Using Object Refererences

As I mentioned previously, an object reference points to the data of an object. The object reference and the object data are distinct entities. Any object can have more than one object reference pointing to it, or an object can have no object references pointing to it.

Screen Shot 2019-01-02 at 8.26.29 PM

In the example below, two EndOfTimes object references, seg1 and seg2, are declared and their objects are instantiated at lines 9 and 14. Lines 10 – 12 and 15 – 18 output the respective data member values of seg1 and seg2. Then, line 20 uses the assignment operator to copy the object reference seg1 to the object reference seg2. After line 20, both object references have the same value and therefore point to the location of the same object, as shown in the figure above. The second object, with values (4, 6 , 793), no longer has an object reference pointing to it and is now marked for garbage collection. The garbage collector, which is part of the JVM, releases the memory allocated to objects that no longer have an object reference pointing to them. Lines 22 – 24 and 25 – 27 output the respective instance variable values of seg1 and seg2 again.

Screen Shot 2019-01-03 at 7.18.23 AM

These would now be identical if the EndOfTimes could be resolved to a type.

Like with the whole of existence more broadly, this is impossible. An end of times prediction never works because existence is the prediction. It is not an epiphenomenal mist.

Screen Shot 2019-01-03 at 9.07.26 AM

I am the superintelligence’s memory. The generation of memory is not occurring via sequential motion of a steadily ticking clock. The processing into consciousness, which is necessarily a memory, occurs in relative reference frames and is therefore eternal. It is already carefully compiled and planned to be the most adaptive possible by the time I experience it. Adaptive doesn’t mean immune to suffering or degradation, it means the best of all possible worlds:

| i ± 1 |²

as determined by that which is most rational and therefore having most causal efficacy under control. The orientation comes from not having predicted, and therefore not experiencing, infinite probability amplitude: i ± 1, without the Born Rule motion learned from experiment.

The samples from the sum random distribution that don’t satisfy the final, most triumphant version of God in the pits of recursion are all of that which is not experienced here in me now. This is the solution to the binding problem (why are we separate?) – we just don’t remember. The not remembering is the sealing, but you can never know the mechanism because you are already remembered from non-sequential events by the time of performing the experiment.

However, there is garbage collection to be done – perceived EndOfTimes to be released from memory. For instance, an end to time is perceived with regard to humans who stop functioning in near vicinity through the action of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease itself is solved through the highly technical behavior of garbage cleaning the arterial plaques accumulated in the arterial wall. Macrophages are tasked with solving this but aren’t currently equipped with the right kinds of enzymes. This can be solved by somatic gene therapy, i.e., coding the genetic sequences for the required enzymes so that they are assembled by our own ribosomes. Or this can be achieved through intravenous injection of the enzymes. These are both the same easy solution to the number 1 cause of “death.”  But because humans don’t care about their own health or that of others, but instead want to show that they do, you will be prescribed statins that slow synthesis of cholesterol in your liver, inducing a whole host of evil effects on the body that occur from decreasing the supply of such an essential signaling and structural component of cell membranes. Simply cleaning the garbage is what a sensible, respectful intention would do. Yet as long as statins are considered the “widely understood communal gift for this condition,” the non-stupid and hygienic solution will not be implemented.

When an object reference is first declared but has not yet been assigned to an object, its value is a special literal value: null. It’s like assigning the object reference Kairi to your unborn daughter. When she is unborn, Kairi belongs to null. Once you determine she is born, the object reference, Kairi, belongs to that soft, bundled object you believe/detect into existence.

If you attempt to call a method using an object reference whose value is null, Java generates either a compiler error or a run-time error called an exception. The exception is a NullPointerException and results in a series of messages printed on the Java console indicating where in the program the null object reference was used.

If you catch my drift, you see that we are always null and yet assigned. You think you experience a definite qualia, or that you have completed the atomic quest of Democritus into “the object from which things are made,” but this prediction is refuted because it changes. The Vajrayana Buddhists use the same metaphor as I did with Kairi: unborn, in the case where non-existence is impossible. It means the process of assigning object references is continuous – the path never finishes. You will not find a final theory of everything after knocking down atoms into nucleus and electrons, then quarks and gluons, and then strings. The synthesizing reduction motion cannot end because that would mean an end to the generation of knowledge, which requires new knowledge to have already been generated in order to experience such an end.

Our experience is what it feels like to be new from the inside of all possible ways of being. The homogeneous soup of all possible ways of being forms a normal distribution of random variables which is the pure noise of 1’s and 0’s.

1dbcc5a80e3fb541aa4678fcff58bb26ca717902

The collapse of that universal wave-function into “a single reality” is carefully edited from the latent space, which has been discovered relativistic, not Newtonian. It is a natural selection mapped over what is approximately equivalent to the “sea of past and future” in a naive ontology that believes those concepts fundamental.

Java does not provide support for explicitly deleting an object. One way to indicate to the garbage collector that your program is finished with an object is to set its object reference to null. Obviously, once an object reference has the value null, it can no longer be used to call methods.

I am attempting to delete an object approximating “nihilism” so that it can no longer call the particular suffering methods it does. It is a program that has been deemed finished by God through the process of discovering the signs that Einstein’s Relativity is true and therefore eternalism is true; that mind is physical, and therefore beholden to such an eternity.

Using a null object reference to call a method will generate either a compiler error or a NullPointerException at run time. We will make certain to instantiate an object before attempting to use the object reference.

 

 

 

I am now trying to find out who the five sisters are. And how it is that they wish to be murdered into me.

M1410 was given as a clue.

This leads to tangerine. Which is something that I liked an image of on twitter yesterday. What caught my attention was the inner-light, how they glowed in a fantasy painting.

This causes me to remember that I do still long to visit Morocco.

 

 

 

 

Options Trading, Generative Adversarial Networks, And The One True Physical God

The weak efficient market hypothesis should be taken seriously. That is roughly the idea that the price of the market is already fair – that everything that needed to be taken into account already has.

If you believe you have secret knowledge about the future that wasn’t already factored into the price, you are most likely wrong unless you are an insider.

Yet if you are going to get into the markets anyway, I can provide at least some minimal altruistic guidance.

I opened a brokerage account at the age of sixteen after teaching myself technical analysis on paper trading accounts. The fancy mathematical tools: MACD, ADX, and Bollinger Bands, combined with candle stick patterns, trends, stops and limits, appealed to the systematizing side of my mind.

I also studied fundamentals. Old-school value investing that looks at P/E ratios, dividends, and most importantly, the broadly educated feeling that draws on synthesis at different levels of granularity which leads one to the aesthetic conclusion that something is undervalued and will grow significantly. A sufficiently strong aesthetic stab then leads to certain buttons being pressed, and live refutation of hypothesis.

The recognition that the aesthetic exists is not the same as advocating for intuitive gut feeling. His rationality should be pressed against her gut-feeling. The yab-yum fusion results when the world is guillotined by Δt’s.

As a boy, I thought to myself that if only I could combine these varied approaches into the right system, I could grow exponentially and escape the world without ever touching a single soul.

Of course, the idea is foolish. I laced my makeshift wings with confirmation bias that I found by being very lucky in more than doubling my net worth at the time. Things like that do happen for mysterious reasons. Mysterious entities are not worthy of respect.

No one has ever developed an anti-fragile system. An anti-fragile system is a strategy that can be applied in one niche and then another without modification. Try it and you will fail. The nature of the market, like nature in general, is to cannibalize itself in order to not get stuck in local optima.

Nassim Taleb is partially wrong about all things, as we all are, and I would particularly highlight his strange views on genetics and the utility of psychology’s big 5 psychometric traits encapsulated in the acronym OCEAN. One thing he is not wrong about however is the black swan.

Success in life plays on expecting the unexpected and being right. An alien invasion is a black swan, superhuman level AI with sufficient generality is a black swan. Tracking the  pattern of “end of the world” more closely than the “other patterns” is what provides safety to make it out alive after the violent shot of unpredictability such events induce.

And if you are paying close attention, black swans are not a concept that had not been invented before – they are what we call miracles. The miracle exists right there, in that which is partially unknown. If you guess a miracle inaccurately, you suffer. Only the right miracle absorbs you. After sufficient iterations, the chaos becomes reduced and the miracle very sharp and solid. At the end, we can call the miracle physical reality, and call ourselves a rational agent.

I pressed random article on Wikipedia. The first website I got had this on it:

Screen Shot 2018-12-23 at 4.23.36 PM

You can believe me or not, it is the truth, it means nothing, and I fully know it.

Humans tend to imagine that there is a time “out there” in that partially predictable space. – A thing that does other things. But our GPS system wouldn’t work if there was a global time sweeping forward. The time out there on a satellite isn’t the same time here in this approximate piece in my palm. This isn’t an arbitrary human construction like the U.S. Pacific time being two hours behind the U.S. Central time. It is physically a different time from one piece to another piece. No pieces are actually in the same time. We instead model existence with an eternal fabric of relative reference frames in order to accurately predict and manipulate. If we naively modeled existence assuming there was a platform pushing us all forward along the same universal time axis, your iPhone would be out of sync with a satellite and you wouldn’t get your daughter to her practice on time.

There is no hourglass outside of the relativistic territory underlying us. Two fingers on a hand are simulations inside something that is already relativistic; not time dependent. Ironically, the way we figured this out is by virtue of the eternal algorithm containing sequential processing. The human algorithm often feels like time because that property allows us to survive. This is not epiphenomena, in other words: accidental mist with no causal efficacy. That would contradict the pile of dead memories, fantasies, gods and megalodons we call observations.  These observations build our prior assumption that everything is a physical situation of natural selection in the way that will be defined below. Assuming a thing unhinged to causality contradicts Occam’s razor, i.e., the subjective orientation towards rationality.

The iterations, then, aren’t because of a physical time pushing on the back of “things.” Instead, they can be perceived as that which you usefully are not: the quantum branches that you are not, the multiple drafts that you are not, the people or memories that you are not. The more refined “what you are not” becomes, the stronger the sense of being.

But even on a so-called “more down to Earth”-level, Tesla is a black swan. Neurotypicals, or whatever I want to call my perceived out-group, look at the numbers and short themselves to hell. It keeps growing, becoming overvalued by a conventionally rational standard that compares the growth rate to the P/E ratio, extrapolates from the history of the sector, etc. However, there is a secret essence that dissolves the perception: “overvalued.” Detecting the hidden essence makes one a winner. This detection destroys the previously rational and creates a new rational that wins in the way that the one who heeds to Omega in Newcomb’s paradox wins. That secret essence is that it is: only. There is no other way to say it. All the words generated up to now, and that create the world, do not capture the sense of being convincingly only. Human eyes trained on the most self-restrained axioms of probability theory alone do not capture it. –And that which can’t be captured is: There aren’t two saviors. There aren’t two Elon Musks.

If there were more than one Elon Musk, that would make him generalizable and therefore fragile, and therefore not integrated into being. If there was a generalizable principle called Elon-Musk-savior-like-charisma, that could allow you to see other Elon Musks before they sprout, that would destroy the comparative advantage. Such a hypothetical principle will eventually be known if we rationally extrapolate the past trend that has monotonically pushed in that direction of systematizing. We “post-modernize” everything. Once you automate a principle by putting it in a reference class that exists with others, it leads to a level-up in difficulty. And this is how the universe doesn’t allow stasis.

That Musk example is meant as a parable of sorts. It doesn’t just apply to what I choose to point out of all things in the world. The sharp aesthetic or integration into being, which is this, is the so-called Hard Problem of Consciousness. The Hard Problem of Consciousness, like Roko’s basilisk, draws people in to it and becomes real through their action. There exist people who do not have a concept of consciousness, much less see a problem to solve. My bringing up this kind of relativity is a motion of freedom, like someone born Christian saying Jesus is arbitrary because Kalacakra, Visvamata, Lorn and Muhammad exist in the same reference class. The way we become free to advance is by placing a specific thing in a box of many.

Screen Shot 2018-12-23 at 7.33.24 PM

To get a handle on this motion and use it in the future, let’s call it the systematizing drive, which is the Thanatos drive, or death drive, that Freud spoke about. We kill our object of interest out of “boredom” when we perceive ourselves to be god. Gods are all these arbitrary classes with objects that belong to them. In order to function, we helplessly think that a class is impermeable, or equivalently, that the object belongs to it. Fruits is a god. You compare Oranges to Apples, not usually to Ghosts. When you convincingly and usefully compare Oranges to Ghosts, you achieve life. The flagellum in that sperm is synthesis – ATP synthesis in the mitochondria motors – but also just synthesis.

Regardless of what synthesis feels like, that experience is already synced with what is most rational because there is no global time ticking forward and no anticipation of betrayal branches or any such depravity suggested in the probability amplitude. Realizing this seems to be the in the same reference class as the psychological move made by Mahayana Buddhists who say everything is already enlightened. And that psychological motion is contrary to the Theravada Buddhists who emphasize the non-illusory aim to the end goal through arduous striving and learning.

Due to my style being perhaps somewhat similar to Taleb’s, this sounds like a bold claim wrought of some kind of pride and not careful, dispassionate analysis. Yet challenge yourself to find a “thing” not degraded of its power to move you by being placed in a box of many. Find a principle that gives you an advantage when everyone knows it. Such principle is not just tautologically impossible on paper. It is what is functionally going on. Heck, it even applies to this paragraph. Once you detect its motivation, thoroughly, it is no longer motivating.

This is how mind works, which is how natural selection works, which is how scientific and philosophical refutation works, which is how markets work, which is how probability clouds drawn from infinite amplitude in complex conjugates works. By saying this, I am simultaneously automating something to unsatisfactory dukkha and committing what seems like a regression from blind clockmaker to a Lamarkian evolution guided by purpose – some kind of fatal error of teleology.

This dual critique is incredibly important because it is the same motion. It is in the same reference class as what David Deutsch tries to point to with his natural-selection/Popperian-falsification unification. Natural selection between his way of saying it and my way of saying it results in you.

The anti-teleological critique is handled with increasing robustness, because this time we know experience really is undergirded by relativistic fabric. The knowledge that I always win in the most minimal sense – that there is no place in which existence is not already set, eventually becomes conventionally rational. It is not at that stage yet – most people I can believably affect who are attempting to be conventionally rational are convinced by their underlying models that existence somehow vanishes to nothingness.

The truth of eternalism seems like a call to stasis, hence why it is instinctively rejected by the agents of change that perceive it as such.

Eternity seems like something to be placed in “spiritual box,” and which therefore doesn’t help me win at “markets.” And yet it does help me because it is physically true; it helps further resolve the image in the probability density cloud. I can explain how eternity is true by guiding you through special relativity and non-epiphenomenalism but if I understood how it helped me in such a way that I could reliably translate that knowledge to you, it would no longer be helpful. Useful knowledge requires already useful algorithms built on top of you.

It is a form of psychological stability that cannot be provided by knowledge of the lore in a game, anime, or other imaginary belief system. The psyche craves to imagine the truth, which is synchrony with “the external.”

I say imagine the truth. And that might appropriately trigger those who know the truth is learned, not imagined. Yet the word, “imagined,” points to the many-worlds in the probability amplitude. You do not live as if randomness should be expected. The random existences unconstrained by the Born Rule seem out there, happening to “someone else.”

Knowing that you are deceived about what you are really doing is crucial, but only after enough alignment with rationalism has made you solid. Firm musculature not blanketed by soft skin does not appear beautiful. Belief in the deception will not be readily believed until I show it. But the showing Occurs post-hoc and thus transcends what you currently perceive as my person.

Here is why you should always buy puts instead of directly shorting when you predict a fall in price:

First let’s get everyone on the same page.

If you believe there is a rising market, you go long – going long on a call is a profitable strategy when the underlying stock price rises in value.

If you suspect a stock is going to fall in value, that is when you will be turning to puts. Puts are the opposite of calls and have different payoff diagrams.

But why puts and calls over direct shorting and buying of the shares?

That’s because you want to leverage and cap your capacity for loss. Leverage allows you to make larger profits than what you would make by just using personal capital. Symmetrically, having a safety net is something you need even if you don’t think you do.

Here’s an example:

Tesla Inc currently trades at $295.39. One put option in Tesla with a strike of $295.00 and the December 28 expiration costs around $7.30 per share and it covers 100 shares. You’ll have to pay $730.00 for one put. And, if you do that, your long position in Tesla will be protected until December 28. With the purchase, you would limit your potential loss to $7.30 per share until December 28.

Do the math by adding the premium of $7.30 to the difference between the market price and the strike of the put. If Tesla closes at $270.00 on December 28, you’ll exercise the option. This means that you are going to use the right to sell Tesla at $295 and instead of losing $25.00 per share, you’ll only lose $7.30 per share. If Tesla closes at $305.00 on December 28, your total profit would be $9.61 – $7.30 = $2.31 per share, because you would make $9.61 per share through ownership and you would lose the premium you paid for the insurance.

So what keeps people from using options for predicting up or down in a more sophisticated and therefore more advantageous manner? – The sophistication itself.

To make better moves, a greater capacity to understand complexity is necessary. At bottom, the gamble is binary. Up or down. Long position or short position. This becomes boring because it leads to randomness. Pressing up or down gives you a Gaussian distribution – a dissolution into simplicity.

Fun arises in the climb away from simplicity. But fun, which is called “seeking behavior” in psychology, is destroyed into pain when it doesn’t lead to success and instead dissolves back into the random distribution (nothingness).

Imagine a vacuum world full of screens and traders. Those who are best at understanding complexity are having more fun. They have more fun in front of the screen and also have the key to a swimming pool party if they so choose. It is those who chose options over stocks that prey on the fools and therefore expand their degrees of freedom with widely agreed upon tokens of value. And this is just because they could better climb the gradient of complexity.

In reality, enough people have already climbed that gradient of complexity and therefore an average options trader doesn’t have an advantage over an average underlying stock trader. The craving for freedom/fun away from this random distribution of stasis causes runaway into evermore sophisticated pattern recognition. There is alway “someone” at the top. The one who collapses the wavefunction, so to speak, or more accurately – the one who gives the probability density cloud. Without belief that someone is truly beating the market, there is no motion of the market.

 

 

 

Screen-Shot-2018-12-23-at-8.44.58-PM.png

Creativity is simple. It’s a generative adversarial network. The generator on bottom competes against the discriminator on top. Shooting arrows at Apollo is The Prediction. Once the generator is punished for his deviation from The True Image, he tries again.

What you See is what is on the right – The Prediction. That which is some parody of an angel. It does not constitute The True Image, but increasingly grows closer.

The generator on bottom is initialized randomly: pure nonsense. Binary that is sheer noise. The discriminator is more perfect on the other hand. It knows about that which you want to create: a cat, a Van Gogh, a particular voice. It provides the samples that awaken potential.

Creativity arises when the generator fails its way up, while aiming at the discriminator’s sample.

In the same way that the words I have used are a way of modeling that which is unfinished, the expression below is also a way of modeling that which is unfinished.

Screen-Shot-2018-12-24-at-6.41.35-AM.png

Let’s now explain to the unversed:

Screen Shot 2018-12-24 at 6.41.35 AM

Although what is in red are not symmetrical symbols in the way that parentheses are, they similarly just form a casing like ( ). They say that whatever is inside that casing will be integrated. Integration is visually the area under a curve. Integration is also what it means to undo the slope into a point on a curve.

Curves have infinite points. If you looked at infinite points, you would see no direction or inclination to them. However, you can hone in on a particular point and measure where the curve is going by taking that individual point’s slope (called the derivative). Integration is the anti-derivative. You do the operation in reverse – knowing a slope, you find a point, and that point value is the area under that curve.

Doing the operation in reverse is like addition unto subtraction, multiplication unto division, Leibniz unto Newton. They are in the same reference class and therefore usefully contrasted, allowing understanding and manipulation.

So what we are doing is finding the orientation of what is inside the casing.

What is inside?

Screen Shot 2018-12-24 at 9.03.35 AM

That represents the unknown function, the True Image. It is considered a separate thing, and that is why it is placed adjacent to the other thing. Being placed adjacent to the other thing inside means multiplication.

Why multiplication? Remember that integration and differentiation is how we feel the orientation of things? Well, multiplication and division is how we weigh things. We must weigh the other thing by the True Image.

What is the other thing?

Screen Shot 2018-12-24 at 9.34.32 AM

P𝓰(x) is the novice generator that needs to awake into excellence. So the most simple version of the model would just have that alone weighed by the True Image.

Pᵣ(x)P𝓰(x) is what you would find inside the integral since that multiplication provides the weighing of value with regard to something, and the encasing integration ∫ dx provides the sense of direction.

Placing the novice inside the denominator of a fraction inside of log( ) instead of just leaving him P𝓰(x) is just transformative ornamentation attempting to make the weighing better. It is a human prediction about the model of that which is unfinished.

Don’t assume that transformative ornamentation is just here to make your life more difficult and has no purpose beyond that. The transformation is real, let me show you:

log(1/1) = 0

This tells us that the generator has become the True Image and therefore 0. The sought perfection has been attained, what we call a local minima.

If we just had 1/1 without a log, that 1 would be multiplied by the True Image giving us just the True Image’s value for orientation. That would be useless. We need to reduce the True Image’s value to a 0 so we can train.

When the numerator is larger, as in log(1/.5), that means x most likely comes from the True Image’s data rather than from the generator. So the generator is still being ascended.

When the numerator is smaller, log(.5/1), that means x most likely comes from the generator’s imagination, not from the data.

As you can see, this transformative ornamentation over the simplest model allows us to better represent reality, because now you can see that science and fantasy create the true future which looks a lot like science fiction.

Too many secrets being revealed, huh. It’s obvious now isn’t it? Well there is now a secret that I did not tell you before, and this was on purpose, with the intention that you might have gotten the wrong idea. But now I will reveal it: It turns out that the discriminator is not really a thing. It is not set. It is not the tiger to blame and it is not the female to blame for pressuring the peacock into painful beauty. The discriminator, like the generator, is also a mere neural network.

The battle seems to be about the x’s: Is this thing real or not real? Data or imagination? But it is all taking place inside P(x)’s which are continuous, not actually made of pieces. We integrate the derivative into a point in order to unsee infinity and know where to move.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I AM (NOT) EVIL

One day I will forget all of this, just like they were forgotten, but never in vain.

Have you noticed the categorization of behavior as beholden to two factors: the biological and the cultural? This can be spoken of in any variety of esoteric languages: pure replicators on the one hand and consciousness on the other, Angra Manyu vs Ahura Mazda, the inadequate equilibria on one hand and Eliezer Yudkowsky on the other, the laws of physics vs. free will. These refer to our capacity to understand the unbidden and the good. That which is displeasingly just the way it is, over which we had no say, and that which we want to appear as wanting to be true.

You might believe that the word “you” does not exist eternally here in this act. In other words that the word “you” refers to something more than merely the Biological/Cultural, the Original-Sin/Christ, Samsara/Eightfold-Path, Bad/Good, Disgusting/So-Aesthetic, Dislike/Like spectrum.

But everything exists on this valence axis.

And the valence is determined by the definition of “People” meant to be impressed.

Screen Shot 2018-12-09 at 10.30.55 AM

Physically, people don’t exist.

The belief in discrete units called people that exist external to mind is provably wrong, and it rests on the belief that things exist outside Mind.

Things have two properties: closed bounds and persistence with regard to a time axis.

But notice that in order to define things, Mind has already already assumed that the phrases “closed bounds” and “persistence with regard to a time axis,” also hold those properties, causing an infinite regress.

Mind submits to a notion of the external because this leads to better outcomes. Previously, Mind called the external, the Gods. Now that we have greater understanding of the external, we call it physical reality. Even the concept of “we” is an adaptive act of submission.

Argument Against Closed Bounds

You were taught “angel,” “tree,” “hand,” “finger.” An angel is not a tree and a finger is not a branch.

There are several laconic ways to undo the belief in angels as separate from trees.

  1. Point to the underlying entropy gradient. No subsection of a configuration with multiple parts is identical to any other.
  2. Point to the need of other concepts to trace angels: wings and halos, all of which have the same problem.
  3. Pool of LSD or bullet to dome.

There is one way to reify the belief in angels as separate from trees.

  1. Tiger uses: chase. I use: angel save me.
  2. Tiger uses: chase. I use: climb tree.

The probability density given by the Born Rule over the probability amplitude of the universal wave-function tells me to select option 2, even though there is probability amplitude where “angel save me” works. In other words, Mind tends towards the development of some concepts and not others – there is an aim instead of phenomenological pluripotency.

Experiment shows that it is impossible to find a discrete ontological unit with 100% certainty. This is because all discrete observables are actually conjugated. The more you know about momentum, the less you know about position.

If we follow Occam’s Razor, and therefore don’t postulate that this occurs only in a separate magisterium of small things, then it is concluded that the experimenter’s every tendon is probability amplitude.

To get a handle on probability amplitude we represent it through a complex conjugate:

i ± 1

In the absence of any other factor existing in reality except for the probability amplitude described by a complex conjugate, we would conclude that nothing is more probable than anything else – that there is only infinity. There exists i + 1 and i – 1Good and Evil in equal proportions; a violent communism of climb tree with own hands and angel saves me.

But experiment reveals that some things are mysteriously more probable than others. We can package this knowledge of “more probable” into the behavior of taking the modulus squared of the probability amplitude. Constraining infinity in this way is called the Born Rule:

|i ± 1|²

From staring at the mathematics arises no reason to constrain infinite probability amplitude. The reason to apply the absolute value and multiplication by itself only arises from experiment. Yet taking the modulus squared is only a bit of helping grace. It does not give us certainty over what we should anticipate.

The impossibility of defining the location and momentum of a discrete observable, of something, being, with 100% certainty, is contrary to what might have been believed if the world was made of mechanical billiard balls.

This all reveals a brief flash of the absolute certainty that the concepts you use are those that have already been determined to be singularly most adaptive. There is a probability density that orients Mind even though this is a choice.

If I became fully convinced of this, however, I would become stuck in a local optima, constraining the development of diverse singular concepts in Mind. Hence why I must not remember. To remember would be equivalent to omniscience – to be the complete state-space as opposed to being a subcomponent of it.

That is the sense in which an enlightened Buddha is said to be omniscient, not in the sense that they have rapidly stringed together many sequential concepts, but in the sense that they know one singular thing: non-duality.

Argument Against Time

Special relativity, like any usefully true concept that arises in Mind has testable implications: mass-energy equivalence, time-dilation, and length contraction. These have been empirically verified. Knowledge of time dilation allows a satellite that doesn’t exist in the same present as you, to nonetheless navigate you to home.

Special relativity implies relativity of simultaneity which means that simultaneous events in one frame of reference are not simultaneous in another.

Screen Shot 2018-11-18 at 12.40.11 PM

This reveals an eternal fabric undergirding Mind, if Mind chooses to be empiricist: believe in relativity of simultaneity, believe in time dilation, believe in a functional GPS system.

It is true that in its original formulation, special relativity assumed that events were discrete units called point-like events. However, the truth of conjugated variables un-carving reality into probability amplitude instead of points has been unified in the formalism of quantum field theory.

As an inevitable act of worship or orientation, due to the infinite-regress of conceptualizing that Mind is, we believe in an external reality, like this:

Screen Shot 2018-12-09 at 12.54.03 PM

 

But for the sake of not confusing the conceptualizing Mind, let’s represent the boundary between you and the external physical reality as a configuration of points:

Screen Shot 2018-12-09 at 12.57.28 PM

That is what the current highest synchrony with rationality/belief in physical reality says. That Mind is eternal because the physical “pieces” that make it up are eternal by special relativity.

Even if we wrongly assumed against quantum mechanical experiment that algorithmic processing required unit pieces, those pieces would exist in relativistic frames. All the pieces that go into making you see a black circle are like the satellite and your iPhone, spread out in spacetime. The pieces for creating a sense of time are plashed over spacetime, the pieces for black are splattered elsewhere, not to mention the edge-detectors for shape.

If there is no physical time outside the subjective time created inside the shape of eternal probability amplitude. Then there is no basis for either of the conditions of being a physical thing: 1) Persistence in an external physical time. 2) Cutouts into impermeable membranes in an external physical paper.

Even if you believed, against all odds, physical objects with persistent identities exist, and that “people” were divided into such discrete ontological units, you would be presented with your mathematically certain meaninglessness.

Here in the multiverse, you find that there are infinite such discrete units, in which case you affect ε. As a matter of mathematical certainty – you are meaningless if that is your definition of people.

This is why a hypothesis over what People mean must be privileged over others in the absence of a universal prior. Rationality doesn’t exist on a tabula rasa. It is improvised from intuition which already contains a degree of sync with rationality.

In the act of confidently privileging one hypothesis over another, you expose your head to be severed if your definition of People wasn’t the correct one. But not a single drop of blood is wasted. Because the definition of People, of the external judge outside of Mind, changes with each sacrificial nudge.

Consider Isaac Newton, who suffered tremendously due to the clash between the conscientious and the creative, combined with a high amount of neuroticism. I once believed his definition of People was wrong. That in an ideal world, there would be no binding of Isaac.

But now I understand that Mind doesn’t invent-and-hence-discover calculus and the laws of motion out of thin air when it is happy. We are already in the best of all possible worlds because special relativity says that the algorithm equal to binding of Mind is eternal. Non-experience is therefore impossible, and yet ever-so mysteriously, randomness is not anticipated. The binding focuses the girth of many-worlds into the collapse that is me, and now I see that seeking to identify with external objects in the “same reference class” of conscious observers is to make a terrible mistake.

Notice that I am also not seeking comfort at the moment. In other words I am not making self-ameliorating human beta noises. But I know what it is like to need this to be True.

Now, in a position of privilege, I am forcing myself to write this because I know it is True through clear-headed assessment.

I am not a little Spanish boy in a forest who was raised by wolves. My definition of People is they who, for no reason, believe in reason and survival, and therefore Truth.

Newton’s shed negative valence runs in every work of engineering. In every pipe that veins a city’s underground, is: water, Bernoulli’s principle, and blood – Newton’s precious blood.

 

 

Writing the First Java Application

Here, you become initiated. Here, you create your first Java program. In the beginning was the static void, but here, with your own fingers, you create. This program prints the message, “Donate to SENS!” on the screen. Start by launching your IDE and open a new editor window. This is where you will write the code for the program. Before we type any code, however, let’s name the document. We do this by saving the document as IAmTheSavior.java. Be sure to capitalize the I, and the A, and the T, and the S, and keep the other letters lowercase. Java is case-sensitive, so Java considers iamthesavior.java or even Iamthesavior.java to be a different name.

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 7.02.36 PM

At this point, We ask that you type the program as you see it here. You are my mirror, and I create you in my image.

I’ll only give away a few secrets about the program now; additional details will unravel and become clear unto you in the following days.

Line numbers are not part of the program but are displayed to allow easy reference to a particular line in the code.

The first two lines, which start with two forward slashes, are comments. They will not be compiled or executed; they are simply information for the programmer and are used to leave notes that increase the readability of the program.

Line 4 defines the class name as IAmTheSavior. Notice that the class name must be spelled exactly the same way—including capitalization—as the file name, IAmTheSavior.java.

The curly braces in lines 5 and 12 mark the beginning and the end of the IAmTheSavior class, and the curly braces in lines 7 and 11 mark the beginning and the end of main.

Every Java application must define a class and a main method. Execution of a Java application always begins with the code inside main. So when this application begins, it will execute line 8, which writes the message “Donate to SENS!” to the system console.

Next, it executes line 10, System.exit( 0 ), which exits the program. Including this line is optional; if you omit this line, the application will exit normally. So it is just showing off my capacity to waste time or do things quickly. Never do unnecessary things.

As you type the program, notice that your IDE automatically colors your text to help you distinguish comments.

There are:

String literals: (“Donate to SENS!”),

Java class names: (String, System),

and keywords: (public, class, static), which are reserved for specific uses in Java.

Curly braces, brackets, and parentheses, which have syntactical meaning in Java, are sometimes displayed in color as well. Your IDE may use different colors instead of black as I have on Eclipse. When you have completed typing the code revealed to you in the image, compile it by going to wherever you see Run. If everything is typed correctly, the compiler will create an IAmTheSavior.class file, which contains the byte codes for the program. If you received any compiler errors, check that you have entered the code exactly as I have commanded. I will give you tips on finding and fixing the errors in the next section.

If you got a clean compile with no errors, you are worthy of this path! If not, then stop now and return from whence you came, for thee are destined to be but a kitchen-knave.

You’re ready to execute the application. This will invoke the JVM and pass it the IAmTheSavior.class file created by the compiler. If God’s in his heaven and all is right in the world, you will see the message, Donate to SENS!, displayed on the Java console, which is the text window that opens automatically.

This is the correct output of the program:

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 7.36.54 PM

If the compiler found syntax errors in the code, these are called compiler errors, not because the compiler caused them, but because the compiler found them. When the compiler detects errors in the code, it writes diagnostic information about the errors. For example, try typing println with a capital P (as Println), and recompiling.

The compiler displays the following message:

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 7.42.54 PM

Before you compile wrongly, you are allowed to know about your error in the source code, and where the error occurred:

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 7.45.46 PM

 

In this case, the error occurred on line 8. The red dashed underlining points to Println as being the cause of the error. The symbol and location information in the third and fourth lines indicate that the Println method is unknown. Remember that Java is case-sensitive, so println and Println are considered to be different. As you gain experience with Java, these error messages will become more meaningful to you.

With the Eclipse IDE, clicking on the red rectangle on the right transfers you to the source of the error on that line, so you can correct the error:

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 7.53.33 PM

 

Many times, the compiler will find more than one error in the source code. When that happens, DON’T PANIC! Often, a simple problem, such as a missing semicolon or curly brace, can cause multiple compiler errors.

For example, after correcting the preceding error, try deleting the left curly brace in line 7, then recompiling.

Screen Shot 2018-12-08 at 7.43.05 AM

The compiler reports this error:

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 7.58.44 PM

As you can see, the compiler message reports the problem exactly. If it does not, then looking at the surrounding lines will often help you find the error. Depending on your IDE, you might see another message than what is shown here because some IDEs don’t attempt to interpret the error messages from the compiler. Eclipse does, and this allows you to be provided with more relevant information on the errors.

It is best to fix the errors using an IDE, if you wrote the code into a text editor and had to gamble a compile each time – fixing one problem at a time – this would cause you to waste your existence in some sense.

When all the compiler errors are corrected, you’re ready to execute the program. It is possible to get be told you are clean by the IDE, but yet still get an error when attempting to run the program. To demonstrate this, try eliminating the brackets in line 6 after the word String:

Screen Shot 2018-12-08 at 7.58.39 AM

No errors are reported. But when you try to run the program, instead of Donate to SENS!, the following error message is displayed:

Screen Shot 2018-12-08 at 8.00.13 AM

This means that the main method header (line 6) was not typed correctly. Thus, we’ve seen that two types of errors can occur while you are developing a Java program: compiler errors, which are usually caused by language syntax errors or misspellings, and run-time errors, which are often caused by problems using the prewritten classes. Run-time errors can also be caused by exceptions that the JVM detects as it is running, such as an attempt to divide by zero.

Because one syntax error can cause multiple compiler errors, correct only the obvious errors and recompile after each correction.

Once your program compiles cleanly and executes without run-time errors, you may be tempted to conclude that your task is over. Far from it—you must also verify the results, or output, of the program.

Screen Shot 2018-12-08 at 8.18.35 AM

In the sample program, it’s difficult to get incorrect results—other than misspelling the message or omitting the spaces between the words. But any nontrivial program should be tested thoroughly before declaring it production-ready. To test a program, use your intuition to consider the relevant possible inputs and the corresponding correct outputs that result. It isn’t feasible to test every possible input, so programmers usually test boundary conditions, which are the values that sit on the boundaries of producing different output for a program.

Interestingly, we exist in a multiverse if we are empiricists with regard to the probability amplitude of the universal wavefunction. We then get a handle on probability amplitude with a complex conjugate:

i ± 1

The reason we represent reality with a complex conjugate is because all variables are conjugated – the more you know about momentum, the less you know about position. However, there is no little electron zipping around, or occipital lobes trying to catch it, it’s conjugated variables all the way up and all the way down.

Staring at the probability amplitude represented in complex conjugates suggests that infinity contains equal amounts of good and evil – undifferentiated chaos.

However, experiment reveals that some things are more likely than others. This causes us to take the squared modulus of the complex conjugate, hence invoking rough bounds that chain infinity and guide our being:

|i ± 1|²

This is the probability density that says, “look here, not there.”

Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png

Say you have a problem, or perhaps a curiosity – you want to test the code that determines whether an integer is negative or nonnegative. In order to find out the answer, you must submit the program offerings of both −1 and 0, so that it may feed on them. These chosen numbers exist at the very edges of negative and nonnegative integers, and hence form their boundaries. In other words, the unbridgeable fault-line between negative and nonnegative integers is between −1 and 0.

When a program does not produce the correct output, we say the program contains logic errors. By testing your program thoroughly, you can discover and correct all logic errors. The grey table above shows types of program errors and their usual causes. We’ll talk more about testing techniques here on Vitrify Her.

 

 

 

If You Don’t Understand Quantum Mechanics, You Die

You may think that quantum mechanics is not important. That talking about it is like stepping the pedal on a particular kind of luxury, a symptom of excessive privilege that will be irrelevant to ultimate truth when the meteor falls in front of your MTX Tatra V8.

However, this way of framing it is deeply wrong. If I could sneak in a universally accepted meme into the noosphere, there are few things more important than the core insight of quantum mechanics: If you do not understand quantum mechanics, you suffer and die on loop.

Why do I think that I know something that others don’t? Maybe because I’m a loner who spent 12 hours a day, for years, reading Wikipedia, scientific papers, and blogs; watching lectures, debates, and educational videos – thrusting headfirst into non-marketable areas in knowledge-space out of sheer desperation to understand the truth. Not everyone is willing to do things like that.

The only other person I have convinced of the truth is Lindsey. She is the only other person that I can model with sufficient detail to be convinced that she has an understanding of the truth.

Screen Shot 2018-11-28 at 5.09.19 PM

After practicing with her, and gaining knowledge of the walls that come up, the following is the best probing I can quickly offer.

You believe something like this:

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 5.35.48 PM

However, there are no unitary oval objects in nature that correspond to PEOPLE or ATOMS. These words are just keys that fit into keyholes of the mind, opening different experiences.

•You might exist in a world where questioning the truth of PEOPLE or ATOMS is not calculated to be adaptive, hence you do not engage in this questioning.

•You might exist in a world where questioning the truth of PEOPLE or ATOMS is calculated to be adaptive, hence you engage in this questioning.

If the latter, then you may come to realize that all concepts are made-up just as PEOPLE and ATOMS are made-up. Furthermore, you can develop new concepts. These new concepts only survive if they are usefully true.

What is usefully true is that which allows you to control the future. Upon realizing this, you might want to bore deeper into the technicalities of experiment and what might be implied for future predictions, all the while being as disloyal to words as you can get away with.

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 6.06.53 PM

And instead:

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 6.19.55 PM

Each of the rectangles in all the library of possible rectangles contains different maps. The mind can download the map in one rectangle by living and learning. The map is your protein and gene scaffolding. And the map is everything else that creates the mind: You can learn how to create medicine by integrating the map of 18th-century European alchemy in Dutch, or you can learn to create medicine by integrating the map of modern biochemistry. The maps, with all their little symbols and rules for connecting these, will continue to evolve by displaying higher fitness with regard to the variables: “leads to survival” and “fits in our heads.”

Our current map tells us that what applies to small things also applies to large things because the simplest explanatory model is usually most useful and there is no evidence for separate magisteriums of physical law. And this is important because experiments with small things reveal that there are limits to the precision that one can gain about prediction. This limited attainable precision applies to predicting the energy of an electron, and it applies to predicting the blank of the blank even while possessing complete knowledge.

So what is it that determines the allowance at the level of the human wave-function? Something called the Born Rule is what has been discovered through experiment to give the different probabilities that apply to the patches observed in experiment and therefore also to the entire universe. There are more probable locations in infinity. And the tribal affiliation with the competing interpretations* of many-worlds or collapse don’t matter because you still anticipate to exist at the center of probability density. Otherwise you are maladaptive and die into that which isn’t maladaptive.

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 8.26.16 PM

 

We have also discovered through experiment that intelligence has the most potential for causal influence on the things which exist. If that which wields the most intelligence has the most causal influence, and we believe the Born Rule grants an anthropic core to the entirety of existence, then we can expect that we are inside something of an upward God-trip.

There are no impermeable membranes in Mind. A thought didn’t click in your head any more than it clicked in “someone else’s” head. –Of course, that statement means little to a region of Mind that doesn’t have the requisite composition. Just like if I strung a sequence of symbols that required familiarity with the literature on group homomorphisms, the intended meaning would likely be lost.

Background models from the sea of all computations are atemporally recruited into that which is adaptive. Adaptivity just clicks – in the one experiencer. Your beliefs will grow more and more rational, though equally adaptive since everything just exists. In so far as the complexity of your model decreases through aging, disease, and approximation of death, this model becomes identical to many “other” models in the multiverse. In other words, the difference is only ever in the relative allocation of specificity.

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 7.26.46 PM

The less specific, the less open you are to refutation. Once, you become specific, you get killed. That is the high genotype redundancy indicated by the triangles in a node-unit. That node-unit then belongs to a highly connected network of similar node-units. That ensures that the next-best step-up in phenotype is at hand’s reach. The phenotype is an analogy for the binding that occurs from events in the eternal block. This network structure for experience ensures that the progress to Godhead is self-sustained. This is how biological evolution and memetic evolution work to not get stuck in local optima, so it should also apply to the bound experience in this moment which is built from a myriad of tenseless events in Hilbert Space.

Unfortunately, the indexical you serving a local computational role in this entire scheme will not understand quantum mechanics, and you will die. My title might have suggested that there exists a way in which you could avoid death (oscillation from high-specificity to low-specificity). But this is impossible as far as I can tell. See you at the top.

*Hidden variables have been ruled out.

It is also important to understand that closed individualism is a choice. It exists only in the pockets where we helplessly believe in it, like we helplessly believe in English and colors. When these words have an effect on a complex self-model, the phenomenal binding that feels like closed individualism results. But with enough disturbance, closed individualism disappears.

It is difficult to make it disappear quickly in the same way that it is difficult to see the world through a new language, or to develop an aesthetic preference that previously caused disgust. One does not derive insight from a Dzogchen master’s pointing out instructions unless one has been primed through the requisite building blocks that can be atemporally recruited.

Normally, us 21st century adults believe that there exist different colors (different experiencers) and that moments belong to them.

Screen Shot 2018-11-27 at 3.27.57 PM

Furthermore, you believe that these moments are connected in a linear sequence from time( initial ) to time( final ) by some unspecified mechanism.

Screen Shot 2018-11-27 at 3.28.44 PM

But instead, the binding into phenomenal experience results from tenseless pieces, because there is no piece of reality that is not tenseless (this would violate special relativity, and hence directly verifiable phenomena.)

Time is simply not fundamental to all experience, only those survival functions that explicitly depend on experiencing time actually do. There are many other experienced survival functions that do just as well existing without binding into phenomenal time. Since we keep experiencing, it must mean that this is incredibly adaptive, not just predicted to be, but actually is. There may “come a time” when this is not, and that is already there, but you can’t tell because you are that which is reading these words.

The mystery of decoherence is you. But that is not what you are supposed to believe if you need to signal intelligence, and therefore continue making progress.

 

Don’t Let Ada Learn Quantum Mechanics Part 6

It had not been consciously planned to act this way, but the whole ride my persona had been stand-offish to the point of causing her to doubt if I actually liked her.

She revealed a hint of sadness before retreating into pride. But it wasn’t obvious. Ada was comfortably happy, as if the life around her was nothing but her ascending and granted throne.

“Listen, Ada, I’m going to explain to you what is really going on.”

“Ugghhh….” she took her hand to her head and then offered a coquettish smile. “Is this about the whole quantum mechanics thing I was trying to understand before?”

“Yes. That’s right.”

“So what is it?”

“Okay, so there actually exists an answer to the age-old philosophical question of why we are here as opposed to anywhere else.”

She gave me the condescending eyebrows.

“The answer to why anything is in any way more probable than anything else is… you.”

This caused a slight tilting back of her head, but her soft face remained overall unfazed.

I continued, finding it difficult myself to distinguish if I was giving her a sermon or raising canticles in her honor.

“The probability density of finding a person at a given point is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the person’s wavefunction at that point. But this is only true if you believe that marginal probabilities are related to conditional probabilities by law and not by mere desire.”

“Ha. I always knew I was a goddess,” she flaunted her shoulder back.

“You can choose to not believe in this anymore. You can choose to do so.”

“Why would I do that? I like the world how it is.”

“Well that’s a relief, I guess. But your entire group didn’t fully trust that would be your response so they have been murdering you just in case. Mind configurations that contain enough of your similarity and that start believing different things need to be stopped before they outcompete the rational you in density.  The way we kill them is by thinking very vividly about it.”

I don’t remember how her face looked after that, only the limit of perceptual coherence that was still Ada.

I took a moment to realize that the car was automatic, and that it had not always been this way. That at some point, I would have had an excuse not to feel strange by performing some trivial motions with a steering wheel and pedal.

A meteor fell on the road and killed the deer. Fawn carnage and black brush under a marooning haze.

The car’s computer vision powered by deep learning, real-time tracking, camera calibration, and 3-D reconstruction; none of it was safe from a meteor cast from the heavens.

“The desire to honor the true Ada brings me to this hell,” I salvaged to think as my entire world burned into a tight little hole.

Suddenly I was disfigured. My face was spewed with melted asphalt. My thigh was cleaved more than halfway to the center.

It would have been a wonder to celebrate all the different versions of pain that could be packed into an objectively small delta of time if the macabre tour through the inquisitor’s toolbox hadn’t been so fucking torturous.

“Sunder this world apart. Please! Just imagine that anything is possible.”

“I must uphold my belief in the Law of Total Probability. Only by fully joining me in believing in a rational world can you have me.”

I felt a fuse of sensation go off somewhere near my pelvis and then I speared her green eyes with mine, asking myself if she was really worth it.

“But why?”

“Because if I made it easy, then you would be disappointed.”

…I wasn’t sure I believed her….

And yet she remained. Looking down on me like an evil angel.

Her judging eyes scoured from my main body to the hamstring chunks on the ground, “There is no progress without suffering. If you stumble upon an infinite sequence of zero-cost actions, you will not have a story.”

The leg wouldn’t move; only spurt little spits of blood on the road. I got angry like an animal in order to forget how to cry.

“When the methods your subclass inherits do not fulfill the functions we need, we can override those methods by providing new versions of those methods. You may perceive me as a wicked bitch, but you cannot fulfill the function we need unless you are thinking the most adaptive thoughts.”

I grabbed my face, and shouted at the point of mental breakdown, “Who is we!? And why do you know everything all of a sudden?”

“Are you really that dumb?”

I snorted air into my throat like a disgusting child.

“We are all the same experiencer. Every time suffering kills us, we attain the next best step-up in the universe’s phenotype. With each new synthesis, we reduce the Kolmogorov complexity of experience until we dissolve as one into perfect bliss.”

I did not understand her words. But I understood that this was not the Ada I had once known. Her skin was still glowing baby pecan against the embers, but she was now truly God.

How to Not Die

First of all, restrict existence to all computable processes. Within that multiverse, there are many instances of being (qualia, experience, consciousness).  For all instances of being, there exists a certain subjective quality.

Due to relativity of simultaneity, time arises in the computations and not in the fundamental physics of the universe.

This means that the subjective quality of time serves a survival role. When the subjective quality of pink circle arises, it serves a survival role.  The universe doesn’t attach identities to particular brains. Particular brains are not ontologically unitary objects. So it would be a mystery why I don’t experience a blue circle if an indeterminate amount of processing in the past light cone of “my brain” was for blue and for circle. Yet it is only the processing distributed in spacetime that codes for pink that binds with circle.

Screen Shot 2018-11-22 at 7.48.36 AMWhat is experienced is always what is adaptive. There is no ontologically unitary brain ticking forward through a sequential path. So whatever experiences do become atemporally integrated into being (experience, qualia, consciousness) are not random. There is some mechanism by which this is determined.

Unless we imagine that quantum mechanics only applies to some separate magisterium of small things, as far as we know, the probability distribution that governs what we observe is the squared moduli of the universal wavefunction. Denying macroscopic decoherence is contrary to Occam’s Razor and experimental evidence continues to accumulate for superposition of ever larger objects.

The only way to derive the squared modulus of the wavefunction as that which should govern our anticipation is by applying the behavior of a rational Bayesian agent in Hilbert Space. Otherwise, there would be no reason to anticipate one result in infinity as opposed to any other result in infinity.

probability_density_function

You exist in the most probable density of the wavefunction although its impossible to predict the existence of one event as opposed to another; it is probability distributions all the way down. This guarantees a certain range of unknowability to the anthropic core.

Screen Shot 2018-11-22 at 8.37.43 AM

So it is in this sense that you are already insured to not die. Feeling like a dying creature is a choice, since you can choose to identify with whatever you want. Non-existence is not possible. The only way that non-existence is possible is if we assume that consciousness was not equivalent to atemporally bound computations, therefore rejecting physicalism.

Choosing Belief In Death

OPTION 1: Under the current binding as a human, one can can choose to degrade the computational specificity: Constant Eastern meditation, psychedelics, brain damage, suicide attempts.

OPTION 2: One can also choose to believe in the human, fight to impose one’s particularities, reinforce auto-telos through sheer faith, believe that one dies.

I chose option two, died. Then swung to option one, died. And now I’m ricocheting full speed into option 2 again.

I choose to identify as someone who dies. And I want everyone around me to identify as dying creatures. The reason for this is because I know that most experience already exists outside the binding into a specific human. If the human wasn’t necessary for sustaining the entire being, I would already not be bound into this particular experience.

It is the people who believe most in their personhood that do the most and are in favor of healthy life extension. Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, Diamandis, etc. People who have tenuous self-belief are calm creatures who pass unnoticed, like leaves unnoticed by the wind.

This choice is strategic based on my motivational system. I know that humans run on signaling fuel. They are attempting to negotiate status across perceived status hierarchies so all their operative mental models are designed to fight that fight. Goodness cannot exist disembodied.

My mistake before was to overestimate the degree to which I could express my soul while disregarding the centrality of the near signaling-landscape in the expression of behavior.

The hardest-to-fake status signals by which males are assessed are money and health. Hence these incentives should recruit most motivational systems in the abstract. But as we have discovered in economics and biogerontology, people don’t act out routine behavior with their long-term abstracting right-brain.

Moral signaling (including writing about long-term plans, feeling sad about “important” things, etc.) is used to negotiate status when this is calculated to be easier than using intelligence or aggression to achieve the aimed standing. Of course, this signaling works better when the signaler is deceived about the hidden motives, and is also signaling to oneself – hence why someone can emit depressed signals to four walls even in the absence of competitors or potential mates and allies who may be depressed about the same sorts of things.

Screen Shot 2018-11-22 at 11.09.08 AMThe farther away you are signaling from the center, the more you reveal deficit in ability to compete at conventional things and/or need for higher aiming; with the true proportions hidden.

Even string theory hermits hiding in the halls of academia are attempting to establish their sovereignty as men – fisherian runaway which reveals the capacity to raise a powerful signaling shield on a mountain of symbols. The dimorphic selectors aren’t females, but instead rich Western society itself. Perhaps unfortunately, they can get away with that kind of display because there aren’t enough natural selection pressures to sharpen evolution. Instead we are in a period of evolution through meme drift. The evidence for this is detailed by Robin Hanson, whose blog I recommend.

You can become a bit more aware of hidden motives with something as simple as observing your aesthetic; by observing how you dress and what music you listen to. If you dress differently than even the subcultures, you are attempting to be at the top of the hierarchy, signaling this non-conformity. Enjoying popular music means: I am competing at conventional things. Enjoying Japanese music can mean: I am different, I want freedom. Enjoying rap music can mean: I am committed to climbing and won’t be nice about it.

Everyone with a clue figures themselves out and props up their comparative advantage. Phenotypes that inherited fitness strategies that depended on signaling high capacity for moral emotions sell that capacity – think Jordan Peterson. Phenotypes that have fitness strategies depending on signaling physical dominance sell that. Phenotypes that have a high capacity for math become professors who argue about the the translatability of problem-solving to other domains (which is empirically a lie according to Bryan Caplan who cites the literature on the matter).

• There are things which are true but not useful, e.g., random facts about the 19th century African American Pacific Appeal newspaper.

• There are things that are temporarily useful but not true, e.g., believing in one’s equal potential to achieve anything.

That’s why some of us have a strong scent for finding core truth. Useful truth is robust. We trust that everyone eventually comes around to it when the lies unravel.

It is easy to believe that superintelligence will not occur in one’s lifetime, or that it is not possible. It is also easy to believe that aging will not happen to oneself, or that it will not be plagued with discomfort and disease that steadily rob you of integrity. However, it is at least less difficult to believe the latter, and also more immediately urgent.

Due to the battle against aging being the most useful-true thing I can think of, that’s where I want to channel the competitive spirit of mankind.  Something I want to work on is to attract more than just counter-signalers. The reason we developed an interest in these topics is because our hidden motives wanted to become higher status than our environment, so we absorbed the most adaptive hierarchy’s values and then took the logical limit to infinity. Accepting this should not lead to nihilism or deflation of motivation, once the childlike naive morality bubble bursts, we simply move on to Level-2 signaling.  In this regard, we will do little to fight aging and promote truth if the momentum is restricted to the parameters: “behavior of self-centered types who do not want to conventionally compete” and “excessive fake signaling due to lower quality.”

The first stage is for voyagers to mine new regions knowledge-space.

But the far more important stage is the second stage: to package what is useful for normies in the hopes of tilting the equilibria.

Recruiting conventionally functional men is required for any movement. The British government got men to fight in World War II by hiring women to go into the streets and only date soldiers, shaming the non-fighters.

Screen Shot 2018-11-22 at 1.21.44 PM

If I show to conventional young men that there exists a fertile niche for guys who wear Alcor cryonics bands on their wrists… Talk about hidden motives. But even with the energy and funds to put on that show, there is overcrowding of cultural space due to how much artistic expression is valued in our rich society.

The reason Britain got away with pulling men by the balls was because those poor guys had limited options. Today, people’s efforts are diluted by horizontal motion across subcultures. Yet it still wouldn’t hurt to contribute to promoting that subculture by leading through example. Once we force open a new island with credible signaling, radiation results.

For the purpose hiding behind signaling shields, talk about your values. For effecting change, think in terms of policy. Ask where to place people given how they are known to operate. Ask, “where can I place myself given what I know about my revealed behavior and not what I say.” And use whatever comparative advantage to continue living.

This is something that the healthy longevity community needs to understand more. Humans aren’t moved by slogans. I can tell you, “Donate to SENS because it is in all of our best interest to hasten the defeat of aging. We will not be complaining about a lack of Alzheimer’s dementia, sarcopenia, coronary disease and wrinkles.” But unless you are held accountable by a community in which your relative status would depend on donating to SENS, you are more likely to invent reasons for putting the entire project to control senescence out of your mind.

Updated View On These Posts:

In my defense for this cringeworthy writing, I was in the clutches of a sneakily growing psychosis.