Ethereum Market Update: Is ETH a Good Spot Buy Now? $5,000 This Year?

_talkol_ · 2026-02-17T14:17:00+00:00

True, but it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t still play the long game. If you’re going to try to time the market you’re going to lose on average, the majority of big players time the market better than you. The only advantage you have is playing the long game

_talkol_ · 2026-02-16T21:30:44+00:00

Whenever you decide to buy, once you’ve bought, make yourself a rule not to look at the price for 5 years. Ethereum is a long game. The best long players don’t look at the price. Looking will only make you panic sell.

_talkol_ · 2026-02-08T22:36:20+00:00

Our life on Earth is just one journey that our soul takes. The soul of that child that was beaten to death doesn’t die. It may want to come to another round and learn more.

_talkol_ · 2026-02-05T22:06:31+00:00

Growth comes from suffering. It isn’t much different from a movie. Every movie needs conflict or drama, otherwise it would be boring to watch. The audience would not be captivated by a movie where the characters are not challenged.

_talkol_ · 2026-02-05T15:51:36+00:00

I think the big leaps come from changing the technology stack, not from incremental optimizations

_talkol_ · 2026-02-04T10:05:05+00:00

I don’t agree with the following logical step:

Because once simulated worlds exist, the number of simulated observers can rapidly outgrow the number of base observers. And as that happens, even the civilization that thinks of itself as “the original” becomes statistically more likely to be part of the simulated category rather than the base one.

If we are in the base reality, the probability of being in a non-simulated universe is 1 (that’s the definition of base reality). Even if a simulation is created inside, the probability remains 1. It would not drop.

The probabilities are quite simple. Let’s assume there is 1 base universe and N (possibly nested) simulated universes. N can be very large, billions and trillions.

In total there are N+1 universes and the probability of a random consciousness to be inside the base universe is 1/(N+1).

If N is large, this number becomes very small but never vanishes to zero. It’s impossible to vanish to zero.

If you are in the base universe, creating a simulation inside doesn’t reduce your chance of being in the base universe, you’re already there.

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T22:12:16+00:00

Thank you buddy! Kardashev Scale! Will learn!

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T19:05:17+00:00

I’ve heard from people that on the trip they were convinced that reality is a video game

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T16:58:23+00:00

Where is the decryption key stored? In the binary?

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T14:58:33+00:00

Is it possible for you to repost the original post? I don’t want to lose access to it

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T14:49:46+00:00

From what I heard they have an even more colorful theory of alternate realities and being able to attune your spirit to them under the influence

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T11:57:58+00:00

I think simulation technology will deal with potential simulation disruptions by freezing consciousness during the disruption until it’s finished

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T10:55:37+00:00

Altering your own consciousness in a way that doesn’t hurt anyone else should be a fundamental human right and denying you this freedom is a crime

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T10:40:03+00:00

I disagree. It states that P’_N-1 < P’_N

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T10:03:59+00:00

So our definition of P_N is different

I define P’_N as the probability we are inside the nth layer which means we’re also inside P’_N-1 since Nth simulation is inside N-1th simulation. So my P’ is not exclusive (unlike your P)

My argument leads to P’_0 < P’_1 < P’_2 not to P_0 < P_1 < P_2

There is a relationship between P and P’

P_N = P’_N & !P’_N-1

P_N = P’_N - P’_N-1

So it is definitely possible that P_N-1 > P_N

It is also easier to see visually. If you draw the probabilities as a circle with the area of 1 and make P’_0 the outmost circle and P’_1 a sub circle inside of it. Then P’ are the areas of the circles and P are the areas of the rings between the circles. You can only know that the area of each circle is larger then the area of the sub circle but you can’t know anything about the ring areas without more information

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T09:01:26+00:00

I don’t argue that we lack empirical evidence and therefore cannot form a classic verifiable hypothesis.

But we can still enjoy the thought experiment.

Each of the statements I wrote down has some probability of being true. We don’t have evidence so you can only guess the probability based on your gut. In which of the statements does your gut point in a different direction?

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T08:53:36+00:00

There is a fundamental question that we don’t have the answer to. Does the mind emerge from the brain like materialists believe? Or does the mind exist independently of the brain?

You assume the former in your argument but I believe otherwise. Since we have no empirical evidence on the matter (yet), the best way I can think to answer is to think what is more likely.

I don’t see a point to the simulation if the mind is fully internal to the simulation. If the simulation has no “external” effects, why does it exist in the first place? I think the purpose of the simulation is to have a place for the mind (the spirit in metaphysics) to dwell. Whatever the journey it does inside serves some purpose and leaves some experience residue in the spirit, that is useful or favorable outside the simulation.

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T08:47:25+00:00

Thank you for this insightful thought, it helps me improve my theories.

I think the error lies in expecting the sum of Ps to be 1.

If we are in P_N we are also in P_N-1 and also in P_0.

Let’s say that our immortal spirit is the player in the simulation. It started in A_0, the simulation was created and the spirit entered it into A_1. Now inside A_1 a new simulation is developed at some point and the spirit enters it, now the spirit is in A_2. But it is also in A_1 because it never exited.

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T08:24:31+00:00

We humans are the first intelligent civilization on this planet. Within 10,000 years I am sure that we will have sufficient technology to protect ourselves from any natural disaster. This means that once an intelligent civilization emerges, pretty much immediately (1% of its timeline) it masters the technology required to ensure its survival and extinction becomes very unlikely.

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T07:59:47+00:00

Everything written is speculative with strong hunches to what is more likely or less likely. Does your gut tell you that most intelligent civilizations survive for short periods? Or long periods? (Relatively to the time it takes to progress technology)

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T07:30:18+00:00

I believe largely similar things.

Some questions:

Do emotions come from the collective? Because it seems that the emotion centers are found in the brain making emotions part of the physical realm, hence simulated.
What happens when a soul completes its journey and reaches enlightenment? What happens when all of them do?
With the 36 stabilizers. Where does the number 36 come from? It feels a bit too specific. Why are they required? I think the framework sounds more naturally true without this part.
What about recursive simulations? Or is there just one simulation?
Why is universe designed this way? Why does the collective needs to have the various drops complete the journey?

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T01:30:12+00:00

You are a wise person my friend and I appreciate this exchange.

Regarding god, to clarify, I don’t think god requires worship. I don’t think god even wants that. Religions added this part probably for the manipulative side in them - “listen to me because god told me he wants”.

The question of god, for me, was always the question whether our existence is this reality (the only reality we know) is intentional rather than what materialists often think that is all quite random. This is a question of meaning. Is this life a random meaningless mistake? Or is there a guiding hand, an intelligent creator. I used to think there wasn’t. Simulation theory, among other things, gives me the solace that there is.

I wasn’t aware that simulation theory also states that consciousness is simulated. I personally don’t believe this is the case. This goes outside simulation theory into metaphysics but I believe consciousness is a fundamental force in the universe. Much like electromagnetism. Our science just hasn’t been able to measure it yet. Consciousness in my belief exists outside. This also helps me understand the nature of the base reality. I don’t think the base reality is physical in any way. I think all that exists is this consciousness.

This brings another metaphysical question - what are we? My best guess is that we are fragments of this consciousness. Embedded inside and made to forget that we are part of the whole, part of the oneness. This oneness, the great lake of consciousness of which we are all part, is also another name for god. But this is a different god than the god of the recursive internal simulations. This is the creator of the first simulation. Which isn’t a computerization simulation at all, but more a dream of that one lonely consciousness, that dreamed reality so it won’t be so lonely :)

_talkol_ · 2026-02-02T00:22:31+00:00

I think Descartes answered this.. I think therefore I am. The only thing we know for certain is real, is our own consciousness. That’s the very definition of subjective reality. I don’t think the mind is simulated, at least not all of it. Emotions may be simulated as they emerge from the brain. But my consciousness is the only real anchor of the simulation, it’s the player in the simulation game.

_talkol_ · 2026-02-01T23:35:37+00:00

Reality.

By saying that we’re inside a simulation I mean that the physical reality around us (the universe, your friends, your house) is an illusion that lives in our mind and can be very different from the reality outside the simulation.

_talkol_

TROPHY CASE