A Little Weird » Philosophy

A Little Weird

reality bizarres the standard

## Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category

December 2nd, 2009 by Sean Wolfram, Again

I know a lot of you guys aren’t convinced that Wolfram’s theory of everything is correct. The more I think about it, and the more I digest his book… the more I become convinced that he has simply figured it out. I believe Wolfram will go down in history for being the first human being to discover how reality works. Again, if you haven’t seen his presentation, start here. If you need more detail, then buy his book.

Part of me always hesitates to align myself with one particular mindset. I like to hold conflicting views in my head, and force myself to see things from different perspectives. But Wolfram’s theory is just… genius. It’s amazingly convincing. It speaks directly to my programmer’s mind, and gives me clarity. Or maybe I’m just sick of all the philosophical questions, and Wolfram has become “good enough” for me :-).

-

It’s important to realize: Wolfram’s theory doesn’t really make predictions about how reality behaves. It sounds strange… you would think that if you know how everything works, then you should be able to predict what’s going to happen. Wolfram’s genius is in dispelling this assumption. How does PK work? Are OBEs real? Is there life after death? I still don’t know. Wolfram’s theory isn’t in the same ballpark as these questions.

Wolfram’s theory only really asserts two core ideas: 1. Reality is deterministic. 2. Reality is inherently unpredictable.

As you can see, these two ideas don’t really offer solutions to any “real world” problems. We still need to worry about global warming. We still need to explore space. We still need to eat, breathe, love, and survive. Nothing really changes.

But these ideas… They just feel like such a giant sigh of relief. They say, in a loud booming voice: Everything is OK. There’s always a third option. Reality is divinely balanced, and no one can take that away. Every experience is new and unique, and the only way to know for sure what’s going to happen is to wait and see.

And these ideas aren’t just nice thoughts anymore. They’re proven, in black and white, in Wolfram’s book.

I feel satisfied. Yes, I still have an infinite number of things to learn and experience — but that’s the point! My philosophical self has been extinguished. Thank you, Wolfram.

Posted in Philosophy, Belief Systems | 7 Comments »

November 11th, 2009 by Sean Larger Than Mind

Happy 11/11!

I don’t really have anything to offer today. I don’t know… for the past two months or so, I just haven’t been interested in “truth” or the “paranormal”. I think it’s related to the crystallization of Wolfram’s theory of everything. I just don’t feel the same passion that I used to.

I mean… Wolfram solved it. He figured reality out. Of course, there are an infinite number of details… but the big picture is complete. (Well, technically the big picture isn’t complete yet, but Wolfram has pointed in the correct direction, and it’s just a matter of time at this point… and I always reserve the right to be completely wrong.)

It’s funny, because I think we hold on to this illusion that God is some sort of personal being. Like a human, sitting and making decisions, and interfering with our lives, helping us along, etc. I see a different God now… neither personal nor impersonal. Larger than mind. I can’t contain the idea in my head anymore. I can’t label it, and parse it, and move it around… it’s too unknowable.

Inherent unpredictability. What a beautiful thought. What a sigh of relief.

Anyways…

There is so much to learn and wonder about in the world. I really love this world… it’s such a curious phenomenon. No box is big enough to contain it.

And the sneaky part is when I say “larger than mind”, our mind immediately grasps the concept. But what a slap in the face! “Larger than mind” loses all meaning once mind thinks it understands.

Like I said, I have nothing to offer you today… just random musings on life, the universe, and everything.

Posted in Note to Self, Philosophy | 8 Comments »

October 3rd, 2009 by Sean Solution to Determinism/Free Will

Hi there… My great friend, Stephen Wolfram, has clued in me to the solution to the apparent contradiction between determinism and free will. He told me about it here.

In philosophy, there is a debate between determinism and free will. The idea goes like this: if the world is deterministic, that means there is a math formula for everything. As a result, if you knew the initial conditions of the universe - you could simulate the entire universe using the math rules. However, if that is true, then free will doesn’t exist. If everything is just a math formula, then YOU don’t really ever make a choice… you are just making pretend choices governed by the chemical reactions in your brain, which are governed by math.

The appeal here is that we all feel like free will exists. I feel like I make choices. I don’t feel like a robot, calculating my next move - I feel like an individual with a soul, that somehow magically makes real decisions. I choose whether to write this article or not… I choose what I’m going to say, or what I will eat, or how I spend my weekends. I choose.

So, if I have free will, where does it come from? If free will exists, then that means reality can’t be deterministic, and that a soul of some sort must exist.

Luckily, Mr. Wolfram has cleared this up. It turns out determinism is true (despite our ignorance in the field of quantum physics). But there’s a catch…

Reality is something called a “universal computer“. To explain this concept, let’s talk about our intuition…

In our minds, we might think of “problems” on a sliding scale of difficulty. Some problems are really easy to solve. Some problems are a little hard. And other problems are really really hard.

For example, if I give you the length of two sides of a right triangle, you can figure out the length of the third size. You would just use the Pythagorean theorem (a2 + b2 = c2), pull out your calculator, and figure the solution. Fairly simple.

However, if I asked you for a prediction of what the weather will be like in London on 15 March 2010… you can’t just plug that question into a formula and figure it out. You could give a best guess, but you won’t have a definite answer.

Or how about - how will humans evolve in another million years? This question seems much harder than the weather question! How would you even begin to estimate an answer? You might as well just make something up off the top of your head.

Our intuition tells us that there are many different levels of difficulty in answering problems. However, our intuition is wrong. There are really only two: things you can plug and chug in a formula… and things you can’t know for sure, and just have to wait and see.

Predicting the weather is the same level of mathematical difficulty as predicting the evolution of humans. The questions are equivalent. Likewise, any sort of formula-based question is the same level as well - just about all of math, physics, and chemistry is just figuring out which formula to use, and how to use it correctly. Plug and chug.

Now here’s the kicker (if I haven’t bored you already): it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to have a problem with MORE difficulty than predicting the weather. Our intuition tells us that problems can be more and more difficult. This is not true. Once a problem reaches a certain level of complexity, it is basically maxed out. It can’t get more difficult.

That tells us something about reality though: since we witness these difficult problems in reality, then reality must be complex enough to contain them. And since there is a limit to complexity - reality can’t be any MORE complicated. Therefore, the laws that govern reality MUST create a system of maximum complexity.

How does free will fit into this?

When a system reaches maximum complexity, the only way to predict the future is to wait and see. There are no short cuts. For example, I can’t write a computer program that predicts the output of another computer program. I can’t do it. It’s mathematically impossible. The ONLY way to predict how a computer program will run is to run it! You can sit back and analyze it all you want, but you CAN NOT predict the results without actually running it.

We are deterministic. However, we have reached the maximum level of complexity. Therefore, the only way to see what we’re going to do is to wait and see.

In our original thought in the second paragraph, we thought that if the universe was deterministic, then we could simulate the entire universe. Yes - in fact, that’s what we’re doing RIGHT NOW. However, we can’t predict the future. Our universe is moving as fast as it can… we cannot skip ahead, and predict the results before they happen.

Reality is deterministic, but unpredictable. Math saves the day. Thank you, Mr. Wolfram.

Posted in Video, Philosophy, Science | 16 Comments »

May 15th, 2009 by Sean Non-existent Existence

A brief update: Thank you to everyone who has e-mailed me concerning the call for volunteers. We’re working on getting something going, so stay tuned. With that said…

A lot of what I think about is abstract and without evidence. Forgive me if this is yet another post that indulges my hypothetical self.

I’ve been thinking about life after death, along with emergence, and the problems of Atheism. I had a thought: what if emergent properties, which don’t exist in their own right, actually do exist?

Let me give you an example. Suppose you take a rubik’s cube, and mix it up. After about a hundred random spins, it’s reached the maximum “mix” - you could mix it more, but it doesn’t really add complexity. In this mixed up state, there exists a certain sequence of moves that will solve it in the least amount of steps. Perhaps you are only 15 spins away from the solution. The problem is that you don’t know what those 15 spins are. The point is that those 15 spins exist.

In order to find those 15 spins, you would have to do quite a bit of calculation. It’s not a simple problem. A brute force strategy (where you try every possible combination) might take you a couple thousand years on a modern computer. Of course, at the end of that 5,000 year period, you would be certain the final solution is the fastest possible sequence… you’ve tried every possibility! (There are smarter ways to go about solving this problem, but we’ll save that for another day :-P)

When you hold a mixed up rubik’s cube in your hand, a fastest solution does exist. Not in reality, though… you can’t grab it. It’s a numbers game. It exists as a concept, independent of reality. If we imploded the universe, the mathematical concept still exists. There may not be any minds around to understand the concept, but it still exists, as a mathematical truth.

…Now for the real question:

Can a mathematical concept be conscious?

It doesn’t really make sense, at first. Math is abstract. Consciousness is an emergent property of organized brain cells (right?). Math exists in the sense that the idea exists in our head… but it doesn’t exist like a rock does. Math is intangible - not physical. Immortal. No beginning or end.

Let’s take it from another angle: We know that consciousness exists, because we are conscious, and we exist. So there must be a mathematical model for consciousness. Even if you believe in a magical unexplainable soul, you still have to recognize that we can do some cool neural-net stuff with artificial intelligence, and it’s only a matter of time before we make a computer program smart enough to simulate more advanced forms of awareness. The math is there.

The mathematical concept of consciousness exists. The numbers, and their movement, exist as a concept. If the universe implodes, the concept still exists… it isn’t dependent on physical reality. It’s a self-contained, independent, idea. That idea can be implemented in carbon-based lifeforms, or electrical circuitry of a computer, or rocks in sand, or any Turing-complete system.

So am I this immortal concept? Is reality?

8-|

Posted in Philosophy | 16 Comments »

April 18th, 2009 by Sean Emergence, pt. 2

What is the concept of “emergence”?

First, we create a system based on simple concepts, and simple rules. For example, suppose we have an image. We initialize the image with a random color at each pixel. Then, we randomly choose a pixel, and copy it’s color to a random neighbor. We repeat this process over and over again.

What emerges from these simple rules? It’s actually pretty cool to watch… the image starts to look life-like. At first it’s just random colors everywhere, but soon little pockets of the same color start to emerge. These blobs start small… but over time, they grow and shrink, and move around. They split in half… some die off completely. If the simulation is left to run long enough, sometimes two dominant colors emerge. They battle each other. One color might shrink down to a small section, only to expand again. Eventually, given enough time, one color will take over the entire image.

Why not take a look? I created a simple game where you can see emergence in action.

So what’s the point?

There are a lot of points. The main point is that it exists. Given just some numbers, and some simple rules, unpredictable properties emerge. It’s not a question of “faith” or “opinion” or anything like that. Emergence exists. It’s mathematically proven.

Big deal, numbers simulate stuff… nothing fantastic. What does it mean?

It actually means quite a lot, but it takes some more before we get to that point. The first step is to recognize its existence, and understand that - given a large enough system with some basic rules - things start to happen. And by things I mean life.

Posted in Philosophy, Science | 5 Comments »

April 5th, 2009 by Sean Completeness of Atheism

With the combination of evolution, emergence, and recognizing that the mind is responsible for the illusion of the world, I have stumbled upon a near-complete model of reality. I find myself saying things I’ve heard come out of the Atheist’s mouth. We don’t need a God to explain… anything. We can offer a more robust explanation using the Atheist’s concepts.

The Atheist has created a beautiful model of reality, really. It offers concrete answers to strange observations, and makes solid predictions about the future. It can answer more questions than any other system of beliefs I’ve come across. It is simple, elegant, and complete.

And that’s what bothers me :-).

First, let me state that Atheism is far better than any other modern theist belief structure. It is light-years beyond Christianity, in my opinion. Not that I don’t feel Christianity serves a useful purpose… I’m comparing the beliefs based on which offers more reasonable explanations. I.e., Evolution appeals to reason more than the Garden of Eden.

That being said, I find myself really upset with ESP and out-of-body experiences all of the sudden. They really ruin this perfectly complete Atheist model. I mean… they profoundly ruin it. By giving special exception to consciousness, we’ve invalidated the beauty of Atheism. The Atheist’s reply is to remove the special exception, restoring beauty to it’s model. But to be honest, I’m not really sure we can do that.

If I could ignore ESP and OBEs, I’d be a perfectly content Atheist right now. But damn it all to hell if reality hasn’t ruined it.

Incomplete or inconsistent. Gödel’s curse remains.

Posted in Philosophy, Belief Systems | 5 Comments »

March 15th, 2009 by Sean Certainty

Why is it that, the older we get, the more certain we become about reality?

And the more certain we become, the less magic there seems to be in the world?

Of course we can answer this in the boring sense: by virtue of having “unknowns” in your belief system, you subjectively sense magic because you cannot predict the future. It’s an inevitable result, limited to the confines of the mind. An illusion born out of your own ignorance.

Yeah, I get it.

What if it isn’t an illusion though? What if, by virtue of holding on to uncertainty, you genuinely affect reality, and allow magical things to happen? Meaning that: if you hold on to uncertainty, reality itself behaves differently for you.

It’s a mind-fuck. It blurs the line between subjectivity and objectivity.

I would like to test this theory out, but I have no clue how to go about it. How do you measure how uncertain you are? How do you determine whether this uncertainty is affecting reality, or mearly your perception of reality? How do you locate and bottle up the unknown?

Posted in Note to Self, Philosophy, Belief Systems | 10 Comments »

February 16th, 2009 by Sean The Spirit Is Not Special

(More ramblings)

There is a certain special property to the unknown. When we don’t know something, our imagination is free to fill in the details. Like a magic trick: when we see an amazing illusion, the fact that it fools us has a special feel. But once we learn the actual trick behind it - usually something very simple - that feeling is lost. It’s no longer special. It’s just a stupid trick.

As a culture, we don’t know what happens when we die. A lot of us have beliefs, but because the concept of death is irreversible by definition… there is no certainty. As a result, death holds a very unique place in our minds. It is inherently unknown, and therefore inherently special.

There are ways to study death without actually dieing, though. Out of body experiences might be related in some way (I believe that they are, but to be fair, I haven’t proven it). But there’s another way to study death. Study reality itself. If we learn something about reality, then we can apply it to death, even though we can’t study death directly.

The more I deconstruct myself, the more I realize that so many things are contained only in mind. For example: time. Is time etched into reality itself? Does reality know that it is 11:47am? No. “11:47am” is a result of mind. It was a system built by humans after noticing the frequency between night and day, and the seasonal changes, etc. If I go to Mars, then our human system of time is completely useless. Reality doesn’t care about time - only mind does.

Recently, I’ve discovered that “sacred”, “greater meaning”, “purpose”, “divine”, etc… is contained only in mind. Reality doesn’t care about what an event means to you. Remove the mind, and the meaning is removed.

Death is also a product of only-mind. Reality follows the conservation of energy: nothing is created or destroyed. What does this mean?

It means that we’ve circumvented the need to study death. Is there life after death? The question doesn’t make sense. Or rather, if I’m forced to answer, then the answer I come up with is:

If there is life after death, then ok. If there isn’t, then ok.

What’s so special about the spirit anyways?

Posted in Note to Self, Philosophy | 15 Comments »

February 5th, 2009 by Sean Conceptualization

Steve Pavlina wrote an article on the 11:11 phenomenon.

Overall, I liked it. I like the message, and I found myself nodding a lot during the article.

However :-). There is still a glaring problem. It’s not a problem with Steve or anything, it’s a problem with this reality I see. Maybe those who read this can share their thoughts.

Steve’s answer to 11:11 is that it’s basically a way to break down belief systems, and open people up to new understandings of reality. Ok, I get it, sounds good. The problem I have is this idea of “achievement”. All throughout New Age and New New Age beliefs, is this idea of expanding your consciousness, gaining a better understanding, becoming a better person, etc. It’s about progress. It’s about moving up the ladder of awareness.

But hidden in that notion, is that where you currently are now is incorrect. You hold incorrect ideas, and need to upgrade them with more correct ideas. For example, from Steve’s perspective, an incorrect belief might be that reality is objective. A more correct belief is that reality is subjective, and this subjectiveness creates an illusion of objectivity. Therefore, it’s better to hold the refined “subjective” belief, instead of the normal “objective” one.

We can pick any idea, really. For example, if you believe that Zeus throws lightning from the sky, then I would disagree. A more correct belief would be the current scientific understanding of lightning (electrons, charge, etc).

Where I run into a problem is: how can I say that one belief is better than another? How can I say one belief is more correct?

If I reject an idea, then I reject reality, because that idea has been created in reality. If our purpose is to upgrade our beliefs ad nauseam, then that assumes we aren’t a part of reality, but instead floating outside of it, choosing which ideas to keep, and which to discard. Our reality is one - therefore, our (incorrect) beliefs have arisen from this reality, and reside inside this reality.

If I reject a belief as false, then I reject that reality has given rise to the belief. In order to accept reality, I must accept that the belief’s existence is correct.

However, if I accept that a belief’s existence is correct, then there is no reason to strive to upgrade my beliefs! Progress is therefore an illusion!

How can I say that progress is an illusion, though? Wouldn’t it be better for everyone to be fed, than have people starve to death? If I reject progress, then I must accept both equally.

Consciousness and beliefs exist inside of reality. Therefore, I must accept their existence in order to accept reality. If reality says that it’s legal to hold an incorrect belief, then I have no authority to strive for correct beliefs. This idea of “striving” or “progress” is part of the mind - it is not part of reality. Therefore, I must accept morally disgusting events - like starvation. The only saving grace is to reject starvation from a human stand point - not a reality one. So it is the human mind that strives for progress (however that individual human defines that word). The human mind is what tells me starvation is bad, and that we need to strive. Reality couldn’t care less, either way. Strive, don’t strive… succeed, fail… 4 million years of humanity, 11 billion years of floating gas clouds… it’s all the same to reality.

Conceptualization is the error. “Progress” is the act of favoring one illusion over another. Not only is the mind the source of all illusion, it can create only illusion. QED.

Posted in Philosophy, Personal Development, Belief Systems | 16 Comments »

January 25th, 2009 by Sean Lottery Failure, Meaning of Life

It’s been nearly 2 years, and I haven’t won the jackpot. Therefore, I have failed my goal. I told myself, in March of 2007, that if I didn’t win by March of 2009, then I must deal with the failure directly.

On the plus side, I have won some money, and have beaten the odds. I can achieve some success… but not at the level I need to in order to win the jackpot.

I’ve been thinking a lot about it recently. For me, it’s been a question of Meaning. What is The Meaning of life, ya know?

A lot of people don’t really think about it… they pawn off the responsibility to some other person or book. That’s bullshit. Or, they conclude that they’ll never know, so stop thinking about it, and just move on. I also disagree with this approach.

If I knew the Meaning, then I could work towards that Meaning. For example, if the Meaning was to have babies… then I could just get married, have kids, and call it a day. Or if the Meaning was to help people, then I could just join the Peace Corps, teach people stuff, and call it a day. Or if the Meaning was to fight for freedom, then I could just become a Constitutional lawyer, run for public office, and call it a day :-).

The point is: how I answer the question of “Meaning” has a large impact on the decisions I make on a daily basis. It determines what direction I work towards. I’m willing! Give me a Meaning, and I will work hard for it! I’ve searched and searched, and all answers have failed.

“You choose your own Meaning of life!” Blah blah blah. If I choose the meaning of life, then it isn’t the meaning of life, is it? It’s the meaning of Sean’s choice.

See, I’ve developed another thought. Not only is there no meaning, but I think the entire premise is false. It’s false to need meaning. Instead of figuring out what the (non-existant) Meaning is, I should instead remove my need for a meaning.

What is meaning, anyways? What does meaning mean?

I get asked questions like, “I just had a really weird experience. What does it mean?” I never know how to answer those questions. What does it mean? What does it mean to you? I can’t tell YOU what it means to YOU. You tell me!

Ultimately, I think “meaning” is a bastardisation of “truth”. When we ask for the meaning behind something, we are really asking for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What does a car wreck mean? Well, it means you were going 40 miles per hour, and ignored the red light. Then, another driver who assumed you would stop at a red light, drove under their green light… upon which, you hit them, because the trajectory and timing of the vehicles put them in the same location, at the same point in time… which can’t happen… so instead, the cars rammed into each other. The metal bent, in accordance to how metal bends, based on the atomic properties of the chemical bonds in the material. Yadda yadda yadda.

There is no meaning outside of truth. There is no meaning of life, because the premise - that life exists - is incorrect to begin with. Sure, since we are human, we have human nature… which tells us to survive and reproduce. But the truth is, that if all humans were wiped off the face of this Earth… no one would care. There would be no one to care. Just like no one cared when the dinosaurs went extinct. The dinosaurs probably cared while it was happening… but they don’t care now. The atoms that made up the dinosaurs are layered under the Earth, or are flowing in a river, or maybe inside of your body. The very atoms that made up a ticeratops’ lungs are now protein strands in your brain, storing your memory as an 11 year old. And those protein strands couldn’t care less that they aren’t part of a tricertops anymore.

When we ask for the Meaning of life… the question is false, because the premise is that we are external to this world, looking into it through the lense of this human body. When we ask for the Meaning of life, we presuppose a false identity. The real question - the only question - is: Who Am I? What is the one true identity?

So what the hell does this have to do with the lottery?

The lottery was chosen as a vehicle through which to test life metaphors against the backdrop of reality - without relying on a human mind to give it meaning. The lottery project’s question was: does meaning exist outside of the human mind? The results responded: No. Meaning is created in the mind afflicted with the disease of identity. Meaning is not part of reality itself… it is a by-product of the human experience.

(As a side note, the observed phenomenon of “deeper meaning” is therefore a result of psychology and telepathy - theory #2 is correct.)

So: what is the meaning of life? A good answer is: peace, love, freedom, etc. A better answer is: whatever you choose for your own life. The correct answer is: Mu.

…

…Still, we are stuck.

Posted in Lottery, Note to Self, Philosophy, Belief Systems | 11 Comments »

- You are currently browsing the archives for the Philosophy category.

- ## Pages

  - Welcome!
  - Blog
  - Forums
  - Games
    - Emergence Game
    - Geiger Game
    - Lottery Game
  - Contact

- ## Experiments

  - Lottery Project, Part 1
  - Lottery Project, Part 2

- ## Categories

  - Belief Systems (28)
  - Books (7)
  - Consciousness (4)
  - Conspiracy (5)
  - Dream Phenomenon (24)
  - ESP (17)
  - How-To (11)
  - Lottery (32)
  - Note to Self (21)
  - Personal Development (17)
  - Philosophy (31)
  - Random Stuff (11)
  - Science (26)
  - Subconscious (14)
  - Uncategorized (1)
  - Video (16)
  - Website (13)

- ## Archives

  - November 2011
  - November 2010
  - June 2010
  - February 2010
  - December 2009
  - November 2009
  - October 2009
  - August 2009
  - July 2009
  - May 2009
  - April 2009
  - March 2009
  - February 2009
  - January 2009
  - November 2008
  - October 2008
  - September 2008
  - August 2008
  - July 2008
  - June 2008
  - May 2008
  - April 2008
  - March 2008
  - February 2008
  - January 2008
  - December 2007
  - November 2007
  - October 2007
  - September 2007
  - August 2007
  - July 2007
  - June 2007
  - May 2007
  - April 2007

- ## Links

  - A State of Mind
  - Dreaming to Infinity
  - Monroe Institute on YouTube
  - Shifted Perspectives
  - UC Berkeley on YouTube

- ## Meta

  - Login
  - Valid XHTML

All Content, Images, Video, Text, and Software is © Copyright 2007-2009 Sean Connelly and their respective authors. All Rights Reserved.
Best viewed with Firefox, with minimum resolution of 1024 x 768. Microsoft can suck my balls.
A Little Weird is proudly powered by WordPress - Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).