Some fighting things that aren't said out loud.

 The common sense is that every attack creates some opening. Done correctly it's an opening your opponent cannot exploit, but it goes meta: it's impossible to always pick the unexploitable opening. To attack is to open a hole in your defence.

 You can defend perfectly, but doing so gives up any opportunity to attack. You have to stand too far away to initiate an attack they don't have time to respond to, precisely because you have to give yourself time to respond to all their attacks. You have to bunch up too much to riposte in a dangerous way. As you're standing back, they can carefully plan an attack that has no riposte.

 You win a fight when the opponent makes a mistake. If neither make a mistake, it is a draw.

 Not merely in martial arts. In a gunfight, you can put yourself in a pillbox without any windows, so you can't get shot, in exchange for being unable to shoot back.

 This generalizes to life. You can only win by giving Reality the opportunity to make you lose. If you can't lose, you don't prove anything. You can't gain anything at all. 

Chaos Theory Too Orderly

 Chaos theory doesn't really work. It only allows chaos among basically-identical states.

 If a small effect can snowball, it was going to snowball anyway.

 Mortals have many cognitive deficiencies. If a mortal sees one snowflake cause an avalanche, she thinks removing that snowflake will prevent the avalanche. "Ha ha! I caught it!"

 Then the sound of her voice causes the avalanche. If she manages to stay quiet, a snowflake the next day causes the avalanche. The avalanche was so sensitive that it was going to happen regardless. A small event didn't [[cause]] a big event, a small event [triggers] a big event that has already been set up.

 For a butterfly to knock down a domino and set up a domino effect, someone has to have already set up the dominos. Unless he also takes them down, with effort close to what it took to set them up, squishing one butterfly merely means it's the next butterfly that will knock them down.

 The weather is chaotic because the weather largely doesn't matter. It will balance out. If through [[[chaos]]] it's a hot day here and a cold day there, it will also, later, cause a cold day here and a hot day there. And if it doesn't, it's because it wasn't chaos, it was another inevitable avalanche.

 I mean, you can try to squish all the butterflies, but it's easier to take down the dominos.

 Admittedly, when a bunch of hair-trigger avalanches set each other off in a chain, it can look spectacular. As in, it overwhelms the wetware RAM, consuming the space needed for logic or perspective.

Quantum Cope And Hagen

 Reminder that most quantum woo is merely physicists being deliberately confusing.

 Dear cophenhagen interpretation, what is an [observer]? An [observer] is any interaction. Another quantum particle, also in a superposition, can be an observer. And that's overkill. The particle can observe itself, especially when warm.

 Really. That's it.

 An [observer] is when A bumps into B. Instead of meditating in closed-door isolation. Or, for that matter, when A bumps into A.

 A warm particle forms nodes in the waveform more often, which gives it more opportunities to slam into itself, thus knocking itself out of its own superpositions.



 Did you know? There are essentially no hard videogames. It's the players that are hard. Some players are extremely challenging indeed.
 
 Quantum mechanics isn't hard.

 Quantum researchers are challenging. Especially intuition-challenged...

 I figure they do this because they can't describe what an interaction is. They can tell you that a waveform collapse happens, but they can't describe what happens. They can't tell you why.
 Posturing. Social move, not scientific. Unlike scientists, quantum researchers don't exult mysteries. Like merchants, they cover them up. Researchers too soft. Have to flinch.

 What's the feynmann diagram of a particle knocking itself out of superposition, lol? Lmao?
 P.S. You don't need the double-slit experiment. A single slit suffices, which you'll hear from nobody else. Feel free to wonder why they're making it overcomplicated.

 The theory was named after copenhagen because it's cope. Heisenberg was telling on himself (and snarking on bohr et al).

 Philosophy went bad long before the 1945 catastrophe. Physics was also ahead of its time in places. Makes sense: these are the high-IQ majors. They didn't need to see where the wind was blowing, they could see in advance where the wind was going to blow. They could adjust so they would already be aligned with the wind when it blew.

 At the expense of science. At the expense of truth. Revealed preferences.

Novel Zeno Paradox: The Impossibility of Prediction

 Due to computational overhead, the universe as a whole is unpredictable. 

 The universe as a simple definition is the biggest thing; to predict it would require a computer bigger than the biggest thing. The computer itself would be unpredictable, as it can't predict itself. It would trivialize prediction for the inner universe, as it is now in control of it. The whole universe has been refashioned into the the computer's guts... However, what the computer would control it to do would itself be unpredictable. 

 Put another way, to predict the universe means predicting your own prediction, without knowing the prediction in advance. No matter how you phrase it, it's incoherent. E.g, "I am going to add 1 and 1 to get 2, thus I predict I'll get 2 when I add 1 and 1." Either you don't know you'll get 2, and can't make predictions of this kind, or it's not a prediction, it's a postdiction.

 Let's talk as little as possible about the numerous insurmountable practical, contingent barriers. The computer would somehow have to be fast despite sending signals from beyond the observable universe to the other side, also beyond the observable universe. You can retrodict the universe, see that you could have computed the future before the future, but there's no point since the future will always come before you finish the calculation. Do it the cheap way and just go look. At the quantum level, stuff is inherently uncontrollable, because there's nothing smaller with which to see it without perturbing it. You can't tell where something is without changing how it's behaving thus rendering your own knowledge moot. This is also true of the instrument you're trying to measure with. The way to find out what will happen is to let it happen.

 An unpredictable thing can't be predictable in parts. The unpredictable parts would hit the predictable part, or, equivalently, the predictable parts have to be isolated. Not in fact part of the universe; we found the self-contradiction. Goes double since retrodiction is possible. If an unpredictable part hits a predictable part, you can predict the future path of the unpredictable part. You can work out its past path based on how the predictable part reacted, thus transforming chaos into order. You can predict it in future. 

 If you can predict one solar system, you can put a computer in every solar system, and predict them all. Run it out long enough that there's time to send all the predictions to a central repository, and bam, you've predicted the entire universe all in one place. You can push out more than a year's worth of planetary evolution in a year, so you can always make it long enough to get to the central repository in time.

 If any part is predictable, it's all predictable. But it can't be predictable. Indeed single hydrogen molecules lay waste to the most powerful computers currently conceivable. 

 Yet, it must be predictable. If you can't predict where to get food, you starve to death. Life does not develop. I mean, like, the planets are right over there.
 Prediction is the basis of all control. Can you repeat a motion? Then you can plan to repeat a motion. You can see the past results and predict the future results. If things are themselves, if A=A, then the future with those things will be like the past with those things.

 Somehow, unpredictable things add up to predictable. This happens between psychology and sociology, for example. Individuals are chaotic. Sociology is so easy it's boring. Somehow, each totally invisible atom of a children's ball add up to a downright prosaic ball. 

 Time is impossible, and yet, the future arrives. Time is impossible, and yet, it moves.

The first time rome fell, nobody had any idea it was happening.

 Rome tumbled halfway down the hill and thought they were still at the peak. Going through it a second time, the issue is obvious and simple.

 The romans, incluing the american-romans, got the ratchet of progress stuck in reverse. They forget things, then, having forgotten them, have no idea they ever existed.

 Example: I learned most of my general scientific knowledge from a magazine called [new scientist], but you can't learn any science from science magazines in the year of our satan 2025. Anyone who doesn't already know the science will never know, and never realize that previous generations knew it.

 The mechanism of decline makes decline invisible. Except to anyone who uses an accountant, of course, but accounting is a superpower, with the associated rarity.

 The atlantic used to be a good magazine. Crazy, right? Magazines died in 1900 too, but they were replaced by new good magazines. In 2000, they are not replaced. The romans wait for the replacement, as it was always replaced before, until they forget that a replacement was supposed to be coming. They start waiting for new car factories instead, for example, forgetting all about the magazines.

 In 2008 the american-roman economy permanently entered a lower gear, which means zoomers can see that boomers could afford much larger houses. In 2038 all the boomers will be dead, and the subseqent generations won't be able to see their houses first hand. They will only be able to see that millennials and zoomers are as poor as they are. Decline will be normalized. It doesn't help that voters and peasants only care about relative wealth. They don't have a problem with decline provided a sinking tide lowers all boats. The demand for solutions is low at best.

 It used to be normal for american-romans to be self-employed. Anyone remember the date off hand? Now they're all like, 'muh jerbs.' Oh noes, applying to jobs is a shitshow at the moment...
 Because they were dumb enough to allow employers to dominate the market at all. Englisch.

 Minor, irrelevant advances give the illusion of growth to generations too young to have ever seen a real invention. Example: better dental floss was invented recently. Nobody can point to decline, because the tech has been forgotten. Everyone can still point to [progress]. AI. Wowee.

 AI will totally invent our flying cars, any day now. One says, as if Communist cars aren't toxic waste.

 The roman roads were still there. They were simply unusable due to the combination of banditry and poverty-driven lack of demand. Likewise, it will be a long time before the internet simply shuts off, but it will get less and less useful.
 Much like the library of alexandria, come to think. By the time the christians burned it, there was nothing left to preserve. Likewise, by the time the internet shuts down (except maybe in china), there will be nothing on it worth keeping. The romans will think they're advancing to a new system, having become too wise to need the internet anymore. Like the Amish [advancing] beyond the need for mineral-fuelled tractors.

 Moral: don't use a ratchet of progress. It has [progress] in it, which means it's Satanism. 

   P.S. If you're lucky trump will constitute your east-west split. Europe will continue as a traditional angels-dancing-on-pinheads theocratic dystopian nightmare, while the western empire decays more vigoriously, as a separate administrative unit.

The Inherent Traitor Worship of the Soy Right

 Enemies are honourable. The left is not the enemy, it is the traitor. The so-called right are cultural leftists who agree to be the betrayed. They can't give up Democracy or the government - they can't fail to [conserve] these things. It goes back to the fact taxation is treason. Under Democracy, the betrayed tax-farmed class is supposed to agree to be betrayed. Soyciety becomes a cosmic play and someone has to perform the role of the heel. They're not oppressed, they're cucked. Women and peasants do what they're told, therefore, they agree to get cucked. The show must go on. Until it can't.
 Naturally the taxed are lower class and the taxers are upper class, which is why so-called rightists are stereotypically rednecks et al. Bumpkins, low-university, and so on. [Die in wars] instead of [war profiteering] or declaring wars.
 Again, it comes back to the fact taxation is treason. The very foundation of soyvilization is a cancerous tumour. To be truly right-wing is to fail to conserve the tumour, but instead persecute it like it's a criminal. Which, given it is the foundation or keystone of soyciety, would unavoidably cause collapse.
 No [conservative] has the slightest chance of being right-wing. No [conservative] can be the enemy of the left.

 Re: formalism; to honestly define treason as treason would necessarily delegitimize the treason. The cancerous tumour soyvilization is founded upon inherently relies upon lies. Satan couldn't open with, "Hi, I'm Satan, Father of Lies, and I'm about to peddle a falsehood." Lies have to presented as truth, or they don't work. Soyvilization is inherently informalist.
 Incoherent, you might say. As if it is Nameless.

 To be explicit, it is long past time to discard soyvilization and start over. Never mind the rotten wood, the seed is rotten. Which is why the tree of soyvilization collapses reliably. Everything about soyvilization is twisted around having to justify the unjustifiable. To have an untwisted society, one must conscientiously cleanse one's self of all soyciety. Anything salvaged from soyvilization has to be dismantled and reassembled sans the putrid parasitism.

 Conveniently soyvilization is weak and can't stop you. See: the Amish. You could elect a king tomorrow, and there you go, you have a king, thus a kingdom. 

 Traitors aren't enemies. They're not opponents. If they could fight you straight up they would have done that in the first place. The use of treachery is an admission of inhabiting an untenable position.
 You can just have a kingdom, whenever you want, as long as you're not a [conservative], who can only bow to to power of violent, treacherous taxation. As long as you're not anything silly like a [tory], lol.

Blood Memory of Overproduction

  Democracies suffer immensely from the blood memory of already having supplied everyone with spears.
They call it [overproduction], and you've never heard this issue from a journalist, have you? It's mainstream political science. The idea - which is still current to a fever pitch - is that the factories will make so much stuff the peasants will be satisfied and put themselves out of a job. What if they only have to work 20 hours a week to get everything they want? Or only 10?

 Well...then nothing? This isn't a real problem. But your leaders...excuse me, [[[leaders]]]...including d.trump, absolutely think it is. Because, like everyone else and particularly women, they are still hallucinating a savannah. They still see only 100-150 people. They can't see iphones, they see stone spears. Made by hand. They can't learn new ideas, they only match what they see externally to blood memories, then react to their fugue dreams.

 If everyone has a spear, and they don't scam someone, they're [gasp] gonna have to hunt for their own food. It wouldn't have gone well back then, and consider what happens now to fat, old trump when he thinks he might have to hunt for his own food. Which he can't not think. Mortals are dead, and like all dead things, cannot learn. Everyone will laugh at their hunting efforts, at best. All the skilled hunters are also the best warriors...

Scientist How-to and Study Assessment

  I can read a scientific headline or abstract and instantly tell whether it will replicate. As a bonus, I can tell that science journalists are lying about the science. If it were a study it wouldn't replicate, but the feel is distinct.

 When you look at a study, you can feel its fate. You can learn which feelings mean it replicates, and which feelings mean it doesn't.

 Every professional scientist can do this. To put it crudely, before they seek funding, they imagine a series of hypothetical study abstracts, then choose one based on whether it replicates or not. The real scientists (lost losers) choose the ones that replicate. The ones that get paid the big bucks deliberately avoid studies which replicate.

 Does society need studies at all? No. Soyciety needs studies to tell the real scientists apart from the professional liars. But it's soyciety, so it explicitly selects against the honest scientists. "This one is poolitically advantageous, but it would replicate...can't have that..." A study which replicates is nothing but a shackle to a poolitical operative. Cripples their ability to adjust their strategy.

 Do you need studies? No. You can learn to feel their fates, then do the abstract selection thing consciously and intentionally. There's no need to get funding and so on.
 
 How do you get the right answer? By wanting the right answer. If you can decide to be a kenner, then success is guaranteed. You can learn scientific doomcasting, and do it the easy way. Simply know in advance. Free will is an iron law.

 Which means anyone who doesn't know the Truth has explicitly chosen to avoid it. You can and should bully them mercilessly. If you consider yourself human, they are not. Stupidity is a choice. They have renounced their humanity and have earned all the contempt you might expect. Respecting them is a sin. They don't even want you to. 

 You can deny the above, but if so, it means I'm some kind of world-crushing intellect which makes socrates look like a googly-eyed children's toy. Decision theory is: do whatever Alrenous tells you to do. After I'm dead, your options are get boned, or get fucked.
 I mean, if you really want to commit to that, I won't stop you. However, valve figured out my management style without asking me. So did haier. Re: conquest #1. In C1 areas, musk spends a lot of time doing what I would tell him to do. The evidence is that there's endless wealth for them what wants it. Both financial and mental poverty are engaged in voluntarily.

 I suppose there is one use for studies. As a training aid. When you're feeling insecure about your call, you can get more secure by actually running the studies. These kinds of studies are gut-bustingly inexpensive, though. Not useful at all for government graft.

 I also like the idea of televised live study duels. Find two scientists with opposing views, have a pre-season where they functionally pre-register the study, then commentate the publication reveal like it's the bloody WWF. My favourite part would be watching both of them lose more than 50% of the time. Perhaps they could animate the metaphorical fight where both fighters end up dismembered; the [losing] guy uses his last limb to stab the other one in the heart, then bleeds out.
 Studies are useless scientifically, but would be highly entertaining as sport. 

 "But alrenous, what about when journalists tell the truth about science?"
 "There's a fundamental flaw in your question."