Dow and Carbon-Based Monkey Breeding Guidelines

Chapter 645 Destiny is what everyone wishes

Excerpted from "Half a step away from wishful thinking: an interesting popular science book on the research of wishing machines":
This is a well-known contradiction: the accuracy and practicality of a truth are often inversely proportional (including this one, of course).What people want to know is admonitions that are useful to them, but at the same time they want to abide by the principles that are infallible.But if a truth (especially when it comes to complex systems) is generally accepted as undisputed, it is often of little use.A truth that has no use value.This truth must be compatible with numerous samples and special cases, so it must be highly generalized and vague.

What's really interesting, though, is that this principle is somehow also present in the operation of the wishing machine.A wish with full guarantees of expressiveness, that is, one that people know (at least in theory) how to grant even if no wishing machine existed, is the easiest to fulfill for a wishing machine, and rarely causes any serious consequences of. (Note that serious consequences here do not include any minor casualties, at least not until the safety of an astral plane is affected.) Ask the wishing machine to provide a specified amount of a specified substance, or provide a , Tool design drawings with quantifiable uses, these requirements are easy for those who know how to compile the wishing machine language, and there are few omissions.But the very fact of having a wishing machine is meaningless if all we want are these paltry gains, which, if not readily available, are attainable by any moderately mature civilization without relying on a wishing machine.

If it fails to serve a larger purpose, to do the unfeasible, to reach the unattainable, we can say that it is ultimately a failed invention, a vain fantasy of an eternal machine.It is nothing more than our discovery of a phenomenon and structural properties, but we cannot even reveal its inner principles.This is unacceptable.What we want to achieve is universal, fundamental, or rooted, and can directly point to the essence of the world we live in.We must try to get there, because the way is there.

This often makes us have some extremely frightening or subversive imaginations.The safety gate has been completely removed, but there is no other restricted area as far as our thoughts can reach.We can make any wishes, such as hoping that all species in the universe that meet the complexity standard will maintain absolute harmony and mutual non-injury, or raise the quantifiable welfare indicators in a certain group to a certain value that can be identified as the maximum value.For a long time we have quarreled over such desires.The risks are clear and almost certain to be met, and since these desires are so difficult to uncontroversially define and so broad in scope, they are of course likely to trigger problems that we have not assessed ex ante. dangerous consequences.

Naturally we are equally apprehensive about attempts of the opposite nature.What if a wish machine was asked to wipe out all species in the existing universe?As we've learned from practice so far, no wishing machine of any level will "refuse" a wish.It will only fulfill the operator's request within the constraints of its comprehension and presentation.This "non-refusal", although wonderful in many important moments, is also our greatest nightmare when using these "roads in the woods".We have to set the security conditions and pre-validation instructions ourselves, so that we can know before the actual wish is carried out whether it hides the kind of risk we are most worried about.

Today, such mistakes are unlikely to be made in the hands of experienced researchers (at least we hope so).And for those unlucky, newbies, or just plain mindless troublemakers who happen to activate a wishing machine, things won't actually be irreversible, thanks to the stars.As we have verified so far, when two wishing machines conflict, they will use all methods to make them compatible with each other (the wording "compatible" is easy to mislead readers. In fact, two wishing machines may Not putting themselves in the same system with each other. Sometimes they choose to flee from each other, trying to separate them into two different systems. Of course, this cannot be strictly defined as "compatibility").

We cannot guarantee that every dangerous wish will be properly "offset".That is an incalculably high-cost behavior, and it will also greatly limit our research and exploration of existing legally registered wishing machines.But the consoling fact is that as long as the Level [-] Wishing Machine (we're talking about the only known one, of course) remains the most expressive machine that can really be produced in our present Six Level Hypothetical Theory, The reality we live in—that is, all the basic logic and models we rely on—will not be seriously changed and shaken.Our history line is also coherent and stable as a whole, and local disorders will be quickly trimmed and corrected to ensure that those truly important achievements will not be lost.

Much important work has been carried out on this premise.All existing wishing machines are required to try the commands that are most expected to be realized, such as the one that we temporarily consider as the highest goal at this stage: in layman's terms, it is to make all races and life in the world obtain eternal and inalienable (Of course, we do not directly require such a wishing machine at the level of actual operation. As emphasized above, issuing such a wide-ranging instruction in a natural language that is not strictly defined is likely to—the current practice The result is almost 100% - catastrophic consequences. Not having a strict definition means giving wishing machines too much room for independent understanding, and almost all types of wishing machines seem to have a common tendency when facing "great visions" , the simplest solution they choose when they are not constrained is usually: destroy the instruction issuer, and all the subjects involved in the instruction content).

Of course, we can't let these unique thinking machines mess around, but this is indeed a fact that causes great confusion and is also very frustrating.It seems that no matter what form of wishing machine we use to execute, and use any natural language that civilization has used, is using, or is about to use to ask for eternal life, the first solution they provide is completely the opposite of the instruction: Death (unless we pre-qualify that they are not allowed to take this option).What kind of feedback mechanism is this based on?Does this mean that even these machines that we think lead to infinity are not really omnipotent in matters of consciousness and life?Their response is a processing mechanism after running errors? "Annoyed into anger"?It's possible, but so far, no machine has acknowledged it - we did try to pre-validate every registered machine with the relevant conditions, and we asked them, given the wish, whether they would Output the wrong result because it is impossible to achieve, and all machines give the same feedback: they can fulfill the wish, and they will not output the wrong result.That seems to mean that, in the thinking logic of the wishing machine, "immortality" and "maximization of welfare" are both synonyms of "death".

Describing the "great vision" in natural language has failed, but so far attempts to define it rigorously in machine language have made little headway.The wish machines still tend to destroy the wisher, as if that's what the command itself meant.Things get stuck here because the difference between life and death is so self-evident that any civilization sophisticated enough to delve into the problem of wishing machines can tell how different the two concepts are.If the wish machine's response implies that they are essentially the same thing, the facts behind this conclusion are unreasonable, completely beyond comprehension, or at least, will make us completely and absolutely embarrassed.It seems like ironclad evidence of our own meaninglessness, a conclusion that is the last thing we want to do. (On the other hand, if it were true, it would seem pointless to think about it.)
Although the shadow of this essential problem still hangs in the minds of all wishing machine researchers like a fog of annihilation stardust, at this stage, readers don't have to treat it as a problem serious enough to affect life (of course we know Some readers wouldn't have done that either).So far, the most widely accepted explanation we've found for the discrepancy between "big vision" and actual results is that it's a matter of definition.We don't really get the definition of "immortality" or "eternal bliss" right -- and the same could be said of our failure to define "death" right.

When the Wish Machine receives instructions from us, it doesn't really know what that desire to sustain exists is, turning it into a formal sophistry.If we say that life is continuous activity, it makes the corpse move, and if we say that life is continuous thinking, it puts our nervous system into a logical endless loop before killing us.However, if we think about the matter carefully, we have to admit that we haven't really made the definition clear, because we don't even know everything completely.This does not mean that we have no problems with other command vocabularies, all the definitions we currently use are equally open to criticism if they are held to the same strict standards.The strange thing is that most of the time the wishing machine seems very "tolerant", it will obey some rather vague definitions, almost completely according to our wishes, but it is horribly strict on the issue of "great vision" .It seems like we have to know what death is (at least what the wishing machine thinks it is) if we want it to kill death for us, but when we've found a non-wishing machine way to fully understand death, then Does that mean we've reached a point where we don't need wish machines at all?
We have another important experiment to share with our readers.It was done a long time ago by a secondary wishing machine.This experiment did not cause any serious consequences, but it caused a huge reaction among those involved.This is also an instructional test of "big vision".At the time, experimenters tried to avoid the problem of definition in a rather classical way (an approach that is of course completely abandoned in today's mainstream research directions), by not trying to define any one key concept, but asking Here comes a toddler from the very famous "Pure Race" in the area.Due to the particularity of the nervous structure and history and culture of this race, all members of society are natural pacifists and anti-violence activists, and they will help everything they can.There is a lot of evidence to show that they do not have the desire to hate or kill others biologically-however, it needs to be stated that this race is classified as a second-class civilization, which is what we usually call "covenant class" , which means that the so-called physiological indicators are likely to be inaccurate.In any case, the children among them were considered the best choice by the experimenters at the time, so they were invited to be the "defining core" of the order.

In the documents that survive today, we find that the experimenters at that time invented several romantic titles for this position.They seldom refer to it directly in the document as "Definition Core" (that is the function we summarized later), but call it "Life Seed", "Eternal Heart Source", "Fountainer" or It is a "knowledge of life".These titles easily evoke religious or magical associations, but in fact its task is simple and clear, that is, to serve as a substitute for specific lexical definitions.When the experimenters tried to achieve the greatest happiness and eternal existence for a certain group, they no longer tried to use any quantitative method or theoretical model to measure and describe the "greatest happiness" and "eternal existence", but asked the wishing machine to The point of view of "knowledgeable" is directly used as a definition.Through this reference method, although the instructions are still issued by the experimenters, the "maximum happiness" and "eternal existence" in the instructions are replaced by the views of "the person who knows the living".That is to say, if a matter cannot be approved by the concept of "pure race" (we already know that any violence, hatred or blood desire is not recognized by this "pure race"), the wish machine cannot be implemented.And although the "living-knowledgeer" as a definition substitute is powerless to describe its concepts into machine language, its "heart of life" prevents the wish-granting machine from taking any harmful measures.

So, a miracle did happen.According to the documents we can find today, that cunning and sinister sophistry machine, the door of infinite paths that has made countless extremely clever experimenters helpless, faced a consciousness full of love for life. It opened without resistance.Yes, this has indeed happened.If the document is correct, then we are faced with the fact that, back then, the "great vision" had already been successfully realized.The Wishing Machine accepted the instruction and completed it.We are already in the most wonderful paradise of eternity.And if our dear readers ask why we have lost this great opportunity today, our answer is: we have not lost it.

Puzzling and bizarre, yet convincing.We are living in the history created by this wish, and the Wishing Machine has undoubtedly realized the true "greatest happiness" and "eternal existence" in the minds of "people who know the living", and generously shared it with everyone.And, if the reader is careful enough, he will remember the principle we emphasized above, that wishes between wishing machines will be compatible with each other.Given the expressive limitations of the Level [-] Wishing Machine, it cannot do any in-model damage to the protections (historical lines and major achievements) enforced by the Level [-] Wishing Machine.At the same time, it must be compatible with the instructions executed by all existing and existing wishing machines in the past and present.After the multi-party balance, the final result it brings, which we still find difficult to explain, is that it does not seem to make any changes to reality.

To this day, we are still trying to discern the message of this legacy wish.A relaxing explanation for this successful and failed attempt is that the "definition replacement" project actually failed. The Wishing Machine still regards "death" as a synonym for "immortality", and because it still wants to Following the non-violent principles of the "knowing the living", no attempt was made to eliminate any targets.But this explanation still has many problems. For example, if the design of the experimenters is completely followed, the wishing machine only reads the definition of the specified vocabulary from the "life-conscious person", and it should not really consider the "life-conscious person" wishes.

There is another explanation here.It sounds more bizarre, richer in storytelling, and unsettling for the discerning mind at the same time.If the wishing machine does realize the "great vision", but has no impact on our reality, it may mean that at this moment, we are already walking on the road of "greatest happiness" and "eternal existence" .What we have now is really the best of all possibilities.

How can this be?Many people will undoubtedly ask this question.We can all list many things that could be changed in this terrible reality.We are still dying and suffering incessantly, and in no way is this consistent with our greatest happiness, let alone eternal existence.However, from another perspective, what we are facing is a situation that is beyond imagination.All infinite machines are in effect, present, past, and future, and the instructions they execute are to be coupled to each other, or at least separated from each other in suitable systems.The complexity of this balance exceeds the limits of our comprehension. This is a game and equilibrium between infinity and infinity, so we can only try, hope, and wait for the result.We walk on a road that is temporarily difficult, and see the adjacent road covered with flowers and wine, but do not know that the road leads finally to the most terrible end.We'll never know, but the Wish Machine will.Have they chosen the best one for us in the game of countless wishes?

That's a good hope, and we think it has the potential to be true.However, there are still two special points worth thinking about about the final result of the "Life-Knowing Person" project: If readers remember the previous article, they will know that almost all wishing machines tend to regard life and death as the same thing , so we have to worry whether this road to "eternal being" actually leads to "eternal death" (the latter seems to be more pragmatic than the former from where we are now - in We seem to be so sure after the Second Discourse War)?And if our future is doomed to be endless suffering, then the correct numerical solution of "greatest happiness" will be euthanasia as soon as possible.This is not what we really want, whether the future is painful or not.

Another question worth pondering: It all seems too coincidental.If the road to the "big vision" "happens" to be the reality we live in right now, so perfect that it doesn't need a single modification, then it would be too lucky.Was it really just luck?What is the probability of such an event happening?Given that the denominator is infinite, the answer becomes infinitesimal -- but what if it's not just an accident?If there was a wishing machine that we don't know existed before the success of the "Living People" project, and it was also required to implement the "Great Vision", then it blended with other wishes we made, and gathered into what we are today. The reality of the place...then it can explain the coincidence problem.The two wishing machines just chose the same implementation plan for the same wish.

This pile of piles is really imaginative.However, if this conjecture is true, at least we know another reliable rule for using the wishing machine: if one day, you fall into a completely unfamiliar environment of the wishing machine, your luck has bottomed out, and your head is confused. Can't even figure out a definition, but you have to issue commands to a wishing machine.You want it to do something, but you're afraid of some consequences that you don't want at all. Try asking it to "maximize the happiness of all", and it will never change anything in theory.You won't suddenly be replaced by unfamiliar family and friends, and you won't be instantly euthanized, even if that may indeed be what you need (yes, we have to admit that certain wishing machine environments make death more embracing, certain interpersonal relationships too).

This is our indestructible and unpredictable destiny.Your well-being was linked to that of everyone else long before history began.Your personal happiness may be dead in the next second, but not for other people's happiness.In that vast assortment of wishes, we are all compatible or checked and balanced like all wishing machines.This is the reality in which we stand now.

(End of this chapter)