Scarcity - A New Theory of Everything

page: 6
120
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by XtraemeI say 2 = 0 because the opposite of zero isn't complex infinity or undefined. The opposite of zero is all unique instances bounded by infinity.


In laymens' terms, a real is the result of zero devided by zero? So am I wrong to assume the cardinality of reals occures when you extract zero from that which makes all integers quantifiable?

Oh a question...I apologize by posting sloppy and incoherent $hit in this high-profile discussion, but never mind, so your universal set Omega is a after all dedekind-set? I'm simply a little desperate here to contribute to anything...




posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Great Post. Scarcity rules our lives. This is crazy when we consider how much adundance we can create. One quick example is that we pay farmers not to grow food because they've gotten so good at it that to produce as much as they can produce would put them out of business. Therefore scarcity is artificially maintained in order to continue a hierarchical, force labor economy. The official name for artificially created scarcity is subsidy.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
During a brain-storming session reflecting on the ontological nature of scarcity I stumbled on something.


That's noramally when it happens, after you realise you have been immobile for an unknown timespan, you can evolve greatly through those loopholes, I've overcome great enough enemies to stay clear.


an unknowable thing making me agnostic.


Originally 'one who doesnot relate to gnosis, knowledge.' but later one who doesnot relate to state religion in ancient Greece. Rød. Remark.


"the lack of something necessitates its existence."


Like science fiction cultism's view on teleportation in a way, only it would involve quantum leaps in technology just to accept the initial message. In short, AnY sthing is possible.


we'll hit a type 4 civilization.


We're already there my friend, our old energy can govern any planet, these powers and forces are primordeal. -- We'll exist in the end too. Only thing is our secrecy in relation to what technology we have and have develloped to the max, at lives' cost.

something got stuck at M$, frekkin smegma.... oh it's the free version, peace dudes!
1.sdsd can travel



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Awesome thread mate. It really made me think... and think... and think. I think I'm caught in some kind of logic loop!

IRM



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Thanks for the heads up about the thread. I'm afraid I shall disappoint, firstly because online time is a scarcity for me these days, but also because I don't fully go along with the argument. I can't articulate this to myself at the moment but it just doesn't quite sit right with me. I have as yet no cogent argument and I may not develop one fully, but I just don't like the idea that scarcity inevitably causes a class system. I can see that our current societal reality-tunnel makes the two highly interlinked, but I believe that rewriting our society's reality-tunnel would break the connection.

The long view you've espoused (in which we eventually become godlike) is well-known but I'm not sure that it has any meaning for me. It's fine as an SF novel timeline but I'm not convinced it has any real-world validity.

I'm going to have to leave it there, but I'll be musing on this and may return to this thread at a later date.

But great thread and thinking and discussion, whether I wind up agreeing with you or not.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
beautiful thread man, i really appreciate you taking the time to share this.

i am going to need to take some time to review the philiosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre's view of scarcity before I can comment further but as it stands I am deeply moved by what I have read and seen in your thread.

something about it 'feels' right to me.

again, cheers for sharing such a though provoking topic.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
reply to post by Xtraeme
 

I just don't like the idea that scarcity inevitably causes a class system.


I, too, was mortified at the thought that a class system is "by design." However once I reviewed the notion looking at every system man has ever created, it seems like greed (psychological scarcity) coupled with physical scarcity (natural lack of resources) ultimately forces a scenario where one person necessarily has more than another.

As for your point,


I can see that our current societal reality-tunnel makes the two highly interlinked, but I believe that rewriting our society's reality-tunnel would break the connection.


Consider if the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds to the end of time-space and we can't overcome this fundamental law of nature then the universe is ultimately a zero sum game (see 2nd image, Fig. 3, scientism universe). If that's the case how can a man-made system, like capitalism, which is based on the idea that two people can win equally (a non-zero sum game) be possible?

Sadly it can't, since nature has the final say, meaning inherently someone is gaining more than another (it's the recognition of this that causes boom / bust cycles).

This is why it may fundamentally require a rewriting of our human psychology to deal with a world where necessarily someone has to lose.

What's somewhat comforting is that in understanding this it gives us an idea how to min-max such a design because, in grasping this concept, it demonstrates the obscene power vested in economics in that it literally sets the imperative of an entire society even more so than politics, philosophy, & morality. Which suggests that if we're to be fair to all peoples we must admit to ourselves that someone in society ultimately get the shaft. Thus we should design our cultural-value system based on the majority position on how to allocate money on the macro-scale.

For example, imagine a system where people not only vote for their representatives, but they also vote on their funding priorities rather than having to lobby (more complete thoughts on this here). This would allow the proletariat to reinvent their society without having to engage in physically violent revolution.

Technology has always been the great mover of new prosperity. Frustratingly we're getting to the point where we're not only having to contend with issues like peak oil, but peak every other natural resource on the planet. In dealing with a physically scarce world where we don't even have the base resources necessary to sustain each human, morality is inherently subjective and ultimately meaningless. If I had to will something to be a universal law (where people are considered an "end" and not a "means") the only thing that could be said to be "a sin" in this scenario is taking more than a person needs preventing someone else from having food, water and shelter.

Thus a maxim of defining "too much by what's too little" is one possible interpretation of point (d) on Fig. 1, in that it has the potential to provide a rationale for reaching exigency of 0.

I realize you're short for time, but if you can articulate your thoughts as to what specifically you disagree with or what bugs you, please, I'd love to hear it. The more critical analysis I can get the better!

[edit on 24-11-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pai mei
reply to post by pai mei
 

A new cruise ship has been built. The biggest ever. Also heard that the ones who made it will be fired - the shipyard has no more orders for ships. Think about the hundreds of thousands involved - not just the workers at the shipyard. 80% of what we do - is like that ship. Useless wasting of our lives, and planet. Turning it into cruise ships then garbage. The machine requires it. We could work less and have all the basic stuff - which we need to survive. Less work, no stress - about getting fired , no destruction. Work in turns - something like 1 in ten years - you go do your work period, the rest of the time you just sit - and have food and clothes and some items (something like everything you take when camping - nothing more) - free. No money involved. No more homeless, or hungry. You will have time - to build yourself some house. Or just travel around.


While this sounds quite rustic and I agree there are a number of human activities that are tantamont to taking the paper-work from the in-pile, transferring it to the out-pile and then recycling it back to the in-pile. There's still much that we've gained by ruthlessly pursuing efficiency, not just scientifically & technologically, but in the arts.

Just because I can see the virtues of a particular mode of living doesn't mean that I want to force my views on to to others who have an alternate take on the best course for mankind. This is why I think it's important that there be a healthy balance between all manner of political / economic systems rather than picking one over the other due purely to ideology.

The question is, "Is this possible?"

To try and answer this objectively I considered the difference between a debt-based society (fractional reserve) and a 100% reserve-based system.

"The 100-percenters say that in a free society, force is outlawed, a statement both sides can endorse. Next, since fraud is a form of (implicit) force, it too must be banned. Since a fractional reserve system promises to pay specie in amounts greater than what actually exists, that promise is a fraud. Therefore, the 100-percenters contend, a fractional reserve banking system has no place in a free society.

The fractional reserve advocates, who disagree with the 100-percenters, also base their arguments on free market principles. In a free market, they say, anyone can do what he wants as long as he doesn’t use force against others. This includes banks. If a bank issues notes that aren’t 100 per cent backed by specie, by what right do we stop them? They aren’t forcing people to accept the notes." (1)

Understanding these two mutually philosophies it's easy to see why we don't have 100% reserve banking mixed with a fractional reserve system because as Gresham's Law states, "Bad money drives out good under legal tender laws." The opposite is true when there aren't such legal instruments in affect.

Therefore if we were to provide mixed financial services distinguishing between fractional / 100% backed holdings, then where legal tender laws do exist money would inflate and the 100% backed currency would decrease in value as artificially created "bad money" is put in to circulation. So 100% backed currency in a predominantly fractional-reserve system would protect what's in the vaults but wouldn't protect value relative to total supply.

In a system where legal instruments do not exist then necessarily all fractional-reserve money is seen as a promissory note and therefore people would expect some form of interest to compensate for the degree of risk involved taking a financial instrument for the face-value of the note.

These two concepts reflect two modes of operation: deflationary versus inflationary practices. In an inflationary system those who have access to money first receive greater value for the worth of the currency; and because a fractional reserve system promises to pay specie in amounts greater than what actually exists, the value as written on the face of this fiat currency is a fraud.

In a deflationary system those who hold money retain greater value as currency is split. However this limits the freedom of banking organizations to loan out currency and ultimately slows growth because those who have money retain that money. Making it very hard for new people entering the system to compete.

What this shows is these two concepts are orthogonal to each other. Viewed under this light it seems certain systems cannot under any circumstance happily coexist together.

Or can they?

To make them work together is so extremely difficult because their point of intersection is tangential. To marry these two notions would require some form of euclidean metric where the horizontalness and verticalosity are not independent, but are intertwined such that they're inseparable. Meaning for this to happen we need a system where this formula is true:

A = 100% reserve banking
B = fractional reserve banking
Sqrt[ (A)^2 + (B)^2 ]

The question is how to implement this (security (A) / growth (B))? I can only guess but that's the solution.

Getting back to my main point. This shows there is a way for all systems to work together even if they only have a single point of intersection. In trying to solve that formula the best I've been able to come up with is this:
  1. 1/3rd competition / free market capitalism (fractional)
  2. 1/3rd projects voted on by the group (100% reserve / fractional)
  3. 1/3rd social minimum to ensure all people have a basic standard of living (100% backed, separate currency)

If you think about it what this is really saying is: 1/3rd competition & efficiency (B), 1/3rd combination competition / all people ( Sqrt[ (A)^2 + (B)^2 ] ), 1/3rd of the pie shared equally by all people (A). So really this seems to show a sort of balanced equation where these things function together in a non-degenerative manner.

Focusing on A (a purely safe economy with stagnation) or B (pure capitalism with high-risk as the norm) means we eventually hit a point where the triangle collapses to a line and we have a degenerative case that causes social / economic hysteresis.

Should these legs of the triangle always be at 1/3rd or 60 degrees to each other? I would say the proportions should be primarily a function of (A) or bullet-point 3. So long as (A) is satisfied then (B) or bullet-point 1 can be maximized.

However, it's worth noting, whichever leg is the longest (the hypotenuse) will necessarily reflect which direction the system is going to converge. So if we put more money in to (A - 100% reserve banking) we'll end up with a first-come, first-serve entitlement system where those who hold their money the longest control the cash supply. If we maximize (B - Fractional reserve banking) we'll end up with pure capitalism where ultimately bankers / corporate fat-cats end up with all the money.

What isn't in affect with our current system is the notion of the public having a direct say on the (sqrt(a^2 + b^2)) component (the leg that pushes the two apart or viewed another way the leg that represents the intersection between the two). The only solution is to have the public directly have a vote on how taxes are used which can be seen as the hypotenuse (or the sqrt(a^2 + b^2) segment). This is why I so strongly advocate for this type of change to our our representative process.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I have to chime in every so often. Quick question...


What happens when you learn to assemble matter? There goes scarcity in your life...



This theory caters to a single state of being. We're only caged by limited knowledge.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Americanist]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 



Now what if I were to tell you that through philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre's view of scarcity (the idea that a class system is embedded in the very nature of reality - IE/ life as an exigency, life as a value to be produced and reproduced, and life as a good to be consumed [full treatment]) it's possible to see that all things are driven by the notion that the "lack of something causes its pursuit?" Or worded more strongly, "the lack of something necessitates its existence."


I think I finally figured out a decent question to contribute to this thread, most likely I'm wrong here!

Wouldn't this imply that this 'nature of reality' is explicitly for the purpose of life alone? I think this line of reasoning would be about as empty as asking what is the purpose of life. If sentience or life is the nature of reality, then shouldn't this be fundamentally true for all things existent in reality with all things possessing life of it's own accord?

Like I said in the U2U awhile back ago, I'm having trouble grasping this concept, and it's equally true even now.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
I have to chime in every so often. Quick question...


Sorry I'm not getting back to people quicker. Have a lot going on.




What happens when you learn to assemble matter? There goes scarcity in your life...


Converting energy to matter and energy back to matter perfectly recycling all transitions is point (a) in the first image of Fig. 1. At that point the only thing that will be scarce are psychological conceptions.

For instance as I mentioned previously here ...


Consider that many millions upon millions of years from now, when humanity has the ability to fundamentally convert matter to energy and energy back to matter perfectly recycling all transitions (potentially beating the 2nd law of thermodynamics -- See Figure 1, point (A) in the OP); and when man has the ability to replicate & create anything whether it be cloning an exact copy of yourself, creating a planet, or summoning in to existence a TV or what-have-you:

Scarcity will still exist.

Why? Because there is no way to replicate the exact instance of the original Earth. Put another way there is only one original NY. Even if we can recreate Earth exactly as it currently exists and drop it in to another system, exactly modeled on our current solar system, there would still be only one original Earth.

Due to this people would still have battles over property and the value of a house would be subject to the whims of the individuals bidding on it. For example, the house in NY on the original earth would necessarily be worth more than the copy because it would be known by all parties as the first, authentic incarnation. So the qualitative association is what would create the value despite the two houses, environments, conditions, etc., otherwise being physically identical.

Thus scarcity still exists as a concept in peoples minds and because of this future people will still need some mechanism to determine resource allocation (likely a stored social value system like money).

Now let me explain where this is really coming from.

A = A

They're not equal.

They're two separate things though identical in almost every way, but they're two separate instances (IE. one is on the left, the other is on the right). Thus we create scarcity and inequality even when it doesn't exist. We seek out difference wherever we can find it.

Now imagine if you could even remove that. If we can do that we haven't removed a real scarce thing, we've removed a part of human psychology.


As for limited knowledge I spent a little time toying with the idea of what happens in Q1 (life as Aesthetic) after we pass (A) -- the point when humans attain omnipotence. I asked myself, "Shouldn't omniscience, omnipresence, & omni-benevolence also require many quarters to master?"

The answer is yes, they should. Ultimately if all of these things are linear and one step progresses to the next then the progression at least in the universe we live in is very likely:

Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, & finally Omni-benevolence



Below is how I rationalized coming to this conclusion:



Basically there are a total of 24 possible permutations of how this could occur if they occur in a linear order. Should they occur simultaneously all bets are off.


[edit on 19-1-2010 by asala]

[edit on 11-3-2010 by asala]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
The answer is yes, they do. Ultimately if all of these things are linear and one step progresses to the next then the progression at least in the universe we live in is very likely:

Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, & finally Omni-benevolence




I just re-read some of this from more of the economic viewpoint and I just don't see the connection that you make with that point. You made it clear with math with the perspective that you intend, yet that intention doesn't seem to fit so easily into the economic viewpoint as you put it. Maybe I need to re-read the whole thread, yet I think it is simply we just don't agree on our viewpoints for some reason or another that probably boils down to logic existentialism.



Basically there are a total of 24 possible permutations of how this could occur if they occur in a linear order. Should they occur simultaneously all bets are off.


To me there is only 1, and that is the scarcity of entropy. I say it specifically like this instead of more general relations, as you have done, because the progressive realization of the infinite create an inverse probability of entropy that approaches 0. Entropy exists, so it never does equal 0.

It can be infinitely closer and closer to 0, and this is the logic existentialism that disagrees with your more general terms. (We can say 0 is God, yet here by logic existentialism we could say God is this infinitely closer and closer value -- hence, they disagree.)

I actually wonder if special relativity was made because of this probability. I imagine Einstein may have jotted something down in his unpublished notes. In general relativity, There is a constant in E=mcc. In special relativity, it is not so constant:

Splitting Time from Space—New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime

As you can see, it is easy to agree in math, yet beyond that it is not easy to agree in logic existentialism.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


I think I finally figured out a decent question to contribute to this thread, most likely I'm wrong here!

Wouldn't this imply that this 'nature of reality' is explicitly for the purpose of life alone? I think this line of reasoning would be about as empty as asking what is the purpose of life. If sentience or life is the nature of reality, then shouldn't this be fundamentally true for all things existent in reality with all things possessing life of it's own accord?

Like I said in the U2U awhile back ago, I'm having trouble grasping this concept, and it's equally true even now.


That is a good question.
Though I think this strongly hinges on what we use as a definition for life. For the purpose of this conversation I'll use the biological definition implying homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, & reproduction. Loosening these restrictions moves virii from the realm of replicators to actual lifeforms.

With that established this idea does bear some similarity to the anthropic principle. For those unaware of what this is:


In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the collective name for several ways of asserting that the observations of our physical universe must be compatible with the life observed in it. The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations which seemed to show that the laws of nature and its physical constants were uncannily set in a way that allowed conditions for life. The anthropic principle states that this apparent coincidence is actually a necessity because we wouldn't be able to exist, and hence, observe the universe, were these laws and constants not set this way. (1)

However if all possibilities are occurring then we can consider our universe to simply be one universe where the parameters for life were sufficient to create us and all the other species on our planet (odds of this happening are 1 : 10^10^120 — note: if there aren't other universes the anthropic principle is definitively accurate based on the law of probabilities). I won't bother going in to the chances of life existing elsewhere in the universe (it's already been done to death), but I will say much like the heliocentric principle devastated the geocentric model it's somewhat silly to think we're the only self-aware creatures in our universe / all of reality. So while there might be an infinitesimally small chance that this is the case it's also highly unlikely.

Whether a person wants to attribute the notion of randomness or design is a personal one. Einstein, for instance, had the happy expression,


I find the idea quite intolerable that an electron exposed to radiation should choose of its own free will, not only its moment to jump off, but also its direction. In that case, I would rather be a cobbler, or even an employee in a gaming house, than a physicist.(2)

But you're right the model does suggest, even if we came from nothingness, that any system where there's life will beget more life. Plants absorb non-organic materials like nitrogen and light to produce energy. Humans eat plants as one means of sustaining our biology. The conversion of one form of energy to another or the chemical break down of matter to energy is a standard metabolic process. So if we don't kill ourselves future humans will either expand at a rate to ultimately consume everything the universe has created (potentially causing all things to become biological) or the universe will consume us at which point we have to consider "is that it?" or through random iterations of all possibilities won't more creatures have opportunities to go through the same process of potentially overcoming all things? If that's the case the cycle in the graph is eventually realized. On a side note this gave me a somewhat amusing thought — perhaps entropy is the metabolic process of the universe.


One interesting thing about this idea that's broader than the anthropic principle is that it's basically stating that through the lack of something all things eventually come in to beingness. Viewed under this lense "life" is simply one possibility / probability. However it appears once life has bootstrapped the universe with its own will at that point the only way nothingness / non-biological life comes back in to beingness is through choice.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Re. Scarcity.

I don't think scarcity is a flushed out enough theory to be applicable, or that it is altogether true.

Simple observation: put two little kids in a room with several of the same toy. Kid A will want the one kid B has, even if there are ten more just like it sitting all around him. Call this what you will, but it tells us quite a bit about our nature as animals.

Similarly, it is often those with the most money who are the greediest for more. They do not come to this by scarcity, but by expectation and exercise of privilege. Unfortunately, social status is indeed a finite resource.

And there are many other examples of why there will always be an uneven distribution of resources. For example, we can't all have beachfront property, can't all marry the most attractive spouses (this one has caused MANY a conflict), can't all have talents that make us popular or respected, etc. And this is to say nothing of the fact that we will never become masters of nature. I know it's possible to FEEL that way sometimes, but one good drought, volcano, asteroid, virus, or what have you, and we will be rapidly reminded of our small and ephemeral status in this vast universe.

I used to be a behavioral therapist (applied behavioral analysis), and although I don't hold a degree in behaviorism, I've been exposed to a good bit of its principles, and 'scarcity' is not a word I ever see in the literature. Which is to say, this is an idea that is mainly popular with those who do NOT scientifically analyze human/animal behavior. Those who do, have observed that the drive for attention is a far greater motivator, and that, we can not produce in abundance.

Anyhow. I do hope we continue to get better and better at providing for all of our kind; I've long been active in my community trying to help people in different kinds of ways. But I also see the limits of who and what we are, and understand that we are much more complicated animals than can be reduced to a 'unified theory' of behavior.

It's an understandable desire, but does not seem to fit well with my experience of the world or its inhabitants.

Who knows? I'd be happy for the future to prove me wrong.


(happy thanksgiving !)



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas
I just re-read some of this from more of the economic viewpoint and I just don't see the connection that you make with that point. You made it clear with math with the perspective that you intend, yet that intention doesn't seem to fit so easily into the economic viewpoint as you put it. Maybe I need to re-read the whole thread, yet I think it is simply we just don't agree on our viewpoints for some reason or another that probably boils down to logic existentialism.


If I read you properly, and you're trying to connect the notions of economics as I've mentioned it here with the full scale of the primary diagram (Fig. 1), then I can easily see how this would be confusing because the two don't even come close to meshing nor did I intend them too. Though I wish they did.


A "theory of everything" for economics would have to fundamentally incorporate its non-existence, gift-economies, barter, pure capitalism versus regulated capitalism, et cetera. Really what I'm describing when I say:

A = 100% reserve banking
B = fractional reserve banking
C = Sqrt[ (A)^2 + (B)^2 ]

is the idea that historically if a person owed something that debt remained till it was repaid, or the person was thrown in debtors prison / forced in to servitude. This sort of system had the philosophical underpinnings of 100% reserve banking where all payments were paid in full.

The more modern approach, where value of a debt can float, is embodied by fractional reserve banking. This being the notion that we accept money at face value even if it's devalued or overvalued.

C is a non-existent concept that somehow represents the intertwining of these two. Our current approach to this is the Fed which is mandated to restrict and inflate the cash supply by means of increased or decreased interest. Money that's recaptured is then either destroyed or through mechanisms like the discount window floated to collaterized lending institutions at an extremely low rate to quickly prop up solvent institutions that have good cash flow / credit, but poor liquidity.

The problem is this: the longer we float money the more opportunities for abuse, inflation, and excessive risk taking. Eventually this system converges on a point where ultimately bankers and big business end up with the bulk of the resources and due to the risk taking the system collapses (see Herman Minsky's work for more on this).

If the Fed were to obsess over 0 inflation we would then have a system where those who have money would simply keep it. Meaning those who come first and possess the most would retain their value at a detriment to everyone else in society.

What's missing is a third leg to this structure. Taxation somewhat attempts to break this downward spiral by taking & recirculating money. However in doing this government becomes too big, swelling to the point of potentially controlling all things, which is equally undesirable.

To restrict these convergences it seems like, at the present anways, the solution is to keep these things at a constant 60 degrees to each other. Or put another way social minimums should be 100% backed (completely isolated from fractional money) and represent 1/3rd of the total pie. Pure capitalism / competition with fractional reserve banking would represent another third, with controls in place as they currently exist used to stabilize the supply of fiat currency. The third leg (C) is the blending of these two ideas: projects voted on by all people in society. This combines the notions of competition with the idea of what the people on the whole see as being socially most important. For true stabilization to occur this would have to represent 50% fractional & 50% wholly backed currency (2*cos[60 deg]). Note the similarity of this design to the US's division of the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of government.

By doing this if the fiat money system is inflated to the point where no one trusted the currency, in abolishing all outstanding debts and restarting (/w punishment for those who abused the system), it at the very least wouldn't undermine the entire societal structure because convergence would have flat-lined to 50% (C - projects dictated by all in society) and 100% (A - social minimum). So in recreating a new fiat currency it would then be worth exactly the value of (A + C) divided amongst all people, giving everyone in the system a fresh new start.




Basically there are a total of 24 possible permutations of how this could occur if they occur in a linear order. Should they occur simultaneously all bets are off.


To me there is only 1, and that is the scarcity of entropy. I say it specifically like this instead of more general relations, as you have done, because the progressive realization of the infinite create an inverse probability of entropy that approaches 0. Entropy exists, so it never does equal 0.


It sounds like you're evaluating this from the perspective of 1/x = z where x is a very large number but z is never 0 even though it approaches 0, correct? Which is another way of saying it's only through the statement (Lim x->infinity 1/x = 0) that we achieve entropy of 0.

This is very much at the heart of this idea. Basically my point in the primary diagram (Fig. 1) is to show that if we represent the central universe / circle in the addendum Fig. 3 we can overcome all things: self, nature, the group, and even the notions of being creators ourselves.

If we can't overcome these things then we're very likely stuck in the scientism / objective reality universe where humans will approach entropy of 0, but never overcome it. Meaning the 2nd law of thermodynamics will have the final word because whenever a system possesses symmetry, the result is a conservation law (Noether's theorem). So if the laws of the universe remain the same over time then the result will be that the system conserves energy.

This is why to overcome self as proportioned to nature, point (d) in Fig. 1, we need something that creates infinite value to break this symmetry.

Getting back to your main point the reason there are 24 possible permutations is because if all things can be overcome then there are fundamentally 5 types of 'verses:

  1. One universe approaching decay,
  2. another that's becoming more ordered,
  3. orthogonal to the first two a system representing unification,
  4. opposite this a 'verse representing self-empowerment / separation of all things,
  5. and in the middle of all this is a universe (the one I hope we live in) where all things can be overcome.

So depending on the universe that a sentience lives in determines the end-point.

Meaning if we lived in a universe where creationism was objectively true then the end-goal wouldn't be defeating entropy. It would be entropy of 100% because order would be naturally increasing rather than decreasing.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
So to evaluate notions of omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, etc. based on all these other possible 'verses I looked at the order that falls out of our system (central or scientism) where our overriding goal, as a people, is entropy 0, but where the universe is headed towards total entropy. Since we see this naturally occurring class system in reality we all strive through the ranks first progressing through natural exigency, then we strive to beat the rat race of creating a "value to be produced and reproduced," and the hope is that this will lead to a life "as a good to be consumed." All people on Earth have worked towards decreasing "natural exigency," because as a goal unanimously all people find this increase of power over the natural world beneficial and necessary. As we master the elements we get closer towards omnipotence.

This goes to the point that removing "natural exigency" is humanities first order of business.

Since omnipotence takes 3 quarters to complete (Q2, Q3, Q4) it then begs the question that if omnipotence is possible what about omniscience, omnipresence, & omni-benevolence? Trying to answer this is extremely difficult, if not impossible, but with a little bit of logic I created the matrix as seen in Fig. 4 which shows that the ending of one school (self, group, nature, choice) as indicated in the addendum Fig. 2 corresponds with the beginning of a new omni-cycle.

This makes sense in that entering Q1, if we're omnipotent with no natural exigency, we would work towards creating things of beauty, exploration, learning, etc. This would eventually become tedious if one could never die. An ultimate act of creation would involve infusing this group into a new design (ie/ ending group as seen at point (b) in Fig. 1) recreating limitation. Being a part of all things in this new universe would result in half-duplex omnipresence in the sense that the creators would be aware that they're with all things, but primitive creatures in this new reality likely wouldn't see or know this. Thus a completion of omnipresence would very likely be a two way street in the sense that all things in this new 'verse would slowly over time come to recognize this design. Then in realizing the nature of creation, it would complete the full-duplex awareness between the creators and those who were the result of that creation.

I imagine this would be a bit like looking in to a mirror, seeing God and God seeing you.

In being with all things this would then allow for a greater understanding of all things. So it makes good sense that this would naturally lead to omniscience. I'm of the mind-set that conquering choice is likely what results in omniscience because if a sentience know all things then there aren't any more choices to be made. All outcomes are known.

In being with all things, and knowing all things, at that point it would seem that such an entity would want the best possible outcome for all things; if only because existing with all things this sentience would experience the pain and misery of all reality. In knowing all things it would be possible for this sentience to truly act in a benevolent fashion since it would have the knowledge of how to provide the best outcome. In "completing" omni-benevolence it would either continue on-and-on indefinitely or the whole system would do a massive reset back to nothingness.

In an attempt to figure out which of these two possibilities is more correct it occurred to me "to love something is to lack nothing other than the permanence of the object." So I'm inclined to believe omnibenevolence is likely never-ending.

So even though logic leads me to believe the progression would be:

Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, & finally Omni-benevolence


I have to admit that:
  1. There may be an upper limit of what can be achieved (ie/ might not be possible to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and/or omni-benevolent).
  2. The orderance is dependent on the starting universe that a sentience is begat in.
  3. I only account for 4 out of 24 total permutations based on the "realities" as described in the addendum Fig. 3. So there are 20 other possible arrangements leading to complete God-hood.
  4. These things may occur simultaneously in which case all bets are off.


[edit on 28-11-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
But if reality can be expressed in a mathematical manner, then how could omniscience come to be? Wouldn't Gödel have had to be wrong then? Look for example at the impression given by one physicist, that maybe certain particles evade our attention at LHC because detecting them would create some sort of paradox...So the notion goes, that particles, which can be recreated in a collider travel back in time and disrupt the experiment so as to compromise the outcome... Maybe within our universe, there's that one Schrödingers Cat and we would have to go beyond the boundaries to find out, what is inside



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by thricearound

Originally posted by XtraemeI say 2 = 0 because the opposite of zero isn't complex infinity or undefined. The opposite of zero is all unique instances bounded by infinity.


In laymens' terms, a real is the result of zero devided by zero?


Here's one way I've tried to break this down to make better sense of it:

(1) a + b = a - b =>
(2) b = (a - a) - b =>
(3) 2b = (a - a) =>
(4) b = (a - a) / 2 =>
(5) b = 0

where b = 0 is the additive identity. What many neglect to notice however is that:

(6) a + 3 = a - 3 =>
(7) a = a

Thus,

(8) b is similar to any and all Complex / Real values

Working from step (4) we can solve for 2:

(9) 2 = (a - a) / b or (0 - 0) / 0.

This seems to make no sense, because how can 0 / 0 = 2?

Here's how:

(10) b = (a - a) / 2, (as seen in (4))
(11) 2 = (a - a) / b.

Substitute 2 for b and b for 2. This gives:

(12)


If you notice what this shows is 0/0 ... 0/2. These things are end-points of an infinitely long line!



The formulation of the line is as follows:

(13) (a - b) / c = (a - b) - c. Note that (a-b)-c is the same formulation as seen in (2) and (a-b)/c is the same formulation as seen in (4). Thus, when (a-b) = c^2,
(14) c = c^2 - c, such that c = 0 and c = 2!

The equation that's being observed here is this:



The length of this line can be evaluated as:

(15) Lim c->0 (a-b) / c = Lim c->0 (a - b) - c =>
(16) infinity(a - a) = (a - b)

So this line reflects an infinite length.


So am I wrong to assume the cardinality of reals occures when you extract zero from that which makes all integers quantifiable?


What this seems to show is that 2 as seen in (9) represents all positives as 1 quantity and all negatives as another. Since the additive identity can be shown to be similar to all reals (6) & (7) it's really very easy to understand that it's implicit that 0 / 0 causes disambiguation allowing for these units to be quantitative rather than qualitative.



Oh a question...I apologize by posting sloppy and incoherent $hit in this high-profile discussion, but never mind,


I've greatly enjoyed your comments. They've neither been sloppy nor incoherent.



so your universal set Omega is a after all dedekind-set? I'm simply a little desperate here to contribute to anything...


I have two thoughts on this. The first is that either 0 is a bijective function where all reals & complex numbers represent a set equinumerous to the values found inside 0 as qualitative terms. The second is that the values as inside 0 actually represent several states. Such that they can either be 0 *or* any real or complex number. In this way 0 can be seen as a surjective function (not just a value) that can literally transmute anything in to anything else.

IE/

3 = 0 = 6



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


What about a diminishing value to the effect of scarcity? For instance, if you have a hundred houses built and each one is slightly different, the psychological effect (on the owners) would be congruent with the variance in differences. So while there would only be one original earth, if it came to be we could actually create a planet with negligible difference to the original, the psychological impact would be dimished equally or exponentially to the difference.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by SmokeandShadow]

[edit on 28-11-2009 by SmokeandShadow]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme

It sounds like you're evaluating this from the perspective of 1/x = z where x is a very large number but z is never 0 even though it approaches 0, correct? Which is another way of saying it's only through the statement (Lim x->infinity 1/x = 0) that we achieve entropy of 0.


Maybe "inverse" wasn't the right word to use since that usually implies a constant in the ratio, as you added the "1" above. When you add such constant, you get exactly what Einstein did with his general relativity: E=mcc --> E/cc = m --> cc/E = 1/m --> (Lim Em->infinity 1/Em = 0)

I don't think there is a mathematical way to represent the inverse I mentioned without a constant. By math, a constant forces the infinite not to exist. That is probably why many people that base themselves around math don't believe in an infinite reality and only believe in a limited universal reality. The mathematical inverse makes the probability seem infinitesimal, which is obviously wrong. If it were true, there would be no chaos, and everything would be predictable -- total enslavement by lack of entropy.

Instead of some infinitesimal value, what is more logical to evaluate in the inverse is the total abundance:

In math: Omega-Y = for all X in (Lim X->infinity 1/X = 0)

Here, Omega-Y doesn't equal supreme Omega. This almost proves that we live in a multiverse instead of one universe. The multiverse divides up the abundance in order for each universe to have a part of the whole (entropy). In the multiverse, things aren't so predictable at the universal scale.

Now the question, what is between the universes?





new topics
top topics
 
120
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum