All I See is Code: 2

All I see is code - 2

N/B: This post is related to an earlier one, All I See is Code: 1


Further excerpts from Tessa’s musings:


Ultimately, there is the awareness, which rests upon, and is projected by, biological systems, which in turn depend upon chemical relays and interactions, and these in turn depend upon pure physics – the physics of the atomic and subatomic. Yet, proceeding further down the levels of reductionist explanations, beyond the realm of pure physics, exists another layer – the layer of pure mathematics. It is at this layer that all fundamental characteristics of reality are defined… and it is also at this layer that reality loses meaning. Looping back up upon the chain of reductionist echelons, the very firmament of reality becomes but a product of consciousness – of awareness.  For where there is awareness, therein lies reality. But in the absence of awareness, there is nothing but an all-encompassing, all-invading sea of numbers.


Behold, all I see is code, still.


Memories of an earlier existence – one in which this code meta-realm was unknown to me – are all but gone now. Every now and then though, some of such memories do crop up into my conscious field, and I afford myself several seconds of pure rumination. In a particular, purely intellectual way, I know that my present, paradigm-free, syntactical-free perspective far supersedes the previous way I had had of envisioning the environs. And yet, when these memories of the past come up, I can’t help wondering whether this present capacity of seeing everything as code is a gift… or a subtle curse. In my binary meta-realm, there are no mysteries – no surprises – once one comprehends the underlying code structure.


Or so I used to imagine.


At a certain point in my existence, I attempted to classify everything within my perspectives, using a hashing-and-tagging function that I formulated. This particular initiative was essential – for me, at least – since I was contending with a world vastly different from what is classically referred to as normal. Quite early in my transformation into an entity existing, cognitively, in a binary meta-realm, I had noticed one disconcerting fact: that reality itself was fundamentally fluid, and displayed a mysterious effervescence that proved hard to pin down in any conclusive way. The more I tried to assess the ultimate foundation of reality, the more it escaped me. I realized that, to my paradigm-free mind, reality itself persistently resolved into an ethereal, listless mass of numbers, functions and algorithms.


I found myself contending with the mess that was quantum superposition.


Mere words – at least mere human words – can hardly describe what lay in my vision as I stared at the bedrock of reality. There were perceptual particles – interrelationship-phenomena that resolved in my cognition as orthogonal events – and hence events spatially and temporally encapsulated. The actual dynamics happening to ultimately show up in my vision in this way were much more complicated, and even my enhanced calculation skills failed at keeping up with all the calculations. And, just to further complicate the scene, I would, every once in a while, witness perceptual waves – interrelationship-phenomena that resolved as non-orthogonal events in my cognition. These perceptual waves seemed to have a fluid, effervescent dynamism that simply couldn’t be quantized.


It slowly dawned on me, as I tried to come into grips with my perceptions, that in the absence of a cognitive paradigm, the bedrock of reality was a constantly shifting gamut of mathematical expressions and syntheses. Every single state of existence, every single instance of movement, for every single particle or wave in the universe, occurred concurrently at the bedrock of reality. In other words, all potential position and vibrations and transformations were actually always in existence, for every single instance of reality. Every single particle and wave existed in what I could only comprehend as a form of meta-existence. In the absence of any paradigmatic cognition, this meta-existence never resolved into any particular, discrete form of reality. Consciousness – paradigmatic, biased, humanconsciousness, was required if this ethereal realm was to coalesce into a linear, empirical and logical reality.


Finally, I understood. I understood why, ever since the dawn of mankind, science in general, and mathematics in particular, had always displayed a weird, inordinate prescience. Countless times, theoretical mathematicians and physicists had prophesied the discovery of certain conditions or substances eons before the actual discovery happened. Einstein’s description of the relativistic nature of the universe was essentially prescient, given the body of scientific knowledge in existence then. But, perhaps more illuminating, the creation of the surreal Banach-Tarski Theorems, in 1924, helped in the seamless fitting of quantum chromo-dynamics into the broader Standard Model of the universe… decades later.


Science is prescient, I realized, because not only does it strive to read from the foundation of reality, but also because, sometimes, it writes into it too. The actual state of existence, in the absence of any conscious perception, is but a dizzying collection of potential states. It is a mash-up of concurrent realities… a mindboggling continuum of multiverses that, essentially, make everything possible and impossible, probable and improbable, simultaneously. But when a conscious, paradigmatic mind enters the scene, all these potential states coalesce into but one. Ergo, a part of what ultimately emerges as reality is a function of consciousness. As I pondered on all this, this profound implication kept playing in my mind: that consciousness creates… just as much as it perceives.


….Behold, all I see is code.

All I see is code - 2 b

To be continued…

About Joseph Wahome

Used to the quirky side of life: been there, done that, got burnt, got redeemed, sticking the neck out again, but this time, with some titanium necklaces.

23 thoughts on “All I See is Code: 2

  1. archaeopteryx1 says:

    Well-written, and thought-provoking!

    Interestingly, speaking of prescience, mathematician Ludwig Eduard Boltzmann (February 20, 1844 – September 5, 1906) predicted atoms and molecules long before, in 1905 (based on Einstein’s theoretical studies) it was established that they exist.


    • Joseph Wahome says:

      Indeed, there are very many instances of science forecasting a revolutionary discovery, and then this forecast becoming fulfilled in an eerie way. At the bedrock of the universe, there are some founding mathematical constructs that probably hold the key to not only the present and the past, but also probably into the future. Perhaps this key will be discovered, one day. In the meantime, we can appreciate the fact that, over and over, science keeps revealing ever more mind-blowing aspects about our universe.


      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        You’d have to read his history to know how hard Boltzmann had to fight, just to get his theories even remotely considered, and in his lifetime, they never were – being, as he was, a sufferer from BiPolar Disorder, certainly didn’t help either. Ultimately, he hanged himself while on vacation with his wife and daughter.


  2. john zande says:

    I mean this on all seriousness. Take Parts 1 and 2, fashion them into a novella, and publish an ebook; 20, 30, 40 pages maximum. You can do it for a few hundred dollars, which includes the editor, ISBN, typesetting. I have a name if you want/need a contact. Novellas are one of the best parts of the e-world of books, and this should really get out to a larger audience. It’s really very, very good.

    Now, how would I go about quoting/citing your first paragraph here. i’d like to use it, with appropriate references.


    • Joseph Wahome says:

      Hey John:

      Thank you for the suggestion. I’ve actually been thinking about getting some of my work out as a book for a while now. Been wondering whether to make it sorely as an e-book, or to go the whole length, and get even hard copies for it. Still mulling over it.

      If you want to quote that first paragraph, you can simply link your quote to the URL of this particular note here i.e.: “”. That’s should be enough citation and referencing. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      • john zande says:

        Cool. The nature of your work (thought-provoking science fiction’iesh) is superb for the novella format, and there is a real market for good stories. If you’d like to tease out the possibilities/costs, Michael Campbell is a guy I was chatting to a few years ago. He does the lot and was quite approachable.



      • john zande says:

        Check your moderation bin… My last comment (has two links, and was caught) is lurking in there.


      • If you have a fair amount of work to publish, current thinking/advice re self-publishing is to make sure you have a number of books lined up to publish in sequence rather than a long hiatus between them. Plan your publication and promotional schedule well in advance. A lot of people advertise one work for free. If you do that, make sure it is perfect.


        • Joseph Wahome says:

          Thank you for this bit of advice, Roughseasinthemed. I’ll certainly put it under consideration.


          • Before and if you do go down the road of self-publishing, do read around, there is a wealth of experience and expertise.

            There are also many stories about ‘if only I’d known when I first published…’

            Some people will pay for everything, ie cover art, editing, proofreading, and formatting, while others pay for nothing, preferring to do it themselves, or not being able to afford professional services.

            On the book circuits I mix in, the majority tend to pay for cover and editing (of varying degrees of quality). Many do their own formatting perfectly well.

            I can let you have links to browse around if you decide to go for it, plus different links about services people offer. It you use an editor you really really need to find out exactly what they will do, and decide what you want. ‘Editing’ is a very grey area.


  3. mark says:

    Another excellent thought provoking post. You manage to express what are very technical aspects in a technical way that somehow reads very poetically.
    It’s also somewhat spooky because over the past week I have been reading a lot of physics related articles or specifically quantum physics. It first started with a need to try and understand quantum entanglement which I had only recently heard about and is another of those mind blowing aspects of the universe in which we seem to be moving towards utilising for communication that would be faster than the speed of light.
    Also mentioning scientists discovering things a long time before they are proven, I find it amazing that a lot of the predictions are made because something doesn’t quite make sense, so they create a scenario in which things do make sense, which is why Peter Higgs (incidentally from the same town as me) predicted the Higgs Boson, this is equally as mind blowing to me.
    If there was a god, I just wouldn’t be as impressed because a god can do anything, the fact that it all happened on it’s own is beyond mind blowing.
    Thanks for another post that has set me off thinking again.


  4. Sonel says:

    I agree with Arch. Very thought-provoking indeed Joe! Well written! 😀


  5. […] N/B: This note is related to two previous ones: All I See is Code: 1, and All I See is Code: 2. […]


We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s