential sequence, later states are encountered first. The subject would not experience themselves as bringing them about. The same applies to evaluation. Evaluation is not simply hidden behind the outcome; evaluation itself is one of the states being traversed. The reverse experiencer would not necessarily experience evaluation as an activity occurring. They would merely pass through states that, from a forward-time description, correspond to stages of an evaluation process. Thus, a strict T1→T0 experiential stream would not merely make authorship and evaluation impossible in the ordinary sense. It would undermine the very appearance of cognitive activity as activity. The experiencer would not primarily be a thinker who receives outcomes before predictions. Rather, they would be a conscious (if the “experiencing backwards (T1→T0)” setup even enables being conscious) succession of already-formed experiential states, lacking the temporal structure required for learning, inference, evaluation, authorship, or even the recognition that such processes are absent. The notions of “outcome,” prediction,knowledge gain,knowledge loss,evaluation, and “authorship” would largely belong to an external description of the sequence rather than to what the experiencer could identify from within it.