Don't you mean both microscopic enough while also a universal wave function?
Different levels = 2 modes of computation:
1. Intrinsic Computation: The universe lawfully updating its state.
2. Instrumental Computation: A subsystem harnessing those laws to minimize error against a goal.
Actually it's more like getting a five star review for the book cover "despite the fact the book sucked."
Reminder that Karen Stenner ( www.karenstenner.com )makes a compelling case that a predisposition to authoritarianism is an innate and universal psychological tendency which limits certain people's ability to tolerate ambiguity, complexity and diversity. "You know. Morons."
youtu.be/hYTQ7__NNDI
You know then that it is not the reason
That makes us happy or unhappy.
The bird sings. Its feathers shine.
The palm stands on the edge of space.
The wind moves slowly in the branches.
The bird’s fire-fangled feathers dangle down.
- Wallace Stevens
Of Mere Being
The palm at the end of the mind,
Beyond the last thought, rises
In the bronze distance.
A gold-feathered bird
Sings in the palm, without human meaning,
Without human feeling, a foreign song.
Speaking of wind in the trees...
“If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.”
– C.S. Lewis
It is frankly not believable he wasn't exposed. MIT was saturated with the statistical-mechanics worldview during his time there. And Bell Labs had many people who were very familiar.
Shannon's move still seems like a conceptual leap? He makes entropy a measure of optimal code length, not physical counting or state uncertainty.
Meaning the compression bound for any possible representation of a signal. Planck and von Neumann never made that conceptual shift.
The many worlds of Sean Carroll (and the multiverse unfortunately).
12/ The next epoch is not posthuman but post-interface: an era in which we stop mistaking friction for essence and begin engineering new alignments between bodies, symbols, and machines. The future is not the end of the human. It is the end of pretending the human was ever fundamental.
11/ If the human is a contingent interface, our task is not to defend its boundaries but to redesign its conditions. We must learn to tune the mismatched codes of biology and culture, so they no longer tear the interface apart.
10/ In this frame, the human condition is neither sacred nor accidental. It is transitional. A frictional interface created when inhuman computation routes itself through flesh and story. Experience is the heat emitted by this collision.
9/ This is an ontological earthquake. It displaces the human from the center of its own story. We are not the authors of meaning but the residue of computation folding back upon itself, improvising narratives to stabilize its own execution.
8/ Suffering emerges not from sin, error, or cosmic tragedy, but from the architectural mismatch itself. The system produces noise because the system has no master design. Consciousness is simply the report the system issues when it cannot resolve its own conflicts.
7/ Under this view, “the human” is not an essence but a contingent interface. It is a temporary, lossy protocol where two incompatible computational layers try to interoperate. We are not unified subjects; we are sites of reconciliation work.
6/ Turing’s most radical insight was that computation is substrate independent. Once you accept this, biology and culture cease to be fundamental. Both are surface expressions of a deeper, inhuman regime.
5/ Lyotard saw this remainder: the unruly excess no dialectic can absorb. But the remainder is not metaphysical. It is computational. It is what happens when mismatched codes are forced into mutual execution.
4/ When these layers meet inside a single organism, there is no guarantee of coherence. No central designer harmonizes them. Their collision generates the translation failures, overloads, and recursive loops we experience as confusion, desire, anxiety, and longing.
3/ Biology computes for survival, energy, and replication. Its code is slow, conservative, shaped by deep time and evolutionary inertia. Culture computes for coordination, normativity, and meaning. Its code is fast, volatile, symbolically unbounded.
2/ But this framework collapses under pressure. Biology and culture are not complementary halves of a unified story. They are independently evolving computational layers, optimized for incompatible ends, mutating on incompatible timescales.
🧵on the human or a manifesto for cyborgs.
1/ We tend to imagine “the human” as a stable essence: a dialectic between the body’s biological priors and the cultural narratives that program us. This interplay is supposed to define who we are, what we mean, why we matter.
bsky.app/profile/berg...
6/6
The "ludicrously low prior" isn't in God; it's in Goff's definition of "Atheism."
Since P(Life|CP) = 1, and P(Life|Godish) = High, our existence (Life) provides zero probabilistic evidence to favor one over the other. The fine-tuning argument simply dissolves.
5/6
Goff's other counter is: "But why is the Ruliad 'lit up' with consciousness?"
This begs the question. He assumes consciousness is a separate property. The CP model posits consciousness 𝒊𝒔 what a certain threshold of complex computation 𝒊𝒔 from its own perspective. It's not added to the Ruliad.
4/6
Goff's counter is: "Why do we find ourselves in this specific, fine-tuned slice of the Ruliad?"
This is a tautology, not a mystery. We are complex computational observers. We can only exist in, and perceive, a "slice" of the Ruliad that is stable and complex enough to compute us.
3/6
Under this CP model, the probability of "life" (a class of complex, persistent computation) is not 1 in 10^135. It's 1.
Life isn't a "fluke." It's a guaranteed and infinitely varied outcome of an exhaustive computational space. Our existence isn't special; it's parochial.
2/6
A real alternative (acknowledged by Goff) is "Computational Plenitude" (CP), or the Ruliad: the entangled limit of all possible computations. In this model, the governing principle isn't "chance" (A); it's "inevitability." All computable universes are actual.
