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.

    "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.
    Mon, Mar 26, 2012  Permanent link
    Categories: War, math
    Sent to project: Start your own revolution
      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
    This is my response to a debate between Ben Goertzel and Hugo De Garis who both build artificial intelligence and speculate about what it leads to and the possibility aliens may have already done it. Normal religions help us understand the universe as much as a 1000 year old physics book. That leaves a lot of questions... If you're not more confused about what the universe really is after reading this, then you must have missed something. If there is a god or not depends on your definition of "god", and most people don't bother to define it. I might be an atheist or not, and science might be able to test some things most people think can't even be defined or understood.

    "From cosmism to deism"

    "Is God an Alien Mathematician?"
    Then the thread was deleted and moved to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Its a very small software you use to build new audio software. All it does is give you easy access to the sound-card. Future versions will not contain specific sound-effects or other complexity. The point is to be as simple as possible and put that complexity in other programs that use this program. That way theres billions of people who could do audio programming instead of only professionals. It could catch on, if those who try it tell 1 or 2 friends each, who do the same... This really is the simplest it has ever been. I started audio programming 10 years ago (in some of my free time). I build different audio softwares and finally forged the common parts of them into the most simple thing it could be. I've done some things in audio programming that nobody else would have known how to do without reading my code (other programs). Of course I do it by "standing on the shoulders of giants", but to make sure I can stand higher years from now I'm reducing the learning curve for audio programming so new giants can grow for me to stand on. I'm making it simple enough that anyone who wants to learn audio programming can learn it. Hopefully someone who uses this will eventually build some open-source software we all can use later, and we can finally build the "Multimedia Playground" which is some combination of interactive audio and video.
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse

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

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

    First, what are the laws of thermodynamics?
    "If A and C are each in thermal equilibrium with B, A is also in thermal equilibrium with C."
    "energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
    Statistically, heat will move from hot things to cold things more often than it moves the other direction.
    "As a system approaches absolute zero, all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value."

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

    (1) Some kind of  exists in physics, which would make the laws of thermodynamics a religion instead of science, OR

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

    Physics means how the universe works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What can this game be used for?...

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

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

    Quote from:

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

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

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

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

    Today that area of research is called "Friendly AI" but it is still very speculative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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