As you might have already heard, we might be in a simulation
right now. In this column I describe a test that lays the foundation for a
principled approach to estimate properties about the parent existence that is
simulating us!
The shit herein is pretty dope and opens new gates to a whole new class of
observatories. If you think that the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) was freaking cool, then my shit
herein is OMG mega freaking dope cool cool.
IMO, our universe could be simulated in a parent universe, and latter could be
itself simulated in a grand parent universe, etc. Look at Figure 1… some
ancient dudes had some related thoughts.
IMO, universes that end up simulating other universes, probably must be sharing
something common between them. After all, they are the universes that ended up
simulating others.
So, IMO, if we:
Simulate many universes, each initialized with randomized physics laws. So
each universe seems independent from each other, and our universe.
Wait to see which ones end up simulating other universes.
Look at those that are simulating other universes, and see if they share
unique patterns that non-simulating universes lack.
I mean, imagine if almost all universes that we simulate, that themselves end
up simulating others, share some common properties that is only unique among
them (but not among universes that don't simulate other universes), won't you
then feel that our parent universe is probably more likely to also have those
properties? After all it is also one that has simulated another universe (our
universe).
We probably can't simulate a rat's ass these days, so all this is wishful
thinking that, one day, when computers are powerful enough, we might have
better guesses about how might our parent universe be.
But there is certain amount of badass-ness that our universe can't simulate.
E.g. our universe can't simulate a universe that can solve problems that are
not solvable by Turing machines.
But, still, if we do these simulations, we can possibly end up updating our
probability model about our parent universe's properties. Currently, we know
nothing. But after those simulations, maybe we could say “welp.. probably it
has X!”.
When people debate, they often say things like: $x$ is good, $y$ is not
good, why is $z$ good? Etc. Yet rarely ever they discuss the fundamental
question: what is good itself? Based on what criteria a thing becomes good?
It is logically impossible for two people to meaningfully debate whether
$x$ is good, while them having different definitions of good. If they ever
conclude something correctly, it must be thanks to the amount of sheer dumb
luck that accidentally served them. As a result, $99.99\%$1 of all
debates are useless and cyclic.
To cut the chase short, here is what I think is the best definition of
good:
Definition 1.A thing $t$ is good for $x$ if $t$ maximizes $x$'s
survivabiliy.
The common sense that is proposed in Quote 1 depends on the biological
configuration of the people that their common sense is analyzed. The
biological configuration, itself, is a function of evolution. As you know,
evolution makes use of natural selection, which rewards patterns that have
higher survivability.
I know evolution itself is not a confirmed fact, but a mere guess. But come on
dude.. it's the best guess we have now. Do you have any better guess?
Therefore, IMO it's fair to say that common sense itself is nothing but a
mere parameter that is tweaked by evolution to achieve a higher survivability
maximization of the species at hand (in this case humans). See! It came back
to Definition 1!
Quote 2 has the same inadequacy problem that Quote 1 suffers.
Eventually, the happiness feeling, itself, is also a mere parameter that was
tweaked throught the ages, due to evolution, in order to allow mankind to
survive better. As you can see, happiness itself seems to be a proxy that
reflects survivability maximization. Again.. back to Definition 1!
“But what if happiness is not a function of evolution, but rather a
function of soul/spirits from another world?”
Quote 3 is possibly true, but, we can't measure/test souls/spirits, or
things beyong the measurable world. Therefore, while Quote 3 might be true,
we can't use it to verify any hypotheses. As a result, I suggest that it is
perhaps better to not define good based on it.
So.. this leaves us with Definition 1 as the the most general/basic measurable
definition so far. What do you think? Can you find any better definition than
Definition 1?
CMS = content management system. E.g. thing that manages content in you blog,
or site. But they all suck. So I am making the best CMS ever. It's called
CavemanCMS.
Usually, existing CMS that are dynamic, e.g. those that allow you to post, and
your users to reply in somewhat real time, require you to run a dynamic web
server. E.g. maybe FastCGI with PHP/Python, etc. Of course, right?
But here is the magic: with CavemanCMS, you shall have a fully dynamic CMS,
yet your website remains fully static. You shall upload all you want, yet your
web server will not even need to support anything other than GET requests.
And it shall also be blazing fast. Stay tuned. This shit is awesome. God
willing will make some noise. Trust.
Muscle stimulation period: Some site (forgot) suggested that the
growth-stimulating effect starts hours after a workout, and lasts 24 hours.
But not sure, what's the optimum resting period between workout days for
strength, hypertrophy, etc? Gotta search this.. Someone in YouTube said 48
hours (WTF?). Also some site says 48-72 hours.
Strength vs. Hypertrophy: Someone (on utube) suggested that strength
training creates more muscle, while hypertrophy enlarges muscle's appearance
by storing more water in the muscle.
Number of reps: Some paper (forgot where) suggested that 5 reps to failure
is good for strength gain, 15 is for puff, 20+ is for endurance.
Number of sets: Someone (forgot where) suggested that 3 sets training is
better than 1 for strength (maximum 1 repetition), and size (circumference of
chest and thigh).
Resting period between sets: Some journal suggests that optimum
resting period between sets is: 2-5mins for strength training, 30-90secs for
hypertrophy or endurance.
Extra squeeze: This video reports a study from 2018 that shows
squeezing the biceps (they call it mind-muscle connection) allows for 12.4%
muscle growth, while the normal (just lifting weights) gives 6.9%.
Motion range: This video says that full range of motion is good,
and what's better is to even use the opposite muscle to further extend the
range. E.g. in biceps curls squeeze the triceps to further extend the
opening range.
Isolated forearm: This video reports studies saying that
targeting the forearm is better. It suggests these:
Curl fingers inwards to close the fist, then continue curling the fist in
the same inwards direction.
Curl fingers outwards to open the fist, then continue curling the fist in
the same outwards direction.
