One idea how to measure the measure of simulations I had is that it is proportional of the energy of calculation. That is because the large computer could be "sliced" into two parallel if we could make slices in 4 dimensions. We could do such slices until we reach Plank level. So any simulation is equal to finite number of Plank simulation.

Base reality level computers will use more energy of calculations and any sub-level will use only part of this energy, so we have smaller measure for lower level simulations.

But it is just preliminary idea, as we need to coordinate it with probability of branches in MWI and also find the ways to prove it.

Elon Musk almost terminated our simulation.

Simulation is a simulation only if everybody is convinced that they are living real life. Bostrom proved that we are most likely live in a simulation, but not much people know about it. Elon Musk tweeted that we live with probability 1000000 to 1 in simulation. Now everybody knows. I think that it was 1 per cent chance that our simulation will terminate after it. It has not happen this time, but there may be some other threshold after which it will be terminated, like finding more proves that we are in a simulation or creation of an AI.

This, and your links to Lob's theory, is one of the most fear inducing piece of writing that I have ever read. Now I want to know if I have understand this properly. I found that the best way to do it is to first explain what I understand to myself, and then to other people. My explanation is below:

I suppose that rationalist would have some simple, intuitive and obvious presumptions a foundation (e.g. most of the time, my sensory organs reflect the world accurately). But apparently, it put its foundation on a very specific set of statement, the most powerful, wild and dangerous of them all: self-referential statement:

*Rationalist presume Occam's razor because it proof itself *Rationalist presume Induction razor because it proof itself *etc.

And a collection of these self-referential statement (if you collect the right elements) would reinforce one another. Upon this collection, the whole field of rationality is built.

To the best of my understanding, this train of thought is nearly identical to the Presuppositionalism school of Reformed Christian Apologetics.

The reformed / Presbyterian understanding of the Judeo-Christian God (from here on simply referred to as God), is that God is a self-referential entity, owing to their interpretation of the famous Tetragrammaton. They believe that God is true for many reasons, but chief among all, is that it attest itself to be the truth.

Now I am not making any statement about rationality or presuppositionalism, but it seems to me that there is a logical veil that we cannot get to the bottom of and it is called self-reference.

The best that we can do is to get a non-contradicting collection of self-referential statement that covers the epistemology and axiology and by that point, everyone is rational.

If we would apply Elon Musk first principle thinking to the problem of building homes in which we live, how would we build homes? Are there any big companies taken up that challenge?

Bret Victor's "Up and Down the Ladder of Abstraction"?

I have a foggy memory of someone here (I think it was gwern) linking to an article about simulation interface design. It built up examples based on a bird's eye view of a car steering down a road. I haven't been able to find it, anyone know a link to the article?

Are you sure that by "one-to-one" Halmos means "bijective"? A more common usage is for it to mean "injective". (But I don't have NST and maybe he has an unusual idiom.)

Biotest is very reputable (that's my impression anyway) for supplements geared towards weightlifters.

https://www.t-nation.com/store

They have stuff in their "Health" category with broader appeal (Superfood is pretty cool). I've been very pleased with what I've used from them.

I recently learned that chocolate contain significant amount of coffeine. 100g chocolate contain roughly as much as a cup of black tea. As a result I updated in the direction of not eating chocolate directly before going to bed.

I don't know whether the information is new to everyone, but it was interesting for me.

That they advocated reducing fat intake and especially saturated fats, and encouraged grain and carbohydrate intake.