Burning Forward
You will take roughly six hundred million breaths in your lifetime. Most of them you will not notice. You are taking one right now.
The breath is happening. You did not start it. You are not finishing it. It is something the body does, automatically, to keep itself out of equilibrium with the air around it.
In plain physics, a breath is an energy exchange — oxygen in, carbon dioxide out. The chemical gradient that runs every cell in your body is sustained by this exchange. A breath is a microscopic act of dissipation. One small cycle of the same arrow that has been pointing in one direction since the Big Bang.
In Stoic practice, the breath is the first object of attention. The Greek word is prosoche. To pay attention. The Stoics began here because the breath is the only thing that is always with you, always now, always under at least some part of your control.
We say “time is running out.” We say “life is short.” We act as if time were a substance, like water in a glass, slowly draining. The physics says otherwise. There is no substance to run out. There is a pattern dissipating, as such patterns do. That pattern is what we call a life, and each breath is one local moment of it.
Time is not running out. Time is what we are.
That sentence is the working thesis of this episode. Given it, the question becomes operational rather than existential. What is a breath for? What is a day for? What is a life for? Not philosophically — practically. You are doing it now. What is it doing?
Three sources help answer that. The physics of dissipative structures, which says what we are. Two thousand years of Stoic practice, which says how to bear it at the personal scale. And the newer accelerationist intuition, which says civilizations are dissipative structures too, and asks what to do at the species scale.
Taken together they point to a single position. I call it accelerated equanimity. Brådska utan panik. Handling utan grepp. Dödligheten som bränsle, inte ankare. Urgency without panic. Action without grasping. Mortality as fuel, not as anchor. Acceleration is the universe’s hand. Equanimity is yours.
We Are Time
The laws of physics, almost all of them, are time-reversible. Newton’s equations, Maxwell’s equations, Schrödinger’s wave equation, Einstein’s field equations. You can run any of them backward on paper and they still work. The asymmetry between past and future does not live in the equations of physics.
There is one exception. The Second Law of thermodynamics. Entropy increases. The British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington named it the arrow of time in 1928, in his book The Nature of the Physical World. A century later, the Second Law is still the only arrow physics gives us.
Now a technical point that turns out to matter. Statistical mechanics by itself predicts entropy increase in both temporal directions from any given moment. The arrow is not given by the equations alone. The asymmetry is supplied by a cosmological posit: the universe began in an extraordinarily low-entropy state. The philosophers David Albert and Barry Loewer call this the Past Hypothesis. The arrow points away from that initial state. Not toward anything. Away from something.
Roger Penrose estimated the specialness of that initial state at one in ten to the ten to the one hundred twenty-third — a number so large it cannot be written in standard notation. The universe began ordered to a degree we have no physical explanation for. Every breath you take is downstream of that unexplained beginning.
Carlo Rovelli takes this further. In The Order of Time (2017) he argues that time is not fundamental — it emerges from the entropy gradient combined with our macroscopic, coarse-grained perspective. His term is thermal time: a function of the blurring imposed by being embedded, dissipating observers. We perceive time because we cannot see all the molecules. The blurring is where time lives.
Here is the anatomy of the thesis. Memory is an entropy artifact — making a record requires a low-entropy ready state (a blank page, an unmagnetized tape, an unfired neuron). Agency is an entropy artifact — we manipulate causes to get effects, never the other way. The very category of now is an entropy artifact: the fact that you are an embedded observer who can ask “what time is it?” requires the universe to be away from equilibrium.
At thermal equilibrium there is no remembering subject. There is no agency. There is no breath. There is no you.
In the closing chapter of The Order of Time, Rovelli writes a sentence that is almost our thesis verbatim:
We are stories, contained within the twenty complicated centimeters behind our eyes, lines drawn by traces left by the mingling together of things in the world, and oriented toward predicting events in the future, toward the direction of increasing entropy, in a rather particular corner of this immense, chaotic universe.
We are not in time. We are of time. We are local patterns in the direction the universe moves as it equilibrates. Memory, choice, breath — all of them are the arrow at human scale.
This is a defensible mainstream position, not consensus. Lee Smolin argues that time is fundamental, the future open in a stronger sense. Tim Maudlin argues that passage is metaphysically primitive. The working frame here is the thermodynamic-time view because it is the strongest physical story we have. If Smolin is right, the practice on the other side of it changes very little.
The previous episode, EP091, established the immediate consequence: life is a dissipative structure, temporary order paid for by a gradient falling through. Jeremy England extended Prigogine with a precise mathematical bound: in driven non-equilibrium systems, configurations reached via histories of greater work absorption and dissipation are statistically more likely. The conservative reading — life-like organization is one of the things matter can do under sustained energy flow — is enough for the rest of this argument.
The Stoic Reading
Given that we are time, the most basic question reasserts itself. What is a human life for?
The Stoics asked this harder and clearer than almost anyone since, and they asked it under load. Marcus Aurelius asked it on the Danube during plague. Seneca asked it in a court that would eventually kill him. Epictetus asked it from inside slavery. None of them were academics. All of them wrote operationally.
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 4.17 (Hammond):
Do not act as if you had ten thousand years to live. The doom hangs over you. While you live, while you can, become good.
Meditations 4.43:
Time is a river of all created things, and a violent stream. As soon as a thing has been seen, it is carried away, and another comes in its place, and will be carried away too.
Marcus’s metaphor of the river of time is the closest classical analogue to Rovelli’s thermal time. He is not lamenting. He is describing — sitting in a military camp on the edge of a war he is losing, watching the river move, writing it down.
Seneca, De Brevitate Vitae:
It is not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste a lot of it.
In Latin: non exiguum temporis habemus, sed multum perdidimus. The verb perdidimus — we have squandered, destroyed, lost — is sharper than “waste.” Seneca is precise. The life isn’t short. We destroy most of it.
The rhetorical center of the Stoic case is Seneca’s first letter to Lucilius, on saving time. From the Graver and Long translation (2015):
Do that, my Lucilius. Lay claim to your own self. Gather and save the time that until now was being taken from you, or was stolen from you, or that slipped away.
Look closely, and you will see that even when we are doing our best, a large part of life slips away from us when we are doing badly, the greatest part when we are doing nothing, and the whole of life when we are doing something else.
Whom can you show me who sets any value on his time, who reckons the worth of each day, who realizes that he is dying daily? For this is our mistake. We think death lies ahead, when most of it is already behind us.
Nothing, Lucilius, is ours, except time.
In Latin: Omnia, Lucili, aliena sunt, tempus tantum nostrum est. Everything else is borrowed. Only time is ours. This is our thesis in classical form, two thousand years early. Seneca did not have the physics. He had the structural insight without the equations.
Epictetus, Enchiridion 8 (Hard):
Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well.
This is amor fati in its earliest and sharpest form — love of fate, acceptance of what is. Critically: this is not quietism. The Stoic dichotomy of control (some things are in our power, others are not) is not a sedative. It is a workload allocator. Spend cycles on what is yours. Do not spend cycles on what is not. Marcus ran an empire. Seneca governed at court. Epictetus, born in chains, taught philosophy to senators. The dichotomy tells you where to spend cycles, not to spend none.
A deeper point worth naming: the Stoics held that only the present moment exists actually. Past and future, in their account, subsist but are not concrete. Chrysippus argued no time is wholly present — every now is divisible into past-and-future portions. The strictly present is a limit, not a duration. That is a philosophical rhyme with Rovelli’s thermal time. Not a derivation. Not the same physics. The Stoics arrived at a structurally similar position twenty-two centuries before anyone could write down the equations.
For the Stoics, to live in accord with nature meant aligning one’s reason with the cosmic logos — the rational principle that orders the universe. They did not separate physics from ethics. Logos was both.
I want to be honest here. This is what the Stoics historically thought. It is not a refutation of David Hume’s eighteenth-century objection that you cannot derive an ought from an is. Hume’s gap is a logical point, not a historical one. We do not get to skip past Hume just because the Stoics never accepted his separation. The episode’s actual answer to Hume comes later, in the synthesis, and it is Bernard Williams’s answer, not Chrysippus’s.
The practice. Pierre Hadot, in Philosophy as a Way of Life (1995), recovered Stoicism as a set of daily spiritual exercises. Three of them anchor this episode:
* Prosoche — attention to the present moment. The act we began with, on the breath.
* Morning preparation — before the day begins, rehearse the day’s likely difficulties and your principles. What is mine to do today? What is not mine?
* Evening examination — after the day ends, review it. Where did you spend cycles on what was not yours? Seneca describes lying in bed running the day back through. The next day’s preparation comes from the previous day’s examination.
Two thousand years old. Still works.
The Accelerationist Reading
The personal scale is one reading of the same physics. There is another scale on which the same physics has implications. Being honest about what we are means being honest at every scale.
Stoicism asks what a single human should do with a single day. A different tradition asks what an entire species should do with the time it has. That tradition is younger, less well-developed, more contested. It also might be right.
The bridge is the same dissipative-structure logic from EP091, applied at scale. Cells. Organisms. Ecosystems. Civilizations. Each is a dissipative structure at its level. Each maintains itself by directing the entropy gradient that runs through it. Last episode said you are one. This episode says a species is one too, at a different scale.
Start with the cleanest part of the accelerationist program, which is also the least handwavy part. Guillaume Verdon is a physicist, formerly at Google’s quantum AI team. He founded Extropic in 2022, emerged from stealth in March 2024 with $14.1M from Kindred Ventures. They are building probabilistic thermodynamic computing hardware — supercooled Josephson junctions that exploit natural thermal noise instead of fighting it.
The argument: digital computation fights physics. You spend energy to suppress thermal noise into clean ones and zeros. Nature already computes via thermodynamics. Proteins fold, neurons fire, ecosystems adapt — none of these systems pay the cost of suppressing noise into clean bits. They use the noise. They compute with it. Build machines that compute the way the universe computes.
Extropic claims roughly 10,000× the efficiency of GPUs for a specific class of workloads called energy-based generative models — models where the answer is the configuration the system settles into when you let it run, rather than the output of an explicit calculation. If even a fraction of that holds up, the implications for AI energy use are large.
This is a falsifiable engineering bet. Whether or not the universe “wants” more entropy production is a separate question. Whether noise-native probabilistic hardware is more efficient for certain workloads is a concrete empirical claim. You can verify it on a benchtop.
Now the philosophy. Verdon, writing pseudonymously as Beff Jezos, co-authored with the pseudonymous Bayeslord the canonical text of effective accelerationism. Published in July 2022 on Substack as “Notes on E/acc Principles and Tenets” [https://beff.substack.com/p/notes-on-eacc-principles-and-tenets]. His identity behind the pseudonym was revealed by Forbes in December 2023.
The thermodynamic claim is e/acc’s reading of Jeremy England’s dissipative-adaptation work. The load-bearing line:
The universe exponentially favors futures where matter has adapted itself to capture more free energy and convert it to more entropy.
And the normative move:
Stop fighting the thermodynamic will of the universe. You cannot stop the acceleration.
Here I want to draw the is/ought line very carefully, because it is where most of the disagreement actually lives. Jeremy England’s physics is descriptive. His papers derive a bound. They do not say the universe wants more dissipation. They do not say acceleration is good. England himself is an Orthodox rabbi who has explicitly distanced himself from secular accelerationist appropriation of his work. He frames the physics as compatible with meaning, not as a substitute for meaning derived from outside physics.
What the physics gives us is this: we are dissipative structures, and this is what such structures do. The leap from “this is what we are” to “therefore accelerate” is an additional ethical move — made by us, on top of the physics. Not a derivation. A choice. We have to own it as a choice.
The lineage in one sentence: e/acc inherits its structure from Nick Land’s 1990s concept of teleoplexy, with the gothic stripped out. Land had cybernetic-libidinal metaphors. Verdon has Jeremy England’s physics. The argument moves from poetry to equations, but the underlying shape is similar.
Two thinkers reach a similar civilizational ambition without invoking thermodynamics at all. David Deutsch, in The Beginning of Infinity (2011), argues that humans are universal explainers. The laws of physics permit indefinite progress. There is no in-principle ceiling on what minds embedded in matter can do. Problems are soluble. Pessimism is a failure of imagination. Cancer, fusion, alignment, aging — none of them are excluded by the laws of physics. They are excluded only by the absence of explanations we have not yet generated.
Tyler Cowen, in Stubborn Attachments (2018), argues from population ethics. Because future people matter equally and there are many more of them, sustainable long-run growth dominates almost every other moral consideration. Two percent annual growth versus zero percent, compounded across a century, is not a difference of 2%. It is a difference of seven times the standard of living, sustained, for every person alive. The math is overwhelming. Compound the future, because that is where almost everyone is.
A crucial qualification. Karl Schroeder argued in The Deepening Paradox that mature dissipative structures approach efficiency, not maximum throughput. The thermodynamically mature civilization is the one whose grid moves more per joule, not the one with the largest joule throughput. Capability per unit dissipation. Not dissipation. The mature dissipative structure burns more cleanly, not louder. This complicates simple “accelerate” framing.
And then there is the alignment problem, which deserves to be named directly. An unaligned superintelligence pursuing the wrong objective is not high-complexity dissipation. It is high-entropy collapse. A paperclip-maximizer universe is high-entropy and low-complexity at the same time. Most high-entropy futures are boring. Most high-entropy futures contain no observers. The futures we care about are a small subset of the futures the physics permits.
This is not a separate concern from acceleration. It is the constraint that determines whether acceleration produces complexity or collapse. Acceleration without steering is combustion.
Which brings us to where Stoicism does the real philosophical work on top of accelerationism. The civilizational frame gives us what to aim at: more pattern, more capability, more of the lightcone touched by intelligence. The Stoic frame gives us how to bear the not-yet. Acceleration is the universe’s hand. The waiting, the failure modes, the personal cost of building under load — that is yours. Build like the future depends on it. Do not let the building depend on the future.
Burning Forward
Physics says we are dissipative structures. Stoicism reads that at the personal scale and gives a daily practice. The accelerationist tradition reads the same physics at the civilizational scale and gives a long-horizon project. The two readings are not at war. They are the same physics asked at different scales.
The synthesis position has a name. Accelerated equanimity.
This is not “build now, rest later.” It is not “be present at home, accelerate at work.” It is not a balance between two modes. The two postures are simultaneous. That is the discovery the historical exemplars confirm. None of them sequenced these. All of them held them together.
Marcus Aurelius wrote the Meditations in field tents while running an empire of fifty million during a plague. Not a journal of retreat — a working notebook in the same hand that signed legal reforms, prosecuted frontier wars, and managed an extractive economy under existential pressure. The Meditations and the empire were not two projects. He also presided over the persecutions at Lyon during his reign, devalued the silver denarius to pay for the wars, and bequeathed the throne to his catastrophic son Commodus. The synthesis is not virtue. It is posture under physics.
Norman Borlaug spent six decades walking wheat fields in Sonora and the Punjab. His semi-dwarf high-yield wheat averted famine for an estimated several hundred million to a billion people. He lived modestly in Mexico City. His 1970 Nobel lecture was titled The Green Revolution, Peace, and Humanity — and he framed the wheat work explicitly as a holding action, a way to buy thirty or forty years against the population problem. Not a solution. He also presided over real ecological costs — groundwater depletion in the Punjab, smallholder displacement, dependence on inputs the poorest farmers could not afford. He was dismissive of organic agriculture, sometimes contemptuously so. Real. Not idealized.
Richard Feynman drove from Los Alamos to Albuquerque to be with his first wife Arline on the night she died. Then drove back to Los Alamos to keep working on the bomb. Two years later he wrote her a letter ending: “I love my wife. My wife is dead.” The equanimity of his own death decades later was the same posture: “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.” Maximum intensity on problems he found interesting. Refusal of the social machinery around science. The acceleration and the equanimity were one person. His treatment of women was, by any standard, bad. One posture, one life, with its real costs.
Steve Jobs, Stanford 2005, twenty months after his cancer diagnosis:
For the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: if today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today? And whenever the answer has been no for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.
The second-act Apple comeback was the most acceleration-per-year of any consumer-tech company in history, run by someone increasingly aware he was dying. He also delayed conventional treatment for nine months on a diagnosis where time mattered. He could be cruel to subordinates as a documented practice. He denied paternity of his daughter Lisa from her birth in 1978 until well into the 1980s, even as her mother lived on welfare. Built like he had no time. Acted, on his own body and relationships, like he had all of it.
Yvon Chouinard, September 14, 2022: transferred Patagonia to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and the Holdfast Collective. “Earth is now our only shareholder.” Pioneered clean climbing in 1972 by phasing out his own bestselling pitons because they damaged rock. Switched Patagonia’s entire cotton supply to organic in 1996. Ran the “Don’t Buy This Jacket” ad on Black Friday 2011. The exit was structurally the cleanest available form of not grasping. It was also tax-efficient — the transfer structure avoided an estimated $700M in capital-gains and estate tax. The structure has its critics. Real climate work is not done by holding companies. Patagonia is still a clothing brand. Even the cleanest move is morally textured. Built like the company would outlive him by a century. Held the ownership like he would lose it tomorrow.
Five exemplars. Five different centuries. Five different domains. The same shape. Five recurring features:
* The two postures are simultaneous, not sequenced. Nobody did the acceleration first and the equanimity later, or the other way around. The synthesis is one motion.
* The discipline is operational, not aesthetic. Procedure under load. Not retreat to a study.
* Outcome is held genuinely loose. Marcus failed his succession. Borlaug calls his life’s work temporary. Feynman calls death boring. The position is not justified by the outcome — it is justified by the present rightness of the act.
* Each one is morally complicated. Each had people they failed. Each had blind spots they did not close. The synthesis is not virtue. It is posture under physics.
* Mortality is treated as data, not drama. A constraint that clarifies the problem. Not a wound that requires processing.
The Practice
What does the synthesis actually look like in operation? Three nested loops, each running at its own cadence.
The smallest loop is the breath. Prosoche. Attention to the present moment. The act of noticing that you are noticing. Hadot’s first spiritual exercise. Csikszentmihalyi’s flow at its base case. This breath, now. That is the loop that runs every second of every day, when you remember to run it. Most of us don’t, most of the time. That is fine. The practice is the noticing, not the perfection.
The middle loop is the day. Hadot’s morning preparation and evening examination. What is the work that is mine today? What is the load that is not mine? In practice, morning preparation is fifteen minutes with a notebook and the calendar — the work that is yours, the interruptions you can already see coming that are not yours, the one decision you have been postponing because it is uncomfortable. Naming the difficulty in advance is the practice. The practice does not make the difficulty smaller. It makes you ready for it.
The outer loop is the decade. The project. The building. What would I want to have shipped, contributed, made possible, in the next ten years if I knew this was the time I had? What is the largest pattern I can direct on the way down? Cowen would say: compound. Deutsch would say: explain. Verdon would say: build hardware that respects the substrate. All three are saying the same thing at the decade scale.
Build like the future depends on it. Do not let the building depend on the future.
The Honest Move
I want to be honest about what this position is, philosophically.
This is a posture, reflectively endorsed. Not a derivation from physics.
Physics describes. We endorse. The endorsement is the ethical act, not the physics. The British philosopher Bernard Williams argued that ethical reasons only have grip on you if they connect to what you already care about — he called these internal reasons. Alasdair MacIntyre argued that a life only adds up if its acts belong to a coherent story — he called it narrative ethics. The episode is in that lineage. Not in the position that physics dictates ethics. Hume’s gap stays open. We just decide which side of it to stand on, knowing what we are.
One more honest note. As far as I can find, no one has put these four corners together in print before — Rovelli’s thermal time, England’s dissipative physics, Stoic prosoche, and Deutsch’s universal explainers, joined into a single position. That may be because the synthesis is wrong. It may be because it is too obvious to write down. This episode is the bet that it is neither.
The civilizational-scale dissipative structures of the previous section are not abstract for the person writing this. The grid is one of them. That is all that needs saying.
Back to the Breath
We started with a breath. We end here. Nothing has changed about the scene. Everything has changed about what we see in it.
The breath that is happening right now is one of about six hundred million. Most of them will not be noticed. This one, the one happening as you read this sentence, is.
A breath is a microscopic dissipative event in a structure called you, which is a dissipative event in a planet, which is a dissipative event in a galaxy, which is a dissipative event in a universe equilibrating from the Past Hypothesis. The same physics at every level. The arrow points in one direction at every scale.
None of it is running out. There is no substance to run out. What we call running out is a local pattern dissipating, as such patterns do. Each breath is one cycle. Each thought is. Each day is. Each decade is. The entire pattern that is you is.
Omnia, Lucili, aliena sunt, tempus tantum nostrum est. Everything else is borrowed. Only time is ours.
Seneca wrote that two thousand years before Rovelli, before Eddington, before the Past Hypothesis had a name. He did not have the physics. He had the structural insight.
The practice. Presence at the personal scale. Building at the civilizational scale. Outcome held loose at both. Burning forward. With attention.
We don’t have time. We are time. And for as long as this pattern lasts — for these six hundred million breaths, more or less, most of them unnoticed — the practice is the same at every scale.
Three lines. One for each scale.
Pay attention to what is yours. Build what you can. Hold the outcome loose.
For as long as this pattern lasts.
Key Takeaways
* Time is not running out. Time is what we are. We are dissipative structures — local patterns in the direction the universe moves as it equilibrates. Memory, agency, “now” are all entropy artifacts.
* The Past Hypothesis is what makes the arrow of time directional. The universe began in an extraordinarily low-entropy state (Penrose: 1 in 10^(10^123) specialness). Everything since has been leveling.
* Stoicism is the personal-scale ethic of a dissipative structure. Marcus, Seneca, Epictetus, Hadot. The dichotomy of control is not quietism — it is a workload allocator. Spend cycles on what is yours. Do not spend cycles on what is not.
* The accelerationist tradition is the civilizational-scale ethic of a dissipative structure. Verdon, Deutsch, Cowen. Build, expand, extend the pattern — with steering. Acceleration without steering is combustion.
* The two ethics are not at war. They are the same physics at different scales. Accelerated equanimity is the synthesis: urgency without panic, action without grasping, mortality as fuel.
* The two postures are simultaneous, not sequenced. Marcus on campaign. Feynman at Arline’s deathbed. Jobs in the Stanford mirror. Borlaug in the wheat fields. Chouinard at the trust paperwork. Five centuries, five domains, one shape.
* Physics describes. We endorse. The episode is in continuity with Williams’s internal reasons and MacIntyre’s narrative ethics, not in the position that physics dictates ethics. Hume’s gap stays open. We decide which side to stand on, knowing what we are.
* The practice is three nested loops. The breath. The day. The decade. Each is the same act at a different cadence.
* Build like the future depends on it. Do not let the building depend on the future.
We don’t possess time. We are one of the more elaborate things time does as it runs through. And for as long as this pattern lasts, the practice is the same at every scale.
Full transcript available below the audio player.
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit frahlg.substack.com [https://frahlg.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]
Comments
0Be the first to comment
Sign up now and become a member of the Coordinated with Fredrik community!