Realism and the Moon (Interface Theory)

• Question: If the moon isn’t “rendered” when unobserved, how can we predict its future position?
• Analogy: VR multiplayer game (Grand Theft Auto). A red Ferrari exists only when rendered, but the *supercomputer* (underlying reality) has lawful processes.
• We can use our space-time intuitions (Newtonian physics) to predict, but this is a “useful way to do things,” not necessarily *truth*. The VR analogy highlights this.
• Predictive models work due to underlying lawful processes, even if the *representation* (moon, Ferrari) is not “real” when unobserved.

Living vs. Non-Living Distinction

• Hoffman disagrees with Bernardo Kastrup (partially): No fundamental distinction between living and non-living.
• The distinction is an “artifact” of our limited “dashboard” (interface). Useful within the “game,” but not a deep, principled distinction.
• This follows from seriously considering idealism and interface theory.

Scientific Progress: Closer to Reality?

• Question: Does moving from Newtonian to relativistic physics get us “closer” to the underlying reality?
• Scientific theories always start with *assumptions* (miracles). Deeper theories explain prior assumptions, but have *new* assumptions, ad infinitum.
• Science is always *infinitely far* from a “Theory of Everything.” It’s like a child asking “why, why, why?” – there’s always a deeper level.
• Space-time itself is an assumption, and physicists (“SpaceTime is doomed”) are moving beyond it.
• Science provides increasingly useful *descriptions of a perspective*, not closer approximations to ultimate truth. An infinite number of persepctives exist.
• Analogy. Humbling view: our 4D spacetime is a “trivial headset”, perhaps the dumbest out of a potentially more accurate “headset” with ,000s of dimentions.
• Better theories are more useful *within our perspective*, not necessarily closer to “ultimate truth.”

Zoom Blurring and Scientific Theories

• Humorous note: Zoom’s background blurring briefly reveals the “reality” behind Hoffman’s virtual background.
• Assessing Theories. Arham Razor used to access a scientific theory. One assesses theories based on fewest “miracles”. Ideally, we should not need any miracle to justify, but any thoery will.
• The assumption we take within the perspective can differ as different assumptions are used within the same thing, there is not specific rule or order to determine which theory is right or useful.
• The “Space-Time perspective” might itself have multiple possible underlying theories. There is not a method to which to access theories with less miracles with another method of less miracles, there’s infinitely more perspectives, thus how many “miracles we use to explain predictions don’t tell us which onf those persective is “true”.

VR and Lawlike Behavior in a System

• If modeling for a system where ferari’s do exist allows us to model the lawlike system behind, how does the perceived Space-Time affect modeling?
• Child phychologist shows children wired by age of four months old for that.

Meta Considerations, Ultimate Reality, and Concepts

• Analogy: is assessing theory vs theory on meta principles.
• It is difficult to take perspective without theoretical idea.
• The “ultimate nature of reality” likely *transcends concepts*. Incompleteness results (Gödel) suggest this.
• Non-conceptual knowledge: any attempt to describe it with concepts is inherently wrong. (Analogy: Tao Te Ching’s opening line).
• “to be the truth by letting go of all Concepts”. This type of truth isn’t knowledge but it’s entrirely “non-conceptual knoweledge”.
• There may be an uncapturable deeper “synchronistic”.
• Conflation. We often wrongly think our theories are true and this isn’t an accurate representation. A modest approach would acknowledge theory as human and it isn’t final.
• Analogy: Gestalt perception, parts dont accurately represents “truth” or description.

Markovian Dynamics and Perspectives

• Mathematical model attempt (humble): Stationary Markovian dynamics, where entropy remains constant (no entropic arrow of time). “It always was and always will be.”
• Taking a *perspective* (projection) creates the *appearance* of increasing entropy, an arrow of time, and competition (e.g., evolution).
• Things exist just the same. Projection makes loss of info appear to increase.
• Example. from within Spacetime. It shows up: limited resources, Nature, organisms fighting, predicting processsing, blankets.
• Brillint tools which shows what a perspective *could* appear.
• This model demonstrates how a “synchronistic” system can appear to have these features from a specific viewpoint.
• Time. There won’t be cause of anyting. Connection between perspective where there would be.
• First-person perspecitive can affect it. Time is always now, which shows it might be an “illusion”.

Frame Rates, High-Dimensional Curves, and Events

• Analogy: High-dimensional curve (possibly a knot) representing everything. Projections give the appearance of events, causes, etc.
• High-dimensional curve as a project that gives Fractal Perspective.
• Conceptual idea: varying experience like going along a subway train and experiencing waving parts of the same curve in different frame-rates.
• Multile speeds would make eventfulness come or not (speed of viewing changes to experience).
• Suggests a possible way to make “time” appear fractal in projections.

Positive Geometries (Timeless Structures)

• Analogy to the EU initiative project, Universe+.
• This new type of geometry allows them to take a step outside of Space-Time and is new, as its a 10 yr old.
• It can provide predictions but isn’t dynamical (a “shape”, not a “process”)
• Universe+ initiative: finding timeless structures *outside* spacetime (e.g., amplituhedron, cosmological polytopes).
• These structures can predict particle interactions (e.g., gluon scattering) *more efficiently* than quantum field theory within spacetime. Show new symmetries (infinite yangying symmetry).
• The theory, amplitud hedrin, is “more complicated” than polytrope “out there”.
• SpaceTime and quantum theory *emerge* as projections of these deeper structures. M=4 of a projection of Amplitud Hedrin.
• Current control knobs involve geometric properties (faces, volumes). Future models might involve dynamics and new, more powerful control knobs.
• “Mass” might be the projected entropy rate of communicaiton classes. This offers us predictive power to get better theory for those.
• Analogy: sequence of the action under the “old-model” will give new ways of actions of combinations.
• The example of the M-value, whih controls dimensions to 4d. Why not higher d values?

Theories, Limits, and Dogmatism

• All scientific theories have a *limited scope*. A *great* theory provides the tools to find its *own* limits (e.g., Einstein’s theory and the Planck scale).
• Theory with Miracles vs one w/o: Theories can conflict with itself to give tools on how theory can conflict itself.
• Philosophers debate if we are shooting ourselves on foot by self-referential arguemnts, but the field has good theories that have ability for mathematical theories which allows you to give up with current theory, with examples.
• Analogy. incompleteness is a proof that logic itself cannot cover whole truth, such an arguemtn.
• Dogmatic Science: the precise mathematics in a theory is good.
• The Cure: mathematical. Dogmatic vs science is ability to find it wrong, by being slow-moving but being correct.
• Chris Fields: only technologies will settle arguments because of how impactful the uses can become with those technologies, they will move to use it.

Time, Causation, and Agency (Circular Time)

• Analogy: circular time model allows for prediction through looking into the future.
• Prediction can be through taking a snapshot of circular motion.
• Circular oscillations/vibrations: Objects are combinations of harmonics.
• Agency emerges if it is as though events occur due to agency (predictions) or the cause (result). Only occurs with cyclic.
• Analogy: The same event, such as prediction or causation can exist from just one perspective in time.
• Looking through finer “frame-rate” could give illusion for the above.
• Different “temporal windows” could explain observed phenomena (e.g., particle distributions inside the proton).
• Small temperol windows could be connected with predicting high resolution “distributions” through “particles that look like massless” through artifacts of sampline.
• Through this way, one is not looking to what they are, but closer, to the noise and the artifacts the closer you “observe” it to make prediction.
• Nested selves could emerge from harmonics in oscillations.
• Connections being worked between this theory to previous theory, such as to Markovian’s Dynamic.
• Concious Agent Theory shows similar properties through Vibes, compatitibleness of harmony, through use of things such as Trave Logic and similar connections.
• Connection: Taking particular frame rates is equivalent to predicting or “seeing” the past, so agency, is “looking like agency”.

实在性与月球（界面理论）

• 问题：如果月球在未被观察时没有被“渲染”，我们如何预测它未来的位置？
• 类比：VR 多人游戏（侠盗猎车手）。一辆红色法拉利只在被渲染时存在，但*超级计算机*（底层现实）具有规律性的过程。
• 我们可以使用我们的时空直觉（牛顿物理学）来预测，但这是一种“做事情的有用方法”，而不一定是*真理*。VR 的类比强调了这一点。
• 预测模型之所以有效，是因为存在底层的规律性过程，即使*表征*（月球、法拉利）在未被观察时不是“真实”的。

生命与非生命的区分

• 霍夫曼（部分）不同意贝尔纳多·卡斯特鲁普的观点：生命与非生命之间没有根本区别。
• 这种区别是我们有限的“仪表盘”（界面）的“人为产物”。在“游戏”中很有用，但不是一个深刻的、有原则的区别。
• 这是认真考虑唯心主义和界面理论的结果。

科学进步：更接近现实？

• 问题：从牛顿物理学转向相对论物理学是否让我们“更接近”底层现实？
• 科学理论总是从*假设*（奇迹）开始。更深层次的理论解释了先前的假设，但有*新的*假设，如此无限循环。
• 科学总是*无限远离*“万物理论”。这就像一个孩子问“为什么，为什么，为什么？”——总有一个更深的层次。
• 时空本身就是一个假设，物理学家（“时空注定要灭亡”）正在超越它。
• 科学提供了对一个视角的越来越有用的*描述*，而不是更接近终极真理。存在无限数量的视角。
• 类比。令人谦卑的观点：我们的四维时空是一个“微不足道的头显”，可能是数千个维度中，潜在的更准确的“头戴显示设备”中最笨拙的那个。
• 更好的理论在*我们的视角*中更有用，而不一定是更接近“终极真理”。

Zoom模糊与科学理论

• 幽默的注解：Zoom 的背景模糊短暂地揭示了霍夫曼虚拟背景背后的“现实”。
• 评估理论：阿哈姆剃刀用于评估科学理论。人们根据最少的“奇迹”来评估理论。理想情况下，我们不需要任何奇迹来证明，但任何理论都需要。
• 我们在视角内所做的假设可以不同，因为在同一事物中使用了不同的假设，没有具体的规则或顺序来确定哪种理论是正确的或有用的。
• “时空视角”本身可能有多個可能的底层理论。没有一种方法可以用另一种具有较少奇迹的方法来评估具有较少奇迹的理论，因为存在无限多的视角，因此我们用来解释预测的“奇迹”的数量并不能告诉我们哪些视角是“真实的”。

虚拟现实与系统中的规律性行为

• 如果对存在法拉利的系统进行建模允许我们对背后的规律性系统进行建模，那么感知的时空如何影响建模？
• 儿童心理学家表明，儿童在四个月大时就已经对此有了固定的认识。

元思考、终极现实和概念

• 类比：是在元原则上评估理论与理论。
• 没有理论观念，很难采取视角。
• “现实的终极本质”可能*超越概念*。不完备性结果（哥德尔）表明了这一点。
• 非概念性知识：任何试图用概念来描述它的尝试本质上都是错误的。（类比：《道德经》的开篇句）。
• “通过放弃所有概念来成为真理”。这种类型的真理不是知识，而是完全的“非概念性知识”。
• 可能存在一个无法捕捉的更深层次的“共时性”。
• 混淆：我们经常错误地认为我们的理论是正确的，而这并不是一个准确的表述。一种谦虚的方法会承认理论是人为的，它不是最终的。
• 类比：格式塔知觉，部分并不能准确地表示“真理”或描述。

马尔可夫动力学与视角

• 数学模型尝试（谦虚）：稳态马尔可夫动力学，其中熵保持不变（没有熵的时间箭头）。“它过去是，将来也永远是这样。”
• 采取一个*视角*（投影）会产生熵增加、时间箭头和竞争（例如，进化）的*外观*。
• 事物仍然以同样的方式存在。 投射会让信息的损失看起来增加。
• 例子。 从时空内部看。它显示：有限的资源，自然，生物在争斗，预测处理，毛毯。
• 很好的工具展示一个视角 *可能* 的样子.
• 这个模型展示了一个“共时性”系统如何从特定的角度看起来具有这些特征。
• 时间。 不会有任何东西的原因。 不同观点之间的连结可能可以做到。
• 第一人称视角会影响它。 时间永远是现在，显示他可能是一种 “幻觉”。

帧速率、高维曲线和事件

• 类比：表示一切的高维曲线（可能是一个结）。投影产生了事件、原因等的外观。
• 高维曲线作为产生分形视角的投影。
• 概念性想法：不同的体验就像沿着地铁列车行驶并以不同的帧速率体验同一曲线的挥动部分。
• 多重速度会使事件发生或不发生（观看速度的变化影响体验）。
• 建议了一种可能的方法，使“时间”在投影中呈现分形。

正几何（无时间结构）

• 类比于欧盟倡议项目，Universe+。
• 这种新型几何允许他们迈出时空之外的一步，并且是新的，因为它只有 10 年的历史。
• 它可以提供预测，但不是动态的（一个“形状”，而不是一个“过程”）。
• Universe+ 倡议：在时空之外寻找无时间的结构（例如，振幅面体，宇宙多胞形）。
• 这些结构可以比时空内的量子场论*更有效地*预测粒子相互作用（例如，胶子散射）。显示新的对称性（无限杨式对称性）。
• 该理论，振幅体，比 “在那里” 的多面体 “更复杂”。
• 时空和量子理论是这些更深层结构的投影。M=4 是振幅体的一个投影.
• 当前的控制旋钮涉及几何特性（面、体积）。未来的模型可能涉及动力学和新的、更强大的控制旋钮。
• “质量”可能是通信类的投影熵率。这为我们提供了预测能力，以获得更好的理论。
• 类比： “旧模型” 下行为的顺序， 会产生动作组合的新方法。
• 例子是M 值，它控制维度到 4d。 为什么不是更高 d 值呢？

理论、极限和教条主义

• 所有科学理论都有*有限的范围*。一个*伟大*的理论提供了找到*自己*极限的工具（例如，爱因斯坦的理论和普朗克尺度）。
• 具有奇迹的理论与没有奇迹的理论：理论可以与自身冲突，以提供有关理论如何与自身冲突的工具。
• 哲学家们争论我们是否通过自我参照的论点自掘坟墓，但是该领域有很好的理论，这些理论具有数学理论的能力，这些理论允许您放弃当前的理论，并有例子说明。
• 类比： 不完备性证明了逻辑本身无法涵盖整个真理，这是一个例子。
• 教条科学：理论中精确的数学是好的。
• 治愈方法： 数学的. 教条式科学与否 取决于通过进展缓慢但确保准确而寻找错误的能力。
• 克里斯·菲尔兹：只有技术才能解决争论，因为这些技术的用途可能会变得如此有影响力，以至于他们会转向使用它。

时间、因果关系和自主性（循环时间）

• 类比：循环时间模型允许通过观察未来来进行预测。
• 预测可以通过拍摄循环运动的快照来进行。
• 循环振荡/振动：物体是谐波的组合。
• 如果事件的发生仿佛是由于自主性（预测）或原因（结果），那么就会出现自主性。只发生在循环中。
• 类比： 同一事件，比如预测或原因， 只能在一个时间维度中的一个角度去看.
• 通过更精细的“帧速率”观察可以给出上述的错觉。
• 不同的“时间窗口”可以解释观察到的现象（例如，质子内部的粒子分布）。
• 小的时间窗口可能与通过”看起来像无质量的粒子” 来进行高分辨率”分布”的预测有关. 因为采样的人工影响。
• 通过这种方式， 人们并不是在看他们的本质, 而是看的更细微, 越细看越接近噪音和人造结果 来进行预测。
• 嵌套的自我可能从振荡中的谐波中出现。
• 该理论与以前的理论之间正在建立联系，例如与马尔可夫动力学的联系。
• 意识主体理论通过共振、和谐的兼容性，通过使用诸如旅行逻辑和类似的连接等事物，显示出类似的特性。
• 连接： 采取特定的帧率等同于预测或 “看见” 过去，所以能动性/自主性，就是”看起来像有自主性”。