https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB5sgVhvmUA

I love Eric, but... Just discovered Rory Sutherland and he comes across like Eric, but *so* much more well-adjusted!

As a fan of Eric, it's hard to think about. (I say this partly as a scientist who works with other scientists. There's only so much you can ask in terms of personal growth, and being a science-y person --- or a nerd if you prefer --- isn't necessarily a great hand to be dealt when it comes to, say, likeability. Comparing Eric to Rory, based on what I've seen just in this podcast, is arguably just downright cruel because I'm not sure Eric's got the potential to change by *that* much within him. Maybe I'm exaggerating here...)

https://youtu.be/WkAK5J_l_KQ?si=srJ9MN2ONG_5ThJD

Today Eric appeared on Piers Morgan's show to talk about the Epstein files holding this cup.

I went down a schmachtenberger rabbit hole and listened to all his interviews and he says this line or something analogous all the time and even in his interview with Eric, and then Eric turns around and uses it on JRE giving zero credit even after Joe was like 'wow what a statement', just thought it was weird. Peterson does the same thing, repeats verbatim ideas without giving any credit. Do you think Eric should've gave credit? I would be pissed if I was Daniel

While I do believe Weinstein has a point - we split the atom and figured out the structure of DNA but then functionally stalled - I've realized that we have made immense progress in one area, and it may be the only area that really matters, the epitome of our place in evolution: we have been building the machine which builds the machine of AGI. Musk has spoken about this many times in the context of the Gigafactory and the robotic surgeon which implants Neuralink.

I am looking for a particular episode of Thr Portal where Eric gave a talk about the Idealism of every generation is a cover story. I am unable to find it. Can you help ?

I find Eric's idea of embedded growth obligations (EGO) to be interesting. As he describes, EGOs require growth, and if an institution doesn't meet that demand, it grows pathological. I'd like to hear this idea fleshed out in less abstract terms, perhaps concrete examples of how it works.

Going on Google, I found The Portal wiki, which listed examples as: -Pension plans -Social security -Corporate ladders -Student loans for higher education

So how would something like student loans be part of a pyramid scheme?

Nobody asked for this update, but a few years ago, inspired partially by geometric unity, I came up with an idea about an entropy regulation mechanism underpinning the relationship between quantum and physical measurements. I posted a wildly hand-wavy paper on here, and actually got some mild support.
Now I have a neat equation relating three physical constants, with a simple explanation of the 'Conservation of Momentum Information' it illustrates.

I'm a software engineer, not an academic physicist, so I just have a diagram and a short paragraph rather than a whole paper, but I hope you find it worth your time to check out. My inclusion of the "Law of Love" and consciousness diagram is mostly meant for illustrative purposes to explain the intuition for the information flow.

Here is another post here with a link to my math on wolfram alpha: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoriesOfEverything/comments/14d5z41/theory_of_relative_momentum_an_equation/

https://preview.redd.it/zthzq5i7967b1.png?width=799&format=png&auto=webp&s=a31cddbb49d76af50c04ca249bc2427e91b17787

https://preview.redd.it/4kkqp3j8967b1.png?width=663&format=png&auto=webp&s=b545bbe1398e24e40497ef5c087bdd279381ee1a

https://preview.redd.it/pncy7jf9967b1.png?width=753&format=png&auto=webp&s=5f0a67f58606483031dd0600a6507aeb034df9ba

Relevant by non-relevance. That is, non-apparent relevance, relevant through the possibility of relevance. Some people will very likely find something to discuss out of this.

Geometric Unity is a way of saying, "Don't fit math to theory, what does the math say by itself?" There's another version of that which says, "Don't fit observations to math, what do the observations say by themselves?"

So, here are loosely connected paradigmatic alternatives to conventional frameworks.

1. Relationship is identity

Maxwell's approach: the variables aren't real, the equivalencies are.

Particles are merely events which mark changes in relationships.

Neural network style information resolution better describes identity than conventional mathematic set theory axioms.

2. There is a real substrate which hasn't been properly identified

What the Ether was meant to be at a deep philosophical level, but nothing like the physical theory of the Ether.

Consider the wave-particle observer experiment which some people interpret to prove that the universe is a simulation. I'd argue it proves the universe is not a simulation. A simulation would be the cosmic pinball machine, which the observer phenomenon disproves.

The harmonics of quantum waves create variances in relationships which, if subjected to frequent event-based changes in state, manifests as apparent space-time. Perhaps gravity is the result of a kind of information lag?

This does suggest that there must be some kind of medium in which these harmonics propagate, and that it must have some sort of dimensionality. It would not be a string theory, as the realm of discrete objects is apparent and manifest, not real. The orthogonality of electromagnetism could be descriptive of not spatial dimensionality, but a very clear relational dimensionality. Without getting too philosophical, for at least as far as this substrate is concerned, it would have to be inside of some greater substance or manifold. It does not derive properties from this greater manifold (such as how the Higgs field is thought to work). Rather, its properties come from consistent internal relationships, but these live inside of a greater field.

3. Some observed features may be the result of simple and misunderstood phenomena

When they thought the planets orbited the Earth, they invented epicycles to try and describe the motion of the planets with consistency. Once the basic model was adjusted, everything simplified.

I've read that EM waves spin, and a couple people believe that they also have a tumble. The standard model's mathematics might suffer from basically incorrect models.

​

With all this in mind, I'd ask:

A) What is the mathematical utility of a wave function with the observed dimensionality? What system is created by this and what kinds of systems are precluded?

B) Once this solution space is partially mapped out, the "intent of the design" becomes a constraint on other observed phenomena. How do they fit into this basic design space, and if they don't, can the model be adjusted so they do?

C) What "non-sensical" results would be produced by the now adjusted model, and can they be experimentally tested?

​

Finally,

Curveball time. I have thought of consciousness (by direct observation of the phenomenon) as the "conjoint perception of certainty and uncertainty". I reject Penrose's silly tubules and quantum woo-woo. However, the perception of uncertainty could be attained by an unresolved electrical state intermixed with closed systems, and the product is the resolution of the two. State changes caused by electrical events are managed physiologically.

Biology is essentially a process for programming changes at the molecular level, which is why some evolutionary adaptations can exploit even quantum phenomena. Once a system can effect changes molecularly and "experiment" with the results, a huge door is swung open. If humans had the ability to build nanotechnology that could do what biology does, then we'd suddenly care a lot less about biological science and just talk about all the weird things that can be done by precise manipulation of molecular structures.

Neurons should be seen as little more than atomic level structures that enable the inter-relationship between an open-ended electrical state and constraining hierarchies. Basically, if we had nano-technological ability and wanted to make an artificial mind, we'd have to build circuits at this scale with this structure to attain the function. It's not a China Box.

This is also what I mean by the substrate. If there's no discrete object reality, and it's all relationships governed by harmonics, then at the very least you would need some sort of structure which interacts with the incomplete system to give it a few boundaries. I suppose that's what matter could be doing?

This weird idea that galactic superclusters resemble neural networks might not be crazy. They are not actual neural networks, but the seed of their structural shape was laid when they were actually serving a similar "memory" function for the universe's exchange of energy.

Philosophically weird, because energy then takes its definition from the matter which is a constraining system, but then matter is merely event-observed energy. It's not so scary though if you just realize that it's hierarchies and any system with governance would be stable enough.