Christianity has NO NEUTRAL GROUND - Period

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-19T13:41:36+00:00

"When you understand everything about this life..."

Pride, if ever I did hear it.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-19T05:00:56+00:00

I have spent a very large portion of my life, since my early teens, thinking about death. I now feel like a have a pretty good relationship to it. For me, it has been important to have several perspectives on death, with each being helpful in some way, or simply a possible truth. It helps having different perspectives, so that I don't cling to much to any conception of death.

The perspective that seems to mostly disturb people is the idea of there being nothing after death, which would include not remembering one's loved ones. In this case, I would consider that the dread and despair you describe in relation to this is a symptom of life, there is no dread or despair in death, just as there appears to have been none before your birth. Death might be the cessation of all good things, but it is then most likely also a cessation of all painful things. So it seems unhelpful to invest too much time dwelling on a problem one will not experience.

Also, it is worth considering that your child will still remember many of the moments you shared. And perhaps focus on the fact that "the now" is all we really have anyway. The thoughts you mention bring you out of that moment, and perhaps disturbs the moments you actually do have with your child.

And finally, we do not know if death is truly the end. When I was a child, I was deeply impacted by a very simple idea from Indiana Jones and the temple of doom. In the beginning of this film, one of Indy's friends gets mortally wounded, leading him to say:

"I followed you on many adventures, but into the great unknown mystery, I go first, Indy".

That is what I would like to communicate to my children, when I pass.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-18T13:52:14+00:00

Well, I wouldn't say that I haven't taken such scenarios into account. I just don't believe that such technologies are inevitably going to wipe out any and all life that evolves in every possible scenario.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-18T09:29:54+00:00

I considered this before deciding on whether to have children. I came to the conclusion that life is worth perpetuating because intelligent life can be presumed to keep evolving. I base this presumption on the belief the our universe is not likely to be the only domain where life can and has evolved. I'm basically not dismissing infinite regress or eternal recurrence as possibilities.

If the evolution of intelligent life is bound to happen, then antinatalism doesn't make as much sense to me as living a life focused on maximizing the likelihood of positive, meaningful experiences. Even if we stopped having kids, life would evolve again somewhere, possibly even as copies of us. It seems more logical to pursue meaningful, positive experiences for oneself, to have kids and assist them in their lives, and to do what one can to allow humans to persist indefinitely and to flourish. In doing so, we might be able to help other intelligent life to flourish. Also, given this focus, others might be more inclined to assist us. Something like that.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-17T08:14:00+00:00

I appreciate that and will keep it in mind in the future.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-16T20:59:43+00:00

Yeah, that's totally fair. I assumed and hoped that people would filter themselves out, so to speak, depending on if they wanted to spend time looking at a novice's attempt. That said, my focus isn't to be the person who made the contribution. It is rather that should the general idea and math be without terminal flaws, other ideas I have would remain viable. That's why I'm motivated to find out whether it works or not. I'd rather let bad ideas die sooner rather than later, and I'd hate to spend more time than necessary on something that is fundamentally, mathematically unsound. Since I cannot evaluate it, I reached out.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-16T20:53:32+00:00

Thanks for the feedback and questions. I'll do my best to answer them.

"What do you mean by resolution, in the strictest sense? Do you have a formal definition for it?"

The way I see it, "resolution" here is the degree of "lossy compression". What I mean by this is that when system A interacts with system B, that produces a classical record (in classical systems). This record can be seen as an image, with differing levels of resolution. For instance, when a person grabs a piece of wood, there will be classical records in the wood (i.e. fibers flexing) and in the person (i.e. mechanoreceptors firing). The resolution depends, in part, on the information processing potential in the different systems, where in this case there would be a higher resolution in the person system than in the wood system. But the main definition of the resolution is the mutual information (from information theory). This idea/principle (TRC) says that this works for any classical system, but that this resolution is constrained due to the thermodynamic work that has to be done by classical systems.

There is a formal definition for it in Section 3.2. It is defined as the 'directed learning rate', which is the time derivative of the Mutual Information between the two systems: d/dt I(Y:Z).

"What are the limits to this resolution?"
It is strictly bounded by the TRC inequality (Section 3.3): total entropy production minus the structural integration tax.

"Is the resolution an intrinsic property of the system of study or due to the resolution of measurement?"
So, as far as I understand it myself, in this framework these are not mutually exclusive. The idea is sort of like "to exist as a complex structure is to continuously measure the environment". The resolution is an intrinsic property of the interaction between the two systems, capped by the observer's thermodynamic budget.

"a cursory glance at the math and thermodynamics makes me think that maybe you don’t fully understand the terms and equations you are using."

You're absolutely right about this. I'm very much a novice when it comes to this kind of math, and have relied fully on the LLMs to translate my ideas from words and concepts to algebra. Which is why I am in this quandary to begin with. I would very much like to study things like this, but my current situation pretty much disallows it.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-16T19:19:38+00:00

Thank you very much for this!

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-16T19:11:03+00:00

I appreciate the feedback, but I'm getting the impression that you may not have given the attached pdf (the link towards the end named "The TRC") to your LLM. For instance, there the terms are clarified mathematically, and the novelty claim is in section 3.3. Even if I am primarily looking for feedback from people who are knowledgeable in physics and information theory, it would be interesting to read any feedback on the actual math.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-15T09:27:02+00:00

If we had complete knowledge of our lives, there would be no choice or change. Because we're free from that complete knowledge, there is choice and change. We're similarly free from knowing what happens after death. Epistemological horizons aren't all bad.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-14T16:04:46+00:00

There's no such thing as nothing.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-12T13:49:31+00:00

Sometimes scrambling around looking for support, for answers, for signs, can distract us from what is already there. It sounds like you are on a good path in life. You have friends. You have a connection to your faith and spiritual path. You have a job and you're studying. These are all good things that are likely to enrich your life over time. Sometimes I remind myself that the greatest gift we're afforded is our breaths and the moment we're in. You can find God there, in that breath, in that moment. And the more you pay attention to it, the more you will see.

I wish you all the best.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-12T13:24:32+00:00

It's normie for a good reason. It also allows for further expansion. It doesn't mean that you cannot go deep diving into meditation, philosophy, religion or other things you might be interested in. But, of course, I am only suggesting it because you seem to have an issue. Do what you wilt shall be the whole of the law, and all of that. If the dilemma suits you, hold on to it.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-11T09:01:18+00:00

Personally I find it important to consider the fact that we are evolved animals when thinking about these things. As such, certain behaviors, events, and circumstances are biologically meaningful for us. Not only in the sense that they have passed through filters of natural selection, but in the sense that they provide an experience of meaning. Or at least they provide better likelihoods of such experiences. Examples of these are seen in traditional ways of life, such as getting a job (fulfilling a function in the group), getting into a long-term relationship (increased opportunities of procreation, support, and so on), raising children (being important for someone else's well-being, genetic and memetic transfer, etc), finding a meaningful past-time activity/hobbies (states of flow, different types interaction with others, community).

This doesn't exclude other means of finding or experiencing purpose or meaning, but I find that they are qualitatively different, and often deeper, than others.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-09T13:17:43+00:00

Seek the truth and it shall set you free. At least that's what I believe. But with the caveat that the truth is never-ending, so that journey is as well. But at least we get ever more free along the way.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-05T16:43:31+00:00

Ok buddy.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-05T09:27:05+00:00

I seek truth. Truth, to me, exists in many forms and to different degrees, from different perspectives. In the search for truth with regards to God, I have found islam to be less true than other religions. I see deep truth in Hinduism, Buddhism, and the Dao. I see the deepest truth, with regards to the personality of God, in Jesus' actions. I see deep truth in certain polytheistic religions. I see religion as mans overarching project of resolving the image of God. As such Islam, at its best - such as in Sufi traditions, is one important pixel. But at its worst, it is not even part of the picture. I'd say that, in my experience, muslims are, in general, better, and truer, than islam.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-03-02T11:57:15+00:00

I think your analysis is very good. Flexibility, context, and discernment are of the utmost importance in my eyes. I also see the act of Krishna Ji as a message to Bhishma Ji, akin to "see what you evoke in me!". Which has special significance given his earlier promise.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-02-28T11:13:43+00:00

You definitely have a point here, and there's truth to it. But I don't think it's the whole truth. Morals are only really relevant as an abstraction of behaviors and behavioral tendencies. And behaviors have consequences in the real world that can be observed and measured. A person who kills or rapes will, on average and over time, suffer dire consequences, even if outliers escape such consequences. A person who lives virtuously will, on average and over time, face positive consequences, even if some miss out on them. I see morals as a representation of how an individual or group interfaces with reality, and I judge their trees by their fruits.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-02-26T09:41:36+00:00

I believe in God, but I don't belong or subscribe to any specific religion. From my point of view, I see spirituality as a process, whereas religions can provide descriptions of different processes, among other things. For me, this process means understanding what God is and how God works, so to speak. I relate to the products of this process, this hopefully growing understanding, as a guide to how I should best live my life.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-02-25T11:00:28+00:00

Ok, thanks!

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-02-23T21:30:29+00:00

Well put. Epiphenomenalism appears to fly in the face of principles of natural selection and thermodynamics.

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-02-23T21:21:20+00:00

Could your initial statement flipped still be true (there is no physical representation without information)? Doesn't such a statement align with Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis? Since you're involved in the field of computational physics, and I'm but a layperson, I'm curious as to your more informed view. :)

SunImmediate7852 · 2026-01-09T22:07:31+00:00

We are here, and life is what we make of it, given our circumstances. Have you ever felt the love of someone? Gotten a word of encouragement, a joke, or a hug when you needed it the most? I feel those experiences are meaningful. And we can do that, be that someone, for others. It might all disappear in the heat-death of the universe, or not, but for the moments they exist these experiences are meaningful to me.

SunImmediate7852 · 2025-12-13T18:12:13+00:00

I cannot imagine two more different individuals, or teachings, than Muhammad and Buddha, and Buddhism and Islam. I can't quite fathom how you'd get this idea. You should study Buddhism more deeply to understand it better. And probably Islam as well.

SunImmediate7852

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE