## 1. how is the simulator?

As you might have already heard, we might be in a simulation right now. In this column I describe a test that lays the foundation for a principled approach to estimate properties about the parent existence that is simulating us!

The shit herein is pretty dope and opens new gates to a whole new class of observatories. If you think that the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) was freaking cool, then my shit herein is OMG mega freaking dope cool cool.

### 1.1. how many nested simulations?

IMO, our universe could be simulated in a parent universe, and latter could be itself simulated in a grand parent universe, etc. Look at Figure 1… some ancient dudes had some related thoughts.

### 1.2. what to know about it?

IMO, universes that end up simulating other universes, probably must be sharing something common between them. After all, they are the universes that ended up simulating others.

So, IMO, if we:

1. Simulate many universes, each initialized with randomized physics laws. So each universe seems independent from each other, and our universe.
2. Wait to see which ones end up simulating other universes.
3. Look at those that are simulating other universes, and see if they share unique patterns that non-simulating universes lack.

I mean, imagine if almost all universes that we simulate, that themselves end up simulating others, share some common properties that is only unique among them (but not among universes that don't simulate other universes), won't you then feel that our parent universe is probably more likely to also have those properties? After all it is also one that has simulated another universe (our universe).

### 1.3. problems

We probably can't simulate a rat's ass these days, so all this is wishful thinking that, one day, when computers are powerful enough, we might have better guesses about how might our parent universe be.

But there is certain amount of badass-ness that our universe can't simulate. E.g. our universe can't simulate a universe that can solve problems that are not solvable by Turing machines.

But, still, if we do these simulations, we can possibly end up updating our probability model about our parent universe's properties. Currently, we know nothing. But after those simulations, maybe we could say “welp.. probably it has X!”.

## 2. what is good?

When people debate, they often say things like: $x$ is good, $y$ is not good, why is $z$ good? Etc. Yet rarely ever they discuss the fundamental question: what is good itself? Based on what criteria a thing becomes good?

It is logically impossible for two people to meaningfully debate whether $x$ is good, while them having different definitions of good. If they ever conclude something correctly, it must be thanks to the amount of sheer dumb luck that accidentally served them. As a result, $99.99\%$1 of all debates are useless and cyclic.

To cut the chase short, here is what I think is the best definition of good:

Definition 1. A thing $t$ is good for $x$ if $t$ maximizes $x$'s survivabiliy.

Definition 1 has these nice properties:

• It can be objectively measured! We can use statistics, biology, etc, to measure expected values of how good a thing is!
• All other definitions of good are all dependant on survivability maximization.

You don't believe me? Let's look at other definitions:

The common sense that is proposed in Quote 1 depends on the biological configuration of the people that their common sense is analyzed. The biological configuration, itself, is a function of evolution. As you know, evolution makes use of natural selection, which rewards patterns that have higher survivability.

I know evolution itself is not a confirmed fact, but a mere guess. But come on dude.. it's the best guess we have now. Do you have any better guess?

Therefore, IMO it's fair to say that common sense itself is nothing but a mere parameter that is tweaked by evolution to achieve a higher survivability maximization of the species at hand (in this case humans). See! It came back to Definition 1!

Quote 2 has the same inadequacy problem that Quote 1 suffers. Eventually, the happiness feeling, itself, is also a mere parameter that was tweaked throught the ages, due to evolution, in order to allow mankind to survive better. As you can see, happiness itself seems to be a proxy that reflects survivability maximization. Again.. back to Definition 1!

Quote 3 is possibly true, but, we can't measure/test souls/spirits, or things beyong the measurable world. Therefore, while Quote 3 might be true, we can't use it to verify any hypotheses. As a result, I suggest that it is perhaps better to not define good based on it.

So.. this leaves us with Definition 1 as the the most general/basic measurable definition so far. What do you think? Can you find any better definition than Definition 1?

• 1. Number pulled out of my ass, but I hope you get the point I am trying to convey.

## 3.CaveMark is out!

CavemanCMS, and all articles in this website, currently use CaveMark as their markdown parser. Neat $\LaTeX$-like formatting with little effort!

CaveMark is nice because it:

1. Follows typesetting principles.
2. Is the fastest2 pure-Python markdown parser around. It easily beats mistune in CPython3:

mistune : 18.17786209 seconds
cavemark: 9.386662586 seconds (1.9 times faster!)

in CPython2:

mistune : 19.72612286 seconds
cavemark: 9.484875202 seconds (2.1 times faster!)

in PyPy3:

mistune : 12.31156345 seconds
cavemark: 3.191607327 seconds (3.9 times faster!)

and in PyPy2:

mistune : 8.993317127 seconds
cavemark: 1.470407009 seconds (6.1 times faster!)

• 2. For a Python module, speed, by itself, is not a major criterion in my view. But, I think it reflects how carefully CaveMark is developed.

## 4. cavemancms soon!

CMS = content management system. E.g. thing that manages content in you blog, or site. But they all suck. So I am making the best CMS ever. It's called CavemanCMS.

Usually, existing CMS that are dynamic, e.g. those that allow you to post, and your users to reply in somewhat real time, require you to run a dynamic web server. E.g. maybe FastCGI with PHP/Python, etc. Of course, right?

But here is the magic: with CavemanCMS, you shall have a fully dynamic CMS, yet your website remains fully static. You shall upload all you want, yet your web server will not even need to support anything other than GET requests.

And it shall also be blazing fast. Stay tuned. This shit is awesome. God willing will make some noise. Trust.

## 5. how muscle works

Below is a summary of what I have found so far:

• Muscle stimulation period: Some site (forgot) suggested that the growth-stimulating effect starts hours after a workout, and lasts 24 hours.

But not sure, what's the optimum resting period between workout days for strength, hypertrophy, etc? Gotta search this.. Someone in YouTube said 48 hours (WTF?). Also some site says 48-72 hours.

• Strength vs. Hypertrophy: Someone (on utube) suggested that strength training creates more muscle, while hypertrophy enlarges muscle's appearance by storing more water in the muscle.
• Number of reps: Some paper (forgot where) suggested that 5 reps to failure is good for strength gain, 15 is for puff, 20+ is for endurance.
• Number of sets: Someone (forgot where) suggested that 3 sets training is better than 1 for strength (maximum 1 repetition), and size (circumference of chest and thigh).
• Resting period between sets: Some journal suggests that optimum resting period between sets is: 2-5mins for strength training, 30-90secs for hypertrophy or endurance.
• Extra squeeze: This video reports a study from 2018 that shows squeezing the biceps (they call it mind-muscle connection) allows for 12.4% muscle growth, while the normal (just lifting weights) gives 6.9%.
• Motion range: This video says that full range of motion is good, and what's better is to even use the opposite muscle to further extend the range. E.g. in biceps curls squeeze the triceps to further extend the opening range.
• Isolated forearm: This video reports studies saying that targeting the forearm is better. It suggests these:
• Curl fingers inwards to close the fist, then continue curling the fist in the same inwards direction.
• Curl fingers outwards to open the fist, then continue curling the fist in the same outwards direction.
• Sideways tilt of the fist.
• Pronated Hammer curl (palm facing down).