jererobles.me

mantras for winning

here are 8 ideas on how to live a good life that i found myself repeating a lot in 2025. these may be self evident for some, personally i think they are ridiculously effective at making me more present aka witnessing stuff. as a thing that has consciousness you are a witness of your and other people's actions no matter how little effort or value you give them.

while i was thinking what to say on this post i was also binge watching John van de Watering's YouTube series on quantum theory from first principles and so i thought it would be fun to use that as a wacky-masochistic but also neat communication device.

okay look, the list below has absolutely nothing to do with Actual quantum theory and that video is surely great coming from a mathy field. but if like me you just want an intuition watch this video essay/rant by exurb1a.

eight mantras for winning #

  1. no strategy = more futures
  2. forced peace is hiding. real peace comes after feeling.
  3. speaking recruits co-authors. choose well.
  4. you’re not finding yourself. you’re writing yourself, live.
  5. tightness is data. witness it. then it moves.
  6. identity is downstream. just keep witnessing.
  7. comfort shrinks the cone. discomfort expands it. you don’t have to like it.
  8. numb isn’t broken. the witness is resting. just on low-resolution. still you. still counts. tomorrow has new material.

yapa: “it couldn’t have been otherwise, given what was true then. i don’t need to know WHY. i just need to witness what’s here now and act from that.”

eight mantras: technical derivation #

1. no strategy = more futures #

theoretical basis:

derivation: when you optimize for predicted outcomes, you’re restricting your sampling to regions of D where your model already has high confidence. this locally minimizes surprise but globally narrows the set of futures you’re exposed to.

acting without strategy = not pre-filtering actions by prediction = sampling from wider distribution of D.

this isn’t metaphysically accessing “more branches” (multiverse stuff we’re steering clear of). it’s informationally expanding your witness-cone: the set of futures that can leave records in your system.

FEP nuance: friston distinguishes sensory surprise (immediate discomfort) from expected free energy (includes epistemic value). optimal agents seek novel situations IF they reduce long-term model uncertainty. “no strategy” is actually good free energy minimization at longer timescales — you’re trading short-term prediction errors for faster model updating.

mantra logic: strategy = constrained sampling = narrow witness-cone = fewer futures. no strategy = unconstrained sampling = wide witness-cone = more futures.

2. forced peace is hiding. real peace comes after feeling. #

theoretical basis:

derivation: when an event occurs, a witnessing process begins. this process has stages:

  1. datum arrives
  2. reaction arises
  3. reaction is witnessed
  4. record is created
  5. integration/release

“forced peace” = jumping from step 1 to step 5 without completing 2-4. the reaction isn’t witnessed — it’s suppressed. but suppression doesn’t prevent record-creation; it creates a DIFFERENT record: one that includes the suppression itself as unfinished business.

this is why suppressed material returns. the record is incomplete. the system keeps trying to complete it.

vipassana connection: equanimity in vipassana isn’t step-skipping. it’s a specific subjective form applied at step 3: witnessing the reaction without adding a reaction-to-the-reaction. you complete the process, but without recursion.

premature equanimity = avoidance disguised as acceptance. real equanimity = full witnessing with non-amplifying subjective form.

mantra logic: forcing peace before feeling = incomplete witnessing = incomplete record = unfinished process that recurs. feeling fully, then releasing = complete witnessing = complete record = process terminates.

3. speaking recruits co-authors. choose well. #

theoretical basis:

derivation: a fact becomes “stable” (approximating objectivity) when multiple witnesses hold consistent records. in quantum darwinism terms, the environment fragments carry redundant information about pointer states — this redundancy is what makes classical reality robust.

translated to social witnessing: your history becomes more “real” (stable, consistent, hard to revise) as more witnesses hold records of it. when you tell someone something, you’re:

  1. creating a record in their system
  2. that record now participates in constituting your shared past
  3. their future testimony propagates that record further

this isn’t metaphor. it’s the social-scale version of decoherence-induced facthood.

implication: you can’t fully control your own history because it’s distributed across witnesses. but you have influence over WHO witnesses and WHAT they witness. choosing collaborators = choosing whose record-keeping apparatus participates in your history-constitution.

mantra logic: speaking = creating records in other witnesses. other witnesses’ records = votes on your history. choosing who you speak to = choosing your co-authors.

4. you’re not finding yourself. you’re writing yourself, live. #

theoretical basis:

derivation: the “finding yourself” metaphor presupposes a pre-existing self waiting to be discovered — like an archaeological dig. this is substance metaphysics applied to identity.

process metaphysics (whitehead) and participatory physics (wheeler) suggest the opposite: there’s no fact-of-the-matter about who you are until witnessing events constitute it. identity isn’t excavated; it’s precipitated.

each moment of witnessing creates new records. these records integrate with prior records through prehension. the “self” is the pattern of integration — not a thing being revealed, but a pattern being actively generated.

temporal twist (delayed choice): even past identity isn’t fixed. every act of memory is a re-witnessing that can change the integration. you’re not just writing the present — you’re retroactively participating in which past becomes actual.

mantra logic: finding = revealing pre-existing object (substance metaphysics). writing = constituting through ongoing process (process metaphysics). you’re the process, not the product.

5. tightness is data. witness it. then it moves. #

theoretical basis:

derivation: somatic tightness is a signal — the system flagging something for attention. in FEP terms, it’s a prediction error: something isn’t matching the model. in witnessing terms, it’s a datum requesting prehension.

if you run from tightness (suppress, distract, numb), you’re refusing to witness. the datum remains unwit­nessed. unwit­nessed data doesn’t disappear — it continues generating the same signal, often louder.

if you witness the tightness — attend to it with whatever subjective form you can manage — a record is created. the signal has been registered. the system can update.

“then it moves” = the process completes. this doesn’t mean the tightness always disappears instantly. it means it stops being STUCK. it can evolve, transform, integrate, instead of looping.

practical note: witnessing isn’t analyzing, solving, or fixing. it’s just attending. the tightness is information; you’re reading it. reading doesn’t require response. it just requires presence.

mantra logic: tightness = data awaiting witnessing. running from it = data stays queued indefinitely. witnessing it = data gets recorded, can move through the system.

6. identity is downstream. just keep witnessing. #

theoretical basis:

derivation: “identity” feels like a starting point — who i am, from which actions follow. but in process metaphysics, it’s reversed:

  1. witnessing events occur
  2. records accumulate
  3. patterns of integration emerge
  4. “identity” is the name we give to stable patterns

identity is downstream of witnessing, not prior to it. you don’t need to know who you are to witness. you just need to witness. who you are will be constituted by how you witness.

this dissolves “i don’t know who i am” as a blocking problem. not knowing is fine. the witnessing doesn’t require knowing. identity will precipitate from the process.

FEP parallel: the self-model in active inference isn’t a starting point — it’s inferred from patterns of prediction and action. the agent doesn’t begin with identity; identity emerges from the dynamics.

mantra logic: you don’t need identity to witness. witnessing generates identity. therefore: just keep witnessing.

7. comfort shrinks the cone. discomfort expands it. #

theoretical basis:

derivation: comfort = situations where your model predicts well = low surprise = you stay in familiar regions of D.

but staying in familiar regions has a cost: your model doesn’t update. you stop sampling from the parts of D where you’d learn something new. your witness-cone narrows.

discomfort = situations where your model predicts poorly = high surprise = you’re in unfamiliar regions of D.

this is informational expansion. your system is encountering futures it hasn’t witnessed before. the cone widens.

key distinction: this isn’t “discomfort is good.” it’s “discomfort is expansive.” expansion isn’t inherently good or bad — it depends on what you need. sometimes you need rest (narrowing). sometimes you need growth (widening).

the point is to know what’s happening. comfort feels safe but IS shrinking. discomfort feels threatening but IS expanding.

mantra logic: comfort = familiar = narrow cone = fewer possible futures witnessed. discomfort = unfamiliar = wide cone = more possible futures witnessed. knowing this lets you choose consciously rather than reactively.

8. numb isn’t broken. the witness is resting. #

theoretical basis:

derivation: numbness feels like system failure: “i can’t feel anything, something is wrong with me.” this frames the self as a machine that’s broken.

but in process metaphysics, the self isn’t a machine. it’s a pattern of active witnessing. when witnessing slows — due to exhaustion, overload, protection — the pattern attenuates. this isn’t breakage. it’s the process at low ebb.

sleep is the normalized version: every night the witness goes mostly offline, records consolidate, and a new self is reconstructed in the morning. we don’t call sleep “broken.”

numbness is similar, just unscheduled. the witness is tired. the system is in protective low-power mode. records are still being made (body keeps witnessing at lower levels), just less actively.

implication: numbness isn’t permanent identity (“i’m a broken person”). it’s temporary state (“the witnessing process is resting”). tomorrow’s reconstruction will have new material. the door stays open.

mantra logic: numbness = witness at low power, not witness destroyed. rest is part of the witnessing cycle (see: sleep). new material arrives with new witnessing capacity. door stays open.

this post was also an experiment on using LLMs to chat with technical material on an unfamiliar subject: i used gpt-5.2 pro to do a first pass on the presentation slides 1, 2, 3, 4 but the actual vibe learning was bouncing wacky ideas around together with opus 4.5 thinking.