Thinking of undefinied sets compared with the empty set they are different, notably at electrons. Quora says of electrons as probabaility distributions around the nucleus “But not having a unique, classically meaningful value does not mean that the quantity is zero” So the “shape”, which possibly be like what remains of a monad aftwer the forgetful functor is removed could be a variety of math functions, from a probability to a matrix, to something like a 1d numberline to a fractal. It is possible that the forgetful functor, after it is removed from the monad is also this data shape. So either possibility could be a thing.

from a quora answer to “Are there complexities that even the smartest among us have a hard time grasping?:
“Well it’s easy to find people that are smarter than something near my peak; you could just have a cash prize onsite at MIT or CalTech to be given to the measurably most creative person on psychology tests, like those of divergent thinking. It would perhaps take you about 5 hours to plan the screening activity; then you recruit temps online to show up on campus and do the testing on campus. Congratulations! you have found people smarter than I am!

I personally am sloppy and lazy about figuring out the physics basis of unitary many worlds interpretation as compared with non-unitary.
here, you can watch me having a hard time grasping a complexity:
Unitary: it all happened
Non Unitary: Some of it is at a time coordinate different than the rest of it at having happeningness
OK, the glittery first idea, which is replaced with better ones, is that whether to perceive the truth is nearer to unitary or non unitary MWI (Everettian physics), is highly similar to refuting determinism; the clockwork universe view.
One refutation of determinism is to simply modify the source of the universe to have more than one starting point, with the two starting points separated by a measurable thing. An overy-facile-so-is-likely-too-simple version would be a big bang that arises from two separate points simultaneously, yet at a distance such that the two co-bangs have lightcone exclusivity to each other. The areas at the locational tips where the branches of the two cobangs meet would not be predictable by anything, computer or human, in the set of two, determined, clockwork universes produced with each co-bang.
Sounds fun and sensible so far, but you asked about the “hard time grasping” part. I do not comprehend string theory, but the locational difference of the two (or more) co-bangs could actually be differences in the “rolled up” 11 dimensions of string theory rather than the “two co-bangs a few meters away from each other” visual I started with.
Then there are all the other possible ways of breaking determinism, if it has not yet been broken (or was absent being there in the first place). Also, at these changes to determinism things expand from including retrocausal modifications, as supported with the actual physics of the delayed quantum choice eraser, or better technologies.
Now more about “hard time grasping” Well, I think I should figure this out. Intent is part of effort to grasp. One reason is that a truth-verified position on the many worlds interpretation of physics would change almost all of ethics, as far as I am aware. Unitary/non-unitary MWI would affect all actual personal agency. So, if a person figures this out then it is nearer possible to be be able to figure out what to do.
I am under the impression that I thought of about 3 refutations of determinism, or technologies to break determinism that could be utilized if they are the right thing to do. Which brings up, as an aside:
Many scientifically studied things have transitions, physical phase changes, and form variations. If you don’t know anything about something, it, perhaps, depending on a kind of taxonomic geography (or visualization) of isness, usually has embodied/endefinitioned variation. Translation: there’s a lot of change, what if many things like “determinism” or “source of universe” also have change built-in?
Is it plausible to extend that multi-form variation to such things as:
Making “determinism” have phases, just like chemistry graphs, or math graphs
Making math have multi-form phases; similar to phase diagrams at chemistry, where something like a triple point (or any kind of group of phases), as well as the interesting whole-form effects next to it (bulk ice, steam, water) exist. And where these phase-maps are ways of graphing or understanding actual used math like that used at physics equations, even noting the presence of things like Godel’s math incompleteness thing.
I kind of imagine a 3d version of where things are graspably relative to each other (like enumerable distance, but better than enumerabaly). Not saying “relative”=”casually relatable” just saying, math could be arrangeable with something rather like a 3d spatial (or some other non-physics thing) phase map or actual “territory” with distances between identities, where the phases of math relate to each other beyond binary proof to have areas of truthability.
Giving math a phase diagram of area validity or effect, could, at its clunkiest, just produce something like a 3d venn-diagram, likely time adjustable, relation of what can be part of some one thing or another. That could be a relativisation of math. There’s a non-clunky deeper version though, which is what I actually mean.
So, as far as “grasping” things you can see I have some vast room for improvement. I support genetically engineering humans to be 3, 4, or 5 times more intelligent than I am (and they can then decide if they want to be smarter after that); I also support the creation of nonsentient AI that has much more workalike-to-intelligence as humans.
It is possible that a relativisation of math could address determinism. People or AI 5 times smarter than me might find it easy and obvious to change determinism or move it to a different one of its several possible phases that might be going on.”
(Quora material was written on phenibut rather than phenylethylamine)
online advice on lowering blood pressure on phenylethylamine, although the advice seems to concentrate on the deprenyl part, “Nifedipine, a calcium channel blocker, used to be the go to for MAOI related hypertensive crises but this is no longer recommended. I am unsure of the usefulness of other drugs with this mechanism of action. An α1 blocker (ie. prazosin) or α2 agonist (ie. clonidine) would be good to have on hand.” https://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/825910-What-happens-to-phenylethylamine-when-combined-with-selegiline
Studies link oral gingivitis to alzheimers https://www.newscientist.com/article/2191814-we-may-finally-know-what-causes-alzheimers-and-how-to-stop-it/ and heart disease. Immunization to some oral bacteria prevents it. It could be that copper goop mixed with tooth plaque applied to a sore could immunize against gingivitis, reducing risk of disease. The thing is that one of the risky bacteria is P. gingivalis and tooth plaque is mostly S. mutans. I could get a couple rotting teeth pulled… Another possibility is once every 3 months antibiotics along with a probiotic. Dental probiotics also exist, I think.
MWI: A possible way to make an already observed object have nondeterminacy again https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20712-how-to-be-in-two-places-at-the-same-time/ : “Physicists have questioned whether large objects can follow quantum laws ever since Erwin Schrödinger’s thought-experiment suggested a cat could exist in a superposition of being both alive and dead.
The idea is to zap a glass sphere 40 nanometres in diameter with a laser while it is inside a small cavity. This should force the sphere to bounce from one side of the cavity to the other. But since the light is quantum in nature, so too will be the position of the sphere. This forces it into a quantum superposition.”…” The new experiment, in contrast, would put the glass sphere in two entirely distinct places at once, with no overlap.” So, nudge something with a quantum source.

MWI: if MWI universes propagate at a lightcone rather than instantly, then just possibly nudging them with a quantum system, like the glass globes, early enough could circumscribe the physical are of the MWI universe, perhaps limiting it to the volume of a human or a computer chip. The thing is, this might only produce nondeterminacy at some subset of possible things a person could measure at a system. Although a laser zapping glass globes to make their physical location nondeterminate (rather than just some electron photon thing) seems to suggest big area-spanning effects from quantum nudging..

Also, noting the glass globes can be superposed with a laser could there be large-area naturally occuring effects that “restore” preobservation quantum nondeterminacy at astrophysicist-study-sized objects; “When they apply quantum mechanics – which successfully describes the behaviour of very small objects like atoms – to the entire cosmos, the equations imply that it must exist in many different states simultaneously, a phenomenon called a superposition. Yet that is clearly not what we observe.
Cosmologists reconcile this seeming contradiction by assuming that the superposition eventually “collapses” to a single state. But they tend to ignore the problem of how or why such a collapse might occur”

MWI: is it ethically beneficial to generate new universes populated only by one happy boltzmann brain? A utilitarian, and I am thinking of David Pearce, and likely me, could compare/contrast boltzmann brains to solving (FTF, AFS, others) a society. Finely tuned lasers might do it.

MWI: “If many worlds is correct – and many physicists think it is – my actions shape the course not just of my life, but of the lives of my duplicates in other worlds.
“In the many-worlds interpretation, when you make a choice the other choices also happen,”David Deutsch”. That suggests that things might be more ethical with software that automatically placed a list of highly beneficial things at any to-do list the person wrote. Nifty phone app as well.