Useful And True Visuals

Screen Shot 2018-10-09 at 4.48.38 PM

To purchase sight of a complex explanation, much evidence is needed.

 

Screen Shot 2018-10-09 at 6.10.11 PM

The wave-function of a structureless particle in position space is the probability density function of a measurement of the position at some time.

 

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 9.44.04 AM

What early Karl Popper identified as the universal generalizability of natural selection.

This leads to the primacy of telos and the condition of being Icarus with makeshift wings.

 

Screen Shot 2018-09-14 at 6.44.54 PM

You find yourself in experience 100% of the time because consciousness is not epiphenomenal. Yet it is still useful to understand that houses are built from bricks, and that bricks are more numerous than the houses that they compose.

 

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 10.21.54 AM

Self-modeling computations are conscious. If we degrade the detail and complexity of your subjective experience by removing the relevant blocks, you merge into a lot of other people with dying experiences indistinguishable from yours and can only have algorithms stacked on top of you from this condition of being a more elemental experience.

 

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 10.46.14 AM

Eternalism is true. Presentism and growing-block are false.

This follows if the Theory of Relativity is sufficiently correct and empiricism is sufficiently correct.

When holding the same events, different reference frames may not agree on whether these are simultaneous. Any notion of time is therefore missing from bottom-most physical reality.

Time arises as an endogenous feature of particular computational shapes traced by human brains. Each indexical location of self-modeling computations in spacetime exist with as much regret, pain, love, angst, happiness, sadness, awe, fear, apathy, purple-ness, etc., as is intrinsic to them. Not a thing is deleted, not a thing is yet to occur.

 

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 11.24.46 AM

Eternalism + Computationalist view of consciousness involves the notion that the binding problem is solved by the intrinsic 4-D design of algorithms. Experiences don’t need any extra “glue”. Therefore we are inter-nested across scales that do tremendous violence to safe and snug walls of skull-bound intuitions.

 

 

Dissolving Confusion About Quantum Immortality

Some people assume closed individualism… which is wrong.

Screen Shot 2018-10-18 at 8.18.20 PM

 

Then, they think that these separate streams of consciousness arrive at Life-threatening Events.

Screen Shot 2018-10-18 at 8.24.37 PM

 

Here, some assume that all Life-threatening Events contain a survival outcome:

1.

Screen Shot 2018-10-18 at 8.31.01 PM

 

Others assume that not all Life-threatening Events contain a survival outcome:

2.

Screen Shot 2018-10-18 at 8.33.49 PM

 

Others understand that Life-threatening Events of this sort don’t exist:

3.

Screen Shot 2018-10-18 at 8.46.08 PM

The proponents of 1. and many-worlds and a physical consciousness and closed individualism come to the conclusion that “everyone is immortal.” This leads to streams which see different probabilities of outcomes than the usual ones given by the squared norm of the wave-function. Further, some of these proponents expect to be the observer of these deviant probabilities.

However if one understands that closed individualism is false, the conclusion is that the indexical observer should not apply probabilities in a way that is inconsistent with the usual ones given by quantum theory. You are already all experiences. So as any given observer, you should not ignore the histories where your local qualities as a decision maker are absent.

Screen Shot 2018-10-18 at 9.19.58 PM

So when you step into a Schrodinger’s box this happens: 50% of the time you will survive in the exact same way that you survive from from one minute to the next, losing only a bit on that degree-of-survival meter just like you always do. The other 50% of the time, you will get blown up, taking a huge hit to the degree-of-survival meter.

It is also important to note that although none of these streams lead to Death Events, i.e., eternal non-existence, they do lead to degraded computational complexity. Being blown up results in degraded detail and complexity of your subjective experience in which case you merge into a lot of other people with dying experiences indistinguishable from yours and only get rescued/remembered “as a group.”

The expected “following” experiences won’t have anything to do with the indexical observer/ decision maker because anything with computational power can use these simpler building blocks. When playing quantum suicide, simple and less simple are both offered in the universal wavefunction, but if closed individualism is false, we should expect to find ourselves experiencing that which is most likely for most of our eternity.

 

Hidden Motives In The Eternal Block

I’m going to begin this post by going meta. I accept the Hansonian creed: Politics is not about policy, medicine is not about health, laughter is not about jokes, and food is not about nutrition. Conversation, including this post, also has hidden motives. Although we like to talk about conversation as if it was about imparting information and finding out useful things, more plausibly it’s about showing off your backpack of tools and skills in context.

In a rich society like ours, somewhere around 90% of our behavior is signaling. The other 10% are things that don’t impress anyone but must be done anyway, such as scratching your ass.

As we’ve become richer, we’ve become more forager-like. If our descendants get poor again, they’ll probably need stronger social norms again, to get them to resist temptations to act like foragers and do what is functional in their world. Their morality would probably rely on a wider more-conservative-like range of moral feelings.

Forager values include more freedom. This is expressed through more travel, less routine, lack of grandiose responsibilities, lack of religion (though not necessarily a lack of spirituality), greater equality, more promiscuity, less war etc. It generally seems that society is moving in this direction, and that we like this trend. This makes sense because we were foragers all along, and happened to have our bodies hijacked by the memetic virus of agriculture. This lead to some selection for agriculturalist traits: propensity for religion, submissiveness, more feminine men, etc. But the selection on genes has simply not occurred for long enough to make us well-adapted to the agriculturalist way (with some demographics worse at it than others).

Agriculture lead to the industrial revolution and this lead to riches. Now that we are rich, we can afford the luxury of becoming our true selves, children, once again.

It is not some natural tendency of humans to make linear moral progress. Rather, it is abundance which purchases this period in which sophisticated values such as humanism and its mutations can arise.

Gene drift is the method for evolution in the absence of natural selection pressure. So too in the memetic landscape. We can afford to evolve via meme drift in the absence of a tangible and immediate threat of starvation, invasion, or pestilence.

It is in this space, sometimes called dreamtime, that I believe we can do enough self-awareness of hidden motives, enough meta-cognition, to see far beyond what we have seen in the foggy haze of survival-mode and naive-signaling-mode.

We cannot disembody our behavior from the biological substrate. This is the case for all moments of being a behavior of a biological organism. Therefore, my seeking truth is a form of signaling. Yet it is at least a more sophisticated signaling, one which acknowledges a single level of self-reflective recursion and no more.

An actor who breaks the fourth wall commits an act of violence against his fellow characters, elevating himself thus. The drama will never be the same for him or for the audience but he will succeed at being remembered.

This is the spirit of insight. It is that which is remembered because it contains the attributes of being both true and useful. This definition of insight is detailed in the Enlightened One’s speech in the Buddhist Suttas, it is detailed in the silicon seams of technological invention, it is detailed in your living flesh riding aboard a deadly planet.

The content here presented then, is not 1st-order signaling, but a 2nd-order signaling which attempts to achieve enough fame to enter the rolls of history in memory. The following endogenously generated probe is true. It elevates contents in the “background” to prominence. But is it useful? –That remains to be seen.

Most people have the idea that time flows.

However, special relativity eliminates the concept of absolute simultaneity and a universal present: according to the relativity of simultaneity, observers in different frames of reference can have different measurements of whether a given pair of events happened at the same time or at different times, with there being no physical basis for preferring one frame’s judgments over another’s.

This also applies to the cells in the brain running massively parallel computations. All the parts of the computations exist in an eternal block.

If, due to the generalized-anti zombie principle, we identify consciousness with a specific subset of these computations and not as an epiphenomena, then it is the case that experience is forever. The fabric of spacetime is imbued with all the flavors of qualia that were ever traced by these computations.

What’s more, there were no line-segment souls anywhere. It is not physically the case that consciousness begins at some arbitrary point of conception and then travels like a Newtonian sphere with a persistent identity to some other point-location where it encounters a Death Event due to all the issues with closed individualism. Instead, we find ourselves everywhere and everywhence but cannot know this from most human indices.

Computations can also have “longer temporal-grain” than what seems intuitive to humans. Consider that the processing for shape occurs at one cluster of spacetime points and the processing for color occurs at another cluster in the future light cone, and no further processing is needed to bind them into an experienced red circle. By Occam’s Razor, we should assume that this kind of “spooky action at a distance” or “phenomenal binding without glue” also occurs with computations across vaster swaths of the eternal block.

More complex algorithms can be built on top of computations with lower specificity. Brain events in a toad hopping off a mushroom may be a building block for parties across the multiverse.

There is no competitive exclusion principle for independent souls or consciousnesses because independent souls/consciousnesses don’t exist. However, we should still expect a natural selection underlying the distribution of our anthropic mass. We should expect more mindspace to be designed by superintelligences than by the relatively dumber processes that bootstrap them.

For the vast majority of our existence we should therefore expect ourselves to exist directly within or caused by that which is most competitive at creating conscious experiences. Whether this is mainly due to the linkage disequilibrium between superintelligences’ utility functions or due to which conscious computations are more populous due to their sheer structure.

An analogy which may be useful in some respects but obfuscating in others: In the textbook classification of life, viruses and bacteria vastly outnumber Chordates, not to mention humans. Similarly, in the framework for life depending on self-modeling conscious computations, some conscious computations may be very simple but vastly outnumber those intentionally designed due to their sheer ease of creation and symbiosis (these simple computations may be remembered/experienced widely by fitting like keys into many of the relevant algorithmic keyholes).

 

 

 

Special Relativity Implies Eternal Existence

In eternalism, all existence in time is real

Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 4.24.40 PM

In the growing block universe, only the past and present are real:

Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 4.38.18 PM

However, those who believe in the growing block universe are idiots who do not understand special relativity. I’m not going to be diplomatic here, if you are a growing block fanatic just learn special relativity so you can stop being an idiot.

If you are a presentist… then, then, then your face looks like it caught on fire and had to be put out with a shovel.

Why the vitriol? Because we should hate when people have opinions about things they know nothing about, as if this was a matter of picking whichever view resonated most with your soul. This is not about which view resonates most with your soul. The question of eternalism, presentism, or growing block is strictly a physical one.

Time has the same ontology as space:

Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 4.50.11 PM

Therefore, different times are as real as different places:

Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 7.00.37 PM

That is what the objective landscape looks like. Do you see a flow anywhere in that collage? No. There is no flow.

Spacetime is a 4D picture, not a 3D video.

I explain this on my channel.

 

 

 

Why Negative Valence Can’t Outnumber Positive Valence

Monotonicity of relative entropy under partial trace says that

S(ρABC||σABC) ≥ S(ρAB||σAB). (*)

The relative entropy on the left is bigger than the relative entropy on the right.

But…

S(ρABC||σABC) = S(ρABC||ρA⊗ρBC) = I(A,BC) = SA + SBC – SABC

and similarly

S(ρAB||σAB) = S(ρAB||ρA⊗ρB) = I(A,B) = SA + SB – SAB

When σ is obtained from ρ by ignoring some correlations, the relative entropy reduces to a mutual information, which is a sum of entropies.

So the monotonicity inequality, (*), becomes a monotonicity of mutual information. Or equivalently, it becomes strong subadditivity.

SAB + SBC ≥ SB + SABC.

To speak of all judgements in mind-configuration space is to speak of the uncountably infinite. Therefore, human philosophical sentiments presuming small-world atheism such as: naive antinatalism, discrete-valued negative utilitarianism, and even any current form of consequentialism with regard to conscious experiences are all strictly non-sensical.

sin(x) hides in tan(x). It makes no sense to speak of which is more than the other. Judgements are approximate factors in a blob of amplitude distribution. –And that’s just the level III multiverse (completely ignoring what the seeming incompatibility of conscious experience with the physical fact of eternalism may imply.)

In layman’s terms, a monotonic infinite series is one which shows a single behavior such as always decreasing or always increasing. It cannot be the case that you belong to something which is bad or good (regardless of how these are defined within the parameters of Constructor Theory). Experiences are not discrete entities, disembodied from a physical process, but part of an entropic flow. And an entropic flow cannot have monotonic attributes ∀ attributes in an uncountably infinite context.

In so far as anyone disagrees with this:

A. They have discovered new mathematical truths.

B. They do not understand the math/logic.

C. They do not care about the math/logic, but their behavior is instead akin to expressing their own hurt and/or signaling conscientiousness.

A combination of B and C accounted for my previous strong negative utilitarian sentiments. I had hidden motives that I was not aware of, and confused them for being a realist. Now that I have put more leg-work towards an accurate picture of reality, consequentialism makes no absolute sense. An agent can create arbitrary enclosures to play in, but these do not add up or subtract out items from ground ontology.

 

Links/Curated Content

 

Try to make sense of this in light of people existing in a Big World, where we survive through insertion of simulated experience in any Hubble volume, quantum immortality, the Theory of Relativity’s implied eternalism. And how do we even draw boundaries between “people” given the unitary wavefunction?:

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/349155/how-often-does-it-happen-that-the-oldest-person-alive-dies/388131#388131

This is basic pre-req before talking about probabilities across “branches”:

For those who still don’t understand why consciousness is not epiphenomenal: https://www.lesswrong.com/rationality/zombies-zombies

For those that don’t understand why you are eternal I made this video:

The present experience needs immediate access to neural events that happened in the past, since there is no Now of Newtonian mechanics sweeping forward. This opens up the possibility for presents with longer temporal grain than we tend to assume and also being harvested by computations far in the future:

In case you are new to the club that takes many-worlds very seriously (although I may differ with Yudkowsky in that the transactional interpretation is something I have not fully ruled out):

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/S8ysHqeRGuySPttrS/many-worlds-one-best-guess

Watch this video using the Hansonian perspective on signaling. Being hyper-aware of the hidden motives, are you then tempted to call this behavior a form of psychosis or do you embrace the human spirit imbuing the hidden motives?:

Related to the above experiment. –Although I must say that I am far less certain about much of non-social mammal consciousness, not to mention fish. Babies don’t even know they exist. How the heck are we supposed to care about fish?… I remember when I simply assumed that all animals where conscious, but then I realized I didn’t have an argument, and was simply assuming that which felt right. Trying to craft an argument against philosophical zombies, one realizes that experience is likely to need complex self-modeling algorithms. The process of achieving fame in order to enter the rolls of history in memory is crucial for consciousness.  I realized that I couldn’t divorce qualia from the historical property of having won a temporally local competition with sufficient decisiveness to linger long enough to enable recollection at some later time. In so far as we find nothing like this in fish brains or crocodiles, I should not feel the need to cast a wider net. Strangely, I’m not convinced that fish and crocodiles and frogs aren’t being used by self-modeling computations somewhere in the multiverse.

Consider this in light of open individualism:

Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 8.33.58 AM

The distinction between self and other dissolves when you apply Occam’s razor to identity and physics. Hence why open individualist humans should be expected to feel more comfortable hurting others. Yahweh hurts Jesus because it is him. As early as the 4th century, Buddhists crafted utilitarian arguments for killing people who would cause more negative karma if unchecked. This was argued from a standpoint of no-self (Anatta), emptiness(Sunyata), and compassion(Karuna). The 17th century Tibetan kingdom and Japanese Buddhists used this argument to justify their war ambitions within a Buddhist framework.

Notice the uncanny similarity between creation and annihilation operators in quantum mechanics and this: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.09937.pdf