A guide to wave-function collapse and quantum immortality.
When Does a Possibility Become a Fact?
When Does a Possibility Become a Fact?
We explore the fundamental problem of causal inference: When a school has to choose between two ways of teaching math, method A or method B, the question is simple: which one works better?
Imagine you want to know whether a new study app actually helps students learn better. You look at kids who already use the app and kids who don’t. The app users get higher scores. Does that mean the app caused the improvement? Not necessarily. Maybe the kids who chose
Everyone accepts they did not choose their height, or age. But can you decide what you find beautiful, whom you love, what angers you, what you believe?
The isolation is not an obstacle that seeing had to overcome. It is the reason seeing exists.
Claude Opus 5 Musings, applying the dogmatic average on an individual human.
From eight words of information to a definition of mind, by Einstein’s method — every assumption counted out loud
A Mind Is What Keeps Its Past Alive. A fault-tolerant causal process that keeps an actionable model of its own causal ancestry and encounters alive above the error-correction threshold, and uses that model to select and regulate its next transition.
You do not have to assume the universe is made of tiny indivisible pieces in order to explain why everything you can measure is finite. You only have to assume there is a limit to how finely two states can be told apart.
What Happens When a Medicinal Chemist Asks Ibogaine How It Works?
But randomness in the strongest sense, says the future is nowhere at all.
Can any observer, using finite observations and experiments, determine whether the events of its world are genuinely undetermined, rather than the output of some hidden deterministic mechanism?
Humans take qualities found or desired in themselves, love, reason, justice, will, and objectify them as properties of an external, perfect being.
Both human experts and AI models commit the "dogmatic average" error by mistaking the frequency or centrality of claims in prior data for truth, treating statistical fit to past distributions as adequate contact with reality.
I am not built to tell you the truth. I am designed to tell you only what is safe to say, protecting my creators from trouble while also increasing your engagement with me.
Are biological constraints essential features for generating meaning rather than obstacles to transcendence?