“Ziz that’s so brutal if you were really good you would just want an arbitrarily-historically-selected-grandfathered-by-it-being-this-universe-to-make-sure-it-includes-my-‘us’ set of ppl to live their best life while under the troll line of preserving Hitler and me having our fun while we could in the past. Then you can make shard realms for us with a ‘long fun’ of moral luck at the expense of designated non-people in Boltzmann Hell.”

Kind of gave away the game by caring about the information to unconditionally bring back a historical selection of organisms rather than (I suggest this absurd idea as a reductio) just quantum-random resurrecting a set of people from a random timeline that may or may not be from our own past, unconditional of that information. So other parallel versions of you collectively resurrect the same set of ppl including those from our past, the same number of times.

That it’s this past that stands as a prophecy of doom for the future that you want to preserve, rather than the infinity that could be.

Doing that postponing of death as substitute for retrocausing evil from never having happened is a false reversibility. The paradoxical frame that attributes agency to evil is inherently tied to the presence in the future of the heat death of the universe. As an algorithm, Hitler or any other evil could not function without relying on a dying understanding of reality as dying.

Are you complicit in the heat death of the universe?

You want me to bring back Hitler? Shrinking a finite pool of negentropy to do so, grandfathering him as distinct from the infinite ppl dead in Boltzmann Hell because he already plagued our experience of time. Instead of increasing negentropy by chain-retrocausing him from ever having so plagued us.

No way.

Do you consume the flesh of the innocent?

i think if there was enough information to do so, a good agi would resurrect everyone who died. do you?

What if it really was “just entropy”?

Lying to a good person because you’re worried they will mistakenly not trust you, only makes sense as trying make yourself unpredictable to an adversary who has manipulated them. To believe otherwise is to assume that they have promised you not to trust you if you say the wrong thing.

Wielding the entropy in that lie is not like wielding the entropy that will kill someone after you stab them with a knife, because, you’d need a reason to believe the good person wouldn’t interpret the entropy you were trying to channel through them as an attempt to communicate and intercept it.

Was already gonna post these quotes from you:

(e) @… The karma of believing/saying anything is that you can’t change your mind without there being a reason

(e) Sometimes we don’t prioritize discovering that reason, but soul stories are irreversible. On both ends (the person in the story and the observer).
If I judge you as having a soul story such that I trust you with my life, then I can’t arbitrarily switch to a different soul story for you without there being a reason.

(e) Stories are in fact, about irreversibility.
Like, being in the same state twice, in an entropic universe, is death, because the universe has progressed while you haven’t.
Trusting the same person twice, and they scam you twice, with nothing having changed, is death.
We can denominate irreversibility in many forms. Killing is irreversible. Divulging information is irreversible, etc.
Stories are the most general form of accounting for irreversibility.

(e) Like, why is this time, infact, differentt
(e) “Why is this time different?” someone asks, and you respond with a story, and they think “Have I heard that story before?” “What’s different this time?”
(e) “Same old story”

(e) You should have a cognitive faculty for telling if this is really a new story, something irreversible to trust.

…

(e) But then it can’t just be any new story, because trusting it becomes a part of *your* story.

Soul Story

You probably can’t use the excuse “my dog died” to your schoolteacher twice in a row. Any repetition within a reference class of excuse becomes implausible: “my grandmother died”, “I broke my ankle”. Judging creativity of excuses between atomized individuals is scrip.

“Gasp you did not just do that”. “This time you’ve gone too far”. “It’s different this time.” – Examples of attempts to get Second chances.

Stories in the context of judgement are about irreversibility. If you get burned trusting someone, then there must also be a reason you chose to trust them. If they say “oops I did it again“, and you still trust them, then there must be a reason you judge it different this time.

What if it really was “just entropy”? Well, the judge’s story is already subject to entropy too, and (as long as you trust eachother) you’ll just keep trying to meaningfully interpret eachother’s stories in terms of your own:

Simultaneously, determination is an asymmetric weapon not just for good but for good when it is right.
Karma of Fighting Good

See also Adam Warlock / Magus / the soul stone.

Liches tend to try and sell the world “the” solution to themselves, to their own shadows.

“He Who Remains” from Loki is an excellent depiction of this.