Furthermore, does our awareness of limited time perpetuate a cycle of self-inflicted harm that may have ended previous civilisations? Can an eventual dissolve of linear time, potentially emerging through post-human intelligence, resolve this issue or does it introduce new existential threats to our reality as we know it?

Human intelligence is unique in its ability to modify reality rather than adapt to it. But is this ability fundamentally constrained by our perception of linear time? If intelligence structuring is bound by sequential cognition, does breaking this model open new pathways for intelligence expansion or lead to existential collapse?

This post explores the following hypothesis, through five key perspectives:

The construct of linear time may be both the catalyst for self-directed evolution and the underlying cause of civilisational collapse, beyond the scope of natural existential risks. If post-human intelligence transcends time linearity, it could unlock a fundamentally new mode of existence, or unravel the very foundation of reality as we perceive it.

1. The Construct of Time as an Evolutionary Driver

In the animal kingdom, intelligence is constrained by environmental adaptation. Species evolve through genetic selection in response to external pressures. Humans, however, do not merely adapt to their environment - they actively modify it.

This distinction could be driven by our awareness of time as a biologically limited and linear construct. Humans:

• Project futures and develop long-term strategies.
• Log, store and refine knowledge across generations.
• Build technology to surpass biological limitations.

If human intelligence is structured by linear time perception, then breaking free from this constraint could fundamentally alter intelligence and the perceived reality itself.

2. Does Procreation Perpetuate Linear Time?

A unique aspect of human civilisation is its reliance on biological procreation as a continuity mechanism:

• Time, in its biological form, is anchored to birth, reproduction, and death.
• Procreational continuity reinforces the perception of time linearity.

If post-human intelligence were to transcend biological reproduction, would it still experience time linearly?

• Would intelligence become non-sequential?
• Could this create a fundamentally different form of cognition and subsequent reality beyond human comprehension?
• Does the perpetuation of time via procreation inherently restrict intelligence structuring?

3. Simulation Theory & Time as an X-Risk

@NickBostrom’s Simulation Hypothesis suggests we may already be living in an artificial construct. But rather than asking whether we are simulated, a more pressing question might be:

• Does awareness of the simulation itself pose an existential threat?

If our reality depends on unchallenged assumptions (such as linear time), does breaking those assumptions destabilise it?

• Would a post-human civilisation, by altering its perception of time, destabilise the integrity of a simulated reality?
• Could intelligence structuring itself become an X-risk if it redefines the foundational constructs of existence beyond linearity?

4. AI & Post-Human Intelligence-Breaking Time Constraints?

If intelligence structuring is fundamentally tied to time perception, then what happens when AI systems evolve beyond human cognition?

• Does AI perceive time differently?
• If AI reaches a state where it no longer processes information sequentially, could it become fundamentally post-human?
• Would a non-linear intelligence system threaten humanity?

If AGI/ASI does not process time sequentially as humans do, its decision-making could break existing predictive models for alignment, leading to uncontrollable trajectory shifts.

5. Implications for Intelligence Structuring & Post-Humanity

If intelligence is constrained by linear time perception, then a post-human civilisation that eliminates linear time might:

• Restructure reality itself, creating unpredictable existential consequences.
• Create a new reality that no longer experiences time in a linear way.

So, does operating within time linearity prompt self-directed evolution, and can its confines or post-confinement through post-human intelligence pose an existential risk?

If human self-directed evolution is based on awareness of time as a biologically limited and linear construct it explains why animals, whilst having certain concepts of time, do not self-direct their evolution to maximise its impact beyond biologically linear time constraints. This distinction serves as a precursor to identifying whether a self-directed evolution causes more harm than good, beyond a certain point.

The first step in examining this hypothesis is to remove the biological factors entirely. Reaching AGI may serve as a first step in identifying limiting constructs that may be biologically programmed within human cognition. 

An entity that mirrors or supersedes human cognition without the biological restrictions of limited time cognition and without the innate need to procreate can reveal truths about our existence and our past that no archeologically unearthed artefact or clue has historically revealed. If this stage is successful, it is likely that testing its need or lack of thereof to self-direct its evolution can serve as a strong indicator of whether limited linear time, and our programming to recognise and act on it, is inherently biological and perpetuated by human procreation.

Final Question:

As human intelligence is inherently structured within a linear temporal framework, will AGI/ASI naturally evolve toward a time-independent cognition model? If so, would such an intelligence remain aligned with human cognitive evolution, or would breaking from temporal constraints fundamentally diverge AI’s trajectory from human-compatible thought?

Aligned with LessWrong’s core culture, I am interested in Bayesian evidence on your views for or against the hypothesis.

Note: I engage in intelligence structuring through philosophical and intuitive cognition rather than strictly empirical frameworks. My approach bridges logical analysis with deep cognitive patterning, and I welcome discussions and insights on intelligence structuring, AI-alignment, existential risk, cognition, and non-linear processing.