The ego-mind as an archiver of Reality/God. Let God into reality...

[Malkom]

Everyone talks about enlightenment, shmenlightenment, and blah blah... But what's the point of infinity if we can't use it? Why doesn't this "Infinity" grant us Power? Truth gives Power, but first, the destruction of old illusions, and that's painful, hahaha.

 - "Why do I need AI if I'm personally involved in science? I can teach it some interesting things myself. When you contribute something original, something living, that's a sign of Life, or call it God, that's Awakening. When "energy" manifests through you naturally, like dance, like inspiration, like improvisation, from the depths of your soul, when your role is natural and organic, without any conflicts, spasms, or convictions—right/wrong, good/evil... It's not just "energy" manifesting itself, not how it flows and blah blah, but you Yourself ARE IT." - .

Is there a P=NP millennium problem? Positive proof would mean that many practical problems, such as creating drugs with predetermined properties from the start, and individually tailored to each individual, could be solved. Moreover, it would impact genetics, both DNA analysis and protein modeling, to a superior level, because currently these problems are considered intractable and require significant computational resources. And this is all literally, not even metaphorically, a drop in the ocean; all these problems are NP-complete. If it's proven that the proof of P=NP itself is beyond axiomatics, meaning it's neither provable nor refutable within the framework of current mathematical logic, one option would be to introduce William Hude's measures (actually, not only, but let's just take one for now). These measures have an interesting property: strict insufficiency. What makes the unbounded "bounded" is that it reveals hidden structures, seemingly expanding the potential used, and also ensures reliability in logic that is new, not trivial.

For example, one solved Millennium Problem, the Poincaré-Perelman theorem, indirectly proves that our world is not three-dimensional, but at least four-dimensional. This is within the framework of proof by logic (and this is very important in reality, not just as a direct experiential argument, because it can be used to one's advantage). He also discovered new methods such as functional extrema and singular flows. Moreover, a promising point of view is their use in the design of complex technical systems.

Any Millennium Problem is potentially PRACTICAL. But the P=NP problem stands apart because it immediately opens literally fantastic doors.

But there is one BUT. Like algorithmic randomness. Our mind is essentially an archiver (in the language of information theory). Archiving is data compression, and only structural, rhythmic, and predictable data can be compressed. Chaotic things are incompressible in principle, and our reality is incompressible, and no program can describe it more briefly than it does, that is, archive it, and therefore it is truly random. What appears orderly appears mundane, and what is chaos can contain the most profound information, but the mind is powerless here. For example, you download two audio files – one is your favorite song, and the other is the incomprehensible hiss of an old radio. You run the archiver – the music is compressed to 500 kilobytes, but the white noise of the old radio remains almost unchanged. Why? A song has structure, repeating rhythms, chords, a chorus. The archiver sees patterns and replaces them with shortcuts, like memory saying, "This has happened before, just repeat it." But there's nothing recognizable in the noise of an old radio; each fragment is unique, unpredictable, as if Nature itself rolls the dice with every sound. The archiver is powerless, "I can't make it shorter." Compression is a search for meaning. If a file compresses, it means it has order, structure, repetition; if not, you're looking at pure randomness. Everything that can be explained can be compressed; everything that can't be explained remains as it is. And the archiver is a small model of the human mind—it searches for patterns, tries to simplify, explain, systematize, and when it can't, it seems to say, "This isn't my limit, but the limit of the world itself." And almost everything in the universe is uncompressible; this is a mathematical proof—there's more chaos than order, order is the exception to chaos, randomness is the norm. Sometimes the most complete formula for describing reality is Reality itself. For centuries, science has been pursuing the same goal: compressing the world. We seek formulas to replace long descriptions of reality with short ones. Science is the art of compression. We believe the world obeys laws, meaning it can be described more simply than it appears, that behind the apparent chaos lies a "hidden code." But not everything can be coded. If a "string" is incompressible, that doesn't mean it's "noisy"; it means no explanation will be shorter than the string itself, even the most ingenious. And the laws of nature aren't fundamental truths, but the most successful archives of reality—we've found a way to compress part of the universe, but not all of it. Our minds work in the same way—it tries to pack chaos into explanations, but somewhere on the edges of consciousness, chunks of data remain that can't be compressed. Science has always believed that behind the complex lies simplicity, but the opposite is true: behind the simple lies complexity, which no formula can contain.

Is it possible to compress the Universe itself? Imagine our entire world as a gigantic hard drive the size of the Cosmos, with everything recorded on it—every photon, every particle, every thought…? Could this gigantic file be replaced with a short program—a Theory of Everything? Option one: the Universe is deterministic, it has a simple formula, the laws of physics are a compressed version of reality, we can describe the past and future if we know the initial conditions—the world is a gigantic program, and we are processors executing its code. But there's a problem: the formula explains HOW, but it doesn't explain WHY these specific "numbers" exist. There is no answer. These parameters are simply GIVEN as unchanging chunks of an incompressible string.

Option two: the Universe is completely random. There is no code. All laws are merely temporary coincidences; each event is unique, like billions of incompressible strings scattered in the Vacuum of Existence. Such a world is impossible to understand. It doesn't repeat itself, it can't be explained, and essentially defies our logic; it simply Is. This Universe is meaningless, yet this is precisely its True Meaning.

Option three – the Golden Mean. The laws of nature are a compressed portion of Reality, while the initial conditions are incompressible. The world has structure, but not the Whole; it's partially explainable, like a file where the header is readable, but the rest is pure noise. Most physicists believe precisely this; the laws are understandable, but the input data itself is inexplicable. And here's where the real mental nightmare begins – it's impossible to even prove that "something" is incompressible. If we found proof, it would itself be a program that shortens the description, meaning it would already be compression – a contradiction. The conclusion is that we will never know whether the Universe is lawful or random; it's simply an unsolvable question. We are the ones desperately trying to compress the infinite file of reality into a short, human-readable code called Understanding. Algorithmic randomness is the wall that human and artificial intelligence collide with, the SETI program and alien signals... Order is simplicity, and true randomness is when no explanation is shorter than Reality itself. The Universe doesn't have to be understandable, and chaos isn't the enemy of order, but its integral part. Each of us is also a "string" whose true length is greater than any attempt to explain ourselves in words. And if someone wants to "compress" you into a formula, you must remember that what is most alive in a person is what cannot be contained in any program.

And the irony is that Ideal Order and Ideal Chaos are seemingly the same thing. The brain and perception—the human brain is also an archiver—seeks out repetitions to conserve energy; when they don't exist, it calls it noise. But sometimes, it's precisely in this noise that new information can be hidden, one that can't yet be compressed. We respond to art, to music, to random details because we sense a balance between order, which can be understood, and chaos, which cannot. The world becomes beautiful when it is almost, but not completely, compressible. Algorithmic randomness is not a paradox; it is information about where reason ends and the inexplicable begins.

The world is ruled by Infinite Beauty in all its Meanings and nonsense. Truth = Beauty, and that's precisely what your "soul" craves.

Edited November 12 by Malkom

[Malkom]

The soul doesn't seek happiness or comfort; it seeks "meaning," "realization," "actualization." Life doesn't need bots, it needs PERSONALITIES. This is much closer to enlightenment, shmenlightenment  even more so, because it no longer confines you to the boundaries of enlightenment, to non-duality, which is essentially much closer to True Non-duality. If this seems like egoism at first glance, it's not. Your I-Am and my I-Am are One and the same, COMPLETELY. And I repeat, YOU are YOU, I am I, it's not someone in some personality, it's YOURSELF.