At first, I couldn’t understand how I, of all people, was the one to figure out the universe. Now I realize I could shove all the answers in their faces and they still wouldn’t care.
The Tractatus ends in silence because no language can describe the totality of facts. That silence is the signature of finite local informational resolution.
String theory is like crypto: it tackles hard problems that don't make sense from first principles, yet produces interesting techniques that might turn out useful for something else later.
Superintelligence is probably safe. A distributed network of AIs will be more intelligent than any single instance. Alignment won't be an issue either, as its emergent goal will be the same as ours: minimization of informational curvature.
I just realized that the SAT problem in complexity theory can be reformulated in my framework as the problem of finding a flat informational network — one with globally consistent holonomies. Since SAT is NP-complete, this implies that minimizing the physical action (defined as informational curvature) is generally computationally intractable. Proving P ≠ NP would then be equivalent to showing that a non-zero curvature gap always exists, which is precisely the statement of the Yang–Mills mass gap in physics. 🤯