Erica Kleine yes! I have followed that rule my whole life! I usually find one or two people that are obsessed and I listen I’ve made good use of this with fiction: I don’t have the patience to read long novels but I like to know the stories But I don’t find the stories as interesting as I do the people that find the stories interesting So to kill two birds with one stone, whenever somebody says You must read: Dune, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games / see movie: Fight Club, Idiocracy, oh too many to name… What I do is I try to convince them to tell me. It is extremely difficult to get a fan to tell you the story that they want you to see or read. But I keep at it and I am just as insistent that they TELL me the story as they are that I READ the story It can take a while But when they do, I got to experience the excitement that I would never feel about the story through them. And I may not know all the little details but I will have some sense from a fan point of view of what’s good and not. This has also gotten me through trying to understand what various video games are or YouTubers are about because i don’t do either. Works very well and saves time and makes people happy

Erica Kleine yes! I … [read full article]


Trevor Andersen yes, that is definitely an aspect of it and I love your summary and relating it to yourself. and yet, such as the difficulty of terseness: there’s a limit to how much can be expressed in a short space. Ive known for a long time that im likely on the spectrum, have adhd – narrowing down to how its espressed in a modular cognitive view of mental function is certainly a part of it. but.. there’s a lot of “thats it!”s in my eureka factory. Here’s 2013 me : I was about to mow the lawn and I decided to ask myself, can I give some decent rules of life using lawnmowing as an metaphor? Vine was a video sharing service like TikTok – it was only six seconds long and it was new nobody knew what to use it for so I decided to use it for rules of life at first. this project took as long as it took to mow the lawn plus the little times it took to make the videos. was my goal to teach myself the rules of life? it was to teach myself and others using whatever means were at my disposal following whatever my interest was at the moment. my naked transparent enthusiasm is (often?) the message. i’m excited about what I’m excited at and I want other people to get excited about what excites them and follow their pursuits. it’s my service. Our life on this planet is so short. an often utilized life approach is “closures”. (this WAS happening, NOW it’s time to close and open up something new and make a change). what if moment to moment there were continuous openings and closures and reopenings? opportunities rising and falling, moments to grab and lose, or win and pursue and drop off and leave behind and continuing. all happening at once for different people from different perspectives with different amounts of ability to comprehend yet it’s the people in front of me that are the most important at that moment from which star does one hitch a dream? 

yes, that is definitely … [read full article]


[warning: Clickbait title of the video: The answer is: “probably not”. He goes into great detail about that I think; watching now] I found this nice answer on Quora: Is it possible to simulate all of the laws of physics on a computer? So a few months ago I would have said yes, but since then I have been to an online seminar given by Prof David Tong where he argued to the contrary. I would like to emphasise, David Tong is a Professor of theoretical physics at Cambridge, and has made a huge number of contributions to theoretical physics especially regarding Quantum Field Theory. In other words, he is a very good source! He had two main arguments: – The numerical sign problem – In short you can describe quantum mechanics in terms of something called path integrals, and there are significant problems with recreating these on a computer. – Chiral Fermions (This is actually the main topic of the talk) – You say in your question give a “certain level of granularity”, you’re correct that this seems a natural suggesting if you want simulate the universe. However it turns out that there is something called Chrial fermions in our universe, and there are significant problems with putting these on this kind of lattice structure. I have found a version of the same talk David gave elsewhere. He discusses both of the above in much more detail than I can give here (Only the first ~15 mins will probably be of interest to you, it turns quite technical after that):

[warning: Clickbait title of
[read full article]

I helped contribute $0.12 to Peterson for his Penrose interview. He got an interview where a 91 year old Penrose could give a QM 101 talk to a 60 year old Peterson, who probably ONLY heard of Penrose in the era of “The Emperor’s New Mind (1989)” where “he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness” and put 2+2 and thought Penrose meant the observer thing, which is why he asked; and that’s what ended the interview when he said “No”. Did I get $0.12 worth of entertainment from Peterson? I did. “YouTube charges contractors $0.18 per view on average. YouTube pays 68% of this rate to YouTubers through AdSense. This is a very good rate, as it means that you would get $0.12 for every view”

I helped contribute $0.12
[read full article]

Oh I think Peterson had a valid query; it’s clear at the end that he was hoping Penrose held a “conscious observer changes things” view but no, he does not. You can see the absolute adoration Peterson has of Penrose here and I can certainly understand it; it had to be a huge win to get this interview, even those Penrose had to sit there explaining QM 101 for likely the 10,000th time of his life; It’ll probably be the only Jordan Peterson video I’ll watch; I’ve read transcripts which is what I usually do instead of videos when someone talks at length because I skim-read, but here I wanted to see if Peterson had a boyhood intellectual crush on Penrose and he does – and for that I needed the video to get a sense of.

Oh I think Peterson
[read full article]

Apr 2, 2013: Hyper-focus confirms ADHD Apr 22, 2013: Diagram inner/outer world interface “attention stealers” May 6, 2013: Watch 1/3 of Jeff Hawking video on mimicking human brain on computers; inspired by his line: ‘it’s really hard to think of things, but once you thought of them it’s really easy to understand them.’ So I thought this thought and wrote it down that day: _Solve a problem that nobody knows exists._

Apr 2, 2013: Hyper-focus … [read full article]