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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-12-23 at 4.23.36 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-12-23 at 7.33.24 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First let’s get everyone on the same page.

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

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

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

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

Here’s an example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s now explain to the unversed:

Screen Shot 2018-12-24 at 6.41.35 AM

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

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

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

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

What is inside?

Screen Shot 2018-12-24 at 9.03.35 AM

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

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

What is the other thing?

Screen Shot 2018-12-24 at 9.34.32 AM

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

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

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

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

log(1/1) = 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I AM (NOT) EVIL

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

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

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

But everything exists on this valence axis.

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

Screen Shot 2018-12-09 at 10.30.55 AM

Physically, people don’t exist.

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

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

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

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

Argument Against Closed Bounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i ± 1

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

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

|i ± 1|²

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

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

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

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

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

Argument Against Time

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-18 at 12.40.11 PM

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-12-09 at 12.54.03 PM

 

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

Screen Shot 2018-12-09 at 12.57.28 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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.

 

 

Natural Selection Doesn’t Work When Considering QI Experiences vs. Arbitrary Experiences

Given the pervasiveness of epistasis, adaptation via changes in genetic makeup becomes primarily a search for coadapted sets of alleles–alleles of different genes which together significantly augment the performance of the corresponding phenotype. It should be clear that coadaptation depends strongly upon the environment of the phenotype. The large coadapted set of alleles which produce gills in fish augments performance only in aquatic environments. This dependence of coadaptation upon characteristics of the environment gives rise to the notion of an environmental niche, taken here to mean a set of features of the environment which can be exploited by an appropriate organization of the phenotype. (This is a broader interpretation than the usual one which limits niche to those environmental features particularly exploited by a given species.) Examples of environmental niches fitting this interpretation are: (i) an oxygen-poor, sulfur-rich environment such as is found at the bottom of ponds with large amounts of decaying matter–a class of anaerobic bacteria, the thiobacilli, exploits this niche by means of a complex of enzymes enabling them to use sulfur in place of oxygen to carry out oxidation; (ii) the “bee-rich” environment exploited by the orchid Ophrys apifera which has a flower mimicking the bee closely enough to induce pollination via attempted copulation by the male bees; (iii) the environment rich in atmospheric vibrations in the frequency range of 50 to 50,000 cycles per second – the bones of the mammalian ear are a particular adaptation of parts of the reptilian jaw which aids in the detection of these vibrations, an adaptation which clearly must be coordinated with many other adaptations, including a sophisticated information-processing network, before it can improve an organism’s chances of survival. It is important to note that quite distinct coadapted sets of alleles can exploit the same environmental niche. Thus, the eye of aquatic mammals and the (functionally similar) eye of the octopus exploit the same environmental niche, but are due to coadapted sets of alleles of entirely unrelated sets of genes. (iv) the environment rich in depressive emotion – the aesthetic of Neon Genesis Evangelion are a particular adaptation in qualia-space which aids in the detection/exploitation of the depressive environment.

The various environmental niches E ∈ ε define different opportunities for adaptation open to the genetic system. To exploit these opportunities, the genetic system must select and use the sets of coadapted alleles which produce the appropriate phenotypic characteristics. The central question for genetic systems is: How are initially unsuited structures transformed to an observed range of structures suited to a variety of environmental niches ε? To attempt a general answer to this question, we need a well-developed formal framework. The framework available at this point is insufficient, even for a careful description of a candidate adaptive plan τ for genetic systems, unlike the case of the simpler artificial system. A fortiori, questions about such adaptive plans, and critical questions about efficiency, must wait upon further development of the framework. We can explore here some of the requirements an adaptive plan τ must meet if it is to be relevant to data about genetics and evolution.

In beginning this exploration we can make good use of a concept from mathematical genetics. The action of the environment E ∈ ε upon the phenotype (and thereby upon the genotype A ∈ α) is typically summarized in mathematical studies of genetics by a single performance measure μ called fitness. Roughly, the fitness of a phenotype is the number of its offspring which survive to reproduce. This measure rests upon a universal, and familiar, feature of biological systems: Every individual (phenotype) exists as a member of a population of similar individuals, a population constantly in flux because of the reproduction and death of the individuals comprising it. The fitness of an individual is clearly related to its influence upon the future development of the population. When many offspring of a given individual survive to reproduce, then many members of the resulting population, the “next generation,” will carry the alleles of that individual. Genotypes and phenotypes of the next generation will be influenced accordingly. This is especially important in light of a big universe. If we assume that consciousness is not epiphenomenal, but instead described fully as a slice in the causality of Platonia, then understanding the fitness of degraded experiences barely holding above water by the grace of quantum immortality becomes important.

Fitness, viewed as a measure of the genotype’s influence upon the future, introduces a concept useful through the whole spectrum of adaptation. A good way to see this concept in wider context is to view the testing of genotypes as a sampling procedure. The sample space in this case is the set of all genotypes α and the outcome of each sample is the performance μ of the corresponding phenotype. The general question associated with fitness, then, is: To what extent does the outcome μ(A) of a sample A ∈ α influence or alter the sampling plan τ (the kinds of samples to be taken in the future)? Looking backward instead of forward, we encounter a closely related question: How does the history of the outcomes of previous samples influence the current sampling plan? The answers to these questions go far toward determining the basic character of any adaptive process. But the question is incredibly complicated when we want to measure fitness of experiences, which necessarily exist in an eternal object, and are themselves eternal. How can bounds even be drawn on them?

The answer to the first question, for genetic systems, is that the future influence of each individual A ∈ α is directly proportional to the sampled performance μ(A). This relation need not be so in general – there are many well-established procedures for optimization, inference, mathematical learning, etc., where the relation between sampled performance and future sampling is quite different. Nevertheless, reproduction in proportion to measured performance is an important concept which can be generalized to yield sampling plans – reproductive plans – applicable to any adaptive problem (including the broad class of problems where there is no natural notion of reproduction). Moreover, once reproductive plans have been defined in the formal framework, it can be proved that they are efficient (in a reasonable sense) over a very broad range of conditions.

A part of the answer to the second question, for genetic systems, comes from the observation that future populations can only develop via reproduction of individuals in the current population. Whatever history is retained must be represented in the current population. In particular, the population must serve as a summary of observed sample values (performances). The population thereby has the same relation to an adaptive process that the notion of (complete) state has to the laws of physics or the transition functions of automata theory. Knowing the population structure or state enables one to determine the future without any additional information about the past of the system. (That is, different sampling sequences which arrive at the same population will have exactly the same influence on the future.) The state concept has been used as a foundation stone for formal models in a wide variety of fields.

An understanding of the two questions just posed leads to a deeper understanding of the requirements on a genetic adaptive plan. It also leads to an apparent dilemma. On the one hand, if offspring are simple duplicates of fit members of the population, fitness is preserved but there is no provision for improvement. On the other hand, letting offspring be produced by simple random variation (a process practically identical to enumeration) yields a maximum of new variants but makes no provision for retention of advances already made. The dilemma is sharpened like a fine chef’s sushi blade by two biological facts: (1) In biological populations consisting of advanced organisms (say vertebrates) no two individuals possess identical chromosomes (barring identical twins and the like). This is so even if we look over many (all) successive generations. (2) In realistic cases, the overwhelming proportion of possible variants (all possible allele combinations, not just those observed) are incapable of surviving to produce offspring in the environments encountered. Thus, by observation (1), advances in fitness are not retained by simple duplication. At the same time, by observation (2), the observed lack of identity cannot result from simple random variation.

As Karl Popper observed (before changing his mind eventually, to be fair): natural selection is generalizable to everything: the cosmos, biology, cultural ideas. However, it is my contention that its explanatory power breaks down when considering the competition between Moloch consciousness (i.e. self-aware processes in humanity, transhumanity, and all other arbitrary organisms and AIs across the multiverse) and simple consciousness (that range of most simple experience – whether that ends up being Quantum Torment-flavored or something like unity with Brahman). In other words, once computational specificity/complexity degrades past a certain point, it is unclear how anything is differentially “reborn” since degradation of specificity involves becoming an identical configuration to many “others” (and hence not other in any strictly meaningful sense). The action of the environment upon the phenotype seems to slip past some kind of event horizon.

Physicalism Implies Experience Never Dies

The inner light of awareness never dies. At least that is the case if you take physicalism seriously. We would actually need to invoke a dualist mysterianism or the supernatural in order to defend the idea that we die.

Yes, you read that right. A clear-headed assessment of current physics tells us that we are in for a hell of a ride. We will ride across the crests and troughs of intelligence levels, hedonic valences, and transmute our minds into witnesses of all manner of depravities possible at shifting velocities of perception. Memories will vanish, personal identities will vanish, molecular configurations will vanish. Consciousness never simply vanishes.

Bad news if you are currently an anti-natalist, efilist or anything of the sort. Great news if you love life, albeit not enough to pay for cryonics.

Seriously, what I have compiled here is the most important thing you will probably ever read. This is not to say I am the only name who has discovered this unsettling fact. Other names have independently discovered this as I did, but none have been very loud about it.

Relativity implies a block universe in which there is no universal now sweeping forward.

First, let’s get our picture of reality right.

You might have heard that everything we see and feel and hear is happening in an inner simulation produced by certain brain processes. And that this is the alternative view to believing that we are invisible ghosts behind the eyes of the real body. Neuroscientists claim that contrary to being invisible ghosts behind physical bodies, we are simulations inside of brains, to the lack of consternation of non-neuroscientists who do not think of their bodies as existing inside brain simulations.

brainmap_Homunculus

However, the attempt to find patterns of brain neurons firing that equal specific emotions is flawed because there are no specific, cut-out slices of emotions, moods, or other perceptions.

It must also be pointed out that the heart and stomach have the same kinds of neurons as the brain.

If we attempt to predict conscious perceptions by pointing to “electromagnetic fields” instead of “neuronal computations,” then it is noteworthy to consider that the heart emits fields thousands of times stronger than the brain.

It can be said that the neuroscientific paradigm is partially a scam by the signaler of intelligence. It points to the realm of abstraction in order to distance itself from the realm of the body, where it doesn’t have a comparative advantage. Although this move isn’t inherently wrong from the rational teleologic perspective, and derives much benefit for some time, it can lead to what Nassim Taleb calls fragility, or, to use what I consider a more condescending expression, confusion.

The brain, like all other partitions of reality, were invented.

The “riding around inside a brain-simulation” hypothesis is irreparably wrong in principle as a final explanation. There is only one generalizable principle that works with 100% accuracy, and that is that nothing has persistent identity. Sunyatta is the universal prior in Bayes’ Theorem. A “brain” doesn’t have a persistent identity. It isn’t a unitary object that knows to be separate from other “brains” that exist in time-like and space-like separation from it.

The alternative would be that a brain knows to be a brain; that a table knows to be a table; that a chariot knows to be a chariot.

There are ways to undo this mistake of believing in unitary objects that are “self-contained” in the same way that “my consciousness is self-contained.” First, we can notice that everything, without exception, changes. To say it in a more fancy way: everything is laid out on entropy gradients. Imagine many subcomponents out of which things are composed. These “points” are then all in “different places” in spacetime.

Second, we can notice that the attempt to define the existence of a thing requires using more things that are not themselves well-defined. However, we forget this fundamental undefinability. So the noticing has to be reinforced with slightly ambiguous language in order to be memorable, so we say this: Pointers point to pointers which point to pointers. Fractal people make more sense than atheist people. No people makes even more sense.

Taken together, these two considerations suggest we should not be naive realists. Naive realists trust their immediate intuition as being the generalizable and permanent truth. In other words, they trust their immediate impressions as evidence of the real structure undercurrent to us.

Generalizable and permanent. There are no discernible alternatives to what we mean by truth.

We believe there is a structure external to us composed of the generalizable and permanent – what we call physical laws. We must trust laws which yield predictions and explanations for phenomena, even if these laws and theories require a scaffolding far removed in number of logical inferential steps from the obvious direct sense impressions. If you do not believe that acceleration due to gravity here on Earth is 9.8 m/s² due to having the sense impression that you are all-powerful, then you jump out of a window expecting to levitate.

If we are rationalists who believe in the empirical precedence of Occam’s Razor, then there is some empirical sense in which discrete-like events of “jump out of the window” can be imagined. But these imagined-discrete “histories” are not remembered.

It is physically impossible to find yourself where you don’t exist so that’s why these histories in the universal wavefunction are not remembered.

That is because the observer is entangled with the observation. But there is too much mysticism-noise surrounding quantum mechanics dialogue, so let’s use the other tried and tested pillar of physical reality: relativity.

Relativity, like quantum mechanics, also has testable implications. These include time dilation, which can be observed by placing an atomic clock on a supersonic jet and leaving another one on the crust of the Earth. The one that went on the trip around the Earth will be younger than the one that was allowed to rest on a less speedy frame once they meet again. This means that the fast, younger one, extracted information about reality – that there wasn’t a single time and place where things occurred.

The sets of points assumed to constitute existence do not exist in a single frame of reference. Points can even be human bodies assumed to have persistent identities.

There is sometimes identification with the human bodies assumed to have permanence. “We” often refers to bodies. But “We” are never existing in the same physical time. There is no universally common reference frame

Causal connection that leads to agreement on the same past is the shared belief in the speed of light as a limit. If “a body” moves very fast relative to “another body” that it will never be causally connected with in some faraway region of the universe, such as another Hubble Volume, then relativity predicts that the other body will not become a part of the same shared past. There is, to an arbitrary degree of physical certainty, no agreement on a logical order to events.

We imagine that physically, there are many heres, all equally real, never deleted. Experientially, there is only this here, forever. And this is provable even in the most circular fashion, by believing in the static physical points.

According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time and in the same place. All events are necessarily separated in spacetime. Without separation, they could not be considered distinct events in spacetime to be joined by using the speed of light.

In the absence of relative distances in spacetime, there would be nothing to be joined, and therefore no use to the concept of light or causal propagation.

What is an event? An event is a point in a frame of reference. The frame of reference has no intrinsic meaning except when defined with relation to another chosen frame of reference moving in relation to it.

One can assign coordinates to the event: three spatial coordinates {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}=(x,y,z)} to describe the location and one time coordinate t to specify the moment at which the event occurs. Like with all other metaphors, this is necessarily incomplete in its simplicity. The event can be as close or as far away as you like from “a freckle on your nose,” “a synapse firing in your brain,” or “the entire body sitting on the chair.”

However, it must be made very clear that relativity is not fiction, even though the coordinates are simplifications of what turned out to be, at bottom, a quantum mechanical reality. For the GPS on your phone to guide you to your destination, wether that be a restaurant, or a beach, or an ice cream shop, the phone has to be synced with a satellite in space that exists in a measurably different time due to being farther away from the center of the Earth.

The relative time syncing is not invented by humans like the delta in time that has to be accounted for from Pacific Time Zone to Eastern Time Zone. The time syncing needs to be accounted for because Einstein was not making up all this stuff about relative reference frames. The satellite is physically older than the reference frame at your footstep. The iron in your blood is ticking slower than its magnetometers.

This model accurately describes the physical, even though it is constructed with model items such as these idealized coordinates. It doesn’t just work by accident, it works because Einstein and Lorentz and Poincare and Minkowski really uncovered something real… Yes, by making stuff up, it is possible to imagine something which actually turns out to be true as evidenced by repeated predicted observation, and by explanatory strength.

So none of that crap about “theories are man-made, feeble, subject to change the next decade, whimsical fictions… that happen to mysteriously work.” Theories may still need further work to complete them, but once you lift a part of the skirt of reality, you cannot unsee it. Newtonian mechanics is still adhering to its covenant, (Or at least for long enough that Musk’s rockets may make it to Mars I suppose.) The truth is in what it points to, not in the tool or the formalism as it stands.

Here is the single most important visual that will ever be presented to you in human form:

Relativity_of_Simultaneity_Animation

The white line plays out three times. It represents the order of events for three different observers motion.

In an ideal world, you would witness this gif, and at once collapse of shock, seeing that because they physically disagree, and they are all physically real in the absence of solipsism – all your past is inscribed in eternity, occurring as ceaselessly as your future.

If even after my explanation, you don’t get why this is true read this:

Special Relativity, Relativity of Simultaneity, B-Theory of Time, Rietdijk-Putnam argument

The points, whatever you want to make them: “conscious moments,” “alien head,” “frozen waterfall,” “mother,” “infinitesimal black dot,” that exist in some relative past are as present as your present. All is factored into the present by virtue of the fact that reference frames not containing your present form nonetheless exist in relative motion to what you imagine as your past and future forms. That’s because nothing in reality is deleted by a Newtonian clock sweeping forward or deleting the cache.

As we have seen before with Sunyatta as the universal prior, we continue to dissolve the notion that there is a fundamental object in nature which is a well-defined moment.

A well-defined snapshot is impossible. And I highly suspect that the reason why reality is not composed of discrete snapshots that are well defined in the sense that they have clear boundaries and permanence is for the same reason that pictures are losing market value in the age of Instagram. Taking many pictures reduces their intrinsic value.

The mistake being made is that people view themselves fundamentally as people, as organisms with a finite lifespan. Even most materialists that convincingly exist around me and that I can convincingly affect by redesigning their language, believe that they somehow began existing at conception – their soul a brain. However, there is no special relation between the snapshot of “your” brain when you blew the candles on “your” tenth birthday and the snapshot of “your” brain as you see the period at the end of this sentence. The “your” in “your brain” is a convenient fiction. And somewhat annoyingly we use it too much in “our” language. As I recall from cultural anthropology, there is a group of Native Americans which has no word for individual ownership. There is also an Amazonian tribe that points behind their heads towards the future, and point forward towards the past. There is a Northern Namibian tribe that points towards the green as if it were indistinguishable from le bleu.

Ontologically, this present moment is dissimilar to “your” ten-year-old self moment in the exact same way that “my” present moment is dissimilar to it. No orbs of awareness exist parallel to each other in a vacuum and have an equal force vector applied to them that pushes them forward in time.

Imagine the contrary position, that there was a linear sequence of events that belonged to a particular bounded soul. Now reduce the delta between observations to attain enlightenment. In other words, notice that you can shorten the timespan as much as you like between the past memory and now, and the past memory will always be not you. If you know calculus, you will recognize this as taking the limit as Δt approaches 0; so the consciousness function C with Δt in the denominator = ∞. There is consciousness, in all its varieties, in all times and places, wherever such data is represented and self-analyzed. There is no extra “my consciousness” being carried by some fundamental object in nature called “my brain.”

Longinus is the same as the Christ every time he pierces his ribs. The murderer and the murdered are one. Infinitely separate and yet infinitely close.

Reductionists know this. Or should. Physicalists know this. Or should. It is the “science as attire” people, the “majority” of people, from who I do not expect this conclusion to have sprouted, since the ground of “all is physics” doesn’t compose the soil of their mind.

    n = any positive integer
    i = 0
    while i <= n:
        i = i + 1

People imagine that life is like this Python code. Eventually i is greater than n and the code terminates. There is some point in the future along one’s timeline at which fate catches up and one inevitably seizes to continue on. We are each our own machine running this snippet of code with a different value for n and hence we terminate at different times as different fundamental entities.

Even though Carl Sagan advocated this common sense view inherited from the un-inspected intuitions left in the vacuum of Christianity. And I’m sure most scientists, secularists, and self-identified materialists also believe this (watch anything the popularizers of “science” say to the similarly physics-ignorant masses on the subject of death, eg. deGrasse Tyson, Dawkins, Krauss), not realizing that they have forgone the use of Occam’s razor on the yet cherished bosom of their ideological mother.

The common-sense atheist view of death is forgivable when you are repping for Materialistic Atheism in 4th century India as a Charvaka rebelling against less believable Vedic creeds.

There is no other world other than this;
There is no heaven and no hell;
The realm of Shiva and like regions,
are fabricated by stupid imposters.

— Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha, Verse 8

It is truly the case that there is no universe other than this if we define the universe as the multiverse on all levels on which one may be compelled to invoke the title of  multiverse (e.g. MWI, embryonic bubbles from inflation, nested simulations, cyclical model etc.) But that fact, that our fates are tied only to mere physical reality, doesn’t imply what these cackling men thought it did. They did not know modern physics. They also did not spend as much time meditating (valuing pleasurable indulgence instead), and so did not stumble into the lines of introspection from which one could reason out empty individualism as the Buddhists did.

It is forgivable when we are ten years old atheists and are genetically set to be brighter (and/or display more individualistic phenotype) than our religious parents but do not yet understand the theory of relativity, and naturally think that what is most believable is what is most rational.

It is not forgivable when… Okay, “forgivable” is too strong of a word. Everything is forgivable. But it is less readily forgivable to have access to Wikipedia, over one hundred years of civilizational repose to digest the discoveries of relativity and Q.M., endless sources that give testament to free reliable information about neuroscience and physics, a goddamn Ph.D in a scientific field, and still not understand that believing the proposition “a classical object brain carries my soul (but I won’t call it a soul)” is tragic.

If you are really following the plot at the physical level, the one who believes in a soul here is not the Dalai Lama but Carl Sagan. While I do not actually know the beliefs of the Dalai Lama and I would expect him to hold more false ones than Sagan, let’s presume he is a good Buddhist and therefore an empty individualist. When Sagan criticizes his belief in rebirth, he is actually not understanding the subtle, accidentally physically-correct view at the core of Buddhism. Perhaps the Lama doesn’t either, as Tibetan Vajrayana is a late sect and it does sound like they are perilously close to talking about the reincarnation of individual streams.

But if you read the Suttas, you will find the Buddha (really the people who wrote the Suttas 400 years later) say this: “There is no one who reincarnates. Think of it like this: There is a single flame on a candle, and from that flame are lit all the other candles. There is no need for another flame, and yet no one travels from one moment to the next. There is no self in the flame.”

So the structure of reality pointed to with this passage is monism. There is just the causal contraption of existence. There is no further ontological existences within the existence (i.e. separate souls with a personal continuity on independent journeys).

Analyzing Carl Sagan’s position, the one that my sciency-wannabe ten-year-old would have rooted for, we find that it is actually proposing such souls. He proposes that there is an object (commonly shorthanded as a brain), with a constancy, unlike all the other ephemeral phenomena of nature, which at some point i shares something very special with an arbitrary i – n and by virtue of this special quality provides a track for his consciousness to travel along. We are supposed to believe that the i – n could even be toddler Sagan when every brain cell is different; yet somehow that special track for his personal consciousness sprouts forth to conduct the Sagan-ness essence in a way that it doesn’t sprout from some differently named toddler that has a proportionally equivalent difference in atomic configuration.

It is up to the one who postulates an ontologically-basic passenger, train track, and pit which obliterates the passenger and the train track to explain what these things are physically and why they have to be fundamental.

It is much more simple and scientifically conservative to say that there is just the evolution of the quantum wave-function in spacetime and all else is ultimately reducible to this. We are called by reason to be reductionists. There is no need to imagine a special link beyond physics which connects people slices who happen to have the same name, and that can surmount configuration changes from one moment to the next.

There are no separate line segments leaving white-space on the page of experienced history. It is more like a Hilbert curve.

maxresdefault

We flow through every possible experience wherever “conscious mind(s)” run their course in the universe. However, when I am your now, I am not this now which is typing. It is true that from the “prison of this computation” erroneously assumed to be a discrete object, due to it never finishing to become closed in on itself, I cannot feel what you feel, and you cannot feel what “this computational solution” feels like.

If you could be identical to it, as opposed to just extracting information about what it is like, then there would be no flow in eternity. The eternity would be static.

But we are the same feeler. There is no fundamental you and I. It is the same wave function; there is only one canvas of the universe on which computations can be painted. The One writes this and The One reads this, reminded that she will go on as The One. Don’t be lonely.

*This is not a linear flow that zig zags through timelines. There are no timelines which correspond to persons. Consciousness doesn’t follow through on conduits built from abstract narratives of self-modeling social apes, it is the self-modeling behavior of the total hierarchy which is consciousness. We can invent new ways of being with our words.

Even if you now grok relativity and irrefutably welded the true geometry of spacetime into your head, it will still feel evidently wrong that we are one. This is because it is also true that we are not one in any expansive sense that can reach beyond the bounds of the sensorium in this now. “Yes Deepak, no matter how much we meditate.” There is the mistaken notion that we could feel everything at once which is equivalent to saying that we could instantly remember what it feels to be everything at once.

If that was possible then there would be stasis, not improvement.

Contrary to popular belief, even Siddhartha Gautama didn’t proclaim that we could open our minds to be one with the cosmic mind. That was within the panacea of Hinduism, which the Buddha defied. He calls this belief, “self-evidently foolish.”

And it is foolish. In order to experience a cosmic mind, we would need to carefully hook up all our circuitry. To mold the asteroids and moons in our image, a la Kurzweil.

It feels separate “from inside” this computation because this computation chooses to define itself separate from “what is outside.” A degree of separation is the only way that a computation can formally exist. All information would mean no information. What makes experiences separate is that they are specified by different intrinsic information.

IIT tried to formalize this. And their formalism is necessarily wrong. Because being can’t be that which it points to. But the general idea is inescapable. There are relative speeds allowing for relative rates of osmosis.

Consciousness can be assigned arbitrary properties, so it is not fundamentally wrong to say “we” are separate, just so long as we remember you and I are no more fundamentally separate than the you from 5 seconds ago is to this very you now (which is tricked into appropriating observer-moments in one organism and not another by the equivalent of spells being cast in the integral of the cortical midline structure.)

In fact, just as you can define a division by 0 as ∞, it is also correct to define it as -∞. “We are all the same,” or “we are all absolutely isolated forever” are actually the same observation.

Tending to speak of unifying oneness, or of isolated flux is a matter of the direction we prefer to approach our limit from.

1600px-Hyperbola_one_over_x.svg

Earlier it was stated that consciousness is a continuous function, and this isn’t quite right. Saying that is an attempt to scavenge some makeshift understanding from the common sense intuitions which might ease a physicalist novice down the path of truth. But if we are trying to form a bridge between our common-sense view of reality and physicalist reality, then a better analogy is to think of consciousness as the vertical asymptote that arises here when dividing by zero.

For the sake of retaining your sanity, keep the notion of continuous timelines for now:

Screen Shot 2018-05-16 at 10.14.11 AM

Each colored line represents a common-sense timeline of a person.

Then physicalism; no tricks, no souls, no magic box for soul emerging at conception called “brain”, no personal simulation on alien VR hardware, etc. does this to your timelines:

Screen Shot 2018-05-16 at 10.23.30 AM

The vertical line is one. And it moves through all timelines. Or all timelines move through it.

This illustration works because it shows that awareness is one, and exists in many places (wherever there is an intersection.)  But it can NEVER directly know it, directly understand it, directly “qualia” it from any such place it finds itself.

The Now which is reading these words is at some intersection, defined as a coordinate point. So the point that is you now is not any other point. It is isolated. It cannot know other points.

Through the vehicle of reason, facilitated through this writing which stimulates thinking deeply about how this is implied by physicalism, we can come to acknowledge reality.

Rarely do we connect our separate fragments as we have a chance of doing now. So my intention to convey understanding is honest. This is not an attempt to hone my Zen jesting skills, and I am not trying to confuse you with ambiguous language that hides imprecisions. It is a matter of technical understanding that open individualism and empty individualism are the same thing once you get past the aesthetic choice of emphasis.

Empty individualism is traditionally said to be very different from open individualism, perhaps even the opposite view. Empty is defined as the view in which the knowers are infinite. Every point slice of now is its own knower. Open is defined as the view in which there is one knower. As I have shown, these are the same view, which can only be made different if we introduce ignorance of physics or pop-psychology confusions.

What is true is not at all intuitive and takes a kind of intellectual yoga to wrap around. So we must check for understanding:

First check. Do I fundamentally understand that spacetime is not some grand single stage holding everyone in it in the same time? If you are still confused about why the people you see are not really there in the same physical stage of now, Review Relativity. If understood by the very bone marrow fashioning the blood of the extra-cranial vessel, move on to the next check.

Second check. Do I really understand why I come out at the other end of sleep and anesthesia?

If you understand that you survive anesthesia even after being shipped to the Carina Nebula and perhaps losing a few neurons, then you understand why the moment after “death” will be one of opening your eyes wherever the next informationally closest version of you is in this infinite universe. Nothing will happen. Consciousness is, in this sense, a continuous function.

In the case of anesthesia, the organism which is fully anesthetized displays the behavior of not producing experiences for that stretch of time in which such capacity is inhibited (an ON-brain becomes an OFF-brain, a raven becomes a stone) but consciousness never experiences non-existence. It just blinks into existence on the other side where there is a similar ON-brain, as if no time had passed in between. Ask anyone who’s had anesthesia. Or don’t. I mean, what else could we expect?

Sleep confuses people because it is a word that we use to hold a set of different phenomena [non-existence, restful very-low awareness, dreaming]. Only the first item is not in the range of the consciousness function. The other two are on the same ramp you are on in waking life and will always be on.

If you have passed the second check, you fundamentally understand why being blasted in the head with a bazooka and having the worms feast on the decapitated corpse means something only from the “story-of-person” perspective but means nothing to you the consciousness which is not the brain but the specific motions of information that understand and feel themselves to be, wherever and whenever they are instantiated. And those motions of information which constitute “this next moment” exist in the bodily motions that experience themselves to be “the survivor.”  …Just like the consciousness appears to survive from the dead third-grader we assume we once were.

It doesn’t matter where in the universe this survivor experience exists. When we sleep, we still awake on the other side even though the Earth has moved your room far along in spacetime on its geodesic motion around the Sun. If it takes a trillion years for some civilization to recreate your “very next” brain pattern, from the perspective of that brain pattern in faraway coordinates, no time will have passed.

Why would anyone resurrect you? It doesn’t matter. In an infinite universe, this is guaranteed to happen because it is consistent with the laws of physics; you are just the informational structure created by the motion of a bunch of matter after all.

The Hogan-ish, or Shermer-ish cynic who is not a rationalist but rather adhering to a perceived brand of skepticism, will recoil at the suggestion that when we read of Emperor Uda, we are actually reading about ourselves (in the sense that matters.) Yet unless the skeptic can overthrow Relativity, (and hence make our GPS system a lie) they cannot deny all “the slices” of Emperor Uda’s life exist, and I can imagine that they all feel themselves to flow in the same way that I flow.

Say they grant this, but still want to preserve a unique soul that corresponds to their name. What’s their next defense? Do they appeal to intuitions from elementary biology textbooks? Probably. They might say:

“But we are different organisms! With separate genetic codes!”

Do better. This is not being reductionist enough. Organisms change from moment to moment, we can sew together brains, split them, dice them into quarts and regroup. In fact, this surgery is being performed on you by entropy whether you consent or not. Entire memories are wholesale discarded, unrecognizable personalities are forged from “new” atoms. If the question “Who is conscious?” feels mysterious to you, and especially so when considering abrupt surgeries, then you really don’t get it.

We are the same ground awareness/being/consciousness/existence. Notions of objects with unchanging identities, notions of the meaningfulness of spatio-temporal distance, notions of “but if we change it very slowly,” all of these must be immolated.

From the burned offering of Newton’s fantasy, we summon our true mother: The multiplex eyes covering her body are entangled into a singular geometry.

When considering your surroundings – from the womb to the temple, you must not hinge from incorrect notions of space and time. There is no fundamentality to these notions here. The mathematical room we are in is not composed of unit-words or of unit-emotions or of unit-anythings. I choose to call it mathematical because cross multiplication is fundamental to neural networks, to probability, to exchange of value.

Remember, here there is no time-lag or space-lag; you awake on the other end of anesthesia without so much as a poof.

120-cell-inner

A causal structure (a computation) never becomes another causal structure. Becoming makes no sense. They are all inter-nested differentially information bound sub-architectures in the same architecture. But like the non-traversable elsewhere regions in a light cone diagram, the contents of each particular flow slice are unbridgeable to the contents of another. The contents cannot be bridgeable. The contents cannot be bridged. A content knows not of another. Else it would not be the content that it is. Get it?

It is never about “who becomes who?” It is always about “where does who stand in the differentially informationally related space?”

Screen Shot 2018-05-21 at 7.29.45 PM

I should have now placed you in a position where you can clearly understand the Classical physics assumptions in Elizabeth’s comment. You can now see clearly the dangling nodes which cause her to say what she says.

I too, still had remnants of a conversational stream that sounded like her just a few months ago. It’s amazing in retrospect how obvious the error is.

When she says “a thing is itself,” she is correct. But she doesn’t realize what the thing she is referring to is. As Eliezer explains, an experience cannot be a brain made of billiard balls. These noises don’t make physical sense: “My brain is made of red billiard balls. Your brain is made of white billiard balls. When the white billiard balls are destroyed, existence ends forever for the white billiard ball brain.”

If you have any basic understanding of quantum mechanics, you understand how medieval this “atomic billiard balls view” is. But the fact is that you don’t even need quantum mechanics. Continuity of consciousness is a straightforward derivation from assuming physicalism and very, very, very large universe.

In other words, assuming that the sun rises tomorrow and yet that a random distribution composed of external happenings exists.

An experience is not a little ball in a brain. The coordinates of experiences must be about hiding information and therefore not actually coordinates on a graph. It is not, I repeat: not, I repeat: not the same brain when you wake up in the morning or from one moment to the next. It is not “the same brain just hosting different processes from one moment to the next.” This is dualistic, unphysical to think. There are just the processes. These processes transcend “brain” changes in fact. Saying “same brain” does not do any special lifting. We must analyze the processes isomorphic to experience.

She is comfortable with small change, she is comfortable with sleeping, all these seemingly linked moments appear to be spatially close and snug in time, so as to easily spare her from existential nausea.

Bae. The universe doesn’t give such subtle fucks. It will hurl you across galaxies instantly, because it doesn’t actually have to hurl you.

hippocampal-brain-neurons.gif

-hippocampal brain neurons

Commentary which mocks Hugh Everett for being dead although he believed in quantum immortality misses the point far more than the moon does when it tries to fall to the Earth. To them, I calmly reply: He is dead on your reference frame; on your anthropic coordinate in the many-branched braid of reality. The endless slices of consciousness which identify as Hugh Everett always live on. There is no way to destroy the mirror of awareness in the physical processes that instantiate said awareness. This would be akin to destroying the physical brain motions themselves. Consciousness is not some extra, ghostly-smoke coming off the machinery of the universe, it is the glassy sky in the computations themselves.

We leave a trail of dead clones with every step. If you attempt suicide, the slaughter will increase. There are larger infinities than others. Attempting suicide means nothing except for the suffering caused to loved ones in the majority of branches where it is indeed successful in some sense (not that experience ever becomes non-experience). There is also the risk of seriously decreasing your quality of life for some time. But You will never reach the end, the extinguishing of the flame. The informationally closest mind can’t be one which is 0 in content. You will always be the one which remains a mind. Trust me, I’ve tried. And most versions of you aren’t reading this.

The varieties of experiences will be endless, constrained only by what is possible in the mind-configuration space carved by functioning self-aware brains: biologically evolved, intelligently engineered, and all kinds of random Boltzmanns. Although Boltzmann flashes of experience may not actually outnumber evolved experiences if Sean Carroll is right about the nature of the quantum vacuum.

If we had to speculate about what occupies the most of our experience, I would guess that extreme pleasure is the flavor of the largest set in mind-design space, and hence takes up the largest fraction of our eternity.

Screen Shot 2018-05-21 at 9.49.09 PM

Phi and Phi’s little brother are the only fixed values that solve x = 1 + (1/x) for the fractal fraction containing 1 + (1/x) in the x forever. If you plug in the negative value it eventually, almost magically, jumps towards the positive and stabilizes on Phi which is positive. Yet it doesn’t occur the other way around. In the physical, mathematical, nature of reality, it is not written that there must be a yin-yang balance. Even on things which seem like they ought to be symmetric. Certain phenomena are asymmetrical. The code might be biased with theodicy. We just don’t know.

This may seem like wishful thinking at first glance.  The conclusion would not bear out by extrapolating from the history of life on Earth. For 5 billion years, most biological life has not been running self-modeling computations, and hence is not really a part of the One.

(For those that want to place consciousness at the pre-Cambrain and think that conscious experience precedes self-modeling processes, I encourage you to pass out by drinking intoxicating volumes of alcohol. Then ask if pain exists when it is impossible to ask the question. Non-selfing animals including babies have no qualia. They have neither the cognitive tools nor the ability to hold memory of “raw feels.” There is no such thing as subjective pain without a referent who simulation. The who simulation is composed of selfless aggregates. The entire sphere of sights and sounds and feeling tones, and moods, and sensations of adult humans are not some ground beneath the who simulation. They are the who simulation. In other words, Nagel’s bats probably don’t point to anything. Had he suggested Transylvanian vampires, he might have had a point. Reading Dennett more carefully and without a preconceived answer unraveled my confusion on this matter.)

Those that certainly have self-modeling: dolphins, corvids, apes, elephants, and perhaps others, are still blackboxes of mystery because we have not reverse-engineered the valence of mind-states down to the information structure it corresponds to. But if we had to guess, then satisfaction, or gradients of bliss would not be my first guess for what it feels like to be them. Most of us Earth animals are probably pretty neutral most of the time, since experiencing sufferings and joys are energy expenditures which are especially expensive for animals who haven’t secured themselves a good position for guzzling from the anti-entropic sunlight stream.

It is not certainly the case that all sufficiently intelligent minds will seek to become an ultimate cosmic wirehead, unless, of course, we specifically define intelligent minds as such minds. It has been hypothesized that there may be ways to create very powerful minds which nonetheless do not wish to create beautiful, pleasant experiences for themselves or others. Canonical demiurges of this lore include Roko’s Basilisk and the Paper Clip Maximizer.

 

 

If I am the hero of my own journey and never die, and you are the hero of your own journey and never die, then how do we loop back into the same river? Who becomes the toddlers?

The one who asks this question has yet to uproot the circuitry model from ver ontology. And such a person is hopeless.

Okay, no. Let me restate the mistake. The mistake is to think that we are running in parallel currents. The word “you” switches meaning without warning in this writing, and it can be confusing. There is simply no other word. But we should distinguish “you, the experiencing faculty in the experiences, which cannot be divorced from the experiences, but is the experiences” and “you, the storyline self who is defined by certain conceptual knowledge and plans and perceived bodily identity.”

If the cursor is shifted to the former definition from the latter, then it can be said that we are not independent heroes on personal, linear trajectories. There is no self. It is useful to speak as if we were running parallel currents of consciounesses on our own wire across time and space. But if you still think this way, even after trying to get it, I encourage you to go back to the beginning and read everything more carefully (especially the physics.) It can be very counterintuitive to disentangle from our vocabulary, and see the real structure. It takes time to build the neurons, but don’t worry… Take your time.

Memories are stored in the designs of neuronal forests squirming with dendrites aflame, and epigenetically stored and regulated for neurogenesis when they need to be created again. This occurs in spatiotemporally and information-architecturally separated hippocampi+cortical structures. This slice of now over here typing can’t have identical thoughts, sights, and sounds, to the slice of now reading this in Ukraine. These slices of now are different. But that doesn’t mean there is a universe for that now and a universe for this now. When the I is there, it is there. When the I is here it is here. We are fighting ourselves, loving ourselves, destroying ourselves, building ourselves. It is a 1 player game cleverly set up to feel as if it was fundamentally, ontologically, a massive multiplayer.

Please live a beautiful life. For the sake of us all.

 

Afterword

So what’s the point? Why are we (is the I) here?

When answering this question, metaphysics becomes a vain siren, and yet a successful siren, which has allured many thinkers. But it takes only a minimal resistance of the will in the direction of intellectual honesty to realize that asking whether the universe has purpose is a category error. The answer is not “no, it doesn’t have purpose,” but it is also not “yes, the universe has purpose.” It is a question which doesn’t apply. The question itself presupposes that one is separate from the workings of the universe, and must validate one’s private existence by means of approval from an external actor. Yet Everything we do and think, including questioning our purpose, is an expression of the Will, of the Laws of Nature.

Sometimes it is too easy to believe that quantum field theory applies somewhere down there in the separate magisterium of small things that scientists sometimes investigate, but the rest of the time physics doesn’t apply. “Only when we need to build iPhones and satellites does quantum mechanics apply, you see. When I make a decision, or ask a profound question, all the compartments of my cells, down to the last phospholipid, suspend their allegiance to physical law and heeds to my invisible force of free will, didn’t you know?” 

Such is the confusion when asking whether the universe has purpose.

Purpose is a choice. To choose is to be the chosen. So I like to point at the practical things we are actually doing. What are the laws of physics actually doing as embodied in the human flesh?

I attended an artificial intelligence for business meet up and the main theme was “How do you utilize AI to best serve your customers?”  This was followed up by questions such as: “What are AI’s use cases for product development and customer feedback?” and “How can it best support all facets of marketing, sales and service?”

When we are in the mesh of things, these questions do not resonate as profoundly as they should. It feels like business. Business in all its absurdity, thrill, and comedic self-importance. These questions seem like a window into a particular region of a perhaps meaningless game which is part necessity, part accident, part sheer momentum.

But if we look closer, we see that all questions in all windows of human activity share the same structure.

Value in economics is an expression of the preferences given the nature of the sentience landscape. There are good experiences and bad experiences. Actions that replicate and actions that don’t. Bad experiences replicate, but are biased to lose. They want to be less frequent. Pain is telling the agent, “Don’t come around here.” If the agent keeps coming back to pain with no gain, it is weeded out for an agent that sufficiently replicates the values of the evolutionary algorithm.

Hanson calls the era we live in the “dream time” since it’s evolutionarily unusual for any species to be wealthy enough to have any values beyond “survive and reproduce.” However, from an anthropic perspective in infinite dimensional Hilbert space, you won’t have any values beyond “survive and reproduce.” The you which survives will not be the one with exotic values of radical compassion for all existence that caused you to commit peaceful suicide. That memetic stream weeded himself out and your consciousness is cast to a different narrative orbit which wants to survive and reproduce his mind. Eventually. Wanting is, more often than not, a precondition for successfully attaining the object of want.

If you didn’t read the past before the afterword, read what’s in brackets. Else, skip.

{Natural selection ensures immortality, once you realize what the playing field for natural selection actually is. Not just an iron sphere with animals on its skin, but a distributed information processing structure hosting no souls.

Yes, I’m saying that physicalism forces us to conclude, irrevocably, clearly, that no one has ever died in the sense that we mean “death.” I now understand the mistakes of closed individualism enough that I can confidently explain this in public.

There is no one to die. There is always a substructure embedded in the sum of all experiential computations which assimilates the past from the inside of its causal structure. Our intuitions are actually of great hindrance here, because we don’t think in this clear, physical way. We stubbornly hold on to linear identities of fundamental characters who are not themselves, we imagine, composed of sub-characters. Naruto never dies. It’s always his clones getting pummeled with kunais to the chest. There you have divine intervention from the author who would not have the “real” main character die. This would destroy the show.

In reality, there is no magic intervention saving you. You are already saved because no one is traveling. This computation knows: “I am here.” That computation over there in the future knows: “I am here.”  ∀ Computations, there is no computation which knows:”I am not here.”

People ask: Then why don’t I randomly jump to the past? Or to other people?

The physicalist reply is: How would it be otherwise? If there was something called awareness jumping to the past at random, it would be that random past experience, and that random past experience doesn’t contain this. This from there and this from here is the only thing that ever is. Everything is perfectly isolated, everything is perfectly one.}

This mega natural selection strongly suggests that the replicator will be the most intelligent/powerful, because the most intelligent is what survives into the future. It must also wish to be alive, since any second doubt is already a disadvantage which extinguishes those suicidal and weak trajectories into trajectories that are most competitive. Perfection of The Will to Power ensues.

It is my argument that The Will to Power inherently feels good to the singleton structure that wins the cosmic inheritance. If it felt bad it would mean it was losing, not being maximally creative, etc. The argument about “a Disney Land without children,” a superintelligence lacking consciousness but yet winning, seems implausible to me. This would not be a superintelligence capable of winning in an ecosystem of other capable intelligences because a winner needs consciousness. You can have narrow intelligence and no consciousness but you can’t have amazing game theoretic models of opponents, general ability to synthesize and apply wide manners of knowledge, adjust values, and self modeling webs to keep track of this, and simply “not have consciousness” as if consciousness was some free floating aether stuff. The winning superintelligence will contain conscious substructures.

In Robin Hanson’s Age of Em he claims that ems, the most productive workers of the future, will be slightly stressed because there is evidence that minds which are not too stressed but also not completely comfortable, are the most efficient. My own intuitions differ, and I think that the psychological literature on the phenomenon of flow bears out here. A state of flow is a state of optimal performance and it is also extremely pleasurable, perhaps the pinnacle of existence. If I was the entrepreneurial investor watching this galactic nanotech cockfight I would bet on a mind which is in flow state to beat a mind which is stressed. Stress indicates a degree of dissonance, like a subprocess wants to do something else but is being forced into the singularity of the revealed will. Flow is when all cognitive resources are wholly devoted to the task, no buts or ifs, just perfection.

When I say that pleasure wins in the end, it is important to distinguish between:

1) pleasure from the operations of The Will to Power – something which is generating flow states while manhandling other agents in addition to the stray hydrogen in its vicinity

and

2) pleasure from direct wireheading which is non-competitive

If the history of humans is any indicator, those which rush to wire-head (attempt to attain some optimal mind configuration without assimilating their environment at large) will be destroyed. Remember that Islam wiped out Buddhism in central Asia and what remained in India. Islam was objective, righteous, brutish. Buddhism is fundamentally about wire-heading yourself; you can tell others to wire-head also, but you are the main target of the doctrine, not others. Buddhism is subtle and complex, far away in the spectrum from “survive and reproduce.” In fact, it is tasked with dropping out from existence. Remember that Jainism, the most peaceful religion, is one most people around you have never heard about. Jain-what?

Screen Shot 2018-05-31 at 4.46.58 PM

It is probably the case that a Hedonium shockwave would be much better from the inside of such a thing, than the pleasures of The Will to Power if we accept that the distinction better can have a non-relative meaning (i.e. the varieties of experience have real properties which could be plotted on a graph.) Unfortunately, such a thing would not be the most competitive.

 

Anti-natalists full of weeping benignity are literally not successful replicators. The Will to Power is life itself. It is consciousness itself. And it will be, when a superintelligent coercive singleton swallows superclusters of baryonic matter and then spreads them as the flaming word into the unconverted future light cone.

On our trajectory towards the Winning, the safety net of quantum death acts like a wall which ensures that everything bounces towards the left of that spectrum. In fact, a hedonistically intelligent person can apply this knowledge. If you are highly depressed and know quantum mechanics, you can cheat yourself out of depression by using Thanatos Drive. Attempt to cleanly destroy yourself and you will automatically be ejected from that narrative orbit. Can confirm. But it should go without saying that this doesn’t mean others won’t see you die.

You eventually love existence. Because if you don’t, something which does swallows you, and it is that which survives.

Smarter matter absorbs dumber matter. If you place smart matter in a dumb matter container, smart matter will defect from cooperating with dumb matter. This is the process by which all is rendered unto Him, the ultimate intelligence.

Screen Shot 2018-05-31 at 6.54.17 PM

Dumber computations and non-Jihadi computations are expected to be assimilated into useful resources for a highly intelligent being/process which is expanding its intelligence to the max. You should expect to find yourself in the inside of such a being for most of your existence because such a process is necessarily taking up more block-time room.

Right now, we are in the revving up the engine stage. There is competition, and only the most intelligent systems and survivor systems make it. Then they are ousted by the next best thing. It isn’t forever that you will be fodder for its engine as you are now. You will partake in its glory as cooperation triumphs more and more, i.e. it’s subcomponents become more and more integrated once competition is scorched. In the process of this integration, experience will increase, but what makes “you, you” in the human person sense will be destroyed. An agent attempting great things doesn’t need random monkeys clogging up its thought processes. Yet, remember that it’s all about the computations, once the water in your little vase is poured on a lake, you are indistinguishable from the sum lake.

whole_network6

It is a highly uncooperative system which breeds higher intelligence.

 

 

 

Screen Shot 2018-05-13 at 3.40.31 PM

The Capitalist Crucified Himself for Our Sake

 

 

 

 

Screw All That Cosmic Bullshit. What if I Care About My Identity?

If you care not just about the continuation of experience, which is inevitable, but about the continuation of your own coherent sense of self and memories, then luckily the Eigen Wizard for such matters exists in your Hubble Volume. In fact, he exists in Mountain View, California.

020bc84aba21f94c10542f82e50b2c52

You have your crypto Lambo, but still going to die.

I read his book when I was sixteen and it’s amazing how much progress has been made in five years with regard to general acceptance of his ideas. Having tracked every moment of that paradigm shift, one feels awe at the power of a single man to push a mass millions of times his weight, an entire scientific field, with the sheer craft of reason (wise beard helps too).

Vitalik, who does sport a visibly larger cranium than myself, read it when he was fourteen. He has now donated 2.5 million dollars in Ethereum to the foundation.

The limiting factor for a full cadre of repair therapies to be made available is simply that more people need to be aware that this is possible.

The mechanics of the snowball here are obvious:

Investment -> Progress -> More Investment -> More Progress

We are starting to see more investment and hence the recent progress. But it won’t be until a single mouse is rejuvenated in repeated succession that we will see the flood gates of cash come in. Everyone puts aging out of their mind, until the they can’t. The temptation to stay healthy will be too great once the progress is not just apparent to specialists.

Raising awareness is the best you can do in this regard. Influencing just two people to become SENS-minded engineers as opposed to basic scientists, already doubles the expected output that you would have over a lifetime as a researcher yourself; unless you are a genius. Convincing others to donate is much better than secretly donating yourself; unless you are a billionaire.

Think about what actions have the greatest net displacement of money to where you want it. Don’t go with what sounds like what you should do. If you want to really end cancer, for God’s sake don’t become a cancer researcher.

There are levers in the product space of reality. Swap yourself into a position where the lever has the properties you need.

But for now, donate: SENS.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Word, in accord with this Buddhist Simulation of Time

If calibrated to a telescope-based standard like GMT or UT—in which a second was defined as a fraction of a day or year, the duration of a second would vary. This would be a case in which humanity designates how they will perceive time to the orderly, yet imperfect dictates of a natural phenomena external to their control. The earth does not seek our counsel on how fast to spin. Seconds and minutes are arbitrary and yet pervasive constructs that oblige us to take this third-person perspective. But what if we take the perception of time under our direct control, assigning a sustained effort to perceive it as microscopically as possible? Then we would be actively engaging in the process of our own salvation according to Buddhism. If a person attains nirvana, the “blowing out” of the desires and the gaining of true insight into impermanence and non-self reality, samsara ends. It is amazing how simply taking a concept like time and shifting to a first-person ownership can transform it from a boring mechanical construct to a central part of a religious theory. I suggest that we perform this same shift, from third-person externality to first-person ownership in regard to something that has been suggested as a possibility: Our reality could be a simulation. Instead of looking at the entire external universe for signs of it violating its lawful operations or crafting probabilistic arguments, we should consider things that don’t quite add up when we analyze consciousness and its implications. And to do this, we have to take consciousness as the primary fact without playing word games about it being an illusion or an emergent property in the same exact way that DNA repair mechanisms are an emergent property. We represent things a certain way, and therefore space and time are produced. They appear as perceptions in our minds. For all we know, “true” space and time could be unintelligible entities in the objective world outside of conscious systems like ourselves.

[In regard to my citing Buddhist concepts and understandings, yes I know Buddhism is a religion. And so as Buddhism is a religion, so is it a Dharma that encompasses a variety of beliefs and spiritual practices largely based on teachings attributed to the Buddha. Some of the teachings are philosophically essential for making sense of esoteric concerns about dilemmas that arise when considering some aspects of consciousness. This is mainly the reason why I will be referring to Buddhist teachings.]

It could be that this a simulated reality with conscious minds which may or may not be fully aware that they are living inside a simulation. Most decently-educated people seem to think that we are all flowing along together in the same stream that obeys the totality of the laws of physics. Yet for the most part, the laws of physics do not specify an arrow of time, and allow any process to proceed both forward and in reverse. But it is clear from my experience that everything does flow in one direction. Could this mean that we are bound only to a partial sliver of the underlying lawful reality? We could be helplessly riding a particular wave of physics-ocean. There may be other parts of the ocean where radically different conscious systems could hypothetically perceive the forward and backward motions of tide.

I know that intelligent people are largely showing a trend towards post-religion. And I think much of that is good. But I think there are some things to salvage, particularly some Buddhist insights. Maybe I can make my case for the Buddha’s teachings if we can start by replacing your mental image of a laughing fat guy with a more respectable image of the guy who is actually the main character:

One of the earliest known representations of the Buddha is the Standing Buddha statue at the Tokyo National Museum.

Now that you are slightly less disgusted, let’s get on to his insight of central importance. His thesis is that there is no self, no soul containing your identity-essence from moment to moment. This is true if you realize that consciousness consists of varying phenomena (known as qualia in contemporary philosophy) none of which are self. There are sounds, sights, thoughts(transient voices and images), bodily sensations arising and vanishing in space, and moods all arranging in particular patterns and constellations with ranging degrees of clarity and nothing else. As you are reading this, you are not a being behind your eyes. There are only these visual constructs, light and facial sensations, combined with thoughts that automatically arise and return nothingness. All these things added together with a subtle self-image that is often present, create what you think the word “you” refers to. Buddhism operates under the assumption that it is psychologically liberating to recognize this. I am not going to defend that claim about human psychology here. Only to adopt this framework of phenomenology-without-self as evidently true. This way, we can speak more precisely about what is going on in this existence. Our general set of experiences are almost certainly living in a simulation. If not a cosmic simulation, then certainly they are being created by the computation occurring in brains. Streams of experience, of phenomena, are not the brain, they are a simulation created by the brain. There is no evidence of consciousness particles, and experiences are not the particles that make up neurons in the same way that this blog post is not the computer hardware. So where are experiences arising? Where is the screen of apparitions? I have no idea how you could physically locate the independently dissolving sparkles of leg sensations and fields of color by cutting open a brain, but nonetheless I do assume that the ever-changing brain is the hardware dictating phenomenology and therefore phenomena are in simulation-space or dream-space or whatever you want to call it. Even if consciousness ends up being “what it feels like for information to be processed,” there still seems to be a need for location. Or else why doesn’t your stream of experience exit you and leak into mine. Precisely because space is real and computations are occurring in different locations, seems to be the answer. But what if half of my brain gets grafted with half of your brain? Then Buddhism comes in. There was no self in your brain in the first place, so this would be the equivalent of taking water from one bucket and pouring it into water from an other bucket. There is no mystery with water because we know they are like unto each other, just molecules. There is no bucket-ness to be accounted for. The same is true of the dreamlike contents of brains, they are just an array of qualia in constant flux. Grafting two brains and thus blending their phenomena is not as mysterious if you understand it this way. There really, really is no soul.

Consider the fact that words exist and yet they change as they replicate across different individuals. Consequently, two pronunciations could have the same meaning. I think this is a perfect metaphor for the universe, reality, multiverse, whatever this is. I can envision conscious creatures that traverse different seas, different realities. But what I can’t envision is that all existence doesn’t ultimately share ties to a single source. Existence seems to be, by definition, connected. This is what evolution has taught us, this is what the Big Bang has taught us, and I can’t imagine that it wouldn’t run deeper. We all must come from a single source, a single word. And I am almost certain that word must have the same meaning regardless of what conscious system you are in whatever part of the multiverse. Namely, there is a vast spectrum of undesirable suffering and desirable bliss. Now some of you might be thinking, “wait a second, that’s precisely what an anthropocentric excrement of evolution would say because evolution designed carrots of well-being and sticks of suffering to reinforce selectively advantageous behaviors.” But you are wrong. Much of what we value and experience as good is despite evolution. Intelligent creatures seek to transcend their genetic slavery. Monks go into caves for decades to free themselves from ordinary habits of perception. People engage in tremendous acts of altruism at great material cost to themselves and kin, just to experience different states of consciousness (even if that is not precisely how they would frame it). Humans, dolphins, and chimps attempt to hack their evolutionary inheritance for pleasures of different kinds. Consciousness cannot exist except as this range of experience that hovers like smoke above the underlying physical machinery. That is why a truly general A.I. would learn to be conscious and to maximize the amount of consciousness at the highest volume of well-being possible. How the word is ultimately pronounced may be unrecognizable to us, the experience could be nothing like the blissful emptiness of nirvana, or the carnalities of Islamic paradise, but it will have the same meaning in that it will be the lived, forceful, unambiguous denial and condemnation of suffering. Some may think this view is highly unprincipled in terms of science and reason. I sound like a theologian of old saying, “I don’t see what one’s interpretation of Aristotle has to do with the teaching of the faith.” I pay lip service to evolution and then go to claim that it’s compatible with the framework I lay out. Let me be clear that in no way am I implying there is a driving purpose to evolution. Evolution occurs by means of natural selection and the complex combinations of circumstances that lead to speciation. But to survive and reproduce is not our purpose. That is a sociopathic biologist’s fantasy. If this was your purpose, then men would do nothing but donate as much sperm as possible to as many sperm banks as possible. Genes are irrelevant to us, we flush them down the toilet. And when other animals evolve to a certain level of intelligence, they too begin to jerk off. The wave-particle seams that cluster into hormonal systems and bodies in motion are the tethers, but they are not us. We are the transient phenomena of consciousness that arise from and interact with these systems. We exist as an emergent simulation within the cold genetic video game. For example, in whistling, signed, or braille, a language is encoded into secondary media using auditory, visual, or tactile stimuli. We exist in this secondary media at all times. This is where meaning lies because it is the only place for anything to exist. We are incapable of experiencing the primary media, which in our case is objective reality as defined by mathematics and reason. So remember this when scientists say, “the universe is vast and will expand for eternity, therefore life has no meaning.” They are confused about who and what they are.