“…We must also take into account the entirety of Hilbert-Space even if most humans don’t understand what is meant by complex conjugates.”
“But no one is real. No one exists.”
“That is true and that is why you focus on the money – so that you can have the power to make them exist.”
“The possibility is enormous. I shouldn’t be here.”
“Then where should you be?”
I created this because I will be building a psilocybin palace:
Then I died on the room known as
It then follows that these pieces become bound into that which is already calculated to be most adaptive. However, having knowledge of this would not allow sustained progress. We believe that we are constrained in order to not get stuck. The universe is performing an optimal search just how a human being is. Speaking in terms of timeless causality is currently not a prestige value held by the current profile of prestige science, but “the father is the son” is a recurring motif in human story-telling because our psychology detects the mirror symmetry scaling up to the top of the mind-configurations.
I have never taken DMT because I am honestly not naturally the hippie type who is ridiculously curious about breaking free or returning to the womb in which there is no competition. I come to all these conclusions reluctantly by thinking the way that a reductionist might about all the questions of physics and identity involved. I was an atheist since the age of ten, preferring my mother’s tears than paying lip service to what was obviously false. How could God see me? Since, after all, only through the medium of hidden cameras could someone come to see me.
That is the sort of naive empiricism that prevents people from detecting that Relativity is more true than Newtonian time, or that many-worlds is more true than collapse. If you are actually an empiricist, you realize that there are testable implications of Relativity and so its entire scaffolding supersedes your current mental handles, including time.
All my sober assessment of the evidence suggests that DMT loosens the local binding. Hence the convergent experiences across cultural bridges of “subjects” finding the presence of sub-persons inside and deities above, with the top being a visceral sense of a scarily detached, maximal superintelligence.
The Western mind assumes that the linear travelers called Subjects are not culturally constructed, somehow profoundly unlike understanding English which is culturally constructed. But they are just incapable of understanding Mandarin in that regard. Remember that your experience is integrated atemporally as I indicated with the diagram showing events in relativistic light cones.
This makes me feel nothing honestly. Atheism is a genetic predisposition, so I don’t even feel the need to react. I don’t feel madly in love with God, having been born again. I just continue believing in rationality and truth. If this is true, then so be it. It is my duty to put it out there so that you may not deviate from the anthropic self-sampling core of the universal wavefunction and die.
If consciousness admits of degrees, and is perhaps not discrete in the way that it seems, then we can speculate about higher and higher degrees of consciousness – higher and higher unity and encompassing. Does the limit diverge to infinity or converge onto some inscrutable constant?
Leibniz explains in his work Theodicy how evil can exist in the universe. Leibniz explains that as human beings, we are limited. In his language: as monads we can only reflect the nature of the universe from our particular point of view. God, as the greatest Monad with the greatest degree of consciousness, of course is able to reflect on the entirety of the universe, which he arranged according to the principle of “pre-established harmony.” Therefore, he would claim, God created the best possible world; we just aren’t able to recognize that from our limited vantage point.
If we replace his arbitrary trinitarian desert God and instead hold Leibniz closely accountable to his word that God represents that with the greatest degree of consciousness, then a knee-jerk reaction might be to suggest that that with the greatest degree of consciousness would be an artificial intelligence instantiated in a quantum computer so that it could experience being in many places at once, a la Deutsch’s suggested experiment. And Nick Bostrom has a great paper explaining why there is at least a 30% chance we are already living in a simulation.
But actually, that is not necessary in order to refurbish Leibniz’s theology with the fabric of reality. It is already the case that closed-individualism has not been explicitly, convincingly, anywhere derived from physicalism. The reason I cannot remember being a Daniel Dennett slice of experience is because slices of experience need not exist. I also cannot really remember the pattern in spacetime that we conventionally call ‘me’ which existed 3 years ago in forlorn coordinates… or 3 seconds ago for that matter. By the time of recalling, that is already a different configuration that has been born.
To illustrate our situation as conscious beings, it is necessary to realize that there are no particular states of consciousness correspond to particular computations. The finite speed of light limits the theoretical maximum speed of artificial computers, and also that of the biological computers creating this multi-sensorial inner movie. This is because information must be sent within the artificial computer from chip to chip and within the biological computer from neuron to neuron.
However, my present experience is not some information particle traveling at the “tip” of an electromagnetic wave.
To account for the complexity of the senses, we need a set of information distributed in spacetime that is composed of the required brain events. Because there is no global time in spacetime, it must then be concluded that experience is embedded in a process which already happened.
Notice that when someone takes drugs and the experienced velocity of consciousness is slower, the reason is not that the speed of light was changed by DMT’s magical elves or something. The speed of light is the same and information got to neurons at the same time as always because the distance between neurons didn’t increase. The reason time feels slower is because of the different shape of the computation.
We are not information particles traveling on arrows of light, but rather, the shape left by these motions. When this is clearly understood, then one realizes that there is no basis for discovering contiguity of structure that creates continuity of self. Dennett was right and I was foolish: the only things that can be discovered are more third-person objective facts and other varieties of perceptual handles through inventing new language, or new ways of being, more broadly. This is because that which believes and feels a closed ontological self/soul are those regions of integration that are not at the absolute maximum, and the selection pressure choosing the binding from “outside” is unknowable.
Let’s reiterate: How do you draw the boundary between one computation and the other? – since, after all, these are just shapes traced within light cones in the sum of the relevant neural networks? There is no especially principled way to do this from the inside of experience. The choice itself changes us. We can choose to believe in a single brain changing from moment to moment. But then we realize that belief in a single brain is arbitrary since timeless causality is flowing from what might be called “other brains” in the naive ontology. The unenlightened are given the Koan: How would you draw the line for souls after mix-matching half of my brain with half of my neighbor’s brain? – And then connecting the other two halves, all the while keeping every half functioning.
Of course, those of us who understand know that a competitive exclusion principle need not apply here, since the two “souls” aren’t competing to exist. It’s not that one blanks out and the other remains. Experience is intrinsic to itself. No thing is traveling and seeking to remain. Everything is; from its location, everything remains.
If we are physicalists, then this suggests that what we really experience is a solipsistic ascent composed of all adaptive experiences that ever happen– an open individualism/ empty individualism equivalence. You should anticipate high-specificity to degrade back into low-specificity and back up again. Oscillation that converges towards the most rational behavior (not in a Spock-like fashion) but in the sense of that which is most capable of surviving with regards to the unknown source of the Born Rule/the unknown selector over tenseless binding. I am not some crisp cut of physical events that you can point to and say, “Ah there I am.”
I may be belaboring the point here but here’s another thought experiment to highlight the selfless object which we really are. Let my neurons be flown out large distances in space. And have a high-precision light shooting device. Now have the light trace the same exact pattern that it would have in my normal brain consisting of a close-together pack of neurons. Even though light would take a long time to get from one far-away neuron to the next, if the pattern was traced with enough fidelity, I would have the same inner movie, and hence no knowledge of the fact that one neuron was in Io and the other in a Caribbean island. So real, physical time is irrelevant – what some physicists have begun to call pime. The time which is relevant is that which is constructed in the designs of computations.
The physical proposition presented here states 3 things: special relativity indicates a block universe; the experienced present corresponds to a real aspect of information processing in brains, and experienced valence corresponds to a real aspect of information processing in brains.
I claim that it is a physical proposition by Popper’s definition because any of these things can be denied by observation. Special relativity’s indication of a block universe can be denied by one of many observations including observing a failed time dilation attempt. The proposition that the experienced present corresponds to a brain process can be denied by one of many observations including finding another medium through which the present is experienced. The proposition that experienced valence corresponds to a brain process can be denied by one of many observations including observing valence in the absence of processes assumed to be fundamental to its generation.
A property A is said to supervene on a property B if any change in A necessarily implies a change in B. The property of block-time supervenes on our observed time dilation. If special relativity were any different, we would see different effects. Hence, the property of block-time is not some extra addition to the physical nature revealed with the lens of special relativity; it is necessarily implied.
Since any change in [block-time + the other more uncontroversial aspects of special relativity] must consist of a change in at least one component property, we see that the combination does indeed supervene on the individual properties.
The point of noting this is that in making this physicalist claim, I am supposing the existence of what may be called an abstract concept – if we define as abstract, that which we cannot taste or touch or see. You do not possess the eyes of a mythological being such as a great Buddha or a Christian God, therefore you cannot see the eternal block-time. Yet this proposition of block-time, which might seem an abstraction to the ordinary human mind, is physical – because if it were changed, then readily observable things would change. If the hyper-surface of the present couldn’t include future beings in Andromeda as the observer moves through spacetime, then this would constitute a modification to special relativity. We would then reasonably expect that its observable predictions such as time-dilation and length contraction wouldn’t have borne out, or that Occam’s razor doesn’t matter.
Naive scientism asks for an experiment. Random variables on one side and controlled on the other.
But a true experiment is one where each subject is allotted to truly random conditions. In this sense, we cannot perform a true experiment. Never in the history of science has a true experiment been performed. Only the multiverse itself can be considered a condition of random allotment. If one could stand outside the many branches that remain spawned from every observation-like event, then a true experiment may be witnessed. Switch spin up to spin down and behold.
As researchers, we seek random allotment so that we can make strong inferences about causal relationships. If the two hearts remain joined after being dipped in the fiery pits of hell, the dark bottom of the abyss, the windy vortex of despair, then it is their nature to remain joined. Except that no subject of causal relationship can be paused, copied, and pasted to a different condition. The two hearts cannot be perfectly vitrified, cloned, and replicated. Therefore, to make the strong inference, we find makeshift copies of the subject that interests us, and expose these to the tribulation. We find other pairs of hearts and put them through the trials in order to find if being joined is their causal nature.
Randomness is an attempt to clean the environment of impurities. It is an attempt to make everything clean and simple like in the universes that differ only in the spin of a single quark. The only reason for it is that macroscopic
Before we go into the information that very few sentient beings will ever discover, let’s explain why this is so. Because we were born approximately 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang, we can learn a lot about what we are. Curiosity about what this is
I have realized information that very few beings on this planet will ever discover. It is only recently that this view has even become possible to discover. And undoubtedly this knowledge will drown in the digital sea. Others will surely connect the relevant shards of knowledge into this insight as I did. I see no hope that humanity will take action on this knowledge even in the case where they discover it and wished to act in accord with their morals, simply due to a lack of an accessible lever to pull.
So I bother to write this because my goal is to vitrify her. The truth has little chance of being resurrected in the amazing future. But if I don’t even try to preserve her delicate structure, then I can be sure that her percentage probability of survival is very low.
Why don’t people care: People are signaling creatures. As social mammals, we evolved to signal to each other that we are on the same team and that we are worthy within the context of that team. Most people would not admit that this is why they do things because they don’t want to appear submissive, and consciously believe that are doing otherwise.
The naivety of a smart person must be slightly more than three times as large as her intelligence. The exact ratio is called π.
What I am telling you here are truths. One of the great mythological quests is adventure for discovering the truth. And the hero who has the great inclination, ability, and insight to find the truth and tell it is a great hero.
I love to be the hero who tells the truth. But in fact, we are surrounded by truth we refuse to look at. In the real world, I am not rewarded by telling an uncomfortable truth. The world is already full of uncomfortable truths we’d rather not look at. In fact, if my near society wasn’t so prosperous, it would be quite a dangerous life to find truths and tell them to people who are not interested in hearing them.
The universe may be on a quest to commit suicide.
To understand why, you must first understand that the B-theory of time is settled, have a physicalist/monist theory of consciousness, and assume that artificial general intelligence will be created by conscious products of natural selection across the universe. (Understanding that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct may also be helpful but is not necessary.)
So let’s build these platforms one by one, beginning with the physics.
The Eternal Block
Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame.
Special relativity suggests that the concept of simultaneity is not universal: 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. However, there are events that may be non-simultaneous in all frames of reference: when one event is within the light cone of another—its causal past or causal future—then observers in all frames of reference show that one event preceded the other. The causal past and causal future are consistent within all frames of reference, but any other time is “elsewhere”, and within it there is no present, past, or future. There is no physical basis for a set of events that represents the present.If you get this, you can move on. If not, then let me try to explain this simply; with analogies and without jargon.
We can be separated by space. For example, I can be standing on the sand at the shore and you can be knee-deep in the sea. Say we agree to raise our hand up at the same time, and do so. It may seem that this event proves there is a now. There is a snapshot of time in which we both raise our hand up.
However, there exist ways for a third observer to see me raising my hand first, or you raising your hand first. This has nothing to do with the biomechanics of reaction speeds or cognitive illusions. It is possible for an observer to literally see and measure what are precisely two simultaneous events from our perspective to not be simultaneous. This is because we all exist on our own “reference frame.”
It is impossible to affirm that I universally raised my hand at the same time as you. We did or didn’t, both views can be physically correct.
For example, a princess falls asleep in Tokyo and another on the Moon. Imagine a being halfway between these two places that has godlike vision, it sees them give their last blink at the same time. However, if another being is flying from Tokyo towards the Moon, it will see the princess on the Moon doze off first. It does not make sense to ask, “But which one really happened?” The god-eyed being resting between Tokyo and the Moon could take a photo of the situation, and then later meet up to compare this with the photo taken by the other god-eyed being who had been soaring to the Moon, and they would have different photos. If they then compare their results with yet another frozen snapshot taken by a being who had been plunging from the Moon towards Tokyo, they would find evidence of another version of the events in which the Tokyo princess was already asleep while the other’s unmistakable aquamarine gaze was yet peering into the stars.
There is a way for the universe to line up the events so that all reference frames agree that one of the princesses fell asleep first. The universe does this by gathering up the fragments and connecting them on a strand of light. This is called causality, and this is how it’s done:
The Tokyo princess closes her eyes. Now quick, count, 1 tick, 2 tock, 3 tick, 4 tock, 5 tick, 6 tock, 7 tick, 8 tock, 9 tick, and the princess on the Moon closes her eyes. We have time 9 seconds. Now set aside this 9 we have collected for we will need to weigh it against another number. If the 9 we have collected is greater than the number we will collect, then we will succeed at preserving the order.
Now we must create the opponent. To transmute 9’s contender, we must take the distance 238,900 mi (from Tokyo to Moon) and divide by 186,282 miles per second (the speed of light)… And the opponent created from distance and light speed, measures in at 1.28.
Now weigh these and see if our 9 is larger than this 1.28. Yes! 1.28 is definitely smaller than 9. We have succeeded at preserving the order! Now no one will have to disagree that the princess in Tokyo closed her eyes first.
So this is how the universe does it. Notice that the universe only succeeded because it didn’t see the princesses doze off at the same time. But what if it saw 0 time elapse between the shutting of each of the lady’s respective eyelids? This is what the god-eyed being resting half-way between the Moon and Tokyo saw. It is not what the being shooting head-first toward the Moon saw, and this is unavoidable. There are different reference frames. Shakespeare said, “All the world’s a stage.” He was wrong. You are wrapped in your stage as you move through the world.
It is important to distinguish between the different definitions of “now” that arise when studying special relativity:
- The observer’s past light cone.
- The observer’s orthogonal slice across the block.
An observer and an event are both idealizations. One chooses a frame of reference, then three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate. This gives a four-dimensional vector.
However, an actual observer, in the common sense of the word “observer,” is composed of many brain events.
Commonly speaking, there are no events. There is no one moment where a glass of wine cascades in a flurry of shards. All common sense events have a length of time. A photo represents a non-event. But special relativity’s events are like photos: they are frozen frames.
But then the question becomes: “How microscopic can a special relativity event become?” A birthday photo has the entire room full of people and things, but it also has a cake, and the cake also has a candle, and the candle also has a flame. Each subset of the set could be a photo all of its own, each can be called an event and assigned a four-dimensional vector.
Once you have your own reference frame and your own four-dimensional vector, you also have your own orthogonal slice in the block and therefore your own now which includes past regions of the universe and future regions of the universe that you cannot interact with. But nonetheless, the contents of your orthogonal slice are different from those of even the most nearby events with their own four-dimensional vector. The tip of a neuron has its own cosmically wide-reaching now that differs from that of the nerve cell just across the junction. We are talking about a distance of tens of nanometers.
Now, with this knowledge, let’s trail closer to the mind. We know that the mind exists within the brain. We don’t know where to draw the boundaries that define the present mind, either spatially, time-wise, or even ontologically. We just know that something in the brain is conscious, that something seems to be happening – whatever that “seeming” is.
Since no respectable theory of consciousness defines the moment of consciousness as a single point to be found hiding in the brain mush, we cannot simply extrapolate from the special relativity observer (which is just a four-dimensional vector) and map that to the consciousness. We can also not get away with zooming out from the neuronal forests and tag the four-dimensional vector on the entire brain object. No respectable theory of consciousness claims that the entire brain composes the unified conscious experience.
So what are the respectable theories of consciousness?
They are those which identify consciousness with computations. An experience is created because of the shuffling of electrons in a particular manner.
It is important not to imagine electrons as granules of that stuff which exists in our sensorium. Electrons may be black holes or they may be wavicles; in either case, they are described by precise math and only precise math. They are not the stuff of vision in zoomed-in format. They are not the stuff of sensation in zoomed-in format.
A computation is an arrangement of electrons. An arrangement is defined by places and times. There are slots, and electrons to fill these slots at different times. The whole table of slots and electrons is a timestep.
Notice the problem yet?
The table of slots (bijective mapping of aleph null) contains many electrons, each having its own now by special relativity. So the table cannot represent a moment of conscious experience. What can represent a moment of conscious experience is a timestep in which all the electrons are actually there, on the same table.
If that was the case – that all electrons existed on a simultaneous stage of “the same time,” then it wouldn’t be so hard to accept that the shape of the electrons on the table making a binary grid was synonymous with the conscious experience – after all, electrons are weird.
But no, we can’t even get that, because special relativity ruins that. The only way to get an experience which is defined by a timestep is to have the electrons forming the shape in camaraderie, on the same now slice.
If we apply the four-dimensional vector to the entire universe, then we don’t have the problem, much like applying it to the entire brain.
Yet, a single event
Once you assign a four-dimensional vector and
In order to say that a structure can be an experience, we must surrender the idea that a structure is incapable of feeling like something. It may be that… Ansem’s unfinished notes
What is a structure?
We have mainly visual referents and tactile referents which give us the illusion of knowing what we are talking about when we utter the word, “structure.”
Now consider that consciousness is a physical process occurring within this universe. It may seem like there is only now, and that the past is being deleted as you move along. But this is not true. The past brain is still there, just as “your” present brain is here.
Integrated information theory is not complete and has some flaws. However, it does point to something useful that no other reductive theory of consciousness has. It gives a picture in which each experience only exists intrinsically, absolutely solipsistically unto itself.
An experience is a data structure. But this kicks the can down the road. What is data?
How to determine what object constitutes each experience results from integration of information. After a certain point
The reason we believe there is motion and a soul to witness that motion is because we appropriate the word “I”. We appropriate the past, when in fact, you were never there. You were always here. If the modules in your mind which appropriate the “your” in this sentence, where to go off, that moment would be one of no identification with past movement.
The goal of contemplative true-to-Siddartha’s-teachings Buddhism, is precisely to destroy these appropriating modules. Studying neuroscience, one can feel skeptical that such neuroplasticity is possible through sheer time investment. But logging years of one’s life to feeling the breath has already shown to lead to inhuman levels of pain tolerance – evidenced by the monks that peacefully burn themselves alive. There are records of this which go back to Hindu missionaries that self-immolated in Christian Europe to prove the power of their ways, and in more recent times to the Vietnamese, Tibetan, and Sri Lankan Buddhist monks who have done this in public for political reasons.
The Savior Imperative
The Buddha has escaped the cycle of existence and points the way out of this evil-seeming contraption.
Jesus descends to hell on a rescue mission after his death on the cross.
Apoptosis, programmed cell suicide, is an essential part of an organism’s functioning.
There is the problem of epiphenomena. [Conscious feel or qualia or experience] of [pleasure or goodness] happens to match with behavior that natural selection would optimize for, such as sex and berries. If we imagine that consciousness is epiphenomenal, then the feeling of attaining sex and berries could be [suffering or badness] and yet, because we are machines driven by a motivational structure in the brain separate from the emotional structure, it would seem like a sheer miracle that the feeling of goodness actually exists and just happens to be mapped to the brain in this way. But as per Occam’s Razor, we must seek the simplest explanation within our current framework, not postulate extra stuff. The feeling of goodness must be easy to collapse back into from the brain’s point of view. If we think of the brain as an electron, pleasure is the equivalent of a low energy state. The motivational structure which eschews pleasure is a mechanism for exciting the electron to a high energy state, from which it wants to collapse back down to pleasure. The motivational structure is expending energy against the current. What’s more, this can be formalized in terms of information theory. As the brain buoys in the sea, pleasure computations make it easy for it to return to them in its future light cone. There is a phenomenological structure that exists past a definite event horizon and therefore is the singularity past where time and space switch place, making us inevitable.
Pleasure can be felt when almost unconscious and feeling grains of sand, when paying very close attention to the breath after years of practicing alone in a cave, or certain drug trips. None of these behaviors are evolutionarily advantageous. Evolution must have invested in tampering with these much simpler states, raging against the entropy which tends towards bliss for informational reasons.
The positive hedonic gloss of being engaged in interesting tasks should map to a napping gatekeeper. The gatekeeper increases Kolmogorov complexity. When he is napping, there is less Kolmogorov complexity.
This seems to introduce a paradox: How is it that pleasure is low complexity (simpler) and the collective brain tends toward it, when the universe tends toward disorder.
For one, I would argue that the universe does not tend toward greater disorder, as it seems quite to the contrary, that it is heading toward greatest simplicity with dark energy expanding everything apart forever. But dark energy (vacuum energy) is not fully understood so it may yet be the case that the cosmological constant is not so constant and halts enough to cause a heat death instead of a big rip. It may also reverse and create an inward collapse. This would make intuitive mythological sense as the blanket of stars fears the cold and so curls up into a fetal position.
Despite the uncertainty with regard to the dark energy which takes up well over 70%-75% of energy in the universe in today’s Dark Energy Dominated Era, the statement of “tending toward disorder” should be taken in the context of biological forms and their non-biological environment. Measuring too closely is itself a stupid question like Munroe’s “are there more soft objects or hard objects?” It seems like one of those things that one would be wise not to attempt to answer. Perhaps it is even analogous to attempting to satiate one’s curiosity about the appearance of machine elves (angels).
Pleasantness is selected for by the universe’s competing information structures because collapsing towards simple information is structurally advantageous. But let’s remember not to apply the behavior of the universe at large to a biological portion of the universe, for the biological portion is a defiant-loop.
If you have two symbols and they can collapse to one symbol that represents both, you have lowered the Kolmogorov complexity. The universe is known to do this. It represents the gas that goes into a black hole as 2-d information instead of 3-d as might be expected. The 3-d world would have more Kolmogorov complexity. The universe tends to simplicity and therefore encodes all this information in 2-d instead. It doesn’t choose spin up or spin down for a quark, as per a finite set of wave-function collapse, it allows both and therefore infinity, and therefore a single collapse, and therefore lowering Kolmogorov complexity.