The mind has many faculties of perception, intuition, and so on that are beyond the faculty of rationalization or reason. Reasoning is very limited; it only relies on facts that are obvious enough to be known to the analytical mind, as opposed to facets of a situation that are known only liminally, and it cannot ‘process’ or work in a holistic manner. Consider the fact that artificial neural networks, a type of computer artificial intelligence, don’t work via a process of rationalization at all and yet are able to identify patterns with amazing success, and they are modeled after biological brains. And that’s to say nothing of the possibility that mind and its intuition and such come from more sources than just the neurological! (That’s a whole other subject, though. See Richard A. Nichols III’s answer to Is there a relationship between heart transplantation and recipient*s emotions and personality?)

Either way, just try completely rationalizing your emotional interactions with other humans.. you’ll come to a dead end fast!

The other factor to consider is that the universe is not necessarily completely mechanistic or otherwise straightforwardly comprehensible as rationalization would require. Nature is probably way too amazing, mysterious, enigmatic, magical and ineffable to fit into the box that analytical reasoning would like to put it in.

Why? Because for any frame of mechanism or causality you can put it in, that frame is probably open-ended and connected to higher, more meta frames (or potentially imaginable frames/models) because there’s no principle that would limit it. The universe is like an onion with unlimited layers to peel away to get to the center, just like the answering question of why some facet of physics operates the way it does can only lead to more questions, and asking why the universe even came into existence requires answering within the context of some larger field of existence.

To illustrate the part about answering a question only leading to more questions, say you want to know why things fall to the ground instead of rise into space. You may figure out that masses attract other masses with a force proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of their distance. Then the question is why does it do that? Say you answer that with relativity, combining gravitational attraction with the concept of inertia and postulating that mass-energy bends space-time around it, thus changing the ‘world line’ or quickest inertial route from one place to another. Why does it do that? Nobody knows. Some people have attempted to reduce gravity to a side-effect of the electromagnetic force. Why does the electromagnetic force exist? Nobody knows. If somebody did know what causes it to exist, the next step could only be to ask why those things that cause it to exist are as they are.

Or let’s say we figure out why two substances when mixed together create a third, completely different substance after releasing some smoke. We may explain that with the idea of atoms and chemistry. Why are atoms made the way they are and why do they behave as they do? We could explain that with the Standard Model, but why is the standard model the way it is? Nobody knows. If somebody did know why the Standard Model is as it is, the next step could only be to ask why those things that cause it to be the way it is are as they are.

Say you want to know where the universe came from or why it exists. Well, now we have the Big Bang to explain it. But why did the Big Bang happen? We could postulate, for example, the Eternal Inflation model, or some other model of a multiverse, or maybe just some kind of proto-time and ‘random’ quantum fluctuations that happened before the Big Bang, but why did those things exist? The questions never end.

This is all just to point out that the universe is necessarily a never-ending field of Russian dolls, and the mechanics each doll (inasmuch as they even are mechanical) contains hints or implications of the nature of its containing doll and the doll(s) it contains, etc. (Of course even the separation of the universe into discrete layers of dolls may itself be merely arbitrary, but the principle holds either way.)

To get back to the problem of whether the universe is even mechanistic or not (which the process of rationalizing it would desperately want it to be), science (as in, popular thinking among scientists) currently assumes that it is fully mechanistic, but there is no proof of this. We assume that it is because of the extreme efficacy of mechanical models in predicting and manipulating the world; however, these predictions are only effective in limited domains.

For example, we can very little predict specifically how someone will behave (even if you can, more or less, in some circumstances), how the weather will turn out, or which way a butterfly will fly in.. you can assume that this is all just the result of atoms bouncing around in a billiard-ball sense and its unpredictability is merely 100% the result of its immeasurable and incomputable complexity, but that would be begging the question: how do you know there are not non-mechanistic aspects to their behavior?

Also, if quantum mechanics has taught us anything it’s that events are fundamentally unpredictable, things just behave with relative predictability on the macroscopic scale when particles move in aggregate. We call quantum events “truly random”, but how do we know there is not a rhyme or reason to them that simply goes beyond our ability to model it, perhaps even our ability to rationalize about it?

Also, even if the universe is ultimately modellable with rationality, we’d be unlikely to have the proper rationality, or to use rationality in the proper way, to ultimately model it. That’s because rationalization carries with it many assumptions; it carries with it a certain worldview. For example, what if Berkeley’s idealism is correct and everything is ultimately mental, i.e. all there is are conscious beings interacting with each other? (See Entangling Conscious Agents, Donald Hoffman.) What if that means there are many principles of nature that thus work more like psychology, with all its inconsistency, its open-endedness, its free will, and its regular contingency upon interpretation, than clockwork? Common rationality would abhor this.

I say a lot of “what if”s and “probably”s, but I actually have no doubt that the universe is magical and not completely mechanistic; I just wanted to help lead others’ rationalities easily to my point of view by not confronting them with positive, likely objectionable claims, and the idea that the universe may be non-mechanistic, magical, psychological, or otherwise non-modellable to some degree is sufficient to raise doubt that we may not be able to rationalize everything.

“The man who listens to reason alone is lost; reason enslaves all whose minds are not strong enough to master her.” —George Bernard Shaw

“A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.” —Rabindranath Tagore

Let me present to you an interesting thought experiment: Can you think of any hypothetical set of results of past experiments on matter that would have been totally satisfying, such that we’d know that we fully understand what matter is to its core? It seems that, no matter what happens—possibly as a result of our modes of investigation or of the very way our minds work—there must always be further questions, smaller and smaller levels at which we can break things down to discover new, more fundamental truths about matter.

First we discovered physical substances weren’t continuous all the way down but rather made of atoms, but what are atoms made of? We discovered they’re made of subatomic particles—electrons, protons, and neutrons—but what are those made of? We discovered protons and neutrons are made of quarks, and now we’re wondering whether quarks are made of anything more fundamental. It seemingly never ends as we go further and further down the rabbit hole. (See also https://exalumen.blog/2018/04/13/notes-on-science-scientism-mysticism-religion-logic-physicalism-skepticism-etc/#Reductionism.)

So, given this strange scenario in which the truth behind material objects can never be complete, as there’s always a more fundamental level that you can look at, is it possible that these further and further levels of truth about the world don’t already exist somewhere in reality, but are made up as we go along? What if the results of experiments done for the first time tend to conform to the expectations of the observers, which are themselves wild guesses or rationalizations to explain what they’ve already seen? What if the principles of general relativity, quantum field theory, and nuclear physics were originally rationalizations by individual scientists or groups of scientists made up as the only ways they could think of to explain certain experimental results (which themselves had been the results of expectations), and then, once those truths are established, all subsequent experiments automatically yield similar results? In the book ‘Beyond Weird: Why Everything You Knew About Quantum Physics is Different’, Philip Ball says,

Quantum theory had the strangest genesis. Its pioneers made it up as they went along. What else could they do? It was a new kind of physics – they couldn’t deduce it from the old variety, although they were able nonetheless to commandeer a surprising amount of traditional physics and math. They cobbled old concepts and methods together into new forms that were often nothing much more than a wild guess at what kind of equation or mathematics might do the job.

It is extraordinary how these hunches and suppositions about very specific, even recondite, phenomena in physics cohered into a theory of such scope, precision and power. Far too little is made of this when the subject is taught, either as science or as history. The student is (certainly this student was) presented with the mathematical machinery as though it were a result of rigorous deduction and decisive experiment. No one tells you that it often lacks any justification beyond the mere (and obviously important) fact that it works.

There’s a popular theory by Rupert Sheldrake called morphic resonance, in which anything that happens anywhere makes it subsequently easier or more likely for it to happen the same way elsewhere. According to Sheldrake, scientists have discovered that, once a particular kind of crystal was grown in a lab anywhere on Earth, it subsequently become easier or faster to grow the same crystal elsewhere. And, he claimed, a similar phenomenon exists with rats solving mazes. Once a rat solves a particular maze in a particular lab, other rats in other labs solve the same maze in much quicker time. (See also https://exalumen.blog/2019/09/14/how-were-looking-at-instinct-wrong/.)

All of physics—or, more to the point, the reason there’s order in the universe, the reason physics is apparently the same everywhere—could boil down to / be explained by morphic resonance. Of course, the leads to the question of why some physics apparently existed already (as there was apparently a world before observers, apparently operating according to some physical system, in order to even give rise to observers in the first place) while other parts of physics were left to be defined by humans. I think the answer is that consciousness has always existed, as a fundamental aspect of the universe (see https://exalumen.blog/2020/02/07/why-im-an-idealist/), so consciousness could easily have been the origin of all physical principles. (Of course, the idea that consciousness is somehow fundamental to the universe seems implied already by my idea that experimental results could somehow be affected by conscious expectation, because how else would consciousness have such power?)

Another question this theory raises is, why would our own creations of physical principles on our little planet in our little galaxy instantly affect all of the universe? Aren’t there/have there been other intelligent species out there in the universe who would also be discovering/creating experimental results? The answer could be that reality prevents us from meeting other beings whose realities are too different from ours, at least in a very up-close and personal manner, and/or that when we do, we assimilate the differences into our own reality, possibly affecting them in turn, and they do the same with us. It would be similar to experiences people have had while exploring other countries, such as their medical understanding of the heart being of a completely different shape, or their fingers becoming longer while in transit, presumably to match the understood biology of the other culture. I wrote more about this here https://www.quora.com/When-I-look-at-the-Sun-its-a-light-gray-with-a-white-slither-sliding-around-it-Why-is-it-always-depicted-as-yellow/answer/Richard-A-Nichols-III and here https://exalumen.blog/2024/11/08/fun-and-liberation/.

Another question this theory raises is, how is it that, after having discovered all these physical principles, they so coherently explain so many things that have existed since way before we discovered said principles, such as in geology, biology, the study of planets, stars, nebula, the cosmic background radiation, etc., etc. I think to some degree, these things were already mechanistic and adhered to certain principles of causal development, and our science merely fills in the details and makes them more specific.

Also, based on my own personal experiences and more, it seems that the past is actually something that is, or is partially, created in the moment to suit our purposes and/or to fit our expectations. When you’ve already witnessed something from the past, whether directly or indirectly, it seems to be stuck in place, but when you haven’t, it seems to be more up in the air.

I’ve also written more about this here https://iyaelsorai.wordpress.com/2026/03/01/dehumanizing-ideation/.

This idea is a continuation of the last part of https://myriachromat.wordpress.com/2023/05/13/idea-6-project-catalyst-organization-procat/.

A website for issues that will be voted on by congress or decided by governors, mayors, etc. For bills, it would automatically list all the ones that need to be decided on, from http://usa.gov (update: I’m not sure if the bills are still available at that website or where to find them now.) For issues only affecting only legislation in a particular area, perhaps only people from that area would be allowed to vote. With each issue could be an explanation of what factors need to be considered, preferably posted by congress members or mayors, etc. Also, for bills, it would be nice if congress members posted summaries, including the gotchas that are tacked on just because they can. Bills don’t seem that easy to read.

This doesn’t have to be a government-supported website, because the idea isn’t that the voters legally or necessarily determine the outcome–it’s for politicians to peruse results and feedback at their liesure. Voters should be able to attach explanations about their feelings/opinions along with their votes. Also have the ability for users to post their own bills or other suggestions for changes in legislation or budget, vote for user proposals, or create new branch versions of existing proposals/bills. Attached explanations should be rateable so that it’s easy to see which sentiments have a lot of support and are well-presented. User proposals/branches should also be rateable.

Dreams are meaningful, but not in the sense that they call for waking/conscious interpretation. Once the dream has been experienced by the sleeping-state consciousness, it has served its purpose. The emotional impressions, symbolism, metaphors, exaggerated variants of actual situations, etc. have all made their necessary impressions on the subconscious mind.

As far as I can tell, at least in my experience, the purpose of dreams is mainly to cancel out certain dispositions accumulated in the mind (which you may or may not be consciously aware of) over the course of the day, and sometimes over the course of years or one’s lifetime, through exposure to the elements of the dream. If the disposition you’ve gained during the previous day/week/etc. is a change you wanted and consciously worked toward, then your dreams won’t cancel it out. Another purpose may be to properly integrate the day’s/week’s/life’s events into the psyche that weren’t fully emotionally registered at the times of their happenings.

Whatever it is that weaves your dreams, it uses whatever elements are convenient for it, and if the thing that changed your mind’s disposition most is something that happened or that you thought of the previous day/week/etc., then that will be the dream weaver’s best resource, so you’ll dream about stuff that actually happened. And of course you’ll also dream about stuff that actually happened for the purpose of integrating the day’s/week’s/etc.’s events into your psyche.

Interpreting dreams is something that can lend a little insight sometimes, or at least can be a fun thing to do, but it’s ‘extra,’ and furthermore, we’re hopelessly bad at doing that. Our analytical understanding of our dreams is minuscule compared to the complete meaning, which is actually a myriad of things… Every element of a dream simultaneously means a thousand things at once, brilliantly, and it holistically connects to every other element to mean even more myriad things.

I have actually known several people who were apparently very gifted at interpreting dreams, but even they generally offer exactly one interpretation. I can be good at it too, sometimes. The best approach for interpreting dreams seems to be to closely introspect on how the events of the dream actually make you feel.

Even though dreams are meaningful, the way in which we tend to see their contents and meaningful can be misleading. For example, if you dream about something happening in the future, that doesn’t mean it will happen in the future (though I do think dreams can sometimes be premonitive). Or if you dream something about some other person, that doesn’t necessarily mean anything about that other person (usually it’s all about you, though occasionally people have told me dreams they’ve had about me taht were spot on regarding my current inner world). Or there are a million other ways they can be misleading… Dreams can highlight or exaggerate particular themes that are only small parts of a vast, multidimensional truth. Sometimes one part of the truth can be highlighted by a dream where there are other parts of the truth that are antithetical to that part that aren’t proportionately represented in the dream, which can be misleading upon waking analysis. Also, dreams are highly symbolic and a given symbol may mean something different to one’s analytical mind than what it was meant to mean to the dreamer’s subconscious. Another way interpreting dreams can be misleading is through taking certain elements of a dream to be omens, or signs that you should make a particular decision, when they aren’t really.

There is this idea floating around that dreams are due to random neuron firings, and/or the purpose of dreaming is to transition memories into long-term storage. ‘Jack’ from Modernspring.xyz expresses the view nicely, in response to the question, “What are dreams made of?” His answer is, “Almost random fragments of your experiences as they are consolidated into long-term storage. Then you brain tries to make a story about the scattered bits. It helps you remember, but the dream may be just a side effect.”

This is a highly scientistic conception of the purpose of dreams. Seeing it as meaninglessly random neural firings is the default option for those who need a scientific answer, given that science does not really currently undersand how dreams work. As for the long-term storage, surely they’ve done some brain scans and noticed a correlation between the dreaming process and long-term storage, and that may be one function of dreaming, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only purpose or even the main purpose.