Consciousness Mechanics: The Movie is a crash course in consciousness. It dissects the basic mechanisms of how the human reality experience operates, and simplifies esoteric concepts like "existence versus nonexistence" in an easy-to-understand, fun way. It also introduces new concepts, such as how and why there seems to be a consensus reality at all. This movie is a 106 minute voyage into the intricate workings of the spacetime illusion, and yet, is a timeless anchor to the reality of right here and right now.
The geometric form in the background is a basically a double 421 polytope (it's not doubled exactly). Just like how a point dimensionally changes into a line, which dimensionally changes into a plane and so forth, the geometry present between the lines and points symbolizes a similar dimensional relationship. The 421 polytope structure has some popular physical and metaphysical theories associated with it, one being the theory of everything, commonly abbreviated "ToE" in physics. None of those theories have anything to do with its use in the movie because it isn't in the movie. The object in the movie is not a 421 polytope, it is something akin to a double 421 polytope, which is a different object that has no name. The American Institute of Mathematics has an interesting article about the 421polytope here: https://aimath.org/E8/ and here: https://aimath.org/E8/mcmullen.html Scientific American features an interesting article, concerning E8 geometry and a theory of everything (the 421 polytope is an expression of E8 geometry): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rummaging-for-a-final-theory Two other interesting links to check out here: https://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/jan/08/e8-symmetry-spotted-in-ultracold-magnet and here: https://plus.maths.org/content/beautiful-symmetry-provides-glimpse-quantum-world
The rainbow background color changing was used because the rainbow is the spectrum of visible light. It represents the human experience, seeing as though light (electromagnetic energy) is obviously an important component.
In consciousness mechanics, everything is literally one thing. Everything is one material—one experience—being expressed as different materials and experiential events. "Different materials and substances" are the result of the extremely, extremely, EXTREMELY complex geometry of this one material. This is also why there is only one moment of time that keeps changing. This one moment of time is the same one experience that expresses itself in different ways; hence the experience of change and difference in one’s reality.
It has now even been somewhat “officially” discovered that matter is light; i.e., light can be "transformed" into matter: https://phys.org/news/2014-05-scientists-year-quest.html
This is the start of the deciphering of how one can transform an aspect of this one material (aka a specific activity field), into another form, which would be the changing of the geometric configuration of that portion of the one material that space-time-force is composed of.
The music was used because the beat goes hard. Also, it holds the perfect melody and tone for the concepts provided. The music meshes well with the content, and is a core ingredient to the goodness of the overall movie experience recipe.
Frequently Asked Questions:
Who’s to say consciousness needs a brain? Consciousness mechanics is about the human experience, which involves a central nervous system. None of this is arguing whether consciousness does or doesn’t need a brain. There are life forms that have no brain, and yet are still very much alive, for example plants and bacteria.
But what about insert any religious concept here? This movie is religion-neutral. Nothing about CMTM is intended to invalidate or disrespect one’s spiritual or religious beliefs. The experience you call insert any religious concept here is still a real experience, and nothing in consciousness mechanics will ever try to refute that. Whatever person, place, or thing you experience is a real experience. The specific hows, whats, and whys of that experience, and whether you could label that experience more appropriately in another way, is another topic.
I don’t agree with insert concept here. The movie exists for entertainment purposes only. You are free to disagree.
Why say the movie exists for entertainment purposes? That devalues the information. There are all kinds of people all over the world that will see this info, including people that hear what they want to hear, and readily misinterpret stuff. In a world where there are people that do irresponsible things and then blame others for their choices, disclaimers exist for good reason. What if someone simply forgot to take their medication one day and said, “F* yeah I’m the universe! I create my reality!! I CAN FLY!!!” and jumps off a roof and blames a consciousness mechanics video? Also, it is for entertainment. Some people ABSOLUTELY LOVE pondering the whys and wherefores of consciousness and the structure of their reality experience. This movie was made for them. :)
What’s with the ads on the YouTube video? No one has been paid to produce the movie, so naturally advertisements help balance out the costs of making it, and there were costs.
What’s up with the Cole’s paradox? Why that name? Isn’t there already one? There are tons of paradoxes, and they are often named from the surname of their respective authors; i.e., those that first published it publically. Here are some other examples: Carroll's paradox, Denny's paradox, Ehrenfest paradox, Faraday paradox, Fermi's paradox, Gibbs paradox, Klein paradox, Levinthal's paradox, Lombard's paradox, Loschmidt's paradox, Olbers' paradox, Polchinski's paradox, and Supplee's paradox.
Are you trying to say I am the universe, and there is nothing in this world that isn’t me? How insane! How arrogant!! How dare you!!!1!
It’s all about logic and context.
In the normal, day-to-day context in which people talk about things, no. You’re very obviously just a human.
In an abnormal, down-the-rabbit-hole, o-sh-Im-trippin-balls context, yes! The logic is that you are not separate from what you experience, and as an observer, you are not disconnected from what you observe.
In the context and part of the movie in which it was stated, it was a correct, axiomatic statement.
The idea of “you” being something depends upon how you define yourself. Most people define themselves as just their body, and rightfully so, because it is the human being’s daily, waking focus of consciousness. Regardless of how you define “you,” whatever you experience, you are still fundamentally experiencing yourself, regardless if you recognize or understand that experience as yourself.
It’s no more arrogant than saying you experience your hand while you give someone a handshake. Do you experience the other person’s hand? Yes, as an experience of yourself, or else you would not perceive another hand to shake.
Depending on how you word this axiom, and depending on your interpretation, it can sound like it’s saying you are the Almighty Supreme God Master of the Cosmos, but it’s not. It’s explicitly saying you are your experience. Another way to say that is “you are your reality,” and “you are the universe.” Also, there’s more to it than that but we’ll save that for another day.
Is there going to be another movie? I really liked this one! It’s planned and being worked on, but not actively. What’s actively being worked on now are the individual shorter videos to be uploaded onto the YouTube channel. And some other stuff. :)
There is more to come. You haven’t seen all there is to see of consciousness mechanics. The information presented thus far is a portion of something bigger that has yet to be released. There is “more to the story,” so to speak, and the movie is a foundation which sets the stage for more information. It is a base, an introduction, and the first chapter of a book of many chapters.