Lol I had no idea it relied on so much. Its just built into KDE. Really great app overall.

Seeing as the time axis doesn’t seem special compared to spacial ones (especially in edge cases like black holes) I think time is just a perspective thing.

My take is that all particles must be moving at the speed of light through 4d space time. Everything always moves at the speed of causality, just not always in the direction you are looking from.

Do we know if the second law of thermodynamics is just a statistical thing? Does it work at extremely small scales? I know heat propagation could transfer from cold to hot. Its just so astronomically unlikely especially the more complicated the system gets.

I would agree depending on how you see physics. I think there is no smallest unit, no fundamental, infinite big and small. So though size comparisons make relative sense, they don’t describe relative complexity.

I’m with this one. It feels less magical than “brains make consciousness happen.”

The more I learn the more time feels emergent and not required.

I mean, books did make us worse at memorizing. I think its give and take. There are some things that are good to cognitively offload to an AI.

Man I’d kill to be able to use all of the APT commands I see online. DNF forces me to know what I’m doing lol.

Windows will never have the flexibility of JACK

As long as we have ways to give feedback and affect the system this is a good thing.

The less recourse we have the more authoritarian it is though.

Yeah I watched the whole thing, it gets really repetitive on the American side near the end. Zeleski is trying to talk but Trump and Vance keep saying “We are special, everything will work out, be greatful, say thanks”

This is a good reminder

Man, this is very disappointed news. Thanks though, good to know.

Jesus, Trump basically said “Trust me bro, I’m special” or “Be more thankful” as a response to any tough question.

I love Xonotic.

You already pointed out examples of what appear to be higher amounts of computation in the brain not apparently tied to experience rate.

I actually would say that high interaction is high computation is high experience rate. I don’t see how they are separated.

I think computation is meaningful, whereas interaction can be high-entropy and meaningless. I would probably need to consult E.T. Jaynes to have more precise definitions of the difference between these notions.

I’d be extremely curious to see how you define “meaningful” in this context. This seems to drive your moral hierarchy. Correct me if I’m wrong of course.

First, a minor correction:

for instance, I would consider the heat-death of the universe to be the end of computation

This is an easy mistake to make, heat death is actually a very cold noninteracting state, so your point doesn’t contradict physical interaction being computation. Though I trust that you really don’t see interaction and computation as the same.

Edit: just looked up some heat death info, there is actually quite a range of ideas there so I guess I can’t be confident on which one you meant.

In the beginning you said that experience rate was an important factor for moral weight, has that changed? If it hasn’t, how do you reconcile that with:

I also am not sure that computation is a particularly good proxy for moral weight,

Also, for my own curiosity: how do you distinguish interaction from computation?

Wouldn’t you agree that surface area is more important to computation and interaction than volume? Things interact at their surface. Therefore computation is infact subject to the coastline paradox?

If you actually try to measure the top surface of a country you run into the same issues as measuring the coast: infinite complexity.

Those projected volumes are practical to calculate, but must be interacted with through the surface.

I agree a rock can be bigger than another rock. Yet 2 times infinity is not greater than infinity.

Edit: So my point is the interactions may be considered equal.

Edit: to be more pointed, measurement theory only applies to things that we know the shape of. The shape of anything in reality seems infinitely complex to me. Even if we can smooth the atoms out, there is still the EM field being perturbed by the orbiting electrons.

I use obsidian. It have been pretty happy with it’s table support lately. It used to be much worse.

I agree with you on experience is computation. To me any interaction/change is computation. A ball rolling down a hill is a complex interaction with computation. Humans are a very specific and interesting reaction that feel in cool ways.

To me more matter could be worth more if more matter meant more interactions. Yet if matter is infinitely devisable then the amount of possible interactions is infinite. If matter is continuous rather than discrete then I don’t know enough about the math of infinities to compare organisms. My rudimentary knowledge says they are equivalent infinities but I’m not confident.

However, if more interactions means more worthy, then at near any scale that would benefit those with resources and those in an environment that already suits them. It would favor heat over cold. Change over stability. Anxiety over calm. Psychedelics over alcohol. Those with access to more calories. It gets really weird when applied at different scales IMO.

So in summary: I don’t think we can compare how much two systems compute. If we could, then using that comparison to assign moral worth still has a ton of very odd outputs.