Monday, February 13, 2017

Who Keeps the Laws?

Does they realize this is 100% authentic Steel Anarchism? (Via.)

However, respect for the law does not enforce itself.

At one time there was a place where the respect for rule of Law ran so deep it became true, and Law ruled. A nomoarchy. The King could be tried, and found guilty, and punished. And God's hands reached down and cradled those humble and glorious people. However, this respect did not last, and that land now affords Satan comfortable and well-appointed apartments.

Respect for the law does not propagate itself. The law does not enforce itself. As such, what is Law, from the perspective of the transgressor? Law is whatever the Lawkeeper says it is. If I want the Law on my side, I need a Lawkeeper on my side. I must Secure a Lawkeeper, who in turn must Secure my property.

To Secure my property, the Lawkeeper must have enough weaponry to force other Lawkeepers to respect it.

The problem then is to get a just Lawkeeper. In practice, dire apes are easily tricked, and occasionally directly prefer sick Lawkeepers. As example, American slaves were sold by their Lawkeepers to the Lawkeepers of America, and were primarily slaves as punishment for crimes. If indeed we can hang a werman until dead for transgression of the Law, a fortiori we can merely enslave* him. Indeed, give him the option and let him pick his preference.

(*Any lifelong slaves need to be sterilized.)

The typical dire ape knows nothing of the Law and will never know the Law. It is probably this that killed the respect I saw above. The Lawkeeper bent the Law, said it was not bent, and all agreed. But, inevitably, the bent Law was not worthy of respect, and still ignorant of the delta, true Law and bent Law were discredited both.

Yet, quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Neither can the Lawkeepers be trusted to pick just Lawkeepers.

Saturday, February 4, 2017

Peterson's Truth

Abstract: Peterson is saying we can't know what's really eternally true, so it's pragmatically a waste of time to worry about it. What we can do is arrange our beliefs in such a way as to serve our goals.
When I studied the idea of truth, I found enough constraints on what it could be that I concluded the definition isn't arbitrary. (E.g. the exact boundary of 'red' doesn't have to be in any particular place, but the boundaries of all ideas in the vicinity of 'true' form contradictions unless they're in a particular spot.)

Peterson closely approximates this definition, but fails to explain his reasoning. Like all but a few moderns, he finds discipline impossible, and as a result misuses language. Thus I will explain on his behalf. I will try (but fail) to leave the steelman for another time.

Timestamps will be late & wrong because I'm too lazy to rewind repeatedly.


Let's start with an example, because this topic is fraught with negative knowledge.
Peterson says atomic theory is wrong. What Peterson means is atomic theory is incomplete.

He would say it's irretrievably entangled with moral considerations. I would say you have to not get bogged down in the weeds. You're making a hydrogen bomb, in Peterson's tale, to prove atomic theory, but why are you proving atomic theory? Largely, for sex and survival. Don't get bogged down in the short-term parochial goal of proving a particular atomic theory.

This particular (exploding) proof, according to Peterson's unexamined priors, decreases the odds of survival. It is therefore quite literally fatally incomplete. Much as the belief [ammonia and bleach produce an interesting chemical reaction] is fatally incomplete if I decide to realize the interest of this reaction in closed quarters.

Peterson may or may not believe we should pursue atomic theory or atomic weapons. If he examined his priors and learned some game theory, he would realize it is inevitable.

At no point does Peterson claim or imply that mass is not energy, that electrons don't form a probability cloud around the nucleus, etc. What he's saying is if you try to fly a test plane without a rudder, you'll justify the insurance company's high premium for test pilots. Atomic theory is the lifting surfaces, but morality and consciousness is the rudder that stop you flying into the ground. Engineering can stop the bomb literally blowing up in your face, but it can't stop the existence of bomb technology metaphorically blowing up in your face.


To repeat, Peterson is saying we can't know what's really eternally true, so it's pragmatically a waste of time to worry about it. What we can do is arrange our beliefs in such a way as to serve our goals.

For example, if you're concerned about eternal truth, you start arguing about whether social justice is really 'justice' or some kind of perversion. If you're not, the discussion ends in about ten seconds when you ask, "What is it for?" and then, "Okay, what kinds of things in fact lead to that purpose?" Instead of an interminable Wittgensteinian sin, you end up with a concrete testable prediction. You try the thing and go look and see if it leads to, for example, lower crime and racial harmony, or higher crime and [politics reference redacted]ism.

Because of this, if we run across a theory which is less true in some objective detail, but better for survival, then Peterson says we should adopt this theory, even though it's 'provably' false. (I go into this with the smallpox below.) If the latter theory is better for survival, the previous theory is in fact the more false one. The new theory must have something new and true in it, even though we can't put our finger on it.

Is it really 'justice?' Who cares, it's doing what you want. Is your theory about why it's doing that correct? Who cares, it's doing what you want.
His goal is to justify religion, though I have to ironically note the heresy involved in this path.

If believing Jesus is God and died for your sins reduces crime over the competing theory, who cares if Jesus in fact existed or still exists? Let's say for the sake of argument it's pure fantasy. However, the mechanistic theory leads to higher crime. It must be false in a way we can't figure out, and Christianity must likewise be true in a way we can't figure out, and on balance mysterious desert sky gods is more true.

The only advantage to a truer theory, and thus the only purpose for pursuing truth in detail, is when it does what you want even harder. In other words, if you're only making a mangonel, use Newtonian physics. It's true enough. Doing a full Einsteinian treatment is a waste of time unless it's a GPS enabled silicon-age mangonel.

Peterson has the further specific claim that science is trying to use Newtonian morality to launch a moral GPS, and it's going to point your moral compass in the wrong direction. Quite possibly to civilization-ending results.

The Greek skeptics have never been widely accepted to have been refuted. Science is often said to be based on the idea that everything can be questioned; that all theories are merely our current best guess, and downright likely to be completely overturned in the future. By the lay definition, a thing that must be overturned isn't true.

Perhaps there is some way to rephrase the supposed scientific respect for contradictory evidence such that the scientist culture in fact respects it instead of resists it. Or there is at the least a way to prove there is no such rephrasing, and the cultural resistance is inevitable.

Even if we had access to eternal truth, it's not an end to itself. (Well, for me it is.) We access this truth for some purpose, and it therefore philosophically behooves us to keep this purpose in mind. Especially as our minds are limited - we must cull some knowledge, not access all of it - we're apt to make complicated versions of the [mustard gas reaction for fun] thing.

Anyway a few more details, then I'll try to sum it up again.



Peterson is of course correct that leaving out subjectivity is fatal. I've written about this extensively.


"I think about science as a tool instead of a description of reality."
Science defines itself as a tool and not a description of reality. This, however, is a motte-and-bailey thing. Scientists and Harris think of science as a description of reality, and as a matter of fact this makes them resist the overturning they say they support. This is the sort of pragmatic 'not true enough' thing which Peterson is trying to point out.



Harris thinks he doesn't discount subjectivity. I'm genuinely laughing out loud at how deluded he is.

"No Plato, these shadows are totes real! See, that one right there is green!"

>You look at the ruddy shadow. There's a little post-it note. It says 'green' on it.



Peterson is correct. Harris is ontologically committed to agreeing with Peterson. Harris' brain is too broken to realize it though.


After this my patience was utterly exhausted. Spot checks makes it looks like Harris continues to repeat the dogma as if Peterson hadn't heard it millions of times before, and Peterson continues to repeat his failure to communicate in various different ways.

I did find a thing about smallpox that might be a good example.


So there's a lab of good people who don't understand smallpox, and a lab of bad people who do.

Harris wants to say the bad people believe something true about smallpox.

Peterson is saying neither is true enough. Both of these sets of beliefs end up with smallpox epidemics that kill enough people to disrupt civilization. "But the bad folks have correct biology." Good for them. So what?

What you want is a theory of smallpox-and-morality, and these things aren't disentangleable the way Harris thinks they are, which leads to no smallpox epidemics. If it gets the smallpox biology wrong, then so be it. It beats the bad lab with good biology.

Note - Harris is ontologically committed to communism. "But the first lab had good intentions!" Right. Just like Lincoln and FDR had 'good' intentions. Do you want to ban medical malpractice lawsuits, or do we condemn FDR and Lincoln for their results?

If Harris wanted a discussion, he would have said something like, "But we can in fact combine good biology and no epidemics. Indeed in reality (not thought experiment) it should even make it easier." And indeed this is the case. But the priority is the no epidemics. Scientists do not have this prioritization, and neither do their funders.

Christianity might be patently false. There should be a theory that's not false but doesn't lead to ennui, alienation, atomization and crime. But we don't know what it is. (I might know what it is. Certainly, neither Harris nor Peterson know it.) The problem is having Christianity widespread is incompatible with having Progressivism widespread. They're self-entangled in complex ways. Trying to have it a la carte doesn't work: we can't simply combine non-genocidalism with good smallpox biology like we easily can with the lab. You can have Democracy or Christianity, but they cannot coexist.

The further problem is that Christianity is incompatible with widespread Philosophy as well. The Bible has logical contradictions. If we are to seek the truth, then both Christianity and Progressivism must fall. However, in the meantime, Christianity is clearly the more true of the pair, and should be kept around, even if you don't accept that Progressivism is philosophical sin.


Talk about being bogged down in the weeds. What is this conversation for? At which point do we accept that our theory about how conversation works has been falsified, because we have comprehensively failed to do whatever it is for? If you're talking to me, it takes substantially less than an hour and a half.

By the way, in short Harris' problem is he's not trying to understand what Peterson is saying, he's trying to convert Peterson to Harrisism. Peterson is likewise trying to evangelize and has zero interest in being converted, and thus unproductivity ensues.

As a judge I find in favour of Peterson, as the host has the power. When you invite a guest you're executing the guest in the sense of a program. If Harris did not invite Peterson for the purpose of activating him, he did a dumb, and Gnon punishes him accordingly. If Harris listeners don't already know what Harris thinks, they're beyond help, but they're curious about what Peterson thinks, and Harris' failure is not being curious on their behalf. If he could not bring himself to be curious, he should have recused himself.

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Political Formulae are Perverse

Every political formula ends up promoting its opposite.
Not-exploitable because the point of political formulae is to sound aesthetically pleasing to dire apes.
Simply, because 'impact.'
"The conventional word is impact. Impact implies social status: it determines how often you get laid, and with whom. [...] To have impact, you must have an effect, and that effect must not have happened without you. [...] there is no impact unless you (a) produce some change, and (b) do so against some resistance."
Democracy is supposed to lead to policies that the governed consent to. But what kind of loser does what they're supposed to? You know you're really high status if you can provoke maximum dissent and get away with it. Thus we have a competition to implement the most pointless yet destructive policy.

Divine right leads to satanic kings. Sure you can do what God probably wants, but you know you're really high status if you can embody pure heresy and get away with it.

Aristocracy, the rule of the most virtuous, leads to rule by the most depraved reprobate.

Right of conquest is more stable, as it's pretty hard to argue that you weren't beat up when you were. Plus if you argue too hard you get beat up again. This leads to rule by wordy priests. You know you're really high status if you manage to rule without laying a finger on anyone, so as soon as the conquistadors become demoralized or tired, priests seize everything. (You are here.)

Pure ethno-nationalist democracy is worse. Not only will they compete to make pointless yet expensive policy, they'll compete to be as foreign as possible. The Cathedral's core is still mostly you really want to see what a mature ethnat Cathedral would look like?

Pure plutocracy would probably lead to rule by priests again. You know you're really high status if you can tell folk what to do after taking a vow of poverty. You wanna give it a shot? For Science? Maybe it would be warriors beating folk up again instead. Thug intimidates rich dude until he's appointed Evil Vizier. Fuck accountability, am I right? Of course I'm right.

Neocameralism is probably a special case of plutocracy. If you're rich enough you can buy the corporation/country. Hence, the game becomes how few stocks you can own and still get the CEO to do what you want. Alternatively, sabotage the CEO's reputation with the owner, thus getting them fired, until they go so far down the list your buddy gets to be CEO.

Finally we come to Exit.
Exit is still pretty good. Like conquest, it's hard to argue that North Koreans can leave if they want to. Similarly, even in NK, it's hard to restrict the movement of the more important members of society. Nonetheless, if Exit is the formula, the game becomes how much of a prison state you can construct and get away with it. And since everyone will be trying it, there will be a sort of voiceless collusion.

Basically you want your formula to be 'a legitimate state tortures and imprisons everybody.' However, this isn't a viable formula for legitimizing coercion: it doesn't seem legit to anybody. Hence the non-exploitability.

The solution is to convince dire apes that coercion is evil.
(Is the joke sufficiently clear?)

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Ascended Comments: Mathematics, not Wittgenstein
"The key insight of Wittgenstein is that speech is a kind of a game. You agree on a set of rules, e.g. that the word “apple” stands for a certain kind of fruit, and you agree to use that word to refer to that fruit."
But you don't need to read Witty, you only need to have done some math.

In math, we let x = 3. Or let x = tangent to the curve, or let x = all primes > 0 and < 1 000 000. Then, in the next problem, we change our minds and let x = cos(y). (You may notice they were doing this before the 1950s.)

We also find calling it 'x' is arbitrary. We can call it z, or potatoes, or phi, or draw little snowmen. Let [drawing of statue of liberty] = the unknown rate of change.

Then, I start doing philosophy. It turns out math is a language, English is a language, and expressions in languages play by the same rules.
Let 'justice' mean 'good things happens to good folk, bad things happen to bad folk, and not the reverse.'
Let 'justice' mean 'black folk have generally higher social status than white folk.' (Hence 'social' justice.)
Sure dude, whatevs.

But once so defined, what the label means is not arbitrary. If we let x = 1 and then try to divide by (x - 1), we can't say we're not dividing by zero. Expressions play by rules such as [no div0], and when we make other rules for ourselves, such as [x = 1], we have to play by those rules too.

We can make 'justice' be the label for anything we want, but the meaning of what it labels is not up to us. The double bump shape of '3' is also just a label, but the actual grouping of three objects we label with '3' is a true meaning. The purpose of justice is to make a robust and prosperous society. Only one possible choice of a 'just' society is robust and prosperous.

If I try to let x = dividing by zero is allowed, all I did is a dumb. If I try to let 'justice' mean that second definition leads to prosperity, all I did is a dumb.

"Epistemology is hard."
Epistemology is easy, but antisocial.

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Neocameralism vs. Demotism & AI vs. Amerika

Neocameralism appears to share the problematic feature of demotism.
Nevertheless, if we somehow implement natural selection in government by making it as easy as possible for governments to fail, we will get the best government.
Moldbug seriously embarrassed himself when he didn't discuss neocameralism's political formula.

You can have a government that's run for the benefit of the 'employees,' which is literally communism, always parasitic, and always fails because it either bleeds the subjects dry and starves, or loses their support.

Every government is at least a little democratic, in that it requires the resignation of the subjects. No government has ever been able to afford to suppress widespread dissent. (The key threshold is about 10% civil (or impolite) disobedience. If the autres refuse to be encourger, the government ends.)

Alternatively you can have government that's run for the benefit of the subjects, which is not-communism, but hasn't ever been tried. (Though the closer approximations have been better, just as closer approximations of communism have been more Infernal.)

The problem is what makes Moldbug come up with the 'primary property' distinction. As a matter of physical fact, groups do security better than individuals, meaning there's always going to be a principle-agent problem, and this one is the very worst because the agent can always physically seize the principle's entire capital, and the principle can do nothing because individuals are not a group.

We can imagine what is called today an 'enlightened dictator,' which used to be called a 'just king,' who knows not to slaughter the golden goose; who is a communist, an employee running the government for the benefit of the employees, i.e. themselves and their kids, but knows to have a light touch.

We can also imagine that God gives everyone a flying unicorn for a bar mitzvah present.

Because all governments must pacify their subjects vis a vis government rule, it requires a pacifier, which adults have taken to calling the 'political formula' to avoid the embarrassing truth. The political pacifier has a distinct effect on the character of the government using it. As per Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, of stable pacifiers, demotism is a particular awful specimen. The Divine Right of Kings transmutes to the Divine Right of Mob. (ProTip: Kings are noble. Mobs are not. They're both parasitic, but you as subject prefer one parasite over the other.)

While deeply confused about what Moldbug was trying to say, Brett Stevens raises all the salient points, passing an extremely high bar, statistically speaking, as a quality critic. I will thus politely ignore the confusion, and I hope you can too.

Neocameralism is Moldbug's attempt to produce a much better political pacifier than demotism. He does this by imagining the most ideal workable governance structure and ignoring the issue of pacification entirely. I extrapolate that he imagines a world of adults like himself, who recognize they can't change the government, and thus simply accept its existence without a specific pacification doctrine. Moldbug shows that neocameralist governance indeed theoretically aligns governor and subject interests, and thus behaving as an adult like himself is indeed rational.
(By 'theoretically' I mean theoreticians forget relevant factors all the time. However, if Moldbug has done so, nobody has been able to point out which factor he's forgotten. If he hasn't, it will turn out he is simply correct, because that's how logic works.)
Basically, while the neocameral CEO can indeed seize the entire neostate for himself, he demonstrably won't, for exactly the same reasons the CEO of Ford doesn't simply allocate all of Ford's production to himself and retire with like a million cars.
("Sir, we're running low on virgin's blood for your bath."
"Ah, Jeeves, just sell a few hundred more of the Pintos."
"Very good sir.")

Moldbug imagines that the sovcorps would leave their borders open, as a home you're not allowed to sell is less valuable than one you are allowed to sell, meaning closed sovcorps would have a lower stock price, and either get bought out, go broke and collapse, or shape up to prevent these things.

However, this means sovcorps have, if anything, even more of a democratic nature than democracies. Especially thinking of the most valuable citizens, if moving sovcorp is as easy as moving apartments, then we imagine a quite servile and solicitous 'king.'
they will flock to that which is more mentally convenient, thus ending up at liberalism.
(Noting his idiosyncratic though precise notion of 'liberalism.')
It seems sovcorps will pander to their subject's whims, generally speaking, the same way 'the customer is always right' often means you're allowed to verbally abuse your service provider. And the whole point of anti-demotism is the people's whims are kind of cataclysmically awful.

And you know what? That may indeed happen. However, you can no more prove it will happen than I can prove it can't happen.

I will nevertheless suggest as much.
right now people know that voting Leftist results in them paying more taxes and receiving less, and still they do it — why? Answer: because government is not the cause but the effect, and the cause is that under social systems, egalitarianism is the way to advance. Again, the problem is us.

Two differences.
First, 'good schools.' When someone is choosing something they have genuine control over and has a genuine effect on them, they don't signal, they, err, competence.

Voting is free and pointless, thus pure signalling. No, voting left doesn't really result in them paying more taxes. They are going to pay more taxes anyway, so you might as well vote left and be holier-than-thou, instead of voting right and being taxed for nothing.

Similarly, try to use political sophistry to convince someone of something false about their job. At least, if you enjoy being shut down the hardest you've ever been. Scamming someone is much, much harder than the voting booth makes it seem.

Second, what's actually mentally convenient is choosing the strong horse and ignoring all policy. Folk will move to the richest or most feared polity - the strongest, thus the healthiest. Sure at first it won't be clear who's going to win, and it will come down to policy. Likely a bunch of folk will voluntarily move to communisms. Then they will get jacked, and move somewhere they don't get jacked. (Equivalently, the polity will die out and become fallow.)

While the school thing suggests subjects will be relatively sane about things, let's imagine a few ways they might not be.

The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay liquid. If a light-liberal regime can last long enough for sane regimes to go bankrupt, the 'strong horse' comparison becomes a broken-window fallacy of unseen benefits.

Citizens may choose redistributivist regimes out of guilt or virtue-signalling, then refuse to recant (move) out of embarrassment.

Violent (e.g. Islamic) regimes may outcompete regimes trying to be more peaceful, because violence pays off now but economic growth pays off ten years from now, again leading to a broken-window world.

There is an absolute lower bar for competent polity-scale leadership. It may well be that nobody alive passes that bar. (Or equivalently the smallest number of key supporters per capita is larger than the number of sane rulers per capita.) Genetic evolution tries everything. Humans can only try things that occur to them to try, meaning someone has to think it's a good idea to do the thing that's actually a good idea. The leading cause of corporate dysfunction is government regulation, but the runner-up is various forms of not thinking of the good idea as good or at all.

Once demotism is as discredited as divine right, we recognize that there is indeed demand for a political formula, and a neocameral selection stew is as good at selecting for sophism as for competence. They may come up with a really compelling novel lie, which will last another several hundred years.

Neocameralism is a specific model of what Steel Anarchism would result in. (Caveat: true anarchism formalizes Exit as pacifier, instead of simply hoping the incentives work out.)

Steel Anarchism is a prayer to Gnon.

"Dear Gnon, bestow upon us the best government, love, everybody." The fiercer the selection, the more graciously Gnon will grant our prayer. Anything that weakens the selection - namely, political pacifiers that aren't Exit - is a slap in Gnon's face. While Gnon is merciful (or perhaps lazy) eventually he will slap back. And his hand is bigger than yours.

However, it may well turn out the best government is still a net parasite. It's not up to you, or me, or us, and especially not to idealistic pro-state wishers. It's up to Gnon. We can thank Gnon it's not worse, or do that whole slapping thing. There aren't any other options.

Brett Stevens is ontologically committed to anarcho-pessimism.
Until we get rid of the notion of equality, and replace it with culture and hierarchy, we are doomed.
Hierarchy == coercion => parasitism,
[prevent] government from being able to operate behind an ideological aegis which allows it to commit parasitism that cannot be criticized because its goal is theoretically noble.

Doing the substitution, "until we get rid of parasitism and replace it with parasitism, we are doomed." Coda: oh wait shit, we're just doomed.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Economics Scholarly Failure

Excuse me, I have to quickly outsmart all of economics here. (Again, this is to to economics' shame, not my credit.) When I see the word 'puzzling' I attribute it to self-inflicted stupidity. This was indeed the case this time.

both employment and wages fall due to decreased demand.
Technology increases productivity, which causes deflation, effectively increasing wages. Since I'm not all of economics I can't get exact numbers, but it will be close to parity, netting no change in wages. Further, demand for raw materials actually increases. Employment only falls short term, because the market gets further away from equilibrium, temporarily.

This explanation may help us understand why we see steep declines in employment while wages remain steady
Mainstream economics exists to glorify what its paymasters wanted to do anyway. This means it's their job to not understand how a minimum wage works.

It's obvious now I've said 'minimum wage,' right? If wages must fall, but can't, you get unemployment, while wages remain steady.

Wages remain steady because there's a status cline that overrides wage compression. Have to pay the not-janitor a set percentage more than the janitor. If market wages fall below that for the not-janitor, since the market can't lower the janitor's wage, the market responds with rationing, which is equivalent to unemployment in this case. Specifically, it can only hire not-janitors with above-previous-average productivity, who are willing to work for less than their market wage. If humans weren't slow and stupid, minimum wages would entirely eliminate non-minimum-wage jobs at any point wages are falling.

But the quoted combination could happen anyway. Technological unemployment: wages down, productivity up:wages up. So, wages: no change, but unemployment.

None of this is to say that I don't think better productivity wouldn't cause leisure to substitute for employment. Further, that's a good thing. However, it raises another government boondoggle, which is regulatory overhead. The overhead for a half-time worker isn't half as big as a full-time worker. But, at the same time, hours over 40 cost 50% extra on the margin. Ergo, all wage employees must work exactly 40 hours, absent very strong contrary factors. All salary workers must work as much as they can be convinced to amortize their regulatory overhead. (On top of it already being a good deal for the employer.)

When there's less work, because more productivity, employers fire someone rather than reduce time worked, and thus wages. Or, the salaried worker works less for the same pay.

Right now, I’m gathering facts about the possible mechanisms at play, beginning with a hard look at time-use by young men with less than a four-year degree.
Viciousness in the population must be at fault, because our rulers are virtuous, not vicious. Everything they do is anointed.

I am currently working to document this phenomenon, but there is a real challenge in determining what the right policy response might be to address the underlying issues.
Boy, demonstrating the whiteness of black sure is tough.

Thursday, August 18, 2016

Receptor Sensitivity Homeostasis

And for that matter, I’ve met a few people who never seem to develop tolerance for benzodiazepine sleeping pills. You see this same pattern for opiates used as painkillers. I spent so many years confused about whether people develop tolerance to these or not, and my final conclusion is that some people do and some people don’t and if you try to find a coherent universal pattern here you will go insane.
Essay writers all need physics and programming.

If the user repeatedly clicks the 'OK' button, some programs will crash and some don't and if you try to find a coherent universal pattern here you will go insane.
It's called a 'bug,' and someone suitably knowledgeable about the program and the language it's written in can find and fix the bug. The issue with benzos is the program is executed in proteins and the language it's written in is GATTACA.
I spent so many years confused about whether programs crash or not.
Yet it never occurred to him that 'programs' isn't a natural kind at this level of detail. Programs vary in their bugginess and thus their responses to input. Programs also vary in function and implementation, so the exact same input may produce, variably, good output, buggy output, and correct output that is identical to the buggy output due to the 'bug' being correct behaviour for that program, and 'fixing' it would break six other things.

I don’t know who first discovered that low-dose naltrexone could help potentiate the effect of opiates
This is one of the first things I would have thought of, because I know receptor sensitivity is homeostatically regulated. (I think I confirmed this from one of Sapolsky's behavioral biology lectures.) There's a target range of stimulation, and the body attempts to meet it. It can use impulses/behaviour, self-medication, hormone regulation, and if those don't work, it tunes receptor sensitivity. You can see this happen very quickly with taste and smell. However, since it's a range, it's possible to get stuck at the extrema. There's hysteresis.

Addiction is often the result of the target range itself getting deformed, so no reasonable amount of natural stimulation can hit it, even with maximally aggressive tuning. Alternatively, the tuning process can itself be buggy.

Naturally pain receptors are highly resistant to this effect, much the way sharks don't get cancer. It became well-tuned and stayed that way, and is now selected for being conservative.