I wanted to slightly rest last day watching things like hmm pyschic topics then it turned about remote viewing then  I saw lectures asking whether universe is a simulation then I also saw the contrary universe theories. So I watched some cosmology theories last day starting with psychic topics.

One person were trying to prove that universe is a simulation and there is one that is consciousness that is everything and even the physics frameworks are just simulation and do not exist. To him an one he called entity of is exploring this through subjective relative consciousness experiences through each person which calls it as avatar alike. 

I after reading these physics and philosophy science integration theories of universe, I found this "one" related one even possible might most possibly is not like that. Cause why would a one capable of such simulation is interested to subjective experience per person in such gigantic simulation where nothing is real and just simulations artifacts/constraints. He called the one infinitely infinite like e.g. direct limit of increasing infinity sets.

I see that quantum physics findings has introduced very curious philosophical and quantum physics unification efforts. That there is a lot people in world doing investigating these type of cosmological perspectives based theories.

My theory after having listened  3 theoretical physics lectures.

and recently seen some book like hmm hadnt studied yet but:

Geometry with an Introduction to Cosmic Topology (Hitchman) - Mathematics LibreTexts

and hearing from the new theoretical physics lecture that there is symmetry in background radiation image of universe that famous planck picture I mean, 

I just tend to think that its multiverses (along with my physic phenomena experiences) and but how its underlying framework is not known. e.g. take for instance incident of me drawing some thing over something and finding it resembles a scary many legged spider (more than 8 legs) and then finding it scary and erasng it. then next monring such more than 8 legged spider (with think legs being hair like but again leg like touching the wall and thicker legs like legs over the wall in the entry room's wall, were very scary spider and enlightening moment regarding multiverse theories of mine) 

it then maybe the events incidents that coincidence is some reflection of a symmetrical or some manifold dimensional space where its like analogous to theories like multiple same universes seems to surround world due to such manifold shape but its then this manifold shape and its noneuclidean geometry principles bends probabilistic space to sometimes favor coincidences. 

I mean after some such readings that I had not read yet but only traversed, I came to other possible multiverse ideas other than Everettian type basis. it could be related to the noneuclidean multidimensional manifold of that causes existence of physics frameworks/constants etc,  might have some recursive definitionsets or geometry that causes that in 4d space time side of this much higher dimensions, it somehow creates maybe -->

-either that results in space time some coincidences due to this manifold shape and we relative observers of incidents that coincide in the universe effected by this underlying multidimensional geomtries/manifold

- or else: its not a new incident when 2 things coincide. e.g. event A (drawing something on something ) and event B coinciding in what exactly --> the relative observer's neural nets concept of a spider that is like not known spider concept maybe another taxonomy entity not exactly spider ty[pe. I mean more than 8 legs spider. then ---> what if there is not 2 events in 2 events that coincide. what if that are just 2 views of the same thing from such underlying geometry manifold. what is view: is meant to be like observer effect like the neural net configuration. that correlate in time with like 10 hours delay eg  right ? Then what if this is actually not anything like multiplicity (like 2 separate incidents coinciding in perceived space time perception by our senses) but rather its same thing same manifold geometry when with relative points observing the same thing with but 2 different time separated coincidences. I mean what if they are the same but the manifold geometry the underlying multi dimensional stuff has such isometric repeatatance behaviour somehow that in our perceived side of this multidimensional stuff, i mean space time, we tend to think it as two separate incidents. hmm. It might be something like observing same thing that actually is same but rather due to geometry of results as in space time level perception of like time separated distinct events. I couldnt figure out the merge of this idea to its cosmological similar narratives yet since I hadnot studied to this course yet: 

8.2: Cosmic Crystallography - Mathematics LibreTexts

I would study later. I just traversed pages of. but it created such insight that like 2 new insights of this multiverse phenomena I tend to think such thing exists (whilst some physicists disagree to that either) but: --->  I tend to come to 2 alternative theories other than the possible Everettian basis having theories. So now there is 3 alternative multiverse bases theories in my mind. third one not very well defined yet.

I had not learnt manifold concept yet and also hmm for regarding -> hmm topology I before only read introduction course alike. I remember concepts of hmm e.g. looking from one more dimension to one less topics regarding e.g. S3 space. or D2 either. or another interesting topic of quotient spaces either. 

so regarding such 2 new alternative theories, the structure and topology of the multiple dimensions is needs me to revise topology more later which I need to do eventually for ml project. 

So I wanted to add these that: hmm regarding theories like universe is consisting of information or consciousness alike theories: or universe is a mathemathical structure type cosmology theories:

I think any theoretical physics theory regarding cosmology eventually would converge with the third one.

For is made of consciousness theories I do not believe but I cant say that its incorrect either. I mean its like usual cosmological theories has believers nonbelievers. I am in the latter side. 

I would rather in terms of such topics, would consider universe is a mathemathical structure alike cosmology theories imho in my belief side. 

I believe it might be to create interesting geometry/manifold topology basis with quotient spaces and quotient fields/groups plus for those with that has direct limit structure either. I would favor such universe geometry/manifold/topology definition more than other cosmology theories I seen like universe is consisting of consciousness(e.g. alike panpsychism). hmm I believe more in other theories but not such theories alike panpsychism or simulacra intersections to panpsychism. 

I think its better to create such theory constructions for cosmology with later built the ml project that would investigate group theoretical constructs generatively to investigate such cosmological theories plausibility. e.g. creating alternative many many (I dont know if its possible to create infionitely many) theories for a possible multiverse universe framework. instead of 2 or 3 theories but many more. and one needs also fast experimentation with a particle physics lab somehow such theories by then later. instead of manually one by one creating theories of cosmology letting the machine do the imagination part with group theoretics mathematical structures and it also needs fast testing. .e.g if a machine sets up 50000 multiverse possible theory framework definition sets, and if particle physics shows 10% of them are plausible aligning with experimental results, then we would still not know. Its my idea that, we would never reach to know how exact framework is. but might come up like 5000 or more i dont know possible plausible cosmology theories and multiverse frameworks. both of them could fit to experimental data I mean. I think we would never know the exact cosmological constructs somehow. This be my opinion. ( I might be thinking wrong and maybe it is somehow figured and an unifying only 1 theory is figured out somehow that is significantly much better fitting to particle physics experimental tests data. )

so there must be some structure patterns for cosmological theories that could be grouped by then by common some attributes and then maybe. I dont know.

I also were very bored and did wanted to do something fun like zener card tests :D

I thought what you know-> I tested with hmm in 4 cards instead of 5 (since in 5 cards i am very failing:) seems as probability change regimen in multiverse phenoema is not that much to succeed in 5 cards very much like I theorized afterwards :) )  I tested with 4 color cards and then it were like among 24 cards I only found 10. 

So I tested again with such methodology of branching many 3d renderer neurons in my mind as possbile during the test. and I figured out 10 cards success were succeeded. definitely not success result per se.  actually most of the time it were like 0.5 probability. e.g. first card failure then second card succeeds for selected color.  but when it repetitively happens in general for resulting in 10 cards (i mean not the overall test but single test it repeats to create 10 success among 24 card draws) it somehow is kind of diverging from usual randomness either. so in that aspect, I found this 10 cards success supporting my multiverse theory either.

I sometimes feel very tired and do wish to rest. e.g. either computer games or this fun of these psychic topics which are very fun/curious. 

I think it not working in 5 cards is very significant. and so e.g. that its most possibly related to how much this phenomena is effective I mean it cant make probability to change to e.g. for winning 1 card inside 2 card draws. among 5 cards. its probability is: 0.4 to win that the card (either one of 2 cards you draw) is color you think.  and for 4 cards that is 0.5.  so having effect to multiverses does not change resultant draw when probability to win is 0.4. but it were effective when it were 0.5 possible to win the draw. So as mentioned this supports my idea that this effects to probabilityscape is slightest/slightest more than infinitesimial or slight more but not much. maybe this 0.4 not working and 0.5 probability is working is again possibly related to geometry/manifolds of multideimensional universe basis. maybe we if we tested with 0.2 probability it might work. and but not working in 0.4 probability regimen due to the underlying geometry of multidimensional unvierse. 

So one other day I would test it with more colors e.g. 8 colors to reduce the winning probability to 0.25.

I wonder if its rather some directed group that has some additive properties underlyingly that results in higher chances to have coincidence happen or is it something else that e.g. winning chance is  same at 0.25 and 0.5 but worse at 0.4 alike structure. so its just would give clues about the geometry structure of the underlying multi dimensional universe maybe somehow among for some possbile theorizations of it.

So I had such rest time last day with doing fun things like watching remote viewing topics and doing zener card test alike:D and then later watching cosmology universe theories discussions. 

Today I got up late cause I had some issue with health yesterday either so I got started day late today. and continued watching awesome videos like different cosmology theories for how universe is. 

now lets  continue/resume math group theoretic study yayyyy :)