Member 2664
108 entries
502117 views

 RSS
(M)
US
Immortal since Jun 17, 2010
Uplinks: 0, Generation 4
mad-scientist and computer programmer looking for something more interesting than most people accept as their future
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • BenRayfield’s favorites
    From AsylumSeaker
    Christopher Langan
    From Yissar
    Technology Progress vs....
    From XiXiDu
    The Nature of Self
    From QESelf
    View Point Room Argument...
    From Jorgen
    My Paper on Computer...
    Recently commented on
    From gamma
    Is brain a computer?
    From BenRayfield
    Elections should be done...
    From BenRayfield
    The most dangerous thing...
    From BenRayfield
    Why is there no Content...
    From BenRayfield
    How can a set of computers...
    BenRayfield’s projects
    Polytopia
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    Start your own revolution
    Catching up with the future. All major institutions in the world today are grappling to come to terms with the internet. The entertainment...

    Proposal for a multimedia...
    A musical mindstorm on the nature of sound, light, space and subjective experience powered by locally produced energy, heralding the ending of the...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    This is my response to a debate between Ben Goertzel and Hugo De Garis who both build artificial intelligence and speculate about what it leads to and the possibility aliens may have already done it. Normal religions help us understand the universe as much as a 1000 year old physics book. That leaves a lot of questions... If you're not more confused about what the universe really is after reading this, then you must have missed something. If there is a god or not depends on your definition of "god", and most people don't bother to define it. I might be an atheist or not, and science might be able to test some things most people think can't even be defined or understood.

    "From cosmism to deism"
    http://www.kurzweilai.net/from-cosmism-to-deism

    "Is God an Alien Mathematician?"
    http://hplusmagazine.com/editors-blog/god-alien-mathematician
    Then the thread was deleted and moved to:http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/01/18/is-god-an-alien-mathematician

    You can find my response at the bottom of the second link. Here it is:

    If the universe equals math then a lot of things fit together

    Most of what we've observed in science is very well approximated by small math equations. That's a fact. If the equations were a little different then physics probably wouldn't get past the first few steps of forming life. That's an other fact. Physics that is very (instead of a little) different could form different kinds of life, but the point is this part of the universe that we live in works so much better than a randomly selected physics that, to learn what physics (or "hyper-physics") really is, we must figure out why such a rare or improbable thing happened. There are 2 main categories of explanation: Rare and Improbable.

    If its Improbable but exists anyways, that implies something intelligent. Most religions and "Is god an alien mathematician" are in this category.

    If its Rare instead of Improbable, then enough things exist that, without needing anything intelligent to design it, this part of the universe just happened to be 1 of those many things. Max Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" (summarized as "All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically") is the simplest idea in this category.

    The We-Are-Rare and We-Are-Improbable categories should both be considered in science, including theories of superintelligent artilectual intelligences.

    Hugo de Garis is probably right about "humanity has invented on the order of about 100,000 different gods over the broad sweep of history, and across the planet. These many gods are so obviously invented", but if we say it as "100,000 theories of which most have been proven false" then we find the real problem in religions: They don't learn from their mistakes. They continue creating variations of failed theories instead of thinking in new ways.

    Theories are better when they are simpler and explain more things. The "Is god an alien mathematician" idea is compatible with some kinds of Buddhism, which Ben Goertzel said can be argued it "isn't really a religion." Ignoring the parts about what people should and shouldn't do and the details about things that happen on Earth, one of its bigger ideas is the emptiness of reality. If the "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" is true, then the universe simply is math, and math is purely abstract so doesn't really exist. On average, math and therefore the universe sum to nothing, but its parts individually exist because we're here experiencing them. The "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" requires there be an infinite number of superintelligent alien mathematicians, but it also requires there be an infinite number of everything else you can define in math.

    Ben Goertzel sees "Is god an alien mathematician" as a variation of the "simulation argument." Since technology will probably advance enough for artilects to appear god-like compared to us and create recursions of universes, the argument is we're probably in one of those simulations. You forgot to weight the probabilities. Its true there are many simulations in our computers today, but if we weight by the number of particles, all the simulations together are small compared to the particles in the computers which run the simulations, therefore if you're made of some particles then its more likely you're part of a computer (or are nowhere near a computer) than a simulation in that computer.

    I agree that large things (which small-brained Humans would call "universes" instead of "places with different physics") can be created by artilects with enough intelligence, and we could be in one, but considering my Weighted Simulation Argument, and considering that we don't know how far up the tree (or fractal or peer-to-peer-network) of recursive universes we are (We can't see below quantum physics yet), I expect theres a lot of potential in this part of the universe that we're just starting to learn how to use. An event as small as splitting a particle and its antiparticle could be seen as creating a new universe to those who experience the universe in a different way or size or pattern than we do.

    Math contains and is contained by an infinite variety of fractals, and the universe could equal math. How do you know your theoretical superintelligent artilects are more advanced than what we do by accident or what we do intentionally as mathematicians to physics in a statistical way (which we would not see since the effects are too small or too big)? When, for example, Ben Goertzel says "I've had my share of strange spiritual experiences, which have made me sometimes feel very directly in contact with transhuman intelligences", shouldn't we consider that some part of it could be real? And if we go that far, shouldn't we consider that Humans may intuitively know (through brains interactions with quantum physics) something these "transhuman intelligences" do not know? Why should we only consider theories where power is in a hierarchy/tree (this universe inside that universe) instead of fractal or network or strange-loop or emergent shapes? I will not make the assumption that there must be something higher or lower than me. Theres too many questions to ask first.
    Thu, Jan 20, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: alien, AI, philosophy, religion, Fractal, math
      RSS for this post
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Create synapse
     
    Buffers, byte order, streaming... Forget that complication. Here's the general solution for making your speakers and microphones do anything you want. With only basic Java programming skills (a first year college class) you can do what took me years to learn: Define sound as numbers from -1 to 1 at each instant in time.

    Most people think computer programming is boring and tedious. That's true for a lot of kinds of programs, but building programs to change your voice or create new kinds of musical instruments, and then using them, can be more fun than music-based video games. Its an upgrade from a set path (like the notes you have to play in Guitar Hero) to complete freedom of what you want the speakers and microphone (or electric guitar in the microphone hole) to do. Computers do billions of calculations per second. Your code will run 44100 times per second for normal 44.1 khz audio (same data speed as CDs), so each vibration of the audio you can do many thousands of calculations if you want. That's your new tools for defining interactions between speakers and microphones. I've made it easy enough anyone can learn it.

    http://sourceforge.net/projects/jsoundcard

    Here's an example of how to use it (names of things may change after version 0.4):

    In the same folder as jsoundcard.jar, create a text file called X.java:

    import jsoundcard.*;
    public class X implements SoundFunc{
    public static void main(String args[]) throws Exception{
    JSoundCard.play(new X(), 2, 1, 44100); //2 speakers, 1 microphone, 44.1 khz
    }
    public void readWriteFrame(double frame[]){
    frame[0] = .5*Math.sin(50*frame[2])-frame[1]*.001;
    frame[1] = .4*Math.cos(40*frame[2]);
    //write any code you want as long as it runs fast and keeps numbers in range -1 to 1
    }
    public int frameSize(){ return 3; } //If you want to be able to use up to frame[34], return 35
    }

    What does that code do? It makes a strange echo (if the microphone can hear the speakers) and makes your voice sound scratchy when you talk louder. To play the microphone as it is (on the left speaker), simply use frame[0] = frame[2]; Because there are 2 speakers, frame[0] and frame[1] are where you put the numbers to create those 2 sounds. Those numbers have to be between -1 and 1. After that is a third number for getting the microphone as frame[2]. Math.sin is the sine function in math. Multiplying the left speaker by .5 makes it a little louder than the right speaker which is multiplied by .4. Multiplying the microphone amplitude by 50 makes it higher frequency than multiplying it by 40, but in a kind of screwed up way that makes it vibrate multiple times and then reverse direction in the sine/cosine circle. That's just an example. You can calculate the numbers however you want to create different sound effects. I like to do it by plugging an electric guitar into the microphone hole.

    Install Java Development Kit (JDK) 1.5 or higher and set your PATH to include its folder with javac.exe in it (or use the whole path to javac.exe).

    Type this on the command-line to compile it: javac -cp .;jsoundcard.jar X.java
    (On Linux use colon instead of semicolon)

    Type this on the command-line to run it: java -cp .;jsoundcard.jar X

    Then you hear the sound you just programmed, an interaction between microphone and speakers.

    To make there be less delay between microphone and speakers, in Windows, you can crtl+alt+delete (each time you run the program) and Set Priority of java.exe or javaw.exe to High or Realtime. JSoundCard will detect the increased available speed and use it automatically. It won't use extra cpu. It will just update the sound buffers more often then go back to sleep.

    You can build programs that are 1 file you double-click to run, but that takes more setup in building it (not using it). When programming, what I wrote above is the easiest way to start. I'm building an easier way to use it, but that will be a separate program. This is if you want to keep the code small and simple.

    If you want your new program to be in 1 file that works instantly when anyone double-clicks it, rename jsoundcard.jar to jsoundcard.zip and unzip it. Then change the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file so it says the Main-Class is X instead of jsoundcard.TestJSoundCard. Then zip all those files, including X.java and X.class (which javac created), into a new zip file. Then rename that zip file to YourProgram.jar. Then double-click YourProgram.jar and it plays your sound effects (interaction between speakers and microphone). That's how anyone with very little training can create their own sound programs. Give YourProgram.jar to your friends, and have them repeat the same steps with YourProgram.jar as you did for jsoundcard.jar, to build their own programs. Or just double-click it to use your new program.

    There is still the problem of how to stop the sound effects (close the program) after double-clicking your new file. You could put at the end of that "main" function this code to make it end after 1 minute: Thread.sleep(60*1000); JSoundCard.stop();

    If you follow these instructions, you've done what took me years to learn. Of course I didn't have anyone giving me the solution. Now lets build that "Multimedia Playground".


    Its a very small software you use to build new audio software. All it does is give you easy access to the sound-card. Future versions will not contain specific sound-effects or other complexity. The point is to be as simple as possible and put that complexity in other programs that use this program. That way theres billions of people who could do audio programming instead of only professionals. It could catch on, if those who try it tell 1 or 2 friends each, who do the same... This really is the simplest it has ever been. I started audio programming 10 years ago (in some of my free time). I build different audio softwares and finally forged the common parts of them into the most simple thing it could be. I've done some things in audio programming that nobody else would have known how to do without reading my code (other programs). Of course I do it by "standing on the shoulders of giants", but to make sure I can stand higher years from now I'm reducing the learning curve for audio programming so new giants can grow for me to stand on. I'm making it simple enough that anyone who wants to learn audio programming can learn it. Hopefully someone who uses this will eventually build some open-source software we all can use later, and we can finally build the "Multimedia Playground" which is some combination of interactive audio and video.
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    Game theory. Secrets vs freedom of speech. Hierarchy vs symmetric organization. From where we are in history (how society is organized, global power dynamics, how we think, etc), it appears that all paths (to possible futures) that average people can imagine lead to nuclear war and extinction. When? After a few more things like Wikileaks or the Patriot Acts or the Off Switch To The Internet or The Economy Almost Crashing happen. Those kinds of things destabilize an already unstable system, and they're going to start happening more often. Doing anything to stop them is also a destabilizing event, like Off Switch To The Internet was a reaction to things like Wikileaks. The paradox is that if we work against any part of the system, it escalates toward nuclear war, but if we do nothing, it will become more hierarchy organized (leaders and followers, government and civilian, master and slave, etc) to protect against such things and average people will eventually become angry enough at the system that enough of them become terrorists to make governments reactions be big enough to destabilize the system, which also leads to nuclear war. If we change anything, or if we do nothing and wait, it all appears to lead to nuclear war and extinction. That's the paradox.

    Past events in politics are covered up because other countries learning such secrets would prove violation of legal agreements and plans between countries and would start wars, but protecting such secrets causes wars in a different way. To protect such secrets, they make laws about "national security" and systematically redesign and regulate technology to control communication. They put an off switch on the internet or parts of it. They control what can be said on TV and radio. Cell phones in USA are required to have an E911 chip inside them for purposes specified in the Patriot Acts. To protect their political secrets, they systematically redesign and regulate communication through technology. It has worked for most secrets until recently.

    They won't admit it, but Wikileaks and websites like it scare governments more than anything else. Think about it. They spend trillions of dollars controlling communication, and then some group of people without much money or political power communicates large amounts of their secrets they spent trillions of dollars to keep secret. The whole global infrastructure is a hierarchy with them at the top. That's what they bought to stay in control and protect their secrets. Then some group of people without any significant power or money defeats their multi-trillion dollar system. That's efficiency. Its not just about the technology. Its the system of "national security" and who is allowed to know what information and many levels of it. Its an impressive system and does what it was designed to do, but what it was designed to do is the problem. The systems of organizing people and technology are designed to distribute the accountability in a way that usually prevents secrets from getting out to average people. When Wikileaks (and similar websites or communications) defeated that multi-trillion dollar system, governments realized they had a much bigger problem than they thought. They know its going to happen again and in more ways. Technology will continue to advance. It will become easier to communicate, including political secrets that would start wars if known by other countries.

    Governments know they can't shut down the internet for long without starting wars. But the way they've set things up, the internet is the most dangerous thing to them. It allows any 2 people to communicate. Freedom of speech is dangerous to governments that do things they shouldn't do. Their problem is they've already done those things and wars will start if other countries learn of what each other did and are keeping secret.

    To protect the existing system, they take more freedom of speech and other rights away from average people. They make the system stronger and bigger and more complex and harder to maintain. They build crap on top of crap and are afraid to think ahead far enough to a time when the first crap is solved. They've given up all hope of solving the problems and put their efforts into making it worse slower.

    There are ways of organizing all the people on Earth in peer-to-peer ways without governments, including "punish the nonpunishers" which is a theoretical thing in game-theory where everyone enforces things because to not enforce them would cause an enforcment on yourself if someone sees you not enforcing it, and so on however far back people are observing each other. Hierarchies are not the only way to organize global power. There doesn't have to be an "us" and a "them".

    What will surprise most people is the similarity between "punish the nonpunishers" and how society is organized now. In a business, a manager is punished if someone under him does something very bad and the manager does not punish him. If the manager's manager does not punish that manager for not punishing the employee, then the owner of the business would punish the manager's manager. If the business is sued for some mistake, then whoever made that mistake would probably be fired because those above him (up to the owner of the business) do not want to be punished by those above themself. In that case, the government is the one who would "punish the nonpunisher", where the "nonpunisher" is the owner of the business if he did not fire the person who made the mistake the business is being sued for.

    Punish The Nonpunishers only works when there are cycles (a circular path) between those who can punish each other. Everyone has to be accountable to someone else, normally whoever notices them not punishing someone who does something wrong. In a hierarchy, those at the top are not accountable to anyone, so there is no cycle.

    Wikileaks created such a cycle. It gave average people some ability to make their leaders accountable.

    There is a solution to the paradox, but it has to be fine-tuned more exactly than most people think is possible. They think politics and organizing society and Human nature are too unpredictable to organize enough for this to work. They may be right, but the alternative is nuclear war and extinction. There are a million possibilities, and maybe 1000 of them don't end in extinction. If we leave it to chance, its 1000 to 1 against us.

    To further complicate the paradox, if enough people learn a solution to the paradox, that knowledge could be enough to destabilize the system and cause nuclear war. If they try to use their new knowledge to change the system, that could destabilize it. So even if you know the solution, its probably not really the solution, as it negates itself depending on how it is used. 1000 to 1 odds was too optimistic. That didn't take into account the effect of enough people knowing the solution and trying to use it with their normal screwed up ways of thinking.

    I'll summarize: Society is a hierarchy and is becoming more hierarchy to avoid nuclear war and extinction, but becoming too much hierarchy causes average people to fight governments and cause the same. Society would have to stop being hierarchies and start being peer-to-peer organized (like Punish The Nonpunishers) to avoid extinction, but any small change toward that would destabilize the system and also result in nuclear war and extinction. We can't change and we can't stay the same.

    All paths that an average person can imagine lead to nuclear war and extinction. Not directly there, but whatever they would choose to do if they had power over the system would lead to it. Nothing anyone has done in all of history is similar to any of the rare solutions to this paradox. I don't know if I can explain it to you at all, but I'll try.

    It can't be hierarchy and it can't change to peer-to-peer (the opposite of hierarchy) except in certain fractal patterns. The problems grow on top of older problems. It has to be reversed in the opposite pattern it grew to avoid destabilizing the system at any 1 time or place.

    To do that people would have to understand what caused the problems, but most of them do not understand game-theory or are not smart enough to understand such a complex system. That further complicates the paradox.

    We would need a simulation of the system to explain it most effectively. I've been thinking about how to simulate the relevant parts of society using only the freedom of speech parts and maybe some Punish The Nonpunishers and other parts as a game, but my thoughts are not complete. Playing this game would give the players intuition of a similar problem as is happening globally on Earth so they could use the same strategies to reverse the bull that has accumulated mostly since technology started advancing exponentially. Here's my thoughts so far on that game: http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6053/Free-Speech-Just-Pay-Shipping  but its not what we need. It's a start.

    I'm eventually going to build a software system that uses psychology to grant psychic powers http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6447/Global-Telepathy-Network  to everyone to be used as a communication network that can't be censored, effectively transforming society from hierarchy to peer-to-peer in a very short time exponentially expanding from the first few people who learn such psychic skills from the psychology and artificial intelligence based software. The paradox is complicated by the possibility that could destabilize the same system described above, resulting in nuclear war and extinction. The same would probably be caused by creating smarter than Human artificial intelligence by itself, in an arms race between countries reacting to the possibility that the other could be using it. This paradox is so hard that no amount of power can solve it. Its an accuracy problem.

    I expect 1 of the few solutions is related to the global telepathy (and other mental abilities) network, the artificial intelligence I'm building, and the Free Speech Just Pay Shipping game I'm planning, but theres a lot of ways to combine them and still a lot of details to work out. If it works, enough people will learn the solution to this paradox and learn the right ways to use it, and MAYBE we can avoid nuclear war and extinction.

    15 years ago the Unabomber predicted something like this would happen.
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future#Human_race_at_a_crossroads
    But I disagree on his proposed solution. Instead of trying to destabilize the system, we should do smooth changes toward a peer-to-peer organization of all people. The Unabomber thought technology could only lead to such destabilization or the machines evolving past Humans, and 15 years ago I might have thought the same thing, but now I think there are a few very-hard-to-do ways that technology can also be the solution. Artificial intelligence can expand our minds in ways we can not yet imagine or destabilize an already unstable system with more military technology. The most dangerous of all is if it advances our technology so we can travel between the stars but then gets out of control like the global power on Earth today. Instead of worrying about destroying our species and planet, we could destroy galaxies. Technology increasing at exponential speed is not science fiction, and that's where it leads. The Unabomber wrote about a "crossroads" for our species. That has already passed. This is a second crossroads, where we choose hierarchy or peer-to-peer organization for the Human species. Peer-to-peer has less risk of destabilizing all our society. If you want to live, that's the future to work toward.

    Earth can't stay a hierarchy (it leads to nuclear war) but any small change away from that is probable to start a nuclear war. Or did any of you have a better idea how to solve the paradox?

    Sat, Jan 8, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     


    What is the universe? Why is it here? How can we use it? Those questions have been debated for all of recorded history, but I've never heard of anyone who tried to answer all 3 questions with the same answer. I will list some observations, some theories which try to explain them, and a way to use the theory to design a faster than light engine (a warp drive) using cheap technology like lasers and parts of LCD (liquid crystal display) screens.

    The picture above is E8 (described below), what they think physics looks like at the deepest level they know about. It looks a lot like a sphere, or did you think the laws-of-physics were flat? What creates spheres? Gravity.

    DEFINITION: Laws-of-physics is the statistical behavior of a subset of the universe, usually the subset closest to Earth.

    OBSERVATION: The only known laws-of-physics is very accurately approximated by small math equations.

    OBSERVATION: The only known laws-of-physics has arbitrary-appearing (not like pi or e or integers) constants in its equations.

    OBSERVATION: The only known laws-of-physics has never been observed changing (same equations), or only a small amount.

    OBSERVATION: When in superposition, 1 particle/wave can be in thousands of places at once without being between those places, and when 1 of those thousands of places is touched, 1 gets more dense and the others get less dense.

    OBSERVATION: Quantum wavefunctions can be split by a half-mirror and reassembled by the same process in reverse at a different half-mirror. Its branches can cancel each other out or strengthen each other, depending on the angles and number of bounces etc.

    OBSERVATION: More often than would happen randomly or through normal communication or observing the environment etc, there are small statistical dependencies between the brains of people and/or quantum physics devices. See the "main results" list at http://noosphere.princeton.edu  for the results of those experiments. Also you can watch a mind over matter video I did in 2002 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJGb4RNRB4  ("Psi wheel in a clear closed box 2" at youtube), or many similar videos. Lots of people have done strange mental things.

    OBSERVATION: The E8 math structure very accurately approximates the only known laws-of-physics. It is many rotations of a 57-dimensional shape in 248-dimensional space, where each dimension represents a quantum particle/wave type. There are levels of organization built on top of levels between 248 particle types (including some not observed) and the small number of types at the top of the Standard Model.

    THEORY: The Copenhagen theory of quantum physics is an approximation of the most infinite version of Manyworlds theory, similar to how Newton's equations are an approximation of Einstein's equations.

    THEORY (by Max Tegmark): "All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically."

    LOGIC: If Tegmark is right then: For any subset of the universe, there are an infinite number of unique ways to simulate that subset and recursively simulations of simulations to infinite depth, all averaging to nothing because of the symmetry of math. Since the universe is nothing on average, it doesn't really exist and does not need to be created. Parts of it exist alone, but together they do not.

    DEFINITION: Pattern is any subset of math. A wavefunction or any subset of it is a pattern. A statistical similarity between 2 patterns or subsets of them is a pattern.



    THEORY "Gravity For Patterns": The universe is the set of all possible wavefunctions of patterns instead of simply wavefunctions of particles/waves, and patterns attract patterns more when they are more similar.



    LOGIC: If Gravity For Patterns is right then: Collapsing a wavefunction is the superpositioned parts falling toward each other, pulled by the mostly-collapsed parts (the parts of reality they agree on) being similar patterns. The E8 shape is 1 of many possible shapes, and (possibly, but not necessarily practical) new shapes can be rotated in while E8 is gradually rotated out, to locally change the laws-of-physics to any arbitrary pattern you can amplify through chaos-theory.

    THEORY: The "statistical dependencies between the brains of people and/or quantum physics devices" are caused by such a rotation between E8 and whatever pattern fits the combination of brainwaves/devices which become statistically dependent, and that is probable to happen because infinite recursions of "Gravity For Patterns" (patterns about patterns attracting) will pattern-match any 2 patterns in 2 brains and ***exponentially*** increase the chance such patterns will connect through the multiverse. Its exponential because the recursion of patterns always finds an effective path between the 2 patterns. It finds an infinite number of other things, but the gravity part gradually changes that, and a small change goes exponential because of the recursion.

    THEORY: A faster than light engine (a warp drive) can be created using a distributed (not hierarchy) network of programmable crystals (a more advanced kind of LCD screen - Liquid Crystal Display) which are controlled by programmable lasers which are controlled in realtime by artificial intelligence which is given the task of controlling the crystals formed as early as possible (the precognitive effect in Humans, in a machine). The purpose of these cheap grids of programmable crystals is to grow crystals in multiverse directions which eventually grow far enough to touch each other in this distributed network. That system would be the way to access the "patterns" described in the theory above, to (a small amount) rotate out laws-of-physics (probably an E8 shape) and rotate in a warp field. This is all done by resonance of the patterns (Like Tesla's "earthquake machine"), not by brute-force pushing in the same direction until it works (That would take infinite energy, as relativity equations say). The way it works depends on large symmetric patterns, like a global telepathy network or the same built with a network of machines (using LCD crystals the same way as the analog parts of brains access Gravity For Patterns). Either way, it needs continuous use of a lot of intelligence, which can be done through a network Human minds and computers connected through psychology software and the internet, or it could be done using pure artificial intelligence if we knew more about how intelligence works. The intelligence is used to control the growth of the crystals in multiverse directions by controlling the brightness of the lasers. To extend the warp field around large areas like a planet or solar system (theoretically if the curved spacetime isn't vibrating too much from the large mass), put the crystals and computers around it in a sphere shape in space, and connect them with lasers pointing at each other which point at the LCD crystals of each other, so the waves of spacetime intersecting the lasers will be measured in the fractal patterns in the LCD crystals caused by the distorted laser light hitting it. That is how the machines would communicate with each other to know how to adjust their crystals to adjust to the way spacetime is vibrating. If done accurately enough, it should work for a starship, maybe for moving planets and stars, but probably not anything as big as a black-hole because its spacetime vibrations would be too big. First, we should try to build a machine that can push small things around using Gravity For Patterns. Then work up to the starships.

    Gravity For Patterns is Ben F Rayfield's theory of everything, including how the laws-of-physics form and how to locally change them using small amounts of energy and large amounts of intelligence.
    Sun, Dec 19, 2010  Permanent link
    Categories: AI, Theory, gravity, pattern, warp drive, multiverse, LCD, tegmark
    Sent to project: Polytopia
      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (2)
     


    The leading cause of death is birth, and the leading cause of piracy is copyrights and patents, but the difference is more good things than bad happen if we get rid of patents and copyrights.

    This thread is not about who deserves what or who owns what. The future is much more important than the past. Theoretically, if a majority of the 7 billion people agreed to change something that benefits more people on average than not changing it, then that is enough permission to do it. Or as its said on Star Trek, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

    There are some organizations each named "pirate party" which advocate legalizing piracy (ending patents and/or copyrights etc), but I don't know the details. Their strategy is too confrontational and will not work.

    Instead, think about the greed and short sightedness of governments and others with power.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
    If a frog is in room temperature water and nothing else disturbs it, it will probably stay there. If the water very slowly increases temperature eventually boiling, the frog usually does not notice the temperature changing and stays there until it dies.

    When thinking about the future of the Human species, most people have a lot in common with frogs. We can use that.

    Similarly, if we make the process of ending copyrights and patents very slow and gradual enough that you can take a calculus derivative (slope of a line) on it, and if we give those in power a reason to start the process, then they will be greedy enough to take the short-term benefits in exchange for everybody's long-term freedom.

    Those in power would extremely oppose a change at any 1 time that decreased the power or duration of patents or copyrights, regardless of how small the change is.

    Instead, what if we made patents and copyrights STRONGER instantly and gradually made them weaker until they didn't exist? Those in power would go for it because they personally would make a lot of money before the gradual change affected them much.

    For example as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent  says some patents last 20 years. We could change that so all new patents of that type would last 40 years, and over the next 10 years, decrease that CONTINUOUSLY from 40 to 0 as the years CONTINUOUSLY change from 0 to 10 years from now, only affecting the duration granted to new patents, not changing the duration of any patent previously granted.

    It would be to the selfish advantage of most of those in power to accept the offer, and after 10 years, no new patents or copyrights would ever be granted again, and some years after that, all patents and copyrights would expire (unless people see how well things work without patents and decide to get rid of them before the 40 years. Governments change the rules on us all the time, so theres nothing wrong with us doing the same after most of the patents/copyrights are gone, if we can).

    There would be no 1 time that any significant fraction of the patents expire. It would happen gradually because new patents granted would each be granted for a little shorter time than the last patent. No sudden changes. No riots. No excuses of not having time to prepare. Complete destruction of the intellectual property system globally, without breaking any laws. Checkmate.

    Like a moth to a flame. Its a trap those in power can't resist, even if they know its a trap. Don't mess with a Sun Tzu strategist.

    QUESTION TO EVERYONE: After the gradual confusion and inefficiency becomes freedom for everyone to build anything, and after some people go without certain things until they figure out they need to reorganize society to build them different ways, what would society eventually become?
    Fri, Dec 3, 2010  Permanent link
    Categories: copyright, patent, piracy, gradual
      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites (2)
    Create synapse
     
    They are becoming the same subject through unusual experiments. In recent years, some of the subjective experiences and things that were believed on faith are being scientifically proven. We now know that thinking certain things can directly cause other things to change from thousands of miles away. We're not sure why it happens, but we know it happens, and we know how to make it happen again with scientific devices measuring it. I have some theories on why it happens, but we should all think about this and say our own theories. Why do you think it happens?

    Right now you're probably thinking I'm making this up or misinterpreted some evidence or that I'm illogical. I have a masters degree in computer science and my current job title is "technology analyst". I build artificial intelligence for fun and research. It would be hard to find a more logical person than me. Please consider that when you read these illogical-appearing things. If you look into it deep enough, you can verify it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology
    This relatively new branch of science is called parapsychology. It deals with certain things that are very hard to access and have a history of people making them up, but we can't let that stop us from learning how the universe really works through high quality peer-reviewed scientific experiments. We have enough evidence now that its time to expand parapsychology research with the same high priority as any other area of physics. Parapsychology is closer to physics than psychology because its about the connection between the mind (including brains and whatever else a mind may be made of) and things the mind directly affects from a distance. That's physics. Most physics researchers have a severe attitude problem when it comes to this kind of data that doesn't fit how they think the universe works. Anyone who ignores data that does not fit their theories is not a scientist.

    You can find some evidence in the "main results" section ofhttp://noosphere.princeton.edu

    I and 43000 other people participated in event 351 in their list of experiments, and event 351 alone was measured as a 97.1% chance (written as .029 chance its random) that whatever we were doing changed what their scientific devices measured at 70 places across the earth in a statistical way, devices that we don't know exactly where they are and most are thousands of miles away from us.

    In this comment http://spacecollective.org/Infinitas/6410/comment6438  in this thread http://spacecollective.org/Infinitas/6410/New-Reality-Transmission  I explain my experience in http://noosphere.princeton.edu  event 351, but the important thing is the devices measured 97.1% and all the events together have a pattern when quantum physics would expect there to be no patterns.

    The devices are designed to generate random numbers based on quantum physics. For years they have sent those numbers to the computers of http://noosphere.princeton.edu  and you can download any of those numbers from that website.

    The fact is some of what quantum physics predicts has been disproven. Most interpretations of quantum physics say that "heisenberg uncertainty" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle  will prevent any patterns from forming between what we think thousands of miles away and the quantum events measured by http://noosphere.princeton.edu  But instead we found a pattern. There is 1 possible way the theory of "heisenberg uncertainty" can be saved: We don't have to know what those particles/waves are doing to statistically affect them. Either way, what we understand about quantum physics is about to change in a bigger way than learning Earth is not flat.

    That alone is enough evidence, but if you want more you can search for "parapsychology".

    I know from my direct experience that there is a skill that probably anyone can learn, the skill of thinking in certain patterns to make certain other things happen. Example: In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJGb4RNRB4  which I recorded in 2002, I had become skilled enough to think about the aluminum foil moving a certain direction and exactly that happened. In http://noosphere.princeton.edu  event 351 I used that same skill in a different way. I tried to organize the other 43000 peoples' thoughts in the ways I know work for this kind of thing, and I used that skill on things which affected the quantum physics devices which were used to measure the 97.1% chance that event 351 worked.

    I've done lots of things like that, but the subject of this thread is not IF it works. Its been proven that something we don't yet understand is happening. The subject is WHY does it work? Why can 43000 people choose to think the same thing at the same time and cause those quantum physics devices to measure a pattern when what they normally find appears random? How can our minds have such a big (separated by thousands of miles) effect on reality?

    I think it works because the Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0 which means the universe is a multiverse including all of an infinite number of variations of reality which occur in statistical clustering ways influenced by patterns of electricity in brains in a chaos-theory way. Details of that theory and how I plan to test it are at http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6447/Global-Telepathy-Network  and a shorter and less technical version of my plan I wrote as poetry athttp://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6031/The-Hitchhikers-Guide-To-Less-Than-Nothing


    43000 people can change quantum physics events thousands of miles away just by trying to think the same thing without anything helping them organize their thoughts together. We just chose certain times and days and what we would all think about, and it worked. I'm designing a software to take these experiments to the next level. Through a peer-to-peer artificial intelligence network, the psychology of mouse movements interacting with realtime generated music (musical instruments you play with the mouse, and other user-interfaces), will be synchronized in patterns the artificial intelligence learns or creates. The software will compare the psychology of each person through the internet instantly and repeat many times per second. It will continuously get better at influencing the connection between our minds and lots of things connected to the internet including the timing of network delays. http://noosphere.princeton.edu  only has 353 events so far. My software ( a plugin for Human AI Net http://sourceforge.net/projects/humanainet  ) will do many events each second its running. What they have done manually my software will do automatically and continuously in realtime, and it will learn from that and write new Java code to define patterns for the next experiments. It already writes new Java code while it runs. The user-interface will be similar to Audivolv ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/audivolv  ) except it will learn in realtime instead of using good/bad buttons to teach it. This is all open-source software (GNU GPL, various versions) which means you can build more programs with it. You can use it to do your own research in your own ways if you want, or just use it to verify I did my experiments correctly. I'm trained to build software, but I'm going to become a parapsychology scientist. I'm going to the be first person to combine artificial intelligence and parapsychology, and I expect to find the connection between quantum physics and brains, something that will be more surprising (when I prove it) than learning that the Earth is not flat. My plan is to do research that will eventually lead to building machines that can do telepathy (mind reading from a distance) and machines that do what I did in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJGb4RNRB4  I plan to figure out what about Humans is doing those things and build machines to do the same thing. I expect that when we understand physics in that way, building a faster than light engine will be the next step. If the mind can move a piece of aluminum foil just by thinking it, then what would happen if we optimized that process in a machine and added some wings and a drivers seat? The answers are there. We have enough evidence to know what experiments to do next. This is going to happen. It may not be in my research, but we are going to learn why you can learn to think things to directly cause them to happen.

    We are going to merge science and religion into the same subject, a slow process that starts with parapsychology experiments. I'm not saying any 1 religion is true or not. I don't know if Jesus walked on water or if reincarnation of cows is the highest form of consciousness on this planet. As I see it those are only details. I'm looking for an equation that explains how the universe works, including whichever of those unusual things really happens. As a scientist, the idea of faith is offensive to me. Things should be experimented with and understood.

    Why do you think 43000 people were able to mentally put some patterns into quantum physics events thousands of miles away? What are we missing in our understanding of physics?
    Thu, Nov 25, 2010  Permanent link
    Categories: noosphere, religion, Science, parapsychology
    Sent to project: Start your own revolution
      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)
     


    Whats really happening overall? Details like disagreements between countries are not important enough for this thread. Politicians and rich people and almost every organization on this planet are each distracted with their own goals. Somebody has to understand the whole system a little, just a summary, not a lot of information but the correct information.

    Every problem looks too hard to solve if you don't understand the summary. Before there were airplanes, people thought building them would be too hard because of how hard it is to flap your arms. Completely unrelated to the actual solution.

    Most people think it will be some huge time (maybe next century) before certain technology is invented or certain global problems are solved. They talk about the history of repeated failure and slow progress. The way those people do things, they would be right, but I have no reason to use the strategies (which I will explain below) of people who expect to fail. They didn't understand the problems, so they didn't find the solutions. They thought there were too many problems to take the time to understand the summary.

    I'll explain a few important patterns I've seen repeated all over the Earth and what they appear to be leading to. Then I'm asking you to fill in the patterns I've not noticed and what they lead to, and most importantly, what all the patterns do together...


    * Money is not a stable system. The economy laws are changed faster than anyone can read them. As http://metacurrency.org  says it, money is a game where you're not allowed to know the rules. What do we do when playing cards and an other player tries to change the rules after we've already put our bet on the table? Certainly not ask for his economic predictions based on the new rules.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_industrial_complex  is a cycle involving laws, propaganda, and money which continuously increases military technology and wars.

    * Most people have really insane priorities, like arriving at work on time and buying junk to put in their house, instead of avoiding their own death and simultaneously extinction of the Human species (which some of them think is less important than their own death, not understanding that extinction kills them too). Just 2 years ago I was asked on a voting paper if I wanted to take away some rights from gays. Is that really what we should be spending time voting on? How about not dying? I hear theres many millions of people dying from extremely simple problems to solve, like not getting bitten by a certain flying insect. How did that get below "Where a man sticks his dick" on the priority list to vote on? The most insane people will never admit they are insane. The average person is dangerously insane, preferring to buy health insurance instead of do things to avoid their own death (and extinction).

    * The most powerful politicians and rich people decide how to change the world in secret. They use excuses like "national security" and "We have too much paperwork and complication in the system to answer that question." What the puppet masters really mean is we haven't made them think they will lose enough money etc if they do not answer our questions.

    * Regardless of what they say, the ACTIONS of most businesses demonstrate that the main reason they avoid damaging the environment and hurting people is to make more money, which includes people thinking good things about them and not getting sued or paying fines. They calculate statistics on how many people their products or actions will directly hurt on average and compare that to the statistics on how many of those things can be proven and the cost of getting sued for it and the reduction in sales that would result if people knew they intentionally sacrificed their customer's safety or the environment etc to make more money. The world would run much more efficiently if we stopped regulating ACTIONS and started regulating the REASONS for those actions. For example, if a business calculates that 1 more person should die on average so they can make X amount more money, then that sounds like premeditated murder to me. We already have a law for that. More about specific numbers for X athttp://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6176/Legal-Murder-Charity

    * Intellectual Property is where you can have original ideas and somebody else owns them because they already claimed all possible ways to solve a certain problem which you were trying to solve on your own. Intellectual property does other things too, but they're unimportant things involving making people rich based on the past. I'm interested in the present and the future. The important thing about Intellectual Property is what its becoming: It gets stronger every year, claiming ownership of more things or in more ways. One way to change that ishttp://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6489/Copyrights-Cause-More-Piracy-Than-File-Sharing

    * The complexity of the economy and governments and most organizations are increasing exponentially to handle the exponential complexity of the other systems, which will do the same thing as money: destabilize and destroy itself, if it continues as it has been for many years.

    * There are much more than enough computers to simulate a Human brain, and there are machines accurate enough to create any DNA they want. To the scientists surprise, direct access to those things was not followed by understanding them or learning how to use them much. Life is much more complex than they thought, and they still haven't used simple things like a computer mouse to its full potential yet. Those in power are using brain-computer-interfaces for the only thing they know how to do: controlling and standardizing people. Why send a soldier into battle when he can control a robot to kill for him? Why do you need people at all? Let's just learn how brains work then build robots to kill other robots. Brain-computer-interfaces are going to change lots of things, and most people still think its science-fiction... and they'll keep thinking that until its in electronics stores. Maybe brains aren't all that great. Brains didn't help them predict what will be in the electronics stores or avoid the dangers of it.

    * Some technology advances exponentially, while other technology gets more complicated and just a little more advanced slowly. Cell phones are really primitive compared to what they could be, because of Intellectual Property causing "incompatibility wars". Most technology is designed to keep people down and control them, and get them to pay for small reductions in such oppression. There are many laws preventing me from putting up my own cell phone network without any proprietary junk in it. Why is that? It's not hard to build a wireless device with a screen and some buttons and a microphone and a speaker, but building it and making it work on a global scale isn't the hard part. The hard part is getting permission from those in power. Despite the forces against technology advancing, some of it is advancing faster than anyone can keep up with, and its not going to stop. Could this be an other thing that's more important than voting on where people stick their dick? Have you noticed there are automated flying machines and robots that walk? Just don't call it a "terminator" and we'll be ok. It can only hold a gun if programmed to, and http://www.darpa.mil  would never do that. It would be more efficient to build the guns into the body of the robots, leaving their hands free. If you think walking robots are scary, you might not want to look into what I'm building. It's more like Star Trek's Borg Collective but without the medical implants and mind control, just through psychology software. The interaction between money and technology is dangerous and feeds the war machine, which brings me to the next important pattern: Open-source software.

    * Open-source software. Businesses and governments and lots of others use the strategy of building something that costs them almost nothing to operate or duplicate, using the law to prevent anyone else from using that very effective solution, getting you dependent on it, then raising the price and using it to get you dependent on more things, in an endless cycle of exploiting and deceiving people. Many computer programmers had enough of that and formed some strategies together that have now become so strong that it can be debated which of proprietary or open-source software is more advanced. But with so much advertising, its hard for people to find the open-source alternatives. Open-source means you can build more programs with it, that you have the legal and technical ability to do that. Some open-source licenses require that you can only build open-source software with it, which is called a "viral license" (GNU GPL mostly), and that has been the most effective. There are at least 50000 softwares like that, and businesses are finding it harder to compete with people who have much less resources and mostly have the advantage that they decided to work together instead of what businesses normally do. There are open-source-like things too, including text and music and hardware which the creators chose not to patent or enforce Intellectual Property in certain ways. Open-source will continue to get stronger, and there is nothing those in power can do about it.

    * Physics knowledge is increasing quickly. Parallel realities have been detected at the small scale, like in double-slit and half-mirror experiments with lasers, and other experiments with small things. DNA can be built instead of randomly put together. All of this is connected to the exponentially increasing technology. Some researchers like at http://noosphere.princeton.edu  take things seriously that were previously thought of as superstition or paranormal. Just because something is not well understood or has been faked by lots of people does not mean it can not be understood through enough experiments. We're probably closer than most people think to 1 equation that can calculate all of physics and explain what consciousness is and how to create more of it and use it, to build machines that make mass and energy do whatever we want it to do. Physics is about accuracy, not throwing more money and brute-force strategies at it. Don't forget there are already enough nuclear weapons to explode the whole surface of the Earth. What I described isn't that much more advanced.

    * Social networks and other forms of emergent organization are increasing quickly. People are learning to interact in groups in ways never before done in history, resulting in building more advanced things and finding more complex solutions. Voting isn't just for laws anymore. Its for organizing information between people. On average, businesses are becoming less hierarchy and more peer-to-peer, a little. Most people know voting in elections has little effect, but they make things happen through these new organizations made possible through phones and the internet etc. This will continue to increase and have few bad effects, but those in power will eventually see that its incompatible with them staying in power and will resist indirectly and secretly. For example, they may resist by claiming Intellectual Property ownership of new kinds of communication or ways of organizing people, or make laws saying the only way to do it is through their systems. Social networks and emergent ways of organizing people are more powerful than those who appear to have power now.


    Overall I expect the Human species will either destroy itself in World War 3 OR learn to increase their own intelligence and learn to think with computers and each other more as 1 mind. I expect we'll be mass-producing faster than light starships around the year 2040, if we're not dead. But first we need to understand the SUMMARY of whats happening on Earth so we can choose efficient strategies. If I didn't think it could be done, I wouldn't waste my time trying. I play to win.

    Please reply with the summary of whats really happening on Earth, only the most important patterns, where they lead, and what we might do about it. Too many people get stuck on the details.
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)
     
    The universe equals Chaitin's Constant. I will explain how to use it statistically to create a global telepathy network, which we would eventually learn to use for more advanced things.

    UPDATE: This thread explains something which is true about the multiverse (in my opinion) but is less relevant to creating a global telepathy network than my Gravity For Patterns theory:http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6543/Gravity-For-Patterns-a-theory-of-everything

    UPDATE: I explained it in a different way here

    UPDATE: This was written in the middle of http://spacecollective.org/Infinitas/6410/New-Reality-Transmission  Its been scientifically verified by http://noosphere.princeton.edu  as 2.9% chance of it happening by random chance and 97.1% chance what was measured was not random, measured by their devices at many places across the Earth. In that thread, I explain my experience in the "global telepathy network" with 43000 people who participated in the experiment. It already exists. What I wrote below is my theory about why it works followed by my plans to test it in a more interactive way using artificial intelligence and psychology software which I am building. I'm just building a way for people to use it easier. It doesn't need any technology if you're skilled enough.

    Why do we need a "global telepathy network"? This is a very interesting time in history. The global economy stays just above the level of complete collapse, as the USA government prepared for by withdrawing its promise to guarantee bank accounts up to $100,000 in case your bank goes out of business. Deep levels of government secrets are protected by secret technology and used in secret meetings for purposes which its illegal for us to know. The world is constantly about to be destroyed by nuclear war and avoids it with politics at the last minute through such secret meetings. Technology advances faster than anyone can keep up with, and countries race each other for who can build the most accurate and powerful technology first, so each country can be sure no other country is a threat to them. Many millions of people die because, as George Carlin says it, "My God has a bigger dick than your God." The worst of all is, with extinction of the Human species approaching from each of those things simultaneously, most people think those problems are not important enough to do anything about and the best thing for them to do would be to mind their own business and, for God's sake, don't be 15 minutes late to work again or forget to wear a suit to the next meeting. The Human species appears to be delusional, suicidal, and more interested in watching TV and buying health insurance than avoiding their own death. Somehow, extinction sounds less dangerous than the death of 1 person. I feel like I'm on the planet of the apes. More about that athttp://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6467/Summarize-Earth

    But surprisingly, I have much more important things to think about than any of that, a question I'm asking to the whole Human species. Just 1 question. Think carefully before you answer, because you will get what you ask for after we build the technology to do this, as I'll explain below. The most important question right now is...



    How far down the "rabbit hole" do you want to go?

    As I will explain below in technical detail, the only thing stopping you is yourself. Technology has come to this level, and with a few more small steps, a global telepathy network can be constructed for those who want to share their minds at that level, a purely software solution based on psychology instead of medical devices, based on patterns of physics interacting with brainwaves. From there, you will better understand what is possible. How far you take it is your choice and is based on your skill level. Its something you learn, like any other skill. Its just one of the more unusual skills. How far do I want to go down the rabbit hole? My answer:http://spacecollective.org/benrayfield/6031/The-Hitchhikers-Guide-To-Less-Than-Nothing


    The technical stuff:


    Max Tegmark's theory ("All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically") is summarized at:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_IV:_Ultimate_Ensemble

    If that theory is true (which the rest of this writing will assume), then the universe equals Chaitin's Constant, equals all of math, and has a Kolmogorov Complexity of 0. The Kolmogorov Complexity of nothing (nonexistance) is also 0. The universe simultaneously equals everything and nothing. Because nothing is subset of of every other subset (in an analog way), the universe is a subset of every part of itself, therefore the universe is a fractal. Its also a fractal in the way that a Turing Machine can emulate an other Turing Machine to any depth.

    An other way to say that is a multiverse of Turing Machines where each bit is viewed as a sphere which changes depending on other spheres in the ways described by quantum physics. Each quantum particle/wave/etc or combinations of them are such a sphere. There can be deep indirect connections between any 2 bits, as we know from how software normally works.

    There are many Chaitin's Constants, but I mean the kind for programs up to infinity bits. The way I'm using it, the specific language of those bits will be left as an abstraction. Because of the unsolvability of the halting-problem, Chaitin's Constant is uncomputable. Multiverse branching happens because Chaitin's Constant is uncomputable. It can't choose so it does both.

    Because the universe is symmetric in every way (Kolmogorov Complexity 0), and what we call reality is mostly not symmetric, what we call reality must be a subset of something that is symmetric which could be combined with other subsets to total a symmetric whole.

    Because Kolmogorov Complexity 0 is the only property of the universe, there has to be something about it that results in nonsymmetric parts being self aware individually. The way Turing Machines work, many parts of the data have little or no interaction with other data, so if such data calculated a mind, it might think it is an individual and think its subset of the data is how the whole Turing Machine works. Everywhere that data is copied or interacts with other data in the Turing Machine, the statistical patterns it observed tend to be accurate. It calls them "laws of physics".

    Its not just 1 Turing Machine. Its an infinite multiverse of Turing Machines, together forming some view of Chaitin's Constant. That smoothes the statistical patterns. Data can flow between them and be in many at the same time.

    It doesn't fit exactly, but the Buddhists describe the universe similarly, called Indra's Net:
    "Imagine a multidimensional spider's web in the early morning covered with dew drops. And every dew drop contains the reflection of all the other dew drops. And, in each reflected dew drop, the reflections of all the other dew drops in that reflection. And so ad infinitum. That is the Buddhist conception of the universe in an image." —Alan Watts

    I've described the universe in a few ways. Now I'll explain how to use those statistical patterns.

    We know there are statistical patterns at least as complex as life forming from quantum particles, because thats what happens here. The laws of physics are also patterns. Space, time, mass, and energy are patterns that physics statistically controls. Remember that we're assuming the universe equals all of math (Kolmogorov Complexity 0) so that requires all such patterns be made of the same stuff and have a peer-to-peer relationship instead of x created y created z. Statistically x can appear to create y, but there can be no absolute law in the universe that says it has to always happen that way. The only absolute law (which we are assuming in this text) is the Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0 (universe equals all of math). If there was an other absolute law, then the Kolmogorov Complexity would have to be higher to define it.

    Quantum physics is a branch of statistics and some of its equations appear to be closely related to bayesian networks, but I'm not an expert. If that is true or not, bayesian networks are still a powerful statistics tool that scales up to any number of statistical events you can store in the computer. It finds the chances of any set of events when given the chances of other events. If no other information is available about those events, then a bayesian network, when run enough cycles to find a good network shape, always approaches the correct answer with an accuracy higher than Humans can think. Humans normally win at such statistics tests only because they do not put all the relevant information into the bayesian network, because they have so many subconscious thoughts that they do not know how to put into the computer. For pure math things like quantum physics, bayesian networks, combined with various ways of inputting and outputting the timing and context of events, will find many statistical patterns.

    Quantum physics research has focused too much on small size and short times. It should be expanded to look for large statistical patterns that are the effects of such small events.

    Since the universe is a multiverse of an infinite number of Turing Machines and quantum physics is the sphere view of those bits, we can use the statistical properties of Turing Machines in to predict physics.

    Usually Turing Machines generate mostly random appearing data but theres also some weak patterns in it that can be detected by a Bayesian Network applied to those bits.

    Whatever patterns occur in the bits of those infinite number of Turing Machines (the universe) are the only patterns in the universe, therefore physics and all events are made of such patterns.

    Such patterns occur in statistical clustering ways. If that was not true, what we call reality would fly apart instantly.

    The patterns in our brains are mostly built on top of the patterns called physics, but statistical clustering of the other patterns will form between people who tend to think the same things, and statistical clustering will happen between people who drive on the same road often, and the same for all other patterns. They all tend to stick together, like gravity for patterns. I don't know enough physics to say if normal gravity is such statistical clustering or if it is a pattern built on top of it at some depth.

    In the context of an infinite multiverse of Turing Machines, splitting off a variation of the multiverse to do calculations is trivial. It happens in every quantum physics experiment. The hard part is getting them to get far enough apart that they don't statistically cluster back together (collapse the wavefunction). When I say statistical clustering of patterns, I mean it in a fuzzy way, so there are continuous paths between collapsing a wavefunction and being a separate multiverse. Together, all such things total to a symmetric universe, a Kolmogorov Complexity of 0.

    Up to now, this has been very theoretical, but it logically follows from Max Tegmark's theory ("All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically") if its true. Here's an example to support the "gravity for patterns" theory. Its a video I recorded in 2002 after practicing mental experiments for 5 months. I can't do this any time I want to, and not nearly this much any more, but the important thing is this is a result of patterns in my brain. I thought it to make it happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJGb4RNRB4  (or search youtube for "psi wheel in a clear closed box") There have always been people who had strange mental abilities. Some were called witches and burned at the stake. Some made it up. If the Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0, then such mental abilities are caused by statistical clustering of patterns at the same level where the laws of physics formed as patterns. Its not magic. Its just something thats hard to access and hard to learn.

    Brains learn those quantum patterns and adjust their thinking a little as if communication through neurons and axons and through those patterns was a normal part of the brain. You can disagree on the amount that will happen, but it logically follows from the universe being math that it would happen some amount. Empirically (as you can see in the video), it happens a measurable amount.

    I've explained why telepathy and other unusual mental abilities should be expected if the universe equals math. My personal experience with it is not needed to understand that, but it will help some people understand physics better.

    One of my long-term plans is to build a software that uses subtle psychology in its audio, video, and mouse movement interactions with each user, to statistically synchronize the subconscious minds of many people through the internet. It will detect very small patterns in their psychology (like the physics patterns in brains described above), consider previous interactions with that person and how the patterns synchronized with other people's patterns across the internet, and adjust the subtle psychology (accessed through mouse, audio, video, etc) instantly (many times per second) to statistically cause many peoples' thought patterns to flow together. For example, if it changes some realtime music (like in Audivolv) on 2 peoples' computers and causes both of them to move their mouse in the same directions at the same times, without those people knowing why they move their mouse that way, then the thoughts are synchronized some. That's not enough. When its working, disconnect the internet communications between the 2 softwares, and see how long those 2 people continue moving their mouse the same as each other (by reconnecting and comparing data after the experiment). It can be done faster by simply keeping those 2 software processes separate instead of disconnecting the internet connection. Either way, the effect is those 2 people would learn to read each other's minds. Telepathy. In my experience, it feels like mind over matter is done the same way as telepathy, and the matter is just somebody else's brain. Its a very small physical force even after months of practice, but I expect if its done more accurately using Bayesian Networks and some preprocessing on the inputs and outputs for timing, then it could be learned to a much higher skill level, and we could build machines to do it too.

    It can be done in machines by using the timing of network events as quantum data (Did it come at an even or odd millisecond in this multiverse?) and sending Lisp code in the network packets to build up random Lisp software at each computer in the network. The Lisp software will observe the data coming in, keep a very small state, and choose what data goes out. When it aligns with other multiverses which have the same data and state at each node, the pasts and futures from that multiverse will be the statistical influcence that allows this to be used, in a very weak way, as a statistical alpha-point computer, which I think is the same thing as telepathy but in a more digital way. Brains are more analog so it works better.

    After that is working, people would start to use it and it would spread quickly until everyone on Earth who wanted to learn telepathy and other mental abilities would learn to do it through the artificial intelligence network (Human AI Net) which I am planning. In my experience, it will have no effect on those who do not want to participate, but I expect that if enough people tried at the same time to access the thoughts of one who did not want to participate, it would work. I see society changing quickly in the last few years toward acting more like 1 system instead of 7 billion individuals. I see power shifting away from cental authorities and becoming more peer-to-peer (not just in computers, but in everything). But I also expect that a small fraction of those with a lot of power will refuse to let society change in those ways, and I expect they would use their power to destroy things and cause more global problems near the time such gradual changes in society would obsolete them. If we had enough people who could read minds, then those few people could not dodge accountability and hide behind government secrets. They would have to become less aggressive, unless it was really necessary, with such telepaths observing. For the purpose of avoiding World War 3, and to advance the way the Human species can communicate, we should create such bayesian psychology software to create a global telepathy network (which usually you can choose to join or not at any time, or any gradual level between).

    After its up and running, you don't need the computers to keep it running, but they can be used to connect it to the internet through other kinds of artificial intelligence.

    It will work because the Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0, or as Max Tegmark says it: "All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically."

    Also http://sourceforge.net/projects/humanainet  (Human AI Net) will be an Artificial General Intelligence (and a Friendly AI unless the core AI parts are designed wrong). The global telepathy network will only be a plugin for it. I separated the mad-science parts from the easier to understand parts. Do any of you mad-scientists want to help with any of this?
    Tue, Nov 16, 2010  Permanent link
    Categories: telepathy, quantum
    Sent to project: Polytopia
      RSS for this post
      Promote (3)
      
      Add to favorites (3)
    Synapses (4)
     


    The laws of thermodynamics contradict themselves unless dualism is true, some kind of dualism in physics.

    When calculated on mass and energy alone, the laws of thermodynamics (which most scientists accept as facts) are accurate, but when calculated on everything we have observed, they contradict themselves, and anything that has at least 1 contradiction can not be a "law" of physics.


    First, what are the laws of thermodynamics?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroth_law_of_thermodynamics
    "If A and C are each in thermal equilibrium with B, A is also in thermal equilibrium with C."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
    "energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
    Statistically, heat will move from hot things to cold things more often than it moves the other direction.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics
    "As a system approaches absolute zero, all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value."


    Below, I will explain why 1 of the following 2 things must be true:

    (1) Some kind of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism  exists in physics, which would make the laws of thermodynamics a religion instead of science, OR

    (2) At least 1 of the laws of thermodynamics are wrong.



    Physics means how the universe works.

    If there is no dualism in physics, then by definition, there is only 1 kind of thing in the universe.

    Mass and energy are interchangible if you do certain things, and the same is true of many other things in physics. Its a common idea that everything is made of vibrating strings or surfaces or other equations. The theory that there is only 1 kind of thing in the universe is taken seriously by many scientists, and the scientists that do not take it seriously, are dualists by definition.

    The "big bang theory" says the "laws of physics" changed during the first fraction of a second of the big bang, or that is where they formed into what they are now. There is also speculation about the laws of physics changing or not working the same way in some parts of black holes or when enough particles simultaneously hit each other at near the speed of light. The idea that the laws of physics can change is taken seriously by many scientists.

    If there is only 1 kind of thing in the universe, the laws of physics must be made of it, or physics could be statistical patterns of it, and energy is made of the same thing. The laws of physics would be made of energy.

    Therefore the laws of thermodynamics (which are normally only used to calculate mass and energy) also apply to the laws of physics.

    Thermodynamics says disorder increases over time and eventually spreads evenly through the whole universe and stays that way forever. Therefore (if dualism is false and thermodynamics is true) then the laws of physics will slowly become more disordered as time goes on, therefore no specific pattern will continue to be accurate forever (It will become more disordered).

    But the third law of thermodynamics says very accurately what the universe will become and continue to be forever after that. It says heat will spread out evenly to everything and forever approach some constant minimum heat.

    That is a very well defined and accurate pattern, which contradicts the claim of thermodynamics that patterns will become disorder.

    I did not take thermodynamics out of context. Either dualism is true, or thermodynamics can be applied to the laws of physics the same way its applied to energy.

    Scientists talk about how the "laws of physics" started being the way they are, including the numbers in the equations and how many variables etc. It appears that physics would form out of large patterns over long times, like the one predicted by the third law of thermodynamics. Instead of it staying that way forever, which is a very linear view, I think our reality slowly changes from mass/energy/space/time/etc to such a pattern (predicted by the third law), and that pattern becomes part of a new "laws of physics", so its a rotation or a fractal zooming instead of the end of time. I think thermodynamics is a linear view of something that should be viewed as a fractal.


    I've got my own reasons for thinking dualism is not true, and with that comes the logical requirement that thermodynamics is not true. Of course people are free to believe in the dualist church of thermodynamics, but please keep your religion out of my school and government.

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

    Also, I've posted this to http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=190312  which is a forum mostly populated by members of the Church Of Thermodynamics.
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (1)
     
    2 players each have 1 coin. Each round of the game, each player secretly lays their coin down heads or tails. Its a choice, not a random flip. One player is called EQUAL and the other is called XOR (eXclusive-OR, means not equal). If both coins are heads or both coins are tails, the EQUAL player gets 1 point. If 1 is heads and 1 is tails, the XOR player gets 1 point. Repeat many times. The player with the highest score at the end wins.

    That game is the simplest possible intelligence test. It is the exact definition of intelligence.

    It is also the simpler version of the game "Rock Paper Scissors", where each player secretly chooses rock, paper, or scissors (instead of heads or tails), then who wins 1 point is decided by: rock crushes scissors, scissors cut paper, paper covers rock. Nobody wins a point if the 2 choices are equal. My EQUAL XOR game has 2 things to choose instead of 3 but measures intelligence the same way.

    If player1 chooses rock more often than paper or scissors, then player 2 will learn to choose paper more often. Complex patterns will form between 2 intelligent players of "Rock Paper Scissors". Except for my simpler version of it (EQUAL XOR), Rock Paper Scissors is the most strategic and intelligent game ever created. Its the exact definition of intelligence except it has an unnecessary third choice.



    What can this game be used for?...

    I build artificial intelligence (AI) software, the kind that can eventually become what we see in the movies, except for the parts where it tries to take over the Earth and kill everyone.

    The Friendly AI paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_AI  ) is how to build an AI that is allowed to modify itself in any way but chooses only to modify itself in ways that work toward its original goal more effectively. Example: You are at a party. You want to dance with some girl but instead sit in a chair talking about how good she looks. To accomplish your goal of dancing with her, you order a beer and think maybe you will feel more like dancing after drinking it. You modified yourself by drinking the beer. A side-effect of that modification is a desire to drink more beer and run your mouth, which may lead to other things you did not predict. This is an analogy between AI and people. Most people learn how much to drink at a party, but in AI, it is a serious research problem, not specificly about drinking at parties, but about how an AI can modify itself without having unexpected side-effects that build up until the whole system crashes or results in the AI wanting to kill everyone or other hard-to-predict things.

    Quote from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

    (1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

    (2) A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    (3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

    The "3 laws of robotics" were an attempt to solve the Friendly AI paradox by forcing an AI (in a robot) to think certain ways, but that strategy will never work because AI will eventually become smart enough to modify itself. Its the same reason Humans do not do what animals command, even though simpler animals created Humans through evolution.

    Today that area of research is called "Friendly AI" but it is still very speculative.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_AI

    As I define it, a Friendly-AI is an AI that has the ability to modify itself (including its goals) and intelligently predicts what a possible modification would cause in the near and far future, and considers all that before modifying itself, which results in it creating new goals that more effectively work toward its original goals, and does not result in significantly changing its original goals, and to satisfy the "friendly" part, its original goals are similar to the goals that the most number of people could agree on.

    The best strategy to build a Friendly-AI that we know of is to define its thought processes as a simulation of some new kind of physics that we define as math equations. Strategies like the "3 laws of robotics" will not result in a Friendly-AI. Those strategies are more likely to result in the kind of destructive AIs we see in movies. The correct strategy is to build it in a way that it wants to do certain things, not to put in a system to control it to do that. If it wants to do it, and if its smart enough, then it will not try to change itself in a way that it stops wanting to do its original goals.

    Below, I will explain the progress I have made in designing a "simulation of some new kind of physics that we define as math equations" for the long-term goal of solving the Friendly-AI paradox:

    Start with the EQUAL XOR game I describe above. Bits in computer memory can be substituted for coins, and artificial intelligence code can be substituted for each 2 players.

    First, I'll explain some math. A vector in N dimensions is a list of N numbers. A 3-dimensional vector is a direction and length in 3d space, like pointing your finger in some direction and saying how far to go. A 2-dimensional vector is the same thing except without the up/down part. A 1-dimensional vector is the same thing but only forward and backward. A 0-dimensional vector is nothing. I'm going to use N-dimensional vectors, and it does not matter what N is. The more dimensions you have, the more choices there are in how to play the game. You only need 1 dimension, but its more flexible with more.

    I'm going to remove some of the flexibility that is not needed. All vectors must be length 1, so in 2 dimensions, its a point anywhere on the perimeter of a circle of radius 1. In 3 dimensions, its anywhere on the surface of a sphere of radius 1. Here's the surprising part: In 1 dimension, since it has to be length 1, the only choices available are -1 and 1, and that exactly equals the EQUAL XOR game described in the first paragraph above. Just say 1 is EQUAL and -1 is XOR, or the opposite would work too. This makes the EQUAL XOR game work in any number of dimensions. I haven't changed what the game does. I've only added a way to use it gradually instead of all-or-nothing. I started with TRUE/FALSE and defined the idea of a continuous dimension wrapped around a circle/sphere/etc.

    What does it mean to play the EQUAL XOR game on the perimeter of a circle? Each player chooses a point somewhere on the perimeter of the circle. If the points are near, the EQUAL player wins more. If the points are far from each other, the XOR player wins more.

    There is a way to write that in math: The dot-product of the 2 vectors (points on the perimeter of the circle) is the amount of score that moves from the XOR player to the EQUAL player. The dot-product is some number between -1 and 1, depending on which 2 vectors the players choose each round of the game.

    If the vectors are separated by a 90 degree angle, the dot-product is 0. If the vectors equal, the dot-product is 1. If the vectors are exactly on opposite sides of the circle, the dot-product is -1. The dot-product is the cosine between the 2 vectors.

    In this vector-based version of the EQUAL XOR game (which is a simplified version of the Rock Paper Scissors game), it is more accurate to call the EQUAL player the COSINE player, and call the XOR player the NEGATIVE-COSINE player. We could expand the game by adding other geometry functions like SINE, but simple is better. Its simply the dot-product (the overlap when viewed at a perpendicular angle) between the 2 choices of the 2 players.

    All the basic logic operations (equal, xor, and, or, not...) can be done on the surface of circles/spheres/etc this way as gradual/continuous changes instead of all-or-nothing like logic is normally done.

    That is the exact definition of intelligence and how to measure it as a game.
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)
     
          Cancel