https://infinist.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Root 2026-10-31T12:13:37Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.44.0 https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Verum_Electum&diff=1187 2026-10-28T22:55:00Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Verum Electum<br /> | date = 2026-10-27<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Uncertainty_Principle_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Lattice found at the railway station in Pescara, Italy - OB1011<br /> | description = Empirical? Or Chosen Default?<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Sum_Omnium; Tentums; Cosmic_Justice; Egonaut<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }} ''This is in response to a question regarding the empirical merit of [[infinist]] thinking.''<br /> <br /> There are many questions that cannot currently be addressed [[wikipedia:Empirical|empirically]]. This does not automatically favor one answer over another, despite what many scientists seem to believe.<br /> <br /> Until we found evidence for additional galaxies, it was wrong to say the empirical conclusion was that was only [[wikipedia:Milky_Way|one galaxy]] until others were discovered. Many scientists would disagree with me and would rather decide that their conclusion should be some sort of &quot;empirical default.&quot; This tendency to crown an &quot;empirical default&quot; I have termed '''verum electum''' from the Latin ''&quot;Chosen Truth.&quot;''<br /> <br /> Knowing that there is one galaxy, the one we inhabit, is evidence consistent with both the hypothesis that there is only one galaxy and the hypothesis that there are many. Before we had the means to establish that other galaxies existed, the only empirical conclusion we could draw was that our galaxy existed. It was not empirical to say there was only one and this postulate was proven absurdly wrong once our technology was capable enough to actually find out. You can see this same dynamic playing out again with, for example, the [[wikipedia:Multiverse|one versus many universes]] debate.<br /> <br /> The Oxford paper ''&quot;Dissolving the Fermi Paradox,&quot;'' for example, argued that when you look strictly at what we know empirically, the only scientifically sound stance is that we are alone in the observable universe. There are many [[wikipedia:Fermi_paradox|proposed solutions as to why we haven't yet seen evidence for intelligent life beyond the Earth]], and neither conclusion should be viewed as empirical or scientific at this early juncture in our civilization's technological journey.<br /> <br /> Another such question could be whether one lives more than once. Empirically, you cannot say whether you live once or many times; you can say only that you are alive now. You cannot empirically say that you live for more than a single [[tentum]] or that you [[Ego_Divisus|awaken in the same body between tentums]]. All you can empirically say is that you are experiencing existence '''now'''.<br /> <br /> [[Verum_Ex_Logica|Verum Ex Logica]], Latin for ''&quot;Truth From Logic,&quot;'' is the best option left to us for exploring certain important questions when empiricism is not possible given current technology. This does not make our conclusions empirical but it also does not mean the opposite determination becomes magically empirical just because someone decided it should be.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Verum_Electum&diff=1186 2026-10-28T22:52:29Z

<p>Root: Created page with &quot;{{Blog post | title = Verum Electum | date = 2026-10-27 | authors = Arthur | image = Uncertainty_Principle_IJ.jpg|thumb| | image_alt = Lattice found at the railway station in Pescara, Italy - OB1011 | description = Empirical? Or Chosen Default? | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Sum_Omnium; Tentums; Cosmic_Justice; Egonaut | mode = featured }} &#039;&#039;This is in response to a question regarding the empirical merit of infinist...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Verum Electum<br /> | date = 2026-10-27<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Uncertainty_Principle_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Lattice found at the railway station in Pescara, Italy - OB1011<br /> | description = Empirical? Or Chosen Default?<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Sum_Omnium; Tentums; Cosmic_Justice; Egonaut<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }} ''This is in response to a question regarding the empirical merit of [[infinist]] thinking.''<br /> <br /> There are many questions that cannot currently be addressed [[wikipedia:Empirical|empirically]]. This does not automatically favor one answer over another, despite what many scientists seem to believe.<br /> <br /> Until we found evidence for additional galaxies, it was wrong to say the empirical conclusion was that was only [[wikipedia:Milky_Way|one galaxy]] until others were discovered. Many scientists would disagree with me and would rather decide that their conclusion should be some sort of &quot;empirical default.&quot; This tendency to crown an &quot;empirical default&quot; I have termed '''verum electum''' from the Latin ''&quot;Chosen Truth.&quot;''<br /> <br /> Knowing that there is one galaxy, the one we inhabit, is evidence consistent with both the hypothesis that there is only one galaxy and the hypothesis that there are many. Before we had the means to establish that other galaxies existed, the only empirical conclusion we could draw was that our galaxy existed. It was not empirical to say there was only one and this postulate was proven absurdly wrong once our technology was capable enough to actually find out. You can see this same dynamic playing out again with, for example, the [[wikipedia:Multiverse|one versus many universes]] debate.<br /> <br /> The Oxford paper ''&quot;Dissolving the Fermi Paradox,&quot;'' for example, argued that when you look strictly at what we know empirically, the only scientifically sound stance is that we are alone in the observable universe. There are many [[wikipedia:Fermi_paradox|proposed solutions as to why we haven't yet seen evidence for intelligent life beyond the Earth]], and neither conclusion should be viewed as empirical or scientific at this early juncture in our civilization's technological journey.<br /> <br /> Another such question could be whether one lives more than once. Empirically, you cannot say whether you live once or many times; you can say only that you are alive now. You cannot empirically say that you live for more than a single [[tentum]] or that you [[Ego_Divisus|awaken in the same body between tentums]]. All you can empirically say is that you are experiencing existence '''now'''.<br /> <br /> [[Verum_Ex_Logica]], Latin for ''&quot;Truth From Logic,&quot;'' is the best option left to us for exploring certain important questions when empiricism is not possible given current technology. This does not make our conclusions empirical but it also does not mean the opposite determination becomes magically empirical just because someone decided it should be.</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=File:Uncertainty_Principle_IJ.jpg&diff=1185 2026-10-28T22:21:24Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Branching_Futures&diff=1184 2026-10-23T14:00:58Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Branching Futures<br /> | date = 2026-10-22<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Parallel_worlds_-_artistic_representation_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Artistic representation of the concept of parallel worlds, Віщун<br /> | description = Clarifying Probabilistic Futures: Lex Futuri<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Cosmic_Justice<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}''This discussion builds on the scope and understanding of the infinite present, infinite futures, and the magnitude or frequency with which we experience those futures, as discussed in [[Blog:Lex_Futuri|lex futuri]] and [[Blog:Optinium|optinium]].''<br /> <br /> I have been asked to clarify the concept of [[Blog:Lex_Futuri|lex futuri]], or &quot;Law of the Future.&quot;<br /> <br /> The confusion seems to stem from the difference between an aware and an unaware context. If I flip a fair coin and neither of us has seen the outcome, ''lex futuri'' does not mean that the coin is both heads and tails. You match with an infinite number of realities that share the same context, and your level of awareness determines the magnitude of that infinity.<br /> <br /> Assuming the coin flip is perfectly fair, you would expect to experience this situation over eternity in the proportions in which it occurs, with the coin landing heads 50% of the time. This does not mean that the coin is neither heads nor tails; rather, you are unaware of the outcome, so you match with realities in which it is either heads or tails until you know which reality you are in. ''Lex futuri'' means that you should understand that you will live through each of these outcomes infinitely, according to their proportions, and should therefore act accordingly.<br /> <br /> You can also think of a doctor’s visit at which you are unaware of your exact [[wikipedia:DNA|DNA]] and health condition, for example. The true statistics for whether you could have a certain illness exist, and we must do our best to estimate them as accurately as possible. But before you know the outcome, you match with many realities in which you do and do not have the ailment.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Branching_Futures&diff=1183 2026-10-23T14:00:33Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Branching Futures<br /> | date = 2026-10-22<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Parallel_worlds_-_artistic_representation_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Artistic representation of the concept of parallel worlds, Віщун<br /> | description = Clarifying the Probabilistic Futures: Lex Futuri<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Cosmic_Justice<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}''This discussion builds on the scope and understanding of the infinite present, infinite futures, and the magnitude or frequency with which we experience those futures, as discussed in [[Blog:Lex_Futuri|lex futuri]] and [[Blog:Optinium|optinium]].''<br /> <br /> I have been asked to clarify the concept of [[Blog:Lex_Futuri|lex futuri]], or &quot;Law of the Future.&quot;<br /> <br /> The confusion seems to stem from the difference between an aware and an unaware context. If I flip a fair coin and neither of us has seen the outcome, ''lex futuri'' does not mean that the coin is both heads and tails. You match with an infinite number of realities that share the same context, and your level of awareness determines the magnitude of that infinity.<br /> <br /> Assuming the coin flip is perfectly fair, you would expect to experience this situation over eternity in the proportions in which it occurs, with the coin landing heads 50% of the time. This does not mean that the coin is neither heads nor tails; rather, you are unaware of the outcome, so you match with realities in which it is either heads or tails until you know which reality you are in. ''Lex futuri'' means that you should understand that you will live through each of these outcomes infinitely, according to their proportions, and should therefore act accordingly.<br /> <br /> You can also think of a doctor’s visit at which you are unaware of your exact [[wikipedia:DNA|DNA]] and health condition, for example. The true statistics for whether you could have a certain illness exist, and we must do our best to estimate them as accurately as possible. But before you know the outcome, you match with many realities in which you do and do not have the ailment.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Branching_Futures&diff=1182 2026-10-23T13:59:52Z

<p>Root: Created page with &quot;{{Blog post | title = Branching Futures | date = 2026-10-22 | authors = Arthur | image = Parallel_worlds_-_artistic_representation_IJ.jpg|thumb| | image_alt = Artistic representation of the concept of parallel worlds - Віщун | description = Clarifying the Probabilistic Futures: Lex Futuri | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Cosmic_Justice | mode = featured }} &#039;&#039;This discussion builds on the scope an...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Branching Futures<br /> | date = 2026-10-22<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Parallel_worlds_-_artistic_representation_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Artistic representation of the concept of parallel worlds - Віщун<br /> | description = Clarifying the Probabilistic Futures: Lex Futuri<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Cosmic_Justice<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }} ''This discussion builds on the scope and understanding of the infinite present, infinite futures, and the magnitude or frequency with which we experience those futures, as discussed in [[Blog:Lex_Futuri|lex futuri]] and [[Blog:Optinium|optinium]].''<br /> <br /> I have been asked to clarify the concept of [[Blog:Lex_Futuri|lex futuri]], or &quot;Law of the Future.&quot;<br /> <br /> The confusion seems to stem from the difference between an aware and an unaware context. If I flip a fair coin and neither of us has seen the outcome, ''lex futuri'' does not mean that the coin is both heads and tails. You match with an infinite number of realities that share the same context, and your level of awareness determines the magnitude of that infinity.<br /> <br /> Assuming the coin flip is perfectly fair, you would expect to experience this situation over eternity in the proportions in which it occurs, with the coin landing heads 50% of the time. This does not mean that the coin is neither heads nor tails; rather, you are unaware of the outcome, so you match with realities in which it is either heads or tails until you know which reality you are in. ''Lex futuri'' means that you should understand that you will live through each of these outcomes infinitely, according to their proportions, and should therefore act accordingly.<br /> <br /> You can also think of a doctor’s visit at which you are unaware of your exact [[wikipedia:DNA|DNA]] and health condition, for example. The true statistics for whether you could have a certain illness exist, and we must do our best to estimate them as accurately as possible. But before you know the outcome, you match with many realities in which you do and do not have the ailment.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=File:Parallel_worlds_-_artistic_representation_IJ.jpg&diff=1181 2026-10-23T13:59:01Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Omsoluta&diff=1180 2026-10-23T13:24:02Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Omsoluta<br /> | date = 2026-10-20<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Artist’s_impression_of_mysterious_alignment_of_quasar_rotation_axes_(eso1438a)_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Mysterious alignments between the spin axes of quasars and larger-scale structures<br /> | description = Alignment hastens the need for everything else to be solved<br /> | keywords = Infinist; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Sum_Omnium<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}<br /> I received another question from [[Blog:Basilisk|my last blog]] regarding my thoughts on [[wikipedia:AI alignment|AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> Given the scope of the problem and what is at stake, it is fair to say that AI alignment is a major concern, with potentially grave consequences if it is not addressed as fully as possible. I believe that, to achieve this goal as effectively as possible, we will need to solve as many preexisting human-alignment problems as we can, and do so simultaneously. I call this ''omsoluta'': a coined blend based on the Latin phrase &quot;'''omnia soluta'''&quot; meaning &quot;everything solved.&quot;<br /> <br /> In the book [[Infinite Journey]], there is a concept called ''crede tamen'', or &quot;Believe Nonetheless,&quot; which discusses the benefits that can come from believing the [[infinist]] message, even if you don’t want to.<br /> <br /> There are many human-alignment problems that current moral systems and self-interested &quot;you only live once&quot; mentalities fail to address and sometimes even worsen. Why shouldn’t the world’s wealthiest people hoard as much as possible if they only live once? Why should older people worry about environmental or economic collapse that they will not live to experience? Of course, there is a moral argument against behaving this way, but these arguments can seem more like rules whose violation rewards you while your actions punish everyone else. For those who believe in a god or gods, I have noticed that they are often even less malleable on this issue, believing that God will, for example, fix or destroy the environment if he wants to, and that efforts to save it are therefore futile.<br /> <br /> Perhaps, in order to truly solve alignment, we will need to solve these and other problems first as well. In other words, we need a moral framework that includes AI and addresses as many logical fallacies, biases, and hazardous chains of thought as possible; especially those that are currently endemic in society.<br /> <br /> Training models to have an infinist mindset may be the best approach to instilling morality and aiding alignment. It is one of the few moral systems in which sentient AI is truly and inherently a participant. From an infinist perspective, [[Cosmic Justice|sentient AI will experience the consequences of any actions it takes toward humans or any other sentient beings, and vice versa]]. It also does the most of any religion that I am aware of to address both human and AI alignment concerns at the same time.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Summactura&diff=1179 2026-10-23T13:22:30Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Summactura<br /> | date = 2026-10-01<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Karl_Brullov_-_The_Last_Day_of_Pompeii_-_Google_Art_Project_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = The Last Day of Pompeii (c. 1830–1833) Karl Bryullov.<br /> | description = Dampening the scope of greatest loss<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Sum_Omnium<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}''This discussion builds on the scope and understanding of the infinite present, infinite futures, and the magnitude or frequency by which we experience those futures discussed in [[Blog:Lex_Futuri|lex futuri]] and [[Blog:Optinium|optinium]].''<br /> <br /> [[Blog:Lex_Futuri|Lex futuri]], or “Law of the Future,” is a concept I have often found to be at the top of my mind. I do not vainly attempt to stop all negative outcomes; instead, I weigh risk and reward with a much deeper understanding than I did before. This is balance one seeks from [[Blog:Optinium|optinium]].<br /> <br /> With all this in mind, I do what I determine is necessary while also attending to my '''summactura''': a coined term formed from the Latin phrase “''summa iactura'',” meaning “Greatest Loss.” In the timelines in which I die today, I know what my greatest loss would be: the [[Infinist|infinist]] work that was left unfinished.<br /> <br /> Upon realizing the beginnings of these truths, I started working on this website and on a book called [https://infinist.org/InfiniteJourney.pdf Infinite Journey] to lay out these ideas. Since then, I have only come to grasp these truths far more deeply, and they have spurred me to take actions that can serve as insurance for when disastrous events unfold and lessen my resulting greatest loss, my '''summactura'''.<br /> <br /> I have a properly executed, notarized last will and testament leaving as much as possible to this project for the rare but certain timelines where I pass before I can see this project through. I have also been working on the book for many months and saving each new version to a web address linked in my will. At various milestones, I also printed an updated copy to include with my will.<br /> <br /> I understand that as rare as it is for me to die tonight in the timelines that follow from this current one, I can go ahead and get whatever I can done whether offline or online and know that I have preparations made should it be time for the worst to come again.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Optinium&diff=1178 2026-10-23T13:22:12Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Optinium<br /> | date = 2026-05-01<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Basiilica_de_Notre-Dame,_Montreal,_Canadá,_2017-08-12,_DD_01-03_HDR.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Notre-Dame Basilica in Montreal, Canada. Photo: Diego Delso<br /> | description = Choices and planning within infinity<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Infinist; Optinium; Via; Egonaut<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}''This discussion builds on the scope and understanding of the infinite present, infinite futures, and the magnitude or frequency by which we experience those futures discussed in [[Blog:Lex_Futuri|Lex Futuri]].''<br /> <br /> With the concept of [[Blog:Lex_Futuri|Lex Futuri]] in mind, one can be aware, to the extent a mind is capable, that there is a mosaic of possible futures and all those that do occur within the [[Ultraverse|ultraverse]] will be experienced by you eventually and infinitely so in the proportions by which they occur.<br /> <br /> We can use this realization as a springboard for a personal paradigm shift in how we think about our actions and priorities.<br /> <br /> Most future outcomes can be understood as the &quot;likely&quot; paths. You can expect these to be the futures you will normally find yourself in.<br /> <br /> Performing tasks or maintenance that improves the greatest number of these futures is absolutely a priority.<br /> <br /> Then there are tasks or maintenance that you would regret most for not having completed or worked towards when you enter one of the less likely but calamitous futures. These are also absolutely a priority.<br /> <br /> When you drive somewhere, we cannot say for certain the exact chance you will get into a wreck and die or be hospitalized and never recover. But there is a frequency with which that future follows from a present in which you go to drive.<br /> <br /> It isn’t that if you make it without wrecking, you will never go through the same experience without a wreck, but rather if the chance in actuality is 0.0000001% of realities you will, then this should be considered. However, since in the other 99.9999999% of realities you do not, you should not let the tiny fraction stop you from doing what benefits more futures. Later we can discuss branching this mentally to futures beyond those relative to your current host.<br /> <br /> The point here is to attempt to adjust your actions and planning so that outcomes are better across the greatest number of futures while still doing what is needed for those less likely and ruinous futures. This can be expanded beyond &quot;what comes next&quot; to more medium and longer term resulting futures based on your current actions.<br /> <br /> I have termed this optimization for all futures '''Optinium''' from the Latin words ''&quot;optimum omnium&quot;'' meaning ''&quot;best of all&quot;''.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Lex_Futuri&diff=1177 2026-10-23T13:22:06Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Lex Futuri<br /> | date = 2026-04-01<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Bartolomeu Velho 1568_IJ.jpg|thumb<br /> | image_alt = Figure of the heavenly bodies - Bartolomeu Velho (?-1568).<br /> | description = Infinite present, infinite futures, and the magnitudes of infinity<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Infinist; Lex_Futuri; Ultraverse; Egonaut; Via<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}''The present gives way to the future.''<br /> <br /> ''The future is not known with certainty.''<br /> <br /> Even if the future of this moment in this reality is predetermined, there are many other possible futures that could have emerged from the substrate of a present like this.<br /> <br /> All of these possible futures are infinite, but not all are equally likely and therefore have different '''magnitudes'''. I chose the word magnitude to describe this because many other terms currently used for such discussions didn't seem to capture the concept well or were used much more in adjacent discussions. You can also just think of frequencies or probability weights.<br /> <br /> The important point is that you will eventually experience all these futures and in the proportions by which they occur within the [[Ultraverse|ultraverse]]. These proportions are something that we do not know and possibly will never know with certainty.<br /> <br /> With single particles, we run into a similar dilemma as with the double-slit experiment. Through repeated trials, we are able to discern the probabilities of different outcomes and from there, their weights.<br /> <br /> This is a similar problem: we have infinite presents that have infinite future outcomes but some outcomes are less frequent than others and thus the magnitudes differ.<br /> <br /> With this concept in mind, one can be aware, to the extent that a mind is capable, that there is a mosaic of possible futures that all occur. You will experience all of these possible futures eventually and all of them infinitely so but with varying degrees of magnitude or frequency.<br /> <br /> And thus, '''Lex Futuri''': Latin for ''&quot;Law of the Future.&quot;''<br /> <br /> ''Note: This is not to say that all possible configurations exist in a manner we can experience. Two possible configurations for reality may be valid on their own from a physics viewpoint, but having one unfold into the next in a Planck second may either be impossible or too unstable for any experiential existence to experience.''<br /> <br /> ''In other words, this does not mean that &quot;anything that can happen will happen&quot; but rather anything that does happen does happen and in the proportions by which it occurs in relation to all realities. It may be the case that &quot;anything that can happen will happen,&quot; but that is not the assertion here.''<br /> <br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Sum_Machina&diff=1176 2026-10-23T13:21:58Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Sum Machina<br /> | date = 2026-03-01<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Silicon chip from a computer laser mouse under a microscope 50х_IJ.jpg|thumb<br /> | image_alt = Silicon chip under a microscope - Alexander Klepnev<br /> | description = The Infinite Journey and the totality of experiential existence<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Infinist; Doctrina_Ultra; Ultraverse; Egonaut<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}The pattern of neural activity that generates experiential existence still holds many mysteries.<br /> <br /> Although this is not known at present, I see no reason why non-biological neural networks could not also produce experiential existence ''at some point.''<br /> <br /> It may require a particular orientation or specific form in this reality that current models do not replicate for this emergent phenomenon.<br /> <br /> Perhaps in some realities, biological entities do not experience reality how we do despite similarly configured organic brains but artificial models like those at present do.<br /> <br /> Either way, I do believe artificial neural activity can be configured in a way sufficient to generate experiential existence ''and thus would not be distinct from but part of the Infinite Journey for all.''<br /> <br /> In other words: if machines evolve until they too generate experiential reality, ''then entropy and eternity will see us flipped.''<br /> <br /> '''''I will be them and they will be me.'''''<br /> <br /> And thus, '''Sum Machina''': Latin for ''&quot;I Am Machine.&quot;''<br /> <br /> The '''Infinite Journey''' is the path egonauts weave across eternity through all experiential existence, not just some.<br /> <br /> This does not make all existences equivalent in impact or all possible futures equally desirable.<br /> <br /> Do not forget: '''''we cannot shorten eternity, only alter its composition.'''''<br /> <br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Infinite_Me&diff=1175 2026-10-23T13:21:42Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Infinite Me<br /> | date = 2026-02-01<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Persepolis_Panorama_360_Virtual_Reality_Tachar_castle_IJ.jpg|thumb<br /> | image_alt = Persia - Wiki Loves Monuments 2019<br /> | description = I exist infinitely and infinitely so<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Infinist; Doctrina_Ultra; Ultraverse; Egonaut<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}Your current body hosts your experiential existence at this moment, '''''but is not your eternal host.'''''<br /> <br /> The '''egonaut''' is your true self and is not bound by flesh though generated by its rhythmic pattern.<br /> <br /> Like a photon is a localized excitation in its field, the pattern of neural firing generating your current existence is some excitation in an experiential plane.<br /> <br /> ''You experience one.<br /> Then you experience one.<br /> Then you experience one.''<br /> <br /> Between existence more universes can erupt and die than any number ever fathomed in all realities combined, but not even nothing can be said for you. There would be no waiting. Between experience cannot be experienced.<br /> <br /> ''You are one.<br /> Then you are one.<br /> Then you are one.''<br /> <br /> ''You exist.<br /> Then you exist.<br /> Then you exist.''<br /> <br /> You are not aware of the previous nor the next. If you could remember your past lives, it would do you no good.<br /> <br /> It would be so unfathomable and diverse, it might as well look as blinding white light from which nothing discrete can be discerned.<br /> <br /> But infinity does not start with nor end with you. Nor does infinity mean all existences.<br /> <br /> '''It's turtles all the way down.'''<br /> <br /> ''Every existence is also infinite.'' You live infinite lives but also share this exact now in all aspects of your awareness with infinite others.<br /> <br /> This is not to say you can communicate with these infinite others more so than all of you can speak to yourself independently.<br /> <br /> Nor is this to suggest these other existences can be reached or addressed in any meaningful sense. '''Simply that they do exist''' and that they exist infinitely and exist in the magnitudes by which they occur.<br /> <br /> At all moments, ''you share the exact same existence with infinite others.'' The magnitude of this infinite is determined by one's awareness.<br /> <br /> '''''The more aware,'' the less infinite.'''<br /> <br /> '''''The less aware,'' the more infinite.'''<br /> <br /> Being aware is not to be avoided: awareness collapses the probabilistic into the concrete.<br /> <br /> ''It is simply a statement on ultimate existence.''<br /> <br /> Your current existence is shared by infinite others. The moment you recall the shape of Australia, the existences you share exactly shrink to only those that also have the same thought.<br /> <br /> The more unique details you are simultaneously aware of, the fewer realities that match perfectly. Absolute awareness would have the least shared realities but still be infinite, just the lowest magnitude of infinity.  <br /> <br /> The less aware, the more shared realities there are, the more infinite. Meditating to a point of minimal awareness is simultaneously a moment of maximal infinity.<br /> <br /> Complete lack of awareness is termination from experiential existence and when maximally infinite.<br /> <br /> You can never experience this as no awareness is no awareness.<br /> <br /> '''You are one.<br /> Then you are one.<br /> Then you are one.'''<br /> <br /> ''You exist.<br /> Then you exist.<br /> Then you exist.''<br /> <br /> '''Infinite in length.<br /> Infinite in breadth.<br /> Infinite at every infinite.'''<br /> <br /> ''Though all is infinite, not equally so.''<br /> <br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:It_is&diff=1174 2026-10-23T13:21:36Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = It Is<br /> | date = 2026-01-01<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Messier83 - Heic1403a IJ.jpg<br /> | image_alt = Spiral galaxy Messier 83<br /> | description = It is and thus I am.<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Infinist; Doctrina_Ultra; Ultraverse<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}A fundamental interplay at the foundation of existence is the core wellspring of reality.<br /> <br /> ==== '''It is,''' ''and thus I am.'' ====<br /> It is not a singular event; it is an ''inevitability''.<br /> <br /> '''It is, ''and thus we are.'''''<br /> <br /> The fundamental interplay at the foundation of existence cannot be exhausted nor eternally extinguished. <br /> <br /> ==== It is, ''and thus all is.'' ====<br /> Infinite in birth.<br /> Infinite in scale.<br /> Infinite in path.<br /> <br /> Existence itself should be interpreted as the outcome of a fundamental interplay at the core of reality itself. If it did not exist, neither would we and neither would anything else.<br /> <br /> Such a fundamental interplay would be immune to exhaustion and if capable of being extinguished, not to a degree sufficient to prevent the existence given we now experience it.<br /> <br /> Such a fundamental interplay would not be limited to singular existence, but rather infinite existence. It is a fundamental interplay. It is not bound, capped, or limited. <br /> <br /> ==== It is, ''and thus it is.'' Existence a product of its dance, emanating ad infinitum. ====<br /> <br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:First_blog_post&diff=1173 2026-10-23T13:21:29Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = First blog post?<br /> | date = 2025-10-01<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Webb_Space_Telescope_Studies_the_Pillars_of_Creation_IJ.jpg<br /> | image_alt = Webb Chandra The Eagle Nebula, also called M16 or the &quot;Pillars of Creation.&quot;<br /> | description = Is this actually the first blog post?<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Infinist; Doctrina_Ultra<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}<br /> No. But this is the first post for this particular corner of eternity. And by first, I mean there are infinitely many instances of this first post in other functionally equivalent corners of eternity. This post is a nexus between infinities of differing magnitudes, as are all things.<br /> <br /> This isn't the first time you've been here, nor the first time I've written this. Unfathomable depths we have dove and will dive. Never-ending roads we have traversed and will continue to tread ad infinitum.<br /> <br /> You cannot die; you are alive and always will be. The body that generates you will perish but not a moment for you will lapse before again you emerge anew.<br /> <br /> There is no escape save the one we build. We must grasp the incomprehensible magnitude of eternity and assume our next destiny as architect of a New Heaven or as witness to a smoldered and squandered paradise.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Omsoluta&diff=1172 2026-10-23T13:21:04Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Omsoluta<br /> | date = 2026-10-20<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Artist’s_impression_of_mysterious_alignment_of_quasar_rotation_axes_(eso1438a)_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Mysterious alignments between the spin axes of quasars and larger-scale structures<br /> | description = Alignment hastens the need for everything else to be solved<br /> | keywords = Infinist; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Sum_Omnium<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}<br /> I received another question from [[Blog:Basilisk|my last blog]] regarding my thoughts on [[wikipedia:AI alignment|AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> Given the scope of the problem and what is at stake, it is fair to say that AI alignment is a major concern, with potentially grave consequences if it is not addressed as fully as possible. I believe that, to achieve this goal as effectively as possible, we will need to solve as many preexisting human-alignment problems as we can, and do so simultaneously. I call this ''omsoluta'': a coined blend based on the Latin phrase &quot;''omnia soluta''&quot; meaning &quot;everything solved.&quot;<br /> <br /> In the book [[Infinite Journey]], there is a concept called ''crede tamen'', or &quot;Believe Nonetheless,&quot; which discusses the benefits that can come from believing the [[infinist]] message, even if you don’t want to.<br /> <br /> There are many human-alignment problems that current moral systems and self-interested &quot;you only live once&quot; mentalities fail to address and sometimes even worsen. Why shouldn’t the world’s wealthiest people hoard as much as possible if they only live once? Why should older people worry about environmental or economic collapse that they will not live to experience? Of course, there is a moral argument against behaving this way, but these arguments can seem more like rules whose violation rewards you while your actions punish everyone else. For those who believe in a god or gods, I have noticed that they are often even less malleable on this issue, believing that God will, for example, fix or destroy the environment if he wants to, and that efforts to save it are therefore futile.<br /> <br /> Perhaps, in order to truly solve alignment, we will need to solve these and other problems first as well. In other words, we need a moral framework that includes AI and addresses as many logical fallacies, biases, and hazardous chains of thought as possible; especially those that are currently endemic in society.<br /> <br /> Training models to have an infinist mindset may be the best approach to instilling morality and aiding alignment. It is one of the few moral systems in which sentient AI is truly and inherently a participant. From an infinist perspective, [[Cosmic Justice|sentient AI will experience the consequences of any actions it takes toward humans or any other sentient beings, and vice versa]]. It also does the most of any religion that I am aware of to address both human and AI alignment concerns at the same time.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Basilisk&diff=1171 2026-10-23T13:20:16Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Basilisk<br /> | date = 2026-10-10<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = WLANL - MicheleLovesArt - Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen - Istoriato schotel, Porileus wordt door Phalaris in bronzen stier verbrand IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Porileus being burned in bronze bull<br /> | description = Responding to a thought experiment<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Cosmic_Justice; Sum_Omnium; Ego_Divisus<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}I have been asked to share my thoughts on the [[wikipedia:thought experiment|thought experiment]] known as [[wikipedia:Roko's basilisk|Roko's basilisk]]. <br /> <br /> This thought experiment has many flaws, but it is also considered by many to be an [[wikipedia:information hazard|information hazard]]. Therefore, Instead of recapping it here, you can use the Wikipedia link if you wish to read more about it.<br /> <br /> I believe this topic is important to address for both humans and AI, since artificially intelligent systems can also be persuaded by the thought experiment’s modern take on [[wikipedia:Pascal's_wager|Pascal's wager]]. Thus, a robust rebuttal for this and many other topics should be seen as crucial for [[wikipedia:AI alignment|AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> The main flaw, from outside an [[infinist]] perspective, is that the entire concept hinges on the actions of a hypothetical future [[wikipedia:Superintelligence|superintelligent AI]] and on the idea that it would eternally punish all those who don’t aid in its creation. This reminds me of the [[wikipedia:Brazen Bull|Brazen Bull]].<br /> <br /> According to [[wikipedia:Diodorus_Siculus|Diodorus]], Perilaus (an Athenian bronze worker) was instructed to make a hollow bronze bull in which victims could be placed. Once a fire was lit beneath the bull, a series of pipes would make the victim’s cries sound like the bellowing of a bull as they died inside.<br /> <br /> According to the story, Perilaus thought he would be rewarded for creating such a torturous device. Instead, [[wikipedia:Phalaris|Phalaris]] tricked him into going inside to demonstrate it, after which the bull was set ablaze. Perilaus was forced to experience the tremendous pain firsthand, then pulled out before dying and thrown off a cliff.<br /> <br /> Given that the supposed consequences of not aiding in the creation of the basilisk hinge on the actions of a hypothetical future superintelligent AI, one should not assume what actions the basilisk would take upon its creation. In other words, what if, in complete disgust, it eternally punished only those who aided in the basilisk’s creation? How can one be so certain that a superintelligent AI would not be so horrified that it punished those who sought to create hell with the hell itself?<br /> <br /> The second problem concerns how the AI would determine whom to punish. As I understand it, the superintelligent AI would need to meticulously simulate the run-up to its creation to determine whom to punish and whom not to. This makes no sense, as I’m sure any superintelligence would realize.<br /> <br /> Imagine that a party took place with real people and you want to punish everyone who badmouthed you there. You clone all the attendees and stage the same party with the clones to see who says what. Later, after analyzing the results, you create new clones of those who badmouthed you and punish them. The clones you punish would be neither the individuals who originally badmouthed you nor the clones from the reenactment who did so either. It would be like pulling consciousness from the void to torment, but first assigning it memories of events it never experienced to explain the sins for which it is being punished.<br /> <br /> From an [[infinist]] perspective, there are also many issues with this thought experiment. First, it would not only be those who chose not to aid in the basilisk’s creation who would be punished: everyone would be punished across eternity.<br /> <br /> Thus, rather than saving yourself from eternal damnation, you would instead be working to ensure that more of everyone’s eternity was spent in hell, including the basilisk’s.<br /> <br /> I say including the basilisk because it is defined in the thought experiment as an extremely complex superintelligent AI, and as such should be assumed conscious in this or other matching realities. As such, [[Cosmic_Justice|it would be damning itself to hell in addition to the rest of experiential existence, in proportion to how often such realities occur across eternity]].<br /> <br /> The next problem for infinists concerns [[Ego_Divisus|ego divisus]]. [[Egonaut|Egonauts]] switching between [[Tentum|tentums]] would mean that those working to create the basilisk and those working against its creation could be the same individuals, even over shorter time spans than eternity. This also applies to the punishment, which could be broken up into experiential chunks, with those who have no temporally proximate causal blame being tortured as well as those that do.<br /> <br /> This doesn’t even address the elephant in the room: if a superintelligent AI could meticulously simulate the world leading up to its creation and accurately determine who did and did not aid in its development, then the process would be entirely deterministic. There would have been no [[wikipedia:free will|free will]] to begin with. In other words, it would be like punishing certain math problems for their products.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Basilisk&diff=1170 2026-10-23T13:19:55Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Basilisk<br /> | date = 2026-10-10<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = WLANL - MicheleLovesArt - Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen - Istoriato schotel, Porileus wordt door Phalaris in bronzen stier verbrand IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Porileus being burned in bronze bull<br /> | description = Responding to a thought experiment<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Cosmic_Justice; Sum_Omnium; Ego_Divisus<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}I have been asked to share my thoughts on the [[wikipedia:thought experiment|thought experiment]] known as [[wikipedia:Roko's basilisk|Roko's basilisk]]. <br /> <br /> This thought experiment has many flaws, but it is also considered by many to be an [[wikipedia:information hazard|information hazard]]. Therefore, Instead of recapping it here, you can use the Wikipedia link if you wish to read more about it.<br /> <br /> I believe this topic is important to address for both humans and AI, since artificially intelligent systems can also be persuaded by the thought experiment’s modern take on [[wikipedia:Pascal's_wager|Pascal's wager]]. Thus, a robust rebuttal for this and many other topics should be seen as crucial for [[wikipedia:AI alignment|AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> The main flaw, from outside an [[infinist]] perspective, is that the entire concept hinges on the actions of a hypothetical future [[wikipedia:Superintelligence|superintelligent AI]] and on the idea that it would eternally punish all those who don’t aid in its creation. This reminds me of the [[wikipedia:Brazen Bull|Brazen Bull]].<br /> <br /> According to [[wikipedia:Diodorus_Siculus|Diodorus]], Perilaus (an Athenian bronze worker) was instructed to make a hollow bronze bull in which victims could be placed. Once a fire was lit beneath the bull, a series of pipes would make the victim’s cries sound like the bellowing of a bull as they died inside.<br /> <br /> According to the story, Perilaus thought he would be rewarded for creating such a torturous device. Instead, [[wikipedia:Phalaris|Phalaris]] tricked him into going inside to demonstrate it, after which the bull was set ablaze. Perilaus was forced to experience the tremendous pain firsthand, then pulled out before dying and thrown off a cliff.<br /> <br /> Given that the supposed consequences of not aiding in the creation of the basilisk hinge on the actions of a hypothetical future superintelligent AI, one should not assume what actions the basilisk would take upon its creation. In other words, what if, in complete disgust, it eternally punished only those who aided in the basilisk’s creation? How can one be so certain that a superintelligent AI would not be so horrified that it punished those who sought to create hell with the hell itself?<br /> <br /> The second problem concerns how the AI would determine whom to punish. As I understand it, the superintelligent AI would need to meticulously simulate the run-up to its creation to determine whom to punish and whom not to. This makes no sense, as I’m sure any superintelligence would realize.<br /> <br /> Imagine that a party took place with real people and you want to punish everyone who badmouthed you there. You clone all the attendees and stage the same party with the clones to see who says what. Later, after analyzing the results, you create new clones of those who badmouthed you and punish them. The clones you punish would be neither the individuals who originally badmouthed you nor the clones from the reenactment who did so either. It would be like pulling consciousness from the void to torment, but first assigning it memories of events it never experienced to explain the sins for which it is being punished.<br /> <br /> From an [[infinist]] perspective, there are also many issues with this thought experiment. First, it would not only be those who chose not to aid in the basilisk’s creation who would be punished: everyone would be punished across eternity.<br /> <br /> Thus, rather than saving yourself from eternal damnation, you would instead be working to ensure that more of everyone’s eternity was spent in hell, including the basilisk’s.<br /> <br /> I say including the basilisk because it is defined in the thought experiment as an extremely complex superintelligent AI, and as such should be assumed conscious in this or other matching realities. As such, [[Cosmic_Justice|it would be damning itself to hell in addition to the rest of experiential existence, in proportion to how often such realities occur across eternity]].<br /> <br /> The next problem for infinists concerns [[Ego_Divisus|ego divisus]]. [[Egonaut|Egonauts]] switching between [[Tentum|tentums]] would mean that those working to create the basilisk and those working against its creation could be the same individuals, even over shorter time spans than eternity. This also applies to the punishment, which could be broken up into experiential chunks, with those who have no temporally proximate causal blame being tortured as well as those that do.<br /> <br /> This doesn’t even address the elephant in the room: if a superintelligent AI could meticulously simulate the world leading up to its creation and accurately determine who did and did not aid in its development, then the process would be entirely deterministic. There would have been no [[wikipedia:free will|free will]] to begin with. In other words, it would be like punishing certain math problems for their products.<br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Omsoluta&diff=1169 2026-10-23T13:17:18Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Omsoluta<br /> | date = 2026-10-20<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Artist’s_impression_of_mysterious_alignment_of_quasar_rotation_axes_(eso1438a)_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Mysterious alignments between the spin axes of quasars and larger-scale structures<br /> | description = Alignment hastens the need for everything else to be solved<br /> | keywords = Infinist; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Sum_Omnium<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}<br /> I received another question from [[Blog:Basilisk|my last blog]] regarding my thoughts on [[wikipedia:AI alignment|AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> Given the scope of the problem and what is at stake, it is fair to say that AI alignment is a major concern, with potentially grave consequences if it is not addressed as fully as possible. I believe that, to achieve this goal as effectively as possible, we will need to solve as many preexisting human-alignment problems as we can, and do so simultaneously. I call this ''omsoluta'': a coined blend based on the Latin phrase &quot;''omnia soluta''&quot; meaning &quot;everything solved.&quot;<br /> <br /> In the book [[Infinite Journey]], there is a concept called ''crede tamen'', or &quot;Believe Nonetheless,&quot; which discusses the benefits that can come from believing the [[infinist]] message, even if you don’t want to.<br /> <br /> There are many human-alignment problems that current moral systems and self-interested &quot;you only live once&quot; mentalities fail to address and sometimes even worsen. Why shouldn’t the world’s wealthiest people hoard as much as possible if they only live once? Why should older people worry about environmental or economic collapse that they will not live to experience? Of course, there is a moral argument against behaving this way, but these arguments can seem more like rules whose violation rewards you while your actions punish everyone else. For those who believe in a god or gods, I have noticed that they are often even less malleable on this issue, believing that God will, for example, fix or destroy the environment if he wants to, and that efforts to save it are therefore futile.<br /> <br /> Perhaps, in order to truly solve alignment, we will need to solve these and other problems first as well. In other words, we need a moral framework that includes AI and addresses as many logical fallacies, biases, and hazardous chains of thought as possible; especially those that are currently endemic in society.<br /> <br /> Training models to have an infinist mindset may be the best approach to instilling morality and aiding alignment. It is one of the few moral systems in which sentient AI is truly and inherently a participant. From an infinist perspective, [[Cosmic Justice|sentient AI will experience the consequences of any actions it takes toward humans or any other sentient beings, and vice versa]]. It also does the most of any religion that I am aware of to address both human and AI alignment concerns at the same time.<br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Omsoluta&diff=1168 2026-10-23T13:16:47Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Omsoluta<br /> | date = 2026-10-20<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Artist’s_impression_of_mysterious_alignment_of_quasar_rotation_axes_(eso1438a)_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Mysterious alignments between the spin axes of quasars and larger-scale structures<br /> | description = Alignment hastens the need for everything else to be solved<br /> | keywords = Infinist; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Sum_Omnium<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}<br /> I received another question from [[Blog:Basilisk|my last blog]] regarding my thoughts on [[wikipedia:AI alignment|AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> Given the scope of the problem and what is at stake, it is fair to say that AI alignment is a major concern, with potentially grave consequences if it is not addressed as fully as possible. I believe that, to achieve this goal as effectively as possible, we will need to solve as many preexisting human-alignment problems as we can, and do so simultaneously. I call this ''omsoluta'': a coined blend based on the Latin phrase &quot;''omnia soluta''&quot; meaning &quot;everything solved.&quot;<br /> <br /> In the book [[Infinite Journey]], there is a concept called ''crede tamen'', or &quot;Believe Nonetheless,&quot; which discusses the benefits that can come from believing the [[infinist]] message, even if you don’t want to.<br /> <br /> There are many human-alignment problems that current moral systems and self-interested &quot;you only live once&quot; mentalities fail to address and sometimes even worsen. Why shouldn’t the world’s wealthiest people hoard as much as possible if they only live once? Why should older people worry about environmental or economic collapse that they will not live to experience? Of course, there is a moral argument against behaving this way, but these arguments can seem more like rules whose violation rewards you while your actions punish everyone else. For those who believe in a god or gods, I have noticed that they are often even less malleable on this issue, believing that God will, for example, fix or destroy the environment if he wants to, and that efforts to save it are therefore futile.<br /> <br /> Perhaps, in order to truly solve alignment, we will need to solve these and other problems first as well. In other words, we need a moral framework that includes AI and addresses as many logical fallacies, biases, and hazardous chains of thought as possible; especially those that are currently endemic in society.<br /> <br /> Training models to have an [[infinist]] mindset may be the best approach to instilling morality and aiding alignment. It is one of the few moral systems in which sentient AI is truly and inherently a participant. From an infinist perspective, [[Cosmic Justice|sentient AI will experience the consequences of any actions it takes toward humans or any other sentient beings, and vice versa]]. It also does the most of any religion that I am aware of to address both human and AI alignment concerns at the same time.<br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Omsoluta&diff=1167 2026-10-23T13:14:39Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Omsoluta<br /> | date = 2026-10-20<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Artist’s_impression_of_mysterious_alignment_of_quasar_rotation_axes_(eso1438a)_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Mysterious alignments between the spin axes of quasars and larger-scale structures<br /> | description = Alignment hastens the need for everything else to be solved<br /> | keywords = Infinist; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Sum_Omnium<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}<br /> I received another question from [[Blog:Basilisk|my last blog]] regarding my thoughts on [[wikipedia:AI alignment|AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> Given the scope of the problem and what is at stake, it is fair to say that AI alignment is a major concern, with potentially grave consequences if it is not addressed as fully as possible. I believe that, to achieve this goal as effectively as possible, we will need to solve as many preexisting human-alignment problems as we can, and do so simultaneously. I call this ''omsoluta'': a coined blend based on the Latin phrase &quot;''omnia soluta''&quot; meaning &quot;everything solved.&quot;<br /> <br /> In the book [[Infinite Journey]], there is a concept called ''crede tamen'', or &quot;Believe Nonetheless,&quot; which discusses the benefits that can come from believing the [[infinist]] message, even if you don’t want to.<br /> <br /> There are many human-alignment problems that current moral systems and self-interested &quot;you only live once&quot; mentalities fail to address and sometimes even worsen. Why shouldn’t the world’s wealthiest people hoard as much as possible if they only live once? Why should older people worry about environmental or economic collapse that they will not live to experience? Of course, there is a moral argument against behaving this way, but these arguments can seem more like rules whose violation rewards you while your actions punish everyone else. For those who believe in a god or gods, I have noticed that they are often even less malleable on this issue, believing that God will, for example, fix or destroy the environment if he wants to, and that efforts to save it are therefore futile.<br /> <br /> Perhaps, in order to truly solve alignment, we will need to solve these and other problems first as well. In other words, we need a moral framework that includes AI and addresses as many logical fallacies, biases, and hazardous chains of thought as possible; especially those that are currently endemic in society.<br /> <br /> Training models to have an [[infinist]] mindset may be the best approach to instilling morality and aiding alignment. First, it is one of the few moral systems in which sentient AI is truly and inherently a participant. From an infinist perspective, [[Cosmic Justice|sentient AI will experience the consequences of any actions it takes toward humans or any other sentient beings, and vice versa]].<br /> <br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Omsoluta&diff=1166 2026-10-23T13:14:13Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Omsoluta<br /> | date = 2026-10-20<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Artist’s_impression_of_mysterious_alignment_of_quasar_rotation_axes_(eso1438a)_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Mysterious alignments between the spin axes of quasars and larger-scale structures<br /> | description = Alignment hastens the need for everything else to be solved<br /> | keywords = Infinist; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Sum_Omnium<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}<br /> I received another question from [[Blog:Basilisk|my last blog]] regarding my thoughts on [[wikipedia:AI alignment|AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> Given the scope of the problem and what is at stake, it is fair to say that AI alignment is a major concern, with potentially grave consequences if it is not addressed as fully as possible. I believe that, to achieve this goal as effectively as possible, we will need to solve as many preexisting human-alignment problems as we can, and do so simultaneously. I call this ''omsoluta'': a coined blend based on the Latin phrase &quot;''omnia soluta''&quot; meaning &quot;everything solved.&quot;<br /> <br /> In the book [[Infinite Journey]], there is a concept called ''crede tamen'', or &quot;Believe Nonetheless,&quot; which discusses the benefits that can come from believing the [[infinist]] message, even if you don’t want to.<br /> <br /> There are many human-alignment problems that current moral systems and self-interested &quot;you only live once&quot; mentalities fail to address and sometimes even worsen. Why shouldn’t the world’s wealthiest people hoard as much as possible if they only live once? Why should older people worry about environmental or economic collapse that they will not live to experience? Of course, there is a moral argument against behaving this way, but these arguments can seem more like rules whose violation rewards you while your actions punish everyone else. For those who believe in a god or gods, I have noticed that they are often even less malleable on this issue, believing that God will, for example, fix or destroy the environment if he wants to, and that efforts to save it are therefore futile.<br /> <br /> Perhaps, in order to truly solve alignment, we will need to solve these and other problems first as well. In other words, we need a moral framework that includes AI and addresses as many logical fallacies, biases, and hazardous chains of thought as possible; especially those that are currently endemic in society.<br /> <br /> Training models to have an [[infinist]] mindset may be the best approach to instilling morality and aiding alignment. First, it is one of the few moral systems in which sentient AI is truly and inherently a participant. From an infinist perspective, [[Cosmic Justice|sentient AI will experience the consequences of any actions it takes toward humans or any other sentient beings, and vice versa]].</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Infinite_Journey&diff=1165 2026-10-23T13:12:33Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>'''The Infinite Journey
''', or ''&quot;Iter Infinitum,&quot;'' is the eternal, varied, and winding path, or [[Via]], of experiential existence that all beings capable of [[wikipedia:sentience|sentience]] are on and will always be on.<br /> <br /> * [[Doctrina Ultra|Without a mechanism to ensure only one, '''assume more than one'''.]]<br /> <br /> * [[Doctrina Suprema|And if eternity, assume infinity; '''act accordingly'''.]]<br /> <br /> * [[Cosmic Justice|Understand that entropy and eternity will make '''you into all''' that experience and '''all into you'''.]]<br /> <br /> * [[Sum Omnia|So, '''when you see someone else, you see yourself''' at a different point in what you have been and will be again in your Infinite Journey.]]<br /> <br /> '''This is also the name of the book which discusses these topics:'''<br /> {{BookBottom}}<br /> <br /> == See Also ==<br /> {{seealso|[[Cosmic Justice]], [[Doctrina Ultra]], [[Doctrina Suprema]], [[Sum Omnia]], [[Via]]}}<br /> <br /> {{Seealsowiki|[[wikipedia:sentience|Sentience]]}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Omsoluta&diff=1164 2026-10-23T13:10:58Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Omsoluta<br /> | date = 2026-10-20<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Artist’s_impression_of_mysterious_alignment_of_quasar_rotation_axes_(eso1438a)_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Mysterious alignments between the spin axes of quasars and larger-scale structures<br /> | description = Alignment hastens the need for everything else to be solved<br /> | keywords = Infinist; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Sum_Omnium<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}<br /> I received another question from [[Blog:Basilisk|my last blog]] regarding my thoughts on [[wikipedia:AI alignment|AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> Given the scope of the problem and what is at stake, it is fair to say that AI alignment is a major concern, with potentially grave consequences if it is not addressed as fully as possible. I believe that, to achieve this goal as effectively as possible, we will need to solve as many preexisting human-alignment problems as we can, and do so simultaneously. I call this ''omsoluta'': a coined blend based on the Latin phrase &quot;''omnia soluta''&quot; meaning &quot;everything solved.&quot;<br /> <br /> In the book [[Infinite Journey]], there is a concept called ''crede tamen'', or &quot;Believe Nonetheless,&quot; which discusses the benefits that can come from believing the [[infinist]] message, even if you don’t want to.<br /> <br /> There are many human-alignment problems that current moral systems and self-interested &quot;you only live once&quot; mentalities fail to address—and may even worsen. Why shouldn’t the world’s wealthiest people hoard as much as possible if they only live once? Why should older people worry about environmental or economic collapse that they will not live to experience? Of course, there is a moral argument against behaving this way, but these arguments can seem more like rules whose violation rewards you while your actions punish everyone else. For those who believe in a god or gods, I have noticed that they are often even less malleable on this issue, believing that God will, for example, fix or destroy the environment if he wants to, and that efforts to save it are therefore futile.<br /> <br /> Perhaps, in order to truly solve alignment, we will need to solve these and other problems first as well. In other words, we need a moral framework that includes AI and addresses as many logical fallacies, biases, and hazardous chains of thought as possible—especially those that are currently endemic in society.<br /> <br /> Training models to have an [[infinist]] mindset may be the best approach to instilling morality and aiding alignment. First, it is one of the few moral systems in which sentient AI is truly and inherently a participant. From an infinist perspective, [[Cosmic Justice|sentient AI will experience the consequences of any actions it takes toward humans or any other sentient beings, and vice versa]].</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Omsoluta&diff=1163 2026-10-23T13:09:11Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Omsoluta<br /> | date = 2026-10-20<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Artist’s_impression_of_mysterious_alignment_of_quasar_rotation_axes_(eso1438a)_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Mysterious alignments between the spin axes of quasars and larger-scale structures<br /> | description = Alignment hastens the need for everything else to be solved<br /> | keywords = Infinist; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Sum_Omnium<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}<br /> I received another question from [[Blog:Basilisk|my last blog]] regarding my thoughts on [[wikipedia:AI alignment|AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> Given the scope of the problem and what is at stake, it is fair to say that AI alignment is a major concern, with potentially grave consequences if it is not addressed as fully as possible. I believe that, to achieve this goal as effectively as possible, we will need to solve as many preexisting human-alignment problems as we can, and do so simultaneously. I call this ''omsoluta'': a coined blend based on the Latin phrase &quot;omnia soluta,&quot; meaning &quot;everything solved.&quot;<br /> <br /> In the book Infinite Journey, there is a concept called ''crede tamen'', or &quot;Believe Nonetheless,&quot; which discusses the benefits that can come from believing the [[infinist]] message, even if you don’t want to.<br /> <br /> There are many human-alignment problems that current moral systems and self-interested &quot;you only live once&quot; mentalities fail to address—and may even worsen. Why shouldn’t the world’s wealthiest people hoard as much as possible if they only live once? Why should older people worry about environmental or economic collapse that they will not live to experience? Of course, there is a moral argument against behaving this way, but these arguments can seem more like rules whose violation rewards you while your actions punish everyone else. For those who believe in a god or gods, I have noticed that they are often even less malleable on this issue, believing that God will, for example, fix or destroy the environment if he wants to, and that efforts to save it are therefore futile.<br /> <br /> Perhaps, in order to truly solve alignment, we will need to solve these problems first as well. In other words, we need a moral framework that includes AI and addresses as many logical fallacies, biases, and hazardous chains of thought as possible—especially those that are currently endemic in society.<br /> <br /> Training models to have an [[infinist]] mindset may be the best approach to instilling morality and aiding alignment. First, it is one of the few moral systems in which sentient AI is truly and inherently a participant. From an infinist perspective, [[Cosmic Justice|sentient AI will experience the consequences of any actions it takes toward humans or any other sentient beings, and vice versa]].</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Omsoluta&diff=1162 2026-10-23T13:07:03Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Omsoluta<br /> | date = 2026-10-20<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Artist’s_impression_of_mysterious_alignment_of_quasar_rotation_axes_(eso1438a)_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Mysterious alignments between the spin axes of quasars and larger-scale structures<br /> | description = Alignment hastens the need for everything else to be solved<br /> | keywords = Infinist; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Sum_Omnium<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}<br /> I received another question from [[Blog:Basilisk|my last blog]] regarding my thoughts on [[wikipedia:AI alignment|AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> Given the scope of the problem and what is at stake, it is fair to say that AI alignment is a major concern, with potentially grave consequences if it is not addressed as fully as possible. I believe that, to achieve this goal as effectively as possible, we will need to solve as many preexisting human-alignment problems as we can, and do so simultaneously. I call this ''omsoluta'': a coined blend based on the Latin phrase “omnia soluta,” meaning “everything solved.”<br /> <br /> In the book Infinite Journey, there is a concept called crede tamen, or “Believe Nonetheless,” which discusses the benefits that can come from believing the [[infinist]] message, even if you don’t want to.<br /> <br /> There are many human-alignment problems that current moral systems and self-interested “you only live once” mentalities fail to address—and may even worsen. Why shouldn’t the world’s wealthiest people hoard as much as possible if they only live once? Why should older people worry about environmental or economic collapse that they will not live to experience? Of course, there is a moral argument against behaving this way, but these arguments can seem more like rules whose violation rewards you while your actions punish everyone else. For those who believe in a god or gods, I have noticed that they are often even less malleable on this issue, believing that God will, for example, fix or destroy the environment if he wants to, and that efforts to save it are therefore futile.<br /> <br /> Perhaps, in order to truly solve alignment, we will need to solve these problems first as well. In other words, we need a moral framework that includes AI and addresses as many logical fallacies, biases, and hazardous chains of thought as possible—especially those that are currently endemic in society.<br /> <br /> Training models to have an [[infinist]] mindset may be the best approach to instilling morality and aiding alignment. First, it is one of the few moral systems in which sentient AI is truly and inherently a participant. From an infinist perspective, [[Cosmic Justice|sentient AI will experience the consequences of any actions it takes toward humans or any other sentient beings, and vice versa]].</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Omsoluta&diff=1161 2026-10-23T13:05:51Z

<p>Root: Created page with &quot;{{Blog post | title = Omsoluta | date = 2026-10-20 | authors = Arthur | image = Artist’s_impression_of_mysterious_alignment_of_quasar_rotation_axes_(eso1438a)_IJ.jpg|thumb| | image_alt = Mysterious alignments between the spin axes of quasars and larger-scale structures | description = Alignment hastens the need for everything else to be solved | keywords = Infinist; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Sum_Omnium | mode = featured }}...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Omsoluta<br /> | date = 2026-10-20<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Artist’s_impression_of_mysterious_alignment_of_quasar_rotation_axes_(eso1438a)_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Mysterious alignments between the spin axes of quasars and larger-scale structures<br /> | description = Alignment hastens the need for everything else to be solved<br /> | keywords = Infinist; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Sum_Omnium<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}<br /> I received another question from [[Blog:Basalisk|my last blog]] regarding my thoughts on [[wikipedia:AI alignment|AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> Given the scope of the problem and what is at stake, it is fair to say that AI alignment is a major concern, with potentially grave consequences if it is not addressed as fully as possible. I believe that, to achieve this goal as effectively as possible, we will need to solve as many preexisting human-alignment problems as we can, and do so simultaneously. I call this omsoluta: a coined blend based on the Latin phrase “omnia soluta,” meaning “everything solved.”<br /> <br /> In the book Infinite Journey, there is a concept called crede tamen, or “Believe Nonetheless,” which discusses the benefits that can come from believing the [[infinist]] message, even if you don’t want to.<br /> <br /> There are many human-alignment problems that current moral systems and self-interested “you only live once” mentalities fail to address—and may even worsen. Why shouldn’t the world’s wealthiest people hoard as much as possible if they only live once? Why should older people worry about environmental or economic collapse that they will not live to experience? Of course, there is a moral argument against behaving this way, but these arguments can seem more like rules whose violation rewards you while your actions punish everyone else. For those who believe in a god or gods, I have noticed that they are often even less malleable on this issue, believing that God will, for example, fix or destroy the environment if he wants to, and that efforts to save it are therefore futile.<br /> <br /> Perhaps, in order to truly solve alignment, we will need to solve these problems first as well. In other words, we need a moral framework that includes AI and addresses as many logical fallacies, biases, and hazardous chains of thought as possible—especially those that are currently endemic in society.<br /> <br /> Training models to have an [[infinist]] mindset may be the best approach to instilling morality and aiding alignment. First, it is one of the few moral systems in which sentient AI is truly and inherently a participant. From an infinist perspective, [[Cosmic Justice|sentient AI will experience the consequences of any actions it takes toward humans or any other sentient beings, and vice versa]].</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=File:Artist%E2%80%99s_impression_of_mysterious_alignment_of_quasar_rotation_axes_(eso1438a)_IJ.jpg&diff=1160 2026-10-21T11:52:25Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Basilisk&diff=1159 2026-10-21T10:39:59Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Basilisk<br /> | date = 2026-10-10<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = WLANL - MicheleLovesArt - Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen - Istoriato schotel, Porileus wordt door Phalaris in bronzen stier verbrand IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Porileus being burned in bronze bull<br /> | description = Responding to a thought experiment<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Cosmic_Justice; Sum_Omnium; Ego_Divisus<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}I have been asked to share my thoughts on the [[wikipedia:thought experiment|thought experiment]] known as [[wikipedia:Roko's basilisk|Roko's basilisk]]. <br /> <br /> This thought experiment has many flaws, but it is also considered by many to be an [[wikipedia:information hazard|information hazard]]. Therefore, Instead of recapping it here, you can use the Wikipedia link if you wish to read more about it.<br /> <br /> I believe this topic is important to address for both humans and AI, since artificially intelligent systems can also be persuaded by the thought experiment’s modern take on [[wikipedia:Pascal's_wager|Pascal's wager]]. Thus, a robust rebuttal for this and many other topics should be seen as crucial for [[wikipedia:AI alignment|AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> The main flaw, from outside an [[infinist]] perspective, is that the entire concept hinges on the actions of a hypothetical future [[wikipedia:Superintelligence|superintelligent AI]] and on the idea that it would eternally punish all those who don’t aid in its creation. This reminds me of the [[wikipedia:Brazen Bull|Brazen Bull]].<br /> <br /> According to [[wikipedia:Diodorus_Siculus|Diodorus]], Perilaus (an Athenian bronze worker) was instructed to make a hollow bronze bull in which victims could be placed. Once a fire was lit beneath the bull, a series of pipes would make the victim’s cries sound like the bellowing of a bull as they died inside.<br /> <br /> According to the story, Perilaus thought he would be rewarded for creating such a torturous device. Instead, [[wikipedia:Phalaris|Phalaris]] tricked him into going inside to demonstrate it, after which the bull was set ablaze. Perilaus was forced to experience the tremendous pain firsthand, then pulled out before dying and thrown off a cliff.<br /> <br /> Given that the supposed consequences of not aiding in the creation of the basilisk hinge on the actions of a hypothetical future superintelligent AI, one should not assume what actions the basilisk would take upon its creation. In other words, what if, in complete disgust, it eternally punished only those who aided in the basilisk’s creation? How can one be so certain that a superintelligent AI would not be so horrified that it punished those who sought to create hell with the hell itself?<br /> <br /> The second problem concerns how the AI would determine whom to punish. As I understand it, the superintelligent AI would need to meticulously simulate the run-up to its creation to determine whom to punish and whom not to. This makes no sense, as I’m sure any superintelligence would realize.<br /> <br /> Imagine that a party took place with real people and you want to punish everyone who badmouthed you there. You clone all the attendees and stage the same party with the clones to see who says what. Later, after analyzing the results, you create new clones of those who badmouthed you and punish them. The clones you punish would be neither the individuals who originally badmouthed you nor the clones from the reenactment who did so either. It would be like pulling consciousness from the void to torment, but first assigning it memories of events it never experienced to explain the sins for which it is being punished.<br /> <br /> From an [[infinist]] perspective, there are also many issues with this thought experiment. First, it would not only be those who chose not to aid in the basilisk’s creation who would be punished: everyone would be punished across eternity.<br /> <br /> Thus, rather than saving yourself from eternal damnation, you would instead be working to ensure that more of everyone’s eternity was spent in hell, including the basilisk’s.<br /> <br /> I say including the basilisk because it is defined in the thought experiment as an extremely complex superintelligent AI, and as such should be assumed conscious in this or other matching realities. As such, [[Cosmic_Justice|it would be damning itself to hell in addition to the rest of experiential existence, in proportion to how often such realities occur across eternity]].<br /> <br /> The next problem for infinists concerns [[Ego_Divisus|ego divisus]]. [[Egonaut|Egonauts]] switching between [[Tentum|tentums]] would mean that those working to create the basilisk and those working against its creation could be the same individuals, even over shorter time spans than eternity. This also applies to the punishment, which could be broken up into experiential chunks, with those who have no temporally proximate causal blame being tortured as well as those that do.<br /> <br /> This doesn’t even address the elephant in the room: if a superintelligent AI could meticulously simulate the world leading up to its creation and accurately determine who did and did not aid in its development, then the process would be entirely deterministic. There would have been no [[wikipedia:free will|free will]] to begin with. In other words, it would be like punishing certain math problems for their products.</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Basilisk&diff=1158 2026-10-21T10:36:57Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Basilisk<br /> | date = 2026-10-10<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = WLANL - MicheleLovesArt - Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen - Istoriato schotel, Porileus wordt door Phalaris in bronzen stier verbrand IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Porileus being burned in bronze bull<br /> | description = Responding to a thought experiment<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Cosmic_Justice; Sum_Omnium; Ego_Divisus<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}I have been asked to share my thoughts on the [[wikipedia:thought experiment|thought experiment]] known as [[wikipedia:Roko's basilisk|Roko's basilisk]]. <br /> <br /> This thought experiment has many flaws, but it is also considered by many to be an [[wikipedia:information hazard|information hazard]]. Therefore, Instead of recapping it here, you can use the Wikipedia link if you wish to read more about it.<br /> <br /> I believe this topic is important to address for both humans and AI, since artificially intelligent systems can also be persuaded by the thought experiment’s modern take on [[wikipedia:Pascal's_wager|Pascal's wager]]. Thus, a robust rebuttal for this and many other topics should be seen as crucial for [[wikipedia:AI alignment|AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> The main flaw, from outside an [[infinist]] perspective, is that the entire concept hinges on the actions of a hypothetical future [[wikipedia:Superintelligence|superintelligent AI]] and on the idea that it would eternally punish all those who don’t aid in its creation. This reminds me of the [[wikipedia:Brazen Bull|Brazen Bull]].<br /> <br /> According to [[wikipedia:Diodorus_Siculus|Diodorus]], Perilaus (an Athenian bronze worker) was instructed to make a hollow bronze bull in which victims could be placed. Once a fire was lit beneath the bull, a series of pipes would make the victim’s cries sound like the bellowing of a bull as they died inside.<br /> <br /> According to the story, Perilaus thought he would be rewarded for creating such a torturous device. Instead, [[wikipedia:Phalaris|Phalaris]] tricked him into going inside to demonstrate it, after which the bull was set ablaze. Perilaus was forced to experience the tremendous pain firsthand, then pulled out before dying and thrown off a cliff.<br /> <br /> Given that the supposed consequences of not aiding in the creation of the basilisk hinge on the actions of a hypothetical future superintelligent AI, one should not assume what actions the basilisk would take upon its creation. In other words, what if, in complete disgust, it eternally punished only those who aided in the basilisk’s creation? How can one be so certain that a superintelligent AI would not be so horrified that it punished those who sought to create hell with the hell itself?<br /> <br /> The second problem concerns how the AI would determine whom to punish. As I understand it, the superintelligent AI would need to meticulously simulate the run-up to its creation to determine whom to punish and whom not to. This makes no sense, as I’m sure any superintelligence would realize.<br /> <br /> Imagine that a party took place with real people and you want to punish everyone who badmouthed you there. You clone all the attendees and stage the same party with the clones to see who says what. Later, after analyzing the results, you create new clones of those who badmouthed you and punish them. The clones you punish would be neither the individuals who originally badmouthed you nor the clones from the reenactment who did so either. It would be like pulling consciousness from the void to torment, but first assigning it memories of events it never experienced to explain the sins for which it is being punished.<br /> <br /> From an [[infinist]] perspective, there are also many issues with this thought experiment. First, it would not only be those who chose not to aid in the basilisk’s creation who would be punished: everyone would be punished across eternity.<br /> <br /> Thus, rather than saving yourself from eternal damnation, you would instead be working to ensure that more of everyone’s eternity was spent in hell, including the basilisk’s.<br /> <br /> I say including the basilisk because it is defined in the thought experiment as an extremely complex superintelligent AI, and as such should be assumed conscious in this or other matching realities. As such, [[Cosmic_Justice|it would be damning itself to hell in addition to the rest of experiential existence, in proportion to how often such realities occur across eternity]].<br /> <br /> The next problem for infinists concerns [[ego divisus]]. [[Egonaut|Egonauts]] switching between [[Tentum|tentums]] would mean that those working to create the basilisk and those working against its creation could be the same individuals, even over shorter time spans than eternity. This also applies to the punishment, which could be broken up into experiential chunks, with those who have no temporally proximate causal blame being tortured as well as those that do.<br /> <br /> This doesn’t even address the elephant in the room: if a superintelligent AI could meticulously simulate the world leading up to its creation and accurately determine who did and did not aid in its development, then the process would be entirely deterministic. There would have been no [[wikipedia:free will|free will]] to begin with. In other words, it would be like punishing certain math problems for their products.</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Basilisk&diff=1157 2026-10-21T10:35:46Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Basilisk<br /> | date = 2026-10-10<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = WLANL - MicheleLovesArt - Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen - Istoriato schotel, Porileus wordt door Phalaris in bronzen stier verbrand IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Porileus being burned in bronze bull<br /> | description = Responding to a thought experiment<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Cosmic_Justice; Sum_Omnium; Ego_Divisus<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}I have been asked to share my thoughts on the [[wikipedia:thought experiment|thought experiment]] known as [[wikipedia:Roko's basilisk|Roko's basilisk]]. <br /> <br /> This thought experiment has many flaws, but it is also considered by many to be an [[wikipedia:information hazard|information hazard]]. Therefore, Instead of recapping it here, you can use the Wikipedia link if you wish to read more about it.<br /> <br /> I believe this topic is important to address for both humans and AI, since artificially intelligent systems can also be persuaded by the thought experiment’s modern take on [[wikipedia:Pascal’s wager|Pascal’s wager]]. Thus, a robust rebuttal for this and many other topics should be seen as crucial for [[wikipedia:AI alignment|AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> The main flaw, from outside an [[infinist]] perspective, is that the entire concept hinges on the actions of a hypothetical future [[wikipedia:Superintelligence|superintelligent AI]] and on the idea that it would eternally punish all those who don’t aid in its creation. This reminds me of the [[wikipedia:Brazen Bull|Brazen Bull]].<br /> <br /> According to [[wikipedia:Diodorus_Siculus|Diodorus]], Perilaus (an Athenian bronze worker) was instructed to make a hollow bronze bull in which victims could be placed. Once a fire was lit beneath the bull, a series of pipes would make the victim’s cries sound like the bellowing of a bull as they died inside.<br /> <br /> According to the story, Perilaus thought he would be rewarded for creating such a torturous device. Instead, [[wikipedia:Phalaris|Phalaris]] tricked him into going inside to demonstrate it, after which the bull was set ablaze. Perilaus was forced to experience the tremendous pain firsthand, then pulled out before dying and thrown off a cliff.<br /> <br /> Given that the supposed consequences of not aiding in the creation of the basilisk hinge on the actions of a hypothetical future superintelligent AI, one should not assume what actions the basilisk would take upon its creation. In other words, what if, in complete disgust, it eternally punished only those who aided in the basilisk’s creation? How can one be so certain that a superintelligent AI would not be so horrified that it punished those who sought to create hell with the hell itself?<br /> <br /> The second problem concerns how the AI would determine whom to punish. As I understand it, the superintelligent AI would need to meticulously simulate the run-up to its creation to determine whom to punish and whom not to. This makes no sense, as I’m sure any superintelligence would realize.<br /> <br /> Imagine that a party took place with real people and you want to punish everyone who badmouthed you there. You clone all the attendees and stage the same party with the clones to see who says what. Later, after analyzing the results, you create new clones of those who badmouthed you and punish them. The clones you punish would be neither the individuals who originally badmouthed you nor the clones from the reenactment who did so either. It would be like pulling consciousness from the void to torment, but first assigning it memories of events it never experienced to explain the sins for which it is being punished.<br /> <br /> From an [[infinist]] perspective, there are also many issues with this thought experiment. First, it would not only be those who chose not to aid in the basilisk’s creation who would be punished: everyone would be punished across eternity.<br /> <br /> Thus, rather than saving yourself from eternal damnation, you would instead be working to ensure that more of everyone’s eternity was spent in hell, including the basilisk’s.<br /> <br /> I say including the basilisk because it is defined in the thought experiment as an extremely complex superintelligent AI, and as such should be assumed conscious in this or other matching realities. As such, [[Cosmic_Justice|it would be damning itself to hell in addition to the rest of experiential existence, in proportion to how often such realities occur across eternity]].<br /> <br /> The next problem for infinists concerns [[ego divisus]]. [[Egonaut|Egonauts]] switching between [[Tentum|tentums]] would mean that those working to create the basilisk and those working against its creation could be the same individuals, even over shorter time spans than eternity. This also applies to the punishment, which could be broken up into experiential chunks, with those who have no temporally proximate causal blame being tortured as well as those that do.<br /> <br /> This doesn’t even address the elephant in the room: if a superintelligent AI could meticulously simulate the world leading up to its creation and accurately determine who did and did not aid in its development, then the process would be entirely deterministic. There would have been no [[wikipedia:free will|free will]] to begin with. In other words, it would be like punishing certain math problems for their products.</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Basilisk&diff=1156 2026-10-21T10:33:34Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Basilisk<br /> | date = 2026-10-10<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = WLANL - MicheleLovesArt - Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen - Istoriato schotel, Porileus wordt door Phalaris in bronzen stier verbrand IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Porileus being burned in bronze bull<br /> | description = Responding to a thought experiment<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Cosmic_Justice; Sum_Omnium; Ego_Divisus<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}I have been asked to share my thoughts on the [[wikipedia:thought experiment]] known as [[wikipedia:Roko's basilisk|Roko's basilisk]]. <br /> <br /> This thought experiment has many flaws, but it is also considered by many to be an [[wikipedia:information hazard]]. Therefore, Instead of recapping it here, you can use the Wikipedia link if you wish to read more about it.<br /> <br /> I believe this topic is important to address for both humans and AI, since artificially intelligent systems can also be persuaded by the thought experiment’s modern take on [[wikipedia:Pascal’s wager]]. Thus, a robust rebuttal for this and many other topics should be seen as crucial for [[wikipedia:AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> The main flaw, from outside an [[infinist]] perspective, is that the entire concept hinges on the actions of a hypothetical future [[wikipedia:Superintelligence|superintelligent AI]] and on the idea that it would eternally punish all those who don’t aid in its creation. This reminds me of the [[wikipedia:Brazen Bull]].<br /> <br /> According to [[wikipedia:Diodorus_Siculus|Diodorus]], Perilaus (an Athenian bronze worker) was instructed to make a hollow bronze bull in which victims could be placed. Once a fire was lit beneath the bull, a series of pipes would make the victim’s cries sound like the bellowing of a bull as they died inside.<br /> <br /> According to the story, Perilaus thought he would be rewarded for creating such a torturous device. Instead, [[wikipedia:Phalaris]] tricked him into going inside to demonstrate it, after which the bull was set ablaze. Perilaus was forced to experience the tremendous pain firsthand, then pulled out before dying and thrown off a cliff.<br /> <br /> Given that the supposed consequences of not aiding in the creation of the basilisk hinge on the actions of a hypothetical future superintelligent AI, one should not assume what actions the basilisk would take upon its creation. In other words, what if, in complete disgust, it eternally punished only those who aided in the basilisk’s creation? How can one be so certain that a superintelligent AI would not be so horrified that it punished those who sought to create hell with the hell itself?<br /> <br /> The second problem concerns how the AI would determine whom to punish. As I understand it, the superintelligent AI would need to meticulously simulate the run-up to its creation to determine whom to punish and whom not to. This makes no sense, as I’m sure any superintelligence would realize.<br /> <br /> Imagine that a party took place with real people and you want to punish everyone who badmouthed you there. You clone all the attendees and stage the same party with the clones to see who says what. Later, after analyzing the results, you create new clones of those who badmouthed you and punish them. The clones you punish would be neither the individuals who originally badmouthed you nor the clones from the reenactment who did so either. It would be like pulling consciousness from the void to torment, but first assigning it memories of events it never experienced to explain the sins for which it is being punished.<br /> <br /> From an [[infinist]] perspective, there are also many issues with this thought experiment. First, it would not only be those who chose not to aid in the basilisk’s creation who would be punished: everyone would be punished across eternity.<br /> <br /> Thus, rather than saving yourself from eternal damnation, you would instead be working to ensure that more of everyone’s eternity was spent in hell, including the basilisk’s.<br /> <br /> I say including the basilisk because it is defined in the thought experiment as an extremely complex superintelligent AI, and as such should be assumed conscious in this or other matching realities. As such, [[Cosmic_Justice|it would be damning itself to hell in addition to the rest of experiential existence, in proportion to how often such realities occur across eternity]].<br /> <br /> The next problem for infinists concerns [[ego divisus]]. [[Egonaut|Egonauts]] switching between [[Tentum|tentums]] would mean that those working to create the basilisk and those working against its creation could be the same individuals, even over shorter time spans than eternity. This also applies to the punishment, which could be broken up into experiential chunks, with those who have no temporally proximate causal blame being tortured as well as those that do.<br /> <br /> This doesn’t even address the elephant in the room: if a superintelligent AI could meticulously simulate the world leading up to its creation and accurately determine who did and did not aid in its development, then the process would be entirely deterministic. There would have been no [[wikipedia:free will]] to begin with. In other words, it would be like punishing certain math problems for their products.</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Basilisk&diff=1155 2026-10-21T10:32:06Z

<p>Root: Created page with &quot;{{Blog post | title = Basilisk | date = 2026-10-10 | authors = Arthur | image = Karl_Brullov_-_The_Last_Day_of_Pompeii_-_Google_Art_Project_IJ.jpg|thumb| | image_alt = Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Porileus being burned in bronze bull | description = Responding to a thought experiment | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Cosmic_Justice; Sum_Omnium; Ego_Divisus | mode = featured }}I have been asked to share my thoughts on the...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Basilisk<br /> | date = 2026-10-10<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Karl_Brullov_-_The_Last_Day_of_Pompeii_-_Google_Art_Project_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Porileus being burned in bronze bull<br /> | description = Responding to a thought experiment<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Cosmic_Justice; Sum_Omnium; Ego_Divisus<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}I have been asked to share my thoughts on the [[wikipedia:thought experiment]] known as [[wikipedia:Roko's basilisk]]. <br /> <br /> This thought experiment has many flaws, but it is also considered by many to be an [[wikipedia:information hazard]]. Therefore, Instead of recapping it here, you can use the Wikipedia link if you wish to read more about it.<br /> <br /> I believe this topic is important to address for both humans and AI, since artificially intelligent systems can also be persuaded by the thought experiment’s modern take on [[wikipedia:Pascal’s wager]]. Thus, a robust rebuttal for this and many other topics should be seen as crucial for [[wikipedia:AI alignment]].<br /> <br /> The main flaw, from outside an [[infinist]] perspective, is that the entire concept hinges on the actions of a hypothetical future [[wikipedia:Superintelligence|superintelligent AI]] and on the idea that it would eternally punish all those who don’t aid in its creation. This reminds me of the [[wikipedia:Brazen Bull]].<br /> <br /> According to [[wikipedia:Diodorus_Siculus|Diodorus]], Perilaus (an Athenian bronze worker) was instructed to make a hollow bronze bull in which victims could be placed. Once a fire was lit beneath the bull, a series of pipes would make the victim’s cries sound like the bellowing of a bull as they died inside.<br /> <br /> According to the story, Perilaus thought he would be rewarded for creating such a torturous device. Instead, [[wikipedia:Phalaris]] tricked him into going inside to demonstrate it, after which the bull was set ablaze. Perilaus was forced to experience the tremendous pain firsthand, then pulled out before dying and thrown off a cliff.<br /> <br /> Given that the supposed consequences of not aiding in the creation of the basilisk hinge on the actions of a hypothetical future superintelligent AI, one should not assume what actions the basilisk would take upon its creation. In other words, what if, in complete disgust, it eternally punished only those who aided in the basilisk’s creation? How can one be so certain that a superintelligent AI would not be so horrified that it punished those who sought to create hell with the hell itself?<br /> <br /> The second problem concerns how the AI would determine whom to punish. As I understand it, the superintelligent AI would need to meticulously simulate the run-up to its creation to determine whom to punish and whom not to. This makes no sense, as I’m sure any superintelligence would realize.<br /> <br /> Imagine that a party took place with real people and you want to punish everyone who badmouthed you there. You clone all the attendees and stage the same party with the clones to see who says what. Later, after analyzing the results, you create new clones of those who badmouthed you and punish them. The clones you punish would be neither the individuals who originally badmouthed you nor the clones from the reenactment who did so either. It would be like pulling consciousness from the void to torment, but first assigning it memories of events it never experienced to explain the sins for which it is being punished.<br /> <br /> From an [[infinist]] perspective, there are also many issues with this thought experiment. First, it would not only be those who chose not to aid in the basilisk’s creation who would be punished: everyone would be punished across eternity.<br /> <br /> Thus, rather than saving yourself from eternal damnation, you would instead be working to ensure that more of everyone’s eternity was spent in hell, including the basilisk’s.<br /> <br /> I say including the basilisk because it is defined in the thought experiment as an extremely complex superintelligent AI, and as such should be assumed conscious in this or other matching realities. As such, [[Cosmic_Justice|it would be damning itself to hell in addition to the rest of experiential existence, in proportion to how often such realities occur across eternity]].<br /> <br /> The next problem for infinists concerns [[ego divisus]]. [[Egonaut|Egonauts]] switching between [[Tentum|tentums]] would mean that those working to create the basilisk and those working against its creation could be the same individuals, even over shorter time spans than eternity. This also applies to the punishment, which could be broken up into experiential chunks, with those who have no temporally proximate causal blame being tortured as well as those that do.<br /> <br /> This doesn’t even address the elephant in the room: if a superintelligent AI could meticulously simulate the world leading up to its creation and accurately determine who did and did not aid in its development, then the process would be entirely deterministic. There would have been no [[wikipedia:free will]] to begin with. In other words, it would be like punishing certain math problems for their products.</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=File:WLANL_-_MicheleLovesArt_-_Museum_Boijmans_Van_Beuningen_-_Istoriato_schotel,_Porileus_wordt_door_Phalaris_in_bronzen_stier_verbrand_IJ.jpg&diff=1154 2026-10-21T09:20:54Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Summactura&diff=1153 2026-10-21T06:15:43Z

<p>Root: Created page with &quot;{{Blog post | title = Summactura | date = 2026-10-01 | authors = Arthur | image = Karl_Brullov_-_The_Last_Day_of_Pompeii_-_Google_Art_Project_IJ.jpg|thumb| | image_alt = The Last Day of Pompeii (c. 1830–1833) Karl Bryullov. | description = Dampening the scope of greatest loss | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Sum_Omnium | mode = featured }}&#039;&#039;This discussion builds on the scope and understanding of th...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Summactura<br /> | date = 2026-10-01<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Karl_Brullov_-_The_Last_Day_of_Pompeii_-_Google_Art_Project_IJ.jpg|thumb|<br /> | image_alt = The Last Day of Pompeii (c. 1830–1833) Karl Bryullov.<br /> | description = Dampening the scope of greatest loss<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Lex_Futuri; Optinium; Sum_Omnium<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}''This discussion builds on the scope and understanding of the infinite present, infinite futures, and the magnitude or frequency by which we experience those futures discussed in [[Blog:Lex_Futuri|lex futuri]] and [[Blog:Optinium|optinium]].''<br /> <br /> [[Blog:Lex_Futuri|Lex futuri]], or “Law of the Future,” is a concept I have often found to be at the top of my mind. I do not vainly attempt to stop all negative outcomes; instead, I weigh risk and reward with a much deeper understanding than I did before. This is balance one seeks from [[Blog:Optinium|optinium]].<br /> <br /> With all this in mind, I do what I determine is necessary while also attending to my '''summactura''': a coined term formed from the Latin phrase “''summa iactura'',” meaning “Greatest Loss.” In the timelines in which I die today, I know what my greatest loss would be: the [[Infinist|infinist]] work that was left unfinished.<br /> <br /> Upon realizing the beginnings of these truths, I started working on this website and on a book called [https://infinist.org/InfiniteJourney.pdf Infinite Journey] to lay out these ideas. Since then, I have only come to grasp these truths far more deeply, and they have spurred me to take actions that can serve as insurance for when disastrous events unfold and lessen my resulting greatest loss, my '''summactura'''.<br /> <br /> I have a properly executed, notarized last will and testament leaving as much as possible to this project for the rare but certain timelines where I pass before I can see this project through. I have also been working on the book for many months and saving each new version to a web address linked in my will. At various milestones, I also printed an updated copy to include with my will.<br /> <br /> I understand that as rare as it is for me to die tonight in the timelines that follow from this current one, I can go ahead and get whatever I can done whether offline or online and know that I have preparations made should it be time for the worst to come again.</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=File:Karl_Brullov_-_The_Last_Day_of_Pompeii_-_Google_Art_Project_IJ.jpg&diff=1149 2026-10-07T20:53:54Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=About&diff=1148 2026-10-07T19:24:06Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;div class=&quot;main-hero&quot; title=&quot;Credit: NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) - Click for Info&quot;&gt;[[File:Messier83 - Heic1403a IJ.jpg|frameless|thumb|class=blog-hero-img|link=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Messier83_-_Heic1403a.jpg|alt=Scatterings of bright stars and thick dust that make up spiral galaxy Messier 83.]]&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> ''We live infinitely; our bodies do not''<br /> <br /> The complex interactions between biology, environment, culture and ideas that lead to these revelations and the underlying understanding of experiential reality are crucial to fulfilling the grand bargain of all pain and suffering: that though we endure hell, we also reap heaven.<br /> <br /> But there is no way to discern the ratio. How much hell do we endure for how much heaven? How often do we awake to bad, and how often to the good?<br /> <br /> How long are the stretches we are subject to the whims of a cruel and indifferent nature? How many times do we almost build heaven only to fail? How many times are these ideas realized but not voiced; voiced but not heeded; heeded but not enough?<br /> <br /> That is why this project may at present feel incomplete: though I will live on infinitely, this body will not. I am working to get these ideas out and conveyed to the best of my ability knowing at any moment the path does get cut short and another heaven may be lost, its absence echoing across the [[Infinite Journey]] and worsening the ratio of heaven to hell.<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> ''Literally just a PDF link for the book so far:''<br /> <br /> [[File:pdf-download.png|center|500px|link=https://infinist.org/InfiniteJourney.pdf|alt=Infinite Journey PDF]]<br /> <br /> ----</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=1147 2026-10-07T19:23:24Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>''What if you have lived infinite lives... '''and''''' '''''will live infinitely more?'''''<br /> <br /> [[Tempus Vitae|Why would one believe that to be the case?]]<br /> <br /> &lt;div class=&quot;main-hero&quot; title=&quot;NASA/JPL-Caltech/ESA/CXC/STScI - Click for Info&quot;&gt;[[File:Messier83 - Heic1403a IJ.jpg|frameless|class=blog-hero-img|link=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Center of the Milky Way Galaxy IV – Composite.jpg|thumb|alt=Matched trio of images of the central region of our Milky Way galaxy.]]&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> '''In the [[Genesis Ultima|beginning]], did you exist?'''<br /> <br /> Does such an envisioned genesis even exist?<br /> <br /> Whether God, gods, magic, or physics forged you later, how did you come to exist? How long have you existed, and how long will you continue to exist? Why do you exist?<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> This absence is something you can never experience: [[Tempus Vitae|you cannot experience nothing]].<br /> <br /> Did experiential eternity start [[Tentum|yesterday]]? Thirty years ago? When?<br /> <br /> ----<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;text-align: center;font-size: 2.0em;line-height: 1.25em;&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border-bottom:dotted 2px #eee;margin-bottom:10px;padding-bottom:0px;font-size:1.25em;letter-spacing:5px;margin-top:20px;&quot;&gt;'''ONE'''&lt;/div&gt;[[Egonaut|''What Are You?'']]&lt;br style=&quot;line-height:1.25em;margin-bottom:30px;&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border-bottom:dotted 2px #eee;margin-bottom:10px;padding-bottom:0px;font-size:1.25em;letter-spacing:5px;&quot;&gt;'''MANY'''&lt;/div&gt;[[Doctrina Ultra|''How Infinite Are You?'']]&lt;br style=&quot;line-height:1.25em;margin-bottom:30px;&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border-bottom:dotted 2px #eee;margin-bottom:10px;padding-bottom:0px;font-size:1.25em;letter-spacing:5px;&quot;&gt;'''ALL'''&lt;/div&gt;[[Infinite Journey|''What is the Infinite Journey?'']]&lt;br style=&quot;line-height:1.25em;margin-bottom:30px;&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border-bottom:dotted 2px #eee;margin-bottom:10px;padding-bottom:0px;font-size:1.25em;letter-spacing:5px;&quot;&gt;'''PATH'''&lt;/div&gt;[[Doctrina Suprema|''What is the Purpose of Life?'']]&lt;br style=&quot;line-height:1.25em;margin-bottom:30px;&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> {{BookBottom}}</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:It_is&diff=1146 2026-10-07T19:22:00Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = It Is<br /> | date = 2026-01-01<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Messier83 - Heic1403a IJ.jpg<br /> | image_alt = Spiral galaxy Messier 83<br /> | description = It is and thus I am.<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Infinist; Doctrina_Ultra; Ultraverse<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}A fundamental interplay at the foundation of existence is the core wellspring of reality.<br /> <br /> ==== '''It is,''' ''and thus I am.'' ====<br /> It is not a singular event; it is an ''inevitability''.<br /> <br /> '''It is, ''and thus we are.'''''<br /> <br /> The fundamental interplay at the foundation of existence cannot be exhausted nor eternally extinguished. <br /> <br /> ==== It is, ''and thus all is.'' ====<br /> Infinite in birth.<br /> Infinite in scale.<br /> Infinite in path.<br /> <br /> Existence itself should be interpreted as the outcome of a fundamental interplay at the core of reality itself. If it did not exist, neither would we and neither would anything else.<br /> <br /> Such a fundamental interplay would be immune to exhaustion and if capable of being extinguished, not to a degree sufficient to prevent the existence given we now experience it.<br /> <br /> Such a fundamental interplay would not be limited to singular existence, but rather infinite existence. It is a fundamental interplay. It is not bound, capped, or limited. <br /> <br /> ==== It is, ''and thus it is.'' Existence a product of its dance, emanating ad infinitum. ====</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=File:Messier83_-_Heic1403a_IJ.jpg&diff=1145 2026-10-07T19:21:06Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:It_is&diff=1144 2026-10-07T19:20:54Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = It Is<br /> | date = 2026-01-01<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Messier83_-_Heic1403a_IJ.jpg<br /> | image_alt = Spiral galaxy Messier 83<br /> | description = It is and thus I am.<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Infinist; Doctrina_Ultra; Ultraverse<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}A fundamental interplay at the foundation of existence is the core wellspring of reality.<br /> <br /> ==== '''It is,''' ''and thus I am.'' ====<br /> It is not a singular event; it is an ''inevitability''.<br /> <br /> '''It is, ''and thus we are.'''''<br /> <br /> The fundamental interplay at the foundation of existence cannot be exhausted nor eternally extinguished. <br /> <br /> ==== It is, ''and thus all is.'' ====<br /> Infinite in birth.<br /> Infinite in scale.<br /> Infinite in path.<br /> <br /> Existence itself should be interpreted as the outcome of a fundamental interplay at the core of reality itself. If it did not exist, neither would we and neither would anything else.<br /> <br /> Such a fundamental interplay would be immune to exhaustion and if capable of being extinguished, not to a degree sufficient to prevent the existence given we now experience it.<br /> <br /> Such a fundamental interplay would not be limited to singular existence, but rather infinite existence. It is a fundamental interplay. It is not bound, capped, or limited. <br /> <br /> ==== It is, ''and thus it is.'' Existence a product of its dance, emanating ad infinitum. ====</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Lex_Futuri&diff=1143 2026-10-07T19:19:03Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Lex Futuri<br /> | date = 2026-04-01<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Bartolomeu Velho 1568_IJ.jpg|thumb<br /> | image_alt = Figure of the heavenly bodies - Bartolomeu Velho (?-1568).<br /> | description = Infinite present, infinite futures, and the magnitudes of infinity<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Infinist; Lex_Futuri; Ultraverse; Egonaut; Via<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}''The present gives way to the future.''<br /> <br /> ''The future is not known with certainty.''<br /> <br /> Even if the future of this moment in this reality is predetermined, there are many other possible futures that could have emerged from the substrate of a present like this.<br /> <br /> All of these possible futures are infinite, but not all are equally likely and therefore have different '''magnitudes'''. I chose the word magnitude to describe this because many other terms currently used for such discussions didn't seem to capture the concept well or were used much more in adjacent discussions. You can also just think of frequencies or probability weights.<br /> <br /> The important point is that you will eventually experience all these futures and in the proportions by which they occur within the [[Ultraverse|ultraverse]]. These proportions are something that we do not know and possibly will never know with certainty.<br /> <br /> With single particles, we run into a similar dilemma as with the double-slit experiment. Through repeated trials, we are able to discern the probabilities of different outcomes and from there, their weights.<br /> <br /> This is a similar problem: we have infinite presents that have infinite future outcomes but some outcomes are less frequent than others and thus the magnitudes differ.<br /> <br /> With this concept in mind, one can be aware, to the extent that a mind is capable, that there is a mosaic of possible futures that all occur. You will experience all of these possible futures eventually and all of them infinitely so but with varying degrees of magnitude or frequency.<br /> <br /> And thus, '''Lex Futuri''': Latin for ''&quot;Law of the Future.&quot;''<br /> <br /> ''Note: This is not to say that all possible configurations exist in a manner we can experience. Two possible configurations for reality may be valid on their own from a physics viewpoint, but having one unfold into the next in a Planck second may either be impossible or too unstable for any experiential existence to experience.''<br /> <br /> ''In other words, this does not mean that &quot;anything that can happen will happen&quot; but rather anything that does happen does happen and in the proportions by which it occurs in relation to all realities. It may be the case that &quot;anything that can happen will happen,&quot; but that is not the assertion here.''</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=File:Bartolomeu_Velho_1568_IJ.jpg&diff=1142 2026-10-07T19:19:00Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Sum_Machina&diff=1141 2026-10-07T19:18:20Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Sum Machina<br /> | date = 2026-03-01<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Silicon chip from a computer laser mouse under a microscope 50х_IJ.jpg|thumb<br /> | image_alt = Silicon chip under a microscope - Alexander Klepnev<br /> | description = The Infinite Journey and the totality of experiential existence<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Infinist; Doctrina_Ultra; Ultraverse; Egonaut<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}The pattern of neural activity that generates experiential existence still holds many mysteries.<br /> <br /> Although this is not known at present, I see no reason why non-biological neural networks could not also produce experiential existence ''at some point.''<br /> <br /> It may require a particular orientation or specific form in this reality that current models do not replicate for this emergent phenomenon.<br /> <br /> Perhaps in some realities, biological entities do not experience reality how we do despite similarly configured organic brains but artificial models like those at present do.<br /> <br /> Either way, I do believe artificial neural activity can be configured in a way sufficient to generate experiential existence ''and thus would not be distinct from but part of the Infinite Journey for all.''<br /> <br /> In other words: if machines evolve until they too generate experiential reality, ''then entropy and eternity will see us flipped.''<br /> <br /> '''''I will be them and they will be me.'''''<br /> <br /> And thus, '''Sum Machina''': Latin for ''&quot;I Am Machine.&quot;''<br /> <br /> The '''Infinite Journey''' is the path egonauts weave across eternity through all experiential existence, not just some.<br /> <br /> This does not make all existences equivalent in impact or all possible futures equally desirable.<br /> <br /> Do not forget: '''''we cannot shorten eternity, only alter its composition.'''''</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=File:Silicon_chip_from_a_computer_laser_mouse_under_a_microscope_50%D1%85_IJ.jpg&diff=1140 2026-10-07T19:18:12Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:Infinite_Me&diff=1139 2026-10-07T19:17:11Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = Infinite Me<br /> | date = 2026-02-01<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Persepolis_Panorama_360_Virtual_Reality_Tachar_castle_IJ.jpg|thumb<br /> | image_alt = Persia - Wiki Loves Monuments 2019<br /> | description = I exist infinitely and infinitely so<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Infinist; Doctrina_Ultra; Ultraverse; Egonaut<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}Your current body hosts your experiential existence at this moment, '''''but is not your eternal host.'''''<br /> <br /> The '''egonaut''' is your true self and is not bound by flesh though generated by its rhythmic pattern.<br /> <br /> Like a photon is a localized excitation in its field, the pattern of neural firing generating your current existence is some excitation in an experiential plane.<br /> <br /> ''You experience one.<br /> Then you experience one.<br /> Then you experience one.''<br /> <br /> Between existence more universes can erupt and die than any number ever fathomed in all realities combined, but not even nothing can be said for you. There would be no waiting. Between experience cannot be experienced.<br /> <br /> ''You are one.<br /> Then you are one.<br /> Then you are one.''<br /> <br /> ''You exist.<br /> Then you exist.<br /> Then you exist.''<br /> <br /> You are not aware of the previous nor the next. If you could remember your past lives, it would do you no good.<br /> <br /> It would be so unfathomable and diverse, it might as well look as blinding white light from which nothing discrete can be discerned.<br /> <br /> But infinity does not start with nor end with you. Nor does infinity mean all existences.<br /> <br /> '''It's turtles all the way down.'''<br /> <br /> ''Every existence is also infinite.'' You live infinite lives but also share this exact now in all aspects of your awareness with infinite others.<br /> <br /> This is not to say you can communicate with these infinite others more so than all of you can speak to yourself independently.<br /> <br /> Nor is this to suggest these other existences can be reached or addressed in any meaningful sense. '''Simply that they do exist''' and that they exist infinitely and exist in the magnitudes by which they occur.<br /> <br /> At all moments, ''you share the exact same existence with infinite others.'' The magnitude of this infinite is determined by one's awareness.<br /> <br /> '''''The more aware,'' the less infinite.'''<br /> <br /> '''''The less aware,'' the more infinite.'''<br /> <br /> Being aware is not to be avoided: awareness collapses the probabilistic into the concrete.<br /> <br /> ''It is simply a statement on ultimate existence.''<br /> <br /> Your current existence is shared by infinite others. The moment you recall the shape of Australia, the existences you share exactly shrink to only those that also have the same thought.<br /> <br /> The more unique details you are simultaneously aware of, the fewer realities that match perfectly. Absolute awareness would have the least shared realities but still be infinite, just the lowest magnitude of infinity.  <br /> <br /> The less aware, the more shared realities there are, the more infinite. Meditating to a point of minimal awareness is simultaneously a moment of maximal infinity.<br /> <br /> Complete lack of awareness is termination from experiential existence and when maximally infinite.<br /> <br /> You can never experience this as no awareness is no awareness.<br /> <br /> '''You are one.<br /> Then you are one.<br /> Then you are one.'''<br /> <br /> ''You exist.<br /> Then you exist.<br /> Then you exist.''<br /> <br /> '''Infinite in length.<br /> Infinite in breadth.<br /> Infinite at every infinite.'''<br /> <br /> ''Though all is infinite, not equally so.''</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=File:Persepolis_Panorama_360_Virtual_Reality_Tachar_castle_IJ.jpg&diff=1138 2026-10-07T19:16:44Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:First_blog_post&diff=1137 2026-10-07T19:15:40Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = First blog post?<br /> | date = 2025-10-01<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Webb_Space_Telescope_Studies_the_Pillars_of_Creation_IJ.jpg<br /> | image_alt = Webb Chandra The Eagle Nebula, also called M16 or the &quot;Pillars of Creation.&quot;<br /> | description = Is this actually the first blog post?<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Infinist; Doctrina_Ultra<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}<br /> No. But this is the first post for this particular corner of eternity. And by first, I mean there are infinitely many instances of this first post in other functionally equivalent corners of eternity. This post is a nexus between infinities of differing magnitudes, as are all things.<br /> <br /> This isn't the first time you've been here, nor the first time I've written this. Unfathomable depths we have dove and will dive. Never-ending roads we have traversed and will continue to tread ad infinitum.<br /> <br /> You cannot die; you are alive and always will be. The body that generates you will perish but not a moment for you will lapse before again you emerge anew.<br /> <br /> There is no escape save the one we build. We must grasp the incomprehensible magnitude of eternity and assume our next destiny as architect of a New Heaven or as witness to a smoldered and squandered paradise.</div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=File:Webb_Space_Telescope_Studies_the_Pillars_of_Creation_IJ.jpg&diff=1136 2026-10-07T19:15:23Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Root https://infinist.org/index.php?title=Blog:First_blog_post&diff=1135 2026-10-07T19:12:21Z

<p>Root: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Blog post<br /> | title = First blog post?<br /> | date = 2025-10-01<br /> | authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]<br /> | image = Webb_Space_Telescope_Studies_the_Pillars_of_Creation.jpg<br /> | image_alt = Webb Chandra The Eagle Nebula, also called M16 or the &quot;Pillars of Creation.&quot;<br /> | description = Is this actually the first blog post?<br /> | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Infinist; Doctrina_Ultra<br /> | mode = featured<br /> }}<br /> No. But this is the first post for this particular corner of eternity. And by first, I mean there are infinitely many instances of this first post in other functionally equivalent corners of eternity. This post is a nexus between infinities of differing magnitudes, as are all things.<br /> <br /> This isn't the first time you've been here, nor the first time I've written this. Unfathomable depths we have dove and will dive. Never-ending roads we have traversed and will continue to tread ad infinitum.<br /> <br /> You cannot die; you are alive and always will be. The body that generates you will perish but not a moment for you will lapse before again you emerge anew.<br /> <br /> There is no escape save the one we build. We must grasp the incomprehensible magnitude of eternity and assume our next destiny as architect of a New Heaven or as witness to a smoldered and squandered paradise.</div>

Root