Month: July 2025
Simulation Theory
The new Matrix movie comes out soon, and I honestly can’t wait. As a senior in high school when the first Matrix came out, it likely had something to do with my mild interest in philosophy and contemplating big thoughts. Of course the question of reality is really as big as they come, and it was something I had thought about occasionally growing up.
Computer rendering had really just started to get interesting early on when I was in high school, and I had started doing some (unimpressive) work with it as I taught myself autoCAD in my school’s drafting lab. Sometime around then I remember sitting next to a lake, looking at the complexity of light bouncing off the small waves and ripples, and wondering how long it would be before such complexity and realism could be rendered in real-time, and could it be immersive enough to become seemingly real.
And then the Matrix came out.
Of course there was Plato’s cave, but while the concept was interesting, the true alternate reality provided by the Matrix was definitely far more interesting. Stepping aside from a forced simulated reality as present in the Matrix, the entire concept as a place to explore and build was very intriguing.
Several years later, I care across an actual argument for why we are most likely in a
simulation by Nick Bostrom. The arguments seemed pretty solid to me and went something like:
- If beings like us don’t get killed off before
- having the ability to create concious simulated beings.
- If we decide that we dont want to create create simulated concious beings.
- Then chances are we’re simulated beings.
The argument comes down to the ability for simulated beings to construct their own conscious simulated beings. Once that happens, you could have an incredibly large number of simulated beings, at which point just purely from a statistical standpoint, the odds aren’t good that you’re one of the original, non-simulated beings.
I think the interesting thing about the way the argument is structured, is that as soon as we create simulated beings, it means that we are almost certainly simulated beings as well since points one and two will have been proven wrong.
Honestly, I strongly believe that we’ll someday create artificial intelligences that are concious, which makes me think that there is a pretty good chance we’re simulated.
The only ways out of this that I can see is that perhaps it isn’t possible to create concious beings in non-bioligal ways, and if are there any other options besides the three given in the original argument that we’re just not seeing.
Usually when this topic gets discussed, our ability to create “real” looking environments is part of the discussion. That however isn’t really important. The reality that the simulated beings reside in could be far different and simpler than our reality – it just has to be internally consistent and not give away its true nature no matter how deeply its inhabitants examine it.
At first, It would seem as though with each level of the simulation, things would be simpler than the upper level, However, I don’t really think that has to be the case. An interesting thought is if base reality is relatively simple, and the creators of nested realities choose to make some of their simulations more complex, more rich, or more beautiful. It would be interesting to see how those choices evolve through subsequent simulations into even more interesting or beautiful simulations.
As an atheist, I find the simulation theory interesting, since it is in some ways a direct challenge to that. There would be a creator the simulated universe that I inhabit, perhaps even an afterlife. As an atheist, I’ve always actually acknowledged that the could be a creator, it’s just that the odds of that are extremely low (especially the gods who have characteristics like those described in the world’s popular religions).
However, I actually think that there is a decent probability that the simulation theory could be true, so I guess my the chances that we have a creator has drastically risen. Still, at the top of the stack of simulated universes is a natural world, most likely with beings and a universe that has arisen naturally and without a god.
Either way, whether we’re in a simulation or not, I think I’m ok with it. In some ways, it doesn’t really matter all to much – there is still much to learn and explore regardless.
Subsidizing Parking Garages
When a new apartment building went up in the neighborhood, it didn’t take long for the complaints to start. At the center of the backlash: the building was approved with no parking included.
There are plenty of good reasons to remove parking requirements — especially in a city like San Diego, where housing costs have skyrocketed since the pandemic. Making it easier for developers to build new housing should be a priority. By eliminating parking requirements, developers can maximize the use of limited space, lower construction costs, and ultimately create more affordable housing units. This flexibility allows for faster development and a better allocation of resources, helping to address the city’s housing shortage more effectively.
But at the same time, the concerns are understandable.
People have cars. And while we should be working to reduce car dependency and increasing housing supply, the reality is that people do, and will continue to, own personal vehicles for the foreseeable future.
Publicly funding parking garages could offer a practical solution. There are several reasons to consider this approach:
- Bridge the Gap Between Urbanists and Residents.
Removing the requirement for parking in new buildings deepens the divide between
neighborhood citizens and those advocating for denser, more walkable cities. In many cases, it seems to be creating more people opposed to responsible city development—people who might otherwise support new housing. - Reclaim Street Space for Better Uses
We could reallocate space that’s currently used for parking. Instead of strips of parking along the sides of streets, we could have small parks, walking paths, and restaurant patios. All of this becomes more possible with more parking garages. - Treat Parking as (Responsible) Infrastructure
We have always invested in city utilities that make if possible to provide housing to citizens. Funding parking garages just does it more responsibly. Instead of using tax-payer money to build more freeways, roads, and streets, which just makes for more sprawl, let’s instead invest that money in garages, where the result would be higher density and walkable neighborhoods. - Incentivize Better Land Use in Suburban Areas
In lower-density neighborhoods and commercial zones, public garages could be a tool to encourage the conversion of surface parking lots—like those around big-box stores—into housing, green space, or other community assets.
The chorus of urbanists is likely to argue that parking garages are unattractive. While that may be true in some cases, they don’t have to be. With thoughtful design, parking garages can seamlessly blend into the urban landscape, incorporate ground-floor retail, or even be hidden behind other uses, such as housing or office spaces.
If we want to build more housing, reduce sprawl, and create cities that work for everyone, we need to meet people where they are. Publicly funding parking garages might not be the perfect solution, but it could be a practical one. Especially if it helps make housing more abundant, our neighborhoods more livable, and our streets more human-centered.
Non-Quantifiable
Last night we took our eleven-year old child to listen to a ranger-led presentation while visiting
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Over the years we’ve attended numerous talks like this at various national parks and monuments throughout the western US. Along with thinking about how I would personally survive in harsh desert conditions (which is what the talk was about), I was also thinking about the current state of the nation.
At this very moment, the Republicans are annihilating funding for everything from NIH funds (which provides funding into things like cancer research) to providing aid (and likely political stability) to impoverished people around the globe. For all I know, ranger-led talks like the one I attended are next on the chopping block.
Now that we’re decimating programs that I personally think are important, I’ve been thinking more on why we should or shouldn’t be funding them. I’ve seen several studies and proclamations on the financial return on NIH funding, but other programs I feel are less quantifiable. And perhaps the conservatives have a point. Perhaps we shouldn’t be investing in programs where we can’t know if we’re actually getting a return on the investment. The ROI on the ranger-led talk that I attended is probably pretty difficult to compute. I could see talks like that inspiring children to become scientists, to teach them to be curious, and to care about the world around them. But how do you get a number for the economic return on such possible outcomes?
I’m assuming that to me, whatever the cost is, its probably minimal enough that in my opinion, its worth it. And I think that’s what is missing in the (non) discussion abut brazenly cutting government expenditures. How much is each individual person actually paying for these various programs, and is that expense worth it? The expense to each of us is very likely very minimal for most of these. If my total tax bill to fund USAID is ten cents per year, I’m definitely ok paying that amount to provide food and medical support to those around the world less fortunate than me. In fact, it makes me feel good to know that I’m supporting good acts in the world. Similarly, if I’m spending a few cents per year so that a ranger can inspire young kids, where there is even a slight chance of some positive outcomes, I’m personally completely fine paying that.
Perhaps there are many that aren’t ok paying a few cents per year, or perhaps the actual cost makes it so that it’s understandable for not supporting such programs. But the lack of actually knowing the cost, or thinking about it in a logical, well-reasoned way is just irresponsible.
Update:
I did look into the numbers more deeply. For the average taxpayer in 2023, $156 was paid to fund USAID, and $103 went to fund the National Park Service. Personally I’m happy to pay those amounts for these programs.
Neighborhood Government
I dream of little neighborhood parks and nicely landscaped walking paths. More places to play with my child; throwing a football, frisbee, or shooting hoops. I’d love to see more trails winding through San Diego’s wild canyons, with random benches and quiet spots to relax. And maybe most importantly, I wish it were easier to be involved with my neighborhood and city.
There are many small, localized improvements that could enhance daily life, but they are often too specific to justify funding through the broader city budget. This highlights a potential gap in the current system—perhaps what’s missing is a level of government focused specifically on neighborhood-scale improvements: a kind of neighborhood government.
In some ways, it could work like a homeowners’ association. Residents could choose to tax themselves to fund things like new parks, landscaping, or community enhancements. But it could also go further than an HOA, giving people a way to shape policy and engage with city government from the ground up.
I do technically have a city representative. But their district is huge, and it’s hard to feel personally connected at that scale. If neighborhoods functioned as their own small governance regions, it would be easier to push for local improvements. At the same time, it would make it easier to advocate for larger changes at the city level, since I’d be more engaged and better represented.
And yes, I’m proposing more government, and more taxes. Certainly this isn’t for everyone, and honestly even in my liberal neighborhood, I would imagine it would be a tough sell. But there may be small, incremental ways to move in this direction. And since the changes would happen at a more local level, the return on those taxes (investments) could be more immediate, visible, and meaningful.
Creating a neighborhood-level government could bridge the gap between residents and city leadership—empowering communities to make meaningful local improvements while strengthening civic engagement across the city as a whole.
Furniture
Furniture should play a larger role in homes. It has, for perhap’s it’s entire history, been relegated to being isolated objects to fill our empty living areas, utilized for creating places to sit, store things, to hold other pieces of furniture. It has been used to fill space, when in fact it should be used to make space.
I sift through dozen’s of apartment floor plans, envisioning myself filling the spaces. There seems to always be something wrong, something that splits and shatters the view of myself inhabiting a space. Generally it’s a wall. We are dictated in how we live — fragmented existences determined by the simple act of placing two lines on a sheet of paper (or more recently within a computer), signalling to those building the space to put in a wall. Usually when I inhabit that space, I want that wall six inches to the left, or five feet. Or not at all.
Yet I’m stuck with it, contorting my existence to conform to its existence.
Furniture can provide a much better means of partitioning off uses. Let the inhabitant decide how best to use the places that they inhabit. I want totally blank. No walls, no fixed cabinets, no fixed countertops. I want to rent or buy a blank canvas. I want to move in walls and place them where I see fit with as little attachment to the permanent as necessary.
I want to select from a catalogue of furniture. Cases used to make walls, but also utilized for other purposes. Bookshelves, cabinets, beds that slide into, or fold up into the cabinet, kitchen cabinetry, refrigerators, ovens. Maybe some are just planes that act strictly as walls. Everything movable, reconfigurable.
There would be many advantages to this approach. We would produce less waste — remodels would require only moving in different pieces of furniture, not tearing out walls and smashing drywall with sledgehammers. Energy consumption could also be less, with people being able to more fully utilize less space, and reconfigure it over time. We could also be happier — dictating how we live within our homes, instead of conforming to them.
Small Ribbons of Wild in the City
In the far northwest corner of Portland lies one of the largest urban parks in the United States—Forest Park. Years ago, I was fortunate enough to live right on the edge of this tree-covered paradise. Out the back door of our apartment, a trail led straight into the park, where countless other trails branched and twisted through the forest. Out the front door, city streets bustled with shops and trendy restaurants.
While I was fortunate to live in that perfectly placed apartment with access to urbanity and the wild, Forest Park is accessible to several neighborhoods of urban character. It’s even accessible from downtown Portland, but it takes a little more effort, requiring you to thread your way through concrete and traffic for a mile or so.
From downtown, it becomes apparent how stark the contrast is between the city’s concrete landscape and the forested sanctuary on its edge. One can easily imagine the soft dirt trails of the park extending into downtown—offering not only a more forgiving surface for runners and walkers, but small oases in contrast to the hard-surfaced urbanity. Those paths could meander and wind, weaving back and forth through whatever space we could make available for them. Ferns, trees, and other native plants could buffer the trails from concrete, and further pull the wilds into the city core.
My mind naturally wants to push the idea further, to create larger intrusions of nature into the city. And those may or may not be feasible, but certainly, and especially for a city like Portland, the vision of trails and nature growing into the city seems tantalizingly possible.