Thought It Was Hard But The Real Reason Was I Didnt Want It

In Buddhist philosophy, desire and mental attachment are what keeps you stuck here on Earth, but I have a much easier way to explain it. There are many philosophies I think are mostly true. Anyone can do this.

In 2002 for a few months, I had it a small amount, compared to most people who rarely have it enough to notice it exists. Then because of an injury (which is now healed), I lost it, and its been slowly coming back but not as strong as it was in 2002.

What is it? Moving things with my mind like in this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJGb4RNRB4  video, telepathy (the ability to flow thoughts to and from other people who have this ability), the ability to think something to directly cause it to happen more often statistically, the ability to experience reality in other ways than through your body like floating around like a ghost or spreading yourself over large areas, and most of all, experiencing things outside of space and time. I did all those things in 2002, while I usually couldn't do them whenever I wanted, I did have some skill. That leads to places outside of space and time and not needing to hang around Earth anymore, unless you want to.

I very much wanted it to come back. At least I thought I did. But the problem was I wanted something else more. I wanted the usual things, video games, money, not to work at a job, to take girls out for sex and if I like them have dinner, and most of all I wanted things to be different on the Earth. I was angry at the world for screwing up in so many obvious ways and people not trying to fix it. Later I started to want things to improve the Human species, to help those who want it get to a higher level of consciousness, but now I realize even that is desire/attachment and I can only have it if I'm willing to give it up if, at any time (today or many years), I see a way to do the more important thing, which is to go to a higher level of consciousness, where I would have much more ability to very indirectly accomplish the same things by mental effort alone and from outside of space and time. If you like those things on Earth, I want you to have them, but I want something much more abstract.

Now I remember the main reason I got it in 2002. It wasn't because I meditated more than everyone else or because I believed or did not believe something. It wasnt because of being ethical or anything like that. It wasn't anything that people normally think it is. If you want to take girls out for sex and if you like them have dinner, fight wars for stupid reasons, or things many people think are wrong, that's not a problem. If that's what you want in your version of reality, go for it. Whats important is something most people never do, and its very simple and easy to do. The main reason I got it in 2002 was because I wanted it more than anything else, more than I wanted all the money in the world, more than I wanted air to breathe. That, and enough time for it to happen, is all it takes.

Just want it, intend for it to happen, and it will eventually. The physical world reacts much slower than other parts of the universe. But don't mistake slowness for difficulty. If you stop intending for it to happen, slowness becomes stopping or you go in a downward spiral toward the opposite of what you really wanted. All because you thought it wasn't possible or wasn't working while it was really just taking some time to work.

Theres something wrong with a species that is more scared of large spiders than of the possibility of nuclear war. Thats how we evolved, but we can be more. If you would stop thinking in aggressive ways, you would get real power, but once you get it you won't want to use it as often. I just have a little of it, but the important thing is I have as much as I need to do what I'm here to do, and that is to work on the global telepathy network through internet connected artificial intelligence music psychology software (Audivolv and Human AI Net), until the first time I get a chance to upgrade to a higher level of consciousness. But what I'm really here to do is to think that's what I'm here to do but then realize that I didn't have to do anything at all.
 http://sourceforge.net/projects/audivolv  (See the xml file about this in version 0.3)
http://sourceforge.net/projects/humanainet

Most people are here on Earth because subconsciously that's what they really want. Some want to experience higher levels of consciousness and live outside of space and time and do things indirectly and more through mental effort, and the software I've started building and written technical documents about explains how to use computers to help you get there, so if I'm not able to finish it for whatever reason (and I am going to continue probably for years), its open-source (GNU GPL 2+) and you all have the ability (by building the remaining parts or paying someone to do it for you) to get to higher levels of consciousness, if that's what you really want. You can do it the traditional way, by meditating and thinking a certain way for many years, or you can automate it with software and do it quickly.

If for whatever reason I do not continue my work, I request that someone else try to, someone like Ben Goertzel for example, who has experience in the paranormal and artificial intelligence and thinks they can be combined. But if not, the other way would be for me to telepathicly put ideas into peoples' heads to build similar things. Its a skill anyone can learn. I have to say this because it helps me lose some of my desire/attachment about it, which I need to do to get to the higher levels of consciousness, even though I intend to continue my work. I want to at least get the interactive music based psychic amplifier working in a basic way first, which basically will work by using a distributed bayesian network to coordinate, between many people and computers, mouse movements and musical instrument parameters as if they were qubits. In a fractal way, they are qubits. Brains are mostly normal computers but are a small amount quantum computers, especially in the way they do telepathy and other more direct access to reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy

By wanting too much to create the global telepathy network and improve the Human species, I prevented myself from getting my telepathic and telekinetic abilities back. I have them a little, but still not as much as I had in 2002. As I start to have more ability to improve the world, it appears to be the biggest desire/attachment I still have to overcome. I can do it, but I can't want it more than higher consciousness, because it affects the strategies I use to get it.

Usually when I want something I eventually got it, and usually through a lot of hard work, but sometimes I just think something and that causes it to happen a week or a year later. Wanting something can be the motivation to make it happen or it can directly be the cause of it, as in thinking something to make it happen using psychic energy.

My main point is its actually very easy to get higher levels of consciousness and not be stuck on Earth. I'm not stuck here. I want to be here until I get my my mad-science projects working in a basic way. After that, something very important changes, something most people never do. My first priority will be higher levels of consciousness, more important to me than having all the money in the world, or having air to breathe. That is what it means to want something more than you want anything else.

Its not hard. Most people won't get it because they don't really want it.

Recently, as I've been talking to people who are into this kind of thing, I was very surprised when I realized that I didn't want it. I wanted psychic powers. I wanted telepathy and telekinesis and to think things to make them happen. I wanted to be able to do such magic tricks. But that's not whats important. That's only a side-effect. Except for a few things that I want to finish first, and could leave at any time if it meant I would get the bigger things, the thing I want most right now, more than all the money in the world, more than air to breathe, is to be like I was in 2002 and continue to wherever that leads.

What started this sequence of thoughts is people reminded me about the way consciousness and reality comes in still pictures, flashes of reality, and many of those still pictures (which may have any number of dimensions or other shapes) fit together into a multiverse. Each is a quantum wavefunction. That's why the double-slit experiment works. My strongest experience with it is when I was doing telekinesis to a volleyball laying on the floor. I saw flashes of it being at many different places, some a millimeter and some a few feet from where it really was. I saw it accelerating and jumping between still pictures, in my mind. I was looking at multiverse branches, different possibilities, or if you understand it as manyworlds theory I was looking at parallel realities. The volleyball only moved (by my mental effort) when I thought about it being very close to where it was at the time. Thinking about the variations where it was feet away did nothing, but they were interesting to look at. When it moved, I knew that was I was seeing was real. It felt like merging the multiverse branches by pulling a zipper in your clothes shut, except I was pulling on the multiverse branches, and the volleyball rolled an inch. Its a skill. Anyone can learn it, but don't expect any movement in the first 40 hours of experimenting with thinking various things. After 40 hours, it gets easier. Your time may vary. The point is consciousness and reality come in still pictures, flashes of reality, and the way they fit together in almost smooth ways (wave vs particle) and how that relates to chaos-theory of neuron firing patterns in brains is how you can learn to think something to make it happen and how you can use quantum physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

I am not my body. I am the part of the wavefunction that is near my body. I am a blur of reality. When you're standing near me, you're also standing inside of me. In some ways, I am the space and time and mass and energy near my body. I am sometimes in many places at once. How would you know if your subconscious mind is influenced by other peoples' subconscious minds? It's subconscious. You have no way to know except if the same information is in both minds, and I've found that it is. I'm not my body. My body is a statistical pattern in a quantum wavefunction that we call reality. My consciousness has simply become attached (like desire in Buddhist philosophy) to that statistical pattern.

Its not good to exist in this kind of reality because you have to, because you're addicted to it or accidentally keep coming back. Instead, why not go to the other parts of the universe, and see what its like, and if you prefer Earth, come back to this exact moment in time. You can be in many places at once. Its a skill you can learn.

I thought I wanted it, but I didn't... until now. That, and time, is all it takes. I hope I've explained it enough that anyone else who wants it can get it.

Sat, Mar 5, 2011  Permanent link
Categories: consciousness, physics, telepathy, buddhism, desire, attachment, telekinesis

RSS for this post

Quantum Physics Is Common Sense
Project: Polytopia

Logically it makes sense why they act like particles when observed and waves when not observed. Quantum physics is common sense to anyone who understands the statistics of 2 coin flips and how those statistics are affected by observing the coins. I will explain why the double-slit experiment is the same experiment as something you can do with 2 coins.



In the double-slit experiment, an electron (or other particle/wave) has 2 holes it can go through and then is detected hitting somewhere on the back wall. If it goes through the left hole, statistically it will paint a pattern on the back wall. If it goes through the right hole, it paints a different pattern. It goes through each hole equally often as the other. Most peoples' common sense tells them that statistically it doesnt matter if you know which hole it went through because you can simply average the 2 patterns to get the pattern on the back wall for when it could go through either hole. But its a very different pattern from the average of the left-hole-pattern and right-hole-pattern. Its the same pattern as waves interfering with each other.

Sometimes electrons act like particles and sometimes like waves, but why? I'm going to explain why that happens using common sense instead of equations. The problem is most people don't have all the parts of common sense that they think they have. If you understand the following about 2 coin flips, and you see the patterns created in the double-slit experiments, then you can put them together and understand why electrons (and other particles/waves) sometimes act like particles and sometimes act like waves. Logically, without considering the specific equations of physics, we can know there has to be something like that in physics somewhere. Here's the 2 coin question:

If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 coin landed heads, then whats the chance both landed heads?

Its 1/3, not 1/4 or 1/2 like most people think, because there are 4 ways 2 coins can land and I only excluded "both tails" when I said "at least 1 coin landed heads" so that leaves 3 possibilities and I asked what is the chance of 1 of those 3 things which happen equally often. Its 1/3. If you still don't believe it, flip 2 coins many times and only ask the question when at least 1 of them lands heads and you will see that 1/3 of the time you ask the question they both land heads. The flaw in Human minds is the need to choose 1 of the coins and say it certainly landed heads, but I did not tell you any specific coin landed heads, and it does change the answer if you take that shortcut.

Most peoples' common sense tells them that since its a symmetric question (between the 2 coins), it can't matter if they start with 1 of the 1-or-2 coins that landed heads, and they think it will get the same answer as not knowing if a specific coin is heads or not. How could it matter? We know at least 1 of the 2 coins landed heads, so I'll just define a variable called coinX=heads and figure out if coinY=heads or coinY=tails. Since coinY was randomly flipped and coins have a 1/2 chance of heads, then the chance both are heads must be 1/2. But then they think about the extra information I told them: at least 1 coin landed heads. That has to change something, so how could coinY be 1/2 chance of heads by itself and with coinX? CoinX and coinY are symmetric. You can trade them in this question and not change the answer. So whatever is true of coinY has to also be true of coinX on average. So maybe the chance both are heads is 1/4. Most people go back and forth between 1/2 and 1/4, but the answer is 1/3 as I explained above.

How is the 2-coin experiment related to the double-slit experiment?

The patterns of the 2 coins (how often they land heads) individually can not always be averaged to get the pattern of both coins together. If at least 1 coin landed heads and you observe a specific coin being heads, then the chance they are both heads is 1/2. If at least 1 coin landed heads but you don't observe any coin, then the chance both are heads is 1/3.

Logically, observing a specific case of something you know has to be true in general, about the 2 coins, produces a different outcome than only knowing its true in general.

The analogy to quantum physics is that when you observe a heads or tails, you collapse the wavefunction (including the other coin you didn't observe) to a particle and the other becomes a different wavefunction, but if you do not observe any heads or tails then its a symmetric wavefunction between the 2 coins.

I can say the same thing about the 2 holes in the double-slit experiment. If I put an electron detector past the left hole, and shoot an electron that could go through either hole, and the detector observes or does not observe an electron, then I get a different pattern (statistically on the back wall of where the electrons hit) than if the detector was not observing the space between the left hole and the back wall. If any part of the possible paths are observed (as containing or not containing an electron), then the other possible paths are affected even though they were not observed. The electron could have gone through both slits or neither or left or right, but still the path on the right is affected by observing the path on the left.

Most quantum physics scientists explain it as the electron going through the left hole, the right hole, both holes simultaneously, or bouncing off the thing containing the 2 holes without going through either hole. If the electron does not go through either hole, they do not count that in any of the patterns on the back wall.

In the 2-coin experiment and double-slit experiment, there are 4 possibilities, and 1 is excluded. I need to label the 2 coins for this, like the left and right holes/slits are labeled "left" and "right". One coin is a nickel and the other is a dime. This is not the only way to pair the 4 possibilities. Its just a way to explain that they are the same problem:

(1) Nickel heads. Dime tails. Electron left slit. Electron not right slit.

(2) Nickel tails. Dime heads. Electron not left slit. Electron right slit.

(3) Both coins heads. Electron goes through both slits.

(4) Both coins tails. Electron bounces off the thing containing the slits and does not go through either. It is not true that "at least 1 coin landed heads" so I don't ask the question or keep statistics of it. The electron didn't hit the back wall so its not part of the statistical patterns.

In the design of both experiments (2-coin and double-slit), cases (3) and (4) are opposites and cases (1) and (2) are symmetric. Exactly 1 of (3) and (4) is not counted in the statistics, but the chance is equally balanced between (1) and (2). It works the same way if you swap the left and right slits or swap the nickel and dime or swap heads and tails or swap going through a slit with not going through a slit. Its practical to test it going through the slit but not practical to test it after it bounces because bouncing is an observation by the thing it bounced on.

Quantum physics is a kind of statistics. So is the 2-coin experiment. In the double-slit experiment and the 2-coin experiment, observing any part changes the outcome statistically. I'm not saying the math of the double-slit experiment is exactly the math of a bayesian-network (which is the kind of statistics used for the 2-coin experiment), but I explained enough similarities that quantum physics scientists should take this seriously.

The double-slit experiment is a variation of the 2-coin experiment that uses continuous angles instead of only heads/tails.

That is why observing things changes the outcome and why electrons/photons/etc act like particles when observed and act like waves when not observed.

If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 coin landed heads, then whats the chance both landed heads? The most important thing to remember is the question is symmetric between the 2 coins, and you can know that 1 of the 2 coins will be heads, but observing either of those coins as heads changes the outcome, like observing what goes through either slit changes the outcome.

Quantum physics is common sense to anyone who understands the statistics of 2 coin flips.


There is something which is true about the coins, and there are 2 ways which it could be true, and each of those 2 ways is symmetric, but knowing which of those 2 ways it is changes the outcome.

If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 landed heads, then whats the chance both are heads? 1/3

If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 landed heads, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice  selects a coin and says its heads, then whats the chance both are heads? 1/3, because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice  was used on 2 things which were identical and you have no way to tell them apart.

If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 landed heads, and the first coin that landed (or the coin that landed closest to my foot, or whatever) is heads, then whats the chance both are heads? 1/2, because a specific coin is heads and the other is independent.

Your observation of something which you already know to be true (but not which of 2 symmetric ways for it to be true) changes the chances, and that is exactly what we see in the double-slit experiment.

Sat, Feb 26, 2011  Permanent link
Categories: Experiment, statistics, quantum, double slit, common sense, particle, wave
Sent to project: Polytopia

RSS for this post

Banks Profit From Problem They Caused

If a business causes a problem, they should not get to profit from it. They should have to pay to solve the problem completely. This problem is not solved.

This is a typical example:

Someone is losing their house. Why are you losing your house? Because I can't make the payments. Why can't you make the payments? Because I lost my job. Why did you lose your job? Because the economy is having problems. Why is the economy having problems? Because the banks screwed up. Who is taking your house? One of those same banks. So the same group of businesses that caused you to lose your house is now taking your house? Yes.

This is summarized from some youtube videos I was watching of David Icke.

Mon, Feb 21, 2011  Permanent link
Categories: economy, bank

RSS for this post

Human Life Worth 1000 Dollars
Project: Start your own revolution

Going by the standard of supply and demand, a Human life is worth as much as it costs to save the cheapest Human life, unless some people are worth more than others.

I asked how much it costs to save the cheapest million Human lives on average in http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6176/Legal-Murder-Charity  and indirectly explained how peoples' actions and what they think it costs contradict.

Here is the answer: Human life is worth $1000. The research is summarized herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Givewell

That means if you can save a random person's life for $2000 then you should not do it, because you could save 2 lives by spending it somewhere else. 2 random people or 1 random person? It's not a hard choice, unless you think some kinds of people are worth more than others.

Most people like to pretend that everyone is worth as much as everyone else. I'm not talking about your friends and family compared to random people. I'm talking about comparing randomly selected people to randomly selected people. Is a Chinese person worth the same as a Canadian person? Answer yes or you're labeled a racist. But pay $2000 to save one instead of $2000 to save 2 of the other, and you're a good person instead of a racist. No. If you pay $2000 to save a random person's life, then you are judging that who you are saving is worth 2 times as much as the other. Your actions would mean 2 of these people are worth as much as 1 of those people. Now forget you read that, or try to find some reason to think I'm lieing, so you don't have to admit you think everyone is not equal. Or maybe it would be easier not to save anyone's life for $1000, because then nobody can figure out who you think is worth less than who else.

It gets more complex. If a certain person is going to save an average of 9 other peoples' lives, and it costs $5000 to save that 1 person's life, then that's an average of $500 per life saved. That one person is worth more than those who don't save lives.

But that's assuming life and death are the only things we should try to affect. Life isn't worth as much if you're always hungry or in jail or you hate yourself or lots of other things. I'm not saying the goal should be to save the most lives, but that should be part of it.

Anyone can save many lives for $1000 each after learning the facts from various websites likehttp://givewell.org

This is my question to everyone: How much is a random person's life worth to you, as a number of dollars on average? If you say "You can't put a price on Human life", then you're just avoiding the question, because the price is $1000. The price is known. That is the supply. I'm asking about the demand. Is it worth $1000 to you? Or how much is it worth, in dollars?

Here's my answer: I explained above that a person who will save 9 lives is worth as much as themself plus some part of the 9 others, on average, adjusting for other factors than life and death, so they're worth maybe around 5 people. I am a mad-scientist and I expect what I build will work, so don't bother saying "You can't know what you're doing will save that many lives". If you read my other posts, including http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6090/Artificial-Intelligence-learns-music  (which is eventually going to become a new kind of communication and improve the Human species in many ways), and if you agree with me that it will have that effect, then you will understand why it is better for me to save my money and later spend less time working at jobs than it is for me to spend that money at $1000 per life saved. I'm not trying to brag about how great I am, but this example is necessary to explain something about the most effective use of your money toward solving the world's problems.

Bill Gates had a good strategy too... He acted in a very greedy way for many years then gave many billions of dollars to stategicly chosen charities, after hiring some people to research which charities were more efficient. That's what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Givewell  researches. But for those who don't think they're going to change the world or get rich later, that doesn't apply.

That's my excuse, and I think its a good one. If you could afford to lose $1000, what's your excuse? What are you doing to improve the world that makes your time too valuable to spend $1000 of time saving a life? I think most people are so afraid to answer that question that they become afraid to ask the questions that come before it. If you don't think a random person's life is worth $1000, you should at least admit it, because that would be progress. As things are now, people are afraid to ask the questions. Cowards.

How many lives do you think will be saved on average as a result of people reading this thread? I'd guess at least 1. Therefore, since I think in a logical way to improve the world more efficiently, if an average person was going to die unless I deleted this writing and never wrote it again, I would choose to let them die instead of delete this writing. This thread is worth more than a Human life. I will not apologize for estimating the value of things when I do it to improve the world instead of for selfish reasons. So what is your excuse for not saving a life for $1000? All I really said is this thread is worth more than $1000.

One last example. Since Human life is worth $1000 each, the 9/11/01 terrorist bombings (which killed around 3000 people) only did $3 million of damage to the world, which isn't really that important. The buildings cost more than the people were worth. There were other bad effects, but I'm talking about the value of the lives lost, not the value of the freedoms other people lost. And about the freedoms lost, is our freedom really worth less than 3 million dollars (or maybe 30 million if we expect more attacks would have followed)? Of course our freedom is worth a lot more than 30 million dollars.

It doesn't have to be this way. We can solve these problems over time so Human life is worth more. If enough people save the cheapest Human lives, then the next cheapest would cost $1100 to save. Whatever you think Human life is worth, lets adjust the supply/demand so that much is spent on them.

Sat, Feb 5, 2011  Permanent link
Categories: supply, demand, charity
Sent to project: Start your own revolution

RSS for this post

Philosophy Of Fractal Or Recursive Universes

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

Learning Curve For Audio Programming Reduced
Project: Proposal for a multimedia playground

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.

Tue, Jan 11, 2011  Permanent link
Categories: audio, sound, programming, math, simple, java, speaker, microphone
Sent to project: Proposal for a multimedia playground

RSS for this post

The Paradox We Must Solve To Avoid Extinction of Humans

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

Gravity For Patterns a theory of everything
Project: Polytopia

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

Copyrights Cause More Piracy Than File Sharing

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

Parapsychology Merges Science And Religion
Project: Start your own revolution

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