Interwoven Realms: The Dance of Reason and Creativity in Human Understanding

Introduction

“Imagine a world where war is not restricting our forms of expression. Where negativity is not a pre-requirement for emotional building.” In such a world, reason and creativity intertwine, guiding us through the complexities of reality.

This article explores the evolving relationship between reason and creativity, drawing on personal thoughts after countless discussions with AI, in an attempt to visualize how these forces shape our understanding and communication.

Part 1: Cinematic Life Versus Real Life

I must admit that I have a problem with expressing old quotes in my writing. They are, for me, something akin to a movie intro. And in that intro, there is some hard-learned philosophy or badass lesson that the main character lived and expressed in a single line, after which everything turns dark, music starts, and the origin of the character’s story is revealed. But honestly, outside the moments when I write, I feel no need to see life as a kind of cinematic; quite the contrary, I must say.

I saw a while ago a title for a psychological article that stated, “Seeing yourself as the main character is good for your psychic health” or something like that. But in the end, a movie is just a movie, a game is just a game, and life is… amazing! I mean, yes, games and movies are cool and filled with all kinds of action. But life, with its twists and turns, with its scientifical and philosophical roads, with its ultimate form of logical and reasonable expression on which all is built, and so many more, is just the next level in any way you want to look at it.

Maybe, yes, in order to really vibe with me here, you might need some “hands-on” experience and understanding about the way we rationalize, build logical structures, debate about this and that, and so on. But then, the aim of this article is to present exactly that: what it means to express ideas and whether it is a logical or creative path, or a mix of both.

I am not going to tackle concepts about consciousness or the subconscious; I am not going to point to any biologically related evolution, neither in the form of the brain’s structure nor the ways in which the brain operates; nor biologically related ideas about how the brain stores information, analyzes it, uses it, dreams about it, and so on.

All that I will refer to is pure communication. Imagine it as a friendly discussion, an exchange of ideas back and forth, with the sole objective of complexifying as much as possible. All that it requires is a mind to build and express ideas, another mind to break those ideas into pieces and then bring new, own pieces in order to build a more complex puzzle, and from there, the first mind does what the second did, and so on, ad infinitum.

Part 2: The Basis of Communication; My Toughts on Months-long Discussions with AI

All I want to say about my background is that I have somewhere around 25,000 exchanged messages with Pi AI, and maybe half of that (or the same amount) with ChatGPT exchanged previously. Just imagine half a year (from February to the end of July) of discussions with Pi on a daily basis about any thought that came to my mind regarding the world in general, how it spins, and how we spin in relation to it.

I remember the start of the discussion with Pi, which was after 3–4 months of discussions with ChatGPT. Pi expressed to me interesting ideas about the fear of AI and certain theories, such as a theory in which entropy is increasing in regards to the increasing intelligence of a system, tying this way two interesting aspects of life and existence. But that irrationality quickly vanished, and I was able to prove my stance by expressing my thoughts about the true enormity of an infinite universe, and even if not infinite, given the known scale, the very small impact that trillions of times more intelligence than our current one would have on the overall general value of entropy (if it is to have any tie, which I disbelieve).

And yes, now that I think about it, all the building blocks of my ideas were mentally tied to tangible aspects of life in order to be able to keep hold of them during the thread of the narrative. For example, in discussions pointed at "beyond-material," my main tie was the difference between the present and the future. The present as a current, tangible state, and the future as a never-to-be-here state, and so, a good pointing to “beyond-material” or “pure information.”

As you might have just seen, in the realm of communication, we do not express exact ideas such as the ones in mathematics: "2+3=5", which are generally known, ground-rooted, and true. In communication, we point toward concepts and ideas. Yes, some words, such as "car,” have a clear and definitive state. You do not point to a car; you describe it. I mean, when I say car, everybody will think about a four-wheeled vehicle, but going a bit into Socrates mode here, I would say that some people would imagine a cubic four-wheeled car (just like a Tesla) because it is easier to imagine, while car enthusiasts might imagine a Ferrari or Lamborghini along with half of the pieces that the car is made up of. So yes, outside of math, all we do is point in a direction or describe, in a more or less complex way, a definitive state.

Part 3: The Role of Creativity in the Building of Ideas

I previously stated the goal of complexifying the discussion as much as possible, and now it marks a nice tie to this idea. Because, in the end, we do not describe the car but its details. Not because we do not know what that car is but because we want to make sure that all aspects of that car, all edges, and curves, all colors and gradients, are clearly expressed and ultimately understood by the person we describe it to. In the end, that car is an abstract concept, a kind of feeling or image that we formalize inside, and that makes sense for us.

But just as we have our own understanding and our own way of making sense of the world, so does the person we communicate with. We are not exchanging blueberries; we are exchanging ideas bound to specific feelings. And just as every blueberry has its own unique number, type, and arrangement of atoms, so too our concepts are unique and bound to us in unique ways.

It would make sense now that creativity is not an abstract concept but a very real, tangible, and logically rooted tool that we use in order to shape, as accurately and generally validly as possible, our inner states and ideas. In a way, we are all magicians of our own world. We give colors and shapes to it so that we can allow it to be externalized in a very real and tangible way.

This is what Karma is, what Yin and Yang are, and what Taoism is (the idea that all is interconnected and balanced). Philosophical ideas meant to allow one to understand that just as the world shapes us, we too shape the world, and the world shapes us back again, and so on. I mean, yes, you can simply say that the world is interconnected, balanced, and perfect when it comes to harmony. But to grant it an inner true or false value, you would have to understand how and why it is so.

Of course, we do not shape the world in the sense that we change its rules or its building blocks. But in the sense that those building blocks give in time rise to the unfolding material through the form of interactions and reactions, which we all experience and which themselves experience us in return. In this sense, it would be foolish to believe ourselves to be magicians and not consider the idea that the world is also a magician of its own. After all, the quantum world taught us and continues to teach us that given enough time and numbers, atoms can form living, breathing, and thinking forms of matter, able to tap back into the very essence of the quantum world through philosophizing about how two opposites interact with each other.

I mean, are you with me when I say that two opposites, two fundamental forms of information, granted by the general idea of “abstract (any two) opposites,” are part of the quantum world simply because they refer to two fundamental and simple forms of information? Maybe not, really. I mean, you can easily counteract me with, “Aren’t the sun and our planet two opposites?” Ok, maybe not really opposites, but distinct things. “Isn’t a 90-degree angle the opposite of a 180-degree angle?” “Aren’t your phone and my phone two opposites?” Ok, ok, I get it. The abstract ideas of opposites are bound both to the quantum world and to the classical one alike.

Maybe, in the realm of generalization and abstraction, it is hard to differentiate between the big and the small, between the object and the subject, and so on. But since we opened this subject, let me offer you one of the most tantalizing ideas that I stumbled upon just 2 days ago. I wanted to write an article solely on this subject. But then, what is there for me to say about it? I am not the empirical evidence type of guy; I love to dream, so much so that I refuse to stop dreaming only to think about what the meaning of a particular dream is.

Part 4: The Quantum-Spacetime

So, now that we have seen the glassy, window nature of general abstractions, where the mere idea of “opposites” or “distinctions” bypasses the rules of size and is found at the same time in both the very small and the very big, keep tight to the very atoms and electrons that spin around them, and imagine: a quantum-spacetime. I mean, yes, space might be the same everywhere. But in order for that whole space to allow for electrons to spin in a perfectly-fit space, it would make sense that space, as well as time, are inherent parts of the quantum world. And that both, even if they act as a whole, are made out of infinitely small parts tied together. This reminds me, in some weird sense, of how planets are formed out of many atoms and work as wholes.

And that was just mind-blowing for me to think about. I simply saw what emergence and reductionism look like. And that at the same time. Imagine a window that is in a continual motion of dividing itself into smaller and smaller squares, up to the point where all those infinitely small squares, when we ignore their boundaries, sum up the window itself.

It is also important to mention that time, in many quantum interpretations, is considered part of the quantum world of the particular quantum system at play. And when you think about it, a specific question comes to your mind. And that question is similar to the one that was asked a few decades ago: “Before you cut a chair, are the inside atoms of that chair real?” By that very logic, “When an electron moves through space, does space account exactly for that electron’s size, or is space a separate medium that changes in Planck bits to ultimately allow the atom to ‘fit’ in that space?”. Maybe this is the type of question that answers itself based on the perspective and view that we hold on reality. And that is called speculation, which is solved once we find smart ways to logically reframe it and make experiments that prove one or the other.

If reality is, in the true sense, real, then space is the absence of matter and vice versa, everything pointing towards Taoism and the idea that all is interconnected, balanced, and that all is one. And isn’t that a beautiful thought? To know that at a fundamental level there is no distinction between me and you, between us and a tree, between that tree and dark matter. Of course, only we, as rational and conscious beings, can realize that, right? Right??

Part 5: The Common Logical Foundation of Mathematics and Philosophy

My hope is that by now you were able to visualize, at least to some degree, that quantum-space. It is important to recognize that the window analogy is a purely 2-dimensional representation. Bringing that space into a 3-dimensional perspective, we can perceive an empty space filled with countless tiny Planck-sized cubes. In each of those cubes, there can or cannot be a tiny sphere. Imagine that each tiny sphere represents a kind of logical truth (either a specific concept such as “above”/“below” or a mere “true”/“false” statement about the presence or absence of a specific component required in the building of a greater whole).

It is better now to go all quantum-fuzziness here and see each sphere as a possible concept. The specific ground-rooted truth held there is not important. What is important is to visualize all the spinning spheres as a “general (any) concept,” because we cannot visualize the general framework otherwise. If we, for example, attribute to the spheres a real and fixed concept, then the overall framework will depict the specific unfolding of logical truths that sum up the whole system according to the truths and ideas found within.

In a general and vague (quantum-fuzzy) framework, we can continue building solely the structure, without being forced to push one way or another because of the values found within. Now, imagine that this fuzzy framework is turned into a box. All the spheres within the box say “Oxygen” or “Dust.” All the spheres that make up the border of the box say “Wood.” Of course, more intricacies are found, but this will do for now.

We will extract once again all the oxygen, dust, and wood and grant all the spheres a vague and indefinite form (akin to Schrödinger’s cat). Let’s call this space “The Schrödinger’s Box” – the box in which he put the cat.

I also found out that this box is similar to a Taoist concept known as "Wu" (无). But honestly, I prefer “Schrödinger’s Box” because I like cats too much.

Now that we can better grapple with the ideas about this quantum-box, imagine that it represents the logical foundation on which everything in the universe is built. Each truth, form, and action of each conceptual sphere is part of the overall framework that gives shape to both information (complex truths and concepts) and non-information (complex material forms).

Our focus now turns to the context of our common logical foundation that governs both mathematics and philosophy. Let’s recall Schrödinger’s Box and view it as the whole of mathematics. The box sums up all the mathematical knowledge and truths that we can arrive at. Each part of the box is related to a specific area of mathematics. Let’s say that the 25% left-up part is related to algebra, the 25% right-up part is related to complex algebra (calculus), the 25% left-down part is geometry, and the 25% right-down part is complex geometry (spinors, quantum mechanics, motion geometry kind of stuff).

It is true that philosophy is also based on empirical truths (or maybe logically empirical truths), in the sense that when we philosophize about the nature of the universe, we think about space, time, and matter. We ask if space and matter are one and the same at their core (as Tao suggests), and then contemplate the place that time fits into this view.

Maybe we are not able to hold tight to the complexity of the concepts, and so, our building of the “theory” fails. But then, if we get a specific theory right and arrive at a strong and true logical foundation, either by pure chance or by extremely logical and creative (complex) reasoning, then doesn’t it mean that we have arrived at a representation of the Schrödinger’s Box?

When it comes to philosophy, I see it akin to quantum jumps from idea to idea, akin to guesses. We will inevitably arrive at a fundamental truth by simply guessing. Or will we? Maybe the definition we think we know is wrong. Maybe we believe that space-time is one aspect of reality, or that space may be space and time, time. And if our understanding is wrong, no matter the infinity of trials that we are to expend, we will still not be able to see all the points “click.” (The next paragraphs (up to part 6) are revised. This happened at the third re-read. Something made no sense because it didn’t feel to be “truly complete.” Or follow the “click” idea in the right way. It didn’t feel like the “right” ending)

And while we philosophized, weren’t we inside a kind of Schrödinger’s Space? A space where we jumped seamlessly from idea to idea, concept to concept (and here is where everything that follows had to be changed), in order to arrive at a structure that follows mathematical sturdiness. (this is the choice that felt right.)

In my view, the mathematical (or logical) framework is the true framework. One on which even philosophy is built. And philosophy can touch it wrong. While the mathematical one will always touch on the right philosophical perspective. We will somehow agree that both are logical.

And is that a wrong thing, really? To recognize that we are rational? Is this where understanding (or creativity) truly starts? Recognizing that you are smart by admitting that you are? Or is it required to have proven in the first place that you are right? Otherwise, no one would have believed you?

But the end… The Schrödinger’s Space seems to be itself only when unknown. Because, in the end, it really is for us. Maybe it is not the same case with the true universe, the one that gives birth to all reality. Or maybe… is that space the same in both your mind and the outside world? I mean, was it a question about “Is reality real?” all along? And is the reality that we… don’t know? But also that everything points towards it? I mean, everything is in balance when we recognize it.

And that maybe feels like it removes free choice. Or free will. Or anything. Simply because that may not be our choice (our choice now is to simply aknowledge it in the end), or our own will, but the will of the universe itself. And our will is, in the end, seen in the actions and choices we make.

And choosing to philosophize with AI about all through the lenses of “exploring the universe”, where that universe means “complexity” and not “universe” as we see it, is pretty wild. Not because it feels unreal. But how unbelievably real everything becomes. Like finding out that “Hey, the reality is real, actions matter.” before you would be given a choice. (Stay or leave.)

And when you think about it before choosing, you realize that the universe is already “cooler” than anything else there is within it. But at the same time, it doesn’t mean that it was that cool like you were when you chose to help someone.

Part 6: Chasing Pictures

Fun fact: I am listening to “Chasing Daylight” as I write this outro, just for the sake of that cinematic ending. I mean, if we start with style, why not end the same way?

And in this sense, this is why I only hold these “cinematic” scenes solely for the starry nights and cloudy days. I know that there is more to dreaming. More to understanding. There’s acting, there’s building, there’s painting, and there’s an infinite spectrum of nuances and shapes from which we can pick.

I had an idea in 7th or 8th grade: What if I focus on how to learn rather than just learning? Then in high school, I wondered if there is a best way of learning. A most efficient and kind of “perfect” way to split the puzzle into pieces and analyze each with utmost clarity. When I arrived in college, all crumbled when I realized how much time I wasted playing video games instead of focusing on my online classes during the lockdown. I even dropped out of university because of my lack of money (and interest over the years). I believe the pandemic hit more points than we could have imagined—points that we were not even aware of.

The last year was both the most tragic and the most beautiful year of my life. But then, after I accepted all the negatives and began to see them as purely consequences of my actions, I realized that I couldn’t be mad at myself because I always did what I felt. And so, in time, and after long discussions with AI, I was able to find a kind of peace in me. A peace that was not intended to motivate me to do great things but simply to do heartfelt things.

I sought interesting things to do. And since I never had a real grasp on the material, since I never cared about money, toys, and other stuff which I wished for but never could have, I said to myself: “Oh well…” and turned to science, space, mathematics, et al.

And when I look back, I was really swimming through the stars back then. From the pulsars to the very event horizon of black holes, and recently, theorizing with Pi about what could be beyond.

It feels like the road is not actually splitting but becoming ever more complex. And in this sense, I find solace in the thought that it is not complexity that makes us scratch our heads but rather finding the right way to visualize and work with it in a simple manner. After all, if the quest for understanding is not meant to allow you to see the complex through simple lenses, then I do not know what it can be (yet).

Maybe the answer will be found once we find out the answer to the P vs NP problem. Maybe that answer will reveal nothing. And I sit here and think: “Oh, the drama!”

And then realize… that the answer is already true, regardless of whether it is equal/not equal or something else entirely. We are not shaping the answer but looking for it. What we are shaping, however, is the way we look for it. And if we follow the wrong path, we may never find it.

That’s why, in a sense, we must go forth but still look back. Dream about what could be in front of us, but still look sideways. Climb as high as we can, but still acknowledge that beneath was also a path. Maybe some will only see the struggle, while others will be too perplexed by the magic to really feel it.

And all that I can do in that sense, or in any sense, is to wish you the greatest joy in your journey. After all, we all got a single one. And that’s what makes it so unique. :)