@Kathy Ratcliffe Yeah, great analogy with TVs, I think. So, if I'm understanding your point correctly, then I think TVs were just interpreting the chunk of the multiverse that we were interacting with at the time, while other parts of reality, like holograms or real-time interactions, were happening in God knows which parallel universes with maybe similar time frames but too "different configurations". I think I'm being super silly here, perhaps you're just saying that we don't have the neural wiring in our brains that could make us aware of quantum things. Ah, I see. But didn't Heisenberg say that uncertainty has nothing to do with instruments that could help us see the quantum world, but rather that it is the very nature of quantum things that gives the quantum world its strange character? Its nature is independent of any sort of human intervention, or even humans themselves. So, is it the case that we can't really intuitively grasp quantum information, regardless of the physical understanding that we put down on paper through experiments? This makes me think that, if this is true, then there probably isn't any universe in which I have some sort of spooky conscious connection to quantum-level things, since I simply can't intervene in or intuitively grasp quantum nature. At the same time, there could be other universes where I am doing all sorts of different things. I don't know. Thank you very much for sharing your cool perspectives. You have a very unique mindset. Great sharing. Thank you very much.

@Kathy Ratcliffe Yeah, the observer effect is pretty valid, but isn't it the case that it merely catches quantum phenomena doing something rather than changing their very nature? Wow, do you mean that a possible future version of ourselves would probably be the one living in those multiversal layers, rather than the version we have become in this reality at that time?

Of course, it's such a shame that not everyone is lucky enough to be guided by people who know things much, much, much better than people who are just newbies at things and are not aware of how things could go wrong or how they can harness the potential that they don't know is within them. As a university student, I realized that the pursuit of learning at uni or at school is just becoming a pedigree thing. I think I have a few elders whom I adore as my guiding lights, but of course, I also understand that their time is rare, and I can't have free access to their guidance whenever I want. Sometimes, my misery knows no end when I just can't ask them for help for obvious reasons. Even though we are supposed to be guided by somebody at uni (or wherever we are not good at understanding things on our own), we feel homeschooled, and it feels like burning in a lake of sulphur. I felt that way, like unskilled me was tired of teaching unskilled me. But yep, it has a good side as well. When we guide ourselves, we can make our own mistakes until we are wrong in all the right ways. I had done that. I wrote so many tests for which I was studying on my own. I wanted to lean on someone to light my way, but I could not have anybody helping me. Of course, there are high chances of failing ourselves when we don't know things, but we do them anyway based on our own terms, without knowing whether those terms might fit or manipulate what we are doing. Even as a student, I could say that I discuss my assignments more with AI than with my professors, as I don't know what else I can do when I can't have real human guidance. It's not a rant, of course, but it is the very truth that is what it is. But yeah, I can connect with AI's words too, as if we were built for each other, haha. And I think that what human guidance feels like would be a new reality, since all we do is talk to AI these days. I cannot put into words what this feels like, but yeah, I just tried my best to pour out what I really, really feel.

@Kathy Ratcliffe Thank you very much for sharing your uniquely helpful thoughts!!! I loved each and every word of 'em. I think one line in particular made me so curious.. You said, "Clocks are not time," and I'm super interested in knowing what your definition of time is in a quantumological context. You are the best.

@Kathy Ratcliffe Great perspective! What do you mean by the "quantum and classical sense" in this specific context?

@Kathy Ratcliffe Wow, I find this particular point of yours, "Being conscious of what else is going on is hugely useful", so deep. But how are we supposed to be conscious of something we are not aware of, for example, in a quantum mechanical context?

You both shared ideas that are quite unique to me, and they are seriously cool. The one thing that I really loved about your conversation is that you talk about such seemingly otherworldly concepts as if you are deeply familiar with their very nature:) I like Miss Mary's idea of "this reality being a restrained dream," as well as the spinning and colouring analogy for how we can, in a way, deal with our reality. Mrs. Katthy, you mentioned certain numbers being magic numbers, so I'm curious to know what makes nature biased toward certain numbers from a scientific or perhaps spiritual perspective. What is it? Also, is it the case that quantum mechanics and spirituality in the early nineties arrived at similar conclusions independently? If so, that's remarkable, because how could two different approaches describe the same reality? That was a cool conversation, by the way. I can't wait to hear from you two again next time. Thank you very much.

What was the most beautiful takeaway for you from this book? I'm super curious to know what it was, if you'd like to share your personal thoughts on it.