Technology has dramatically lowered information transmission costs, but no-one has yet robustly solved the problem of how to pick good information out from the sea of trash. To solve the problem I think it's important to notice that 1) value is subjective and 2) people are divided. Together they mean that one's valuable information is often trash to someone else. This suggests that no objective ranking of information can robustly solve the problem.
I'm developing a service that is supposed to be the solution. The plan is that the user will be able to like/dislike and follow/unfollow anything in the world, which then allows finding them information that is valuable and reputable — by their own standard!
I'm unable to make sense of a dualist ontology. My intuition suggests that the correct metaphysic is a monist one. Sure, it's clear from my immediate experience that there is 1) a subject, and that there also are 2) objects. These are two different classes of things, traditionally contrasted as the mind and the body. But it's also clear that they have a commonality, namely they both are meaningful things. In fact, any proposition, relation, quality, quantity, thought, perception etc. is meaningful. Only contradictions and absurdities fall outside of the category of Meaning. Meaning is therefore the largest category, including all other categories. Maybe this unique category could then be the correct ontological category. After considering this ontology, falling back to any subset of Meaning, such as physical substance (physicalism), or mental substance (idealism), seems like a dogmatic choice...
It must be meaning itself that the universe is made of!
I hope to ground epistemology, praxeology, ethics and physics in this ontology. No breakthrough yet.
I searched years for the correct theory of ethics. Initially I found some of the libertarian theories promising, but then discovered all of them to be faulty (see the link below for some elaboration). After a lot of struggling I managed to piece together a working argument (link below). I argue that the correct ethic is essentially "Human errors are bad", which, when one takes into account the state of affairs and human nature, expands to a plethora of practical rules. It might expand to an infinite amount of rules. These rules can't be condensed into few practical principles without losing information, like the non-aggression principle or the home-steading principle. However, I think, that in the ideal state of everyone living in truth, one of the rules is the propertarian scheme of conflict avoidance, so libertarianism can be thought of as a necessary-but-not-sufficient condition for the ideal state. But the features of the ideal state don't necessarily inform us about the ideal way to navigate out of the current highly non-ideal and messy world situation...
I've always wanted to make games. I've worked as a programmer on multiple games, and written a few game engines from scratch. I would like to understand how the interactivity of games differs from the interactivity of the actual universe, if at all.
I got a master's degree in theoretical physics in 2019 (University of Helsinki).
This quantum mechanical hydrogen visualization was part of my bachelor's degree. It renders wave functions of the hydrogen atom in real time.