Member 2664
108 entries

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
    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.
    Tech near Human level,
    Arms race to win World War Three,
    A hybrid Human A.I. mind,
    Mirror of all people equally,
    Do you like what you see?

    Mon, Sep 26, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: future, AI, human, War, meta
      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)

    A dangerous chemical we've heard almost nothing about but is found in many food products with no mention of "dihydrogen monoxide" in the ingredients list. Who is covering this up? Learn the truth at

    This has been going on for a long time. Its in our bodies, and we'll never get it all out regardless of how much medical treatment we can buy. What we need to do now is find who is responsible and make sure this conspiracy is stopped, so more don't die from it. Its too late for some of us, but most can recover by not consuming too much of the chemical in the future, now that we know its there.


    Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

    * Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
    * Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
    * Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
    * DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
    * Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
    * Contributes to soil erosion.
    * Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
    * Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
    * Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
    * Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
    * Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
    Sat, Aug 27, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
    This sentence is false. If its false, then it must be true, and then since its true, it must be false, and it repeats endlessly. Its like saying if you're on the inside of some bizarre kind of bottle, then you must be on the outside, but if you're on the outside, then you must be on the inside. And here is that bottle, which does not intersect itself if created in 4 dimensions but it does in 3:

    "This sentence is false" is not a contradiction. Its a mobius. This half klein bottle is a mobius, a flat surface twisted half a turn and connected to itself, then bent into a half bottle.

    I don't know what "impossible" means anymore, since x and not x can both be true.

    Mobius logic is the natural result of the expansion of our ideas of numbers and normal logic. Number used to mean just the integers, then negative numbers and fractions, and eventually the square root of negative numbers was accepted as a new kind of number. squareRoot(-1)^x rotates around a circle where dimensions are the real part of the number and the imaginary (squareRoot(-1)) part. X from 0 to 4 is a rotation of the circle.^.5  says when x is .5 the position on that circle is .707+.707*squareRoot(-1). squareRoot(.707^2 + .707^2) is 1, so its on the circle. If we can accept the square root of negative numbers as numbers, then we can accept the simultaneous truth of x and not x as a new kind of logic, mobius logic.

    Where does x and not x happen simultaneously? In parallel versions of reality, some where x happens and some where x doesn't, in the multiverse. You want evidence? squareRoot(-1) is in the physics equations, like this one:

    My solution to Russel's Paradox  is that the paradox is the same question as which points are inside and outside the klein bottle. There's only 1 side. So the set of all sets that do not contain themself, is not a contradiction in mobius logic, and can be rotated and combined with other paradoxes to form more interesting paradoxes or cancel-out the other paradoxes like multiplying by powers of squareRoot(-1) until you get a real number.

    The question is not what is possible. It is what definitions in your mind restrict your ability to form a model of what you think is possible? Because if x being simultaneously true and false is not a contradiction, then nothing is a contradiction and everything is possible if you rotate it the right way.
    Sat, Aug 13, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (4)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)
    Smarter animals recognize themself in a mirror. Others see their reflection and act like its another animal. They hide their food, get ready for a fight, or run away for example.

    Monkeys are smart enough to act based on where others are looking. They value 1 of 2 boxes higher if a person appears to value it, and more often choose to open that box first.

    Compared to animals, being a conformist (copying what others do) is a sign of intelligence. If you drive onto a new road, before you see a speed limit sign, you tend to drive the same speed as everyone else. But conformism is just a little better than "trial and error" strategy.

    In general, someone is smarter if they look deeper into someone watching someone watching someone... to some depth. Humans sometimes do experiments of watching a monkey choose 1 of 2 boxes based on the Monkey watching a Human watch the boxes. Through recordings and writing about such experiments, I am watching that Human watch the Monkey, and so on. If you think my writing here is interesting and continue to read it, you are watching me watch those things, so you are at a deep level of watching.

    Its not just about how deep you watch the watchers. Its about what you learn from it. Why are the others watching eachother? Why are you watching them? If you watch just because I said smarter people do that, then you're acting at the level of conformism, just a little above "trial and error", but if you learn interesting things from watching the watchers, then that's a sign of intelligence.

    This is about understanding how others' minds work and watching others understand the minds of those they watch. Instead of only understanding that Monkeys watch what others look at and act based on that, we should figure out how Monkey minds work, and we should figure out how Human minds work that makes them want to figure out how Monkey minds work. But we can't assume those Humans wanted to know how Monkey minds work. They may have been doing research because it pays the bills and only want to demonstrate what behavior Monkeys have.

    The behavior of watching the watchers is what holds Human society together. We predict what others will do, assuming they make similar predictions, and so on. Money has value because of our prediction that others think money has value. We go to work because we predict others will continue going to work, because if they didn't then the employer would be unable to pay. We ignore laws that we don't agree with if we predict most other people also ignore those laws.

    We avoid trying to change the world in big ways because we predict other people will not go along with it. But why do we predict those other people won't go along with it? It's the same reason we don't try to change the world. It only works if enough people try at the same time, but most of those people, at any one time, have given up, and that's a reason for others to give up before they start.

    Lets think of a Human mind as many different ways of thinking all connected to eachother, like a definition of ethics, strategies, preferences, knowledge, way of organizing memory, content of memory, goals, way of understanding how others think and predicting them, intuition of how spiritual things feel and how to use them, what was recently thought about, and all other ways to divide a mind into parts. Everyone has many common mind parts but some parts are unique to each person. We interact with eachother mostly by making predictions about the common parts of others' minds. Our friends are people who have more mind parts in common with us or who have mind parts we want to understand through interaction with the friend. When we interact with others, we form mental models of their mind, and if we like how it works we use it as new parts of our own mind, often replacing our old ways of thinking or keeping both around to see which works best or use each at different times depending on what works best.

    A "mind part" is an advanced kind of "meme", a way of thinking, or thinking about thinking, instead of only a thought or idea. I am expanding the definition of "meme" to include parts of minds, how intelligence works, people making predictions of what others will predict, and anything else that can change about how we think. An artificial intelligence (AI) or a Human mind is the combination of many memes that operate together in an intelligent way.

    In the rest of this writing, its important to understand the expanded definition of "meme".
    A meme is an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture. While genes transmit biological information, memes are said to transmit ideas and belief information.

    A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate and respond to selective pressures.

    Many proposals for improving the world have been ignored because the author did not understand how memes flow through society.

    Most peoples' minds are made of memes that rarely change. For example, they may think it is only possible for the 2 most popular political parties to win any election for the next 20 years, therefore when they receive a meme about how much better the world would be if some other political party won and therefore more people would vote for that party, instead the meme receiver temporarily replaces the "who wins elections" meme with the new meme, checks it against the other memes currently active in their mind, and concludes that most others will not vote for the other political party because others expect the first 2 parties to win.

    Most people only think ahead as far as replacing a few memes temporarily, checking the results against their currently active memes, and acting based on if that small change is a short-term improvement and does not contradict the other memes.

    Its an example of a "greedy algorithm", one that only looks around for small possible changes and chooses the best of those, and repeats until it finds a "local maximum".

    What is a "local maximum"? Don't stop reading yet. This meme may already be too far from your current set of active memes, but it will make sense soon. If you find yourself stuck on an island which has just enough food to keep you alive for the rest of your life, that would be a local maximum. If you think like most people, the analogy would be to stay on that island instead of risking drowning in the ocean to get to a higher value than the "local maximum" of the island. This is only an example to explain what "local maximum" is. Most people would build a boat and risk it, but most people get stuck at local maximums that are more complex than being stuck on an island.

    We are stuck on the local maximums of 2 political parties and most people voting against the one they dislike the most. We are stuck at the local maximum of corporations and money and political power being how the world is organized. We are stuck at the local maximum of not trying to change the world because we predict most others will not go along with our plans even if they are better than how the world works now. Many people will disagree on which things we're stuck on and which we should keep, but most of us can agree we are stuck at many local maximums.

    Smarter animals recognize themself in a mirror. Monkeys act based on where others are looking. Humans watch the watchers enough that society improves but gets stuck at local maximums. Smarter Humans watch the Human species getting stuck at local maximums and find ways to get unstuck and find higher value for everyone on average.

    Many groups have started talking about how they want the world to work, changes so big that we know of no sequence of local maximums from here to there. For example, the Zeitgeist Movement (  ) advocates a more scientific way of distributing resources than letting corporations and political power control it. If you agree with their goals is not important. They are an example of a way the world could be that was not thought of through a sequence of local maximums. The way they chose their goals is unusual, but the way they work toward their goals is very similar to how everyone else thinks. They try to get more members who think like them, and when they have enough members they would redesign the world as they planned. They also build small demonstrations. Their plan may work, but a more efficient plan would be to find the cause of the local maximum way most people think, because that way of thinking is the reason most people do not try to change the world.

    The problem is not that people don't think ahead. The problem is when they think ahead they are using today's memes. Predicting what memes will be popular years from now is not hard if you understand how memes flow through society.

    To understand how memes flow through society, you first need to think about the fact that memes flow through society. Most people rarely think about that.

    Next you make predictions about how other people will think about memes flowing through society.

    You continue making predictions of others' predictions, watching the watchers, until you understand why paradigm-shifts happen. For example, what was the creator of Bitcoin (a decentralized open-source economy) thinking when he decided to build a complex software and try to convince people to use numbers on a screen as money? What made him think it would work? It was the fact that its total money supply expands from nothing to millions of bitcoins, and those who get in early tend to make more money on their investment, so at any one time buying bitcoins is a local maximum. The creator of Bitcoin understood that society moves toward local maximums, so he designed continuous sequence of local maximums that would suck value out of dollars and put it into bitcoins, and it worked.

    Bitcoin is 1 of many paradigm-shifts happening today. Some of the smartest people have noticed that there are ways to change the world without spending any money and with a small team of people.

    A mind is the combination of many memes. Most people have much difficulty temporarily replacing more than a few memes at a time. They fall back to their old patterns of thinking. They have difficulty thinking of different ways the world could work because they can only think of a few changes at a time. That is going to change quickly as people start thinking about the idea of memes (including the more advanced parts of how a mind works) and start making predictions based on other peoples' predictions of memes.

    The days of brute force strategy controlling the world are nearly over. Those who understand how memes flow through society are the new world leaders, not ruling through threats and force, but influencing through deep understanding of how society works and what technology they can build to change its path. The rich and politically powerful elite will see this as the biggest threat they've ever known, but despite their immediate ability to destroy us all, they are only pawns in a game now controlled by deeper levels of thinking. To change the world, I have no use for weapons or threats or money or political power. The pen is mightier than the sword, especially when it leads to technology that changes how people interact with eachother. There is nothing more powerful on this planet than an understanding of how people think. Everything the elite have, somebody knows how to obsolete it and may be waiting for certain other needed memes to start the process of changing the path of society to do that. Things are not what they appear to be anymore. Those who appear to have power often have very little, and those who build certain kinds of socially organizing technology may appear to have very little power but actually choose the path of the Human species by their choices of what features to include in their technology.

    We have no reason to overthrow governments, because that would mean we are not already in control. It may appear we're not because most of us haven't yet realized this and used it. Those who lack power feel the need to make threats, but those with real power simply make things happen.

    Lets use these new abilities to work toward a global decentralized democracy, toward improving the Human species and all life forms, solving the world's biggest problems, and building a new society where everyone understands enough about how others think to change the world.

    This is a Meta Paradigm Shift, a change in the way paradigm-shifts work, and it will expand into meta of meta without limit. As more people start to understand this, the world will change exponentially faster. Ray Kurzweil and many others talk about a "technology singularity", where technology advances far enough to build more technology and accelerates exponentially. That's great, but how we advance society is a choice. We are singularity if we want to be, and we are in control of our future.
    Sat, Jul 9, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: paradigm, meta
    Sent to project: The Total Library
      RSS for this post
      Promote (2)
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
    Everyone gets as few or as many votes as they want. Nobody needs to be identified because there is no limit on how many votes each person can create.

    How could such a system work? Why wouldn't people just vote millions of times? They may, but that won't give them more influence. Its not about the number of votes. Its about the patterns of information.

    This is not theoretical. This is how internet search engines already work. The search engines don't know or care if the same person has many websites or just 1. They look at the links between webpages, text on the links, and figure out which pages are more popular based on that. There is a huge industry called "search engine optimization" where the goal is to outsmart search engines and get an advertiser's webpage closer to the top of the search results. Search-engine-optimization works some but not nearly as well as actually being a popular webpage. An example of how this works is

    Search engines don't care who wrote a certain webpage. The best webpages are found based only on the patterns of information instead of who created that information. This is how voting systems should be designed, with no limit on the number of votes a person can create and no need to identify that person. The most popular ideas will be found without identifying or limiting peoples' votes in any way. If you want to vote a million times, it won't get you any more influence than if you voted for such ideas in that same pattern but less votes. If a lot of people vote the same way, it's the same as if only 1 voted that way. It's about patterns of information. Duplication doesn't help.

    I'll give a simple example of such a system which I created, which you can use the results of at  I started with the 1.3 million Wikipedia pages with the shortest names. This is done completely using the links between the pages, not the words on the pages. Each cycle, it keeps only the pages that have more incoming links (to the page) than outgoing links (from the page) and have at least 5 incoming and 5 outgoing links.

    After 6 cycles, each cycle narrowing down the Wikipedia pages by their links to eachother (not including links to/from pages this process removed), these pages remained:

    The next cycle, only 2 remained:

    I'm not saying this is what is really most important to the majority of people (but I think most of us can agree that World_War_I had a huge effect on our world today and the algorithm found it correctly), but the point is this kind of voting system works some and we can build voting systems that work better, not based on 1 vote per person, but based on the patterns of information like search engines use to find the most popular pages.

    Each cycle, it keeps only the pages that have more incoming links than outgoing links and have at least 5 incoming and 5 outgoing links. Really, that's all it takes to calculate that those pages are more important than the others. People voted by linking Wikipedia pages to eachother. In search engine words, this is called finding the "centroids".

    Anonymous voting with no limit on votes per person. Because of new technology, we can make it work much better than existing voting systems, and because its only the internet instead of governments, we don't need anyone's permission to find what the majority of people agree on.

    What problem will this system solve?... Most people gave up a long time ago on the possibility of solving the world's problems. What little time they spend thinking about it, they argue about details, push eachother around with money and politics, keep the most important information secret, and they fight eachother in almost every way they can think of including politically, economically, violently, through controlling the most popular news organizations to spread propaganda, and investing in voting systems that are mathematically certain to converge on some small group and stay there. The Human species has not become more civilized than cavemen. We have the illusion of being civilized while actually fighting wars behind abstractions, behind calculations and communications, with the same end result of slavery and death, but now its conveniently hidden behind a logical shield called "I'm just a cog in the machine." Nobody can understand more than a small part of the machine. Its too big and complex and does too many things. These days, wars are fought less with weapons and more with redesigning "the machine" to redirect resources and control away from enemy groups. It's a game I'm not going to play anymore.

    The most efficient way to make big changes in the world is much easier and simpler. We're going to get the majority of Earth's people to agree on how they want the world to work, without considering how big or small the changes are, and when we have majority agreement, we build the things we agreed on and start using it. This does not need any interaction with governments. This needs a global voting system which people have confidence in, something not controlled by anyone, something open-source and decentralized.

    Decentralized technology:  Bitcoin is a dumbed down calculator. It only does plus and minus, no multiply, divide, etc. Its a software with a number on the screen, and you can send and receive numbers which subtract from the sender and add to the receiver. It uses a decentralized network and digital-signatures (a way to use encryption) to make this adding and subtracting of numbers reliable while many people use it at once. 100 million dollars of trust is in the Bitcoin network. At some websites these numbers can be traded for dollars. People trust that the numbers will not unfairly go into 1 person's computer or all become random numbers or 0. We need that same level of trust in a new kind of voting system. That trust does not exist in the kinds of voting done through governments. We need mathematically provable trust. Bitcoin's network has not been proven enough to trust it with a global democracy, but we are learning to build reliable decentralized systems that nobody, not even the creator of such systems, can hack into or cheat. What Bitcoin does for money, we need voting systems which do for global communication. Communication will become democracy, with no need to ask governments for permission. We simply get majority agreement through such a voting system, then it doesn't matter what governments want, because the majority would know the majority intends something to happen, so the majority would act to make it happen.

    How to handle the bandwidth: Bitcoin has a "transaction fee" that is chosen and paid by the sender of the money. It can be 0, but the sender is motivated to pay a small fee to the network (not to any specific person or business) because it motivates other Bitcoin softwares in the network to store that transaction more places and process it faster, so its more reliable the more fee the sender chooses to pay. Its a very small fee in practice, and this same type of money network and "transaction fee" can make sure nobody creates trillions of votes. If they want to create millions of votes while paying for the bandwidth, that's ok, because they don't get any extra influence from it for the same reason creating millions of webpages and linking them to eachother does not get you closer to the top of search results.

    We can learn something about strategy from
    Kickstarter works because projects only get money when the total money offered is at least some amount and is offered in total by some date, so there is no risk of giving money and the total amount not being enough to fund the project.

    Kickstarter is the largest funding platform for creative projects in the world. Every month, tens of thousands of amazing people pledge millions of dollars to projects from the worlds of music, film, art, technology, design, food, publishing and other creative fields.

    A new form of commerce and patronage. This is not about investment or lending. Project creators keep 100% ownership and control over their work. Instead, they offer products and experiences that are unique to each project.

    All or nothing funding. On Kickstarter, a project must reach its funding goal before time runs out or no money changes hands. Why? It protects everyone involved. Creators aren’t expected to develop their project without necessary funds, and it allows anyone to test concepts without risk.

    This new voting system will work similarly to Kickstarter. We use it to agree on what we want, but we don't do it unless enough people agree on it and have confidence that the voting system is fair and balanced and has not been hacked or cheated. If that doesn't happen, we're only talking about what we want. If the confidence and global agreement are there, many of the people who voted have motivation to change the world because they know how many others are working toward the same goal.

    The next step is to design such a system and convince people it is reliable, fair, balanced, and can't be hacked or cheated. But first we need to design it...
    Fri, Jul 8, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: vote, anonymous, search engine
    Sent to project: Start your own revolution
      RSS for this post
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
    Not yet, but USA's government just made a severe mistake of strategy in extending their "spy on everything" laws. They started whitelisting what can't be spied on without cause instead of how the Constitution blacklists what can't be spied on without cause.

    This is a very devious trick. Its like if they made a rule that says cars are allowed to drive on roads (which is obvious and already true), and instantly based on that people start being convicted of driving cars places other than roads like in a field of grass or a trail through the woods.

    Read about their strategic mistake here: Lawmakers Propose Warrant Requirement for GPS Data

    Its supposed to be no spying without "probable cause". Now its spying on everything with no cause, except these few things they make laws for need "probable cause".

    The most important thing to remember about this is the patriot acts which allow such spying are not amendments to the constitution and therefore are still required to obey it. Therefore, there is no reason to list which things "probable cause" is needed for.

    Regardless of if the patriot acts are unconstitutional or not, it is clear that whitelisting what needs "probable cause" is unconstitutional, therefore independent of the patriot acts and based purely on the constitution this new proposed law changes nothing at all.

    The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. Empowered with the sovereign authority of the people by the framers and the consent of the legislatures of the states, it is the source of all government powers, and also provides important limitations on the government that protect the fundamental rights of United States citizens.

    "Supreme law" needs no other law to repeat its words.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Do you see the duplication? That includes GPS.

    Anyone who wants to defeat the Patriot Acts should pay very careful attention to this whitelisting of things that need probable cause. This is a strategic point to attack the Patriot Acts from, since the smaller law is clearly unconstitutional, while the Patriot Acts are too big to be understood.

    Spacecollective's rules say to be "non-partisan", and I don't think I'm crossing the line because this is about privacy and freedom instead of any specific political party, and its implications will spread farther than USA's borders as countries tend to copy eachother's laws.

    EDIT: The patriot acts are a threat to freedom, but are a very small problem compared to the centralized banking system which controls everything by counterfeiting/printing money whenever they want it and paying off politicians. As a response to this, I am proposing a strategy (which I'm almost certain they'll accept once its explained) of an alliance between the underground and governments/corporations/authorities against the Federal Reserve, specificly to create a variation of the Bitcoin decentralized cryptocurrency which has 1 key held by authorities and 1 key held by each person and both keys are needed to access any money, so money could be frozen and all transactions observed and identities proven at all times, so it replicates all the major functions of a central bank, and costing less than 1% as much as such banks, those banks will not be able to compete with it when businesses start using this proposed cryptocurrency in their infrastructure as a replacement for dollars. More info mostly on page 2 of:  including technical instructions for an "implementation", modifying the Bitcoin code. The central banks will be defeated in a free market. The military industrial complex will be defeated. The governments which were controlled by money will be democraticly controlled by many competing cryptocurrencies with different equations depending on how they are designed, so economy equations will evolve and compete like products evolve and compete today. I am no longer interested in the Patriot Acts. They're unimportant compared to decentralizing the global economy as fair and balanced cryptocurrency networks. The real power is in the money. We're all slaves to money. That's not a joke. People say it and laugh but they know theres some truth to it. Its time to free the slaves, allowing us to compete with our own currencies, and paying all the relevant taxes and obeying the relevant financial laws that apply to cryptocurrencies (not dollars). Because we are in competition with the central banks, it would be a "conflict of interest" for them to make laws for cryptocurrencies. We're completely non-profit, have zero employees, zero buildings, zero expenses since all computers and cpu time are donated by our users. We have no resources. Not much laws apply to us. Actually, I could probably get this "bank" classified as a tax exempt charity.
    Thu, Jun 16, 2011  Permanent link
    Categories: privacy
      RSS for this post
      Promote (3)
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I maybe could have patented this, or some future work I would do on it in secret, but I think patents are a dumb system that holds science and progress back. I'd rather get ideas out there where mad-scientists can work on them.
    Tue, Jun 7, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
    But not like 1 negative and 1 positive.... all splits on a bell curve, which should match to what is called a "particle and antiparticle" because both of those are subject to heisenberg uncertainty which really means they were split on a bell curve instead of +1 and -1.

    In the double slit experiment, when its not observed, wave interference occurs with 1 particle with itself. The particle hits on the back wall where the 2 waves are in phase, and does not hit when they are out of phase. This is the gradual version of the EQUAL function, which is the opposite of the XOR function.

    In the double slit experiment, when it is observed, it still goes both paths (and many variations of those on bell curves), and wave interference still happens. How can I say that when no wave interference is observed? Its very simple. The 2 paths do not end in the same place if you observe which path it took. One is a future "left slit, detector on right not detected", and the other future is "right slit, detector on the right detected". These 2 do not converge on the same state of the universe, which is a bell curve between "left slit, detector on the right detected" and "right slit, detector on the right detected", or the opposite of that when not detected.

    The same thing is happening in the double slit experiment if its observed or not. What changes is we twist our possible futures to not overlap eachother anymore, so we are unable to see the wave interference even though it still happens. It is not wave interference between the 2 paths of the photon. It is wave interference between the total state of the universe and whatever paths it takes. Putting a detector at one slit is the same as putting a mirror there to reflect it away from the back wall and toward a back wall in a parallel reality. It twists that possible future to one that does not align with the left slit, so the wave interference is not observed even though its somewhere in the possible states of the universe.

    Every moment of reality (including its light cones) is a possible state of the universe. When we go through one slit or the other, and hit on a place where the 2 waves are out of phase, that is never observed because our reality is cancelled out by an opposite reality (the one that is out of phase). Reality ends. But since we are everywhere and everything all at once (without knowledge of this usually), we continue from all other points in the universe as if nothing had happened, wondering why we don't observe the photon hitting in the dark parts of the back wall of the double slit experiment. It hits there, and its antireality hits there too, but our past shows that never happens because our past is defined by the paths where reality doesn't get cancelled out.

    I have simultaneously solved wave/particle duality and consciousness.

    Can anyone who knows physics give me any evidence that this theory is not true?
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
    I know why there is a square root of -1 in the quantum physics equations, why things are waves sometimes and particles other times, why the double-slit experiment works, why there are bell-curves in quantum physics, and why time exists.

    Start with nothing. Then divide the nothing into X number of possible states of the universe (ways the universe could be, also called quantum wavefunctions). All states happen equally often, since they are identical. Now draw all the possible paths between them that include each state exactly once (hamiltonian paths). Now choose one at random as your reality, which really doesn't matter since they are all identical. Somehow we got from there to here, but let me jump ahead...

    Because of thermodynamics, all parts of the universe must eventually end in "heat death", which means a state of maximum entropy (least energy available for doing things, spread out randomly so it can't be used).

    There are more possible futures than possible pasts. Regardless of if you flip a heads or a tails, the past is still you flipping the coin. 1 past. 2 possible futures. That is the entropy of this part of the universe increasing. The universe expands. Things become more random, on average, and less random in some places like when life reproduces or grows.

    It all moves toward maximum entropy eventually, but it doesn't stop there. For each possible state of the universe, there has to be the same number of states preceding it as after it, and that is not a statement about time, since time is a direction of increasing entropy and the order of states of the universe can be lots of different directions. How do I know that? Because there are more futures than pasts, which contradicts that the incoming and outgoing of each state must equal, therefore some of the future states are going toward the past states. It doesn't end at maximum entropy. It jumps to the past or present.

    Which part of the past does the future connect to? The possible futures that didn't happen. The path not taken. It wasn't preceded by our past in all cases, since we know that more than we would expect on average, the hamiltonian paths moved to our current state instead of the path not taken, so something else must precede the path not taken to make it have the same amount of incoming as outgoing states. There is nothing left except the future states. The path not taken is preceded by the future, in all cases when the multiverse does not branch.

    What is a multiverse branch? Its when the path not taken is preceded by some part of the past, instead of the future.

    The path not taken is preceded by the future, or a multiverse branch happens when its preceded by the past. Its required by thermodynamics if you look deep enough into it.

    Why are there bell-curves in quantum physics? The path not taken is preceded by the future, but if you take that path, then you cut 2 of those things that started as hamiltonian paths, swap 2 of the ends, and connect it again, making different sizes of loops. Think of that as moving left by epsilon, or moving right by epsilon. If you add a long sequence of random numbers, where each number is -1 or 1, and do that many times with different random choices each time, then you get a bell curve. Adding those epsilons from repeatedly cutting, swapping, and connecting such loops (which are really really long, like whole universe size sometimes), then you get a bell curve in quantum physics for the same reason.

    Why is there wave interference? Because the paths not taken are preceded by the future, usually. When those are cut and swap and connect with waves that wave-interference happens with, the path from the future is the light reducing part, and the path from the past is the light increasing part. The light amount can go negative because each path from the future cancels out a path from the past.

    When the path not taken is preceded by some part of the past, that is a multiverse branch, because both paths are from the past. That is why you see 2 things instead of things getting cancelled out, and it can branch further, but the chance of continuing to branch decreases exponentially if you're not really skilled at it, and even then I don't know how well it would work.

    There was no "big bang". Why not? It does appear things moved really fast away from such a point in the earliest times, but I can explain that without a big bang. Since the path not taken is usually preceded by the future, there doesn't need to be an earliest time. It curves around from the future. Since there is exponentially more future than past (more multiverse branches), the farther back in time you ask about, the less chance there is that anything ever existed back then. The farther back you ask about, the more chance it has already curved around from that part of the universe, curved from the future.

    When the path not taken is curved around from the future, that would be defined as a tachyon (faster than light particle), but its really the same thing from a different angle.

    Quantum superposition happens when you're balanced between choices of multiverse branching. Interaction with the future happens then, since it has to partially connect to both possible futures until you choose, and only then it does the cut, swap, and connect.

    Since most possible states of the universe are in the future, and that is toward maximum entropy, the chance that you actually experienced what your brain remembers decreases exponentially as you ask about farther and farther back in time. Yes the memory is in your brain, but such a past does not exist anymore, except exponentially few parts of it that remain and decay as they interact with the future and the present and whatever other parts of the universe there are.

    Since the path not taken is exponentially probable to be preceded by the future, it is always exponentially probable that some time in the last few seconds you were in a state of near maximum entropy, occupying most of the universe at once, and then you just jumped here from the future and noticed that your brain contains memories of the past, and you believe such memories.

    Don't believe your memories. It is exponentially more probable that you are on the path that was not taken, which in this case means you didn't take the path from the past to the present, you took the path from the future to the present. You took the path from a spread out universe in "heat death" quickly to this moment in space and time, and were fooled by the memory of your brain.

    The experience of time is not in the same order as information flows through time. Information usually flows past to future, but the experience of time, regardless of what your brain remembers, is usually from the superposition of near maximum entropy being everywhere and everything at once directly to here or any other part of the universe and any time.

    Why don't you remember any of that happening? Because information flows mostly forward in time.

    Time exists because all non-unitary patterns require it. Non-unitary patterns are an illusion, built on top of unitary patterns. Unitary means a transformation that does not lose information, like encryption or rotation or permutation or relabeling. Time is non-unitary, since it proceeds toward higher entropy. Overall the universe is completely unitary because entropy leads to jumping to somewhere in the past, an infinite loop where you cover the entire universe eventually.

    I'll write more later. I just wanted to get the basics down quickly. This is how quantum physics works, derived from pure logic and set-theory etc. There is a square root of -1 in quantum physics equations because the path not taken is preceded by the future, which bends the path around.

    This may be much easier to simulate on a computer than the normal way they simulate it, and I don't think they even know how to simulate it with much accuracy. This predicts wave particle duality. Its a particle when doing the -epsilon +epsilon thing with the swapping. Its a wave when such swapping recursively becomes a bell curve. One swap is a particle. The statistics of swaps is a bell curve.

    The universe is nothing and everything. The path not taken is usually preceded by the future, and when its not, that is a multiverse branch.
    Mon, May 23, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
    If Einstein was alive today, he may experiment and teach people things much more powerful than nukes. He only spent time on things as weak as nukes (regardless of who eventually built them using his math) because he had 100 year old technology to work with. Powdered explosives are to nukes as nukes are to what? Airplanes crashing into buildings are a "danger to national security"? Not compared to a person who can experiment in his garage with things that make nukes look small and weak. And thats exactly what abilities Einstein would have if he was alive today. So here's my question to governments... If Einstein, or anyone of equal intelligence, was alive today, then is such intelligence level legal? Or would you lock Einstein up for being too smart, having a mental ability even if he didn't choose to use it? What is the maximum legal IQ? If there is a legal limit on IQ, then put it in writing... It is illegal to have an IQ higher than 220, or whatever number. We should make sure schools don't make kids too smart. They may invent something dangerous later, a danger to national security. Isn't it illegal to have the ability to build something more dangerous than a nuke in your garage, even if you don't build it? Einstein should be locked up. Maximum IQ should be enforced through lower quality schools and beatings to the head if necessary.
    Fri, May 13, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse