SpaceCollective: Start your own revolution

SpaceCollective: Start your own revolution http://spacecollective.org/projects/Start-your-own-revolution Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:53:42 +0000 http://spacecollective.org/projects/Start-your-own-revolution en Statist vs Brainist - Game Theory of potential World War 3 is bigger than international politics http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/8328/Statist-vs-Brainist-Game-Theory-of-potential-World-War-3-is-bigger-than-international-politics http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/8328/Statist-vs-Brainist-Game-Theory-of-potential-World-War-3-is-bigger-than-international-politics Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:53:42 +0000 BenRayfield 8328 <img src="http://spacecollective.org/userdata/o4iqT0cY/1364496806/Internet.jpg" border="0" width="" height="" class="padTopBot"> Over many years, the world has become divided most strongly between Statists and Brainists, a trend accelerating toward a dangerous conflict. Statists act toward the world organized top down, a central authority which expands into any part of the world it does not yet control. Brainists act toward networking people and tech together more like a global brain. Neither of these groups normally calls themself that and often are not aware of the effects of their actions, thinking more about local short term effects, but sticking our heads in the dirt does not change where this all leads. Lets not focus on who to blame, instead learn what is happening and what can be done about it. Below are 2 incomplete lists of parts of the world strongly tending toward Statism or Brainism. ===Statism=== most big political parties most corporations most governments Internet Kill Switch Military Industrial Complex, a feedback loop legal systems which cause paperwork (or electronic) to increase exponentially propaganda that voting is a practical way to get big things done printing money which devalues everyone else's money of that type monopoly strengthening laws regulating the forming of new kinds of economies Cyprus scandal taking money directly from bank accounts for bailout Owning of ideas and regulating the means of production Patent Trolls Client/Server religions where god commands those below ===Brainism=== social networking Wikipedia Wikileaks Libertarian open source Bitcoin Zeitgeist 3d printing, especially of gun parts, circuits, and medical devices wireless mesh networks used when Internet is shut down in a country Anonymous Freedom of sharing ideas and how to build things Pirate Party Peer To Peer religions where we each work toward becoming more like gods Please help complete the lists or argue for moving items from one to the other. Based on these 2 trends accelerating, I see no way around a conflict. One must weaken and the other strengthen. The question is what kind of conflict will it be, a smooth transition to a new way of organizing the efforts of 7 billion people toward common goals, or a global scale escalation of violence like the small example of the (attempted?) bombing of Cyprus bank responding to a new height of ways Statists take money from people, directly from their bank accounts after freezing them all in the country. Whats most dangerous about that small event is more people just observing are saying the bombing was justified, a very dangerous state of mind for a world to be in. This is not an isolated event. Its a pattern of many violent responses to advances of Statism. For most of Human history, Statism may have been the only practical way to organize things on a large scale, but with the Internet and many new forms of global communication and measuring and automating things, Brainists don't need Statists as much anymore and eventually will not need them at all. Statists see Brainists' lack of dependence as a threat, but no group has the right to force dependence. In USA, for example, such a conflict resulted in the Declaration Of Independence. A similar conflict is accelerating on the largest scale ever, between Statism and Brainism. I really believe "The pen is mightier than the sword", so when I see terrorism I think what a waste because they used a weaker weapon than they could have. Something big has to be done, but its going to take a bigger networking of minds together this time. I've seen this coming for years and have been working on a variety of open source tech to network minds together. Other people have been working on their own possible solutions. Its time to take this seriously, because the Game Theory of potential World War 3 is bigger than international politics, and we're all at risk and may have something to contribute toward a global solution. People who build tech have the power to force the issue, and we should to make sure its solved before it comes to World War 3. http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/8328/Statist-vs-Brainist-Game-Theory-of-potential-World-War-3-is-bigger-than-international-politics Nuclear Debt Theory http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/8170/Nuclear-Debt-Theory http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/8170/Nuclear-Debt-Theory Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:08:46 +0000 BenRayfield 8170 <img src="http://spacecollective.org/userdata/o4iqT0cY/1356394094/nuke.jpg" border="0" width="" height="" class="padTopBot"> The central bank system was invented long ago. It loans money to governments which then owe that amount plus interest, which we all pay in tax. It used to be backed by gold, but they found it was more profitable to use numbers in computers and printed on paper than to limit it to things that actually exist. The never-ending increase in the money supply tends to cause inflation except at times when more valuable things can be produced exponentially fast. This thread is not to argue for or against the central bank system. Its an analogy between money and the belief that countries have a certain amount and kind of nuclear weapons. Most or all of the people who have nukes are not stupid. Some of them may be short-sighted and arrogant, but they're not stupid. They're probably great game-theorists (in the science of psychology and game-theory), and based on that, they have no practical use for real nukes. The belief that they have nukes is equally valuable. They have been known to cooperate on global scale plans, often for their own benefit more than The Peoples' benefit, but still it is a kind of cooperation. It is bad strategy for someone whose goals are to keep or increase their huge power and money, to build actual nukes when they could agree with eachother on a Nuclear Debt System instead, to use printed nukes on paper like dollars of political power instead of real nukes that they would never use anyways. There is no evidence that any nukes exist on this planet. The News is not evidence any more than a hollywood movie is evidence of aliens. Reproducable experiments with scientific peer-review is evidence. Maybe they've all been disassembled for Nuclear Power Plant fuel. Maybe they have a few left just in case the religious crazies become too powerful, for closing oil holes (which they decided not to do), for blowing up asteroids, or whatever, but for most of the nukes there is no practical reason for them to exist compared to a Nuclear Debt System agreement between those in power. Have they already done this? http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/8170/Nuclear-Debt-Theory New World Order - Centralized Kind or Decentralized Kind http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/8168/New-World-Order-Centralized-Kind-or-Decentralized-Kind http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/8168/New-World-Order-Centralized-Kind-or-Decentralized-Kind Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:39:00 +0000 BenRayfield 8168 <img src="http://spacecollective.org/userdata/o4iqT0cY/1356187110/earth.jpg" border="0" width="" height="" class="padTopBot"> There is a pattern of global events that started long ago and has become stronger every year since then. That pattern will cause its own end soon because it causes and repeatedly amplifies contradictions in its own ways of operating. I'm going to talk about global events and what motivations in what groups of people they created. Lets leave the politics out and focus on the facts and where they lead. It started with the creation of intellectual property (IP) laws long ago, and they boosted the economy and motivated creativity. But in recent years IP laws have had a new effect: Censoring of the Internet, and in more ways than enforcing IP. IP laws created a motivation in businesses, governments, and many other parts of the world, to protect their investment in research and other acts of creativity and invention. To protect their control over their IP, they acted to control the flow of information because that is where IP is most easily Napstered, Gnutella'ed, and generally pirated and file shared, and the IP was and is shared there in huge amounts without paying for it. That wasn't the end of the Internet censoring. If it had been, it may not have been enough to set in motion its own end. But those in power got greedy. They decided that since We The People Of Earth would accept Internet Censoring for 1 reason, we would accept it for other reasons too. Using our new communication ability, revolutions were organized through social networking websites like Twitter and Facebook and other forums of communication. Some dictatorships in the East were overthrown by The People of those countries, and some of We The People Of Earth congratulated them on their new freedom.while others complained that they should have asked permission from the dictators for freedom. That created motivation in the people who "complained that they should have asked permission from the dictators for freedom" to censor flows of information. Then there's real terrorism but it happens in such small amounts that compared to the biggest global problems, like Cancer and AIDS and a half billion starving people, it looks small. So the media hype and other events were engineered to put it in peoples' faces and get We The People Of Earth to react to terrrorism with higher priority than life-or-death problems that affect a much larger number of people. Why is it that you hear more about terrorism on the news than Cancer and AIDS research? The need to make terrorism and piracy look more problematic to We The People Of Earth than it really is, created motivation to censor the flows of information. So those in power built infrastructure and political and economic structures that make it easy for them to control flows of information and it creeped into the Internet until HTTP and a few others are the only practical technical protocol that information can flow, peer to peer software is severely crippled, Facebook and Twitter and Google can turn off your words as easily as flipping a switch on search results. Sometimes they turn it off in whole countries, and of course the conflict escalates more often than The People accept it. As a reaction to censoring of the flows of information, Wireless Mesh Networks and other kinds of Internet became popular where those in power tried to censor it. RepRap is a 3d printer that can print over half of its own parts. The Open Source movement has for many years become stronger each year. The Zeigeist Movement, Pirate Party, Libertarians, and many other organizations become more popular. A division forms between patterns in the world. On one side people want to organize things in some centralized hierarchy. On the other side people want to organize things like Wikipedia, a way billions of people can work together directly with eachother. Every year this division becomes stronger, and it can't last much longer. IP laws set in motion events that created this division. We are becoming more like a global brain every year. Its clear that the side that organizes things more like brains (decentralized, not hierarchy) is going to become stronger. That's not even yet considering that we're close to figuring out how Human brains work and organining our global flows of information that way, more intuitively and intelligently than any search engine we've yet imagined. When information flows are censored, that is the force its working against. Its like rubbing sandpaper on a mountain lion's butt. You don't want to wake up this animal. Evolution starts with particles, then DNA, then single celled life, then many celled life (including Humans), then groups of many celled life forms (as Humans learned to work in groups of up to Dunbar's Number size), then proceeds to bigger and bigger groups. We're still working on scaling up from Dunbar's Number to 7 billion and then we will have the ability to interact in an effective way with other intelligent species who would be more interested in talking to us the more we can think like a global brain. Censoring the flow of information is acting against evolution, a force of nature more than able to defend itself and solve complex problems. Instead of the New World Order as hierarchy that controls everything, we are becoming more like a global brain. Lets work toward that, something almost everyone will be happy we've done after living in it for some time. The alternative is World War 3 as the unavoidable effect of escalation of the division between centralized patterns of the world acting to control everything and decentralized patterns acting toward individual freedom and very needed information flow to become more like a global brain. http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/8168/New-World-Order-Centralized-Kind-or-Decentralized-Kind P equals NP - A million dollar algorithm that can organize the world without any central control http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7973/P-equals-NP-A-million-dollar-algorithm-that-can-organize-the-world-without-any-central-control http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7973/P-equals-NP-A-million-dollar-algorithm-that-can-organize-the-world-without-any-central-control Sun, 14 Oct 2012 03:19:28 +0000 BenRayfield 7973 <img src="http://spacecollective.org/userdata/o4iqT0cY/1350209955/Max Clique.jpg" border="0" width="" height="" align="left" class="padRight"> Very short and straightforward proof that P equals NP - Max Clique The Max Clique math problem is to find a Polynomial (n^anyConstant but not anyConstant^n) efficiency algorithm to, for example, given a size n list of people and all pairs of them who are friends on Facebook, calculate what is the biggest group of people who all friended eachother on Facebook. More generally it applies to any shape of things where each pair of things is connected or not, and to find the biggest connected group, the clique. There's a million dollar millenium prize for proving such an algorithm exists in the space of all possible algorithms or not. To give the algorithm is such a proof. Those who think P does not equal NP would have to go with a different kind of proof, but here is my proof that P equals NP, how to efficiently calculate Max Clique. EDIT[ This edit is not straightforward. What I've written here is not a proof that P equals NP but instead a proof that NP is hill climbable, and its very common for hill climbable math problems to be Polynomial (P) efficiency, and it still may be, but we don't know either way. The algorithm I wrote below does find many cliques when I tried it, but its a general category of algorithms, a research path to be explored, and not a single specific algorithm, because there are many ways to do the epsilon amount of constraint adjustments and a few possible definitions of "average". I found that if the constraints were adjusted 1 at a time, it converged very very slowly, but if they were adjusted all at once proportional to how far they were from correct it converged quickly enough and stayed within 99.99% of what the constraints said, more accuracy if I used smaller epsilons. What really makes this a vaguely defined algorithm is the many ways to do averages. With n-dimensional vectors held at length 1, average can mean in the flat space they're embedded in or surface distance, as in tangent vectors, and then the tangent vectors can be taken as length 1 or length surface distance or many other functions. The area of research I think is most important to explore is my "amount of dimension" algorithm in combination with hill climbing max clique. Amount Of Dimension is a property of a vector in the context of a group of other vectors. If you create many random vectors, each of length 1, embedded in an n-dimensional flat space, then the sum of the Amount Of Dimension for each vector is slightly less than n and approaches n as you create more random vectors, because n is the amount of dimension of the space they are embedded in. The amount of dimension of each of 4 vectors pointing toward 4 adjacent corners of an octagon is 1/2 because 4 times 1/2 is 2 and they are evenly spread in a 2 dimensional space (which the octagon is also in). Similarly if you replace 1 of those vectors with 2 vectors, for a total of 5 vectors toward 4 adjacent corners of an octagon, then you get amount of dimensions: 1/2, 1/2, 1/2, 1/4, and 1/4. My Amount Of Dimension algorithm calculates it this way: amountOfDimension[self] = amountOfDimension[self] / sum(amountOfDimension[x]*dotProductBetweenSelfAndX^2), in a few hundred cycles usually (log of something?), and dot product between self and self is 1. The dot product between random vectors in a flat space is a well understood and fast calculation. The point of using the Amount Of Dimension algorithm is to balance a set of vectors so those closer to eachother get less influence than those far apart, to accurately describe the space they are embedded in instead of the vectors themselves which can instead be thought of as data points about that space. For that reason, I still think the algorithm described above, with its reference to "average" of vectors being normalized in various ways, tangent vectors, and/or lots of other ways to fine-tune the P equals NP research toward an algorithm, that we may eventually prove that P equals NP instead of only that NP is hill climbable. What I have accomplished here is still useful in showing that it is not obvious that P does not equal NP, as global security infrastructure has been built based on the assumption that P does not equal NP and most researchers think its a good bet. I don't think its a good bet. Maybe P does not equal NP, or maybe P equals NP, but either way NP can't be too far above P, can't be too hard to optimize for nearly all cases, and your global infrastructure is built on the assumption that is far more difficult than it is, if not completely solvable in P. What I have done in showing its at least hill climbable is to take away their claim that P obviously does not equal NP and show that it at least could go either way, an view of the math problem very few researchers agree with, but now they should. The main question from here... Is the hill cllimbable NP a hyperbolic space, having multiple paths of maximum slope up the hill, in all possible ways to define the hill? If P equals NP, it will probably be related to how discrete Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) doubles its efficiency each cycle compared to normal discrete Fourier Transform by using the property of complex numbers that mirroring the x*sqrt(-1) part to -x*sqrt(-1) has no effect on multiplying the complex numbers by eachother (just add the angles and it works the same either direction). FFT does that each cycle. Similarly with n-dimensional vectors and my Amount Of Dimension algorithm, it may be possible to balance the vectors so they use that same mirroring property in many directions on the hypersphere at once. My reasons for pursuing this research path are very different than most others. If we find an exact solution to P equals NP or only approximations like Facebook uses, either way can be used to network patterns together, to get them to flow in consistent ways, without any central structures, especially patterns of brainwaves flowing across the Internet and patterns of the universal wave (String-Theory/M-Theory) vibrating into other patterns used recursively like a computer made of that 3 degrees Kelvin of Virtual Particles found in all empty space, to use the infinite multiverse. I thought I had a direct way to use the infinite multiverse, but it turns out we have only approximate ways (unless we prove P equals NP). Still, there is an infinite multiverse all around us that we're learning to use. ] Create an n-dimensional vector for each of n nodes. It starts at position 1 in the dimension of its own node and position 0 in all other dimensions. At the end of each cycle each of these vectors are scaled to length 1. Vectors are only changed a very small amount each cycle, small enough we can call it dx like in calculus, as in an infinitely small rotation toward the current vector of another node. Repeat approximately n times[ for each of n nodes[ epsilon=1/n. //to be explored Set their vector to its current value times 1-epsilon plus epsilon times the average of the vectors of all adjacent nodes. A node is adjacent if an edge exists between them. Subtle point: Moving toward the incoming average is different than a bell curve of broadcasting a node's own vector outward because nodes can have different numbers of edges, but this can be handled by preprocessing the network to add nonclique nodes (connected to eachother very spread out) until all nodes have the same number of edges, so the 2 ways equal. I'll not get into more efficient ways to handle this, like a similarity to Length Contraction in physics or the "amount of dimension" (as in squared magnitude of complex number coefficient of ket vector in quantum equations) of the vectors and nodes, because a proof that P equals NP only needs to prove its Polynomial efficiency (at most n^7 in this case) and that simple preprocessing bounds the worst case. ] Repeat as many times as there are pairs of nodes without edges[ smallerEpsilon = 1/numberOfPairsOfNodesWithoutEdges. //to be explored for each pair of nodes not connected by an edge (2 people who are not friends on Facebook in the analogy)[ Calculate dot product between the vectors of those 2 nodes. Subtract them from eachother multiplied by that dot product multiplied by smallerEpsilon. Therefore the 2 vectors between any pair of nodes without an edge between them must converge toward perpendicular (in n-dimensional space). ] ] for each of n nodes[ Scale that node's vector to length 1. ] ] Why this will work is very simple. Most node's vectors will quickly move toward the vectors of nodes they are not in a clique with, but after waves of these n-dimensional vectors flow through the whole network and all affect eachother, they must converge toward bigger groups of nodes whose vectors are not held perpendicular to eachother, because it is not possible for a node's vector to, after enough cycles for all nodes to strongly affect eachother, be pulled toward a group of nodes the size of the max clique, unless that group is a clique, because any such nonclique group of nodes must contain at least 2 nodes which have 2 vectors perpendicular to eachother, and to the extent any node is pulled toward one side of that disagreement, it must be pulled away from the other side, and simultaneously to the extent it is pulled epsilon amount toward both the 2 sides must disagree for that reason, must apply that perpendicularity constraint (with more force than connected nodes flow together) to whatever vector the node who is unknowingly in the max clique flows into the less-than-max-clique, so the whole network must pull together within the given rules of what must be perpendicular to what else. By holding all pairs of nodes that lack an edge to have vectors perpendicular to eachother, and starting all vectors as position 1 in the node's own dimension, and flowing vectors in all directions in the style of bell curve (all possible paths), and holding all vectors at length 1, the laws of physics themself are the solution to Max Clique, since the Lorentz Factor occurs in the equation of how a bell curve spreads across a hypersphere. But ignoring the overlap with the laws of physics, this is how to build a simulation of a vector system which must converge toward finding the Max Clique in low Polynomial time at most n^7 (details to be explored in research of such physics-like simulations of vectors). To prove P equals NP, the explanation has to be obvious without relying on actually running the algorithm, because regardless of how many times it finds the clique, we can never be sure it would work for all possible sets of nodes and edges between some of them. I don't know exactly how efficient such a physics-like vector system would find Max Clique, but even if its n^1000 time its still Polynomial. n^7, probably less, is practically useful for many problems currently unsolvable, not Facebook efficient yet but we'll get there. I solved this because I need the math to network our minds together through the Internet in a wave based kind of communication. The main part I was lacking was how to organize the patterns of high dimensional waves on a large scale, so it forms into recursive (with cycles) patterns that make sense to the billions of people who will play the "game". But game is just a user interface, a fun way to interact with a serious science research platform and theoretical way to gradually move toward organizing the world without any central structures, more like peer to peer than top down. Any proof that P equals NP shows how the random appearing actions of billions of people can form into highly organized patterns while the only influences are between small groups of people, but to call that anarchy is incorrect for the same reason you wouldn't call a group of brain cells bacteria. Their local actions form into large scale organization. That's what Max Clique is for. Use it. http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7973/P-equals-NP-A-million-dollar-algorithm-that-can-organize-the-world-without-any-central-control FRINGE RECORDINGS http://spacecollective.org/Hasan/7879/FRINGE-RECORDINGS http://spacecollective.org/Hasan/7879/FRINGE-RECORDINGS Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:36:09 +0000 Hasan 7879 <img src="http://spacecollective.org/userdata/25jmdmHh/1346995905/Fringe_vol.1-CVRS.jpg" border="0" width="" height="" class="padTopBot"> FRINGE VOLUME ONE (point 1)+(interactive virtual playlist) MUSIC FOR SPACE EXPLORATION, please embed music that will comprise a virtual playlist (i.e.. the next track will be 2. and so forth, with the title and artist name, followed by a youtube or vimeo video only). <ul> <li>Please keep the music spaced out, chill, ambient or left-field. For artist: please use original material. For others: if you think it fits into the soundtrack, post it.</li> <li>Sponsored By: <a href="http://fringelabel.com" target="blank">http://fringelabel.com</a>  / shop.fringelabel.com </li> </ul> 1. UHM by Bil Basmala (music from On The Edge Of Forever ) <object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZLFMjYB-Xp0?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZLFMjYB-Xp0?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> http://spacecollective.org/Hasan/7879/FRINGE-RECORDINGS Priorities Of The Human Species http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7861/Priorities-Of-The-Human-Species http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7861/Priorities-Of-The-Human-Species Sat, 01 Sep 2012 14:42:29 +0000 BenRayfield 7861 <img src="http://spacecollective.org/userdata/o4iqT0cY/1346535732/earth.jpg" border="0" width="" height="" align="left" class="padRight"> What if a majority of people on Earth could agree on what we want? Many conflicts could be avoided and shared goals worked toward, things we didn't know we agree on, or deep disagreements causing many on the surface, because we never took the time. If you think this is an important thing to figure out, here's a Wikipedia page for it. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priorities_Of_The_Human_Species" target="blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priorities_Of_The_Human_Species</a> Priorities Of The Human Species is a list, ordered most important first, of what the most number of people agree on. This is not necessarily what people prefer the priorities to be, but instead what actually gets the most priority (and least priority at the bottom of the list) in real events. Difficulty of defining it Its a very difficult subject to define, but priorities do exist because different amounts of effort and resources are put into different things overall on Earth. Because of this difficulty, it will take some time before the edits of many Wikipedia users converge to the accurate priorities of the Human species. The evidence for specific orderings will often be found in the connections between Wikipedia pages and their sources instead of local to any one page because the nature of a priority list is comparing things. A few example priorities to get the page started <ul> <li>Basic needs - If a person does not have food, shelter, clothes, or other basic needs, they will usually solve those problems first.</li> <li>Entertainment - There is more money and time spent on entertainment than most other things except for basic needs.</li> <li>Freedom of religion - Most people have some form of religion, and when they don't have the freedom to practice it, they are strongly motivated to solve that problem.</li> <li>Freedom of speech - Overall people who have a religion (which is most people) are a little less motivated by freedom of speech than of religion. This may be related to beliefs that religion is more long-term than a Human life.</li> <li>Democracy - Democracy is lower in this list because most people are motivated more by specific issues than spreading out power fairly.</li> <li>Stronger economy - Money strongly motivates most people.</li> <li>Less war - Everything above war in this list could be the cause of a war if there is enough disagreement on it, because avoiding war is less important than solving those conflicts.</li> </ul> http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7861/Priorities-Of-The-Human-Species More intelligent species on Earth than Humans http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7821/More-intelligent-species-on-Earth-than-Humans http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7821/More-intelligent-species-on-Earth-than-Humans Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:40:30 +0000 BenRayfield 7821 There may be a more intelligent species on Earth than Humans I've lived around them for most of my life, but when I recently came back to North Carolina USA, my experience in research on high dimensional waves allowed me to hear something that I didn't hear before in the same sounds. They communicate with eachother very much like our brain cells, through oscillating patterns of waves and changing of connections. <img src="http://spacecollective.org/userdata/o4iqT0cY/1345326008/cricket.jpg" border="0" width="" height="" class="padTopBot"> The paper below explains the very basic parts of their wave based communication but does not go into detail about the large scale patterns of the waves or if that possibility was thought about at all. Like brain cells, crickets change which other crickets they are connected to. Neurons (brain cells) do this by changing which other neurons or axons their axons connect to, as a result of the electric and chemical patterns oscillating together or in different patterns. Crickets change which crickets they are connected to by flying to places they like the sounds of other crickets more. They become neurally connected to the other crickets some amount in how their neurons adjust to the local sounds of other crickets, so they start to make their oscillating sounds mostly in synchronization. Like brainwaves, the sounds of large groups of crickets flow in smooth waves and react to other waves depending on direction and timing and at least the recent history of waves in that location. The wave based communication of Humans is far more limited than crickets, seen in places like dance clubs, prices in stock markets (less total stocks than neurons in a small number of crickets brains), body language, etc, but these wave based communications of Humans do not tend to spread to other Humans nearly as well as oscillating sounds spread in large groups of crickets. Humans communicate mostly in words. Crickets communicate mostly in waves. There are waves of words as ideas flow through society, which we call memes, but at the brainwave level we are still communicating between brain cells like crickets communicate with sound. <blockquote>Paper name: Evolution of acoustic communication in crickets: phylogeny of Eneopterinae reveals an adaptive radiation involving high-frequency calling (Orthoptera, Grylloidea, Eneopteridae) ABSTRACT Evolution of dominant frequencies in songs of Eneopterinae crickets was studied with respect to phylogeny. Two characters are optimized on the tree: the first describes the frequency resulting from the vibration of the harp (Fda), and the second is due to the vibration of other tegminal areas (Fdb). Fda was found to be relatively stable through the subfamily. Its low ancestral state is replaced by a high Fda only once, resulting in high-frequency calling in [Cardiodactylus (Lebinthus-Agnotecous)]. A high Fdb component is added to the low ancestral Fda in Eneoptera guyanensis, resulting in frequency modulation. The onset of high Fd in this first subclade is accompanied by a high cladogenesis rate, which supports a hypothesis of adaptive radiation for high frequencies. The effectiveness of high-frequency calling is discussed in relation to the species behavior ecology. ... An adaptive radiation for high-frequency calling is hypothesized in [Cardiodactylus (Lebinthus-Agnotecous)]. Further, it may be associated with compensatory behavior, such as perching, to permit the propagation of high frequencies in the natural environment of the species.</blockquote> I'd like to continue this research in a practical way, to attempt communication with very large groups of crickets as if they form a single brain. Also, crickets may be telepathic. I was hearing a sound in my thoughts that reacted in intelligent ways to my subconscious thoughts, kind of a smooth buzzing, and when I arrived here in North Carolina I heard that same sound from the crickets, not their normal oscillation. It may be related. The test of crickets telepathic ability will be if multiple large groups of crickets can synchronize their wave communications across distances where there are very few or no crickets between, so they could not be communicating through sound across those distances. This is a second experiment that depends on the first. Thousands of years ago, before Humans destroyed large parts of the environment, there was probably a much larger density of crickets and continuous connections between them across thousands of miles. In networks of crickets like that, their wave based communications may be extremely more intelligent than what we observe today. I see no reason to exclude the possibility that crickets may be the most intelligent life form on Earth in that kind of environment, and that they may still have enough intelligence in these smaller more disconnected groups that we can communicate with them. The research will need many locations each with a high quality microphone time synchronized with the network and all streamed together so we can understand it as one cricket mind made of many crickets. After these patterns are understood, using audio evolution like in my Audivolv software, and fourier math, cricket sounds can be created in realtime to sync with the real crickets, and played on loud speakers, to make it a 2-way communication. Dolphins are known to be very smart, and they communicate more like waves than words. Large groups of crickets, as they were before the environment was damaged and separated them into many smaller groups, may also be very intelligent, something Humans have ignored because our normal way of communication is symbols (words) instead of waves. Many people think crickets are associated with luck and can make predictions about important events. Maybe its more than superstitition and we just don't understand how they communicate? Unlike most other insects and animals, crickets approximately synchronize their communications with eachother so waves can travel long distances. Bees do a kind of dance to communicate with a few other bees at a time, but a bee can only pay attention to a few other bees at a time. Because crickets communicate through flowing waves, they communicate with large groups of crickets spread across hundreds of feet at a time, and the cricket brainwaves travel that way. Who wants to help in the attempt to communicate with crickets and see how intelligent they are? I see no reason to exclude the possibility that crickets may be the most intelligent life on Earth and Humans are only now figuring out how to communicate with them. http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7821/More-intelligent-species-on-Earth-than-Humans Timeless Multiverse Relativity - All inertial frames see waves as quanta http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7529/Timeless-Multiverse-Relativity-All-inertial-frames-see-waves-as-quanta http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7529/Timeless-Multiverse-Relativity-All-inertial-frames-see-waves-as-quanta Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:31:38 +0000 BenRayfield 7529 <img src="http://spacecollective.org/userdata/o4iqT0cY/1335183840/clock spiral.jpg" border="0" width="" height="" align="left" class="padRight"> A practical theory we can use with current technology if we learned to work together globally. Space, time, the local laws of physics, and the specific things on Earth and patterns of events, are all the result of timeless thermodynamics and waves flowing with other waves in a quantum entanglement way. I do not believe in time, and hopefully after reading this, neither will you. Then we have some research to do in generalizing the Casimir Effect into, not just a radio-like "virtual particle" receiver as its used today, but also a radio transmitter into the various properties of physics and multiverse possibilities. Theres no such thing as a parallel universe, because that would mean we are not all connected as 1 big wavefunction. There are continuous paths between all these infinite possibilities. This is how you use them, explained in practical scientific terms that lead to mass-producing machines we can use to go explore. Warp drive is for those scared to explore sideways in time and other forms of reality, inside a "bubble of space" as I explain below. But if you really want a warp drive to explore flatland, it can do that too. First, before you reject my theory, consider why Einstein's professors thought he was too stupid or insane to recommend him into the higher levels of college? MAIN THEORY: All inertial frames see waves as quanta The same way no observed thing moves faster than light, regardless of your inertial frame (you could be moving toward or away from light but it still looks the same constant speed relative to you), no observed particle is ever more than 1.0-planck particles, and gradually between not observing and observing it varies between 0.0+planck particles and 1.0-planck particles the same way speed varies between 0.0+planck and 1.0-planck times the speed of light. This applies equally to mass, energy, and wavefunction-collapse from different angles and is subject to Heisenberg Uncertainty at all extremes. * Mass's relativity limit gets infinitely difficult toward space, since it takes infinite energy to move mass as fast as light. We thought mass could go the speed-of-light, but instead we got Hawking Radiation and turbulence on the event-horizon of black-holes, and on top of that all black holes must evaporate and/or explode before any of the particles get to the event-horizon which happens from our point of view at the end of time. * Energy's relativity limit gets infinitely difficult toward time, since it takes infinite energy to slow light to a halt. At a large cost of creating fields for the light to move through, we slowed down light and put it in a container, but we couldn't prove it was completely stopped because of Heisenberg Uncertainty. * Wavefunction-collapse's relativity limit gets infinitely difficult toward becoming exactly 1.0 particles, which we call observing. We observed a wave collapse into exactly 1.0 particles, but we couldn't prove its exactly 1.0 particles because of Heisenberg Uncertainty and not knowing if it was in superposition just after we approximately observed it. In all of these things, science has come very close, and in all such cases, the failure was categorized as Heisenberg Uncertainty. END MAIN THEORY. SECOND MOST IMPORTANT THEORY: Heisenberg Uncertainty becomes less uncertain as you view the same wavefunction from many angles at once, as a purely wave based model which denies the existence of quanta and explains the appearance of quanta as a generalization of special relativity. Regardless of your inertial frame, all light appears constant speed and all particles appear to be quanta. FACT: Escape-velocity at the event-horizon of a black hole is the speed-of-light. FACT: Density is maximized at the event-horizon of a black hole. FACT: The smallest possible black hole is "planck mass" and all particles/waves can be modeled as black-holes that way, as recent experiments have created small black-holes that evaporate within a tiny fraction of a second. Of course these are not dangerous. FACT: An outside observer sees anything falling into a black-hole slow down as it nears the event-horizon and never fall in. FACT: The speed of observed light is also the maximum speed of observed mass and all other known observed particle/wave types and is constant. FACT: The speed of unobserved light and other unobserved parts of the world has already been proven to affect eachother extremely faster than light, which we call quantum entanglement. FACT: The billions of lightyears of universe we've seen so far is 1 big quantum wavefunction. Everything is connected to everything else. FACT: The only way to observe a particle/wave is to throw a black-hole near it, which is proven by the fact that "all particles/waves can be modeled as black-holes". FACT: Throwing a black-hole near something causes it to be time-dilated slower as viewed from an outside observer. FACT: Double-slit experiment is when you throw a black-hole through 2 slits simultaneously and it wave-interferes with itself, as proven by "all particles/waves can be modeled as black-holes". FACT: Wavefunction-collapse is what we call multiple superpositioned black-holes becoming individual black-hole(s), as proven by "all particles/waves can be modeled as black-holes", which are merged into a single quantum-wavefunction which we call our shared reality, but we are only certain of this to the point of Heisenberg Uncertainty. (In other words, to proceed with us into our future, the 2 waves must start to agree with eachother enough that all disagreements are small, since we can't have contradictions build on top of other contradictions, because that is an exponential acceleration toward heat-death.) FACT: Gravity-waves are what we call multiple large black-holes becoming 1 bigger black-hole. FACT: Quantum-superpositioned black-holes do not affect our light-cone from positions they cancel-out their own wave, which we call the dark parts of the back wall (and other cancelled-out parts of the wave in the space between) on double-slit experiments. FACT: Gravity-waves do not affect our light-cone until they reach us at the speed-of-light. THEORY: Quantum-superpositioned black-holes do not affect our light-cone until the closest part of their wavefunction reaches us at the speed-of-light. THEORY: There is no difference between gravity-waves and quantum-superposition-waves. THEORY: Special-relativity applies equally to particles/waves/black-holes accelerating up to the speed-of-light in space and particles/waves/black-holes accelerating up to wavefunction-collapse in infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space, in the context of our path through multiverse possibilities being another kind of space. THEORY: Heisenberg-uncertainty is a superposition of the "planck mass" view of all particles/waves/black-holes. FACT: M-Theory is whats common between 5 different String-Theories which were found to say the same thing in 5 different ways, each having parts of the puzzle, with enough overlap to put it together. THEORY: All particle/boson/fermion/force types in the Standard Model of physics, and all the specific dimensions and behaviors of physics described by M-Theory, are the local laws-of-physics, where each observed particle/wave/black-hole of each type (like observing an electron or graviton) are a superposition of the parts of physics which define that type (like a physical object which all electrons are a superposition of) as a particle/wave/black-hole of large mass located in infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space, and the mass of that particle/wave/black-hole representing the type is exactly equal to the mass of all examples of that type as its superposition, so in general the superposition and collapsed form of x are both simultaneously x and not 2 different things. FACT: In Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments, part of the experiment which happens in the future appears to affect part of the experiment in the present. THEORY: The reason that "in Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments, part of the experiment which happens in the future appears to affect part of the experiment in the present", is that "in general the superposition and collapsed form of x are both simultaneously x and not 2 different things", specificly the collapsed form in the present and superpositioned form in the future are identical. THEORY: Conditional on in general "the collapsed form in the present and superpositioned form in the future are identical" being true, the theory that time is a good model of how the world works at quantum sizes would be disproven, and time would only be an approximation of how the world works on a larger scale. FACT: M-Theory predicts gravitons are what carries the force of gravity, and gravitons are closed manifolds. THEORY: In the context of this purely wave based model of the universe which denies the existence of quanta (its just another form of relativity), all closed manifolds are only approximately closed due to Heisenberg Uncertainty and are subject to heat-death like everything else, and closed manifolds implement gravity in infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space because they are the only kind of structure that can survive moving through the variety of parts-of-wavefunctions which represent the variety of different kinds of things which gravity attracts together, and they both attract and repel depending on wave-interference of resonance between all things involved. Galaxies accelerate away from us, while closer things attract eachother, as a simple example of equal and opposite force in timeless whole-universe thermodynamics. It all has to cancel-out to zero. THEORY: Because "Nonexistence is isomorphic to the set of all self-consistent possibilities", which is my philosophy of the universe overall, all forms of relativity are caused by thermodynamics being equally spread in the set of all possible wavefunctions, therefore regardless of your inertial frame, light speed and quanta are always 1.0 (times the speed of light or number of observed particles at a time), so all of physics is formed from the simpler properties of math we call thermodynamics and quantum-entanglement of waves in general. Space, time, mass, energy, particles, the Standard Model, M-Theory, and all other specific observations of our local laws of physics, are an example of what can happen when special-relativity happens recursively and in many combinations in an infinite space of quantum chaos that forms into the patterns we call reality. All forms of special-relativity are purely a result of timeless thermodynamics in infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space. FACT: The Casimir Effect is the physical force on 2 very close parallel metal plates as absorbed from "virtual particles". THEORY: The Casimir Effect has only been observed to receive physical force from "virtual particles", similar to the metal plates acting as a radio, but it can also be used to transmit signals into these "virtual particle" waves if a bigger variety of inputs to the metal plates are considered, not just electricity or motion. What if we tried many combinations of our newest quantum technology, and new technology later, to oscillate the relativistic mass, time-dilation, quantum phase, particle types, superposition, and oscillate other properties of physics in the parallel metal plates? Would it broadcast in a variety of ways into the "virtual particle" part of this wavefunction we call reality? Would it be a multiverse radio, in the space of "infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space" (as I explained above)? THEORY: Conditional on the Casimir-Effect-based "multiverse radio" working as a simultaneous high-dimensional (1 dimension for each property of physics you're oscillating), very spread out grids of such radios could be used for more accuracy, the same way a few telescopes can be used simultaneously to get some of the accuracy of one telescope the size of the distance between its parts. THEORY: Conditional on using grids of such "multiverse radios", in a many-dimensional way, you could put them in an approximate closed manifold (like a sphere or klein-bottle or peterson-graph shape, depending on how you want to align to light-cones) shape in space, and gradually form the near space into a large closed manifold (which you may call a graviton, but more generally than M-Theory's kind of gravitons), and that bubble of space would be a timeless solution to "Einsteins Field Equations" and able to travel through infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space (which includes space, time, and other laws of physics continuously) safely. In theory, this is how you would build a warp drive, time machine, and multiverse ship, all in the same ship. This ship would take very little energy because the grid of "multiverse radios" is a closed manifold, so it gets to slide through the multiverse as easily as gravitons. Do gravitons even need a power source? THEORY ABOUT WHY THIS IS SAFE: Conditional on the "multiverse ship" (which travels through space, time, and other laws of physics using very little energy, like gravitons do) working, the danger of such experiments is mostly in the local area of the ship, which may change the laws of physics and vaporize the galaxy into hawking radiation, while outside observers would see it disappear and experience waves, as if a drop of water had left a mostly still pond. The laws of physics would only change for those who navigate on continuous paths into parts of infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space with different physics. They and we would be a superposition of our shared history, but remember that "in general the superposition and collapsed form of x are both simultaneously x and not 2 different things". THEORY: The Higgs Boson is all black-holes, and all particles/waves are black-holes. It is mass itself, not the part of physics which gives other parts of physics mass. This timeless infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space we call reality is 1 big wave which cancels-out to zero. The amplitude of that wave is its mass, and since we're always inside it, we see that amplitude as 1.0 quanta, the number of realities which exist. You did not find the Higgs Boson in the CERN supercollider as expected because you refused to consider a timeless fractal universe where all particles/waves are black-holes and are inside and superpositioned outside and mixed many ways with eachother. To the question of "Does the Higgs Boson exist?", I must answer nonsequitur... The Higgs Boson is the universe itself, and the universe cancels-out to zero while its individual parts exist. The Higgs Boson is therefore the only particle which exists in superposition but not collapsed form (which is what I meant by "Nonexistence is isomorphic to the set of all self-consistent possibilities"), therefore tips the scale of infinite balance into all possibilities of chaos (which together still cancel-out to zero) which we call Heisenberg Uncertainty. Therefore, if you observed every particle in the universe except 1, Heisenberg Uncertainty would be absolutely forced to certainly tell you it is exactly the remaining possibility. That is the power of the Higgs Boson, also known as the universe. Scientists probably meant Higgs Boson in a more specific way about M-Theory, but this is the closest I can translate to a purely wave-based model. THEORY: The 2 most basic particle types are Higgs Boson (generalizes to the whole universe, a mobius-like paradox because "Nonexistence is isomorphic to the set of all self-consistent possibilities.") and graviton (generalizes to any closed manifold). Higgs Boson is to Graviton as Klein Bottle is to Sphere or Donut, and there are an infinite and continuous variety of higher dimensional combinations, which together cancel-out to zero. A Klein Bottle is a circle on one dimension and a mobius on the other dimension. What do you get when you go at other angles and use many of them together? Irrational manifolds, something we're just getting started thinking about, like using an infinitely thin version of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_winding_of_a_torus" target="blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_winding_of_a_torus</a>  instead of a mobius to create the Klein Bottle, but we don't need to get into that level of complexity to understand the most basic ways to use the Higgs Boson. But I would like somebody to verify the the proof of the Poincare Conjecture (1 of 7 millenium problems, million dollar prize each) also covers all possibilities of irrational manifolds, if any such manifolds apply. The "multiverse ship" described in theories above uses Higgs Boson to form a local area of space into Graviton. To summarize all of this, all inertial frames see waves as quanta, all parts of reality we know of formed from timeless thermodynamics and quantum entanglement between waves in general, and we should redefine the idea of light-cone to include the local laws-of-physics. —— How did I figure all of this out? A lot of thinking and reading science over the years, and more recently... Sometimes I accelerate continuously thinking of advanced things so fast I scare myself. At those times its important to write them down (at a few different forums for reliability and spreading of ideas) and later summarize the useful parts for others to imagine and explore. Think of this like an echo and a "stack trace" (a software word) of a very real "intelligence explosion" which, due to the timeless nature of the universe overall, was unable to make any more progress in this flatland we call reality: <a href="http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/multiverse-radio-transmitter-and-receiver-as-recursion-of-local-laws-of-physics" target="blank">http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/multiverse-radio-transmitter-and-receiver-as-recursion-of-local-laws-of-physics</a> Also related:<a href="http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7525/Wall-street-not-greedy-enough-Not-a-joke-Let-me-teach-you-how-to-be-greedy" target="blank">http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7525/Wall-street-not-greedy-enough-Not-a-joke-Let-me-teach-you-how-to-be-greedy</a> Wrote it at a real physics forum:<a href="http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=39400" target="blank">http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=39400</a> When you stop thinking time is a good theory to describe how the universe works, the question of when a "technology singularity" or other form of "intelligence explosion" (like made of memes flowing through society or hybrid Human and AI minds) happens becomes as unimportant as a hashcode, an arbitrary location in the set of all possibilities which refers to something that, in various forms (and none of them centralized, like this world is divided into hierarchies with some people above others), can affect the world even before you build your preferred variation of it, and again recursively and/or fractally and/or other patterns of reality as many times as you like until you finally build a horse that doesn't jump so high you fall off. I am here in this specific possibility of infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space, just before we again work together to design our preferred form of intelligence explosion, because I fell off that horse and was pulled by gravity to the most similar patterns of reality I've become quantum entangled to, which we call Earth, the Standard Model of physics, M-Theory, and this specific time and place and patterns of events. Its not a big deal. Its how the universe normally works, and all of us do it all the time in a variety of ways, but usually not so directly that it can be consciously understood, and not usually riding the horse long enough to grab a Theory Of Everything (Timeless Multiverse Relativity) before falling off. With this new knowledge, and time to think about and test it, you are all capable of doing the same. In that context, I offer the above very simple theory of timeless infinitely-manyworlds multiverse physics as my Theory Of Everything: Timeless Multiverse Relativity. http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7529/Timeless-Multiverse-Relativity-All-inertial-frames-see-waves-as-quanta War on words Love on ideas http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7424/War-on-words-Love-on-ideas http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7424/War-on-words-Love-on-ideas Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:29:16 +0000 BenRayfield 7424 <img src="http://spacecollective.org/userdata/o4iqT0cY/1332826134/indras net.jpg" border="0" width="" height="" align="left" class="padRight"> "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler" —Einstein Love on Einstein. War on Newton because his ideas were less accurate. Love on accuracy. Love on people experimenting with talking this way. Its fun. Love on you trying it. War on your fear to try it in random social situations. War on cursewords. Love on saying "war on x" instead. War on all authority not chosen by the people. Love on democracy. War on violence. Love on peace. War on you thinking "war on all authority" means violence because it doesn't. "War" means to have less of something, like "War On Drugs" means to have less drugs and "War On Piracy" means to have less piracy. There was a War On Iraq. People died. In this way of communicating, if you wanted to vote against the War On Iraq, you would say to many people: Love On Iraq. "War on war on Iraq" just makes people angrier. "War on War" doesn't work. It leads to more war. "War On X" means to have less X, to be separated from X. "Love On X" means to have more X, to flow more as 1 system, to be in sync. Love and War are like operators in a math language. You could build a fractal with combinations of them, for example. Love on you experimenting with it and telling me what you come up with. Love on spreading the idea that this kind of communication networks people together like a big neural network of ideas between our minds and we wouldn't need middlemen like governments, money, or voting. War on middlemen. Love on educating middlemen to be peers. Love on peer to peer because it scales up to unlimited size without slowing down. War on bottlenecks like government departments, banks, jobs, and traffic lights. Love on figuring out how things fit together at the time. Love on social networking. Love on Wikipedia. Love on Bitcoin. Love on open source. Love on Anonymous. War on the wall street protesters blocking the streets because they made war on wall street. Love on peace. Love on solving the worlds problems without war. War on the stronger uses of war. Love on hearing your thoughts about this new way to communicate and how it is the logical extension of how governments make law against x by broadcasting "war on x". Governments regulate with war, violent or just "thou shalt not x", but where's the love? Love on your well thought out response using this style of communication to respond about it. Love on hearing your theories how it could be possible that world peace, obsoleting of money, obsoleting of governments, and solving other global problems, could possibly not result from everyone communicating in this style. Love on having a balanced state of mind. War on having a balanced state of mind. Love on thinking of this way of communicating as a math language instead of "love" and "war" being related to ethics. War on ethics because it has many paradoxes. Love on paradoxes as puzzles but war on paradoxes as a way of life. Love on you figuring it out. Love on Commit Radical Acts Of Honesty. http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7424/War-on-words-Love-on-ideas bigotry is categorizing by less important things while ignoring important things http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7418/bigotry-is-categorizing-by-less-important-things-while-ignoring-important-things http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7418/bigotry-is-categorizing-by-less-important-things-while-ignoring-important-things Fri, 23 Mar 2012 19:41:50 +0000 BenRayfield 7418 <img src="http://spacecollective.org/userdata/o4iqT0cY/1332556921/kkk.jpg" border="0" width="" height="" align="left" class="padRight"> Example: Your skin is brown, so I don't care that you're more qualified for the job. Example: You have a vagina instead of a penis, so I won't listen to your ideas and instead I've already decided not to vote for you. Example: You weren't born in certain areas of land, so we're going to interact with you differently and provide motivation to you to possibly lie about where you were born to get us to accept your ideas as if they had come from one of us better people born on the better land. I thought of this way to explain the bigotry of how land is more important than ideas, while writing in this thread <a href="http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/president-obama-will-be-forced-by-circumstances-to-apologise-genuine-birth-cert" target="blank">http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/president-obama-will-be-forced-by-circumstances-to-apologise-genuine-birth-cert</a>  but what I'm saying here is far more general. I'm not excusing any lieing, if it is proven he lied about what land he was born on. I'm explaining something parallel to that, the bigotry of land. I therefore propose the idea that countries are another form of bigotry, and the Human species would be better off without those categorizations to separate us and keep us fighting eachother. Here's how we could get started without breaking any laws, a gradually created and voluntary global democracy:<a href="http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7406/Correct-Way-To-Create-World-Government" target="blank">http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7406/Correct-Way-To-Create-World-Government</a> But what about having different laws for different groups of people who prefer things different ways? Create global democracy first, and then vote to fine-tune things like that. In a real democracy, you could vote to give people more choices locally or to organize things whatever way the people of Earth think is best. Bigotry hides in many places, accepted as the way things have always been. Like many other kinds of bigotry in history, countries need to be banned, another source of hate gone. Until ideas have more power than land, we're all niggers, but its ok because we're niggers equally, each sitting in the back of their own country's buses. If we're all sitting in the back, who is in the front? To peacefully deal with them for only the cost of some research and changing words (no changes to the financial laws, just how things are written), I have this proposal:<a href="http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7414/a-trivial-change-in-language-that-would-certainly-cause-world-peace" target="blank">http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7414/a-trivial-change-in-language-that-would-certainly-cause-world-peace</a> Next time someone tells you that you don't know what it feels like to be a nigger and you have no right to use that word, I suggest you explain it or give them a link to this thread. Peace out, to all my niggaz. http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/7418/bigotry-is-categorizing-by-less-important-things-while-ignoring-important-things