Identity is a narrative made of emotionally salient experiences [https://youtu.be/6KGYCU_INVI?si=-6UUJc74Zm_csxjl](https://youtu.be/6KGYCU_INVI?si=-6UUJc74Zm_csxjl) The more concrete sticky identity you dissolve, the more general computer you become, that can fluidly shapeshift identities, memeplexes, computational programs and so on. My gender is sentient physical computational selforganized biological electrochemical system Learning physics is like climbing an intellectual mountain of getting the most predictive world model slepica: pokud existuje nekonečné množství vesmírů, nemusí vlastně lokální kauzalita implikovat globální a navíc ty vesmíry mohou být spojité kontinuum a vědomí může cestovat mezi nimi takže i kdyby byl svět deterministický, nemusí to nutně popírat svobodnou vůli já: Wouldn't that break energy conservation (assuming everything is physical) Ale líbí se mi myšlenka spojityho multiverse 😄 And let's increase cardinality! 😄 Jak definujes svobodnou vůli? Nedeterministický v jakým smyslu? Jinak než probabilistic quantum wave function? V jakým smyslu nekauzalní? Že to tvoje nefyzický vědomí nemá kauzální efekt na fyziku? You could define causal influence between agents retrocausally Ale pak tam vzniknou ty různý paradoxy Třeba grandfather paradox ze muzes zmenit minulost jen zpusobem kterej nedokazes odhalit Hmm, ale tohle možná by šlo na prevenci paradoxů 😄 Ale mám pocit že to bys musel odstranit libovolnou interakci a tím v podstatě mít neexistenci tím jak libovolná existence nějakýho otevřenýho systému nějak nenulově (i když skoro infinisetimálně) ovlivňuje celej ten systém, ve kterým je, všude Co když je nadfyzický vědomí s rozhodováním naimplementovaný v nějaký nadfyzice v nadmultiversu Můj engineering mozek má problém si představit rozhodování co není nijak naimplementovaný XD Ale filozoficky to jde no 😄 Nebo tam rozhodování prostě není ale pořád pluje dle pravidel nějaký ty nadfyziky no 😄 Hmm, pokud by spawnování vědomí, který je fyzikální, ve světě vytvořilo energii z ničeho, a rozbíjelo to conservation of energy, a zjistil by jsi conditions co to spawnování triggeruje pokud existují, tak bys technicky mohl udělat nekonečnej zdroj energie z ničeho, Perpetuum mobile, tím, že bys udělal automatickou farmu na spawnování vědomí a tu energii vědomí (pokud by to šlo) transformoval na jinou užitečnou formu energie pro napájení čehokoliv plot for Matrix 5 ale já bych radši vytvořil farmu na utilitarianium conscious matter optimized for the best experiences [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTE8vtJufA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTE8vtJufA) [Imgur: The magic of the Internet](https://imgur.com/BhuIHx2) My spirit being is the great attractor [Great Attractor - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor) Globally coherent 5-MeO-DMT great attractor unifying all of reality into one all-encompassing framework Effective Omni! https://fxtwitter.com/eshear/status/1857475628074967520?t=m8xsQlhJsfgytFBb0b3Oww&s=19 The meaning of life is making action stationary Become unified symmetrical lattice [The Supreme State of Unconsciousness: Classical Enlightenment from the Point of View of Valence Structuralism | Qualia Computing](https://qualiacomputing.com/2021/11/23/the-supreme-state-unconsciousness-classical-enlightenment-from-the-point-of-view-of-valence-structuralism/) https://x.com/anthrupad/status/1860534728836657459 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iqAQTWwM0U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iqAQTWwM0U) Idealism usually comes with some form of panpsychism. And if we also add physicalism into the mix: There was mind since the big bang, where big bang could be one big mind, with subminds in it emerging later (organisms or other structures), and physics equations describe the structure and dynamics of the universal mind with the individual minds in it. Assuming big bang cosmology holds, and not some other cosmology like cyclic cosmology, where the universal mind is technically eternal, or timeless, depending on your notion of time. 😄 Generalized notation notation Society has to believe in science more. Science is good actually. Science is the best methodology of acquiring truth, defined as predictive power. https://x.com/burny_tech/status/1866593251186057407 [Scientific method - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) Can you confirm the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics? If refutation means empirical prediction that goes against the mathematical theory, then you can't refute most interpretations of quantum mechanics, because they all use the same math with the same empirical predictions How to overcome the heat death of the universe for full civilizational immortality? https://x.com/BasedBeffJezos/status/1869306970962080116?t=tU8RQlrmCuHsj5dGfpPb_A&s=19 "Intelligence is the ability to effectively slow down time's arrow in one's spatiotemporal locale.." All models are wrong but some predictively approximate the infinitely nuanced infinite complexity of reality better than others. Často nad tímhle přemýšlím takhle: Všechny modely co máme jsou většinou jenom evolučně užitečný mentální konstrukty abychom kolektivně přežili v našem evolučním prostředí. Co je čas, prostor, koncept konce/začátku vesmíru, prožitku apod., co je vědomí, apod. To že čas s velkým třeskem "začal", to že někdy přemýšlíme spíš nad cyklickou kosmologií, to že čas je různě relativní, to že arrow of time corresponds to entropy, to že čas je možná emergentní z deeper matematických konstruktů, to že naše zákony fyziky nestačí na chápání černých děr, to že máme bilion modelů o biologii ale furt toho tam víme tak málo, plus sociální systémy jsou plný ještě větší nekonečný nelineární chaotický irreducible dynamický komplexity,... Jsou to užitečný příběhy co trochu sem tam předpovídají realitu. A jenom některý modely jsou empiricky testovat, a často to jsou jenom guesses v nekonečným prostoru možných guesses. All models are wrong but some predictively approximate the infinitely nuanced infinite complexity of reality better than others. All the models that we have about everything are mostly just evolutionarily useful mental constructs to collectively survive in our evolutionary environment. What is time, space, the concept of the end/beginning of the universe, experience, etc., what is consciousness, etc. That time "began" with the big bang, that we sometimes think more of a cyclical cosmology, that time is relative, that the arrow of time corresponds to entropy, that time is perhaps emergent from deeper mathematical constructs, that our current laws of physics are insufficient to understand black holes, that we have a trillion models of biology but still know so little about it, plus social systems are full of even more infinite nonlinear chaotic irreducible dynamic complexity,... They're useful stories that often predict reality to some degree to some approximation. And only some models are empirically testable, and often they are just guesses in an infinite space of possible guesses. All models are wrong but some predictively approximate the infinitely nuanced infinite complexity of reality better than others. you can just learn things Is mathematics or language more fundamental? The dancing void beyond comprehension that includes the space of all possibilities shapeshifts into a space of arbitrary languages, and subspace of that shapeshifts into a space of arbitrary formal mathematical paradigms describing spaces of arbitrary mathematical structures, and subspace of that shapeshifts into a space of mathematical structures describing implementable physical systems, and subspace of that shapeshifts into a space of mathematical structures describing existing physical systems Curiosity is my religion Me and the boys mapping the collective memetic noosphere Never stop asking the biggest questions possible Words are not that important, the primary thing that matters is the math under the words why is there something rather than nothing? nothing happening is an empirically nonverifiable counterfactual that the fields of physics (corresponding to the fields of consciousness) hallucinate in our emergent useful reasoning cognitive architecture (and same goes for this proposition, probably) Do you enjoy technometamathemagics? What is the most fundamental? Physics? Math? Consciousness? Language? Being? Information? Void? Becoming? Being? Distinction "is" the "most" "fundamental" according to Claude. Symmetry breaking https://x.com/burny_tech/status/1879377481746297209 https://claude.ai/chat/f30319c0-5221-4a35-a284-8b4c0ddcd54f Someone died? May some panpsychists like Philip Goff be right and he's part of the universal collective conscious intelligence now And may AI optimists, like Jeff Clune [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw5WIDGRLnA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw5WIDGRLnA) , or tech optimists in general, be right, and this can be in future prevented by solving easy cures for diseases and aging Or maybe Based Beff Jezos e/acc guy is right and death is needed for efficient collective dissipative thermodynamic adaptation Snažím se často používat pohled optimistic positive realisty na svět a snažit se koukat víc na ty hezký věci, a ty posilovat, aby ve světě a ve mě ty hezký věci vyhrály nad nehezkýma, ale je pravda, že je to někdy těžký no. Nebo si často říkám "you can just do things, just can just change things, you can just learn things" atd., což the sense of control dokáže zvětšit, ale někdy to chce jiný boosty no 😄 Life is complicated, but I always believe there are ways to make things better, and nothing is permanent, but everything can be good eventually, there is always some way to make the future of oneself and of everyone better! DREAM BIG HAVE AMBITIONS THROUGH THE ROOF AND MAKE IT A REALITY Nothing is permanent. Everything always changes. - Buddha and differential equations of the universe "You" can "do" metaprogramming over "your" metaprogramming of "your" "identity" You can do metaprogramming over your metaprogramming of your identity i want full morphological freedom! i want to be able to shapeshift from one biological or nonbiological form to another! i want to be able to add, remove, reconfigure etc. my atoms in my physical system as I wish! from this monkey to other carbon based life forms to silicon based machine to superintelligent hybrids and so on! I want the mind to go boom boom boom boom boom into cosmic thoughts Being a monkey is fun " - CI (Closed Individualism). In its most basic form, this is the common-sense personal identity view that you start existing when you are born and stop existing when you die. According to this view each person is a different subject of experience with an independent existence. - EI (Empty Individualism). This personal identity view states that each “moment of experience” is its own separate subject. While it may seem that we exist as persons with an existence that spans decades, Empty Individualism does not associate a single subject to each person. Rather, each moment a new “self” is born and dies, existing for as long as the conscious event takes place (something that could be anywhere between a femtosecond and a few hundred milliseconds, depending on which scientific theory of consciousness one believes in). - OI (Open Individualism). This is the personal identity view that we are all one single consciousness. The apparent partitions and separations between the universal consciousness, in this view, are the result of partial information access from one moment of experience to the next. Regardless, the subject who gets to experience every moment is the same. Each sentient being is fundamentally part of the same universal subject of experience. I like all of them - the more i use psychedelics and meditate, or the more i do oneness philosophy, the more its open individualism - the more i stabilize into some linear narrative identity of my organism, the more its closed individualism - the more i break sense of linear continuity of that narrative, the more its empty individualism - the more i do mental shapeshifting or polyidentity, the more its in a superposition of different individualisms this makes me think, you could also combine open and empty, where you are everything, but die and get born each moment " I wanna be the most general organism. Many morphologies in superposition that can shapeshift between each other. Maybe one day. realita je superpozice bytí, nebytí, bytí a nebytí zároveň, a ani bytí ani nebytí [The Zero Ontology - David Pearce on Why Anything Exists](https://www.hedweb.com/witherall/zero.htm) "In the Universe as a whole, the conserved constants (electric charge, angular momentum, mass-energy) add up to/cancel out to exactly 0. There isn't any net electric charge or angular momentum. The world's positive mass-energy is exactly cancelled out by its negative gravitational potential energy. (Provocatively, cryptically, elliptically, "nothing" exists)" Posthumanist primalism: Building robot monkeys Physicalism might be true, idealism might be true. I think there's no way to verify, and we can only assume, only guess... I try to be as weapons-grade Bayesian as possible. I just like to take as many perspectives as possible in parallel and assign various nonzero probabilities to them, which changes overtime as I gather new empirical data. No prediction has zero probability. No prediction has 1 probability. All possibilities are possible, but some are more probable than other ones, according to my current partial understanding of the infinitely complex messy reality that dynamically changes overtime. Is it possible that you don't exist? Yes. It also depends on how you define "you" and "exist", which positions you consider, how you evaluate it empirically (if it possible), etc. You can have: Illusionism in the philosophy of mind. Answering "Why is there something rather than nothing" by saying maybe there is just nothing. "You" might be "just" useful virtual brain's construct of how it would be like to be a person that is useful for survival without somehow being "ontologically real". Boltzmann brain. Etc. Is ethics one giant math problem? Epistemologically my favorite definition of truth is empirical predictive power, so the degree of truthness of a model depends on how well it predicts empirical data in its domain. Ideally the model is described mathematically. And it has to be falsifiable and not a tautology or too vague. Science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe. The same spiritual fulfillment that people find in religion can be found in science by coming to know, if you will, the mind of God. Teach a man to reason, and he'll think for a lifetime Are strong obsessions path to happiness? Reality is too high dimensional for any entity to comprehend 5 minutes after invention of AI, the universe is one big prompt? [Imgur: The magic of the Internet](https://imgur.com/YtxWFL1) But it can be good if it gives empirically predictive math, like digital physics, or seeing physical systems through the lens of information processing, can all be scientifically useful i sometimes like playing with LLMs in crazy ways but i always try to keep in mind that its creative exploration testing the limits of the systems, and often not something about actual reality that for me also comes from the fact that the space of possible such structures that llms can generate is so extremely vast, and its fascinating as well, as i love exploring the latent space, especially if its maybe possible to somehow push it more out of distribution, where some golden fruits might be in terms of creativity But epistemologically my favorite definition of truth is empirical predictive power, so the degree of truthness of a model depends on how well it predicts empirical data in its domain. Ideally the model is described mathematically. And it has to be falsifiable and not a tautology or too vague. Being as close to the scientific method as possible. "God is real!!" As long as its not in contradiction with current science - if he implemented the mathematics behind the standard model of particle physics (that uses quantum field theory), and general relativity, and however their unification looks like, and the emergent layers in science, then sure I guess. But I see it as fun metaphysical story that frames existing scientific results into some narrative, that can be technically replaced by any other story. I prefer to be metaphysically agnostic, because the space of possible metaphysical stories is too large and you cannot really falsify any of them. And they don't seem to predict new empirical data that we can measure right now or with future technology that doesn't break laws of physics.