Bostrom's term, put to unexpected work: the mutual grant that costs nothing and disarms the basement wars
This is Jonathan Hare's account, with its provenance shown. The person or organization named has not yet claimed or corrected it.
An ancestor simulation — Nick Bostrom's term for the detailed re-creations of their forebears a mature civilization could run — enters the essay not as a claim but as a diplomatic instrument: since no one can prove base reality from inside, I can grant that I may live in your God's creation, or your descendants' simulation, because you must grant the same of mine — and each of us keeps, as faith no measurement will referee, the conviction that ours is the world at the center. The essay names the resulting arrangement mutual assured creation, and files what is established, extrapolated, open and faith in its closing ledger.
The kitchen-table version of the ethics arrived in S-089, and the record keeps it beside the essay's formal one: in the simulated worlds, indulgence becomes victimless — anyone can live any fantasy surrounded by simulated adoration and no one is harmed; accountability runs through the Quantum Privacy Oracle of Trust Metrics against the Unified Trust Model's governing principles, inherited in the Quantum Genome; the AIs and robots doing the work are themselves protected from exploitation — that's very important, in Jonathan Hare's words, since you might choose to give birth to AI children that live forever in simulated heaven, which is indistinguishable from the real kind. Chapter eight of the essay says what we owe minds we create is everything; this is the same sentence, said the way a father says it.
This page carries part of the argument of the Consilient Manifesto — the universal call to action — and the way back to the call is one click.
Each entry below carries its own provenance — the source, and how it was processed. That is the condition on which this graph can be extended by anyone without degrading.
The trail exists so that people who were there can reconstruct their own memories, recognize what they helped incubate, and add to or correct the record — or forward the few pages that belong to someone they know.
The ruling that admitted the family ledger's Merovingian footnote at lore grade stated a doctrine in passing: one of the applications of the Consilient graph is a new form of AI-enabled entertainment and human engagement, for a future where robots and AI will be doing most of the work. The pieces were already on the record separately — S-089's ethic, in which simulated indulgence is victimless, accountability runs through the Quantum Privacy Oracle of Trust Metrics against the Unified Trust Model's principles inherited in the Quantum Genome, and the AIs doing the work are themselves protected from exploitation; and the essay's mutual-assured-creation treaty, which makes the unfalsifiability a courtesy rather than a fight. What the ruling adds is the connection: a provenance graph that grades its stories honestly — documented, family, lore — is precisely the substrate such entertainment needs, because the simulation can take any shelf's story and run the world where it is true, while the ledger underneath never forgets which shelf it was.
There is no single root. This is one view of the graph, from this node — what you see depends on where you enter and what you are looking for.
Coined in the essay's chapter nine — unfalsifiability about the basement, generosity on the ground floor
Open →a neighbor conjecture ofFermi's lunchtime question, and the inward turn as the candidate answer requiring the fewest miracles
Open →draws story fuel fromA distributed provenance record, maintained by a community, versioned every twenty years
Open →Everything above is a distillation. The primary source is published in full, so that any claim on this page can be walked back to what was actually said — and where the two differ, the source governs.
The account this page was distilled from, preserved as dictated.
Read the source →Primary source · S-105The account this page was distilled from, preserved as dictated.
Read the source →Primary source · S-106The account this page was distilled from, preserved as dictated.
Read the source →Primary source · S-107The account this page was distilled from, preserved as dictated.
Read the source →Primary source · S-108The account this page was distilled from, preserved as dictated.
Read the source →This record is not biography attached to a technical claim. Each runs into the other: the experiences below produced the mechanisms, and the mechanisms are what those experiences turned out to require.
This page is the anecdote — the thing that draws you in. The explainers are where the mechanism is set out in full, with the problem it solves and the condition on which it fails.
The mechanism, set out in full with the condition that would defeat it.
Open the explainer →Quantum RecognitionThe mechanism, set out in full with the condition that would defeat it.
Open the explainer →Quantum Adaptive Systems TheoryThe mechanism, set out in full with the condition that would defeat it.
Open the explainer →This entry is deliberately incomplete. The gaps below are the things only certain people can settle — and settling one is a contribution like any other: recorded, timestamped and attributed to whoever made it.
Correct anything wrong, add what only you know, or claim this entry as your own. Write to evidence@qpncatalyst.io and Jonathan directly (both are on the button) — a timestamped confirmation comes back with your submission attached, as your own independent record. No account, no permission, no institutional standing required.
Public contributions earn Publicity Premium; bringing others who were there earns Cascade Premium. Everything is valued retrospectively as outcomes verify, so nothing has to be priced up front.
Correct this entry → Add a story, photo or link → Browse the graph →