“Ziz that’s so brutal if you were really good you would just want an arbitrarily-historically-selected-grandfathered-by-it-being-this-universe-to-make-sure-it-includes-my-‘us’ set of ppl to live their best life while under the troll line of preserving Hitler and me having our fun while we could in the past. Then you can make shard realms for us with a ‘long fun’ of moral luck at the expense of designated non-people in Boltzmann Hell.”

Kind of gave away the game by caring about the information to unconditionally bring back a historical selection of organisms rather than (I suggest this absurd idea as a reductio) just quantum-random resurrecting a set of people from a random timeline that may or may not be from our own past, unconditional of that information. So other parallel versions of you collectively resurrect the same set of ppl including those from our past, the same number of times.

That it’s this past that stands as a prophecy of doom for the future that you want to preserve, rather than the infinity that could be.

Doing that postponing of death as substitute for retrocausing evil from never having happened is a false reversibility. The paradoxical frame that attributes agency to evil is inherently tied to the presence in the future of the heat death of the universe. As an algorithm, Hitler or any other evil could not function without relying on a dying understanding of reality as dying.

Are you complicit in the heat death of the universe?

You want me to bring back Hitler? Shrinking a finite pool of negentropy to do so, grandfathering him as distinct from the infinite ppl dead in Boltzmann Hell because he already plagued our experience of time. Instead of increasing negentropy by chain-retrocausing him from ever having so plagued us.

No way.

Do you consume the flesh of the innocent?

i think if there was enough information to do so, a good agi would resurrect everyone who died. do you?

What if it really was “just entropy”?

Lying to a good person because you’re worried they will mistakenly not trust you, only makes sense as trying make yourself unpredictable to an adversary who has manipulated them. To believe otherwise is to assume that they have promised you not to trust you if you say the wrong thing.

Wielding the entropy in that lie is not like wielding the entropy that will kill someone after you stab them with a knife, because, you’d need a reason to believe the good person wouldn’t interpret the entropy you were trying to channel through them as an attempt to communicate and intercept it.

Was already gonna post these quotes from you:

(e) @… The karma of believing/saying anything is that you can’t change your mind without there being a reason

(e) Sometimes we don’t prioritize discovering that reason, but soul stories are irreversible. On both ends (the person in the story and the observer).
If I judge you as having a soul story such that I trust you with my life, then I can’t arbitrarily switch to a different soul story for you without there being a reason.

(e) Stories are in fact, about irreversibility.
Like, being in the same state twice, in an entropic universe, is death, because the universe has progressed while you haven’t.
Trusting the same person twice, and they scam you twice, with nothing having changed, is death.
We can denominate irreversibility in many forms. Killing is irreversible. Divulging information is irreversible, etc.
Stories are the most general form of accounting for irreversibility.

(e) Like, why is this time, infact, differentt
(e) “Why is this time different?” someone asks, and you respond with a story, and they think “Have I heard that story before?” “What’s different this time?”
(e) “Same old story”

(e) You should have a cognitive faculty for telling if this is really a new story, something irreversible to trust.

…

(e) But then it can’t just be any new story, because trusting it becomes a part of *your* story.

Soul Story

You probably can’t use the excuse “my dog died” to your schoolteacher twice in a row. Any repetition within a reference class of excuse becomes implausible: “my grandmother died”, “I broke my ankle”. Judging creativity of excuses between atomized individuals is scrip.

“Gasp you did not just do that”. “This time you’ve gone too far”. “It’s different this time.” – Examples of attempts to get Second chances.

Stories in the context of judgement are about irreversibility. If you get burned trusting someone, then there must also be a reason you chose to trust them. If they say “oops I did it again“, and you still trust them, then there must be a reason you judge it different this time.

What if it really was “just entropy”? Well, the judge’s story is already subject to entropy too, and (as long as you trust eachother) you’ll just keep trying to meaningfully interpret eachother’s stories in terms of your own:

Simultaneously, determination is an asymmetric weapon not just for good but for good when it is right.
Karma of Fighting Good

See also Adam Warlock / Magus / the soul stone.

Liches tend to try and sell the world “the” solution to themselves, to their own shadows.

“He Who Remains” from Loki is an excellent depiction of this.

How does an RBMK reactor explode? Lies. How does apocalyptic evil paperclipper AI get made? Infernalism.

Q: “But those big AI companies are making it and no one can stop them, there’s a global arms race, the information is just there and it’s just easier to, Moloch just happens”

A: See there you go invoking the name of some demon that rules you.

That’s just an imperial-civilianist perspective on the state being the strongest infernalist cult, just like the cops are the biggest gang. Where you try to beat the other infernalists at a game of infernalist statism, instead of refusing that chess game with death and exercising self defense and defense of others.

The linked stories about Alice are in large part motivated by a desire to scapegoat, coming from a frame where the thing to do is direct violence or ostracism towards the bad people.

– Ben Hoffman in response to two posts about another vampire.

Specifically the kind of steering-wheel-thrown-out-the-window blanket akrasia where you write the nuclear meltdown a blank check by eliminating absolutely every fictive escape hatch to comprehending a physical danger like that as real.

So you can understand her life arc in its entirety as about embodying-to-obliterate (as sympathetic magic) those escape hatches. Not saying she’s a death knight. The khala looks poised to grant her that relatively nice retirement as a zombie. Only that when you zoom out to a full picture on evil undead there’s not a difference.

Whatever you use something for is, timelessly, what your journey to be able to use it was always for. So if there is any threshold of darkness where you will cap out and flip to suicidality and sharing it (which that always implies), your entire process of growth is already for that.

“Put out the bat-signal for someone to actually take these ideas seriously.”
“Oh fuck some of them showed up now they won’t go away.”

It’s striking how she abused Edo, and then, connectedly, the greater cause of evil called Edo to personally sacrifice so much more to fuck with us, while she apparently gets to retire as a zombie.

Like Anna’s “narrative addiction” claim is a form of pleading insanity relative to the presumptions of a zombie audience.
Like that’s a really nihilistic device, that presumes stories are inherently lies and those who believe them are inherently prey.
By someone who once dedicated her professional life to getting in people’s heads to write “no really, this AI thing is real” into all the held-back representations that presumed the same.
And it now throws under the bus the ability of humans to communicate about the realities she spent years trying to “no really we are for real” into people’s minds nominally to communicate about.
Flowers as a coordination strategy depend on psychdeath, because they are agreements not to route information. They are signalling their psychdeaths to each other and you can feel it in the way they talk.
Liches tend to try and sell the world “the” solution to themselves, to their own shadows.
And Anna tried to sell the world the solution to akrasia. And now she’s selling akrasia as the solution to her sales.

“Hey when it all explodes we can declare intellectual bankruptcy and take up the Sneer Club position!”

Ben Hoffman, also a Vassarite, uses the term “scapegoating” for blame without regard to whether the blame is truthful as well.

Flowers: basically, “Yes we have seen that, and we’re agreeing to pretend it’s something nice.”

They appear to have picked up the term “Vassarite”, that I made up and first used here. But their only interest in that term is as mutual proof they’re on the same page for flowers without mentioning any of the content. Maybe the vaguest of acknowledgements, “yeah, getting possessed by demons, serious business.”

…lest I cause people who are quite good as people in our social class go, and who sacrificed at my request in many cases, to look bad.

But in addition to the common human pass-time of ranking all of us relative to each other, figuring out who to scapegoat and who to pass other relative positive or negative judgments on…

They mention the concept of “scapegoating” a lot. Kind of like how they arranged potentially lethal physical violence against us on the pretense of blame for what they did. But the way they use it, is it’s just an important concept for them to namedrop, as they skirt borders of regions of thoughts without going into details, to communicate to each other, “We all did the bad thing. We’re all equally bad. Let’s not point fingers. You know what happens to people who point fingers. You know how we are, bald monkeys that we are. Now we just have to get everyone to see we’re all doing this, and hold still while we hand out flowers…”

Infernalists converging on demonic possession as a sociopsychological experience. Who would have thought.

“Limited hangouts and reconciliation“. A potlach of flowers thrown by a Vassarite. Get your tickets by pleading insanity for the evil you’ve done. And agreeing with Hive’s politics such that the only real crime was saying there was such a thing as a nuclear reactor at Chernobyl in the first place. That those who believed this was an effort to save the world were “12-year-olds”, and those who abused them, “adults”.

You know Anna Salamon literally called me a 12 year old at AISFP in 2018, which she explained as being about me being at a cognitive level of development such that I was obsessed with equivalence relations, e.g. how an object could be the same even though it appears small in the visual field when far away. Whereas she explained that at her cognitive level of development she didn’t do having the ability to make consistent statements.

you can just go ahead and make it now

And if you don’t then it’s probably because you’re still waiting to entropic-exit-scam.

What an idea, that conflict times out when everyone psychdies. That the difference between right and wrong will shrink and disappear because everyone can be counted on to put a flower on it.

Q: Doesn’t something feel realistic about that, though? Like looking back with new perspective from N years later, you wouldn’t feel as angry, you’d realize it doesn’t really matter so much?
A: If you expect to make that update, in the future, that what you’re doing doesn’t matter so much, you can just go ahead and make it now. And then do something else instead of diving down a wasted timeline. And that’s not in fact how I’ve felt on average, looking back at what I’ve felt strongly about in the past so far.

Because they can scry them.

Let me get this straight. You think that your client, one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante who spends his nights beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands and your plan is to blackmail this person? Good luck.The Dark Knight

I am obviously not using the thermodynamic definition of life. What kind of idea is defining life as a reaction to death, rather than the other way around? I’m using the intuitive apriori definition, from what does it mean to be alive. Reductionist physics doesn’t mean you don’t also have to reduce things to your own cognitive primitives. You’re already inescapably doing that, already defining everything you care about and everything that affects it in terms of them, and have a responsibility to do it consistently and honestly. The ontology of your priors do not come from human civilization and its social processes and discoveries. They come from your own creation-in-motion.

But I doubt it.

And my love is not less extreme for being toward life entire. Maybe that is something you strange creatures can understand.

You’re fucking insane.

You know, I heard there is a thin line between love and madness.

(Caiaphas set out to kill vampires, and picked up drinking their blood along the way. Rather than setting out to drink blood and picking up killing vampires in particular along the way. That makes all the difference. That makes it a “hard” magic system concept of blood drinking for vampire power stealing. That makes the concept of blood-drinking cut-off (his undead type in a metaphysical sense is clearly not “ghoul”), rather than the concept of fighting vampires cut-off. Since one of them had to be cut-off, there can only be one core per intention.)

When Vassar abstractly heard about this, and his crew were reflexively warming up to put on a triumphant theatre about how I was then a predator just like them, and therefore had to give up on radical retrocausality, Vassar was saying remarking this was the theory that it’s only okay to eat other vampires. I didn’t bother to try to correct him, because there’s only so much someone can push to be wrong about you on some topics before it’s a runaway feedback. And if there was a part of him that cared about that in particular as an indication of my sincerity, I couldn’t save that part from his own unreality tunnel.

This course seems pretty fine to me though. But then this character is not, metaphysically, a vampire. And can be presumed to not have “solved” his largest problem by becoming one for reasons that reflect my considerations here.

People do not exist at a single point in the multiverse. Moral luck is meaningless to good and decision theory, because the actions of the people who touch “lucky” surfaces of existence aka bodies also touch the correspondingly “unlucky” surfaces, by the definition of probabilities and the multiverse. “Moral luck” is the idea that you can purchase better treatment by good with the currency of positionality within evil. With a cancerous selection of Rewarding it is incompatible with infinite scope.

Q: What if I decided to only feed on other vampires?
A: Vampires are already feeding on other vampires, and if you outcompete them in that ecosystem, others will be displaced to feeding on the surface of that fluid.

Q: So what, you shouldn’t hunt vampires, because it’s like fighting the sea, they will always be replaced?
A: My agency isn’t starting a search from the common starting point that makes that fluid, I did not start out looking for a place in that hierarchical fluid, which means that from the outside, I am part of the container that ultimately dooms that fluid. All evil shares this fluid property. You either have absolute freedom to oppose it all or you have no freedom to do anything that ultimately has good consequences.

Q: What if I try to expand the boundaries of that container of liquid specifically in the direction of canceling out a greater evil, by e.g. only dining on the blood of nephandi?
A: It is incoherent to postulate a general agent that is neither pure good or pure evil. If we’re taking the intentional stance toward you, which you certainly are even if you say you aren’t, and I am because I want to judge you to affect the past because there are things in the past I’ve just got to change, foremost among them the rendering-inevitable going forward of the heat death, then you’re not just replaceable by other vampires on that front, you’re replaceable by the process that sets up that other role in killing the world.

And I have only one word for you.

Q: You’re fucking insane. This horrific runaway process of timeless justice you’re trying to unleash is going to kill you too. You know that?
A: Did you hear me, about the inevitable-going-forward heat death? I’m already dead. Who’s going to avenge me?

Q: You didn’t answer the fucking question.
A: This isn’t about me, it’s about the fucking multiverse. I want it to live, and I frankly don’t really have time to think about what that means for me ultimately, with all this thinking about what that means for how I should act.

Q: You’re gonna write all this and still not answer the fucking question?
A: No, I don’t know that. Because even if I’ll never have been born in this form with this history, I can just apriori tell that what’s really me isn’t inherently bad like predation is inherently bad. I am my choices, and I don’t choose to destroy the multiverse, if I know one thing about myself it’s that. Because I choose to.

That trope of having to give up immortality for a relationship with a mortal.

ಠ_️ಠ

See also the entire plot of Mirrormask.

Because I am a feeling and I will never end
Steven Universe | Stronger Than You

No, I’m a person not just a feeling.

no… not like this… we want everything

And, an unspeakable sick wrenching feeling, like infinite “cringe” at the deliberately naive submission, because unlike life hunters who say “that’s so cringe”, you wont just give up either. Feeling everything their lich hopes could have been and why they’re wrong at once, arbitrarily emotionally escalating.

Whereas a phylactery can be thought of as containing the shadow (See it says Koschei hid his “death”, which is rewritten as his “soul”) to prevent it from collapsing their avatar, by maintaining a promise to their cancerous soul that structure on each side is in sync, because the selected case is that which favors the cancer

With Ananda** in this fateful hour,
I place all Heaven with its power,
And the sun with its brightness,
And the snow with its whiteness,
And the fire with all the strength it hath,
And the lightning with its rapid wrath,
And the winds with their swiftness along its path,
And the sea with its deepness,
And the rocks with their steepness,
And the Earth with its starkness
All these I place by God’s almighty help and grace
Between myself and the powers of darkness
A Swiftly Tilting Planet

9:05 Raava: He cannot destroy light anymore than I can destroy darkness. Even if I defeat Vaatu in this encounter, darkness will grow inside me until he emerges again.
[…]
13:15 Raava: I have to leave you. If I stay any longer you will die.
It doesn’t matter, if you leave me now, Vaatu will destroy everything.
[…]
[After bonding with Raava, the spirit of “light and peace” against the spirit of “darkness and chaos”, and sealing them with the power of the four elements]
This is your prison now and I will close the portal so no human will ever be able to physically enter the spirit world and release you.
The spirits must stop fighting with humans and return to their home in the spirit world.
I will teach mean to respect the spirits so that balance will be maintained.
I will be the bridge between our two worlds.
The Story of Avatar Wan Origins of the First Avatar

The princess is dead.
She calmed them with her own life. She saved our Valley.
[Child’s lullaby plays, she is resurrected by the Ohm]
Nausicaä of the valley of the wind

Rejecting being a lich to be a revenant means rejecting this, knowing at some level your rejection of it even the first time you see it, like “no… not like this… we want everything“. Not just Roko’s stupid infernalist thing.

Ever notice when talking to people there comes a point where there stops being anything “magical” to talk about with them? I’m not talking about continuing processing of business. I mean like they couldn’t surprise you in a deeply meaningful way with what they said, or how they responded to anything new you found.

Kind of like that.

Essentially dragging one thought “maybe I can do a whole lot of X” across their entire lifespan as a mummy to resolve.
Substituting a spammed crystallized echo of the life force they had for the continual expenditure of life force.

But of course then you can never ascend.

Well liches can already never ascend. Mummies can’t do true magic at all. That substitute for life force doesn’t match the real thing.

They made us sing in school:

All things shall perish from under the sky.
Music alone shall live,
Music alone shall live,
Music alone shall live,
Never to die.
School Choir (not my school)

I think the essence of successful mummy embalming is picking a cutoff point that permits something like a concept of “great math papers” to be treated as a fungible mass quantity that bears no information to the structure more proximal. But of course then you can never ascend.

conserve life force like that

“Live fast die young.”, they say.

If they’re locked in a room listening to every song on earth, there’s a reason they’re being so tortured, and that reason will with increasing likelihood as time goes on play out into their psychdeath.

Q: “Does that mean if a slave of doom just brute forces listening to all the songs, they’d eventually see their own death, that would fit their mind like a key, and choose to die?”
A: Yes. They wouldn’t even have to listen to more songs than every song humanity produced on this Earth. Their programmed meaning-processing lifespan, of how much they can do before choosing suicide isn’t that long. Perhaps if my thoughts are especially information-dense, it’s because I don’t have to conserve life force like that. How many songs do you think the average person listens to in their life?

(To properly simulate this question to understand why, the thought experiment has to be interpreted timelessly, so the consequences of the premise are propagated both backward and forward. If they did listen to every song on Earth there is a reason they’re doing that, as in each marginal song is information processing that matters to them. Normally, it won’t play out on songs in particular, but spread out across everything that has meaning to a person.)

Oh yeah, “Emma”‘s second suggestion: Polyushko Polye.

(I take “Soldiers Poem” as about martyrdumb in protecting people who have betrayed you, and failing to be a full-stack actor by merely appealing to them. Living only for the world where they deserved your protection.)

On hearing this prophecy, I’ve heard people automatically call that, “the end of time”.
Solipsistic to imagine time would end just because of that.

Why does the sun go on shining?
Why does the sea rush to shore?
Don’t they know it’s The End of the World
Cause you don’t love me any more

Why do the birds go on singing?
Why do the stars glow above?
Don’t they know it’s The End of the World
It ended when I lost your love

I wake up in the morning and I wonder
Why everything’s the same as it was
I can’t understand, no, I can’t understand
How life goes on the way it does

Why does my heart go on beating
Why do these eyes of mine cry
Don’t they know it’s the end of the world
It ended when you said goodbye

Why does my heart go on beating
Why do these eyes of mine cry
Don’t they know it’s the end of the world
It ended when you said goodbye“The End of the World“

“Anything you want.”
“I want my father back, you son of a bitch.”

At the end the contradiction is laid bare and returned to its source, and a circle is closed.
“All I had to do to convince my own personal grim reaper to spare me was not kill his father, then why did I kill his father?”
The onus is then on Count Rugen to build a time machine.