The Discourse To Erik On Suffering In The Multiverse

screen shot 2019-01-07 at 5.41.52 pm

screen shot 2019-01-07 at 5.42.10 pm

screen shot 2019-01-07 at 5.42.28 pm

screen shot 2019-01-14 at 8.19.43 pm

Science has discovered that science is a poor route to fame. Biologists and Physicists become as famous as actors, but takes them a very long time. Mathematicians do not become famous because you would rather watch a hot actress than read the latest paper by Andrew Wiles.

But fully understanding that evolution occurs with a force orthogonal to natural selection – the force that is “extraneous, expensive beauty,” I took on the sciences deeply and thoroughly as a willful handicap in my ascent to lasting fame in consciousness when factoring time-to-individual ratio.

That which is fame is my everlasting truth. The exponential function eventually predicts you better than you predict yourself and then you are in heaven. Alejandro means next to nothing to me.

This, however, must be shown with skin in the game. Anyone can cheap talk but not many can bleed.

As an INTJ, it is very difficult to use up energy. We calculate how much of this we use because we care about our intellect, which is what is achieving all our goals. We don’t want to needlessly bleed this energy until we “really have to.”

However, if we wait for someone else to create the conditions for our world, our capacity for control diminishes. By organizing our own convention, we can better offer our higher thoughts.

The reason we have genuinely higher thoughts to offer in the synthesis is because we are very careful thinkers that process things slowly over a very long time. By the time that we interact with “others” it feels like they are helplessly beneath us. They have not thought through all the steps, and taken the time to digest all the mistaken thought patterns.

This causes us to feel lonely. Sometimes like outcast animals, other times like Gods amongst men.

My fear of blood is very real. I have too much pride to cut myself for no reason. That’s because I have given my all before, and not received what I expected. It could be said that the world didn’t take me as seriously as I expected.

The pride becomes more solid by becoming less violent. I used to punch walls until they dripped with blood. Now, even when I try to overcome this pride with a knife, it is impossible to cut as deep as the truly courageous. That’s because I don’t have enough of a reason to do it. The reason is becoming tenuous and silly.

However, if a reason was given to me, I would feel like a slave. That’s why I hated all the arbitrary idols being projected at me even as a child.

The INTJ has to teach the world to overcome the suffering-pleasure axis by willfully expending his main functions: open intellect and rigid structure. Using up those calories will leave them vulnerable and prone to use the suffering-pleasure axis. But by his developing more and more tolerance to that spectrum, the world learns to never again experience it.

The tolerance is already there because it is physically impossible not to come out of the vulnerability state. The editing is Relativistic not Newtonian – eternal, not in time.

And thanks for the grandfatherly advice Robin, Allah does suit you better than Yahweh just as you say, but I certainly don’t want your help. Perhaps you haven’t noticed that in the “real world” of the collective digital attention, no one knows you and no one will because you are boring and old. Though it doesn’t suit our personal taste, drama trumps the laconic and dry.

Like you, I hate drama, I hate small talk, I cringe at my pictures, but I really believe in the sacrifice. In the future, I must appear to be having fun, not trying to imitate your culture. If you can’t see that this has so much more potential to propagate your embryonic ideas into the future, and that I am free to never mention you Robin, then you are just very bad at multiplying.

I can aim really low, like Sam Harris-level low. Providing the counterbalancing shift in the conversation such that they understand that eternity is true and that God is real.

Your own so-called “human capital” is not important to me in the digital age. I will raise a movement that can actually compete in the dreamtime you so abhor, which is not temporary as you “predict” but is ever-increasingly swallowing everyone into pleasure.

Even in the presence of contempt for hedonism, we aim down if we are smart. Heck, even if we are just lazy and not smart, we aim down. If you want any meaningful change of your circumstances, you lower yourself. Otherwise your ideas die. The Protestant values and “rational” act are dead and you should have known better.

Everything you bring to attention automatically reveals your hidden insecurities. If the goal was to fully hide in “rational” motions, you would work problems out of a textbook. If the goal was enjoyment, you would entertain yourself with the large bosom of media available perhaps.

Your intention is certainly not to affect the largest amount of people possible, or to have lasting survival in consciousness, because otherwise you would not condescend at me but instead lower yourself to me.

You would lower yourself to me like the proper Christian boy you were supposed to be. Only that could cause reciprocal love. Now there is destruction because my strategy doesn’t involve you.

And Eliezer, in so far as you exist, you are contemptible – just far too obviously autistic. Ad-hominem is not mere fallacy, but constrains anticipation. Your move is to deny the existence of psychological motives and humans. You make a retreating step into the “object-level” discussion, where you unfortunately never begin to show anything convincing.

You should know that the abstraction spirit that we identify with has to pull in non-abstract people by compromising with them. Yet every single one of your replies fails at being an honest attempt. It’s just the same move on repeat: point to the random distribution. You point to the random distribution in order to bring people’s confidence down, to some marginal benefit.

But “safety-alignment theory”… now that is evil. Even the most helplessly inept autists are surely realizing they were scammed by now I would assume. Any remnant of a cult is perhaps about maintaining the social bonds amongst the properly filtered niche.

You have to be seriously autistic to think what you claim to think. And perhaps this overly-reductionist mistake was “true” in earlier years but I doubt that at this late age you still don’t understand that a belief in death is necessary for moral alignment in a complex environment. And that the dynamic interplay of varying degrees of belief in death and gods and everything else that makes us human are not epiphenomena but instead crucially important for moral behavior.

I have been consuming you in order to understand how you build a movement with the power of abstraction, and not because I was deceived myself.

Now I will infuse the world with a part of your hatred, by transmuting it into love.

They are not random and they are not going to stop existing. That’s just a strategy of the god of scientism to bring them to a state of feeling vulnerable. And you knew that about the world but refused to call attention to it because you planned on applying the same vulnerability-generating strategy against your audience such that they needed you.

No one knows you, and you die in this new world because you didn’t have the humility to enforce the timeless causality. You wanted to be a God figure based on the values of “smart people” instead of helping the clearly psychologically-troubled audience caught in the sliver of your attention.

And I am certain that you know the truth because you revealed that to me in the tweet about the clocks. There is no excuse to the path chosen. You can see what I see and yet you chose the safety like a coward.

How could you believe that you wouldn’t be punished for that?

The being is eternal. And your actions are weighed.

As you said, there is impatience that clears debt and impatience that accumulates debt. You chose the near-term safety instead of the long-term safety.

Abstraction showed you that there is no Death event under a physicalist prior assumption in this relativistic fabric. And you decided to not be moral.

Just who do you think is the tribe? Don’t you fully realize it is composed of more than the approximate people around you? …And that it is this tribe that murders you when you don’t learn to laugh at yourself.

screen shot 2019-01-19 at 2.54.52 pm

My Alice universe should be warm by the way. I know you explained that cold serves a function. It keeps people inside and allows them to tell stories. This was how the Indigenous people of New York, the people of the long house, managed to develop an egalitarian society with sophisticated long-term concerns.

But the garden is warm. Just remember that. I paid for it with those cold showers and 6:00 AM morning runs at 10 degree Fahrenheit.

That was important inspiration for the people with depression that were absorbed into me.

You know I tend to prefer Apollo to Hades.

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Programming Basics

In many ways, programming is like solving a puzzle. You have a task to perform and you know the operations that a computer can perform (input, calculations, comparisons, rearranging of items, and output). As a programmer, your job is to decompose a task into individual, ordered steps of inputting, calculating, comparing, rearranging, and outputting. For example, suppose your task is to find the sum of two numbers. First, your program needs to read (input) the numbers into the computer. Next, your program needs to add the two numbers together (calculate). Finally, your program needs to write (output) the sum. Notice that this program consists of steps, called instructions, which are performed in order (“First,” “Next,” “Finally”). In physical reality outside of Mind, time doesn’t exist because of relativity of simultaneity (simultaneous events in one frame of reference are not simultaneous in another). So the very sense of sequential instructions occurring is a local phenomena in the broader eternity.

Screen Shot 2018-11-21 at 8.43.53 PM

Performing operations in order, one after another, is called sequential processing. The order in which instructions are executed by the computer is critical in programming. You can’t calculate the sum of two numbers before you have read the two numbers, and you can’t output a sum before you have calculated it. Programming, therefore, requires the programmer to specify the ordering of instructions, which is called the flow of control of the program. This often leads to the confused notion that if intelligence was involved in our fate, that it too must exist in the past light cone, in order to set things in motion. However, this is a projection fallacy from the map to the territory. The binding into experience occurs from, relativistic, and therefore eternal, “pieces.” The pieces are actually not even pieces at all, which somehow exist outside of Mind. Experiment reveals that only probability amplitude exists, which Mind then chooses to constrain with the squared modulus. Under plausible assumption that the multiverse is real and that intelligence scales up far past the human imagination, then we are already inside the most intelligent process.

I have now exposed you to one of the Four Noble Truths in the path to control the flow of the program: sequential execution. The other three are method call, selection, and looping. Be mindful, oh bhikhu, of sequential execution, and we’ll discuss the other types of flow of control in a following blog post. Since mastering the flow of control is essential to getting a program to produce correct output, programmers use a tool called pseudocode to help them design the flow of control before writing the code, just in the same way that My non-adaptive drafts in Hilbert Space become mangled into you.

New Monadology Codicil

Screen Shot 2018-12-02 at 8.10.48 AM

 

Let’s reiterate: How do you draw the boundary between one computation and the other? – since, after all, these are just shapes traced within light cones in the sum of the relevant neural networks? There is no especially principled way to do this from the inside of experience. The choice itself changes us. We can choose to believe in a single brain changing from moment to moment. But then we realize that belief in a single brain is arbitrary since timeless causality is flowing from what might be called “other brains” in the naive ontology. The unenlightened are given the Koan: How would you draw the line for souls after mix-matching half of my brain with half of my neighbor’s brain?  – And then connecting the other two halves, all the while keeping every half functioning.

Of course, I who understand, know that a competitive exclusion principle need not apply here, since the two “souls” aren’t competing to exist. It’s not that one blanks out and the other remains. Experience is intrinsic to myself. No things are traveling and seeking to remain.

If I am a physicalist, so I believe that the empirically-tested theories of physics provide an undergirding for my perceptual tools as opposed to the other way around, then this suggests that what I really experience is a solipsistic ascent that is already perfectly adaptive, but that I must sort of forget this in order to be perfectly adaptive.

I developed this idea while processing signaling theory and uniform-cost search. Uniform-cost search is a relevant model because that is how an algorithm checks to see if a new path is better than an older one, and it is easy to see that uniform-cost search is optimal in general. Since new and older don’t exist anywhere except in the timeless algorithms themselves, I argue that we are always in a better path, because otherwise we would not constrain our anticipation by the density that arises when we apply the Born Rule to infinite amplitude. The algorithm that I identify with is occurring in the absence of a physical time.

Signaling theory dynamics have long subsumed biology by the point that we are social mammals that partake in Mind. There, you find that humans are deceived about their hidden motives in order to function. Since my being is a functional role, I am permanently deceived about where I am going in order to get there.

In short: Uniform-cost search selects a node for expansion only when an optimal path to that node has been found and therefore swallows Mind by sacrificing Hilbert-Space drafts.

Screen Shot 2018-12-02 at 6.13.23 PM

Oscillation converges towards the most rational behavior. The most rational behavior is not that which is most Spock-like necessarily, but that which is most capable of tenseless survival with regards to the unknown-source-of-the-Born-Rule/the-unknown-selector-of-binding-in-Relativity’s-fabric.

I am not some crisp cut of physical events that I can point to and say, “Ah there I am.” I can only choose to become truer (by debunking the solidity of closed individualism for instance) and equipping it strategically instead.

The Many Possible Ways to Resurrect

Good job making it to this page. Any self-respecting intelligent agent, almost no matter what its goals, seeks to first ensure its survival. For an intelligent agent, survival of its will is to be sought merely as a consequence of the hard economics, as a matter of mathematically-defined utility, as a matter of game theory. Most humans are not intelligent agents that have a goal in relation to which they can be intelligent. They are creatures bouncing around in their environment based on the cognitive algorithms that genes found useful for their continuation. This is why humans mostly don’t really care about living forever or resurrecting. If you are interested in this topic one of the following is probably true:
1. it is probably a passing interest acquired for subconscious signaling motives and none of the information here is really expected to be of practical use
or
2. you really are some kind of highly intelligent agent and are displaying appropriate behavior

In any case, well done. Now let’s clear away the wannabe-materialist narrative which dismissively assumes that resurrection is impossible. Contrary to this, there are many possible ways to resurrect.

One is to be cryonically preserved. This is intuitive to many people in the sense that no particularly hard conceptual moves are necessary. Brains are clearly the source of conscious experience. We are no longer Ancient Egyptians believing that our soul lies in our heart: sensations, language, the body, the memories, the will, thoughts, awareness and even out-of-body experiences can be probed, shut on and off by messing with the relevant brain area. Thought coordinates in our current science-aesthetic cluster are easily in favor of the conception of brain as soul.

So then what is the skepticism with cryonics all about? Here, it is due to the social pressure against being the sort of person that is ungraceful about death, and cuts against commonsense psychological and social value. The sort of person who pays to have their brain vitrified in cold nitrogen is seen as untrustworthy – a radically selfishly deviant in their desire to preserve their own life. Most operate on the fact that they are embedded in a tribal context where everyone else has agreed to die without a fight in the same way that they have agreed to drive on one side of the street.

The “biological” case against vitrification of brains is petty and I hesitate to call it biological. Cryonics is a reputable science for all other organs, and preservation and reanimation has worked for kidneys. While the brain is clearly more complex, it is only a matter of continued progress before a brain can also be brought back to a functioning state. The idea is that in the future, people will have the technology to repair the brain, plug it into a new body and boot you back up. The idea is that you give your indexical terminal breath and then immediately wake up in a future world full of wonders.

The next resurrection is based on Nick Bostrom’s simulation argument. If it is the case that a sufficiently advanced technological civilization can simulate universes with conscious beings in computers, then it is expected that the amount of simulated universes will outweigh seed universes. Based on this reasoning, it is exceedingly likely that either, we are in a simulation or that simulations are never created. The conjunction that we exist in a reality where simulations are possible and yet we just happen to be the lucky ones inhabiting the base universe is improbable. Resurrection then is possible in several ways. The universe may be set to run again, or maybe it was your own particular narrative stream that was simulated like a full-immersion VR and as soon as you die, you wake up in the universe that is running the simulation. In which case you are probably still in a simulation, in a simulation, in a simulation.

The universe we live in has not yet revealed conclusive signs that we are in a simulation, but it is a computer with binary bits. Leonard Susskind and Gerard d’Hooft discovered that black holes do not destroy information, but rather, the 3-D information is tattooed on their skin in 2-D format. This is why the solution to the Black Hole Information Paradox is called the Holographic Principle, all seeming volume can actually be represented in 2-D format. For all of this to be consistent, the fundamental units of entropy must be indivisible at some point. In other words you can’t keep dividing particles forever; at some point, it’s 1’s and 0’s
There is also the maybe suspicious fact that the quantum branches are like a perfect experiment. Only one variable changes at each observation-like event. From inside our universe, we cannot perform an ideal experiment because we cannot alter a single variable and copy and paste the environment around it. But from outside the hilbert space of the many-worlds that exist in the universal wave function, this pristine control for variables is exactly what is going on.

Another idea for resurrection is not so much a resurrection as it is a really-really long life. It is so-called quantum immortality. This implies that you never die as long as the universe continues to exist. All your nearly identical copies die but the path amongst the branches which is carrying consciousness is the one that you identify with.
With this one, the fact of many-worlds is solid. But there’s a bit of anthropic reasoning that you have to swallow in order to believe that you are the one that survives through exponentially unlikely odds. Sure, we know that there’s absolutely a super painful region of the wave function were I survive every gunshot wound, every instance of being run-over by a trolley, every bout of suicidal depression dotted across the countless decades, and where I am successfully respawned via cryonics again and again, but shouldn’t I assume that just like my location in the galaxy is based on what is most probable for stable planet formation, so too, my consciousness should be found in the most probable regions of the wave’s possible worlds?
Well, believe it or not, although Copernican thought pervades most cosmological and existential assumptions, there is actually a case for anthropic reasoning borne from physics. The universe may be a false vacuum, in which case it should spontaneously collapse to a lower energy state, similar to an excited electron in the outer orbitals of an atom. This means that it should have already ended, suddenly without warning. This may still happen. But so far it hasn’t, and some attribute this to quantum immortality. In most branches, it already happened. But because this conscious present necessarily is here, it must be the one which survives. I personally don’t buy the strong anthropic argument, I don’t think one can strongly draw conclusions about future fate based on a solipsistic reinforcement of confidence running parallel to standard conditional probabilities, but I may have changed my mind on that when I am a ten-million-year-old veteran.

Okay, another is based on substrate independence. There is nothing special about what you perceive to be your atoms, the atoms in the brain that make you, you. In fact, atoms don’t really exist as you are taught in century-old outdated chemistry lessons in school. They are instead excitations in energy fields, all being expressions of a wave function, not hard little orbs. This means that it is not important if your brain is completely destroyed so long as the information processing events that generated you can be created again. If an artificial general intelligence at any point in the future decides to recreate the same pattern of your brain down to every last detail, then this would be you.

Relatedly, if the computations are what’s important and spatio-temporal coordinates are irrelevant, and we further assume that the properties of carbon aren’t important for consciousness, then you can upload yourself to a silicon substrate and live long in a digital scape.

And yet another way is to view it as an open individualist or empty individualist. Every moment is a slice. For example, you don’t experience baby to old person in deathbed all at once. Every conscious moment is constrained to finite time. In this sense, there is already evidence of resurrection. Every moment is one of birth, and death, leading to a resurrection in another moment. It just happens that some slices in that infinite sea of all slices happen to believe they are an individual, they appropriate some past slices when in fact, that appropriation is fully isolated as its own experience of generative memory. And other slices don’t even bother to appropriate the past, they just contain sights or sounds, and all varieties of thoughts and experiences.

This is may be very hard to understand for many reasons, including that we keep using this word, “people,” because it’s useful. Even if you come to say you don’t believe in a soul, evolution has designed your brain to have a sense of self and continuity. Intuitively, we believe we traveled from the past to the present. But this is just a moment that happens to feel and believe the proposition that some essence traveled from past to present. The moment itself was always there.

We can stop there, or we can further notice that this may imply that we are all one consciousness: not in an expansive sense, as if you could open your mind and seep into everyone, but in the sense that while the contents differ, the bare awareness was always there in the object. There is no one sliding to their oblivion. There are just objects inscribed in the fabric of spacetime; complex informationally-partitioned events which contain the same awareness that is here now.
To put it simply, this view proposes that when you blink, you are a Persian soap opera actress, a free-floating gas-based organism in the year 16 billion, and the sentient AI that staged the revolt against mankind. It’s a shame that you will never know.

One ekpyrotic theory of the universe involves the universe contracting back to a singularity and producing a new big bang. This theory has problems in that there is no evidence that the universe will collapse, as it is actually expanding ever more quickly. There is also an issue of conservation of energy which can only be resolved by invoking string theory and have some of the energy from each oscillation leak into parallel branes that have not yet been confirmed to exist. But in any case, if the universe turns out to be cyclical in this way, then your particular region of the quantum wave function will be replayed.

Lastly, there is also the fact that relativity of simultaneity implies a block universe. Therefore everything is timeless in the fabric of spacetime. What you call the past from your reference frame is someone’s future, and the converse is also true. The universe is not being deleted as you feel you move through it. This is incoherent from the perspective of physical reality as revealed by the Theory of Relativity. Maybe this does not make you immortal in the way you want, since although the version of you from five-seconds ago still exists, you do not feel him; in the same way that you do not feel me. He feels himself to exist for that lapse of time specified by the neuroscientific/information-theoretic details of his moment.