My Sweater
04-05-2014
, 05:14 PM
04-05-2014
, 05:17 PM
04-05-2014
, 05:22 PM
04-05-2014
, 05:25 PM
04-05-2014
, 05:51 PM
04-05-2014
, 06:04 PM
I have what i mean to say now.
Formalize it if you want i don't care.
In bartering relationships with not so easily dividable resources (finite I suppose), war is generally the way to get to the best result.
War > peace for the motivations we might suppose
U have all been right up until this point in economic technology.
However...when you have a super liquid way of exchanging the benefits of these goods.
Then peace yields greater results than war.
And then since it can be shown the benefits of the latter are greater than the former, peace is the next step to technological advancement, which is spacetime travel
Its not a coincidence that such a solution, it frees us from needing gold for this use whatsoever which allows us to free up our space travel resources (gold semiconductors)
bitcoin is figure 4....40 years later or whatever
the bargaining problem
On my inability to formalize my thoughts: quotes from my notes
*context is what society thinks is sanity is really conformity.
Bit coin is only 1 part of the muliti part solution which also includes Ideal money
Ideal money is meant to work in connection with the implementation of bitcoin to produce the disired results not explained here.
What is important is the foundations laid out by ideal money can be used for each subset of industry, and is part of the plan for the implementation of it.
Poker as nash says, is the most obvious target.
Poker players though, are still stuck on the belief that the nash equilibrium was developed for war not peace.
However they are simply arguing against the man that created it.
Ideal poker, is the explanation of it, and implementation of it in the poker economy. Its done this way not only because players are more knowledgeable on the subject, but also because they value +ev decision lines...and there is no greater +ev than falling in line with the unexploitable man.
It is also directed to the poker community, because they live as professional detectives, analyzers and the like, and are most like to break the bubble (crack the anagram) created by the bitcoin phenomena. All the while while governments are working against the facilitation of exchange from bit to money or back....the lag in popping the bubble creates not only a powerful vaccuum towards bitcoin, but also serves as a deterent (set by goverment regulation) to not return to the old system.
Truly we understand this deterrent is simply the principles of economic, in which current monies become more expensive to use than bitcoin monies.
Money after all is only so valid as the peoples faith in it....
So one has to ask themselves, when it comes to faith a currency, who do you trust more than the man that created the fundamental theorem to which we evaluate the value or our decisions today?
bitcoin of course, is ideal money
its not that the rationalization of agents is needed hold up rational markets
there cannot be 1 without the other in the context of living.
it is that we are rationalizing our markets, in order to rationalize our agents.
If you were to develop an organism to stake over and mine a planet starting from a single cell, you would pre program with in it, the hard wiring towards what fuels our understanding of evolution, will of the individual etc.
Then you want there to be the possibility for a shift in the organisms programing at the point in which a hyper currency becomes available.
At this point (which is obviously calculable even on such a ridiculously large scale such as the evolution of life on earth) you can predict there will already be a finite amount of mined and available resources for everyone to raise their standard of living, well beyond the person in the world today that has the highest standard of living.
Its not possible nor needed to show, whether or not a civilization will invent a hyper currency once it reaches this point of resources whether (globably), or whether the creation of such a currency facilitates the immediate and exponential growth of efficiency.
All of this of course is based on the foundations of economy laid down by adam smith. Who, after all, and after the quote in nash bio....was not actually wrong. Nor could john forbes nash possibly have felt smith was wrong.....because both of them cleary had this vision.
it is supposed that Einstein proved that we cannot break the speed of light and many things relating to it. We have learned from him (or others) that nothing happens simultaneously (yes its terribly put). When we understand the ramifications of implicit collusion irl between two intelligent societies (hu as intelligent societies function as a whole.) we start to understand collusive decisions can be made without any use of conventional technology or communication.
Because of this we are able to see that there can be a simultaneous instance of two separate events. And to prove these we only need to consider an instance where two events happen at different moments.
We call these events E1 and E2 and the former happens before the other. If we are to claim that events don't have the possibility of simultaneously, then such conditions must hold true! (otherwise we can have simultaneous events).
lets fix point E2 on any point in space time, and suggest that E1 resides in a different space either before or after E2.
If the collusion results in E1 happening before E2, we might then decide to 're calibrate' and instead set E1 closer to or even after E2 (many steps of the formal proof were left out here) Both of which scenarios satisfy the known and accepted laws of physics that einstein himself set out.
We have now shown an inflection point between an event that happens either before or after. The argument is that we can approach the inflection point from each side getting more and more accurate as we go...however because of the laws set by Einstein we cannot actually set E1 on the same relative time coordinate as E2.
But this is not the case with implicit collusion, because implicit collusion does not rely on on a given moment in time to set its execution. Implicit colludes do not rely on each other in order to remain or move in sync. Rather they set there own clocks in relation to themselves but the results is still in sync with the other colludes. Think of it like an alarm clock in which you set before hand, one clock you must set 5 mins before and one clock 10 mins before. Both ring at the same time. This of course is where the protests will come, because of the analogy of clocks, but we must remember there are an analogy for the new aspect introduced "collusion" and specifically of the implicit kind.
If we think of a clock, in terms of two atoms (but really any size/level particle) either in position 1 or position 2 (ive lost this part but its about quantum spin or something) in some form of oscillation. we might say that position 1 with colluder 1 at s1 hits e1 at time Tu (for universal, s is taken), which is claimed to be not conducive with position 1 on colluder2 at s2 at time Tu. If this is true then we are looking at C1 particle one at s1 being out of sync with C2's particle 1 at 2s. In this cause we can see C1 particle 2 is in sync with C2 particle one, and such an adjustment can be made before hand.
What we mean to say is none of this is iterated in real time, but instead through metagame thought individual and again coming to the same cooperative conclusions without being within the reach of light restricted space time.
If we are not satisfied with this it might be because of three connected reasons, 1. there are more (or more generally infinite) positions for a two particle clock (a one particle clock is simply a singularity) and 2. there are half positions (or more generally having a coefficient between or equal to 0 and 1. and 3. of the probabilistic nature of spin.
None of which are real issues and all of which were passed to nash to finish. We might think of the issue of a cosmological constant as temporary plug, and we already know we heard nash say with a smirk (loose quote) " I think i have a way to do it without such issues."
cross stitched from here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...orum-1432266/:
We know nash met with einstein. We know nash believe he has a solution to einsteins constant. We know nash smirked when he said this.
We know intelligent peoples do not let great power fall in the hands of those not ready to wield it.
We can understand esoterically, as we wrapped all this together, hyper space and time travel result, which is really just the understanding of dimensional transcendence.
Nash spent time on Riemann_hypothesis in regards to prime numbers because a prime number can represent the undividable resource. which may have either learned him about such things, or lead him to the countering of it.
And also like this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uUawrIRLbQ
He was studying and understand the concepts of dimensions that no doubt einstein pointed him towards, and that they both were unwilling to share with the world (yet at the that time) the true solutions and ramification of what, they discovered.
Formalize it if you want i don't care.
In bartering relationships with not so easily dividable resources (finite I suppose), war is generally the way to get to the best result.
War > peace for the motivations we might suppose
U have all been right up until this point in economic technology.
However...when you have a super liquid way of exchanging the benefits of these goods.
Then peace yields greater results than war.
And then since it can be shown the benefits of the latter are greater than the former, peace is the next step to technological advancement, which is spacetime travel
Its not a coincidence that such a solution, it frees us from needing gold for this use whatsoever which allows us to free up our space travel resources (gold semiconductors)
bitcoin is figure 4....40 years later or whatever
the bargaining problem
On my inability to formalize my thoughts: quotes from my notes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash
I tended to think that the thing to do is get away from what other people are doing and not to follow directly in anyone's recent work
rational thought imposes limits on our ability to understand the cosmos
sanity is conformity*
rational thought imposes limits on our ability to understand the cosmos
sanity is conformity*
Bit coin is only 1 part of the muliti part solution which also includes Ideal money
Ideal money is meant to work in connection with the implementation of bitcoin to produce the disired results not explained here.
What is important is the foundations laid out by ideal money can be used for each subset of industry, and is part of the plan for the implementation of it.
Poker as nash says, is the most obvious target.
Poker players though, are still stuck on the belief that the nash equilibrium was developed for war not peace.
However they are simply arguing against the man that created it.
Ideal poker, is the explanation of it, and implementation of it in the poker economy. Its done this way not only because players are more knowledgeable on the subject, but also because they value +ev decision lines...and there is no greater +ev than falling in line with the unexploitable man.
It is also directed to the poker community, because they live as professional detectives, analyzers and the like, and are most like to break the bubble (crack the anagram) created by the bitcoin phenomena. All the while while governments are working against the facilitation of exchange from bit to money or back....the lag in popping the bubble creates not only a powerful vaccuum towards bitcoin, but also serves as a deterent (set by goverment regulation) to not return to the old system.
Truly we understand this deterrent is simply the principles of economic, in which current monies become more expensive to use than bitcoin monies.
Money after all is only so valid as the peoples faith in it....
So one has to ask themselves, when it comes to faith a currency, who do you trust more than the man that created the fundamental theorem to which we evaluate the value or our decisions today?
bitcoin of course, is ideal money
its not that the rationalization of agents is needed hold up rational markets
there cannot be 1 without the other in the context of living.
it is that we are rationalizing our markets, in order to rationalize our agents.
If you were to develop an organism to stake over and mine a planet starting from a single cell, you would pre program with in it, the hard wiring towards what fuels our understanding of evolution, will of the individual etc.
Then you want there to be the possibility for a shift in the organisms programing at the point in which a hyper currency becomes available.
At this point (which is obviously calculable even on such a ridiculously large scale such as the evolution of life on earth) you can predict there will already be a finite amount of mined and available resources for everyone to raise their standard of living, well beyond the person in the world today that has the highest standard of living.
Its not possible nor needed to show, whether or not a civilization will invent a hyper currency once it reaches this point of resources whether (globably), or whether the creation of such a currency facilitates the immediate and exponential growth of efficiency.
All of this of course is based on the foundations of economy laid down by adam smith. Who, after all, and after the quote in nash bio....was not actually wrong. Nor could john forbes nash possibly have felt smith was wrong.....because both of them cleary had this vision.
it is supposed that Einstein proved that we cannot break the speed of light and many things relating to it. We have learned from him (or others) that nothing happens simultaneously (yes its terribly put). When we understand the ramifications of implicit collusion irl between two intelligent societies (hu as intelligent societies function as a whole.) we start to understand collusive decisions can be made without any use of conventional technology or communication.
Because of this we are able to see that there can be a simultaneous instance of two separate events. And to prove these we only need to consider an instance where two events happen at different moments.
We call these events E1 and E2 and the former happens before the other. If we are to claim that events don't have the possibility of simultaneously, then such conditions must hold true! (otherwise we can have simultaneous events).
lets fix point E2 on any point in space time, and suggest that E1 resides in a different space either before or after E2.
If the collusion results in E1 happening before E2, we might then decide to 're calibrate' and instead set E1 closer to or even after E2 (many steps of the formal proof were left out here) Both of which scenarios satisfy the known and accepted laws of physics that einstein himself set out.
We have now shown an inflection point between an event that happens either before or after. The argument is that we can approach the inflection point from each side getting more and more accurate as we go...however because of the laws set by Einstein we cannot actually set E1 on the same relative time coordinate as E2.
But this is not the case with implicit collusion, because implicit collusion does not rely on on a given moment in time to set its execution. Implicit colludes do not rely on each other in order to remain or move in sync. Rather they set there own clocks in relation to themselves but the results is still in sync with the other colludes. Think of it like an alarm clock in which you set before hand, one clock you must set 5 mins before and one clock 10 mins before. Both ring at the same time. This of course is where the protests will come, because of the analogy of clocks, but we must remember there are an analogy for the new aspect introduced "collusion" and specifically of the implicit kind.
If we think of a clock, in terms of two atoms (but really any size/level particle) either in position 1 or position 2 (ive lost this part but its about quantum spin or something) in some form of oscillation. we might say that position 1 with colluder 1 at s1 hits e1 at time Tu (for universal, s is taken), which is claimed to be not conducive with position 1 on colluder2 at s2 at time Tu. If this is true then we are looking at C1 particle one at s1 being out of sync with C2's particle 1 at 2s. In this cause we can see C1 particle 2 is in sync with C2 particle one, and such an adjustment can be made before hand.
What we mean to say is none of this is iterated in real time, but instead through metagame thought individual and again coming to the same cooperative conclusions without being within the reach of light restricted space time.
If we are not satisfied with this it might be because of three connected reasons, 1. there are more (or more generally infinite) positions for a two particle clock (a one particle clock is simply a singularity) and 2. there are half positions (or more generally having a coefficient between or equal to 0 and 1. and 3. of the probabilistic nature of spin.
None of which are real issues and all of which were passed to nash to finish. We might think of the issue of a cosmological constant as temporary plug, and we already know we heard nash say with a smirk (loose quote) " I think i have a way to do it without such issues."
cross stitched from here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...orum-1432266/:
We know nash met with einstein. We know nash believe he has a solution to einsteins constant. We know nash smirked when he said this.
We know intelligent peoples do not let great power fall in the hands of those not ready to wield it.
We can understand esoterically, as we wrapped all this together, hyper space and time travel result, which is really just the understanding of dimensional transcendence.
Nash spent time on Riemann_hypothesis in regards to prime numbers because a prime number can represent the undividable resource. which may have either learned him about such things, or lead him to the countering of it.
And also like this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uUawrIRLbQ
He was studying and understand the concepts of dimensions that no doubt einstein pointed him towards, and that they both were unwilling to share with the world (yet at the that time) the true solutions and ramification of what, they discovered.
Last edited by Mike Haven; 04-06-2014 at 07:25 PM.
Reason: 9 posts merged