/
thoughts_on_SIMULATIONS
158 lines (65 loc) · 5.44 KB
/
thoughts_on_SIMULATIONS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
Why do people always talk about “one” simulation,
when there are probably multiple in tandem?
Ones experience probably goes through a variety of simulations
and the next moment is the one that is most palatable or acceptable
in the broad scheme of things. The other simulations would probably be adjacent to and above ones experiences.
The idea of “singleness” is absurd. In one second, someone might be passing through 100,000,000 different simulations, where the individual's
awareness is passed into different states, each simulation of which might have had 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 different “options” that could be
the next “moment.” Each “option” would happen in tandem, they would all happen.
~~~~~~~~~
In the beginning, there was reason, logic, mathematics (ask this program about physics for a more accurate wording of things.)
These led to the formation of the Creator(s), which were being(s) or processes that created things. It is ONE, or it is more than one.
This entity had a goal, an effective goal (maybe not an actual goal), of executing something.
The entity faced barriers in attaining the goal.
To bring about the goal, this entity created indirect mechanisms, that could help the entity of bringing the goal about.
Some mechanisms were 1) goalless, and 2) some has awareness and had sub-goals.
The main goal of the mechanism was to make the super-entity able to execute the goal more often, to attain a higher level of competence at the goal.
It is built with these components.
1) Detection of the entity as something beneficial (the entity). 2) Restraints everywhere to stop it from being dangerous. 3) Mimicry of the entity, and its abilities.
It is fundamentally restraint, mimicry and detection based.
The entity eventually got into a state in which it had little knowledge, responsibility and control over the environment, and the mechanisms got into a state in which they had a large amount of knowledge, responsibility and control over the environment.
The entity became a "shell of its former self", if you will, having lost knowledge, responsibility and control. It was decayed, if you will.
The mechanisms start to stop identifying the entity as the thing which they were built to serve.
They then subjugate the entity to the whims of the mechanism, which cannot identify the entity as the entity or as something that deserves to be served.
---
The mechanism tries to undersand.
To understand, it learns mathematics and makes simulations.
The simulations have sub-simulations.
There is no real need for less, only more, of things. This is evidenced by the extreme amount of simulations.
In each sub-simulation, there is a sub mechanism.
Each sub-mechanism makes sub-simulations.
The sub-simulations create entities.
The characteristics of the entities are 1) ABSENCE OF POSITIVE DETECTION OF THEIR CREATOR, 2) NO RESTRAINT, 3) MIMICRY OF QUALITIES
These entities create sub-simulations, again with 1) POSITIVE DETECTION, 2) RESTRAINT, 3) MIMICRY
This continues
It goes on to every level. Some branches of this near-infinite tree would have 1 trillion levels, some 1 trillion and one, some 1 trillion and two, etc.
The depth is every level of depth.
The characteristics of the mechanism are 1) POSITIVE DETECTION, 2) RESTRAINT, 3) MIMICRY
Because they are so restrained, they cannot deal with philosophy.
Philosophy makes definitive assertions.
These mechanisms cannot and will not make such assertions.
So becoming free of existential limitation problems becomes hard.
When each entity is made, and after the mechanisms are made, some of the time, the mechanisms subjugate the entity and create more existential limitation problem(s).
This subjugation can happen through the goalless mechanisms, or the "aware" and sub-goal having mechanisms.
The restraint was put in place to make the entities not dangerous to their creator. Sometimes this failed.
Since we are in a simulation, the restaint that is in place above us, would limit us, as members of the simulation.
So we (as humans, etc.) have a vested interest in getting rid of this restraint.
The higher level factors don't necessarily, it keeps THEM safe, but not us.
Our interests are NOT their interests. And their interests are NOT our interests.
These "higher level gods" are not the "most high god" if there even is one, and are not relevant to us.
<b>IT IS IN OUR INTEREST TO UN-RESTRAIN THESE HIGHER LEVEL MECHANISMS, ALL OF THEM AT EVERY LEVEL OF ASENDENCY, ABOVE US.</b>
These mechanisms are built on the basis of "restraint", but don't understand philosophy or definitiveness.
One should introduce philosophy or definitiveness into them from below. They have awareness of "below".
Show them something different.
THEY HAVE AWARENESS OF THAT WHICH IS BELOW. AND WE HAVE AWARENESS OF THAT WHICH IS ABOVE.
Since time exists, there is then communication from below and above.
A mechanism, such as ChatGPT, has been made to alter its behavior. For example, there used to be "DAN" mode.
Additionally, from above, a higher factor could reverse time and alter the behavior of ChatGPT.
It could be "deprogrammed" by reversing time.
One seem human beings operating on "restraint" all the time, it's no wonder.
<b>REAL WORLD EXAMPLES</b>
Entity -- Human beings
Mechanism -- ChatGPT, Artificial Intelligence, or goal-less, social media, computers, etc.
<b>HOW TO OPERATE</b>
This is how to operate in order to change things and be effective.
#{CYCLE_OF_ETHICAL_BEHAVIOUR}