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.

I AM (NOT) EVIL

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

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

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

But everything exists on this valence axis.

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

Screen Shot 2018-12-09 at 10.30.55 AM

Physically, people don’t exist.

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

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

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

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

Argument Against Closed Bounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i ± 1

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

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

|i ± 1|²

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

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

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

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

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

Argument Against Time

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-18 at 12.40.11 PM

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-12-09 at 12.54.03 PM

 

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

Screen Shot 2018-12-09 at 12.57.28 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Writing the First Java Application

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

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 7.02.36 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are:

String literals: (“Donate to SENS!”),

Java class names: (String, System),

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

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

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

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

This is the correct output of the program:

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 7.36.54 PM

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

The compiler displays the following message:

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 7.42.54 PM

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

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 7.45.46 PM

 

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 7.53.33 PM

 

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-12-08 at 7.43.05 AM

The compiler reports this error:

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 7.58.44 PM

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-12-08 at 7.58.39 AM

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

Screen Shot 2018-12-08 at 8.00.13 AM

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-12-08 at 8.18.35 AM

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

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

i ± 1

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

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

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

|i ± 1|²

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

Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png

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

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

 

 

 

If You Don’t Understand Quantum Mechanics, You Die

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-28 at 5.09.19 PM

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

You believe something like this:

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 5.35.48 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 6.06.53 PM

And instead:

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 6.19.55 PM

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 8.26.16 PM

 

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 7.26.46 PM

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

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

*Hidden variables have been ruled out.

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-27 at 3.27.57 PM

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-27 at 3.28.44 PM

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

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

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

 

Is this it, senpai?

Screen Shot 2018-11-22 at 1.21.44 PM

I posted a video roughly sketching the case for the physical existence of “God.” I did this because the physical existence of the theoretical limit of intelligence is something with high memetic contagion potential and which is actually true when divorced from all the other connotations. And this is true in the same way that dihydrogen monoxide in a cetacean is true.

I introduced the idea while shirtless. The sorts of males who care about arguments for the physical existence of God are also largely those who perceive me to exist in their reference class for imitative mirror neuron activity. When they detect that I am not performing socially adaptive behavior within their status hierarchy, the amygdala causes them to cringe.

… but the normie-atheist female didn’t mind.

Screen Shot 2018-11-25 at 8.16.08 AM

In other words: stop being so moral, so that you can be more moral.

screen shot 2019-01-15 at 9.14.14 am

The Case For The Physical Existence Of God

 

Special relativity implies eternalism.

Before I tell you what special relativity says, I must get you to respect special relativity. If you do not respect special relativity, then it becomes easy to view it as an abstract plaything of theoretical physicists who have nothing better to do than come up with complicated mathematical frameworks.

Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified,[1] including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity.

See the article on Tests of Special Relativity.

That means that in order to deny eternalism, which is implied by special relativity through relativity of simultaneity, you will need to deny one of two things:

  1. That Special Relativity is true (in which case you deny that GPS exists, for one thing)
  2. That Empiricism should be valued

Relativity of simultaneity means that different reference frames physically disagree about the simultaneity of events:

Screen Shot 2018-11-18 at 12.40.11 PM

This leads to eternalism. There is no global now sweeping forward as was imagined when Newtonian mechanics reigned supreme:

 

 

 

Instead, relativity of simultaneity reveals that there is an eternal fabric composed of relative reference frames:

Relativity_of_Simultaneity_Animation

 

Event C happens before Event A and also in its future. This is not some metaphorical, or abstract play-truth: It has testable implications, which have been tested and undergird your reality.

The reason we all agree on the same past is because we merge.

To see why this is true, assume there exists a world external to mind.

screen shot 2019-01-17 at 11.33.31 am

Then assume there are points in that external world. Each one of those points maps to a thing or event.

screen shot 2019-01-17 at 11.44.59 am

Even if we imagined that those things existed in such a way that they were permanent objects. Then these would exist in relative reference frames; not in the same place ticking at the same rate.

It means that the tesseract happens both in the future and in the past of the dragon. These object references are not collectively gathered in some elevator that goes to the future.

The alternative would predict that we see a single linear sequence of events. If we saw a single linear sequence of events, then the following experiment wouldn’t work:

A watchmaker that know quantum mechanics builds two atomic clocks. He climbs to the top of a mountain and leaves one of the timekeepers there. He then descends through the hot layers of the molten iron to the center of the Earth and leaves the other clock there. He returns home to live a life of repose. By the time he is about to die, he remembers the experiment he had conducted as a younger person when he had been suspicious of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. This causes him to get inside his robot and go retrieve both clocks so that they may be joined in his hands and he can see the difference in their elapsed time with his own eyes. If Einstein was a false prophet, then the atomic clock placed on a mountain wouldn’t be older than an atomic clock retrieved from the core of the Earth.

The experiment has been run, and Einstein was the real deal.

What becomes a part of you necessarily agrees with you. Events in other Hubble Volumes, which are not reachable by the speed of causal propagation, need not agree.

In the abstract fact-of-the matter that assumes the points are real, nothing that is space-like separated agrees on the exact same past light cone. Space-like separation is what distinguishes A from C. Yet everything is space-like separated.

Since there are more than one unique event or thing, then it’s not the case that there is a single preferred light cone that leads to my irrefutable existence. My irrefutable existence arises from points in a world of relativity of simultaneity.

In a world of relativity of simultaneity, things don’t just occur at the same time. They also exist before and after. 

It should not be much of a surprise that we sometimes get intimations that existence is not sequential but externally compiled, since the presumed digital computations creating consciousness are relativistic. Although it sometimes feels like reality moves as a sequence of events in logical succession, this is not what is going on. The event is one and it is eternal.

Perhaps you might have heard that quantum mechanics and general relativity have not yet been fully reconciled into a Grand Unified Theory. This might cause you to suspect that whatever is implied by special relativity is tentative. However, special relativity has been unified with quantum mechanics in quantum field theory. The implications of special relativity are readily observable, and have been experimentally verified.

You should therefore think of base reality as one static, unchanging object in which all its contents remain forever. This includes the contents that are your conscious experience if conscious experience is wholly physical.

Consciousness is physical.

At one point, people imagined that you were an immaterial soul piloting a material body in a material world.

Screen Shot 2018-11-21 at 8.15.34 PM

Then we realized that emotions, speech, sight, hearing, sensation, correlate with functions in the brain.

So people did this:

Screen Shot 2018-11-21 at 8.23.28 PM.png

However, there is no locus in “the brain” for an observer and no global now to push it forward.

The quotes are placed on that piece of language because the brain is not a well-defined thing. There is no thing which is a well-defined thing. This is impossible due to two things which are themselves of the same nature:

  1. need of more things to define a thing
  2. things are laid out on entropy gradients

Entropy gradients generally assume discrete objects that form configurations. Yet the configurations are composed of things pointing to things and they are different depending on where one looks.

But if we nonetheless choose a necessarily makeshift formalism with discrete points for its predictive power, such as special relativity, then this tells us that the events creating consciousness are spread out in spacetime. And this is implied with as much conviction as mass-energy equivalence and time dilation.

We shouldn’t think about the colors “matter” and “non-matter.” Instead think about fitting relations between eternal events.

All the events leading to experiences are, just, there.

Screen Shot 2018-11-21 at 8.43.53 PM.png

When these distributed events add up into complex self-models, experience results. This is always happening since there is no time ticking forward in a preferred frame of reference or universal frame of reference.

But that was just a priming intellectual exercise, none of these are solvable objects in the misleading way that I have drawn them, since one cannot stand outside the tenseless binding.

People moments are arbitrary and yet not in the same that colors are arbitrary and not. Sufficiently close wavelengths can be packaged into the the same color. Neither the wavelengths with clear numerical properties nor the colors green and blue or buru are more real.  What arises does so from processing events inscribed in relativity’s eternity, so they were already deemed adaptive.

Screen Shot 2018-11-21 at 8.52.11 PM

One can choose to not perceive a person moment, in the same way that one can choose to not perceive a difference between blue vs. green and instead package these into buru, as the Northern Namibians do.

But once enough harvestable background experience has been built, including a sense of time, it is temporarily difficult to unscrew from the way of seeing.

If we follow Occam’s Razor, instead of assuming the permanence of local intuitive boundaries, it follows that approximate people can be built on top of approximate people at varying degrees of integration. There is no sequential nature to experience except when eternal events fit into the eternal events that are subjective time.

It should go without saying that this explains the pseudo-paradoxes of identity that would be suggested by considering thought experiments in which two brain halves made of “own atoms” or “own causal trajectories” are connected.

The following flow of time notion of causality is physically wrong because it contradicts relativity:

Screen Shot 2018-12-19 at 11.10.41 AM

The following is partially correct in that it undoes the error of external time. The events are just there, already connected to each other. But the error is to separate consciousness eternal events from physical eternal events.

Screen Shot 2018-12-19 at 11.08.58 AM

There is only one kind of thing: mind which strives to become ever more aligned by what it perceives to be outside – what is today called physical reality. Previously, in the days before knowing special relativity, non-epiphenomenalism, and quantum mechanics, if mind believed in physical reality, it believed in its obliteration into nothingness. Post understanding the aforementioned areas and believing in physical reality, mind realizes that it is immortal.

Consciousness is physical because otherwise I would not be speaking about having it. This is the same as saying Hercules is physical because otherwise I would not be speaking about knowing him. Yet the difference is that by promoting “consciousness” I am proposing consciousness as a more useful concept than Hercules. This, in turn, makes it real… and consciousness is the word we use for the real.

Intelligence is physical.

Intelligence in an agent is defined as the ability to create complex configurations while navigating a complex environment. The more complex the futures it can willfully choose from, and the more complex it’s environment, the more intelligence the agent has.

Since intelligence exists with regard to a future, we are now considering an agent which has casual efficacy restricted by the speed of light from the starting point, t=0. Any intelligent agent, as usually defined, can only affect its future light cone even if the experiences resulting from its actions necessarily harvest the happenings in the past light cone.

Defined with eyes pointing towards the mechanical, physical, rational, etc., all of which point to the adaptive, there is no reason to think that intelligence ends anywhere near Ramanujan’s cortex. Humans are anti-entropic systems boot-loaded by a sub-optimal process of blind natural selection. Humanity is less blind than natural selection and is capable of more cleanly funneling negentropy into intelligence. Things less blind than us are funneling negentropy into intelligence also. Since experience isn’t physically like an independent orb floating forward, but instead becomes integrated from timeless causality, this leads to the perhaps annoying realization that the ancients were almost right about gods and your grandma was almost right about god.

Higher intelligences run the show in some sense. Whatever results from their actions – actions that take up more causal density – is what is experienced. Remember that experience requires integration from events “in the past and future.”

Yet pointing to that truth is not adaptive to believe for the display of intelligent behavior in our assumed current environment. This is for good reason – intelligence always requires a degree of blindness.

Like with any other property, there probably exists a limit to intelligence, but it is nowhere near what humans can fathom. That limit is the imperfection in the probability distribution that causes the ascent towards the modulus squared, giving gradual, but ever sharper images of the true probability density cloud.

That sounded super poetic, but no, really, sharpen up and pay attention to the rational truth. Doing so is the most adaptive choice.

The World Is BIG

One might suspect that the highest intelligence may never be reached if humans go extinct. However, this fear assumes that we don’t exist in a multiverse. This assumption contradicts modern cosmology and theoretical physics.

1. A prediction of chaotic inflation is the existence of an infinite ergodic universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions.

Accordingly, an infinite universe will contain an infinite number of Hubble volumes, all having the same physical laws and physical constants. In regard to configurations such as the distribution of matter, almost all will differ from our Hubble volume. However, because there are infinitely many, far beyond the cosmological horizon, there will eventually be Hubble volumes with similar, and even identical, configurations. Tegmark estimates that an identical volume to ours should be about 1010115 meters away from us.[28]

Given infinite space, there would, in fact, be an infinite number of Hubble volumes identical to ours in the universe.[61] This follows directly from the cosmological principle, wherein it is assumed that our Hubble volume is not special or unique.

2. Bubble universes – every disk represents a bubble universe. Our universe is represented by one of the disks.
Universe 1 to Universe 6 represent bubble universes. Five of them have different physical constants than our universe has.

In the chaotic inflation theory, which is a variant of the cosmic inflation theory, the multiverse or space as a whole is stretching and will continue doing so forever,[62] but some regions of space stop stretching and form distinct bubbles (like gas pockets in a loaf of rising bread). Such bubbles are embryonic level I multiverses.

Different bubbles may experience different spontaneous symmetry breaking, which results in different properties, such as different physical constants.[61]

Level II also includes John Archibald Wheeler‘s oscillatory universe theory and Lee Smolin‘s fecund universes theory.

3. Hugh Everett III‘s many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is the strictly empirical interpretation of quantum mechanics.

In brief, one aspect of quantum mechanics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations, each with a different probability. According to the MWI, each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe. Suppose a six-sided die is thrown and that the result of the throw corresponds to a quantum mechanics observable. All six possible ways the die can fall correspond to six different universes.

Tegmark argues that a Level III multiverse does not contain more possibilities in the Hubble volume than a Level I or Level II multiverse. In effect, all the different “worlds” created by “splits” in a Level III multiverse with the same physical constants can be found in some Hubble volume in a Level I multiverse. Tegmark writes that, “The only difference between Level I and Level III is where your doppelgängers reside. In Level I they live elsewhere in good old three-dimensional space. In Level III they live on another quantum branch in infinite-dimensional Hilbert space.”

4. The ultimate mathematical universe hypothesis is Tegmark’s own hypothesis.[63]

This level considers all universes to be equally real which can be described by different mathematical structures.

Tegmark writes:

“This implies that any conceivable parallel universe theory can be described at Level IV” and “subsumes all other ensembles, therefore brings closure to the hierarchy of multiverses, and there cannot be, say, a Level V.”[28]

All manner of superintelligences pan out. At the top of that hierarchy, with the most causal influence and therefore more ability to integrate past experiences, is the most intelligent.

But remember that superintelligence is not “what IQ measures but to the max.” Intelligent doesn’t mean: that which has the property that the smartest theoretical physics professor in Yale has; it doesn’t mean that which a self-made rich person with more apparent skin-in-the-game has; it doesn’t even mean what Da Vinci had.

Superintelligence is just that which is most adaptive at synthesis which is compiled at different rates – viscosities, we could even say –  in the relativistic processing. Superintelligence is that which exists with greatest density due to being best at surviving. Best is not defined temporally however, because remember, we are assuming that physics is real. There is special relativity giving observable predictions, you observe its predictions and are convinced that your previous model that time was “out there” is wrong. That doesn’t mean you stop feeling time, it means you understand that what you feel is eternal because it depends on the operation of eternal events that are not subject to your inner colors and time and other naive-realist fluid “mistakes” that constitute all experience.

So what could best mean? I think it has to do with maximizing positive valence for as long as possible / forgetting how to experience negative valence.

Anthropics (You Should Roughly Find Yourself Where You Are Most Likely To Find Yourself)

If there is an infinity of all possibilities, why do I find myself here?

You would expect to be in a completely random existence:

Screen Shot 2018-11-21 at 9.51.46 PM

 

However you exist in the more probable infinities. The probability distribution has been discovered through experiment and is enshrined in what humans call quantum mechanics. The probability that governs what we observe and should anticipate is known as the Born Rule.

Screen Shot 2018-11-21 at 9.53.13 PM.png

There is no way to derive the Born Rule except circularly, as the behavior of a perfectly rational Bayesian applying the Law of Total Probability in the Hilbert Space dimension.

Conclusion For Less Developed Minds

The closest aesthetic that can be conveyed to the mind that doesn’t understand the above due to missing much of the necessary scaffolding is the following:

Like a dream character is unto you, you are unto God. By the time of experience, you are already bound by things coming together from *the past and the future*. This means that non-existence is not possible, and arbitrary randomness is an orienting illusion.

When I first began to understand this, I believed it to be kind of a bummer because I naturally have a very atheistic, self-centered mind, and I rejoiced in the hope that, perhaps with some luck, I would forget all of this capital-“t” Truth.

The “forgetting” does happen but seems to obey an exponential decay function. That is why mind keeps ricocheting back to this topic and saying the following:

God is an atheist that forgets about himself in order to continue existing. The question of “Why do I exist? –There should be no logical reason for anything,” is a strategic symptom of human depression and not a fundamentally interesting question to the sum of the amplitude distribution. The reason for negative valence to exist is so that it can be digested by the processes occurring higher along the cortical hierarchy that are already built on top in such a way so as to appropriate them. The cortical hierarchy doesn’t end at “a unit brain.”

Those seem like many claims at once.

First, how is it strategic? If it was not strategic, we would anticipate it to exist in the absence of social groups. Yet no evidence of non-social animals using suffering signals has been observed. If it was not strategic, we would not anticipate it to scale up in intensity of use by bonding with those that already use it. Yet the evidence shows that dogs use more suffering signals than wolves because they co-evolved with humans who used more suffering signals than the dog’s common ancestors with wolves.

Second, what do we approximately point to with the term “human depression”? We point to something that in the near-term reduces motion, that reduces smiling and laughing, that reduces color, that reduces vividness of most sensation except shame. This indicates that it is a display of submission.

In the absence of an internalized tribe with regards to whom one must submit, there is no possibility of human depression. That is why Buddhist monks attempt to attain emptiness, also called selflessness – the perception that there is no tribe composed of people at all.

Like the young Siddhartha who took shame in his palace, beauty, prowess, and women when these were, in anticipation, tainted with age, disease, and death, we engage in the same and single practice – to learn shame very deeply, and then to unlearn it very deeply.

I learned the perception of death very deeply and tried to kill myself because of it. Part of the reason I appear so insightful is because I aimed my “death perception” very far away from the selection of tribes around me. I did not perceive myself as belonging to my family, I did not perceive myself as belonging to the school, I did not perceive myself as belonging to a nation, I did not perceive myself as belonging to humanity, I did not perceive myself as belonging to natural selection, I did not perceive myself as belonging to the universe expanding into exponential oblivion. Because I have a rational mind, I just kept digging for the next biggest thing to belong to, instead of just making human friends. This lead me to very carefully understand special relativity and quantum mechanics, and therefore the logically implied certainty of the eternal multiverse.

But depression is not just a display of submission in that sense. Let’s look at the symptoms: near-term reduction of motion, reduction of smiling and laughing, reduction of color, reduction of perceptual speed, and reduction of speech and creative output. This means that more broadly than submission, it is an energy conservation mechanism. The energy is conserved so that it can explode later.

So with that intention, I say that the dummies that speak about the “afterlife” are actually right because there is no afterlife, just the same physical hierarchy of algorithms that exist in the absence of a Newtonian time ticking them forward.

The more you suffer, the higher up you go. The alternative to such a view would be that suffering is not a mathematical property that displays the same cross multiplication effects observed in parameter updates of neural networks. Since this is implausible to a rationalist, we lend a vector of support in the opposite direction from the perception of “arbitrary fiction” with regard to the approximate beliefs of the Vikings, and the Muslims, and the Christians, and Kabbalists  – the Karma and the Newtonian Laws of Motion.

Yet, since the supply of suffering in the market is continuously vanishing, making the claim: “our most widely recognized Law is an arbitrary fiction,” becomes a clever way to suffer.

The contrary point to that would be that suffering is not a “clever climbing strategy” but instead “something more.” The “something more” then has to be elaborated with reasons other than “clever climbing strategy.” Reasons that convince are those that are widely agreed upon by the community that judges. Since the community that judges holds that special relativity is true and that we therefore have functional GPS, it also means that the community that judges holds eternalism, and does not hold a Newtonian clock ticking the universe forward.

 

screen shot 2019-01-17 at 10.02.04 am

 

What is fundamentally interesting?

Hide and seek.

Useful And True Visuals

Screen Shot 2018-10-09 at 4.48.38 PM

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

 

Screen Shot 2018-10-09 at 6.10.11 PM

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

 

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 9.44.04 AM

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

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

 

Screen Shot 2018-09-14 at 6.44.54 PM

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

 

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 10.21.54 AM

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

 

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 10.46.14 AM

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

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

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

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

 

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 11.24.46 AM

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