Anderz

Open source is already a large part of the software industry. And as Ray Kurzweil has said, even physical products are becoming information technology. As I mentioned earlier Kurzweil said that there will be both open source and commercial products and services. But what if as an analogy, open source is like cars and capitalism like the horses a bit over a century ago before cars started to become widely used? Someone mentioned that in New York City they were afraid that horse manure would drown the city. And the side effects of capitalism perhaps can be likened somewhat to the horse manure problem in the past.

The fourth density Bentinho Massaro is talking about in the previous video is a concept from the Law of One. That's New Age channeling. The Bible has the same message I believe. It's just that the information from vastly different sources has to be recontextualized and integrated into a unified explanation. For example the Body of Christ means the churchgoers according to some Christians, while I interpret that as the same thing as a collective consciousness (called social memory complex in the Law of One) in fourth and higher densities. Here are two more videos by Bentinho, the first fairly recent and the other several years old.

Removing the death drive through transhumanism with things like biotech and nanotech seems to me to be to still be to struggle against the death drive. But if that's the only option transhumanism is also natural! Evolution as a whole includes science and technology. I think that the death drive can be achieved without transhumanism and very soon historically speaking because of exponential accelerating evolution. But of course it's still a very radical idea and I'm of course uncertain about it. From a rational atheistic perspective transhumanism seems a more plausible scenario but it could be that spiritual evolution into eternal life may be the actual scenario.

I propose that the death drive (thanatos) has evolved through billions of years. But that doesn't make it natural. Nor is it unnatural. The death drive is a natural consequence of biological and social evolution, which in turn are natural consequences of the overall process of evolution. But it could be, and I even suggest, that we humans will evolve out of the death drive, and then it will no longer be natural. Then it will be natural to not have a death drive. When we identify our physical self as being the whole planet, then if we would physically die, it would mean that the whole planet would die. That's a radical recontextualization from a personal to a transpersonal perspective.

Is it better from a global evolution perspective to have Biden or Trump as the U.S. President? I don't know! Haha. So I have to wait and see what actually happens. I hope that Trump will win, and now he confirms what former NSA officer WIlliam Binney said that there were many more votes than there were registered voters. Interesting claim, but it needs to be confirmed in legal proceedings. And that will require really solid evidence to make courts wanting to look into it.

I now know how to plug my model of reality into integral nonduality. It's extremely simple, but it also gets rather technical, so instead I want to look at it from a higher level perspective. Evolution is an expansion of holons. And integral noduality includes the physical human body as a holon within the larger holon of planet Earth. And the human body and the planet are one unified whole! And my idea of the transpersonal stage is that we will include the whole planet as our identity of self and develop a collective consciousness that transcends and includes our personal consciousness.

I noticed that with integral nonduality I can also plug in the concept of evolution! That's often something I find missing in traditional nonduality teachings. And of course evolution from a nondual perspective is that all of manifestation, not just biological or technological evolution, is reality evolving as a wholeness. Actually, Ray Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns fits into integral nonduality.

I found this description of integral nonduality: My version of integral nonduality is that we are consciousness and that we are also the the manifested world. So it integrates instead of separates those two. Some other ordinary nonduality teachings may also integrate the two, but I want to use the term integral since I want to include Ken Wilber's transcend and include perspective.

No! I just realized that the word 'something' is too arbitrary. My new explanation of reality is: Reality is the difference between everything and nothing.

Leo also said that reality is actual nothing. That's a valid distinction. The word 'nothing' is of course a concept and is therefore dualistic (existing as a relative separate object). And the word nothing points to the absence of everything. Actual nothing is also a concept but it points to all of reality. Ordinarily the word nothing can point to a separate absence, such as "the bowl contains nothing". And my idea of reality as the difference between something and nothing is also valid I think. Interestingly, Advaita means not two, and that's precisely what reality as difference is. The structure of reality is the trinity: something <- difference -> nothing. It's not two. It can't be two because that would be two separate realities. And the manifestation of reality goes from the initial trinity into an explosion of differences. From the trinity there are two more differences between the difference itself and to something and to nothing. And that results in more differences and so on towards infinity yet never reaching infinity.

One idea I now got is that reality is the difference between something and nothing. It's all one nonduality. I will take a look at these videos by Leo again:

One clue to the question about something rather than nothing is that Leo said that reality is a perfect symmetry. Because otherwise, if it had some shape or substance it would only have that in relation to something else! So from a nonduality perspective reality is difference and nothing. Because nothing also lacks shape and substance. I will see if I can get more clues from Leo's video, but that's a pretty interesting explanation. It's the both something and nothing aspect I haven't grasped fully yet. It's a duality which again needs to be combined into nonduality.

I was listening to Tony Parsons and he talked about everything being nothing. That reminded me of Leo's video about something rather than nothing. To me reality being something is a result of what Leo said (I think it was in another video) that reality is difference. And why is there difference? That's a tricky one. I will revisit Leo's video to check for more clues.

Leo mentioned that the ego has too little requisite variety to deal with reality which has infinite requisite variety. That's similar to my idea that clinging to the past is insufficient to deal with the future. And I believe that the solution is consciousness which always has infinite requisite variety since in my model consciousness is connected to the infinite unmanifested reality. The crystallized ego on the other hand is a narrow and limited individual perspective based on the past.

An insight I got from Newman's talk, not something new but I came to think about it again and that is that memories are extremely dominating at the personal stage. That's a real super power that we usually take for granted. By accessing memories the mind projects a very convincing and immersive presentation of the past. The actual direct experience of memories is that they are experienced in the present moment. Always. Yet since the mind has such powerful projection capacity it makes experiences of memories appearing almost as real as what is happening in the present moment. This superpower of accessing memories is of course very valuable. The problem is that it sucks in most of our conscious attention and dealing with reality based on only the past is insufficient I believe, since according to my belief, the future has more information than the past. And memories are a large part of the crystallized ego. I think personal stage memories also contribute to the ego tensions. So a practice is to take memories more lightly than is the usual habit at the personal stage.

To break through into the transpersonal stage may require a radically different approach than the usual spiritual practices. Nonduality teachings often have a different approach, and especially Jim Newman who I believe "learned" it from Tony Parsons, has a radical and nihilistic-seeming nonduality approach presented in this video:

In this video from last year, Shunyamurti says that there can be traumas at different levels. He identifies 7 levels of trauma for what as I understand it is at the personal stage of development. Those seem to be a massive heap to deal with. He also talked about breaking into the Self and I see that as the transpersonal stage. And I believe that it's possible to break through all personal stage traumas as one single bundle and enter directly into the transpersonal stage. It might require one helluva breakthrough though compared to dealing with separate levels of traumas one at a time.

Unfortunately it looks like type theory only makes the NAND model more complicated than it has to be. As for automatic theorem proving I believe it's trivially simple in the NAND model. Then why isn't something this simple method used instead of the type theories which quickly get very complicated? My guess is that for historical reasons when math is done manually it would be extremely cumbersome to use only NAND gates. So to get more powerful methods for manual calculations and for higher abstractions, things like type theories have been invented. However, when using computers, for example a proof made of only NAND gates can be hideously huge with millions of NAND gates connected together in intricate ways, and for humans that would be infeasible to deal with but for computers it's a piece of cake, so I think it could be very useful to use a NAND-only approach and let computers do the heavy lifting.

Homotopy type theory seems to be fairly simple at the foundation and can be applied to the NAND model which only has NAND gates and where the only type is binary digits 0 and 1. And a NAND gate is a simple addition of two binary digits into one binary digit: 0 and 0 = 1, 0 and 1 = 1, 1 and 0 = 1, 0 and 0 = 1. That's it! I will look into type theory more to see if the NAND model can be squeezed into an extremely simple version of homotopy type theory. And my model doesn't even use loops so I can use what I read on Wikipedia is called "1-dimensional" intensional type theory. My idea is that since NAND gates can do all forms of computation and bits can represent any information as ones and zeros, that should be enough for a fully general yet simple homotopy type theory. The advantage with having a homotopy type theory is as I understand it that it can be used for automatic theorem proving and for other powerful methods.

I find it useful to have a model of reality even from a nondual and transpersonal perspective. I looked into category theory earlier and expected to find it incredibly complicated, but the foundation of category theory is actually really simple. The NAND-only model I described earlier is I believe even simpler, but there might be lessons to learn from category theory and something called homotopy type theory which is mentioned in this lecture:

Another Pong analogy is for 3D printing. Pong was one of the first video games, extremely crude with just a few clunky pixels on the screen. And here is a small company using 3D printers to make shoes. I think of the early video games as an analogy for where 3D printing is at today. 3D printing will get cheaper and cheaper and at the same time get better and better. The combination of 3D printing with AI, robotics and later nanotech will at the very least change a lot of how capitalism functions.

Shunyamurti talks about the ego and free will in this new video. I have a new approach to free will. My new approach is still based on the idea that we don't have free will. But instead of trying to realize that there is no free will, a better approach I found is to realize that one cannot realize that. So it's a form of double-renunciation of free will. The first step is to realize that there is no free will. And the second step is to realize that one cannot realize that, unless the realization happens by itself.