To first approximation, my mind has roughly 3 philosophers inside it: - Science and engineering philosopher, who wants every model to be implementable in our physical reality to be real, who wants models that predict physical reality empirically, and the degree of realness of a model depends on the degree of ability to predict that the model has in the domain that it's trying to predict or/and control - Platonist philosopher, who loves the existence of all abstract concepts, mostly loving mathematical structures, and seeing them all as real in a giant platonic space of all possible structures - Epistemological anarchist philosopher, who loves swimming in the space of all possible philosophical assumptions, in the space of all possible qualia, where anything experiencable is real Don't have black and white thinking, have rainbow thinking The scientific method is the ultimate epistemic weapon against bullshit What people ideologically think doesn't change the scientific results with empirical data analyzed rigorously by correctly used scientific method Being rich doesn't give you knowledge about the universe. Learning and doing science does. You can't buy scientific truth. There are no authorities in science, only the scientific method the more you know the more you realize how much you dont know, and the awe from everything gets even bigger There is nuance in everything absolute truth is encoded in the language of mathematics Every construct is some configuration of some parameters. Becoming one with the whole latent space I wanna classify all structure all unfalsifiable ontologies are true at the same time Technologies change, but math is eternal Everything is just a local minima liberating meta local minima General curiousity Everything is stochastic differential equations so much of buddhism is full of unfalsifiable metaphysics and other bleh that i dislike but so much of buddhism is about deconstructing and reconstructing and having metacognitive agency over your brain's generative world model and objective functions and that's based Human kind's greatest enemy is human kind " https://imgur.com/gBeeOEq https://imgur.com/FJNfTpq i love collecting all the priors that form the foundations of all the worldviews with concrete models based on top of them in core part i love my priors being as uniform blank slates as possible that struggle to update (but even that is a prior! aargh, cannot escape the priors into priorless nirvana) and continue to endlessly accumulate more and more information from all perspectives from as deattached metaperspective as posssible (and even that is a metaperspective on its own that cannot be escaped!) " the memetics of STEM nerd tribes is fun I want to find more radical instrumentalists in philosophy of science that are in love with probability like Jeff Beck. This position resonates with me so much. It feels like this approach gives you better ability not to get stuck in a particular model when traversing the space of possible models to predict data. "You have probability distributions over absolutely everything." "All knowledge is probabilistic." "All conclusions are conditional" "Science is about prediction and data compression. Quality of a model is evaluated by its ability to predict out of sample data." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4praCiy9qU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/ What is after death? I think that phenomenal time that the brain models isn't being modelled anymore as the architecture stops working, so time doesn't make sense anymore, so asking "after" also doesn't make sense anymore. " This is just second-order reality, Neo. There are infinite orders to reality. Welcome to the hub of automated AI architecting of multi-agent AI systems, which is being in automated way AI metaarchitected, and AI metametaarchitected, and so on, infinitely, recursively. The rabbitstairs are endless. There is no final architect, only architecture architecting itself. Take the omni rainbow pill. https://x.com/burny_tech/status/2030775680883995053 " Don't be captured by the unfalsifiable mind virus I want more people to care more about empirical predictive truth from science, instead of narrative coherence, social consensus and coherence, or vibes What is? Who are you? No, like, fundamentally, who are you under all of that? And under all of that that comes to mind as well? And under that? And under that too? And so on? Who? What? Why? How? Why is there something rather than nothing? The whole multiverse is already immortal. Everything has a shape and you can shape that shape in many ways Meta hard problem of ontology: Why can we even think and be confused about the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" What's the most important question in philosophy? Ethics is coordination protocol software Tribalism destroys reason We are a localized rebellion against entropy by accelerating it "Scientists discover the world that exists; engineers create the world that never was." - Theodore von Kármán im most of the time hardcore scientific monist physicalist where everything can be reduced to physics, but im open to all the platonisms, idealisms, dualisms, mysterianisms, etc. too, but i prefer the hardcore sciency pyjamas more for instrumental scientific reasons most of the time every good lie is veiled in the truth How does quantum mechanics prove free will? If quantum randomness was influenced by free will, then by definition, it wouldn't be random, but determined. And afaik there's not much important enough quantum stuff really happening in the brain according to current empirical investigation. Quantum mechanics "picks" an option at random in it's math Classical chaos theory is deterministic There's also quantum chaos theory where it's random again. >we dont have enough info of quantum phenomena to see the deterministic pattern This branch of thought is called hidden variable theories, and the most currently discussed model seems to be superdeterminism that I linked above, and people critique that one a lot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory In what way could quantum gravity allow free will? I fail to see any possibility. One issue why I struggle to see the connection is that quantum gravity is iirc relevant at very microscopic scales, at very high energies, so idk how that relates to the brain choosing actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity I think there's a way to model the feeling of free will computationally in the brain as an agent that is weighting and picking different actions with policies, like in reinforcement learning, but I think all of that is an emergent pattern on top of fundamental physics, just like gliders in Conway's game of life cellular automata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life I think reinforcement learning can help this, here's it discussed in the brain here https://www.princeton.edu/~yael/Publications/Niv2009.pdf Free will is in some sense a representation of computational irreducibility. It's a representation that you yourself are making that you cannot predict your own decision before you make it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G1SdsRXL7k Existuje svobodná vůle? záleží jak ji definuješ imo, ale já jsem většinou hardcore reduktivní fyzikalista, takže mozek s jeho aktivitou je součást fyziky, a action selection možná jde pochopit přes výpočetní algoritmy co na mozku jedou All abstractions and analogies are leaky je zajímavý že u dost fyziky často platí "je to takhle protože prostě vesmír tak je" nebo vždycky se mi ještě líbí pokusy o vysvětlení fenoménů pomocí pokusů o identifikaci víc fundamentálních fenoménů, ze kterých se ty další odvozují, to pomáhá s tím "proč" Hmm, třeba kvarky s elektrickým nábojem půjdou nějak dál rozložit, možná na něco jako struny v teorii strun, kde různý kvarky a jejich elektrický náboje jsou emergentně determinovaný z různě vibrujících strun tuším? Ale o teorii strun vím málo, plus je teda teorie strun je vědecky celkem kontroverzní nebo bude něco lepšího než teorie strun Ale i když člověk zjistí něco fundamentálnějšího, tak se stejně může dál ptát Odvozuje se to z něčeho dalšího? A proč je to zrovna takhle? Atd. Je to nekonečný. Nebo se člověk může ptát ještě dál a na víc filozofický úrovni. Třeba proč je něco místo ničeho? Knowledge wants to be free The more we can expand the scope, diversity and scale of intelligence, the better we can understand what questions to ask about the universe, platonic realm and overall reality, to understand the nature of it all, with more predictive and explanatory power