That question traces back to the fundamental question concerns the origin of consciousness itself: is consciousness a phenomenon emergent from physical processes in the Universe, or is it... something other than that:
A maverick physicist named John Wheeler wondered about this half a century ago, and you can read more about this very curious fellow here:
Wheeler was one of the first prominent physicists to propose that reality might not be wholly physical; in some sense, our cosmos must be a “participatory” phenomenon requiring the act of observation--and thus consciousness itself.
"Quantum mechanics is the study of how particles at the atomic and subatomic level interact with each other and their environment. The observer effect is the phenomenon in which the act of observation alters the behavior of the particles being observed. This effect is due to the wave-like nature of matter, which means that particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously. When an observer measures a particular property of a particle, they are effectively collapsing the wave-function of that particle, causing it to assume a definite state".
Enacting way (inception towards death) internally differentiates reacting positions (life)...observe (to hold onto) tempts one to ignore this differentiation aka setting apart from one another.
To observe implies to look at something aka to lock onto it aka to FOCUS on a POINT of convergence, while ignoring ones life sentence being moved towards point of death.
This ignored motion implies a generating power (velocity) increasing the effects of ones focus upon a point of convergence, while diminishing ones power (resistance).
In short...few suggest "look here" to tempt many to burn their resistance when consenting to focus on it.
Notice that the foundation of attention aka ad (towards) tendere (to stretch) implies life being stretched from inception towards death...few tempt many to give attention, which each one needs to resist to sustain life.
so this is just like a photon or like tiny things.. but in larger terms.. just watching a hot chick.. I think that's bad.. it does "things".. not interacting with them.. or that's what it is.. it's the "looking" at them".. so that's why, when I go by them, I pay them the respect and don't look at them in the eye.. cause.. seems like the data points towards, that's bad. lol... it'll do things that they don't like. It messes up their consciousness. So.. I don't know.. I just don't look them in the eye, when I go by.
Partials (each ones perception) can only exist during whole (all perceivable). During implies a moving whole (inception towards death) setting partials (life) apart from one another.
messes up
Partials looking/locking at each other/with each other are messing/massing up being differentiated from one another.
Few control MANY by AMASSING aka e pluribus unum (out of many one)...which messes up each partial one (singular) among many (plural).
How could that even be
Being implies odd (choice) during even (balance)...asking each other "how could that EVEN BE" tempts one at odds with another, hence imbalance.
This imbalance is called "reason/logic"...and it messes up many for the benefit of few.
does anybody have an answer
Nature implies solution (inception towards death) to each problem (life) within...a question/quest towards answers tempts one to ignore being within origin.
Why would any of this even be going on?
Steady (motion) generates even (momentum) for odds (matter)...that's why.
Science does not explain
a) Science/scio - "to know" implies ones perception within all perceivable...suggested scientism tempts one to ignore that by consenting to the suggested.
b) Being implies ex-plain aka expressed growth (life) during plain loss (inception towards death)...seeking for explanations from one another establishes friction (conflicts of reason) among expressed growth, hence grinding it down into loss.
That's why few mix many together...to trick them to grind each other to dust.
That question traces back to the fundamental question concerns the origin of consciousness itself: is consciousness a phenomenon emergent from physical processes in the Universe, or is it... something other than that:
A maverick physicist named John Wheeler wondered about this half a century ago, and you can read more about this very curious fellow here:
Physicist John Wheeler and the “It from Bit” (6/29/2023)
What Is The Observer Effect. .
"Quantum mechanics is the study of how particles at the atomic and subatomic level interact with each other and their environment. The observer effect is the phenomenon in which the act of observation alters the behavior of the particles being observed. This effect is due to the wave-like nature of matter, which means that particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously. When an observer measures a particular property of a particle, they are effectively collapsing the wave-function of that particle, causing it to assume a definite state".
To observe a particle you have to be able to see it, you have to use energy to make it visible. That energy effects the experiment.
To observe it, something must interact with it in some way.
EDIT: And to be clear, science has thoroughly explained this.
Enacting way (inception towards death) internally differentiates reacting positions (life)...observe (to hold onto) tempts one to ignore this differentiation aka setting apart from one another.
To observe implies to look at something aka to lock onto it aka to FOCUS on a POINT of convergence, while ignoring ones life sentence being moved towards point of death.
This ignored motion implies a generating power (velocity) increasing the effects of ones focus upon a point of convergence, while diminishing ones power (resistance).
In short...few suggest "look here" to tempt many to burn their resistance when consenting to focus on it.
Notice that the foundation of attention aka ad (towards) tendere (to stretch) implies life being stretched from inception towards death...few tempt many to give attention, which each one needs to resist to sustain life.
so this is just like a photon or like tiny things.. but in larger terms.. just watching a hot chick.. I think that's bad.. it does "things".. not interacting with them.. or that's what it is.. it's the "looking" at them".. so that's why, when I go by them, I pay them the respect and don't look at them in the eye.. cause.. seems like the data points towards, that's bad. lol... it'll do things that they don't like. It messes up their consciousness. So.. I don't know.. I just don't look them in the eye, when I go by.
Partials (each ones perception) can only exist during whole (all perceivable). During implies a moving whole (inception towards death) setting partials (life) apart from one another.
Partials looking/locking at each other/with each other are messing/massing up being differentiated from one another.
Few control MANY by AMASSING aka e pluribus unum (out of many one)...which messes up each partial one (singular) among many (plural).
Being implies odd (choice) during even (balance)...asking each other "how could that EVEN BE" tempts one at odds with another, hence imbalance.
This imbalance is called "reason/logic"...and it messes up many for the benefit of few.
Nature implies solution (inception towards death) to each problem (life) within...a question/quest towards answers tempts one to ignore being within origin.
Steady (motion) generates even (momentum) for odds (matter)...that's why.
a) Science/scio - "to know" implies ones perception within all perceivable...suggested scientism tempts one to ignore that by consenting to the suggested.
b) Being implies ex-plain aka expressed growth (life) during plain loss (inception towards death)...seeking for explanations from one another establishes friction (conflicts of reason) among expressed growth, hence grinding it down into loss.
That's why few mix many together...to trick them to grind each other to dust.