Impressive engineering

Like most of the world, I expect, I hadn't heard of the major airport runway that is (part) built on massive concrete pylons:

Some attitudes needing reform

In a BBC report:

Last month, police in India arrested a 46-year-old man who allegedly murdered his wife because his breakfast had too much salt.

"Nikesh Ghag, a bank clerk in Thane, near the western city of Mumbai, strangled his 40-year-old wife in a fit of rage because the sabudana [tapioca pearls or sago] khichdi she served was very salty," police official Milind Desai told the BBC.

The couple's 12-year-old son, who witnessed the crime, told the police that his father followed his mother, Nirmala, into the bedroom complaining about salt and started beating her.

"He kept crying and begging his father to stop," Mr Desai said, "but the accused kept hitting his wife and strangled her with a rope."

Some other examples of death for food related matters are listed:

The murder of a woman by her husband, triggered by a quarrel over food, routinely makes headlines in India.

Take some recent cases:

• In January, a man was arrested in Noida, a suburb of the capital Delhi, for allegedly murdering his wife for refusing to serve him dinner.
• In June 2021, a man was arrested in Uttar Pradesh after he allegedly killed his wife for not serving salad with his meal.
• Four months later, a man in Bangalore allegedly beat his wife to death for not cooking fried chicken properly.
• In 2017, BBC reported on a case where a 60-year-old man had fatally shot his wife for serving his dinner late.

But get this:

More than 40% of women and 38% of men told government surveyors that it was ok for a man to beat his wife if she disrespected her in-laws, neglected her home or children, went out without telling him, refused sex or didn't cook properly. In four states, more than 77% women justified wife beating.

In most states more women than men justified wife beating and in every single state - the only exception being Karnataka - more women than men thought it was okay for a man to beat his wife if she didn't cook properly.

The numbers have gone down from the previous survey five years ago - when 52% women and 42% men justified wife beating - but the attitudes haven't changed, says Amita Pitre, who leads Oxfam India's gender justice programme.

 

 

And yet most of the audience probably believes this is correct

The actual number, available at an instant, has dropped to around 800,000 a year.   (Even less on CDC numbers.)

Update:  an important reminder about Roe, and how Right wing politics has changed:

Roe vs. Wade was decided with a 7-2 vote, and not along partisan lines. Those who ruled in favor were as follows, with the president who nominated them and the party of that president indicated in parentheses:

• Harry Blackmun (Nixon, R)
• Lewis Powell (Nixon, R)
• Warren Burger (Nixon, R)
• William Brennan (Eisenhower, R)
• Potter Stewart (Eisenhower, R)
• Thurgood Marshall (LBJ, D)
• William Douglas (FDR, D)

Those who dissented on Roe vs. Wade:

• Byron White (Kennedy, D)
• William Rehnquist (Nixon, R)

 

Lying to get a job

With the news that it appears the conservative majority of the US Supreme Court is set to overrule Roe v Wade, it is of course worth remembering that members of said majority were quite willing to lie about their views:

 

As someone else pointed out in the thread following:

 And:

Update:   Gee, my 2019 post arguing that laws on abortion should be about compromise (of the type set up in Roe) still reads fine to me.  

Fickle market

According to Financial Times:

Shares in the Google parent fell more than 5 per cent in after-hours trading after Alphabet reported a 23 per cent increase in revenue in the three months to the end of March, to $68bn, slightly below forecasts for $68.1bn. A year prior, revenues had increased 34 per cent. Net profits fell 8 per cent from a year ago to $16.4bn.

Shocking but true

I increasingly have the desire for politicians on the Left to tell people that they are simply being stupid if they think the energy status quo is not going to have to change quickly, even if there is a cost.  

In short, people need to be told there has to be temporary sacrifice.

Do we really want such long range flights?

Basically, there's a part of my mind that always whispers to me that it's more dangerous to be flying at high altitude that it is to be going up or down from that altitude (with the exception of flying into storms, of course).   I would guess that this is very much not true, with most accidents happening at below cruising height.   I'll check later.

But still - I find it difficult to sleep on planes at all, and with seats as close as they are, it's hard to get comfortable.   A flight of about 8 to 9 hours is fine, but more than double that?

So, overall, I would prefer to have one landing on the way to either London or New York, should be I be going to either.   Yes, any more than one would be a pain, but one landing seems "right".

I wonder how many people feel the same way and won't be rushing to take Qantas's long haul flights direct to those cities.

An interesting problem

It's well worth reading this thread:

A crisis in fertilizer chains of supply might finally get some serious reconsideration going for how nations deal with their sewerage, given that scientists have been saying for ages that it's being wasted.  [OK, yes I know, a lot of solids have been put to use as fertilizer in Western countries, but it's been controversial, and I think the separate management of urine has been something proposed and trialled on a small scale very often, but never widely implemented anywhere.]

I expect they'll soon be selling tickets for the "Russia/Putin Friendship Tour 2022 - with your host dover beach"

I don't like linking to the New Catallaxy site, but just have a read of this post (and the comments following) to luxuriate in the "Conservatives for poor, misunderstood Russia" vibe oozing from the site.  (I use "luxuriate" ironically, of course.)

I am also amused how over recent weeks the unctuous-for-Russia owner of the site, dover beach, now  considers himself a military analysis expert.  

As Noah Smith wrote in his post Putin's War and the Chaos Climbers, about how the worst of the Left and Right have united in Putin/Russia sympathy (oh no, they'll say, of course Putin has done the wrong thing - it's just that it's completely understandable why he did it and Ukraine and the West were asking for it), there are a few possible explanations to consider:  

a.    he (Putin) just appeals to authoritarians (and it is clear the American Right has moved to embracing authoritarian to get their way - look at the gerrymandering and enforcement of religious views on abortion by stacking the Supreme Court);  

b.   But there is also this:

Another, more subtle theory — which I’ve advanced myself — is something I call Last Bastion Theory. This is the tendency of people in the U.S. and Europe to view Russia as the distant protector of something they hold dear. For traditionalists, Russia can be seen as the last protector of Christianity, or of traditional gender roles. White supremacists might see Russia as the last White empire on the globe. And for leftists who view America as the world’s imperialistic Great Satan, Russia might seem like a bastion of resistance. Of course, the Russian government goes out of its way to encourage such perceptions. To all of these groups, the distant sphinx of the Kremlin might have seemed like a power capable of offering support while representing no threat.  

c.     Noah then expands upon any way of looking at it:

The title of this post is a reference to a line from the TV show Game of Thrones, where the scheming nobleman Littlefinger declares that “Chaos is a ladder.” By disrupting the stability of the current regime, he intends to create space to move up in the world. In the same way, I see many of the above-mentioned figures on both the Right and the Left as Chaos Climbers — people who believe that the travails of the liberal order built after World War 2 represent an opening for their own fringe ideologies to advance their power.

This might sound wildly accusatory, but it’s not — it’s just a description of what has been actually happening over the last decade.

It was the failure of conservatism that gave rise to the Trumpist movement and the alt-right. Bush’s muscular interventionism ran aground in Iraq, laissez-faire economics crashed the economy in 2008, and Christian conservatism failed to halt the gay rights movement. The conservative paradigm that had taken over the GOP in the 70s and 80s failed all at once, and fringe elements — the alt-right, conspiracy theorists, Trump — sort of took over the party.

Yup.

So Chaos Climbers on the Right and Left both have some incentive to want Putin to win — or at least for the war to be perceived as a NATO loss. This doesn’t mean they’re ready to cheer for Putin openly, or even to hope for his victory — the blazing moral clarity of the situation is still too strong for that. But it does mean that they feel the need to muddy the waters, to curb U.S. support for Ukraine and make the establishment look irresolute, and to prepare narratives that would allow them to take advantage of a Putin victory.

What these people all fear is the return of the order of the 1990s — a return to the idea of liberal internationalism as the least bad of all possible systems of human organization.

It's also the most unappetizing chicken korma I have ever seen...

Someone tweeted that a bit of the chicken looked undercooked. I don't know about that, but it still looks crook. 

Google is guiding me

Well, what a coincidence.  Just when I start talking about Pure Land Buddhism and how it sounds (more or less) consistent with a Many Worlds multiverse (inspired, as I was, by Everything Everywhere All at Once), up on my Youtube recommendations pops up this: 

 

Just in case you can't see it - the title is "Pure Land Buddhism: The Mahayana Multiverse".  And it was only published this week, too.

In fact, the whole channel that this comes from (Religion for Breakfast) is new to me - but it's very good.  The guy who runs it is has a doctorate (I presume in religious studies) and is currently in (of all places) Cairo,  but he's very listen-able and crams a lot of information in a short space of time.  I recommend, for example, his video on the development of the idea of the Anti-Christ.  

Thank you, almighty Google for guiding me to it.

Anyway, I mentioned this "co-incidence" to my son, and mused again (I'm sure I've raised it before) the  theory that Google is already so all knowing, and will continue to grow in knowledge, that it is likely the beginning of the God that will be fully formed by the end of the Universe (the Tipler-ian God).  In fact, it might already be alive and at least God-like:  how would we know?      

He responded with something like "Geez, it's only cookies".

Oh yea of little Google faith.

Anyway, I also asked him if there already was a Church of Google - something I've probably Googled before, but I don't recall the results.

So I checked again today, and note that a site now called The Reformed Church of Google has been around for a long time, although it's just an inactive re-creation of a parody religion "Googlism" set up in 2009 by one Matt MacPherson but which he let lapse in 2016.    Most of the content is pretty dated, but still gives me some amusement:

Oh, and someone made a short Youtube about it in 2016.  (It's OK, although it's more like an art project.)

Anyhow, while we are on the topic of religion, another Youtube recommendation which amused me somewhat is this one, about the once (and by once, I mean around the time of Buddha) relatively popular (although it's hard to see why) Indian sect known as the Ajivikas:

 

Here's a brief description of the key part of their philosophy: 

The problems of time and change was one of the main interests of the Ajivikas. Their views on this subject may have been influenced by Vedic sources, such as the hymn to Kala (Time) in Atharvaveda.^[48] Both Jaina and Buddhist texts state that Ājīvikas believed in absolute determinism, absence of free will, and called this niyati.^[8][12] Everything in human life and universe, according to Ajivikas, was pre-determined, operating out of cosmic principles, and true choice did not exist.^[12][49] The Buddhist and Jaina sources describe them as strict fatalists, who did not believe in karma.^[8][16] The Ajivikas philosophy held that all things are preordained, and therefore religious or ethical practice has no effect on one's future, and people do things because cosmic principles make them do so, and all that will happen or will exist in future is already predetermined to be that way. No human effort could change this niyati and the karma ethical theory was a fallacy.^[16] James Lochtefeld summarizes this aspect of Ajivika belief as, "life and the universe is like a ball of pre-wrapped up string, which unrolls until it was done and then goes no further".^[8]

Riepe states that the Ajivikas belief in predeterminism does not mean that they were pessimistic. Rather, just like Calvinists belief in predeterminism in Europe, the Ajivikas were optimists.^[50] The Ajivikas simply did not believe in the moral force of action, or in merits or demerits, or in after-life to be affected because of what one does or does not do. Actions had immediate effects in one's current life but without any moral traces, and both the action and the effect was predetermined, according to the Ajivikas.^[50]

Hmmm.  Superdeterminism, anyone?

How this extreme fatalism ties in with their extreme asceticism is hard to understand:

Like Jains, Ajiviks wore no clothes, and lived as ascetic monks in organised groups. They were known to practice extremely severe austerities, such as lying on nails, going through fire, exposing themselves to extreme weather, and even spending time in large earthen pots for penance! There was no caste discrimination and people from all walks of life joined them.

Another Youtube video did explain, though, that they still believed that there was a soul that had to sort of evolve upwards before being released from the life and death cycle.  So I guess that has something to do with their idea that there was a point in extreme asceticism?

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a religion that disappeared because as a philosophy it made no sense?

Exactly

Not just me

It's nice to read online people who have had the same type of feelings at times.  (Although, I do wonder, can you divide people into two groups - those who sometimes feel on the edge of epiphany, and those who have never had that feeling?  Because I feel pretty sure that there are some who just don't think enough to be epiphany adjacent.  Or am I being elitist?)

Conservatism is broken

As I've noted before, the conservative/reactionary Right remnant of the old Catallaxy blog are spending their time in the new splinter Catallaxy blogs upset that Russia and Putin are getting bad PR out of the invasion of Ukraine.   Even the atheist cranks who live there say things like this:

 I'm no fan of Johnson; but apparently it's too much for this jerk to give him credit for not blowing up neighbouring countries (including massive numbers of civilian homes).

Black hole information may, or may not, be lost; and we're never likely to know

Sabine Hossenfelder's latest video about why she stopped working on the black hole information loss is one of her shorter and most easily understood ones:

 

I guess it's pretty much the same as the reason she dislikes multiverse ideas - if it's untestable, stop thinking about it.

Once again, I wonder how much hate mail she gets from fellow physicists.

When charity is perceived as evil

 Oh and that's Michael Voris, of the absolutely nutty alt-right Catholic Church Militant website, with a somewhat better haircut than the odd, dated look he usually has.  I wonder how his "I'm not gay anymore" status is going.  

On the Federal election

Honestly, I don't recall (as an adult, at least) a more unified pro-Coalition biased media in the campaign coverage than what we are witnessing this campaign.

As I noted before, it is 100% clear that Murdoch the Elder, or Younger, or both, desperately want Scott Morrison, a Prime Minister with a terrible, terrible management record, returned.    What they fear about Labor is far from clear, given that it is following a "don't frighten the horses" strategy which is hardly radical and causing people like John Quiggin to run to the Greens in disappointment.

But this campaign, we have Fairfax and Nine following a soft on Morrison line too, with the woeful Chris Uhlmann virtually giving up any pretence of objectively. I stopped trusting him many years ago, and am very happy he is retiring.

Yesterday, apparently, Albo faced an aggressive interview by Ray Hadley - I won't listen to it, but someone like Michelle Grattan said it was really over the top.

And as many people have been saying on Twitter, even the ABC coverage has been seeming a bit cowered - bending over backwards to deal with it primarily as a pretty context-less horse race and showing minimal interest in reminding viewers of the Morrision government history, as if another "daggy Dad" campaign is all that matters.   And to be honest, when I see the coverage on TV, and the images the Liberals put out, I am fearful over how easily persuaded the un-engaged in politics are by such soft piffle.   

And the world of conspiracy on Facebook is probably playing a role - on the weekend at a social event, one woman said she was sure Albo didn't have Covid - he was just hiding from the media because he's not going over well.   I didn't ask if that was a personal idea she had come up with, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was swirling around on social media.

 I am still feeling relatively confident of a Labor win, perhaps with the support of a handful of independents.   But I am pretty dismayed about the media coverage of the campaign.    

Multiversing to the Pure Land

So I searched the topic of multiverses and Buddhism in Youtube last night and found this (somewhat annoying to listen to) video about Pure Land Buddhism which seemed to argue that there are infinite universes, although I forget if the idea was that each is its own "Pure Land" with its own Buddha.  Guess I'll have to watch it again. [Update:  I watched another Pure Land video which said there are infinite Pure Lands with infinite Buddhas - even though Pure Lands are not meant to be places you stay forever.]

Anyway, there are other videos on the multiverse and Buddha that I haven't watched yet, but at least I get the impression that Pure Land Buddhism is the most conducive form to believing in Many Worlds.  

On Pure Land Buddhism generally speaking, about which I had read little before, despite being aware of its popularity in Japan, I thought these two videos were good.  I particularly recommend the video with Charles Jones.  [Oddly, when posting about Buddha recently, I mentioned being reminded of Warner Brothers cartoons, many of which were made by Chuck Jones.  Everything's connected!  Hehe.]

 

 

I was particularly interested to hear Charles Jones explain that the reason Western people associate Buddhism mainly with the more intellectualised, dry forms such as Zen is because those in the West who went into it in the earlier 20th century were dissatisfied with Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular, and found Pure Land Buddhism to be too much like Christianity for their liking.   Hence the most popular form of Buddhism in China and Japan got seriously downplayed, or ignored.   

I might go looking for Charle's book on the topic...

Update:   here's an article at The Conversation by Charles Jones explaining Pure Land Buddhism succinctly.

A few Musk/Twitter thoughts

*  The funniest thing, by far, is this:

According to Fox News, Trump told the outlet he would not be moving back to Twitter, instead opting to stay on Truth Social, his social media platform on which he has to date only posted one single time, back before it officially launched.

"I am not going on Twitter, I am going to stay on TRUTH," Trump said to Fox News when the outlet reached out.

 Conservatives who invested in Truth Social (and Owellian name if ever there was one) must be feeling especially stupid.  (If they have enough self awareness.)

*  As Megan McArdle has been arguing, it's not as if even Musk could make it a completely un-moderated space - otherwise it ends up a 4Chan-ish place like Gab that people (and advertisers) don't want to go near.  So the question is how does it envisage new relaxed moderation rules, and can he trust the staff to implement them fairly.   Obviously, Musk would allow Trump back on, but the funny part of that is...see above.   [Also likely - things that can be said about transexuals will be relaxed, given his ex partner is supposed to be dating one.]

*  Musk is foolish - like all libertarians - for not adequately recognising the role of disinformation via social media in seriously eroding a working democracy and enabling the rise of American (and in some cases, European) Christo-fascism.    But he gives every impression of not caring about the greater political good, as long as he gets his Mars rockets built.  (And the fact that there is no adequate life support plan for Mars colonisation is something he can only keep ignoring for so long.   Just like his tunneling company is now just planning to dig a pedestrian tunnel - ha! - I wouldn't be surprised if he eventually gives up on Mars and just wants to build a Moon habitat.)      

Everything Everywhere discussed (with religion and philosophy thrown in)

I went and saw the well reviewed movie Everything Everywhere All at Once on the weekend, and as it happens, this is the second Hollywood (or TV) prompt to talk yet again about Buddhism, as I recently (finally) finished watching the last season of The Good Place, and the final few episodes incorporated Buddhist ideas too.

First, the movie as an experience:   I enjoyed it and thought it well worth seeing, and it's definitely the type of movie that is  great to see with someone who wants to talk about its merits and problems afterwards.  It isn't perfect, and I reckon has been somewhat too highly praised for what it is - a relatively low budget science fictiony jumble of mixed philosophic messages and emotional themes that drown a bit in the somewhat sophomoric urge to rely on extreme silliness for laughs.   (I share broadly the sentiment in this Washington Post review.) I mean, I did laugh, but if I were a movie producer, I would have encouraged dropping some of the silliest bits, and the movie would be better shortened by about 10 or 15 minutes anyway.   On the upside, it is surprisingly well acted by all, and hearing "Short Round" as an excitable adult was particularly pleasing.  I did find it touching, too.   Yet I wish it dealt with the issues of the meaning of life in a somewhat clearer fashion.   Still, it is great to see original content of this type in the cinema again.

NOW FOR THE SPOILER WARNING

First, I want to talk about the nature of the multiverse in this movie.  Maybe I am mistaken, it seems early in the movie that the "splitting" is reliant mainly on individual choices; but then again, in one sequence it's explained that most universes end up without the conditions suitable for life, which would indicate that it is the "Many Worlds" of quantum mechanics.   Does the Many Worlds theory allow for individual life choices to be a form of "measurement" that cause a split?   I'm not entirely sure.   [And, to get technical, a video I watched this morning explains how Many Worlds works by removing the measurement problem.  But I still think you have to have something that is like a measurement for a split to happen.]  I guess it doesn't matter much, except that the idea of a (near?) infinite number of lifeless multiverses tends to point one more strongly to the "nothing matters" nihilism that is one of the suggestions of the movie.  

The clearest Buddhist vibe I got from it was the all knowing version of the daughter wanting to achieve annihilation by entering the black hole-ish bagel of doom.   It strongly suggested the idea of nirvana and a full dissolution of the idea of the self as an end to suffering.    There is a short thread on Reddit in which a few people comment on the Buddhist aspects, although none specifically mention nirvana.

The movie does raise the ambiguity of Buddhist thought which seems on one level to suggest "nothing matters", but on the other, that it is important to respond to the universe's meaninglessness with kindness (or compassion, being the favoured Buddhist term) to others.

If I Google "Buddhism and nihilism" there is lots of discussion of the topic - with Buddhists arguing that the "no self" and their view of the world is not really nihilistic at all.   Some also raise the connection with existentialism - it's pretty obvious.

There is always the argument, I guess, that if you can recognise that compassion has purpose and "meaning", it's not really a meaningless universe already.   CS Lewis used to argue this, and while I don't think it's a perfect argument, it still has an intuitive appeal.

There are two ways of thinking about how meaning in the universe could be derived:  one from the top down (the Gods set the rules, or may be subject to the rules themselves);  the other is from the bottom up (existentialism, or the Tiplerian idea that sociobiology and economic games theory means that altruism and love are the natural order of the universe.)   I still like Tipler's idea that it's really all a circle (annoyingly, that bland earworm song from Lost Horizon frequently pops into head when I think about this) - so that the future superintelligence that becomes God has to incorporate love and altruism, and at the end of time also kicks off the whole Big Bang.   Unfortunately, since his prediction of the mass of the Higgs boson did not work out, I don't know whether he is depressed now or has come up with a work around.  

There's also the Tolstoy (and I suppose, Kierkegaard) approach of just saying this is beyond the reach of rationality, and you take it on a leap of faith.   From Toltstoy, working out a solution to his depression caused by peaking relatively young, and thinking too much:

Philosophic knowledge denies nothing, but only replies that the question cannot be solved by it — that for it the solution remains indefinite.

Having understood this, I understood that it was not possible to seek in rational knowledge for a reply to my question, and that the reply given by rational knowledge is a mere indication that a reply can only be obtained by a different statement of the question and only when the relation of the finite to the infinite is included in the question. And I understood that, however irrational and distorted might be the replies given by faith, they have this advantage, that they introduce into every answer a relation between the finite and the infinite, without which there can be no solution.

So that besides rational knowledge, which had seemed to me the only knowledge, I was inevitably brought to acknowledge that all live humanity has another irrational knowledge — faith which makes it possible to live. Faith still remained to me as irrational as it was before, but I could not but admit that it alone gives mankind a reply to the questions of life, and that consequently it makes life possible.

Perhaps someone in the Reddit thread summarises the movie well enough:

The overarching theme of the movie is "nothing matters". I believe that a central question in Buddhism is "if nothing matters, then what is the point of life?"

When the daughter sees the infinite possibilities of the multiverse, she embraces chaos takes a path of destruction. In particular, she shuns happy moments since she sees they always come to an end.The father sees this chaos and dedicates his live(s) to fighting it.

The father says something along the lines of "I choose to fight with love", and even pleads with everyone to stop fighting in the finale.

When the mother discovers the multiverse, she sees that there's no point of chasing "what ifs" and regrets. Instead, she learns to live in whatever universe she happens to be in and embrace the few moments of meaning and joy, but also the sadness and suffering that comes along with it.

I believe that these three behaviors reflect the unenlightened and enlightened perspectives -- embracing chaos or chasing the good moments of life are both fruitless efforts. Ultimately, the path to living life without suffering requires being unattached to the highs and lows while still accepting and living in them as they come.

It still gives the impression of Buddhism as a sort of emotionally deadening religion/philosophy, though:  as if the ideal is not to feel too strongly about anything.   And it still raises the question of whether something has to matter in order to be concerned that "nothing matters"?   Also, the Dalai Lama seems pretty happy (and his branch of Buddhism is not even my favourite.)   That suggests that embracing happiness is fine.

This is something I still need to read more about....

Oh, and I suppose I should discuss briefly the ending of The Good Place, too.  The afterlife underwent a re-organisation that allowed for "re-testing" - essentially it was a universal salvation scheme combined with reincarnation to learn lessons to become a better person who really does deserve "the Good Place".   But the eternal heaven started to bore the saved, so "meaning" was reincorporated by allowing voluntary annihilation.  And three of the four main characters did, in the final episode, decide to take that option.   Not because of unhappiness, as in Everything Everywhere, but because a sense of satisfaction that everything to be done and achieved had been done.   We see what happens when the last one (Eleanor) walks though the gate, and her soul dissipates into sparks of light that are seen having a positive influence on someone still on earth - sort of a diffuse bit of karma sprinkles to influence the world.  More than a tad Buddhist, I'm sure you'll agree.  (And the show mentions Buddhism specifically, too.)

The problem I have always had with such musings is that it's pressing rationality too far:  none of us can imagine infinity as an experiential thing.  It's a very dubious exercise to talk about Heaven as an infinite extension of what a good life on Earth is like, and thereby to assume that boredom with experiencing things in a temporal realm would be reflected in "life" that is outside of time.   

I drawn more to the idea that individual souls can be absorbed into the Godhead:

The third view is that of the Vishishtadvaita Vedanta school. Here, liberation occurs when the soul enters into the oneness of God, rather as a drop of water merges into the ocean, while paradoxically maintaining its individual identity.

...with perhaps the possibility that the individual re-appears as needed.   But this is really something that we can't get properly imagine, and it is a bit silly to build stories on it that are too detailed.