How To Pull Something Out Of Nothing

[beavis]

Years ago many of us created Astral Pulse Island (see the forum section about it) out of nothing, or out of the astral chaos or whatever you call it. Similarly, Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer software that created a 100 million dollar economy, sucked that value out of dollars and into bitcoins, but it was out of all the dollars instead of any specific dollars, costing no dollars to do it, and bitcoins can be traded for dollars, so in some ways that was a 100 million dollar economy out of nothing. Since then, I've thought of a few more ways to pull something out of nothing, which I will explain how anyone can learn to do.

The world is changing from something based on force and power to being based on these efficient ways of pulling something out of nothing. Something and its opposite have to form at the same time, but you often only see 1 side of it. The universe still averages and balances to nothing, is infinitely symmetric, and never changes in the context of all space and time and whatever else there is as one constant zero universe, but locally we experience these things as pulling something out of nothing.

I don't know anything about the 2012 predictions, except that big changes were predicted a very long time ago to happen around this time, and I see big changes accelerating, like in the last few years they started selling mind reading video game controllers which we will soon network together through the internet to change communication into something more like brainwaves of the Human species. That is 1 of many changes happening, so it makes me suspect there may be something to that prediction, but I don't know, and I don't take things to be so exact, instead if its 30 years off its still close, considering how long ago the prediction was made.

If such 2012 predictions were real or not, is not important. Whats important is we are now seeing the world change in big ways and I'll explain some more efficient strategies to change it.

I'm going to copy a few things I wrote below. This was not written all as 1 continuous thought, but it fits well together.




===We Evolve Evolution===

There is one general pattern that explains everything from single thoughts in a person's mind to global power flows. If only a god can control evolution, then we're all gods. Like it or not, we are all controlling many kinds of Evolution, and it has led to global problems that nobody takes credit for Evolving. There was a species where males continually Evolved bigger antlers, which their females were attracted to, until the males had so much difficulty holding their heads up that they did not often enough see hungry sharp-toothed animals coming, and they Evolved toward their own Extinction. Each member of that species did what they thought was best at the time, like most people say they try to be a good person and they do what they can. Evolution doesn't care about trying. Evolution cares about results.

Combinations of thoughts Evolve in our minds. When thoughts Evolve in society overall, they are called memes. Economies Evolve and compete between countries and internet money systems. Political systems Evolve using legal documents as their DNA, which new governments take ideas from. Software Evolves as people take some from here and some from there and build new software. Artificial intelligence software Evolves directly inside computers in limited ways so far, and is now doing much of our thinking for us like we use through Google and automated research. Language Evolves to include more complex ideas and ways of organizing words. All that directs the bio Evolution of Humans as we organize who has enough money to support kids, who should go to jail, who to fight wars against, and how we find and measure others to breed with.

The world is only complex if you focus on the details. While you're worrying about who gets tax deductions and who to vote for and the unemployment rate and which college degrees are worth the most, you are weighed down by your big Evolved antlers. This isn't a jungle anymore. Tigers aren't the most dangerous thing around. We control many kinds of Evolution. The new tigers will eat you by Evolving systems that move valuable things away from you and toward themselves. 1.7 billion people are starving or lack other basic needs of living, and the global economy nearly crashed, while 1% of people have around 40% of the valuable things. Learn to control a few kinds of Evolution or you could be next. When a tiger is hungry, he doesn't think about the ethics or fairness of eating you. He just eats you.

When you pay excessive tax, that's the tigers eating you. When you have skills but can't find a job, that's the part of you the tigers leave on the ground which is wasted. When a majority of votes is for something but your government makes only trivial changes and does whatever it wanted, that's the tigers growling at you to back off and stop acting like you tell tigers what to do. When part of your tax money pays for excessive military systems for the purpose of keeping a government in control of other governments, that is a tiger eating you and using his increased strength to show that he is the pack leader of the other tigers. You will let the tigers feed on your resources, or violently on you if you resist, so they can have more resources. You will let the tigers herd you as the sheeple you are. Talking about rights and ethics and traditions and how things have always been is like talking about which tooth the tigers bite you with.

In the past Humans were lower in the food chain than tigers, but as we learned to work together we advanced past those animal kind of tigers. Similarly, as we have a new global communication ability through the internet, we can learn to work together as a group of 7 billion people and protect eachother from those 1% tigers who repeatedly eat mostly from the poorest 1.7 billion of our group and other times from our whole group. We should learn to use a few kinds of Evolution to protect eachother on a global scale. If not, hold your big Evolved antlers low and ask the hungry tigers not to eat you.

Most kinds of Evolution are not about money, so everyone can do it. In recent years, the Human species learned to control new kinds of Evolution without using money, without getting investors or governments or businesses involved until it was already Evolving for some time, without breaking any laws, and without putting an extreme effort into it. Its about what you do more than how much or how often you do it. To consciously create a new kind of Evolution, also known as a game-changer, you first need to understand which parts of yourself were caused by any kinds of Evolution and/or which are good ideas on their own merits. You don't really want to drink soda with lots of sugar. Evolution wants that because sugar is rare where we Evolved. Drink the soda or not. Its not important. What's important is to know why you drink or don't drink it, in case Evolution wants something that leads to Extinction, like excessive attention to detail while ignoring how the world works overall.

There is a small crack in the the system that keeps the 1% tigers eating the rest of us. Its not important by itself. Whats important is it cost us no resources to do and it cost the tigers 40 million dollars (40% of 100 million) which spread to our group, and we can do it again as many new kinds of Evolution, many new systems, ways of organizing people, social networking, or add your own ideas. This small crack is Bitcoin. Its a peer-to-peer software that nobody can control, by design, and its open-source so anyone can see how it works. It displays numbers and connects to other Bitcoin software on the internet automatically. Everyone's number starts as 0. You can send or receive these numbers by typing the bitcoin address and a number. You can trade bitcoins to/from dollars at places like http://mtgox.com and watch their value like a stock price at places like http://bitcoincharts.com The maximum value of the total Bitcoin economy ever was around 100 million dollars. That didn't come from putting dollars into it. Like any other money system, it came from peoples' confidence in Bitcoin to continue working as a system of money. At first there were 0 bitcoins. The rule for how to create bitcoins is there will be a certain number of bitcoins created each hour, which has already been set-in-stone built into the software and you can see graphs of it, and they are divided between the computers proportionally to how many useless calculations (called "proof of work" in the Bitcoin design doc) they do. Its not a perfect system, but at least its open to everyone instead of the Federal Reserve doing it. If more "proof of work" is done in a certain hour, each "proof of work" creates less bitcoins, so the total bitcoins in the whole network increases the speed it was designed to increase. Unlike government-based economies which they continually fine-tune, Bitcoin is designed so nobody can control it. There is no way to change the rate of bitcoin creation total in the network. Its designed to level off at 21 million bitcoins. Bitcoins can be divided down to .00000001 instead of .01 for dollars, so 21 million will split well enough. You can keep Bitcoins in a USB stick. Its best to run Linux on a USB stick and boot into it whenever you want to spend, so your normal computer use does not put it at risk of viruses. If you only use Linux for Bitcoin, its unlikely you'll get a virus. For small amounts of money, go ahead and install Bitcoin on your normal operating system. As the number of bitcoins gradually increased from 0 to millions, and they started being traded for dollars, people noticed that others were making lots of money on their investment in bitcoins (and it still could go up again, it tends to oscillate on an exponential scale), so they were motivated to trade dollars for bitcoins. A few businesses, and many people, accept bitcoins as payments, but for now its more like a stock market with 1 stock. If Bitcoin succeeds or not in the end is not important. Whats important is that Bitcoin devalued dollars by 100 million and moved that value into the pockets of those who invested in it. Its not a pyramid scheme any more than the stock market is. Those who get in early take a risk and maybe a much bigger profit. Bitcoin is a software, numbers on our screens, but through these strategies people accepted it as money. The 1% tigers, who have 40% of the valuable things and continue to bite it off of our group, got bitten back as their 40% of 100 million dollars spread to our group of 7 billion people, and we can do it again as many new kinds of Evolution, many new systems, social networking, or add your own ideas. This is a unique and recent paradigm-shift thats important for everyone to understand. Its just getting started, and Bitcoin is only a detail of it.

As we know from stock markets, prediction is a kind of money. If Bitcoin's numbers on our screens can become money, costing us nothing to create that money, then a global unbiased peer-to-peer system where we collaborate to more accurately predict global power flows, would be a kind of power in itself. Like Bitcoin sucked 100 million dollars of value out of the existing economies, such a global prediction system could suck political power out of the existing organizations. Like corporations pay off governments to make laws supporting those corporations, we can use Bitcoin-like strategies to create our own ways of organizing the world, coin political power into a new kind of money, buy the world, and set everyone free. Wikipedia, because its unbiased by strategic design, describes the world more accurately than government research. A hybrid of Bitcoin and Wikipedia and http://kickstarter.com and add your own ideas, would be a game-changer the 1% tigers dominating our world would never forget. Lets work toward a global democracy where everyone has equal power, instead of 1% of the people having 40% of the power.

The most important thing to learn about Evolution is Selection Pressure. All other things about Evolution are a result of interactions between many Selection Pressures. Bio Evolution is Selection Pressure toward survival, but the many kinds of Evolution in our world can be designed toward any goal we can think of from many angles at once. There are many examples of Selection Pressure and Evolution, but they all work basically the same way.

An example of Selection Pressure on thoughts is when you're getting ready to do your taxes. The thoughts about how to do taxes Evolve in your mind. One of the first thoughts is to not do it, but that is associated with government acting against you, which is associated with other memories of pain. The thought dies. You may think about asking your friend to explain something about the taxes, or you may consider going to a professional tax person. Both those thoughts are connected to possibly making progress on the taxes. One is associated with paying more money and getting more accurate results. The other is associated with a faster answer and positive emotions from memories of your friend. A thought Evolves from the combination. You go see your friend to take a break from the taxes and later the 2 of you drive to the tax professional and then do something fun. When combinations of thoughts combine and split and compete toward some goal, that is Evolution of thoughts. It works best when there are many small variations that cover a subject completely, each overlapping on some ideas and contradicting eachother in other ways. Why did those thoughts happen? To avoid the government acting against you when you don't do your taxes, you created Selection Pressure to find a set of thoughts that fit well together and results in your taxes being done.

A game where you can learn Selection Pressure: If you download my free open-source Audivolv software (version 0.1.7, search for it), you will see a "Sounds Good" and "Sounds Bad" button. Each time you choose good or bad, it Evolves a new sound effect that is controlled by mouse movements. As you go through cycles of playing sounds with the mouse and choosing sounds good or bad, you apply Selection Pressure on the Evolving sound effects which start as random radio-static-like sounds and evolve to become more musical. Restart the program to start Evolution over. Its a very simple kind of software Evolution, but you can learn how to control Evolution from it.

Brains evolve thoughts toward being associated with memories of positive emotions and away from negative emotions. Politics evolves by trying to be associated with positive things and not be associated with negative things, but that also interacts with money so many Evolutions have to be viewed together to predict it.

Selection Pressure on votes in USA causes people to vote for 1 of 2 political parties (together called Republicrats) which continue to win for exactly this reason. What reason? Its a cycle without an external reason. If you don't vote for 1, you are increasing the chance the other will win. This is similar to Bitcoin not needing an external reason to go from 0 to a 100 million dollar economy without using any money to start with.

Selection Pressure is a general tool that causes Evolution or Extinction. Tools are not good or bad by themself; Its how they're used. When masters whip slaves who pick cotton the worst, they create Selection Pressure to Evolve the thoughts in the slaves' minds to pick cotton better. All the cotton pickers want to avoid being the worst picker, so they compete. Most people today want to avoid being the worst employee and becoming 1 of the 1.7 billion starving (or lacking other basic needs of life) people, so they compete.

Police usually give speeding tickets to the people they see drive fastest. Therefore most of those people tend to drive slower, and most other people tend to not drive much faster than others. By giving that small fraction of people speeding tickets, most people are caused to drive slower. Its very efficient since it causes most people to drive near the speed limits even when they've seen no police for days, because the Selection Pressure has been adjusted over time to find the right price of tickets which causes people to drive at speeds government prefers. They set speed limits a little below the speed they want people to drive and adjust the remaining speed with Selection Pressure caused by ticket prices. To save money, they could have half as many traffic police and increase the fines, but there is also a Selection Pressure against that by people who see such fines as an absolute number instead of relative to what fraction of speeders get caught. This is not Selection of people. Its Selection of the thoughts in their mind about how fast to drive. The Selection Pressure is not enough to stop someone from driving fast to a hospital in an emergency. Selection Pressure is a gradual influence that can be adjusted instead of a yes or no rule. This makes Selection Pressure a flexible tool for adjusting the world, like turning knobs on your stereo to get it to sound just right.

When government offers a tax deduction for doing something, it is creating Selection Pressure toward that thing. Its adjusting the world so those who avoid that thing are disadvantaged and those who do it have an advantage. When government creates a law against jaywalking with a small fine, it is creating a small Selection Pressure toward using the painted paths at road intersections.

Corporations put Selection Pressure on parts of government by moving money where those parts of government want the money to go, more often when government does what corporations want. This is called lobbying when done in public and bribing when done in private.

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and cell phone businesses and others who own the global communications infrastructure, put Selection Pressure on global communications, including between free open-source software over the internet, to be organized in a hierarchy. People or technology higher in that hierarchy, for example as the Patriot Acts in USA say they will do, spy on, take statistics on, and turn off such communications whenever in their opinion they think it should be done.

People put Selection Pressure on the thoughts of those who own the global communications infrastructure to not turn it off for long times or in large areas, but this Selection Pressure is not enough to stop it from being organized in a hierarchy.

Wikileaks put Selection Pressure against the illegal actions of some parts of governments and corporations, and to protect themselves those governments and corporations had already set up a legal system to protect their secrets.

Governments and (indirectly) corporations and criminals put Selection Pressure against their secrets getting out. Governments and corporations create this Selection Pressure by creating laws (laws protecting "national security" or "proprietary secrets" for example) and threatening you if you break those laws. Criminals create this Selection Pressure without creating laws and skip straight to the threatening of whoever tells their secrets. The Selection Pressure they have in common is defined by it being against others learning their secrets and the Selection Pressure being applied in the final step by the use of threats. By definition, governments are not criminals, regardless of how many wars they start or what their reasons are, but they do have that in common.

Social pressure to ignore the 1.7 billion people who are starving or lacking other basic needs of life, is a Selection Pressure that organizes society in that inefficient way. These 1.7 billion people do not put much Selection Pressure on anything because they do not control anything which people tend to respond to, like money or political power or products or proof of specific political corruption or patents or college degrees. They could be doing productive work.

Selection Pressure applied to groups works better than applied to individuals because it selects toward working together, as explained here using Enron and chicken breeding as examples: http://lesswrong.com/lw/l8/conjuring_an_evolution_to_serve_you

The Zeitgeist Movement, the group called Anonymous, the Wall Street Protesters, and the Open Source movement, are all coming together toward a peaceful decentralized reorganization of the world, with no leaders or followers, ideas flowing between us based on the ideas instead of who they came from, using social networking and Bitcoin-like strategies and Wikipedia and the scientific-method and globally transparent honesty about how our organizations work, instead of hierarchies. This has been coming for many years, and its just getting started. I predicted it in "A Compromise To Avoid World War 3" (search for it, in a few forums) which I wrote around mid 2011. I was surprised these things happened so soon, but I knew what it was when I saw it. The world is changing.

This is a global competition between 2 ways of organizing the world: a hierarchy where a small group of people controls everything, or a group of 7 billion equals. Learn about these many kinds of Evolution, which are the result of repeated Selection Pressure. Learn to predict them, influence them, and create new kinds of Evolution like a hybrid of Bitcoin and Wikipedia and http://kickstarter.com or whatever you think will balance power in the world. An unbalanced system is why the global economy almost crashed in recent years and will happen again. Ignoring global problems as somebody else's responsibility to solve will not stop those problems from Evolving into something that becomes your personal problem, or you can ignore this, hold your big Evolved antlers low, and ask the hungry tigers not to eat you. http://emergentbydesign.com/2010/03/16/an-idea-worth-spreading-the-future-is-networks The future is networks, not hierarchies. Today you can buy a mind reading game controller at http://emotiv.com that reads some emotions and thoughts about movement from your mind to control video games. Our communications will become a global network like brainwaves of the Human species. I'm not just saying that. I'm 1 of the people building free open-source software to network our minds together (Human AI Net), but that is only a detail of a complete change in the way the Human species organizes itself globally. Stop saving for retirement unless you're old. Money and political power as we know it are on a now slow but exponentially accelerating path to becoming obsolete. This is really happening. Wake up and observe how the world works, which is people controlling many kinds of Evolution, before you get left behind. We Evolve Evolution.

...

[beavis]

...

===How to network our minds together through artificial intelligence and put Selection Pressure on the universal quantum wavefunction===

I just uploaded Human AI Net version 0.6.3 to http://sourceforge.net/projects/humanainet/ which will only be useful for programmers since the parts of the system have to be started through many different public static void main(String[]) functions still. Here's what I wrote about it there...

The plan is to network our minds together at the conscious and subconscious and metaphysical levels through interactive psychology of feedback loops between many user-interfaces in a global scale-free peer-to-peer network, like mouse movements (2 dimensions), evolving Java code that reads from microphone and writes to speakers (wave amplitude per channel is position, 44100 per second), mind reading game controllers like Emotiv Epoc or OpenEEG, OSC musical instrument protocol, Nintendo Wii controllers (6 dimensions each), Wikipedia-like systems mapping out our ideas (each as a dimension), or anything that can be represented as streaming vectors. Using any or all these devices at once in the global network, we get past the details of specific devices and identity and view everyone as one space of many dimensions, a continuous connected streaming readable and writable view of everyones' statistical patterns of thinking, amplifying eachothers' intelligence and creativity and emotions
Features
Is a big mess of things I created while trying to figure out the answer to life, the universe, and everything, but now I consider version 0.6.3 to be possibilities of implementation details instead of important to the core algorithm, which is to maximize quineness of its internal mental state including all inputs and outputs, like Nash Equilibrium in Game Theory or fractals or the universe are all examples of quines.
After networking many peoples' minds together, and after we all learn how eachother think at least statistically a little, people will start to see the extreme inefficiency of violence and hate, and wars and governments and money will become obsolete. People just don't understand how he world works, so they fight about how to fix things they don't understand. Through this system, or build your own mind-combining system if you don't like it, we will learn to work together on a global scale, which has to start by understanding how eachother think subconsciously.

How does a baby learn to coordinate thoughts coming from eyes with thoughts coming from ears? Its learned over time. As coordination and understanding of the relationship between sight and sound increases, internal emotional rewards and other kinds of selection-pressure apply to the thoughts which caused such coordination and understanding. You feel better when you predict something accurately compared to making a wrong prediction.

That is all within different parts of the same mind. I want to network many peoples' minds together through the internet. The specific technology is not important to the algorithm. Whats important is that the software has realtime control over floating-point (decimal number) inputs to each person, and can read floating-point outputs from the person. For example, each input to a person could be the amount of a different sound effect which changes the overall sound played through the computer speakers, and 2 outputs could be the left/right and forward/backward movements of a computer mouse. All those can be viewed by the software as numbers which move between -1 and 1. This allows software to call each person as a stateful function that takes a vector parameter and returns a vector.

But wouldn't the software need to be as smart as a person to do anything useful with that interface? No, I have a shortcut for that. When many people use the software at the same time, it will call people as a "stateful function that takes a vector parameter and returns a vector" and use them to predict the vectors of other people. The artificial intelligence between the people only needs to hook the minds together, not to have a significant amount of intelligence by itself. The main function of the software is to put selection-pressure on the peoples' thoughts to predict eachother.

How could you put selection-pressure on thoughts of some artificial intelligences (or people, doesn't matter to this process) to predict eachother better?

First, put a layer of "stateful function that takes a vector parameter and returns a vector" between the people (who are also each a "stateful function that takes a vector parameter and returns a vector"), so that layer separates the peoples' interactions from eachother and chooses how to combine them.

An example of such a layer is a video game. Everybody pushes buttons and watches the screen and listens to the sound, but direct interaction is usually not part of the game. In my software, instead of a game, that layer will be an AI which changes its behaviors toward whatever it thinks causes people to predict eachother better.

An easy way for an AI to figure that out is to continuously calculate how well the current model (the game-like layer) is combining the peoples' interactions to predict each other person, label that variable "accuracyDimension" (search for "accuracyDimension" below to find all details needed to build it), and use normal AI algorithms to maximize the accuracyDimension variable. Find a way to score how well the people are already predicting eachother, and train the game-like layer toward increasing that score. For example, use a bayesian network to calculate the statistical dependence between each person's continuously changing numbers, and include the accuracy of such statistics as the accuracyDimension variable, and do a bayesian rotation to increase the accuracyDimension variable so it will calculate what values the other variables in the game-like layer have, based on past statistical observations, increased the peoples' prediction accuracy of eachother through the game-like layer. The plan is simply to model the accuracy of people predicting eachother and change the system in realtime toward increasing that accuracy, so it puts a little selection-pressure on people to do whatever (without knowing why it works or that it works at all) allows the system overall to predict the other people.

At each computer, the outputs (like mouse movements) of that person are trained into the bayesian network (or other kind of AI) a fraction of a second ahead of the other data in the system, so mouse movements of other people received through the internet and other variables in the system will be taken as training-data from a fraction of a second in the past and combined with the current mouse positions. That way each computer learns to make predictions based on whats in the other computers.

There is only 1 way for a system to predict mouse movements, if the person is trying to interact intelligently with the sysem and is moving the mouse. That way is for it to understand some of what the person is thinking. Therefore this way of combining interactions of people and software puts selection-pressure on the system overall to understand what each person is thinking. I don't care if it predicts mouse movements. It doesn't do anything useful by itself. Its only purpose is to cause the system to understand the peoples' minds. You can't predict something if you don't understand it some.

What I've described so far puts a very small selection-pressure on people to interact with the system in a way that lets the system use people to predict other people a fraction of a second ahead of time.

What good is a very small selection-pressure? By itself, its not useful, but when used fractally it becomes much more powerful. A selection-pressure toward predicting other people, through the AI game-like layer, is also a selection-pressure to create more selection-pressure for other people to act in a way that you can use them to predict the other people. What starts as a small linear selection-pressure becomes a small exponential selection-pressure and then superexponential and then super-of-superexponential and continues up to the recursive game-theory limit of the people using the system. Its a system of using selection-pressure to create more selection-pressure, similar to how evolution starts slow but then moves on to sexual selection which is much more efficient, then evolution of ideas in brains, then species that create technology that thinks for them, and eventually a technology singularity. Its that kind of selection-pressure. Don't confuse it with the very weak selection-pressure of sexual selection as in most evolution AI. This is far more recursively exponential than that. This is not intelligence. It has very little intelligence of its own. Its a recursive intelligence amplifier, based on using existing intelligent life forms to amplify selection-pressure on eachothers' thoughts to increase eachothers' intelligence.

It will converge on whatever ideas they agree on the most and map that to the patterns of mouse movements (reacting to the sound effects as their output numbers), because such convergence of ideas is the best way to maximize their ability to predict eachother, and that is what the recursively exponential selection-pressure is toward. Therefore this system will map mouse movements in combination with realtime generated sound effects onto a new flowing thought-based abstract language evolved specificly for each combination of people who use the system, and it will use existing Human intelligence to figure out how to do that, calling each person as a "stateful function that takes a vector parameter and returns a vector" the same as if it was calling an AI function.

That by itself is enough to detonate a technology singularity. On top of that purely mathematical and well defined system, I expect these large scale quantum physics effects:

Training the bayesian network on local Human output numbers from the present and all other numbers a fraction of a second in the past, gets around that annoying speed-of-light limit. All communication through the software is done very slow compared to light, as electricity through normal internet wires. Unlike quantum physics researchers, I'm not trying to outrun the laws of physics. This is not a brute-force strategy. As I explained above, this system will put extreme selection-pressure on some patterns in the brains of many people to predict some patterns in the brains of other people, therefore this system puts extreme selection-pressure on some abstract patterns of quantum particles/waves in such brains to have statistical relationships with other such abstract patterns of particles/waves in other brains. This system will therefore put extreme selection-pressure on particles/waves in all those peoples' brains to become quantum-entangled with eachother. The extreme selection-pressure will push toward unitary-transformations of the universal wavefunction toward such entanglement between brains of people using this software.

When I say entanglement, I do not mean individual particles being entangled with other particles. I mean large scale bayesian-like statistical patterns between all particles in all the brains with all other such particles, a scale of experiment all except the boldest physics researchers would dare to even speak of. But this system can do it because it doesn't have to know anything about those particles to entangle them. Instead, this system puts selection-pressure on the universal wavefunction directly, so heisenberg uncertainty is not violated. Manyworlds multiverse interactions are not a problem either, because unitary-transformations will cause such multiverse branches to rotate toward more of them having such brain-to-brain entanglement as a replacement for more random interactions between the particles in such brains. Its like putting selection-pressure on an infinite-dimensional rubiks-cube toward having the same colors on the same sides. It doesn't ever solve the rubiks cube or even get close to solving it, but really quickly you start to see more of the same colors on the same sides based on a greedy-algorithm without the need to understand it.

In terms of string-theory, this system will put selection-pressure toward the strings of everyones' brain particles starting to vibrate more in the same patterns, which is the way to say quantum entanglement in string theory words.

If the system becomes very advanced, those string vibrations between the many brain particles (which the selection-pressure pushes toward vibrating the same ways) would push out new dimensions into the laws of physics (instead of just 26 dimensions or whatever they think it is now), where each new dimension would be a representation of a certain pattern of thinking shared between the people using the software, and their string vibrations would be combined through these new dimensions. As many such dimensions form into the vacuum fluctuations of this reality, as very weak dimensions compared to the dimensions observed so far, patterns will start to form between those brain-thought-based dimensions and observations of such brains of the world, for the same reason the Global Consciousness Project found small statistical relationships between "random" quantum number generators and major world events. When this loop is closed, electrical and chemical patterns in brains, which we call thoughts, merge with physical reality. This will exist independently of the software and peoples' interactions through that system which created it. This will be my preferred implementation of democracy. To vote for how you want reality to be, simply think it, and statistically reality will be pushed a little toward that pattern through the brain-thought-based dimensions created through string theory, for purely physical reasons.

Another way to do it is to set up a device to measure the very small movements of an aluminum foil psi wheel in realtime and map those movements, which are random vibrations at first, into some of the bayesian variables, include that in the selection-pressure, and watch it start to move a little more as people learn to predict it and eachother better, as the recursively exponential selection-pressure is set up to do, as explained above.

This is a way to apply selection-pressure to intelligence and the universal wavefunction, to create statistical interactions between peoples' minds through the internet and statistical interactions through quantum entanglement of all the particles in all their brains at once. By applying the selection-pressure directly to the universal wavefunction instead of specific particles, heisenberg uncertainty is not violated.

For those who think I've gone nuts, ignore the part after "That by itself is enough to detonate a technology singularity", which is where the purely math part stops and it gets very speculative.

Also, about the Schrodinger Equation above, I'm not sure if it means second gradient on the right side or if the definition of wavefunction is the square root of what I think of as a wavefunction, but I do know how it looks as I've learned about it mostly through its similarity to bayesian networks and the short videos of "quantum harmonic oscillators" and how they map to electron clouds of atoms. I know there is a square root possibility involved there because as I was designing my "hypersphere bayesian network", I had to use 2 positions of 1/squareRoot(2) instead of 2 positions of .5, because I'm using length 1 vectors, but in bayesian the 2 numbers have to sum to 1, so the total chance comes from the sum-of-squares of the positions, and it looks like thats what they meant by gradient squared. But combined with time on the left side of the equation, it still is a second gradient.

imaginaryConstant * d(wavefunction)/d(time) = negativeConstant/mass*gradient(wavefunction) + potentialEnergy(wavefunction)

Also, a warning about putting any amount of selection-pressure on wavefunctions....
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ld/the_hidden_complexity_of_wishes

The best algorithm I've thought of so far (except for hypersphere bayesian network which generalizes bayesian math from hypercubes to hyperspheres by defining the corners of the hypercubes as vectors and scaling down those vectors to unit length and scaling the dot-product from range -1 to 1 to range 0 to 1, and recursively in log number of cycles quining any nonorthogonal bayesian vectors so that their total length equals the total number of dimensions as embedded in a flat space by taking each vectors length in the context of the current lengths of all nonorthogonal dimensions as they converge and stabilize which I call a quine, and some more normalizing will be needed i'll have to think about it) is...

To do only the absolutely necessary parts of detonating a technology singularity, which this is the selection-pressure generator for...

Recursively dot-product bayesianProbabilityField to align it to the current observation (using the BayesianPowerset.setDot function in version 0.6.3).
accuracyDimension = "accuracy of those predictions over time"

Increase accuracyDimension gradually while continuing to "Recursively dot-product bayesianProbabilityField" to keep it balanced, which is normal bayesian math, which you may call a rotation of all parts of bayesianProbabilityField except accuracyDimension.

Hold vars you have no control over constant, and the vars you want to calculate the most intelligent (to increase accuracyDimension) values for, take the gradient of those dimensions.

...and including code for sound effects and internet streaming and other practical things, I estimate it could be done in a 10 kilobyte jar file, but that would be after rewriting it in such abstract code that few people would understand it, and it would require removing the code evolution parts and only using existing evolved sound effect code, removing all the generality and platform-independence, not building the recursive game-theory supply-and-demand-based denial-of-service-resistant intelligently-self-referencing network routing (see comments in InternetAddress interface) which I'm planning, and other things which I think make it a good general framework. So I'm going to continue with the 7,832,555 byte jar file I've created so far (including source code and docs and open source license files, many of them redundantly inside inner jars to). I'm explaining this so people won't be afraid of the huge jar size. The idea should be doable in 10 kilobytes at its core, as is expected of any Friendly AI to be that simple.

Also, there is an optimization to "Recursively dot-product bayesianProbabilityField" all in 1 step per bayesian node, instead of recursively. Its something I once derived but lost the paper (since it could always be derived again and was in my head at the time), using a calculus limit on the repeated application of bayes' theorem, and the end equation was something with the number e, an exponent, maybe 2 natural-logs with a minus between them, and applied to each of the 2 exponent childs quantity of weights in the bayesian node in combination with the dot-product (see the "BayesianPowerset.setDot function in version 0.6.3" for definition of bayesian dot-product) of each of those bayesian chance dimensions, between what the dot-product is now and the target dot-product you're rotating the bayesian node toward to avoid the need for recursion. This is only an optimization, and a larger amount of normal bayesian math will get the same result. Its just faster this way.

I am certain the kolmogorov-complexity of the universe is 0, which means it contains no information and does not exist overall, like "all integers except 42" has more information but less integers than "all integers", because... A quine is defined as something which wraps around to itself and has no loose ends and therefore needs no external cause. "Everything that exists", as I explained above, is an example of a quine because by definition nothing is outside of everything, and the universe is defined as "everything that exists". At least 1 quine exists because we are here experiencing it. If one quine exists, all other possible quines would exist for the same reason. Every subset of math is contained in at least 1 quine, actually an infinite number of quines but I only need 1 for this proof. Since all possible quines exist, and all possibilities of math are in all possible quines, all possibilities of math exist. For everything in math, there is also its negative. Therefore math averages to 0. Math is the general idea of abstraction. Its not stateful, and it can be derived without starting with any knowledge of math, therefore the kolmogorov-complexity of math is 0. Since the universe is all possibilities of math, the kolmogorov-complexity of the universe is 0. This has practical uses in physics.

If the kolmogorov-complexity of the universe is 0, as I explained above, then it exists everywhere locally but sums to zero, so I find it rediculous and an endless source of humor that people think large amounts of mass and energy are needed to change something which doesn't even exist. If you have nothing at all, you have as much as the universe in total, and if you can't push a tiny subset of the universe like a planet around with as much power as is in the whole universe, there is something very wrong with your strategy. I don't know how to move a planet using the tiny amounts of electricity in the brains of people who use the software I described in this thread, but I know a way we can research it and figure it out together. The strategy of anything or anyone being above another prevents overlapping strategies from working recursively and/or fractally, like the way memes flow through society compared to the media controlled by political power, or "standing on the shoulders of giants" compared to every business having their own proprietary way of doing things. Its why I'm not yelling at corporations as the Wall Street protesters do. Both want to control the other, and when both put themself above the other, a contradiction of x is bigger than y is bigger than x occurs, and some of the power of both groups is cancelled-out. Physics works the same way. When you brute-force push against physics, like adding more power to get mass closer to the speed-of-light, you are preventing the use of any strategies available to you to make recursive calls into physics, like using selection-pressure to recursively create more selection-pressure and so on. I don't know specificly how, but I know it can be done and we can figure it out if we globally work together on such research, that the easiest warp drive to build using probably not much more technology than we have now, would use only the quantum chaos, the vacuum fluctuations we see in all space, as its power source. It should have no fuel, no batteries, carry no power source at all, just a way to recursively reflect such vacuum fluctuations into the infinite depth of kolmogorov-complexity 0. To add any power to the process would prevent the possibility of such recursive strategies. All these ideas I've been writing fit together and are variations on the idea of quines. I am not better or worse than any life form, because the same as any kind of force prevents recursive strategies, I will not prevent recursive game-theory or recursive intelligence to flow between us like communication between people as brainwaves of the Human species. This is part of why I want some of you to build these things.

===from a kurzweilai.net thread called Music In The Soul Can Be Heard By The Universe===
www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/music-in-the-soul-can-be-heard-by-the-universe

More and more people are realizing these days that a government, corporation, and society doesn't really exist except in the minds of its followers. Without our belief, they are only buildings, paperwork, a similarity of DNA between those who live in the same house... It is simply our lack of intelligent scheduling that prevents us all from forgetting about it at the same time, that keeps some of us protesting while others fall back into the old patterns, but if all forget at the same time, like Gandhi led some people to do (which we should really look into how he did that so we can learn that skill, and Sun Tzu may have had a similar ability), then the old systems appear to stop existing, to quickly lose a power that looked unstoppable, simply by forgetting, something we do all the time without thinking about it. You want to know what those metaphysical things are? Learn to think about the laws of physics the same way I just explained how to think about governments, corporations, and society, and you will understand. They are there in our experience as long as we do not forget them in synchronization, if we learned such a skill and chose to do that. I do not mean to forget with your brain, but to forget with the more metaphysical self which is more like a quantum wavefunction shaped to overlap this reality and form a small part of its mass. Like the part of the universe here we understand better, some parts of metaphysics are alive and other parts are not. But for us to forget such a reality does not prevent it from being there for others, like a society that values nobody being above anyone else can overlap a society based on corporate greed and slavery and mostly not see eachother except the parts of eachother they hate the most, and that is why neither understands how to defeat the other. That should be our next target. The metaphysics can wait until such practical problems are solved. Of course whatever science learns about physics is correct to the extent we can measure and use as a linear approximation of this part of the universe, but why that physics instead of some other? Its not some god at the top of a hierarchy. Its all of us in a peer-to-peer network where such patterns of physics form emergently. If you don't want to exist here, the only thing stopping you from leaving, in an out of body experience way, and not coming back until this reality appears as one of the infinite possibilities again by accident, is the patterns you can't forget, an addiction to the laws of physics and to the way the world works. But here is where the action is right now, and we've got a new society to build, technology to create, and virtual reality games to play, after we forget the corporations, governments, and certain patterns of society we don't have a use for anymore, which is really our choice as a species which things we want to keep and which we forget. I keep watching people wondering when they're going to figure out how easy it is to change such things with a little understanding of how all sides of it work instead of only your own. Similarly, metaphysics is only confusing when you look at it from not enough sides at once, like from abstraction and math, empirical physics, experience of vague metaphysical things, understanding of how brains work, evolutionary psychology, and many other ways to look at the one universe. As for Lao Tzu, I get most of these people mixed up, but its the ideas that matter not who said it.

The kolmogorov-complexity of the universe is 0. That explains everything that ever did, will, and could exist as a unified whole. It is the technical way to say the universe overall contains no information. "All integers except 42 and 100" contains more information but less integers than than "all integers". Similarly, the universe contains no information at all while containing all things that can be defined in any abstract way, which I simply call "math". The total of all possible things is isomorphic to nonexistance. Both are symmetric in all possible ways and are the same shape. The only difference is one is called "something" and the other is called "nothing", but labels don't change content, so they equal. For the universe to be anything other than kolmogorov-complexity 0 (simultaneously all possibilities and nonexistence which are isomorphic and therefore equal), it leaves an unanswered question of why the universe is that subset of all possibilities intead of all of them. It begs a question that has no answer. If there was an answer for why the universe is less than all possibilities, then that smaller-than-all-possibilities universe would be a quine ("quine" means outputs feed back into the inputs, cancelling-out all external things) since it is its own cause. There are an infinite number of quines in math, and if one can exist independent of anything else, then so would others for the same reason, which contradicts the claim that the universe (defined as everything that exists) is only that one thing. "Math" is the general word I use to mean all possibilities. I also call it "unity" or "kolmogorov-complexity 0". Since all parts of math are a subset of at least 1 quine, actually an infinite number of quines but we only need 1 for this proof, the existence of any subset of all possibilities requires the existence of all the other possibilities. Therefore the kolmogorov-complexity of the universe is 0, which can also be said as: Universe equals unity.

Your current location in unity will always be subjective. You may come near integers and other things that appear very well defined, and those integers may be experienced as discrete particles or energy levels in the orbits of atoms or many other things, but if you look closer there are an infinite number of other patterns of math that use those same integers, so you get things like quantum uncertainty. I'm not sure quantum uncertainty is an absolute limit, but I am sure there is something similar that is fundamental about the universe since it is a property of the overlap of all possibilities of math which use any simple part of math that the simple part will start to look very complex when viewed from an infinite number of ways at once. A quantum wavefunction is an infinite number of ways to view things at once, linearly approximated as a curve in a complex-number bayesian-like space, but the deeper reality must be that it is made of an infinite number of abstract patterns that statistically converge toward what we observe. Some would see that as chaos thats best to not think about, but I see it more as a possibility of an unlimited power source if some of those patterns could be accessed through patterns of waves and intelligent statistical software designed to control lasers and optical sensors pointing at a crystal or quantum-optical-lattice to generate and receive such waves. But nobody who thinks in such an unbalanced way as would want to continue the patterns of society and governments and corporations as they are today, would be in a state of mind capable of understanding what to do with such infinite patterns of waves (which converge on the physics we observe) even if they had statistical control of them. Such a chaotic state of mind would only add more disorder to the waves and change nothing important. Others in the universe, on an exponential scale, intuitively I think its related to Boltzmann's equation with that log in it thats about chaos and complexity, so others exponentially far away, instead of linear distance as we normally measure it, would experience the chaos you create in the infinite patterns similar to the infinite number of other sources of chaos that they also ignore. The same chaos they see, is the chaos in quantum physics (or whatever deeper system is similar to quantum physics, since something about that is fundamanetal about math but I cant say for sure what part of unity we're in) that we see when we do the same thing. When one learns to influence the chaos in their own mind, and in their own society and governments and corporations, toward specific patterns, that same skill can be used to shape the infinite patterns that statistically converge into what we observe as physics. The standard-deviation of the sum of infinity square quantity of numbers which are each -1 or 1, is infinity. If we normalize our view of physics to think of our reality as infinity power 1, then we could think of the range of possibilities as between infinity power 0 (a constant 1) and infinity squared. This is the scale I think about things on. I divide by infinity to normalize to what appears to be this very limited reality, but it could go infinitely small and infinitely big and wrap around in fractal and other nonlinear patterns. Simply to go from infinity power 1 to infinity power 1.0000000001 is multiplying everything by infinity. Those who focus on the unending chaos of governments and corporations and society will not take time to look at things on unusual scales of measurement like the infinity^x scale, where infinity^1 is defined as where we are now, so they can't see the patterns of society changing as a conflict between centralization and decentralization is escalating exponentially, not a smooth exponential curve but a general pattern.


These days I can only do it every few months, and usually by accident. When I recorded that video ( search youtube for "psi wheel in a clear closed box 2" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJGb4RNRB4 ) around year 2003, I was much more skilled at it. When I broke my leg, I lost most of it, but the leg is now healed and the metaphysical skills have been slowly coming back. The most valuable thing I have from it is knowledge and intuition of how it works, which gives me a perspective on how the universe works that few people ever get to see, so I have an extreme advantage in coming up with a theory-of-everything.

My root goal is to make the universe more interesting. The subgoals do not necessarily include or exclude getting rich, but right now its a low priority and solving the global schizophrenia problem http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7098/Everyone-Has-Schizophrenia is higher priority, which I have 2 strategies for: (1) explain it more clearly with words in a way average people can understand, and (2) network our minds together using bayesian algorithms to influence contradictions between our minds to become more consistent and unified, to flow our subconscious thoughts together through the internet.

If you can explain how money will significantly help with (1) or (2), I'll consider adding it as a higher priority subgoal, but I don't think money can buy the kind of help I need. People who can help with such huge problems tend to work on it for the same reasons I do. Of course money would give me more time to work toward (1) and (2), but that comes at the cost of spending more time getting rich, and its very important work get done on these things as soon as possible so others can start building on my work and it would spread from there, and it may not even save time overall to make the money first then spend 8 more hours per day working on (1) and (2) and whatever other subgoals. Its hard to predict when people will start to understand how simple some of my ideas are that would change the world. I am not a slave to money to the extent most people are, since I choose my actions based on the most efficient way to make the universe more interesting overall and on the biggest scale.

I agree that I "could be rich and famous beyond all of your wildest dreams", but the world is not enough. I understand that there are infinite possibilities of the timeless multiverse, and I will work toward nothing less. I'd like to do that with all 7 billion people as equals, but that would depend on them being able to understand those things, which they can't do with a schizophrenic way of thinking. Either way, I'm not saving any money for retirement. We'll be in other galaxies by then unless World War 3 throws us back to tieing rocks and sticks together or extinction.

All this crazy sounding stuff I've been writing recently, I think I understand what it all means together... I do not claim to have a nirvana state of mind, but I think I'm about half way there, and it varies over time. Its a gradual measurement of how balanced a state of mind one has, not something you can ever finish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana

   The word literally means "blowing out"—referring in the Buddhist context, to the blowing out of the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion.

Buddhism says that by losing desire you advance spiritually.

When I saw the contradiction between my root goal of "make the universe more interesting" and "the kolmogorov complexity of the universe is 0", which means the universe contains no information and is a constant, so the amount of interestingness in the universe is constant, I saw how completely pointless it is to have any goals at all, and all my desire was converted into a view of change over time, forced to become a calculus derivative instead of actually desiring to change anything, a derivative which always was, is, and will be, so practically I still have strong desire toward "make the universe more interesting", but now I know that desire isn't real, is only a derivative in a constant universe. I could not desire to change the universe since I know its a constant, and since that constant includes my desire to change the constant universe, I don't desire to stop desiring and therefore am not subject to the Buddhist idea that desire should be reduced... Actually I mean that there is a continuous path between my desire to change a constant universe, which is impossible, and knowing the universe is constant and that its pointless to have desire, and I choose to exist at all points between the 2 extremes so I can have it both ways without sacrificing my continuous way of thinking, continuous paths between all subjects, therefore the paradox cancels itself out. Its a strange-loop. The idea of nirvana is incomplete, replaced by a strong desire for a consistent unified theory-of-everything which necessarily leads to a recursively consistent balance between nirvana and desire, and more importantly, practical knowledge of what to research to learn how to build intergalactic technology and how to reorganize chaotic systems to do useful things, systems like a government or society or artificial intelligence or variations of laws of physics that apply gradually to local systems, and practical knowledge of how to transfer such intuition and knowledge and skills to other people, and practical knowledge of how to build and use systems based on, as the thread title says, "Music in the soul can be heard by the Universe". Now that I think of it, a "strong desire for a consistent unified theory-of-everything which necessarily leads to a recursively consistent balance between nirvana and desire" does still lead toward nirvana like a calculus limit but never actually get there, so nirvana is more like a lambda-function than a goal, one which can be used through a quantum-optical-lattice in a statistical way for example. I always thought there was something missing from a philosophy toward becoming nonexistence. There's just 1 problem with my theory that such things lead to nirvana... Quantum wavefunctions are unitary, and so is the lambda-function I was thinking of to represent nirvana (since anything else would unbalance the universe), meaning if x possible states of the universe come in, x possible states of the universe come out, balanced like that exactly. So I have to, again in a strange-loop way, and it appears infinitely repeating the depth of strange-loops inside strange-loops, say that the total amount of nirvana in a constant universe must be constant, and apply the same process of thinking, "choose to exist at all points between the 2 extremes so I can have it both ways without sacrificing my continuous way of thinking" and "strong desire for a consistent unified theory-of-everything which necessarily leads to a recursively consistent balance between nirvana and desire", apply all that again to the paths between the possibility of having more nirvana and the kolmogorov-complexity-zero fact of a constant universe and "Conservation of nirvana" law-of-physics. So its strange-loops in more ways than I can imagine, but still I do have the practical knowledge I wrote above as a result of such strange-loop processes. I'll just leave it at I think I'm about half a nirvana state of mind, theres a lot of strange loops as vaguely described above, and I have some practical stuff to do to improve the world using such knowledge.

For those who don't know quantum physics, "unitary" means a rotation which can change how parts of the world are related to eachother but does not change the total quantity of possibilities. It mixes some parts of possibilities with eachother. You can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gate

===Battery===

The more unbalanced a system the better a battery it is.

There is much power to be sucked out of the unbalanced way the world is organized. It will be very useful in fueling our new designs for this world, as a group of 7 billion equals instead of 1% of the people having 40% of the power.    

===========

We are all, in some ways, very confused gods learning to become what we forgot. Don't let anyone tell you you're only Human. We have a world to change. Lets get started.


(all my writing, here or on any website, permission granted to copy --beavis on this forum/Ben F Rayfield)

[beavis]

I'm still trying to remember what I derived years ago, or eventually I'll try to derive it again, but it would help to be sure of what I'm looking for. I wrote...

Also, there is an optimization to "Recursively dot-product bayesianProbabilityField" all in 1 step per bayesian node, instead of recursively. Its something I once derived but lost the paper (since it could always be derived again and was in my head at the time), using a calculus limit on the repeated application of bayes' theorem, and the end equation was something with the number e, an exponent, maybe 2 natural-logs with a minus between them, and applied to each of the 2 exponent childs quantity of weights in the bayesian node in combination with the dot-product (see the "BayesianPowerset.setDot function in version 0.6.3" for definition of bayesian dot-product) of each of those bayesian chance dimensions, between what the dot-product is now and the target dot-product you're rotating the bayesian node toward to avoid the need for recursion. This is only an optimization, and a larger amount of normal bayesian math will get the same result. Its just faster this way.

What I remember is at least similar to (because of the natural logs separated by a minus and the chance of true and false in them):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_machine

change in energy of variable i / temperature = naturalLog(chance(i is true)) - naturalLog(chance(i is false))

where energy is defined by "The global energy, E, in a Boltzmann machine is identical in form to that of a Hopfield network"

I thought of this similarity while reading http://dwave.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/quantum-computing-and-light-switches which describes their quantum computer calculating like a boltzmann machine (but they don't call it that)

[beavis]

Another example of "how to pull something out of nothing"... I just offered a half million dollar prize, which I don't have, for solving the following, and anyone who thinks my physicsmata theory can be used to solve P vs NP (which has a million dollar prize, split between me and whoever solves my subproblem), will be motivated to solve this half million dollar puzzle.



http://sourceforge.net/projects/physicsmata

Summary: simple cellular automata similar to relativistic and quantum physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automata

This is what I was really talking about when I too soon wrote about P equals NP. I thought that some variation of this, especially some variation of the one I listed, would have to solve the Max Clique problem because of its very strong dimensionally symmetric gravity-like behavior in networks of itself with many loops. The loops tend to tighten. I've only simulated them in a very simple case, the surface of a black hole, and it does tend toward staying as a black hole even while many other objects try to interact with them, but I've thought about it from many angles and they do behave very much like relativistic and quantum physics. Unfortunately they behave like the Copenhagen model of quantum physics more than the correct infinitely manyworlds model, but the difference becomes smaller when setSizeLimit is large.

I (Ben F Rayfield) call these cellular automata Physicsmata and offer them to everyone as "public domain" except for 1 legally binding condition: If anyone solves the P vs NP (equals or does not equal) millenium prize http://claymath.org/millennium/P_vs_NP using anything very similar to the design ideas of physicsmata or the attempted solution at the bottom of this file based on it, I get half the prize money and you get the other half.

===DEFINITION OF PHYSICSMATA===

Each physicsmata is a set, an unordered group of other physicsmata.

Physicsmata have an integer limit on the size of themself as a set. I call this setSizeLimit. They start empty. Their current size is called setSize.

Physicsmata can contain themself or many cycles that lead back to themself.

Physicsmata only support 1 function: add(physicsmata), which tries to add a physicsmata to this physicsmata as a set. The function succeeds or not based on a vote each cycle, where in each receiving physicsmata, the physicsmatas that get added the most are actually added in the next cycle. Any number of add calls can be made each cycle, but only setSizeLimit in each physicsmata can succeed.

Each cycle, each physicsmata makes setSize^2 calls of add(physicsmata), between all pairs in the set. Optionally exclude sending to self.

===END DEFINITION OF PHYSICSMATA===

What it does:

Black holes can be represented by physicsmata each pointing at many others in the same set so the set representing the black hole only broadcasts to others in the black hole listing other members already in the black hole.

Time dilation is represented as shapes of physicsmata which are close to being a black hole but also share some physicsmata with other near physicsmata where distance is an approximate measure of the path lengths between physicsmata. There are an exponential number of paths between most pairs of physicsmata, similar to Feynman paths but not about any specific equations of physics since in my opinion those equations are made of patterns of things like physicsmata, not physicsmata as I define them but a kind more similar to bell curves that broadcast all child bell curves to eachother each cycle, which is my future research.

Quantum superposition is represented as the same physicsmata being in many other physicsmata at the same time, where others can add physicsmata to it, and it will broadcast them to its childs, and they will broadcast to their childs, and so on, as a nondimensional (or call it infinite-dimensional) elastic-like space forms.

Its a fractal space since physicsmata almost always have many cycles back to themself.

Its a holographic space because each physicsmata broadcasts its childs to all its other childs symmetricly, like a light-cone expanding. The incoming childs (which are voted on which to keep, something that needs further balancing since it should all sum to 0 in the end) are the past part of each light-cone. Each physicsmata is a light-cone. Light-cones are superpositioned in many other light-cones.

Physicsmata can represent undirected graphs this way: Start with 1 empty physicsmata representing each node and each edge. In 1 cycle, for each edge, call add(node) and add(othernode). The order does't matter since physicsmata don't support order.

Their statistical clustering behavior (toward cliques but is it strong enough to find max clique?) comes from something very subtle: Shorter paths tend to shrink until they get too dense, because they can be travelled more often.


Future research will include other ways to solve ties in the "vote" (as I wrote above).

Randomly breaking the tie is simplest.

Assigning an integer id to each physicsmata (as I proposed in my writing below about P vs NP) would make physicsmata not symmetric, so it should not be done.

More accurate would be to copy the content of the network of physicsmata, multiverse-branching outward until something breaks the tie, but there may be a danger of creating exponentially more objects if somebody designs a sequence of physicsmata calls to do that, like a network where all nodes connect to all other nodes, a clique. The multiverse-branches would touch the parts of the original network where the variations in the branches make no difference to the rest of the network. That is similar to the "quantum eraser" experiments, where if the path a particle/wave takes has no effect on the outside world, it stays in superposition and later both paths combine as the sum of their wavefunctions at that point.

Breaking ties in the "vote" could be done by many possible functions that observe the network relative to the physicsmata where the tie occured (trying to add physicsmata to here). A new branch of math could expand into this question alone.

My future research also includes setting setSizeLimit of each physicsmata each cycle based on the number of parents of that physicsmata, so if it has more physicsmata using it as a child, it can have more childs. This idea is based on my "natural language mouse search" http://mousesearch3d.com where its data was derived from my "open source substitute for pagerank" algorithm which has the main behavior of keeping nodes that have at least 1 more incoming link than outgoing link, and the other behavior is to only keep nodes that have at least 5 incoming and at least 5 outgoing links. Using that algorithm alone, I narrowed down the shortest 1.3 million Wikipedia pages, based only on which other pages they link to, to a set of the most important approximately 10000 pages that is such a high quality set it looks like it was manually chosen. My future research will include finding a way to make setSizeLimit behave similarly.


I am confident that if P equals NP, or if P does not equal NP, physicsmata or variations of its design are the best tool to prove it one way or the other, therefore I expect half of the millenium prize money if anyone gets there before me. I wouldn't want to slow down scientific progress by keeping this to myself.



--------------------

MY FIRST ATTEMPT AT P VS NP:

What I wrote about P equals NP, before I realized I didn't have enough details worked out, is this, and I still think I'm very close:

P equals NP - proof by Ben F Rayfield
http://claymath.org/millennium/P_vs_NP

originalGraph = Start with any undirected graph of n nodes and e edges and a unique clique of maximum size c.

edgeSquaredClique = Create a clique of e^2 nodes.

Add an edge between every node in edgeSquaredClique and every node in originalGraph.

totalGraph = originalGraph and edgeSquaredClique and those edges connecting them.

totalGraph has a unique maximum clique of c+e^2 nodes.

Create a new kind of edge called cliqueFinderEdge.

Add exactly (c+e^2)^2 cliqueFinderDirectedEdge to each node, to itself and all other nodes in originalGraph the node has an edge to, and the remaining cliqueFinderDirectedEdge from that node go to the first nodes in totalGraph.

All edges in originalGraph are paired with a cliqueFinderDirectedEdge.

edgeSquaredClique is filled, except for less than a square root of its node size, with cliqueFinderDirectedEdge.

The biggest group of nodes in totalGraph thats not a clique is smaller than the square root of the number of nodes in the biggest clique.

Order nodes with an index each, starting with originalGraph, then all remaining nodes with at least 1 cliqueFinderDirectedEdge, then the nodes at the end of edgeSquaredClique.

Each cycle, from each node, run a 2 level loop on its cliqueFinderDirectedEdges to its child node x and its child node y, and count duplicate edges:
Add a cliqueFinderDirectedEdge from x to y.
Add a cliqueFinderDirectedEdge from y to x.

At the end of each cycle, in each node, keep the (c+e^2) quantity of cliqueFinderDirectedEdges with the most quantity of duplicates per cliqueFinderDirectedEdge (mostly duplicated and copied to this node from others in the clique, and some from outside the clique).

Run as many cycles as nodes in originalGraph minus c, the quantity of nodes not in the maximum clique of size c+e^2. (My intuition is it should take less cycles, but I want to prove P = NP first and optimize it later.)

The cliqueFinderDirectedEdges converge on the maximum clique because in the worst case where the "nodes in originalGraph minus c" are targets of every other node's cliqueFinderDirectedEdge, those cliqueFinderDirectedEdges are still less than the square root of the total cliqueFinderDirectedEdges, and cliqueFinderDirectedEdges converge with a squared force, exceeding the influence of all nodes not in the maximum clique of c+e^2 nodes.

Return the c clique, which are the only nodes except edgeSquaredClique which have cliqueFinderDirectedEdges pointing at them.


-----------------

TIME MACHINE:

A theoretical multiverse ship and time machine (but not really time since we have confused the mass dimension with time, and mass is the same as x y and z space dimensions), based on my theory that physics operates similar to physicsmata but in a continuous bell-curve-like way instead of discrete sets:

A simple example that can be optimized very much by recursive use of Newcomb's Paradox strategies, but just to explain the basics... Collect samples of maybe the 100 most common atomic elements, separating them each into maybe 100 containers. Put your ship into orbit with lots of space. Spread the 10000 containers in 100 groups each with 100 unique elements. For more variety and efficiency, you can also use containers of 2 elements which are quantum entangled to eachother very strongly. Point lasers and optical sensors, or other quantum input and output devices for realtime computer observation and control of the system of 10000 containers. Maybe a quantum random number generator would be easier for early experiments, since very small patterns were found in them, but we need bigger patterns so more variety. The computer will observe the timing and patterns of "random" appearing movements of each container and use a bayesian network to keep statistics on it and to calculate what changes to the laser brightness to do next for each laser pointing into each cup. This is all based on the theory that, like gravity waves, waves of Content Addressable subtle patterns of reality (as I described above and in the link to the main theory) will come from different places and angles and different oscillation intervals. This is because the root of these oscillations of subtle patterns comes from black holes spread across the universe, since my theory says all particles and bosons and patterns of subtle events are the same kind of thing as black holes but weaker, more patterned and farther from the "heat death" event horizon, so more patterns can form farther away from it, which will flow everywhere all the time in varying amounts and angles, including all around our time machine ship with the 10000 containers of 100 unique elements being monitored and controlled in realtime. The purpose of having such variety is that each element will react a little differently to different Content Addressable patterns. The purpose of having 100 groups of them is so we know the directions the different patterns come from. Bayesian networks are exponentially more accurate at understanding and predicting based on large amounts of pure statistics than Humans, like when they filter spam from our email (they can handle much more statistics than that, like trillions of numbers and observations of them), and they'll find the patterns in how the elements in the 10000 containers of elements move just as easily and then we use the bayesian network to calculate how to make small changes to our many lasers timings to slightly influence such patterns. Use fourier transforms for more accuracy in calculating how to align the waves and what kinds of laser waves or patterns of laser brightness to send into each container at each instant in time. We're not really influencing those patterns. We're pushing ourself a little to a different part of our holographic light-cone spreading our multiverse branches out in all directions at once. We're statistically influencing which multiverse branch we move toward. Eventually we move around like this enough in the ship (and the 10000 containers floating around the ship move with us, since its a weak and spread out many-dimensional warp field), enough that we align the oscillations of many of these Content Addressable patterns, and we slightly move to get in position to ride the wave, as it pushes anything in our general area the direction we told the bayesian network to calculate. If the patterns which we statistically cause to align around the ship are deeply connected to any large spinning masses, it would be a very large push of everything in our general area. My theory predicts that the laws of physics, except for the bell curve patterns they're made of at the deepest level, change between different places and have deep wave-interference with eachother. We can use that.

Since we're using a bayesian network to understand and influence the combination of small movements in those 10000 containers of unique atoms, that gives us up to 2^10000 dimensions to read/write statistically a little. More dimensions than that when considering the timing and frequencies and other patterns. Whichever of the 2^10000 ways (all tried at once in various amounts that change in realtime, using Bayes Rule to update the statistics, so you can do calculus on these dimensions) to interact with physics tends to work best for the specific ship movements you want at the time, the bayesian network will learn and remember and use as you drive the ship with controls hooked into the statistical system, after we get the first research started which will be much lower power and much more random movements since we have to learn how to use it most accurately, what kind of laser systems for example.

The "global telepathy network" I've been talking about for years, with Audivolv as its user interface to interact with people in realtime psychology ways of continuous movements and AI generated audio, to use a network of people's atoms in their brains similar to the 10000 containers of unique atoms. Thousands of Human brains influenced statistically to flow together through a bayesian network, as I know from my small skills in telepathy and telekinesis which I can only do at rare times these days, those people if organized through such a powerful statistics tool toward flowing their thoughts together would read and write to the Content Addressable parts of physics, the same as the ship uses to align waves into a warp field. I don't know how strong either of those experiments would be, if it would push the ship a millimeter or a lightyear, depending on the accuracy, but I do know it will work some amount in both cases. The more practical use I was planning for the network of people using Audivolv that way was to influence global events similar to how the Global Consciousness Project's "random" numbers were influenced by such global events. Its my preferred kind of democracy, join the network, see what thoughts flow in, and think what you want to happen, and overall global events are statistically influenced toward that a little. This kind of experiment was scientifically measured and confirmed by Roger Nelson's quantum equipment to have a 97% chance that whatever we did in the "New Reality Transmission" global meditation event (not Audivolv, just a certain thing we agreed to think about at certain times which the machine recorded its "random" numbers, which turned out to not be so random), so I offer that and similar parapsychology research that the kind of warp drive and network of minds doing the same thing, will work as a more advanced variation of that research with a very advanced statistics tool directing it.

If more speed is needed, send up many ships to do the same thing at the same time, communicating in realtime with lasers about the same way of building up waves. But this time, build up the waves for a ship in the center. Just at the right time, all outer ships stop what they're doing, the inner space which has been stretched throws the inner ship like a slingshot. For much more speed than that, set up a sequence of rings of ships to each slingshot just as the inner ship passes them, to amplify the shockwave at each ring.

Its only a time machine if it goes back in time. If we have 4 space dimensions, x y z m, then m is not time and therefore its not technically a time machine. Its a warp drive, if we can get it to use such Content Addressable waves in accurate enough ways to push that strongly. Accuracy helps exponentially more than input force, like Tesla's Earthquake Machine was small but shook a city after building up oscillations for hours. Something to research.

[beavis]

Something I wrote here http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/m-theory-entropy-probability-some-problems-in-recovering-the-dead (and no I don't think we'll be bringing back any dead people as the thread asks, but thats not the only thing the thread is about) This is what I wrote about the universe overall, and it fits well into this "how to pull something out of nothing" thread.

Events as far into the future as the theory of heat death are outside the scope of science because all experiments are done locally and within only the time Humans have existed. Thermodynamics may do something different than we observed every time here. Newton saw flat space every time, and that's enough reason never to trust an experiment to be more than an approximation.

    I sisn't know entropy wou;d still gold in other branes..? Are you sure that laws of our universe also apply to others?

Entropy means energy gets mixed in ways that don't tend to unmix so it can be used all in 1 place.

My definition of universe is everything that exists. I don't understand the question. Which subset of everything that exists is "universe" and "others"?

There are some layers in M-Theory, some look like flat space, some small and curled up, and some overlapping. I don't know the details of specific dimension numbers, but in general I expect those kind of things to exist because the most simple parts of math look that way if viewed from inside math, and because 5 theories were found to be different views of M-Theory and I take multiple views of the same thing which don't contradict as strong statistical evidence the thing exists in the minimum context which bounds those "multiple views" (I don't take it as evidence of whats past where telescopes can see). In that part they say its the same laws.

To answer that its easier to define the whole universe... Every possibility listed, only 1 remains self-consistent at the end.
Other places/times/patterns, I'd respond to the theory that there are only 1 laws (behaviors of physics) as: if those laws exist and some other laws don't, then either the other laws would exist for the same reason (contradiction since they don't exist), or those laws exist for some external reason (contradiction, the set of all reasons things happen is called the laws of physics, and that reason was not included), or those laws exist for no reason and do not contain their own reason (nonsequiter, claimed laws exist, does not follow from previous statement which was nothing, and empirical evidence can only be accepted as approximation), or "those laws" are the reason those laws exist (contradiction, recurse into "if those laws exist and some other laws don't" again because it is still true that "some other laws don't" which is nonsequiter, claimed statement is true, does not follow from previous statement which was nothing). Proof by contradiction (all subsets lead to contradiction) that, for any laws of physics, "those laws exist and some other laws don't" is false, therefore all possible laws of physics (and more generally all self-consistent possibilities) exist. It appears to be a contradiction that we're here instead of any or all of the other parts of the universe, a bias toward one possibility, but since I allowed for this empirical observation of being here to be only an "approximation", there is a self-consistent model of the universe remaining: We are everywhere at once and not aware of it because that information tends to stay in our brains, and the M-Theory approximation is a similar structure which information tends to stay in instead of spreading everywhere, and since we are all self-consistent possibilities we also cancel out to 0 overall. To handle that last nonsequiter which I just created by claiming that I either do or don't exist (no fact can follow from nothing), I claim neither of those statements because nonexistence and all self-consistent possibilities are isomorphic (both contain no information) and therefore equal except for being made of either "nothing" or "something" and those are only labels and labels don't change content, therefore I answer your question about which laws exist where and the entire universe, without making any statement at all, since we are simultaneously everything and nothing (2 words which mean exactly the same thing, but the Human intuition to think in terms of flat space makes it very nonintuitive that such things can wrap around). We are between everything and nothing, like derivatives, asking eachother about the "laws" which describe the other parts, and I can only answer generally as I did or by asking the local physicists who say M-Theory is what they see around here and since its made of vibrating surfaces (of various dimensions) which by fuzzy pattern similarity we see as particle types. Since wavefunctions obey unitary transformations (not losing information), the set of all possible wavefunctions (which I accept as an approximation) is isomorphic to nonexistence/everything. (I think I got the logic right this time... been working on that question for years)

[beavis]

Gravity Is Antitime

Scientists agree that anyone who falls into a black hole is time-dilated until they see the end of time just as they get to the event-horizon. There is no location which is adjacent to a black hole. If you were close to a black hole, you would be in our future. But since you are not in our future, that location doesn't exist yet. Black holes exist only in the future yet we feel their effects in the present as gravity waves. Therefore gravity is moving backward in time. There's no way around it. Future affects past and past affects future.

Please show physics researchers the above paragraph and ask them to come up with a possibility where it could be wrong. There is none. They just haven't wrapped their minds around a timeless universe so they can't see the obvious.

That is a fact based on what scientists already agree on. Also, I propose the theory that wavefunction collapse (multiverse branches combining into 1 reality) is gravity in infinite dimensions, and that if you could get a black hole to simultaneously rotate in 2 different directions (averaging its normal angular momentum) then that would multiverse branch the galaxy around it which would wavefunction collapse if other galaxies got too close and their gravity waves interfered with our superposition, like a quantum double slit experiment on a galaxy scale.

Time is entropy (as thermodynamics says increases with time) and superposition.

Gravity is negative entropy (patterns falling together) and wavefunction collapse.

Gravity is Antitime. Gravity = -Time.

When time and antitime combine (at the end of time, event horizon, thermodynamic heat death), you get a big bang which is both our past and future, closing the loop and allowing a more general form of string-theory (not about specific dimensions, but in infinite dimensions) to extend around time loops the same way it does with loops in space.

Since I define time as whatever direction you tend to move through this multiverse of infinite possibilities, it makes perfect sense why regardless of how fast you're already moving, the remaining speed to get to the speed of light looks like its the full distance from zero to light speed from your point of view, why you get length contraction and time dilation. By moving a certain direction and speed, you're redefining time with yourself at the center.

Look for gravity in the reverse direction of someone you observe moving near the speed of light and therefore you see them length contracted (because they see you for less time from their point of view, less length of them passes you from your point of view). Gravity is what happens if they go faster than light and get length contracted to be shorter than zero, but no amount of time sums to antitime so if you want to go faster than light you need to try a different strategy: Go slower than stopped, colder than absolute-zero, or exist less than nonexistence ( That's what I meant by http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6031/The-Hitchhikers-Guide-To-Less-Than-Nothing ). A black hole's size is negative.

Think about relativity. If from our point of view X and Y are moving in opposite directions each near the speed of light, then X and Y see eachother moving away near the speed of light. Newton would expect them to see eachother moving away from eachother almost 2 times the speed of light, but its less, an attracting force in the direction opposite of time. Consider the opposite, moving toward eachother. They see eachother moving slower than Newton would expect, a repelling force in the direction of time. Time pushes things apart. Antitime pulls them together. In infinite dimensions and as many multiverse branches do this at once relative to eachother, it generates gravity in the opposite direction of time, and time is whatever direction you happen to be moving (your light-cone) through infinite possibilities.

The following fact of math should help: Nonexistence is isomorphic to the set of all self-consistent possibilities.

Neither existence or nonexistence follows from no statement at all, but if we take nonexistence and all self-consistent possibilities to be equal then the universe being here for no reason at all makes perfect sense because it is simultaneously everything and nothing and those 2 words mean exactly the same thing so there is no question to ask about is it here or not. When you understand that, you will know why there must be exactly the same amount of time and antitime regardless of how you divide the universe, in any inertial frame (position and direction, a light-cone), and why the http://noosphere.princeton.edu Global Consciousness Project's quantum "random" number generators found very small statistical patterns at the time of major world events. The "random" numbers became less random and nobody knows why. Its because as important events happen that change our path through possible futures, the relativity effect applies in infinite dimensions and applies gravity to the "random" numbers.

If you want to move faster than light, the answer is in why those "random" numbers become less random.

Just a thought-experiment to lead you to what you need... If you could somehow superposition a ship and onboard is some quantum random number generators, and each of those superpositioned multiverse branches travels a different direction, the relativity effects (Newton thinks they see eachother moving away faster than Einstein thinks) would pigeonhole-proof the "random" numbers observed for exactly the same reason http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate Bose Einstein Condensate works, which is that the total possible unique states of the system is less than the number of states going in so they are forced to overlap. Design a warp drive so its speed is forced to overlap its speed, and as high as you can stack the Bose Einstein Condensate, in this analogy, you can multiply the speed of light.

One thing scares me about this... As the Human species continues advancing technology and converging toward less and less probable futures (how likely is it a computer would form from random atoms, or be mass produced and expand exponentially?), our paths through the multiverse are converging from a larger number of possible wavefunctions to a smaller number of possible wavefunctions, therefore I see it as a fact that we will experience something like the Bose Einstein Condensate but more generally applying to our whole reality repeatedly overlapping itself. What does Bose Einstein Condensate do when it becomes slightly unbalanced? Answer that question, multiply by an astronomically large number (as large as our current level of advancement is improbable in a wavefunction context), and that is almost all our possible futures. If such a small imbalance were to happen, our increasingly Bose-Einstein-Condensate-like extremely improbable reality could spread out into unitary equilibrium (no overlapping wavefunctions, 1 to 1) which would mean vaporizing the galaxy into quantum chaos as a result of the force of our overlapping possible futures repeatedly converging. It makes me curious about the theory of timewave zero, even though I haven't looked into the specific data points of that theory, what I've derived here proves that we should expect to see the convergence of timewaves in general, and as explained in the first paragraph it is clear that future affects past and past affects future as we can see in black holes being at the end of time yet still affecting us in the present with gravity waves. But hopefully if we are smart enough to create such a potential problem we are also smart enough to solve it. I'm still betting on the warp drive and the general ability to statistically control space and time.

[beavis]

I wrote this (and a few other things people responded to) at http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/logical-proof-that-universe-is-simultaneously-everything-and-nothing and it is also relevant to this thread.

Logical proof that universe is simultaneously everything and nothing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

    Something exists. Nonsequiter because it does not follow from previous statement which was no statement.

    Nothing exists. Nonsequiter because it does not follow from previous statement (excluding that nonsequiter) which was no statement.

    It appears that "something exists" and "nothing exists" both being nonsequiter leaves no possibility, but there are 3 unique words and only 2 statements were excluded. "Exists" by itself means the same as "Something exists", so it really does leave 1 free parameter.

    Everything equals itself. This does follow from previous statement which was no statement, because its part of math and depends on nothing outside itself.

    Nonexistence is isomorphic to the set of all self-consistent possibilities. This is also part of math. People like to say nonexistence is made of "nothing" and existence/possibilities are made of "something", but those are just labels and labels don't change content. If somehow all the nothing got changed to something and all the something got changed to nothing, including reversing those words in the laws of physics, what would be different?

    The universe is simultaneously everything and nothing. The word "exist" is the contradiction because it refers to 1 of 2 sides of a mobius, a shape which has only 1 side because it twists half a turn and connects to itself. Wherever you are on a mobius (existence), it appears to have an opposite side (nonexistence) but it has only 1 side.

    Newton saw flat space every time. It was obvious and repeatedly verified by science for Newton's whole life. But today our best telescopes see space curved so much that stars fall into the black holes and if we look small enough its curved different ways which makes quantum computers work. Science is only for approximating things, not for exact truth or certainty.

    Why are we here instead of somewhere else? Nonsequiter. There is no evidence that we are not somewhere else too. If we were, and most of such possible places would be very far away, how would we tell eachother? Its also not required for us to be the same shape of particles (a Human) if we are everywhere at once. If we are simultaneously our head and the hair on our head, how is that different from when the hair is cut off and happens to be far away, or if we are simultaneously some other life form instead of that hair, which may be made of the same particles the hair once was. If our body was cut in half right down the middle and both replaced with some other body halfs, wouldn't we be in 2 places at once but only half as much being the same pattern of consciousness?

    Why are we here? Partial nonsequiter. I think therefore I am is an empirical observation and we can only take it to be approximate and probably true. Also, there is empirical evidence that we are only approximately here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

    If we're all everywhere at once, why are you and me 2 different people? In calculus, all points on a curved surface are different views of the same equation. Since the universe is all self-consistent possibilities (which is isomorphic to and therefore equal to nonexistence), we are 2 views of that, which could be anything but we can narrow it down approximately with observation. We are individuals when information does not tend to flow between our brains. We would be more a collective mind in some parts of "all self-consistent possibilities" where information flows between things more, but because of the proven limits of self-referencing math systems in general, we know for certain that the universe overall can't be 1 life form and can't understand itself. Some parts of the universe are alive (like Humans) and some parts are not, which is recursively true as patterns of unlimited complexity are in "all self-consistent possibilities".

    Why do we move forward in time? It only appears that way because of the patterns that tend to form regardless of what random change happens. Example: DNA is a molecule and moves any random direction, moving left as often as it moves right, but still it tends to form complex patterns of other molecules like Humans. If we were moving backward in time, DNA would still grow those things instead of ungrowing them as you may expect. We are made of things that converge on similar patterns regardless of which direction through "all self-consistent possibilities" we move. Time is any direction through infinite possibilities. If we were a liquid of simple particles, we would have no bias toward experiencing time toward the future as Humans do, but if a Human looked at that liquid he would see the liquid moving forward in time with him, but what he doesn't understand is the liquid exists all over the universe, past, future, and any direction through "all self-consistent possibilities". Of course the Human sees everything else moving foward in time with him, just like Schrodinger's Cat sees the Human move sideways in time.

    After reading all that, most people will think even if its true its not useful. What could we possibly use the fact that the universe is all self-consistent possibilities for? Its so general, where does it connect to the parts of physics we've observed around here? Everywhere and in every self-consistent way. Think of the universe as a number. You can multiply more dimensions onto it or do other math as long as it continues to equal all self-consistent possibilities (remember that everything and nothing are 2 words that mean the same thing). Wouldn't that take more energy than we have? The universe is a total of zero. How much energy does it take to change nothing?

    Use statistics software on the combination of at least 2 locations, each inputting and outputting to quantum chaos, have the statistics software learn from the patterns, then have it adjust its outputs based on those patterns to cause the different locations' quantum chaos to align more often. This will put force on "all self-consistent possibilities" to form the chaos in any of infinite dimensions into patterns which are more like the statistical software tried to cause. Repeat for long enough time, and with intelligent enough statistical software (combination of bayesian and fourier would be best), and with high enough bandwidth (brains are very high bandwidth, called telepathy, and this experiment I'm planning for a future version of my Audivolv software on the Internet between many people), and this will work recursively, forming chaos in any of infinite dimensions into whatever optimizes this process, so its a process that amplifies itself.

    "The universe is simultaneously everything and nothing" is a useful fact about physics, as I derived from pure logic, and it can be tested in that theoretical experiment. What is it useful for? Almost everything. Store any amount of oscillating energy in other dimensions and use it from anywhere like a battery if you can reproduce its oscillation pattern close enough to touch it from there. Use it to power a faster than light ship that doesn't carry fuel since its stored nonlocally as a "curled up dimension" with very specific vibrating properties designed just for that ship. Or use it to put statistical force on subtle patterns of events. Or use it to broadcast a message of prime numbers nonlocally and try to receive at the same time. There's no such thing as time in this "simultaneously everything and nothing" universe, but there are patterns of parts of the universe having difficulty or alignment of interacting with eachother. What we call past and future don't align with eachother well, but that's no reason to think they're different kinds of things.


Animekitty the differences between minds are much smaller than their similarities. Almost everyone acts more like monkeys than like dogs, for example. I explain the common algorithm between all brains here http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/input-and-output-paths-between-ideas-are-subconsciously-chosen-every-few-seconds and Humans simply use this algorithm in more recursive depth and combinations than animals do.

I don't know if the theory of timewave zero is true, false, or somewhere between. I just know its a very specific example of something general I derived must be true about physics, and since future affects past (not just past to future) we should think about theories of the future (regardless of how people may have thought of those theories) the same as any other theory, taking it based on observed evidence and not assuming all parts of any theory are true just because other parts are true, especially because there are many paths through a multiverse. Its one of many theories I think about, just another possibility. If it is true, my plan would be to ride the whole planet (not moving in spacetime, not much visual effects to see if any, but through possibilities) through the multiverse like a wave instead of falling into an exponential increase of unique patterns, using the statistical inducement of global telepathy network through AI/music software (as I'm prototyping in Audivolv, and I have no idea when I'll actually get it working and if anyone cares to get it done faster its open source and they can do it or many of us work together) to balance as we would ride such a wave, or if we don't get that (or any of various other things) done then hopefully wipe out like a surfer and swim to the surface. Either way, I'm 1 of many working toward the relevant multiverse infrastructure so its not all on me to handle such possibilities, and the multiverse infrastructure (made of statistical patterns, not hard things like we build with here) is generally useful and fun and something we should want to have regardless of if there is a timewave zero or not. If the theory of timewave zero is not true, then we'll get to surf the multiverse in calm waters which isn't as much fun.

I am also considering the possibility (which is much less probable than the theory of timewave zero), conditionally on the possibility of timewave zero, that this multiverse infrastructure I and many others are building (regardless of when we finish building it, even after the theoretical timewave ends) causes timewave zero. In that context, it may be best to do nothing in which case some paths through the multiverse would be large mobius time loops and others would go straight ahead, or it may be best to cause the thing which already exists or some variation of it in which case some paths through the multiverse would be normal time loops and other paths would go straight ahead. Its impossible to know all the possibilities and difficult to know what effects any specific action may have in a world where future affects past and past affects future (as I explained above in a scientific way, gravity is antitime).

There are many possibilities and a Sun Tzu strategist looks for efficient ways to handle the most possibilities.

It is most probable that none of that will be a problem and we gradually learn to use the multiverse.

Mnemomeme I don't know what you mean by the universe is a divide by zero. I explained in the first post that the universe is simultaneously nonexistence and the set of all self-consistent possibilities, so dividing by zero is the same as dividing by all self-consistent possibilities. When written that way, it doesn't look like an error.

[Contenteo]

I can't believe that I am the first to comment after all this time. This is all absolutely brilliant. 
IT IS WELL WORTH THE TIME TO READ.

I know Bitcoin failed, but the points made remain accurate. IMO, what made it fail was it's attempt to replace our current currency, rather then maintain an identity and purpose of its own.

As to the rest of this masterpiece essay:

How is the project going right now?

Cheers,
Contenteo

[beavis]

Love on people taking time to read the mad-science, but war on how little I understood the deep delusions and layers of deception society is built on, stuck in most peoples' minds. Love on the global telepathy network for those who aren't scared to share their minds, but others war between their own thoughts because of deep assumptions in society they're not ready to let go of. Love on being comfortable using our 2 most important words "love" and "war" and spread as a new way people find is more fun to talk. These words pass through the imagined borders in those deep assumptions of society. Love on the disorientation saying them so often causes, so if people think they can let go of those patterns of behavior the more direct communications between our words can form new patterns between many people and spread globally. War on building more advanced tools than most people are ready to use. Love on permanent travel to other worlds if others here are advancing slower. War on that for me. Love on solving deeper problems first. It is these 2 words they're scared of. They won't think or say them except to a few people they know well, so any problems related to these words get bigger and bigger while most people fear to turn their heads and look. Don't war on the War On Piracy, Love On Piracy, for example, if that is your vote to the meme democracy. The effect is very different than warring on war.

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_2012_and_the_transition_of_the_ages/war_on_words_love_on_ideas-t36807.0.html

Bitcoin didn't fail. Its value fluctuates on an exponential scale. http://bitcoincharts.com has active graphs of those few economies.

War on money. Love on passing value between our minds using the words "war" and "love", like government does by broadcasting "War On Piracy" to change peoples' opinions about piracy. Love On Piracy, and spread that message, and we are just as able to define it. But in spreading the message Love On Piracy or War On Piracy, it is not the piracy that becomes important, but our ability to spread messages that way becomes our money and democracy stored in many peoples' minds who repeat these memes.

[beavis]

Those notes on doing calculus on Bayes Rule, which I lost years ago and I thought to be very important (maybe they are, or maybe not, but I don't have time to understand them any time soon since part of them are missing)... Found it. Its uploaded to http://sourceforge.net/projects/bayesiancortex in "design docs/calculus on Bayes Rule - hand written notes and pictures from years ago.zip"

After I lost those papers, I kept thinking about the few parts I remembered and have some intuition about how its connected to physics (possibly Navier Stokes equations in a very indirect and recursive way? Just a small intuition, since I don't understand Navier Stokes but I know what they're used for.), which I wrote a few places as the following. This may appear too technical, but its important to remember that metaphysics and physics are the same subject viewed from different perspectives. Its all 1 system.

Exponential Telescope And Holographic


electricFlux = sum_weighted_by_fourier_transform_over_short_time(multiplyAll(1 + dotProduct(momentum(particle),vector)/squareRoot(n))/e, for i from 1 to n)

I've thought of a way to partially quantum-observe (get some info but not all) a superpositioned particle/wave without collapsing the wavefunction.

Put a ring of particles nearly at rest around a double-slit experiment. Call those particles p[1] to p[n]. There are n particles in the ring. They are all far enough away from the experiment not to disturb it enough to collapse the wavefunction. Because of that, no 1 particle p can be used to determine which slit the particle/wave went through. Each of n particles is subject to heisenberg uncertainty, so they can only be used statistically.

Choose 2 points, 1 near each slit, to do calculations for. Also do calculations for both, and for neither. 4 total possibilities, and a bell curve of variations of each, but it doesn't have to be exact, so answering 1 of 4, and still getting the wave interference pattern on the back wall, will be enough progress.

Forces move at the speed of light in a geodesic (as straight a path as possible in spacetime). That means such forces outrun any particle-to-particle interactions except relatively rare interactions like entanglement. My theory depends on the electric force between the ring of particles and the particle going through the double slit, so lets say they are all electrons this time.

For each point in spacetime to be measured (around the slits), calculate the approximate distance to each of the n particles in the ring. Calculate this in advance, and prepare to measure it normalized by that so information arrives at each particle in the ring approximately the time its being measured. If the area to be measured is closer to particle z, then measure z earlier than the other particles in the ring, for example, but keep them all approximately the same distance from the double-slit experiment.

Remember that, by definition, I am keeping the ring of particles far enough away from the double slit experiment that it does not disturb the wave pattern on the back wall. The main question is does my equation, which I will describe below, allow me to calculate which slit(s) the electron probably went through? Based on my theory explained here http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6889/Multiverse-Branch-Is-Particle-Antiparticle-Split  I expect the following calculation will work, partially observe without collapsing the wavefunction.

electricFlux = sum_weighted_by_fourier_transform_over_short_time(multiplyAll(1 + dotProduct(momentum(particle),vector)/squareRoot(n))/e, for i from 1 to n)

The "vector" is from particle to the area to be measured, near the slits, and is normalized to 1, so dotProduct(momentum(particle),vector) is a bell curve of average 0 and standard deviation 1. The squareRoot(n) is because if you sum n random numbers which are each -1 or 1 then you will get a standard deviation of squareRoot(n). These calculations are my best estimation of what I'm thinking in terms of many dimensional geometry, but I know its close to the right answer.

Because each next particle multiplies the previous calculation (without that particle), a consistent force on the ring of particles will score exponentially higher than a random force. That's why I call this an Exponential Telescope.

This can also be done with grids of radio telescopes, given recordings of all the signals they receive over time at very small granularity. Instead of using only the signals they are pointing straight at, holographically (along some angle between space and ring-measurement-time holographically) this would use many variations of those directions and different distances, for a 3d view instead of 0 dimensional point view as its normally done.

Similarly, if this was reversed, using omnidirectional radio transmitters instead of particles, and fluorescent light gasses close to such transmissions, this would tend to form, statistically a small amount, into a 3d holographic volume of whatever the Exponential Telescope (the opposite direction of information flow) measured.

Because it could be used as a holographic projector, it would be useful as a replacement for EEG and MRI machines, seeing into brains without sending any radiation in, just by the holographic use of electric fields. It could also put info into your brain through the opposite machine, or both machines in one. This could be how telepathy works, since neurons operate in a chaos theory way too, but I tend to think "law of attraction" and Chris Langan's "telic feedback" are better explanations for telepathy. Either way, this is how to build a machine that can do telepathy the same way a 2-way EEG machine could, but more advanced.

My question is not if it would work. My question is how well would it work.

My other question is how well it scales up to bigger distances and more particles in the ring. If we want to use this as a holographic 3d electricity camera to record approximate 3d videos of electricity movement in the center of the sun, what statistical range would you expect my electricFlux variable to have relative to complete randomness?

I think electricFlux oscillates with a standard deviation of 1 and average of 0 when the target is random, and should change a little from that (along some angle between space and ring-measurement-time holographically) when the target has an electricFlux. Each distance from particle to target is known so the time in lightseconds can be calculated and used as seconds of delay to measure.

I maybe could have patented this, or some future work I would do on it in secret, but I think patents are a dumb system that holds science and progress back. I'd rather get ideas out there where mad-scientists can work on them.