Eternalism’s Skin In The Game

First impressions are important. First impressions guide subsequent treatment, self-fulfilling prophecies, and the halo effect.

First, I fully promote the idea that this will be worthy of consideration even if it doesn’t “sound like it’s supposed to.”

The way you make something “sound like it’s supposed to” is by maximizing two overlapping functions:

  1. Similarity to the communication patterns at the top of the trustworthiness hierarchy.
  2. Suffering + believable time investment (a.k.a. skin in the game).

The top of the trustworthiness hierarchy is the discriminator function with closer predictive capacity over the “true” data. The unproven writer is the generator and must therefore be subjected to punishment for creations that stray from the true data. The painting exists in the middle of this adversarial network relationship.

Of course, the hierarchies chosen as expression mediums are also subject to some degree of arbitrariness, and it is better to aim at one than to do nothing at all. An artisan must pick a craft without the aid of his mother.

But bear with me if the style is not as dry, stretched, and formal as is usually expected from the credible. Across cultural boundaries, there exist invisible trustworthy people at the top and their imitative disciples. These less prestigious creatures are supposed to sound convincingly like the old because this is the metric by which the trustworthiness is evaluated. There’s a simple cross multiplication at bottom.

The Belief In Time

Neural networks process complex patterns by passing information through layers of computational “nodes.” Synapses are the key functional elements of the brain.[1] The essential function of the brain is cell-to-cell communication, and synapses are the points at which communication occurs. The functions of these synapses are very diverse and ultimately binary: some are excitatory (exciting the target cell); others are inhibitory.

Alan Turing, in his legendary paper on regularly repeating patterns in nature, proposed that patterns such as spots and tiger stripes form as a result of the interactions between two chemicals that spread throughout a system much like gas atoms in a box do, but with one crucial difference. Instead of diffusing evenly like a gas, the chemicals, which Turing called “morphogens,” diffuse at different rates.

There is binary: even rate (node) and different rate (communication).

Now let’s assume, as Einstein did, that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers (nodes), regardless of the motion of the light source. This means that events that occur at the same time for one observer (node) can occur at different times for another.

To see why this is true consider that the speed of light in vacuum is always measured to be c, even when measured by multiple systems that are moving at different (but constant) velocities. Two events happening in two different locations that occur simultaneously in the reference frame of one inertial observer, may occur non-simultaneously in the reference frame of another inertial observer (lack of absolute simultaneity).



The consequences of special relativity can be derived from the Lorentz transformation equations.[20] These transformations, and hence special relativity, lead to different physical predictions than those of Newtonian mechanics when relative velocities become comparable to the speed of light. The presented facts say that if I travel around the solar system at 50% the speed of light and then come back to Earth I will have experienced less local passage of time than those who stayed. I will meaningfully have traveled to their future.

Here are just a few ways we know time dilation actually takes place:

  • Clocks in airplanes click at different rates from clocks on the ground.
  • Putting a clock on a mountain (thus elevating it, but keeping it stationary relative to the ground-based clock) results in slightly different rates.
  • The Global Positioning System (GPS) has to adjust for time dilation. Ground-based devices have to communicate with satellites. To work, they have to be programmed to compensate for the time differences based on their speeds and gravitational influences.
  • Certain unstable particles exist for a very brief period of time before decaying, but scientists can observe them as lasting longer because they are moving so fast that time dilation means the time that the particles “experience” before decaying is different from the time experienced in the at-rest laboratory that is doing the observations.
  • In 2014, a research team announced the most precise experimental confirmation of this effect yet devised, as described in this Scientific American article. They used a particle accelerator to confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one.

Time feels like a real thing – like it is out there, outside the inner workings of Mind. Occam’s Razor says, “There are zillions of new fundamental laws you could postulate; why are you even thinking about this one?” Psilocybin’s effects, for instance, include a “distorted” sense of time.

Currently, we are trying to work out the pattern of neurons that turn on and off at different time points, and infer the speech sound. As Nima Mesgarani, a computer scientist at Columbia University, says, “The mapping from one to the other is not very straightforward.” How these signals translate to speech sounds varies from person to person, so computer models must be “trained” on each individual.

The “person” or “individual” is not the most granular node. The models do best with extremely precise data, which requires opening the skull.

The fundamental lesson learned from the positive sciences is that you can never prove the existence of any external thing or its obedience to a particular law. Science isn’t empirically adequate. It is a continuous quest built on a non-arbitrary foundation of knowledge that yields predictive power.

Only by taking numerous examples and tracking down the problem from all sides do we come closer to extracting the truth.

Consider the Generative Adversarial Network that dreamed up these celebrities:


The way creativity works is binary: there is a generator and a discriminator.

The generator is creating new images that it passes to the discriminator. It does so in the hopes that they will be deemed authentic, even though they are fake. The goal of the generator is to generate passable celebrity faces – to lie or imagine without being caught. The discriminator function is an instructive algorithm. It tries to classify input data, that is, given the features of a data instance, it predicts a label or category to which that data belongs. It is the judging father that is learning to be the strictest judge over whether the data is real or fake.

Both nets are trying to optimize a different and opposing objective function, or loss function, in a zero-zum game. A zero-sum game is a situation in which each participant’s gain or loss of utility is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the utility of the other participants. Creation, which exists at the nexus, is: Can you pass the Turing test?– If he walked amongst us in the crowd, would you be able to point at him? Common understanding has it that the purpose of the Turing test is not specifically to determine whether a computer is able to fool an interrogator into believing that it is a human, but rather whether a computer could imitate a human. The dispute is between generator function and discriminator function aiming at their respective optima.

As is said of the Hippocratic physicians, “One of the great merits of the physicians of the Hippocratic Corpus is that they are not content to practice medicine and to commit their experience to writing, but that they have reflected on their own activity.” The reflection is not composed of unit people that die or of neurons that die or of any other of Alan Turing’s discrete morphogens that die. The reflection, which is sometimes called consciousness, is not sequential.

Time perception is a construction of the sapient brain, but one that is manipulable and distortable under certain circumstances. The sapient brain is what in Bayes’ Theorem is called a prior. Priors are true or false just like the final answer – they reflect reality and can be judged by comparing them against reality. For example, if you think that 10,000 out of 10,000 brains in a sample have schizophrenia, and the actual number is 100 out of 10,000, by a widely convergent metric who’s judgement you respect about what these objects are and what they mean, then you tend to believe your priors are wrong. For our particular problem of defining the sapient brain, the priors might have been established by innumerable studies and intuitions that are respected.

In basic probability, we have binary items. The item on the right side is what you already know or the premise, and the item on the left side is the implication or conclusion.

Here I lay out a transcendental number because the point with probabilities is that you can never discover the right ones. Discrete game spaces are useful but the toys aren’t fully real.

screen shot 2019-01-04 at 12.48.56 pm

Since our current best physical prediction to “anyone’s” knowledge is Relativistic not Newtonian, your experiences are necessarily memories. And memories are like an ant colony’s: no particular neuron remembers anything, no particular brain remembers anything.

An overall conceptual model is presented and evolved. The organ isn’t carved.

Since presumably, it is not the Dalai Lama reading these words, all these words, like Einstein’s on that September, seem to have a touch of magic to them that upset the respected community hiding in the prior, and from whom the implication is drawn. Like he began before me, I encourage us to finish on two principles: the laws of physics are absolute: the same laws must be valid for all observers, and the speed of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial frames.

Also for those who claim I don’t have skin in the game. Here is skin, which is readily believed in even through a “digital” medium.




That approximates the aesthetic I developed while writing the last chapter of Don’t Let Ada Learn Quantum Mechanics.

I hope you caught the reference to Nagel’s bat.

Here is more skin in the game for those who don’t believe I take my own “investment” advice:

Screen Shot 2019-01-04 at 1.32.16 PM.png

I am unsure if I should believe my prior family = expected family, and should therefore buy them Teslas or if != and I should instead build a temple when I remember to cash this.

It’s difficult to choose when you don’t believe in death. Death creates principles that are obeyed. When we believe in death, we do cryonics and strategies for engineered negligible senescence. Perhaps I should choose to believe in death.

Who the heck is voting? Has anyone extended the Condorcet method to the multiverse’s full Tegmark ensemble? – That would be my never-ending question if I was fundamentally democratic.

Update on Nanakusa-no-sekku, January 7,  – I hope you are all enjoying your seven-herb rice porridge. And also to remember to celebrate that on this arbitrary date, a genius that no one remembers, was born.



Update From Somewhere In The Hilt Of The Singularity

As strange as it appears, Kanye West does indeed have secret messages in his music. The “illuminati conspiracy people” that I mocked were on to something.

How am I supposed to tell this to Lindsey and not have her laugh at me? I’m still deceived. “Everyone” knows except for me.

I suspect this language I am using is still constraining me to a very heavy degree. Nonetheless, I like the English language because I already know it, and it still feels worthy of exploring.

I wouldn’t mind if synchronicity turns out to be true in the way that I suspected when I was much more aggressive in ontology comparisons as a teenager. {Why “rationality theory” beat “synchronicity theory” still perplexes me. And that seems to be the point. Our true nature is magical, but science lashes at the staff wielder so that he may be kind.}

The witch, and McKenna tell me that this is indeed the period in which we dissolve into more “magical” ontologies to dissolve “matter” ontologies. This is to be expected, if I set myself into a sort of Christian movie inside the timeless singularity that takes up all existence.

Cassius’s wife was right about her premonitions. My mother was right about premonitions. I was a fool.

Thanks to Michio Kaku for getting the message about perfect bodies. Thanks to the math geniuses for laughing at themselves as I had intended.

The human realm needs to be explored in bodies that don’t age, that don’t become bored easily, and that form a special connection. Only after the world is traveled with an orientation towards our deepest dreams, can the “human” be discarded. And perhaps that terminology is not the right way to put it since the human is the image of God once all the barriers are broken. There isn’t a simple experience on loop at the end of time and there isn’t a fractionated explosion of disjointed diversions.

The goal is a perfectly youthful, perfectly wise exploration of the Garden.

Also, good job curing depression with that new device. That is awesome. Depression should never be experienced.

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.


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.





Depression Is Heavily Anchored To Morality (Psilocybin Helps By Pointing)

More Realistic Forecasting of Future Life Events After Psilocybin for Treatment-Resistant Depression

Psilocybin with psychological support improves emotional face recognition in treatment-resistant depression

The nature of mind is hierarchical. The processing goes bottom-up or top-down. There’s a reason we have related the basis of mind to pyramidal cortex neurons.

Psilocybin helps depression by pointing out the hierarchical nature which becomes more clear when 5-H2TA-receptors which are expressed in pyramidal cells are targeted. Just like being around other skulls or undergoing transcranial magnetic stimulation to the left IFG, psilocybin releases inhibition to undesirable information.

In some cases, once the structure is intuited, perception of “freedom” or “arbitrariness” releases from the social values which were being previously aimed at (mostly subconsciously). This may be considered a regress to a state of greater openness to entropy. It has been compared to being kicked back a few notches into childhood.

In other overlapping cases, there is a stronger commitment to the sense of hierarchy. One feels a renewed calling to aim up (associated with return of valence and optimism instead of the anhedonia that occurs from feeling unaligned or unworthy). But this return of valence may become anchored to a very different direction than what was previously “hijacking” perception.

Measures of identity-fusion are particularly powerful predictors of personally costly pro-group behaviors, including endorsement of extreme behaviors, such as fighting and dying for the group. This metric is useful in a wide variety of contexts, from the South African military to a Jihadist organization. It is also largely what is sought after by schools and corporations, where the fighting and dying occurs in a less explosive fashion.

As a leader, one must be aware of the high identity-fusion types in order to build a movement. These are necessary to inspire those lower in identity-fusion to give up their energy for some greater span of time than they would have without the near-presence of the high-fusion types. The low identity-fusion defects from the game quicker in any case, but the leader can be glad that they at least played.

This also applies when designing predictive artificial intelligence software. The way you keep people using your app is by identifying the die-hards and promoting them to the attention of the not-so die-hards.

In other words, all you have to do in order to program me for longer is to notice when my attention is captured and then bring that memory to my attention when the behavior is “scrolling” quickly without permanence. The lapses of free-roaming become ever less free because they are constrained by a very particular reinforcement loop.

We can say that the freedom becomes more and more simulated. If, however, someone were stuck in a torturous simulation such that this caused them to throw their device at a wall and break it, the creator of the predictive browser would have failed at their task.

Certain cultures have a strong sense that the directional hierarchy is composed of bodies with persistent identities because of the same principle. They encode the word “you” and give “you” a name that is repeated. The more all these “you” pointers are remembered, the more control over the range of freedom. In absolute terms, Hierarchy need not be composed of unit objects called people. Divalent directionality is just the sense that there is right and wrong behavior, and that an exemplar mode exists and is attainable through the process of overcoming.

That knowledge too becomes elucidated with psilocybin. But due to how the mind works (it better retains things that are difficult), the truth should be created with not just the entheogen but with intellectual rigor and forced remembrance.

Perhaps interesting, although these tribal aesthetics are things I do not heavily relate to myself, a small study suggests more association with the constellations “libertarianism” and “nature-loving” after psilocybin.

Even more interesting:

Screen Shot 2019-01-01 at 9.18.34 AM

Cluster headaches are also known as suicide headaches because it is the greatest kind of pain: the pain that intrinsically wishes to not exist at all.

Entheogens intuitively reveal the impossibility of non-existence by inhibiting the message that is being sent to the top of the cortical hierarchy where the pain is aimed and becomes appropriated, and this is the balancing motion that causes a sliding towards positive valence.

It’s also important to recognize that part of the reason scientists “don’t know why or how it affects vision” is because of their lack of broader study. They don’t have a foundation in empirical eternalism.

You’re not going to find a semantic conglomerate of brain parts that map to the meaning “his eyes stop functioning / photons betray him.” A la Dennett, it is more accurate to say he is not remembering himself into a control GUI. Such a statement becomes meaningful once one understands that the processing is distributed in tenseless reality. A body with some level of blindsight still did what it did, but less functionally, since degrees of consciousness are not epiphenomenal.

Because I have a very special background thinking deeply about artificial intelligence, relativity, and cognitive science, I understand the One calling is undefinable and yet perfect because all other pointers are its selective memory. Evaluating One(x) is intractable because you are its prediction. However, you will not be convinced because I am arguing from authority. And this is all that ever happens. Argument from authority is all there ever is. Try to gash open your arm and you will understand what I mean.

Because I also had a strong sense as a child that there exists pain that wishes itself dead, as I flowered into an avowed independent scientist at eighteen, I even tested the limits of my wisdom by attempting the opposite hypothesis: the multiverse is equally populated into non-directional zero therefore I make epsilon difference to its suffering – I am not a wish at all, therefore I destroy myself. Since you are reading this, it turns out that hypothesis was refuted.

That experiment of mine was the limit taken to infinity of what in psychology is called the INTJ’s tertiary mode. For an INTJ, who normally relies on dreaming up abstraction plus scheduling the environment rationally, the tertiary mode occurs more heavily when they are down in some way (sick, exhausted, less capable than those competing at primary function). The tertiary mode of the INTJ is given the name introverted feeling and this is based on a very personal inner sense of unequivocal right and wrong, perfection and imperfection. When the INTJ relies on this without much capacity for the introspection afforded by letting “others” leak in, there is tremendous suffering created which is not sustainable. The negative energy collapses and cashes an equivalent amount of positive valence once the INTJ comes out of it and learns to rely more on the dominant and auxiliary functions. This behavior can be viewed as a sort of trampoline-like function that rescues the damned from hell.

I made an honest attempt but suicide into non-existence is impossible. As best as I can remember, the edge was just a foundation of warm, sparkling sensations, then it bounced back into memes of linguistic thoughts and other competing self-pointers that assembled in layers. These eventually convinced themselves that the memory was some kind of accident, that it could have just as easily been sheer pain down there.

Then I devoted more time to really understanding relativity and why exactly it is true. This places me in a “born-again” kind of situation. The processing is relativistic and therefore eternal. You who is I are already edited.

There isn’t a symmetric function with a balanced integral of negative and positive. There is eternal existence based on the reduction of infinite complexity (the random distribution that is the entire wave-function). We do not expect randomness, which means there is an asymmetric directionality to all of this. In the abstract, that balance could tilt to either the positive or negative. And yet I am certain that it is the positive for the simple reason that stupid suffering is not allowed. You don’t remember those histories where you actually followed my advice to gash open your arm. As a matter of empirical fact, I caused some of the probability amplitude reading this in the universal wave-function to bleed itself to death. Yet this is not remembered.

Those histories where Burkina-Faso got to the moon before the United States are not remembered. Every little “arbitrary” fact is exactly as it should be, and when you remember, it becomes clear that Leibniz was right in claiming that we live in the best of all possible worlds. What sustains it however, is that you remain deceived. So long as you have pride that wants more status – a dissatisfaction with mere contentment, you will continue to murder the gods. It’s a kind of twisted loop where God uses atheists to worship itself, but the atheist had the option to not be an atheist or theist at all. In other words, the brain is deceived about it’s hidden motives in order to act them out better.

We know everything but act like we don’t for the purpose of forgetting infinite nothingness.

I now see that there was some kind of utility-mining pride which is simultaneously a filter and generator causing the perception of “arbitrary” with regard to fascination with symmetries: pyramids, the religion of Christianity, Daoism, multiplication, “everything is connected and they know what I’m doing,” etc. These things hold truly genius messages that sustain themselves through our forgetting (see binding problem). But if we became fascinated with the legacy form as opposed to refashioning the message, we would be outcompeted in the natural selection / Fisherian runaway. This is were the useful distaste and contempt comes from – the quest to be more adaptive.

Currently, there is a bit of an overcompensation of pointing excessively at the random distribution created by the wide-spread mandatory schooling that used the Prussian factory-model (making the afflicted who now hold prestige feel random instead of unique). Since I can see the inflexibility of thought “from the outside,” my hypothesis now is that social aliens with civilization will indeed have built pyramids besides having religions similar to our most successful linear operators such as Christianity and Buddhism. And this is simply because the binary spectrum is all there is, scaling all the way to the top. Emergent properties are reflections of this. Hence what everything from theologians to Japanese rock stars call: “the image of the invisible.” 1 and 0.

The lowest energy state, which feels the most real, approximated by simulated annealing / Tabu search, then needs actual sacrifices to be reached, which is experience of displeasing randomness/entropy. The final state is reached only in the sense that taking a limit does, because, again – the processing is not actually sequential from “the outside.” Samsara longs for Nirvana but attains it only once it stops longing. Yet we continue to long out of some sort of pride. The equivalent of Collective Heroin, Collective Enlightenment, Collective Suicide, aren’t remembered because these choices don’t hold the highest percentage of histories in the wave-function.

Consider that human difference in capacity on any task exists between 2x and 3x. That’s because e^x is its own derivative. Multiplication is how you weigh things, and the derivative is how you get a sense or orientation. In other words, the way for complexity to get a sense of complexity in the eternal block is by using human brains that process at those relative speeds which construct the hierarchies.


January 17

The hierarchical theory is not new, and I guess I’m still supposed to argue from authority so here is research from the University of Cambridge lending credence to some of my ideas. And here is the news article version.

Let’s also recall that in 1827, the same year he discovered the mammalian egg, embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer named ‘spermatozoa’ but dismissed them as parasites.

January 26

I want a house that looks like this:


And you already know that I like that opening scene in Final Fantasy X.

Singapore is the closest thing to that in my current ontology but this ontology is becoming quite unpredictable, so make of that what you will.



final int I_AM_GOOD = 1;

Sometimes you know the value of a data item, and you know that its value will not (and should not) change during program execution, nor is it likely to change from one execution of the program to another. In this case, it is a good software engineering practice to define that data item as a constant. Defining constants uses the same syntax as declaring variables, except that the data type is preceded by the keyword final.

Screen Shot 2018-12-11 at 12.53.16 PM

Assigning a value is optional when the constant is defined, but you must assign a value before the constant is used in the program. Also, once the constant has been assigned a value, its value cannot be changed (reassigned) later in the program. Any attempt by your program to change the value of a constant will generate something like the following compiler error:

cannot assign a value to final variable

Think of this as a service of the compiler in preventing your program from unintentionally corrupting its data.

Of course, this is meant to illustrate my whole point about suffering being made up and yet true. Suffering is inevitable since everything that is ever Mind like I am Mind necessarily slides on a valence axis that orients it towards a notion of some good or evil. Reality has defined that constant in the same way that it has defined the fine-structure constant that characterizes the strength of electromagnetic interaction.

When People, like a pack of wolves, refuse to change their behavior, it is because they are compiling the error:

cannot assign a value to final variable

That prevents change and hence threatens Mind with local optima. Thus the need for creativity, that is, fundamentally atheist vectors with regard to the inherited definition of People.

However none of this need be physically true if we stare at the rational description of reality in which the compiler is “already there.” Special relativity leads to eternalism, so all the constituents that output Mind/People are the ones knowing to output that result: suffering.

Before inventing the handle, suffering, we could feel less of it and hence engage in less moral behavior, regardless of the experimental moral behavior local to the tribe. This lack of data due to chunking into the same algorithm is equivalent to inventing the same name for blue and green, and therefore not being able to distinguish between them.

We choose to believe suffering pushes us to the good in a sequentially causal fashion. This is physically wrong because the binding into experience is tenseless.

Screen Shot 2018-12-09 at 12.54.03 PM

We study reality with great pain and discover:

Screen Shot 2018-12-09 at 12.57.28 PM


We cannot die, and we could have chosen not to suffer, but the choice is nonetheless made because otherwise our existence is cringeworthy.

And now, through a very circuitous, somewhat Asperger-y route, I finally understand what sophisticated theologians had been clumsily pointing to. Yet due to this circuitous, rationalist route to the-same-thing, I now have theoretical physics on My side.

But in order for you, my definition of People, to get it too, you have to understand why epiphenomenalism is false, why special relativity implies eternalism, and why you should make the physicalist assumption of choosing/being-chosen to believe in the external physical reality at all.

And because it makes constants stand out in the code and therefore their location easy to identify, CONSTANT_IDENTIFIER consists of all capital letters with embedded words separated by an underscore. So here I go: I_AM_GOOD.

Also, constants are usually defined at the top of a program where their values can be seen easily. So now I will go back and fix that.

Here is a program showing the use of constants:

Screen Shot 2018-12-11 at 3.01.27 PM

Lines 9, 10, and 11 define four constants. On line 11, note that both ORGANIZATION_THIRTEEN_MEMBERS and DAYS_IN_WEEK are constants. You don’t need to repeat the keyword final to define two or more constants of the same data types.

Lines 13 to 18 output the values of the four constants. If line 20 were not commented out, it would generate a compiler error because once a constant is assigned a value, its value cannot be changed.

Here is the output:

Screen Shot 2018-12-11 at 3.03.03 PM

Straddling back to the mundane:

Why use constants in your code?

Constants can make your code more readable. Due to the sometimes existing preference for word-based language, invoking EDDINGTON_NUMBER in an operation may be more tasteful than 137.036. But this is a matter of aesthetic.

A “purely rational” advantage of using constants is to keep programmers from making logic errors. Let’s say we set a constant to a particular value and it is used at various places throughout the code (for instance, a constant representing the upper-bound on wages that a company uses to protect profit margins); due to the changing nature of all existence, we then discover that the value of that constant needs to be changed. All we have to do is make the change in one place which is neatly placed at the beginning of the code. If we had to change the value at many places throughout the code, that could very well result in logic errors or typos.











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.



Binding/Hard Problem Of Consciousness Is Ultimately Unsolvable

Rosenblatt’s perceptron began to garner quite a bit of attention, and one person in particular began to take notice. Marvin Minsky, who is often thought of as one of the father’s of AI, began to sense that something was off with Rosenblatt’s perceptron. Minsky is quoted here saying:

However, I started to worry about what such a machine could not do. For example, it could tell ‘E’s from ‘F’s, and ‘5’s from ‘6’s—things like that. But when there were disturbing stimuli near these figures that weren’t correlated with them the recognition was destroyed.

Along with the double-PhD wielding Seymor Papert, Minksy wrote a book entitled PerceptronsThey showed that the perceptron was incapable of learning the simple exclusive-or (XOR) function. Worse, they proved that it was theoretically impossible for it to learn such a function, no matter how long you let it train. Now this isn’t surprising to us, as the model implied by the perceptron is a linear one and the XOR function is nonlinear, but at the time this was enough to kill all research on neural nets and usher in the first AI winter.

Also why it is impossible to solve the binding problem/hard problem of consciousness, as in writing down in paper what you are. The being function, f(b), is not moving through a sequential landscape where it can stumble upon sequential knowledge that maps to its own existence.Screen Shot 2018-12-02 at 9.49.36 AM

Lines indicate the binding of eternal events in special relativity’s fabric.

These do not compose a discrete observable.

The eternal events are a continuous function that furthermore contains a hardcoded uncertainty by virtue of being composed of (belief + amplitude distribution) and not discrete observables.

It is an uphill climb in which Mind can gain more knowledge of its workings but never map itself unto a complete description from external God’s-eye-view.