No one knows exactly how these emotions arise. It's just that it seems like it's for some reason, like I've lost something I love, so I'm going to feel bad.

But is this discomfort really caused by the loss of something beloved? Does this causal relationship really exist?

In the game, a farmer is needed to build a building. But is it really because of the peasants' construction that the buildings appeared?

This cause and effect relationship is constantly haunting me, and it seems very much taken for granted.

It is only the perceived elements of the picture, and any behavior that connects the various elements of the picture is nonsense and false. On the other hand, if there is no such connection, then I would not consider myself to be the character of Yuan Changwen.

Think about it, if there is a person who is born unable to relate any picture elements, then what kind of life will it be?

Going back to the previous example of the apple breaking, it looks like I threw the apple and the apple fell to the ground, causing the apple to break. How normal this series is, and how a matter of course.

Who would doubt the reason why the apple was broken? Who would think that the apple was broken because of an alien prank?

However, if you think honestly, you will find that I can only say that the apple is broken at the moment. In other words, at this moment, I became aware of the pictorial element of "the apple crumbling on the ground".

Also, I was aware of the visual elements of "I remember throwing the apple before" and "I have memories in my head of the apple flying out of my hand and falling to the ground and shattering".

The first understanding was how did I know that these memories were correct, how did I know that I really threw an apple, and how did I know that an apple was really broken?

And now I understand, maybe I really threw the apple, maybe the apple really fell from the air, maybe the apple really shattered. But can I really claim that apples have the property of falling to the ground?

It just seems to be a matter of course, but in fact there is no relationship between the two picture elements at all.

Wrong!

Implicit in this understanding is the assumption of the linear passage of time, as if the "throwing of the apple" occurred first, causing the "apple to fall to the ground and shatter". It's like the metaphor of the farmer building in the game, a farmer walks over and starts building. Although the formation of the building has nothing to do with the peasants, the analogy is misleading.

It's all just visual elements that I perceive at the moment, and I can't be sure if it's actually happened. So, why should I discuss on top of some kind of assumption?

Time exists at the same time, and that statement just sounds good. But in fact, it implies the law of how things develop. It's just that it's not "happening one after another", but everything has happened and is done, and it's just a certain part of it at the moment.

But this theory is also only one, and there is no evidence that what happened in the last moment really happened. I'm always in the moment, and everything is a visual element that I perceive at this moment.

Although these picture elements seem to be self-contained and very realistic. However, it is only true to seem. These ideas sound ridiculous, but how can you disprove your own inferences?

I am aware of the pictorial elements of the past at this moment, but I am also aware of it at this moment, which does not mean that it once really existed. Even the metaphor of dreams implies the law of the development of things.

Again, to use a painting as a metaphor, even though the painting contains many years of memories of the past, and these memories show how the painting came to be what it is now. "Oh, I came to the hospital from home, so the picture at the moment is the environment of the hospital" or something.

But this spatial movement is a hypothetical and completely unfounded. Aside from the fact that it all seems very logical and very natural, there is nothing to prove it, it is just a product of emotion.

Explained as "no one is in this world, all is just a perceived picture moving" or something like that, just like stop-motion animation, it seems that there is a character of Yuan Changwen moving in space. This explanation seems flawless, but it is ultimately a speculation.

And, a linear passage of time is assumed. How do I know that the picture I perceive is changing? Right, I just perceive the picture element at the moment, which seems to be different from the picture element that I perceived before. However, "the images I was aware of before are elements" are only the content of memories that I am aware of at this moment.

So, what is there to discuss?

Any explanation is just a guess, and no matter how plausible that explanation may be and how many phenomena it can explain, it cannot change that these explanations are just a guess. Is it arbitrary to call a theory the truth because it can explain many phenomena?

So, can I say that "all this is controlled by aliens", it seems that this theory will also explain many phenomena. Right, like the mythical flood story. If you can say that the accumulation of ions in the clouds caused the lightning to be generated, then I can also say that these are just precursors to the Thunderbolt Mother's casting.

I can't explain these things, because these are just the visual elements of awareness, and that awareness is real, as for what is perceived...... Who cares? Who can tell?

Focusing on interpreting perceived elements of the picture is always a never-ending panic. One can only try to explain some phenomena, and such explanations are always speculation and based on countless unfounded assumptions. For example, the linear passage of time, such as the existence of space.

Futile.

Yuan Changwen knew that he was still clinging to something, and he also knew that he was still believing in something. That awareness is everything, this is how many chapters ago, and it is still full now, "that awareness is everything". Or rather, to go deeper into "that awareness is everything."

On the other hand, the characters can never touch the reality, and in the end, no one touches the reality. Everything about the role is a fixed number, and I don't know how the character of Yuan Changwen will think. In other words, they don't know what visual elements they are perceiving.

Whatever you perceive, it's all false, it's just an element of the picture. Truth has nothing to do with falsehood, but should be something of mine. Or rather, I was meant to be real.

Because, the unreal doesn't exist.

So, what am I doing? ruining this dream, not being able to enjoy this world of duality? all the pain and the joy, it's a nice pleasure. There's no swooping roller coaster, it's just a kid's train.

It's a confusing killing.