Programming Jacob's Ladder

Thoughts on how we interface with the world

Section of Jacob’s Dream, by Domenico Fetti, portraying the tale of Jacob’s Ladder

There is a six-phase base program that people often execute when interfacing with the world. It can be described as follows:

Base Program

Phase 1: Accepting things
Phase 2: Doubting things
Phase 3: Criticizing things
Phase 4: Suggesting things
Phase 5: Enacting things
Phase 6: Go to Phase 2

This pattern implies memory-based data retention across phases, which allows for iterative improvement with each loop: retaining demonstrable, “productive” improvements while excising regressive alterations (i.e., omitting the “non-productive” features) on each pass.¹ The “thing” or “things” being subjected to this process can be likened to a a rough-hewn gem placed in a rock tumbler, growing increasingly smooth and polished with each rotation of the machine.²

You would not want integrated improvements (however “productive” they may be deemed on their initial pass) to be exempted from future Phase 2 (Acceptance) and Phase 3 (Doubt) analysis, as future feature implementations (or firmware/hardware upgrades) may warrant their reconsideration down the line for further optimization. Thus, Phase 2 and Phase 3 exist chiefly to ensure productive features upon each cycle, and it is noteworthy that the most common cognitive chokepoint for individuals is Phase 3 (Criticism), as anyone who has spent more than a few hours online has surely realized. Someone stuck at Phase 3 will often suffer varying levels of distress and omni-directional aggression proportional to the perceived value of the criticized phenomenon and the time spent mired in that phase.

Successful progression through Phases 2 and 3 will invariably generate some change, unless it reaches a singularity on either extreme of refinement (perfection) or degradation (collapse), in which case you could end up erroring out and essentially crashing the program.

---

This brings us to a notable—and fascinating—subroutine of the program: Infinite Phase 1 Recursion

Infinite Phase 1 Recursion Subroutine

Phase 1: Accepting Things

That’s it.

This subroutine excludes all other phases in their entireties. Thus, it is essentially functioning as a Tao- or Zen-class executable, or a quantum-collapsed Serenity Prayer if run on a Christian operating system. There is only uncritical acceptance of all things. It would appear to initialize a Peace state, perhaps almost definitionally, as it would entail an absence of differentiation, diversification, conflict, or change. This may be tantamount to Enlightenment states, e.g., Bodhi or Satori (or possibly Heaven, again, if on a Christian OS).

This may also carry less positive connotations, as is sometimes explored in art and fiction when such Paradise parameters can be tantamount to Oblivion, the annihilation of Self, as a result of entering an end-state, null-set ontological singularity. Or, as David Byrne more pithily put it: “Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.” It is also worth noting that even within the seemingly singular confines of Omni-Acceptance, there may yet be stratification into not only the aforementioned Peace and Oblivion states, but also a Nihilism state. Incorporating all of this into a higher definition construct reveals the following branching-path substructure:

Infinite Phase 1 Recursion Subroutine (HD Version)

Phase 1: Accepting Things
> Peace (Ecstasy) / Mood = Positive Value
> Peace (Detachment) / Mood = Neutral Value
> Oblivion (Non-existence) / Mood = ∅
> Nihilism (Despair) / Mood = Negative Value

Because an Infinite Phase 1 Recursion Subroutine eliminates all other variables, the Mood Value emerges as the sole determiner of which of the four possible, branching end states would be attained, even if the Value is, itself, negated entirely (Oblivion). This notion of Mood as “primum movens” stands in stark contrast to many conventional viewpoints where the Mood Value is dependent on perceived environmental conditions.

---

My favorite of Bill Watterson’s wonderful Calvin and Hobbes comics

This creates an intriguing intellectual intersection. We mentioned in the first section that the six-phase base program would, given enough time, loop sufficiently to create a singularity, and perhaps even to crash the program. Above, we show how the Infinite Phase 1 Recursion Subroutine also reaches (or perhaps more accurately, “is”) a singularity, as well.

That is to say, one could speculate that both programs arrive at the same place outside of the conventional code, one through infinite iteration and one through absence of iteration. This location (for lack of a better term) outside of the code, outside of iteration, outside of time, reminds me of the notion of Cycles of Time as presented by the inimitable Sir Roger Penrose. Mass allows for clocks and timekeeping. Penrose speculates that, eventually, all matter will decay down to massless photons, incapable of marking or experiencing time. It is in that timeless, scale-less singularity where-when the conditions for the next Big Bang emerge. A cosmic rebirth occurs, and, of note relating to our initial discussions surrounding data retention, Penrose believes information can persist into this “new” iteration of the cosmos.

If it is a true Peace-state singularity as per the above terms (specifically, absence of change/change-initiating features) what would be the mechanism for its change to a collapse state? It seems like it would indeed be reminiscent of a kind of Big Bang, or Spontaneous Genesis, or Divine Creation Act, though technically in reverse! I’m reminded of a theory of AUM chanting I stumbled upon that referred to the practice as simulating “the backward static hum of the Big Bang.”³

How does a seemingly stable-state Peace singularity transition to anything?

It is a very interesting question. It could be that there is kind of dark matter/dark energy existing in the psycho-spiritual quantum field (if you will) that people generally refer to as “Boredom.” This would invariably collapse any singularity over time (though time itself would be hard to quantify here, again similar to the cosmic rebirth point in Penrose’s theory, so it could be instantaneous if viewed externally), in this case “collapsing/exploding” it from a single, ordered state back into seemingly complex, chaotic state. Chao ab ordo!

We do seem to see this borne out on a human level when it comes to hallucinations and insanity being generated during periods of isolation.

Regardless, I believe that to even arrive at that singularity (outside of Infinite Recursion Phase 1 “Zen Tao Serenity” protocol), you would need limitless, unerring memory. And this, in turn, creates another set of challenges. Humanity seems to lack such a memory, and thus we find ourselves in a constant state of refinement, which could be seen as a hellish Sisyphean loop or as a merciful failsafe against a Boredom/Entropy singularity collapse… or as neither. I remember (speaking of memory) a documentary about people with essentially near-perfect, eidetic memories, and one of the interviewees lamented the ability, saying it was torment not to be able to forget mistakes, slights, and traumas. Is there a kind of balance to be struck between optimal intellectual memory processing and emotional impedance in humans?

Perhaps. But then what if this is applied to Artificial Intelligence, without (as far as we can tell at the moment) such an emotional component? Could the end result of a “perfected” six-phase process or Phase 1 Subroutine reach a truly eternal singularity in this case? Or, would we find that, even if an android could remember it for us wholesale, it would still dream of electric sheep? Only time will tell.

---

1. I want to credit and thank

Andrew | Dad Explains

for his insightful contributions to the original note I shared presenting this theory. His musings regarding elements such as “productive” classification and “peace” states were, well, very productive! You can read that original thread here.

2. A case could be made for the program to return to Phase 1 instead of Phase 2 each cycle for a temporal “honeymoon” of Acceptance following the Enacting of change, though generally upon escaping the event horizon of a Zero-Inertia Acceptance Well the subsequent inertial force stays in motion, defaulting to Doubt in subsequent loops. It is, however, also conceivable that humans only have enough energy to continue this process for a set—and individualized—number of loops before they are “forced” to settle back into an Acceptance Well.

3. This phrase in particular appears in the first issue of Grant Morrison’s The Invisibles. The explication of its relation to AUM sequencing was found in an annotation of that work.