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.
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.
- Point to the underlying entropy gradient. No subsection of a configuration with multiple parts is identical to any other.
- Point to the need of other concepts to trace angels: wings and halos, all of which have the same problem.
- Pool of LSD or bullet to dome.
There is one way to reify the belief in angels as separate from trees.
- Tiger uses: chase. I use: angel save me.
- 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 – 1; Good 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.
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:
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:
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.