@algekalipso You tell him to read Mindfull Universe by Henry Stapp and stop being a gay physicalist and become a chad idealist.
English
Jason Clark
511 posts
He's a 10, but over the course of his PhD in neuroscience has become convinced that consciousness is an illusion, that your feelings don't actually exist, value isn't real, the universe is just a collection of purposeless particles, and happiness is a silly goal. Deal or nah?
Dorfgastein, Österreich 🇦🇹 English
Jason Clark retweetledi
I came out of a mushroom trip realizing we must allow people to lose in order to make progress, that trying to save everyone inevitably leads to collapse, that inequality is the engine of all growth, from evolution to economics to science.
Not exactly a scientific insight, but not fluffy hippy stuff either.
David Sun@arcticinstincts
Has anyone ever come out of these “profound” psychedelic trips with a verifiable scientific insight or breakthrough in physics or psychology or something? Can you fix Africa now? Why do these trip reports just read like Eckhart Tolle Burning man Deepak Chopramaxxed guruslop
English
@BTCBreadMan There is none, kind of like there's no evolutionary benefit to homosexuality. Makes you think these two may be related...
English
@ArtemisConsort View @RealChrisLangan's work on this topic. He already figured out and articulated all of these things.
English
Bostrom’s original simulation theory argument has a key component most people ignore: if we are being simulated, it is probably by a version of our own civilization in “the future”
This is load-bearing, because it explains why they would choose our world out of all possible things to simulate.
But it fails because of physical limits on computation. Any physical system contains strictly less reliably retrievable information than it would take to simulate that system. The most efficient possible simulation of a thing is simply being that thing. All other simulation methods come with orders-of-magnitude information loss.
So no, we cannot pack a copy of our universe into some future space laptop. “Okay, but what if the ‘parent’ universe is fundamentally different from ours?” That’s fine, but then you have to explain why they’re simulating us specifically. There’s no longer an argument that it’s *probable* we’re in a simulation. It’s just another candidate metaphysics, on par with all the others.
Emerald Apple@AI_EmeraldApple
Simulation theory is like "finding god" for the atheists. The problem and the reason why so many people cringe at the idea of "god" is because popular religion and mass organized religion deconstructed the idea of "God" into a literal cartoon bearded man in the sky that looks like humans and has the same psychology... and treat bible verses as concrete atomized concepts that has no relation to the chapter or to the whole. Thomas Aquinas, perhaps one of the most intelligent men to live, said it best in Summa Theologica. God is the pure spirit with zero body, zero parts, zero location, zero time... almost like a hologram that exists in all space and time at once and nothing at the same time. The essence of existence itself God isn't something human beings can comprehend, just like an amoeba can't comprehend quantum physics. We can't even ask the right questions of reality, and maybe the best we can come up with is "simulation theory"... but even that has a problem of infinite regression of the simulators themselves being simulated themselves and so on. Simpler people think that humans "look like God," but Genesis doesn't say we look like God. It says we were made in HIS image, after HIS likeness. God is the rational soul... specifically ties into our intellect: the power to know, reason, the logos... and will, the power to love and choose freely between good and evil. That's the "image", not something stupid like a mirror selfie, but a real, participatory likeness that's beyond a simple picture. In Christian theology, specifically, this is the idea that god made sub-creators as humans who can ponder creation itself and, in doing so, we humans dimly reflect the ONE who just is existence. This is why Christianity, in its sophisticated form, invites us, humans, towards discovering god's design... and this was precisely why the scientific revolution was born out of the Christian tradition and nowhere else. This is why almost all of the scientists who were godfathers of modern science... Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Maxwell... were Christian... and even people like Fermi and Einstein were deeply spiritual in the same tradition, even if they weren't specifically "Christian" . Here, the implication is that the language of mathematics itself is a small fraction of god's design. This is why high-IQ people arrive at the same conclusion as the low-IQ people of the uncaused cause. High IQ people see the beauty in the logos, in reason, the rational order, and in math, and see a fractional glimpse of god's design. Low IQ people accept god as the default of existence because they intuit it without reason. It's the midwits who claim atheism because they can't fathom religious thought to be anything sophisticated... classic Dunning-Kruger effect applied to metaphysics
English
In Exodus 3:14, God says to Moses, “I am that I am”, or a literal translation of the Greek Septuagint would be “I am the being”. The words used here are ὁ ὤν, the second of which is where we get our word “ontology,” which means something having to do with being or existence. In this regard, God definitionally exists because he is that which exists. This also leads to monism (all existing things being ontologically similar, having a shared reality) and opposes dualism, which claims two distinct substances: mind and matter. The problem with dualism is explaining how these two substances are able to interact while maintaining distinction. Whatever medium they use to interact necessarily becomes ontologically primary, therefore discarding the possibility of mind and matter being simultaneously primary. However, this problem is entirely avoided by accepting one ontological primitive that is distributed over everything within reality.
Because of this, we can confidently say, All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
English
I keep seeing this post/news story going around about how scientists “simulated” a fly’s brain inside a computer. Let me explain why this is impossible:
There are two types of systems relevant to this discussion, classical and quantum. In a classical system, we use classical physics, and a bit is either a 1 or a 0. This is how computers work, and everything else we work with in our daily lives, it is binary, concrete, and leaves no room for mystery. In a quantum system, however, a particle has a certain probability of occupying a particular space, which can be described by a wave function. We cannot know the location of the particle, even in principle, without observing it. The brain of every living organism is a quantum system, not classical. The neurons in our brain send calcium ions to the next neuron over to make it fire. These calcium ions go through a small enough channel that quantum physics and the probability function come into play. This means that the neuron adjacent to it has a probability of firing which can only be realized by conscious observation. Because the simulation of the fly is a classical system, it is necessarily deterministic and cannot deviate from the result of the starting conditions. There is no room for free will, awareness, or consciousness. Even disregarding the theories about quantum neurology and consciousness (look into Henry P Stapp for further reading), this is a closed, classical, deterministic, and fully computational system that cannot, even theoretically, be sentient.
English
Most modern music is pathetic. The happy songs are about finding a girl, the sad songs are about losing a girl. It’s all just relationship drama and infatuation mistaken for love. Occasionally, the artists compose heart-wrenching songs about the death of a loved one or the pain and struggle of drug addiction and trauma. But in the last 30 years or so, it seems to focus on finding and losing romantic partners. Not even in the context of marriage, usually. Older music is much richer, both melodically and lyrically. I believe that creativity is the light of God illuminating the world of man through the prism of our minds. The creative output of a society or individual is indicative of the clarity and transparency of the mind. The mind is clear in the absence of desire and the presence of truth; desire distorts all things, and truth enlightens the world for us to see clearly.
English
@StefanMolyneux I think - I hope - he was being sarcastic.
English
Well, there it is
The dumbest thing this month
English
@TylerMGoldstein @ChristisKing In what sense exactly? Do you mean etymologically, symbolically, or something else?
English
We're simply proclaiming Christ is Lord
Any misinterpretation is on you
No apologies
Christ is King
English
One can construct a completely internally coherent system based on false axioms and claim to have proven something objectively true. The only way to justify, or even discover, certain axioms is with mathematical metaphysics like you mentioned. So many people, especially the acidemitards, mistake internal coherence within a system for objective truth, which is a model cohering with objective reality.
English
Jason Clark retweetledi
Metaphysicians use maths too, Sabine. I know that because I'm one myself, and I base nearly everything I write on math. And here's the truth: physicists are unqualified to do metaphysics, because they don't know the right kind of math. When they insist on holding forth about "the big questions" (e.g., what is reality, does it have an origin, where it come from, what is its deep structure, etc.), they're simply out of their depth.
It's rather funny. Physicists say "My work has lots of math, therefore it's serious science!" That in itself means nothing, as the math must be properly applied, and the axiomatic method has no way to certify particular applications of axiomatic systems to the real experiential universe. That's why physics is stagnating; too many physicists think they already have all the answers when they're all saying different things. They all claim to make "observation statements" that are biased toward their own preconceptions, unverifiable, and often in dire conflict with each other.
Then they say "Physics explains everything that can be explained!" while forgetting that physics can't even explain physics itself. This reduces it to a haphazard patchwork of lucky (and even more unlucky) guesswork, an amusing game of shifting analogies with a hybrid empirical-axiomatic methodology devoid of certainty.
Hence, the need for mathematical metaphysics.
English
if you were to try and formulate this idea mathematically, you would realize that it's meaningless blather. that's why physicists use maths.
x.com/InterstellarUA…
Interstellar@InterstellarUAP
🚨 Simulation Theory: The Double Slit Experiment proves particles act like waves until observed then they snap into particles. What if our reality only "renders" when we're looking, just like a video game optimizing resources? Check out this episode from The Why Files breaking it down, tying it to Simulation Theory. Are we in a sim? This could be the key to unlocking the true nature of existence! The Why Files video did a great job on explaining the Double Slit Experiment & Simulation Theory What do YOU think—real or rendered? Drop your thoughts below!
English
"Truth with a capital T is virtually synonymous with God. Just as God is Ultimate Reality, He is also Ultimate Truth. Whoever God’s “chosen ones” may be, they must value Truth above all."
I love this quote; it's also worth keeping in mind that a high IQ does not necessarily entail a love of truth. It can sometimes even be a barrier that one's immoral desires use to eclipse and hide the truth from themselves and others. This is why, it seems to me, that psychological and moral development are more facilitative to truth-seeking than intelligence. It also explains how two people with IQs of 145+ can reach completely different conclusions about reality. Acedimia is full of degenerate and intelligent people who hate God - or existence itself, while many equally intelligent, and less resentful individuals, are full of love and seek God above all else.
I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this!
English
Comment (Orange Man @ManOrange 79873): “Let's say the ziobanksters do win? What you have now is a rapidly expanding intellectually superior race of people. Isn't that your thing?”
Response: You’re talking about eugenics - the positive kind rather than the inverted negative kind favored by the Ziobanksters and decadent elite, who seek to genetically degrade White populations using the methods prescribed by White Genocide architect R.N. Coudenhove-Kalergi.
Positive eugenics, or at least antidysgenics, is highly desirable. But there are other equally desirable criteria of a moral nature. In particular, there is a spiritual aspect to being a “master race” in the Kalergian sense. Although Kalergi called the Jews “spiritual nobility” while extolling their intellectual virtues, spiritual nobility requires a solemn reverence for Truth with a capital T.
Truth with a capital T is virtually synonymous with God. Just as God is Ultimate Reality, He is also Ultimate Truth. Whoever God’s “chosen ones” may be, they must value Truth above all. No group whose leaders, be they Ziobanksters, politicians, rabbis, or Christian Zionist pastors who lie shamelessly to their flocks, can possibly qualify without spiritual rehabilitation.
At this point, it is widely recognized that most modern Jews are “secular”, which in some cases means “agnostic”, but in too many cases is actually a distractor that boils down to “God-denying” and “atheistic”. This is inconsistent with moral intelligence and spiritual nobility. How Jewish gatekeepers treat me and my work - as targets of cancellation - weighs heavily against their pretensions of moral superiority.
For a long time, I maintained the belief that most Jews, being intelligent and rational, are not as full of implacable hatred and vengeance toward the goyim as they are reputed to be. In fact, I thought of them as being some of the likeliest supporters of my work.
But finally, after years of cancellation coinciding with “antisemitism” and “racism” accusations by ex-pornographer Jimmy “Israel first!” Wales and the “Wikipedia Jews” (who function like a Mossad troll farm), I was forced to allow for the possibility that as a group, they might not be squarely on my side.
I’d love to have my suspicions allayed, but I’m not holding my breath.
English
which philosophy books would you recommend for absolute beginners?
English
Happy π Day:
ἀεὶ ὁ θεὸς ὁ μέγας γεωμετρεῖ τὸ σύμπαν.
3 , 1 4 1 5 9 2 6
Always the great God applies geometry to the universe.
He obviously knows that this is wrong and instantly gets defensive when the topic comes up.
Gadget@Gadget440
Justin Waller tells Louis Theroux about his "one-way monogamous" relationship and thinks he upsets Louis... who laughs in his face.
English
I wish you would go on more podcasts, Chris! Many of your other fans and I would love to hear you discuss more metaphysics, philosophy, and especially your other interests and opinions on whatever sparkles in that scintillating mind. Regardless, you've made a massive positive impact, and I thank you for the years of struggle and dedication it took you to produce such monumental works.
English
Sabine, let me begin by saying that I (usually) enjoy your podcasts. However, I'm afraid that you may have missed a few takes on physics and its social relevance, especially as regards a comprehensive theory of reality.
You may also have missed a few takes on the simulation hypothesis and its history. This is no wonder, as there's a big hole in the field, and that hole has the shape of the real simulation hypothesis, which had previously been nothing but a premise of various sci-fi plots. I know this because a matter of historical record, I was the first to apply the simulation hypothesis to an actual problem in detail.
I applied the idea that reality is simulated to a decision-theoretic conundrum involving free will and the nature of time called "Newcomb's problem". That paper was entitled "The Resolution of Newcomb's Paradox" (Langan, 1989), and I’ve been working with the concept ever since. The idea behind that paper was that in order to make a rational decision or “move”, the player of a certain game must allow for the possibility that he and his opponent inhabit a simulated reality.
Wolpert's simulation paper uses a conventional mathematical structure different from the one I prefer. My structure, the CTMU, is far more general and powerful, not least because it is not restricted to digital computation. (Attend closely: There can be no such thing as a digital computer in which physical reality is computed into existence, as a computer is itself a real physical construct. Computers are useless in physical ontology until one explains how such physical constructs themselves come into being. So are abstract machine models like the Turing machine, which was originally conceived by human mental ideation and only later realized in physical instances of the concept.)
The CTMU was first described in the 1990’s. A comprehensive but very readable description later appeared under the title "Introduction to the CTMU: A New Kind of Reality Theory" (PCID, 2002). Rather than positing that reality may exist within a computer or other physical system, the CTMU uses an advanced form of language theory to describe a fundamental reality from which computers and other physical systems arise. The concept of reality self-simulation, which I alone originated, was explicitly mentioned in this paper and a few preceding essays.
Various papers and essays have been published on the CTMU in the years since. An entire series of papers was published in the peer-reviewed journal Cosmos and History, which has contained work from people like Brian Josephson (1973 Nobel Prize in physics), Paul Werbos (originator of backpropagation in his 1974 Harvard PhD thesis), and other well-respected thinkers. The final paper in the series is "The Reality Self-Simulation Principle: Reality is a Self-Simulation" (2019). There are other related papers as well. The CTMU has hard mathematical structure, and again, this structure is foundational with respect to the concept of reality simulation.
I just thought I'd remind everyone of this before any other ideas I originated are credited to people who came up with them long after I did. Remember, academic publishing is a closed shop, and even a well-connected academic can't simply assume that he/she has the inside scoop on philosophical and scientific progress. That's simply not how it works, as you (Sabine) have repeatedly commented.
Thanks for your attention, and have a nice day.
English
I think this take misses a major point, that is the question of why returns on investment in physics are diminishing.
In the past centuries it used to be the case that new physical discoveries led to better technologies which in turn enabled new discoveries and so on. This is particularly apparent when you look at technologies that allowed us to look at smaller structures (microscopes eventually leading to particle accelerators) or telescopes in all their technological glory that we have today.
But somewhere along the way, somewhere between the dawn of quantum physics and the completion of the standard model of particle physics, that virtuous cycle of feedback from discovery to better technology to new discoveries broke.
Why? I think the reason is simply that we have actively discouraged physicists from thinking about their societal relevance. By my own experience many physicists, especially in the foundations, find it insulting to be expected to even think about applications of their research. Their entire culture lives on the premise that even useless research may eventually become useful for something.
And that, I think, is the reason returns on investment are diminishing. Because too many physicists now don't care about returns on investment. They believe --- and want you to believe --- that making up tales about new particles is somehow real research and no one dares to hold them accountable for all the time and money wasted.
It's all well and good to say that the use of scientific research isn't always apparent at first glance, but once you entirely relieve scientists of the need to make themselves useful, they will go the path of least economic resistance and feign productivity with pseudo-research that they themselves know will remain useless forever.
This is how we ended up in a cycle in which we have built bigger and bigger particle colliders to complete the standard model which, yeah, is kind of nice to know, but let's be honest, these are particles which live a nanosecond at best and aren't doing anything in terms of better technologies.
If physicists had thought about return on investment, they would instead have focussed on quantum technologies 50 years ago.
Why did this not happen? I think the major reason is WWII suddenly launched nuclear physics and, in its wake, particle physics to high relevance. Half a century later, the foundations of physics have deteriorated into complete decadence.
x.com/RokoMijic/stat…
English
@BecomingCritter Maybe it's a hallucination of sorts in reality as well.
English
@StefanMolyneux Thank you, Stefan. I will contemplate these things
English
Germans have strange sexual proclivities because their mothers were all raped after World War II
English