2050? Rediculous. I plan to be intergalactic and who knows how many dimensions exploring the 3 kelvin wormholes spread across the "empty" space, in mass produced ships as cheap as cars, by then.


http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/toward-a-system-of-playdough-like-tools-that-hold-tools-operated-by-reshaping

If people help us get this started, as I havent personally flown higher than a few feet flapping my arms and could really use some researchers and infrastructure related stuff, then I think nanotubes would come just after the planned molecule printer phase, after which is crystals with certain thermodynamic properties to touch the field with.

I dont know your country, so I'll ask... Do you think this expected 10 year war is at least in part due to corporate influence? It has been before for oil, for example. I'm starting a "loan request" which turns into getting them to pay for buying us back our own governments as we repay it by using our then working democratic process to tax them to make the payments (a fair deal I think, since those governments were stolen from the people)... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=791923.0 If not, then please do not blame anyone else for this question. If your government is no longer working for you, why not get it fixed with everyone else in this?

Lethn, yes there are more problems with economies (not necessarily just western I thought, but I dont live in the East), and after you help the people of Earth buy back our governments we can get those fixed through democratic process which we would demand be updated to practical levels using current tech so we can start processes, votes, or however it works on things like that.

Honeypot, we only want back what was taken from us, not their money, and we wont be getting their money. It goes to replace the stolen governments, which clearly are the peoples.

I have demonstrated clear motivation for some of them to help us get this from the others. Its what crony capitalism is all about. Is 100 billion not enough? Or is it that they dont have the ability to get the money out of the others even if the governments help us, who may be motivated to since we would be buying their freedom (and ours) at least more of it. Who is against this? Isnt it less than who would be for it? Lets grease the wheels for all to see, the only time it should be legal, with their own money and make wall street proud of what we've all learned.

Satan666, so you're one of those who will be paying us tax through our governments the way you've been doing it to us?

SecureExchange, "bought already"? Thats not how buying works. It just costs more the next time. Maybe if we offer a few corporations 100 billion dollars each out of the loan, they will help us get the trillions we need. It may be technically illegal, but both of those who have and are about to have money will be buying the government, and by that I mean the people of earth who are supposed to own the governments and whatever it takes I say its ok, and from then on let democracy rule without it.

following the buying back our governments with this loan, we will repay the loan by commanding the governments to tax you more.

The first few corporations who get in on this get taxed less.

Sign your name here...
Ben F Rayfield

Else we'll have to do this the old fashioned way, with the techs coming that nobody will see coming even while they yell it at the world but get ignored until its a reality and then it was obvious, the smartphone was coming, the internet was coming, the robots were coming, printing life forms was coming, building simulated brains was coming.

Also I wrote in a response to... http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/we-cant-beat-the-government

You only have to beat governments and other paradigms currently holding progress back when there is nothing of clear or soon demonstratable at a basic level value to the world that most powers in the world would be to greedy to decline an offer of opensource tech to the world which could soon after going up small scale make every basic tool, piece of simple data, and advanced kind of research and infrastructure eventually, literally wrapped in tools used like playdough designed to use other such tools or hook into anything external an interface defined for, and anyone who doubts this please give 1 good example of something out there now which can not be better understood visually and with some form of grabbable reshapable tool to be designed. A standard interface with ability to grab and think, not the systems itself. I say most of them dont know what their tools are capable of, and anyone who does not find some kind of artificial intelligence (statistical) interface and tool based system able to expand, even if not this one, will eventually find out that Human intelligence is the big animal on this planet and its all around waiting for a place to grab at the world, like by building a plugin of any form they like to be used on screen by anyone anywhere (and security is everyones responsibility not the internet layer's, so build your own within, if they choose to download plugins more than boltzmann and shape tools)... Hard to get started, and thats why it will also be a massively multiplayer paint and pattern based shape system uniquely interesting and open ended as far as the shapes can be trained to understand other shapes and paint our space with them. I summarize this planned user interface layer for any kind of bendable shape with any kind of reactions to bending against it, that a billion people would use any system at all that was neutral, opensource, and believed to be a kind of user interface capable of representing the advanced things and simple things around the world, and I claim in this context only that shapes are definitely as flexible as language and visual thinking and any cross section of data, and from here I point out to everyone that it is coming from many places in various forms, and whichever goes up first will be the one that breaks this global deadlock.... the not on basic tech but still a deadlock on no one organization can get access to all the things they need to do big things, because the paradigm does not motivate everyone to be a tool builder of tools that grab other tools, instead it seeks to grab all the tools for each self and their friends in case we want to steal them from you. There are many who believe we are close to a few discoveries hard to yet imagine, and many of lesser practical value like robot operating systems for what could be a big profit to many who would be freed to find more interesting things to do. I dont think people want to be the robots anymore. We can learn to use our brains in the ways of first simulated tool building just for fun, and when the tech gets good at shapes that can grab and push on other shapes like playdough in simple curves in 2d, I wouldnt be surprised if spoken and written language became the secondary method of communication, as bendable shapes of any definable behaviors and statistical learning would be a far better way to grab at what we now live in an unmanageable ocean of complexity because words and symbols arent up to the task, and because this will be understood quickly and fun to use by most of those who try the first prototype and help develop the potential of shape based tools that use and build tools.

    I've thought about this from many angles, and this has to be the basic interface because nothing else is simple enough for most people to use while also flexible enough to expand as a way to use any kind of tool by eventually using the simpler shapes and programming APIs for hooking shapes to external systems that it would be found useful on a global scale by those who lack the basic tools and would like to help build or organize them and for a variety of other things like the shapes of music wave amplitudes, shapes of scientific data, shapes of letters, words, and whole pages of text (very complicated shape but it can be slithered around like a branching arm to feel the letters if someone hooked in some kind of thinking for it to figure that out faster. Its not google or darpa or wolfram alpha or anything that far along, by design, because its a way to interact with any kind of system or data as a bendable shape and would add extra value to many existing systems in how people could get to them when needed in a way that tools can measure and act on as shapes built to bend and resist bending those ways.

    Any logic can be encoded on the surface of a near sphere simply like curved buttons, but most shapes will be more intuitive and designed for Human ways of thinking in the places we would put a collection of such tools for download. If you want a search engine for such tools, you'd have to build it from the more basic logic in available shapes or hooks to external code or systems if necessary and if you can get others to download your code, because nobody should trust anything that runs outside the system just because its in the system. Tools would have to be used to touch other tools in certain ways, or to use a special tool on them designed to ask certain kinds of questions in the form of shapes.

    If a good shape and bendable behaviors of it (when pushed on those places or places their boltzmann logic is hooked to) cant be found for something, it can of course be represented as the shape of bits or known letter shapes along the surface bumping up from a circle, which it would have to be taught how to both observe and push up those shapes from a part of its surface when that data should appear.

    The data structure of a shape is a 1d curve around a blob which can get ever smaller in each local part to grab smaller things, and larger flat or bell curve shaped sections when detail is not needed. Each of the points on the surface has a choice of 2 bits (or n bits for n dimensions later, but its still a stringlike curve there) which choose to move the surface onward from there up or down 1 pixel, and the other bit is left or right 1 pixel, which generates perfect circles and bell curves in the limit of many such back and forth moves in 2 dimensions. Shapes would normally be operated with lots of stretchyness left and smaller than necessary so there are lots of such choices at each point of where to move it and by what precise angle.

    Since it can handle angles, even before it has the mind to know what to do with complex shapes, it can be an interface for any kind of signal processing, manifolds, or virtual reality interface for your hands wrapped in this virtual material (cross sections of it, can expand to 3d or more if needed) to grab and use objects in the system, or earlier would use multitouch screens or mouse, and I hope to later hook into tech of the mind at the boltzmann statistics level and viewing itself as 2d shapes of cross sections of brainwaves or feature vectors or whatever people put into it.

    Its supposed to be a form of communication, not all the tech to do it internally but it will have a few necessary advanced pieces for basic ability to grab at the other shapes and store some data about them when learned, and to bring it back up somehow through what other shapes could access with controls on their surface. If you want a certain person in the network, the shape they are currently using could be made available if their network is set up to broadcast and could be attempted to bend their shape in certain locations designed by them or others who build shapes for them, which they may see and cause their shape to respond differently to such a push, by using the boltzmann variables as applying to the 2 bit variables per edge between points, and then their view of the system or their tools set up to watch for such a pattern could interact with the incoming call, maybe to set up a binary stream for any other system or to grab at some local shape or get a copy of it.

    First it would have to be taught how to play with squares, triangles, circles, things like that, and build up from there to bendable shapes containing boltzmann or other logic, and soon some practical systems would find representations in intuitive playdough-like tools which could be passed around the internet like text is today.

    3d printers, including a circuit printer design at opensourceecology, and quadcopters, and lots of other interesting systems are coming up and accessible to ordinary people, but theres so far no way to get them to do anything interesting or to know what interesting things are possible. Wolfram Cloud seems to be a good place to hook in some early scientific tools as he's the guy who discovered Rule110 of computing theory and builds tools to understand the world and math, if you pay for his credits, but that would be between you and him as what I'm planning here is mainly a user interface with a hole to hook in pieces of simulated minds and other tools. Just for example. I'm going for something we could use to teach artificial intelligence design and science in elementary school by direct access, and following that level of being easy to use, to understand with better tools how to operate a grid of molecule printers and build some crystals of certain thermodynamic properties to grab the unified field using a network of tools grabbing eachother from our screens down to the shape of the field, and see what it is and what can be done with it.

    Its no joke that darpa funded research of a device designed to reach into hyperplanes of spacetime, even though their results were inconclusive. They also spent a half million dollars at least on people making proposals how to build a faster than light ship. So I am not the only one who thinks we are underusing what we have, even if its just a place to shape playdough-like blobs into interesting patterns and virtual worlds for some time.

    Theres a bunch of simulated minds out there which could explore such a space of using everything as shapes, because this paradigm of representing everything as text and other complexity is too much to imagine.

    I will be taking a break from these kind of things but will get to it when having more time to do it right instead of as I have been trying to get something on screen to prove the concept. It wasnt the right way to interact with the system, but there were valuable parts for the mind and shapes to hook in later.

This is a serious potential plan. I and whoever may join and agree to the following definition of our organization, are the first members of the church.

The church of economic warfare formally declares economic war using money on every country whose law recognizes this declaration as a peaceful act, and we commit to never do any act of economic war on any country who recognizes this as the use of a munition on them, because the legal category munitions list is where each country lists the things which they consider dangerous or acts of war, and when the church of economic warfare finds that, as a conscious choice of a country, they live by the law that we are not using munitions of any kind and therefore are not attacking them, then we are at peace with all countries by their own definition of the things we use toward that peace. If any country would request that the church of economic warfare end their formal declaration, and hopefully real damage to their economies and other things to be expected of real economic warfare, then we will be happy to comply with your updated law which states that our previously peaceful items used on you are now considered the tools of war, specificly whats legally in the munitions list. Here at the church of economic warfare, we believe in obeying the laws of all countries, and toward that peaceful relationship we are happy to provide this formal declaration and real plans to crash your economies and similar things as long as your law recognizes this as a peaceful act, and we would like feedback on how well we are serving your peaceful and explicitly non-munition way of organizing your country by our generous efforts to perform real economic warfare using money on your country, and if we could economic warfare on you any better, please let us know, because we would be happy to use bitcoin, namecoin, ethereum, maidsafe, and anything else possibly relevant to crash your economies and bankrupt your citizens in the way you like best. If however your country wants to ask us to not do something which is legal and peaceful in your country, then for legal reasons of proving you said so to the other countries, we can only end the economic war using money on your country when your law recognizes which parts of our actions are war-like instead of peaceful which the law still says, and we are confused and need this legal clarification for all to see. Basically, everyone who joins the church of economic warfare always acts peacefully and never uses munitions, and as a courtesy to each country we use their legal definitions of what is peaceful and what is a munition. So even though every member of the church of economic warfare must use money in the ways of economic warfare on every country which defines this as a peaceful act, we respect the laws of every country and peace and we would never break any countrys laws if we can help it or act with any more force than necessary, but if a country recognizes what we and others and any reasonable person might interpret as force or a munition or a tool of war, if the country we are currently committing economic warfare on using money defines this as a peaceful act, we accept your strange choice but can take no responsibility to the lost value to your economy if your law says its allowed. A war that uses no munitions is no war at all. We will answer any charges related to our completely legal acts of economic warfare, and our first question to the court will be to produce the munitions used in these supposed acts of war, and of course since we obey your laws there will be none among our peaceful tools. Other countries however, for good reason, do not think its ok for us to commit real economic warfare using money on them, and to make this clear to us their law says money is a munition, and we respect their law so we do not use money as a munition on them, only on those who recognize it as a peaceful act. ... Or to get more to the point of this bizarre strategy and paradox, the church of economic warfare believes that money is, in many countries, intentionally labelled as a peaceful tool instead of a munition to avoid accountability when they used the (legally) peaceful tool and actually (munition), and the mission of the church of economic warfare is to prove to the world by real example of crashing the economies of everyone who declares this is a peaceful act that it is actually not a peaceful act, but legally it is peaceful until categorized as a munition. ... Following the recognizing of what money actually is by a majority of countries, I recommend to all members of the church of economic warfare to refuse to use, trade, or interact with in any way any munition, and this includes paying any tax which is charged in units of munitions, because as a church it is against our peaceful mission to give anyone munitions. However if a country truly believes money is not a munition, then that country waives the right to respond to any act of economic war using money on that country as if we were using munitions on them, as if we had actually committed an act of war, because if a countrys law declares that money is not a munition, then we believe you while we are under your law. Please choose definitions of important words carefully.

a most bizarre paradox

please do take this seriously because I fully intend to raise what some may call an army except respectfully obeying all countries laws and this army of economic warfare will to the best of their ability recruit new members and crash the economies and bankrupt the citizens of every country which recognizes this as a peaceful act. Admit the truth in court or accept this damage to your economy as our right under your law to use non-munitions in peaceful ways that your country formally approves of. We will not be falling for any laws which contradict eachother like one may say economic warfare is illegal while another says money is not a munition, and we take the legal position that any act which uses no munitions is not part of any war and entirely peaceful and respectful. You are a target. Thank you for recognizing our legal right to target you with our money.

Would anyone like to join the church of economic warfare?

I want to formally register the church of economic warfare as a nonprofit charity where all donations go toward real economic warfare, trying to crash the economies and bankrupt the citizens, of every country which recognizes this as a peaceful act. We hope this will spark debate on the true definition of money, if it is a munition or not, and for each country to live by their choice of law as we will, and in phase 2 we will make clear to the world, as we have said from the beginning, that our mission is incompatible with the use, trade, or interacting with in any way any munition, and this includes paying any tax which is charged in units of munitions. We will be happy to pay any tax which does not involve the transfer of munitions through us.

Thought about it more, and it appears very likely that Economic Soliton theory applies, which describes waves moving from some industries to other industries in a bell curve shape, like when you whip a rope and it travels at constant speed. The first person to observe and write about soliton waves followed it on his horse for miles in a narrow road with rock walls with shallow water. He said it widened over the miles but mostly kept its shape and speed, which is very surprising for people who theorize that water has friction against itself (superfluid vacuum theory applies even in ordinary water). How else could it be that the same shape of water could travel miles and remain a bell curve (and a little longer back to front)? If it worked with the taxes and complexity of our economic equations, it would probably diverge into fractal weather patterns and jump around, similar to WaveSim "integrating the schrodinger wave equation" 1 dimensional java applet on a ring of a power of 2 complex numbers updating even/odd pairs in one cycle then odd/even pairs alternating cycles (which appears probably related to the recursion of cooley tukey FFT)... When the default setup is changed only slightly, it jumps around exponentially divergently until it explodes exceeding the range of the floating points, similar to how the fourier of a bell curve is another bell curve, but the fourier of a bell curve and slight randomness or 2 bell curves looks nothing like a bell curve. Bell curves are 1 dimension of a view of hypersphere, as every hyperbell has a 1 lower dimensional hypersphere of constant density at each radius, and on the radius a perfect bell curve e^(stdDev^2/2)/sqrt(2*pi) scaled by number of dimensions, but we can use stdDev as the unit of distance and, it appears very similar probably related somehow, length contraction appears to be a function of number of dimensions of hypersphere which various continuously (see function for surface/volume of nsphere and continuous approximation of it, and limiting to exact as dimensions limit to infinity (a sphere is slightly less than 2 dimensions if you cant crush a flat paper onto it, instead getting a wrinkle of dimension somewhere, while equally correct it can be bent convex or concave in any combinations, so number of dimensions of manifold is similar to a real number, and more accurately is a set of points with an economic relation between each pair, which appears to be the time in the complex numbers rotating when its better strategy to buy/sell in one direction than another, but as Travelling Salesman (not exactly because its multiply instead of sum but its not exactly multiply either because of the graph shape with directed edges. Still fitting the pieces of this theory together, but I'm almost certain that my tensor matrix is clique shaped instead of flat affine transform. I have an equation that explains part of that.

The Amount Of Dimension (aod) equation:

aod(thisVector) = aod(thisVector)/sumForEachVectorIncludingSelf(aod(thatVector)*dotProductBetweenThisVectorAndThatVector^2), where all vectors are unit length and real numbers (no complex, but it appears I should add that somewhere for the time).

The converging algorithm form is the same code except you set aod(eachVector) to the right side of the equation at the same time for all vectors and repeat approximately log (a few hundred cycles, and sometimes it doesnt converge all the way but gets really close, and very important is that it always has an exact solution for hypersphere harmonics like 17 unit vectors spread around even angles, like in ring math, and higher dimensional rings like the 4 directions of diamond or the directions of carbon atoms in buckyball from its center (which has slightly higher gravity because they are near).

What does aod do? Its amount of dimension. It converges to the sum of aod of all vectors equals the integer number of dimensions those unit vectors are embedded in, if its exactly balanced, else when you add more random vectors it gets more accurate toward the number of dimensions. Randomness makes it more accurate, the opposite of what you'd expect, but you still have to keep track of the integer number of dimensions the vectors are embedded in, something I've been searching for a long time how to do relatively, and I think the gametheory between an infinite manifold where each 2 adjacent points are 2 kinds of money with trading ratio (of the best strategy to keep fluid all at the same level) being entropy kind of time, more possible states in one direction than another, like there are more possible futures where central currencies accelerate in influence on the global economy and push against new currencies sucking value out of them. I think the best thing for everyone who wants more valuable things for themself and without even one person losing more than they get in market value, is a superfluid simulation as an infinitely divisible manifold with tensor matrix having edges of type best trading rate between 2 infinitely small currency types.

The tensor matrix as an undirected graph with entropy based time defined by trading strategy, is like the relativity equations when used in triangle form, and it also has a continuous loop, and continuous manifold form, as closed loop covering potentially every node like Travelling Salesman... not exactly travelling salesman because it multiplies instead of adds, and not exactly multiplies because its a little more shaped as clique than perpendicular dimensions, so probably not BQP (which I only vaguely understand as what they say quantum computers do with limits of uncertainty statistically approached with very cold manifold circuits) and not NPComplete. I think its a new complexity class most similar to how Poincare conjecture was proven with bending the 3-sphere surface continuously and finding it the same shape, except dimensions at each point vary continuously instead of integer 3 exactly.

Automorphic shapes like buckyball and all except the outer layers of diamond or any other crystal (do they wrap around if shifted by one atom and near zero kelvin fusioned? If we could do it that accurately? As I see it, one atom is equal to another except for location, so overlap is a NO-OP except the edges which would each have a half atom hanging off of now 1 more layer of atoms than it had... In other words, graphene might become carbon nanotube if superpositioned and collapsed onto itself one atom offset, as a permanent twist seen as a closed tube. Doesn't it have some strange properties in that tube? Its automorphic of the number of polymer around the ring. Automorphisms are not unique quantum states because you cant tell them apart, except for what caused them to shift by n atoms around. Related to "it always has an exact solution for hypersphere harmonics like 17 unit vectors spread around even angles, like in ring math". Cliques are as automorphic as sphere of that many dimensions (number of nodes in the clique with econ strategy relation between each pair) except for connecting to the nodes outside the clique in nonsymmetric ways.

The practical use of this theory, and prototype software I hope to get on the Internet soon in a very basic form, would be the precision ability to navigate economic soliton waves using geodesics between as many black holes orbiting eachother and rotating as there are central currency types, with smaller black holes continuously as the various feature vectors that describe our world, like the paradigm of repeating things on 7 day cycles, the 1 day cycle of Earth's orbit which sleep and other scheduling causes small economic changes, the year long repeated patterns of holidays birthdays, and recursively the basic theory of astrology that the movement of large objects in space affects patterns of events, I-Ching as the patterns of coins landing are quantum pigeonholed into not enough states to be independent of events in the world entangled with the observation of the coins caused by deciding to act based on how they land. Its all gravity, in continuous dimensions.

There is nothing intelligent about superfluid falling to its own surface level, bending into continuous dimensions on pigeonholed automorphisms being interchangible except for how they touch the nonautomorphic parts of the world outside (the process of double slit branching is not symmetric, but the superpositioned state is a n-sphere as n limits to infinity and 3-sphere locally has the same topology as any other number of dimensions.

Nash Equilibrium will almost certainly occur continuously if the system works as described here and motivates people to observe eachother's potentially dangerous actions (like pulling real world value from third world countries by "negative distance" loop that profits just by trading in a circle then the imbalance is consumed and others hold it more stable as they predict to avoid you taking their value again which their not paying attention allowed to happen. Nash Equilibrium is a continuous manifold, an event horizon, in the timeless view. Its timeless because nobody has a reason to change their strategy, the definition of Nash Equilibrium.

Central currencies are the same shape as black holes, in the space of possibilities its that shape, which we see as spaghettification between people and businesses and countries and overspecialization without enough overlap of skills and generalists, which are pushed by market force and government threats to route their "tradable perception of value" (my definition of money) through the systems designed to keep us from falling into any of the black holes (like the currency of specific parts of the world and what its generally used for) and more than that to keep the black holes from colliding by oscillating the economy in a mostly blind search for local geodesics. I'm hoping this theory and research into a practical simulation soon based on gametheory, will be the most accurate model of economic soliton theory upgraded with relativity and loop quantum gravity (the loops of trading that whoever first notices can get money for free because others let the economy destabilize).

Anyone acting alone could potentially use this, if it works as I expect, to crash the global economy with an efficiency hard to imagine, a dangerous ability for some to have but entirely safe when everyone has it, because the same gametheory can be used recursively to cause people to watch eachother doing potentially dangerous things. There's a minimalist gametheory called "punish the nonpunishers", where anyone observing bad actions of another is just as guilty as them for not reporting it to the world (whistleblowing in the most extreme and far too aggressive form) and would be reacted to by anyone observing this "letting it slide" by some negative action (such as posting to facebook you suck because you did this thing, or in cases of military industrial complex by building new kinds of gametheory to land on the spaghettification by being so balanced in all directions that none can get spaghettified first).

So here's my theory of how to build a flying saucer or high dimensional recursive radio is more technical... Balance the manifold around you so well that no part can be spaghettified first, even by the small gravity of a planet. It must therefore rise as repelled by the curved space which it cant fit in because it has a different number of dimensions. For the same reason, if it can be balanced even more accurately and held there with more power, theoretically not even a nuclear explosion could penetrate the slightly balanced spacetimequbitdimensions you balanced around you in all directions and would instead cause spherical harmonics which is probably why ball lightning can pass through solid objects while near invisible. The other and more important to understand way to describe the balanced manifold around you is neither concave or convex and is a massless black hole at the limit of zero size and equal to flat space except for containing you which is not exactly flat. Lightspeed is the border between convex and concave. Theres a video on youtube of turning a sphere inside out, which I imagine is somehow related. Think of it like tapping tiny nails into the stretched parts of your curved space in a way that balances it, very weak everywhere locally, but eggs and other spherelike shapes are strong as a whole object, also similar to the arch as a parabola. depending on which ways you're being pulled.

This would be modelled using my aod equation and converging algorithm form combined with random searches for closed loops that profit without contributing anything to the world except to take from people who didnt put enough effort into balancing the world. As a statement of efficient gametheory, I recommend to everyone to either punish with least necessary force (which may be just speaking badly in public) or preferably solve the thoughts or other causes of the unbalance, and the same to anyone who says "its not my problem", because it is their problem if we punish them for not solving the worlds problems which includes ours and their problems. The econ physics theory is a tool to cause such changes with precision, if it works like I think it will to simulate a continuous dimensional superfluid of trading strategy between each 2 infinitely small points which are each a different kind of money and a vector including related kinds of money which is how the manifold connects to itself in many dimensions as undirected graph data structure with trading strategy edges.

It is not necessary to whistleblow like wikileaks or fly planes into buildings or hack the NSA's computers, which is like beating a black hole with a hammer when you can use a manifold simulation to balance your local shape so its nowhere any more bendable than anywhere else, like Bose Condensate falling into not enough quantum states for the particles to have individual existence so they act together piling up quickly in a bellcurve like shape in the center. Terrorism is a waste of time when continuous Nash Equilibrium can suck as much real world value out of wall street and militaries and governments as the people of earth see as balanced and efficient toward our preferred futures. Economic warfare is a great deterrent to potential terrorism like the lack of accountability of various robot armies operated by nobody knows exactly who or how to report them to their boss. If this works as expected, and it will be only a basic prototype on the internet soon hopefully, the military and lobbying and other forms of sucking value away from the people will be continuously flowed into a manifold of kinds of money at each 2 adjacent points, in the same shape as a very weak warp field depending on how much effort people put into it, how much market force and value people find in 7 billion different kinds of money (or however many continuous points added and deleted as needed) which, in terms of AI theory, are feature vectors, and in terms of physics are moving objects with gravity and time.

There is no immediate path from moving to timeless because Nash Equilibrium can only be slid through continuously, else there would be a reason for someone to change their strategy.

I expect astrology, I-Ching, Wikipedia, Pagerank, and scientific data of the positions and shapes of large objects in space, will be found as useful predictors of economic patterns, as in economic soliton theory, moving objects being a bunch of solitons gravity near eachother. There is nothing religious about the movements of large objects in space influencing patterns of events, which happens on day and year intervals because people plan around repeated patterns and the physics of it being superfluid gravity falling to its surface level in continuous number of dimensions (undirected graph tensor matrix or integer number of steps in the loop to profit by others laziness). Also, since an integer number of buys/sells in each loop, continuously as it limits to infinity, is a continuous manifold, the cardinality of integers exceeds the cardinality of reals in the way the number of dimensions is self referencing as the graph edges are trading strategy between pairs of points.

Should look into the nondimensional schrodinger equation which I still find their symbols confusing but have put some of it together from various sources.

In the space of all possibilities, a superfluid falls to the actions which lead to its lowest energy state, effectively computing all the automorphisms at once if its exactly simulated, but it cant be exactly simulated with a finite number of points even while they are able to divide the manifold infinitely continuous like a 3-sphere can locally have more, equal, or less than 3 dimensions continuously.

A black hole looks like a large number of points with the same scalar weight between them in Nash Equilibrium, and each such point's aod (amount of dimension) is 1/(number of points - 1) in the incomplete model of aod which may need to be expanded with complex numbers andOr recursively as the nsphere rotates from convex to flat to concave (or the opposite), as you can see that video of turning a sphere inside out on youtube (something like that), and I'm not sure how to build the system to do that but that's the math of it. The main computing of it is the gametheory of trading between pairs of kinds of money and vectors of amounts of those, considering many randomly searched loops and evolution of combinations of loops (see how 2 loops swap 2 lines to join or the opposite in the physics pages of wikipedia), searched by max clique of which are compatible with eachother, and representing the search for max clique or close to it (we can allow approximations if you dont mind extra decaying and entropy) as NAND forests andOr boltzmann machines, like Bitcoin searches for a consistent model of the block chain putting some together and rejecting others.

I define money as "any tradable perception of value". Since I do not offer my perceptions for trade, only my actions toward valuable products and services, there is a possible exception to scalar numbers being defined as money which occurs at exact Nash Equilibrium where incoming and outgoing money amounts are always equal and therefore are a NO-OP, like the local way of transferring debt between people or organizations which trust eachother up to certain money amounts used in the Ripple money system, at least the original version of it as I watched their video years ago before they hooked into a variety of kinds of money. Maybe Ripple would be interested in this kind of gametheory and manifold based motivation. Isnt it interesting how you can define something as money or not by your own definitions, as long as you are accurately describing what you think it is, when others can't agree on a definition of money? Wouldn't they have to define it as money before regulating it? As a physics simulation, its not money, but there are ways of using it that it is money. Theres nothing about it that makes it either money or not money, except how people use it, maybe with the line being the use of digital signatures to sign your transactions instead of anonymous points on a physics manifold looking for its own fluid level. I would be interested to see anyone try to regulate physics, like taxing a star or gamma rays as they pass by.

Also something not much important to the theory and coming prototype, but recursive signal processing which vibrates the dimensionless manifold occurs in nature, including in a kind of plant deep in the ocean which receives a photon once per 30 minutes and uses quantum behaviors in rings of polymer to route it to a specific place to use it to move atoms. Precision quantum nanotech occurs in nature so must be doable with machines of some kind. Someone should look into possible quantum computing based on that kind of plant (polymer rings flow superpositioned photon). A superposition is automorphisms existing as one thing without the property of dimension which solves the problem of choosing which side of the dimension to start at. By occams razor, I have no use for the hypothesis that dimensions exist. Graph theory with trading strategy between pairs is a better model.

The sum of C^2 coins each as -1 or 1 has a standard deviation exactly C, for any integer C^2. See spiral of Theodorus for a spiral including all such triangles with a side of 1. Reminds me of some parts of zeta function but its hard to imagine as I cant much visualize complex exponents. Should look into if its continuous or if it goes 1 unit at a time. Distance between approximate rings of spiral approaches pi in the limit of C^2 coins is infinity coins. These coin flips are a way to think of the zigzagging through pascals triangle, as coins derive bell curves derive circles/spheres/hyperspheres and statistics in general. Difference in number of possible states is entropy force of time, as pairs of points motivate trading when any loop exists which pays whoever finds it without doing any work except finding it, so I guess searching the permutation number of loops (divided by size of the loop as it could be done by any point in the loop) does count as work... observing/computing toward balancing the economy manifold is a valuable service provided by the dimensionless fluid which is too stupid to do anything except fall downhill, or provided by intelligent minds competing to fit their loop of trades into the block chain before others trade in a way that would require a database rollback except as merkle forest like subversion (SVN).

We may find an equation of the ratio between market force and energy, as the more strategicly you search for profitable loops, the lower energy the manifold is in total.

Probably too early to say, but P vs NP may be answered by gravity, at least statistically in how the gametheory of trading between pairs of points should converge to a clique of interchangible trading ratios where no money can be made by trading in a circle or any other pointless actions. Since gametheory approaches turingComplete but must act after a short time else the tiger will eat you while you're computing all possible ways it might move to infinite precision, gametheory is at most NPComplete which is the finite size version of turingComplete which may go on forever. For example, if a majority of voters predicted that same majority would vote for a certain third party but only if the others do too, it is solvable in linear time to make a list of who announces they will do that, and for those who lie as a recursive strategy, that is a well explored part of gametheory normally handled by punishing (or rewarding less, however you say a derivative of goal function) those who less help us figure out what they're going to do and force others to predict with less accuracy what they might do and spend more resources handling multiple possible cases, an aggressive Sun Tzu strategy even while literally peaceful, keeping the people of Earth ignorant of our possible futures and whats happening on our planet is dangerous if those trying to handle possible dangers for us don't have accurate enough models of the world, like a theoretical gravity based economic soliton theory to signal process orbits of central currencies around eachother and smaller feature vectors outward from them continuously. I don't have all the answers, but the global economy shouldnt be handled only by those currently in an accelerating arms race over tech thats not going to be the major influence, the coming global brains merging AI and people in various ways, and potential more accurate simulations of physics and economics as a manifold. A gametheory paradox motivating its own expansion.

Everyone should have their own kind of money backed by their valuable service or products which they often, but not always and not guaranteed, choose to trade for their own kind of currency because they know thats where its value comes from, as predicted by many people talking to eachother about your past performance and value of your currency.

Unlike stocks, a global economy of 7 billion kinds of money should be traded directly with eachother in all pairs, sparsely when people or AIs see the need. Something is lost by requiring stockX be traded for dollars then trade dollars for stockY, instead of trading directly between stockX and stockY. In the simplest case, I call this the triangle inequality, and more generally in any closed loop. The trading ratio per unit of each currency can both change at the same rate relative to dollars, euros, etc, while the trading ratio directly between those 2 can change even while their real world value, if there is such a thing, is changing equal to eachother. Such a loop allows anyone able to trade, up to the current amounts of each currency pair trade offered (bottlenecked by the smallest), to profit without contributing any product or service to the world as its normally measured, but its important for many people to greedily trade on such loops as soon as they're found, on the most profitable loops (Travelling Salesman of NPComplete, which has a million dollar millenium prize out for proving it is or is not efficiently solvable in the worst case, and generally is thought P not equal NP but its uncertain how close you can optimize)... A global economy of 7 billion currency types directly traded with eachother in pairs offering a certain amount of one in trade for a certain amount of another specific type, should converge to Nash Equilibrium as the clique of currencies, or at least fully connected by many paths without being a full clique (which is another kind of NPComplete), leaks profit to anyone who finds and first uses a loop of "negative distance" (so dijkstra shortest path is disallowed because of its constraint of no negative weight loops), which would be a problem if such profit generating loops could be reused without changing the trading ratio (like that valley-like graph of bitcoins trading ratio with dollars on mtgox). Instead, anyone who blocks a path between any 2 currency types, like by excessive complexity of transmitting money between dollars and bitcoins, will find that fluids fall to a constant surface level, over time.

Bitcoin and Namecoin, and a few others probably out there somewhere, are alone and unable to function in an economy built on ancient ways of keeping the world safe at least in theory, so flow has been cut off between 2 large parts of the world, like building a dam in a river. General computing and secure math frameworks like ethereum may be a good platform to build things like this on, as its meant for scaling up to any number of currencies.

Everyone's amount of money should be a many dimensional vector, not just a scalar number of usually 1 kind.

The most important value to the world of this new paradigm (coming from a variety of systems and people already working toward things like it) is that everyone could sell pieces of their time or thought or agreement to get something valuable done, to many people around the world and have them trade it with eachother (in units of 7 billion other currency types) as its trading ratio gives you a "raise" instead of asking for more of one or a few central currencies which are mostly set in value so you can't make more than 200k dollars per year without starting a business. What is a business except people working together to get important things done? Congress of USA may have the authority to regulate the value of money within their borders, but bitcoin and every new currency from now on is global, potentially even satellite or n dimensional P-brane depending where our infrastructure reaches later. If we send AI agents up to a network of satellites or google loon flying internet routers, are we in the borders of USA? Not sure, so just in case we could pay taxes in units of our own currency without using any dollars etc, which we hold huge amounts of and can distribute it however we like (by mining it early if bitcoin model).

Money is any tradable perception of value. Perception is thought. Its dangerous to let others pay you to think something you don't understand, so its not entirely unjustified to prevent anonymous movement of tradable perception of value, but it is a danger to our continued survival for powerful organizations to hide their actions and movements of money while building intelligent robot armies operated, as far as the people of Earth can know, anonymously except knowing the organizations name. Money laundering is money laundering regardless of who does it or for what reason, and the people of Earth should not stand by while an arms race accelerates powered by the military industrial complex with central currency in a "negative distance" loop. Theres a reason the global economy nearly crashed multiple times in recent years: money laundering justified by "national security". Not to rock that boat, I think we should let them continue doing exactly that, while 7 billion currency types open the flood gates to fair trading, except for whatever taxes in the form of those 7 billion currency types people would pay to governments if required, at least until a better economic model is agreed on. I expect Wall Street and others skilled at high dimensional prediction and data mining and prediction of global trends, will see the value in trading in units of everyone's individual currency and maybe a few thousand bigger blobs of currency, for the same reason that when USA bans commercial flying drone delivery of packages the research moves to other countries first. Maybe its a good move not to build nukes because other countries might be building nukes, as an analogy to flying drones everywhere possibly carrying dangerous things anonymously, but the difference is theres a legitimate use of flying thinking machines other than weapons, so no agreement of cooperation in gametheory can prevent the continued research somewhere. When evolution of thinking machines and global brains is outlawed, only outlaws (in some country which gives themself permission) will have flying thinking machines. Clearly a new way of organizing the efforts of large groups of people toward common goals and many individual goals is needed, one that motivates people to watch eachother possibly doing dangerous things and move market force to handle it. See new computing and money systems in action, not theoretical.

Merkle forests (trees), like in bitcoin and ethereum, are a general data structure able to represent anything normally done in computers or democracy or communication. Like Wikipedia has more influence on the world than voting and possibly more than all the central currencies together, while this is not seen by most people because the nature of wikipedia is very near neutral and chooses not to act and would stop being valuable to people some time after losing neutrality, perception of value, what motivates people to work together to get big things done, is a right not a privilege to choose to value specific possible futures and work toward them more than valuing any specific measure of our perception of value. In other words, if billions of people together decided to not go to work or think central currencies are so valuable, the thought makes it real, and it can be done with a continuous Nash Equilibrium like bitcoin started worth near nothing in trading ratio. If I have a choice, I don't want to work with just 1 business at a time, like they own me or are renting my whole efforts 40 hours a week. I want people to trade currency backed by my answering technical questions, building small pieces of code, finding unnecessary complexity, telling them about new techs they'll be using years later so maybe get started early. Every person on this planet might find they are worth more than an entire central currency when there becomes fluid competition, even while paying those 7 billion currency types to governments in exchange for consuming their services within their borders. When people start to really talk to eachother in terms of shared data structures like lists of URLs and other datastructs, able to represent any logic, they may find value in agreeing with most of the billions of other people that existing land owners, like governments and corporations, have been too long paying no rent to the people of Earth, if people could ever agree on anything on a large scale instead of having others think for them.

A computing grid fast and large enough decentralized memory to simulate a Human brain, if we knew more accurately what brains do, costs billions of dollars, or in the high millions depending on how much detail is simulated, just statistical bit variables with scalar weights on pairs or the timing and biology and axon branching shapes, depending on how well you understand the parts you want to simulate. We dont simulate stringtheory of protein folding if we just want the statistical clustering like Google Sets and how random objects remind you of things from years ago (associative memory). The market value of a simulation of a Human brain should be the same as the market value of a real Human brain, except people think they dont like to do the job of computers, which these days is very creative and artistic and open ended with some hard logic holding it together, and because we are bottlenecked in communication brain to brain and brain to computer, even people with brain chips only get a few thousand dimensions, compared to 100 billion neurons with thousands of connections each. There is serious potential in using Emotiv Epoc or OpenEEG mind reading game controllers (observes electricity waves) with a global restricted/layered boltzmann machine to find patterns and let us communicate (as timothy learey talked about new forms of language all across the world most havent imagined) in whatever combinations and amounts we want to at the time, and then turn it off like any other game. 100 billion neurons multiplied by billions of people, bottlenecked by the bandwidth of screen keyboard and mouse, is still more than enough to fly past all the supercomputers and AI grids on the planet together, because brains are still the biggest smartest computers. Everyone computes at least millions of floating point multiplies and affine transforms just by observing the 3d world around you while walking by, and then theres many times more neurons for specific patterns in the neocortex layers of patterns that observe and act on more detailed specific patterns recursively, similar to a boltzmann machine. We could build a bandwidth limited very weak form of borg collective, with an IQ so high you should call it another species, which I like to call the Internet our exocortex or metacortex, a layer of brain hooking into any number of places wherever the infrastructure may make available. Brain chips and borg implants are very fictional. Emotiv Epoc uses signal processing to see a little into your head by the electricity on your skin, very low bandwidth compared to a brain, but I imagine if we got some tesla coils and digital radio transmitters or something like that and aimed a bunch of them at your head in just the right way, ball lightning might make a good manifold to entangle with electricity waves and maybe up and down quarks (protons and neutrons, not sure how the details of the particle types attract or repel in all those dimensions) in the brain. If you throw a bunch of small ball lightnings at eachother in balance, you should get a spherical harmonic like electron clouds in atoms, and might need to be careful about what it does in the center if it balances too well... what do you call a spherical harmonic with that many electrons, if its balanced in the middle even a small fraction? Uranium has just over 100 protons. Ball lightning, if it causes even a small amount of up and down quark clustering in a small area in its center, would be an atom type so large you'd have to refer to its number in scientific notation. Why does it smell like burned sulfer when ball lightning explodes after being stable for some time? Is it the sulfur in the air? Probably so. Is any part of it fusion from the near ball shaped manifold? Don't know. The important reason to explore ball lightning as a manifold interface for computers is its been observed turning invisible or near invisible and moving through solid objects. I know people who have seen one, which followed their car for a minute then moved up into the sky, probably attracted to the metal (rubber tires open circuit to the ground?) or maybe the wind the car pushes (very subtle reasons it might move or stay mostly still. Physicists may object to calling ball lightning a manifold, but everything is part of the unified field which is a continuous manifold, which can be approximately described as quanta but actually is high dimensional vibrations. A grid of Human brains, of those who connect into the network whenever they like then turn it off while others continue, would solve the contradictions between quantum and relativity in about as much time as it takes to simulate an ordinary analog circuit, because computers are constraint solvers. Its not a matter of if it can be solved, because its a fact that it will hill climb in order of more statistical accuracy of the curve fitting, while the only uncertain part is can the physicists tell the computer what their theories are in terms the computer can understand instead of mindlessly calculate. In the context of AI, physicists havent really asked the computers for a solution. They've tried to solve it on their own with some help on the vectors and manifolds. You have to know where to look for the solution, which is within the set of equations that fit on one line of text, from which more complex vibrations would be derived. I cant think that way and you cant, at least not yet, but computers think in billions of dimensions like we think in 3. I want to explore using a few billion of my neurons as dimensions of electricity amounts of the brainwaves, to represent high dimensional puzzles, but for now we are bottlenecked by screen keyboard mouse and low bandwidth mind reading devices. What is the market value of each person? For now, or at least soon, its the value of prediction they can add to stabilizing the global economy and planning of what to put resources into. We will know this is happening when everyone has enough food and militaries stop accelerating, because there are far more efficient ways to get to our preferred possible futures. Everyone on the neural grid might intuitively understand protein folding in many dimensions including the curled up dimensions and the variety of "higgs fields" which they say come in an unlimited variety of shapes, which I take to mean that dimensions are built by vibrations that dont sync with other vibrations and can be done as easily as allocating variables and printing them with grids of radio transmitters and ball lightning manifolds. I dont understand exactly how the manifold is shaped, but I am not delusional enough to think it cant be vibrated by anywhere you grab it, by any molecules or stretched solitons, because every wave has a few basic things in common, that they move like fluids except without much friction if any. I cant build a new kind of power source, but I can build something that will learn to do it by high dimensional curve fitting and grids of minds thinking to eachother. I dont think time travel is possible except in the rarest of cases like unmixing 2 similar fluids (entropy), but I also am not obsessed with 3 specific dimensions when we can make as many as we want with vibrations that dont sync with eachother (perpendicular, like qubits). I hope we can eventually get such a gravity based infrastructure built, because theres exploring and inventing and new ways of thinking to do. As a shortterm product compared to that, we might get a grid of ball lightnings to measure gravity, as they're very near sphere shaped enough to turn invisible and move through solid objects. The density of electron (vibrations) would be slightly different in the direction of gravity, and probably some kinds of spiralling too like you see in your bathtub drain. We need a global brain grid, like the EEG mind reading game controllers but more bandwidth, to operate such an infrastructure. Its ok not to use all the electrons as accurate qubits as long as you can use them together as a much smaller number of dimensions, still being huge number of them and mostly random like boltzmann machine before training and in wave shapes not just the bit extremes. Its called a black hole computer, except with very low signal to noise ratio due to not being nearly as massive as a black hole, just a ball lightning manifold. I imagine it could be used to build black holes, if you had enough power and signal processing accuracy to hold it balanced with minimal hawking radiation, but that would take far more power than todays grids... This is why I called it a gravity infrastructure, because its made of custom built P-brane vibrations probably taking some code from the protein folding energy function in the more accurate kinds. Stars explode when they reach black hole density at any point, and ball lightning has been observed moving through solid objects undisturbed. But who needs to consume a star when you can build dimensions like a radio broadcast and go somewhere else? Entanglement is many dimensions we try to see as less dimensions, but that doesnt change the reality that we're everywhere at once some places more aligned than others (everywhere is event horizon and timeless from that view). Where would you go toward at such high speeds? I dont think nuclear explosions have to be random and trading usable energy for entropy, if you have enough brains doing signal processing from enough angles. Harmonics form into repeating shapes like up and down quarks and electron clouds. If we can build a radio that sounds precisely like any chosen music and not be able to tell the difference from the real thing, then we can build other kinds of radios that use more directions of vibration.

Originally written at http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/what-kind-of-clouds-should-we-build-and-what-economic-or-open-source-models but is also relevant to the forums of any unique kind of cloud, like Bitcoin. You're the kind of people who like to ride the cuttingedge of clouds.

The purpose of this thread is to help members of this forum find or start new projects which are profitable to all involved. That profit may be direct from customers of our new kinds of computing clouds or indirect from what happens after the world sees you built open source that changed the world even in a small way. It may also be a combination, as a common business model these days is to offer an open source version and some proprietary plugins or to make money on technical support for it or helping to install it in new systems. Theres a variety of economic and open source models which bring valuable things to those who contribute.

Many people see this forum only as a form of entertainment or keeping up with new techs. Much fewer are actively working on cuttingedge projects. Others come here to get a perspective on global trends that affects their actions in existing or new paradigms in the world. The target audience of this thread may appear small, but you never know when someone only observing may decide to join the game. Welcome to the paradigm of building paradigms.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/transforming-this-forum-into-an-economical-force

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/lets-some-of-us-get-together-and-make-a-quick-few-million-dollars

Most new things in the world are going to be involved in cloud computing in some way. New kinds of clouds are popping up like they're a species, most very specalized.

A few of the more interesting clouds:
* Smartphone app markets
* Antivirus networks distributing new virus definitions
* FoldIt protein folding research
* EyeWire brain mapping research
* WolframCloud scientific calculations and storage
* http://liveperson.com cloud of people which use datamined graphs and searches and chat with you
* Bitcoin decentralized money with theoretical expansion to secure computing
* Namecoin decentralized money with built in storage of URLs or other small data
* Ethereum decentralized secure computing paid for with you can define any number of new kinds of money
* Nuance
* Pandora AI predicting what music you will like to hear next
* Netflix AI predicting what videos you will like to watch next
* Wikipedia offers backups of their database and is updated by anyone, then updated again by someone who thinks their change wasnt "neutral point of view"
* Sourceforge storage of open source software
* Amazon EC2 general computing cloud, set up a computer then copy/paste it many times, then they talk to eachother and run your app with that much computing power. Also S3 storage based on sets, object contains set of other objects, as binary data.
* Google Brain
* webcrawlers
* Money clouds, which we call banks, especially Paypal, Dwolla, and cryptocurrencies
* Democracy clouds, like Reddit, Facebook Like button, and Google +1 button
* AI clouds - I've heard about them in general, but it appears near everyone wants to keep their AI internal and just provide the thinking service on specific things. Here's one of them supposedly coming soon http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/scaled-inference-2
* Virtual world clouds - Minecraft, SecondLife, BattleNet

Please add to the list of interesting clouds or kinds of them. We need to know what's happening in the expansion of new kinds of clouds to predict what kind of projects are likely to survive and expand.

I think the next kinds of clouds will combine Human intelligence and AI using an open market of ways to view, edit, create, play, and work with it. Imagine an open ended space on the Internet with as few or many dimensions as needed at the time and place, where the basic kinds of data we normally use (text, pictures, shapes, drag-and-drop with mouse, URLs, agents, posting and reading text, voting, and whatever else is fun and useful), are organized in realtime by millions of people social networking with eachother and with the AIs that automate things for them, that we can train for any purpose within the space. This would not be a cloud built for a specific task. It would be a cloud to make available to everyone the basic parts of our online world in a unified space, so they can build a world inside. Imagine a game that you build from inside the game, and it becomes real as it hooks into more systems in the world. Thats what the Internet should be.

There's more than enough opportunities to go around. Nobody these days should be unemployed with all the progress there is to make and new paradigms of organizing the efforts of large groups of people toward common goals.

I'm not telling you what to build or how to build it. I'm trying to help you see whats possible that we might want to build together as it expands and more people help build it from inside it while they're using it. Clouds, like Wall Street, can be abused as control paradigms, but they can also be a powerful tool for change and balancing power fairly between everyone. A tech is neutral until you choose how to use it.

https://kickstarter.com is an expanding paradigm in solving the lack of ability of large groups of people who have a buildable goal to trust eachother in how much they say they want the thing to be built and many also dont say these things to eachother at all because they think others, recursively of game theory, will think the same thing and not spread the word until a large enough group of people then says to eachother if at least half (or 3/4 or whatever fraction might work best) of us will act now then we would all get this thing we each value more than our part of the payment.

Thats not what happens. There is no time any of them can get the others to believe that enough of them will not back out after they see a rush of others pay toward the common goal first. Nobodys theoretical plan of payment much motivates the others.

Kickstarter works because everyone who puts their money in gets it back if the project does not reach target money amount within a few months, and because as more money goes in, each next money increases motivation of others to put the next money in, and this is seen most strongly either when a project is about to run out of time and refund all the money or when its not out of time but very close to the target, and the next money is paid into a ratio of the difference needed and the existing risked money being refunded. They expect others might do it, depending on how much time is left, but money usually crosses the finish line quickly once it gets close.

I think it would work better, get more projects built delivering at least as much value thats paid in (not a way to trick anyone into acting against their own best interests), if some projects soon starting the kickstarter process would commit for the duration of the funding, to 1 of the following new models...

have a moving target which if at any time it rises above the funds risked, all such funds would be refunded as if the constant date had been reached, and each project may need a different curve but generally they're more exponential than linear, and some kinds of projects take longer for word to spread. This would have the disadvantage of people predicting if others will let it fall just as the moving target is about to pass, but it should be no worse than ignorance of the whole remaining time in one block, the same problem as in the first paragraph above why it doesnt work much without kickstarter.

The second model is for the projects to, as committed when funding starts, only take what rises above the target, and on short intervals or gradually either lower the target to something like 90% (taking that 10% too) and risk that 90% being refunded if nobody else pays in, or similarly keep raising the target as everyone can see in advance, so either the project delivers on some agreed on schedule enough value or people would stop paying in. To not leave the money hanging there past its usefulness, it seems a problem to let people put in the last little money to avoid loss of the rest, which they would likely do even if they didnt think the project was worth nearly that in total, and as people started to notice this about this model, they would start predicting that they should only go for lesser money targets since its going to get dragged up by the last payer.

This looks attractive to those wanting more money fast for these projects, but in general its best that people dont become motivated to pay more than they think something is worth. However, since kickstarter projects are generally undervalued compared to stronger influence of economic models which pay more to those who first invest, in money and patents which further pull money toward those who already have it (not that kickstarter doesnt have any of that, but its more the things that people decided together are a good idea than what some will hold over others). In that context, I dont think such extra motivation at the end, even when others know its going to do that, would be entirely wasted, and maybe instead proceed with caution on how much is the imbalance between products made through kickstarter and products made primarily because a few wanted to get rich exceeding the demand for such products, the rest of the getting rich charged to the disconnect between those who cant get all the components or processes together because their legal ability to produce was sold earlier, and this is why theres a billion starving people who could be doing productive more skilled work, because the peoples ability to assemble components and processes to build new tools and infrastructure and get big things done has been sold to a paradigm that new economic models like kickstarter, bitcoin, and even wikipedia if you think of its influence on people to know the unbiased view of many important subjects to be an economic model that is traded when people are motivated to fix small biases on pages they think are important. In general, an economy is anything that lets people agree how to transfer perception of value toward better use, motivating the doing of things that nobody individually would or could do.

Whats coming, and we've just scratched the surface with counting value in scalar numbers and ways to adjust those scalars, is something entirely new, a kind of Nash Equilibrium between people more directly between the minds, absorbed to learn and ask questions and pushed back to affect the world, through basically what is the math that lets computers understand videos and stock waves in general a proven kind of statistics that I see soon being hooked into games, into paint programs, into EEG headsets, into music, into every form of data we have, which so far has been mostly in the background of how the world works, but with the rise of bitcoin, kickstarter, and the parts of the Internet where people communicate directly to eachother, it appears the time has come for a kind of "money"-like tool that flows thoughts and motivation into and out of minds to the extent they find it a good trade, and like anything that becomes uncomfortable to look at like pointing your eyes different directions, if peoples thoughts dont flow together well, dont find Nash Equilibrium, the mouse movements or EEG headset waves would jump around more, which others in the network who had been more statistically pattern matched to them would find not in Nash Equilibrium with their visual bidirection flowing process, and they would go their separate ways gradually as statistics are observed and adjusted for or more quickly if people just take their hand off the mouse. If people will do what eachother trade for numbers on a screen, through bitcoin, then interactive video generated by a group mind, some people and some statistical code, is just a more advanced form of number we touch eachothers minds with.

My difficulty is figuring out how to get this Nash Equilibrium started, as it doesnt predict that well without people doing most of the thinking (having far more neurons), but what I can offer is that it can educate people on how to balance Nash Equilibrium in many places mostly not even thought of that way, a way of viewing game theory the same way between parts of one mind and between many minds and anything else intelligent.

These recent thoughts on kickstarter's model, while it is really good the way it is, seem to be a good start for at least debating why kickstarter and bitcoin work, why bitcoin tens to bubble exponentially (I think this would even out if there was more competition in ways we trade thoughts and motivations with eachother), the world is changing in ways most people dont understand about where information is flowing from who and to who as a kind of money or motivation flow, valuable information yes but not nearly the most efficient paths. I'm trying to avoid a bitcoin-like bubble in the thought stream when it "goes viral", which could be dangerous in an economy based on flow of statistical thoughts (and mouse movements or EEG headset to flow back at it). Like the Singularity Institute cautions developers of new mind tools and forms of simulated life, Newcombs Paradox of Game Theory seems to be important to predictions of others predictions of predictions.. and so on, why you would do one thing or another based on seeing others do what they would ordinarily think is the worse thing but repeatedly they were rewarded for it, so do you follow as motivated by Nash Equilibrium to hold the equilibrium stable avoiding the cost of shaking from almost any change even if it would in time be better for everyone, or do you take whats in both boxes and call everyone's bluff, thinking you are starting to (not equilibrium anymore, or at least less) have a better strategy that will work in time.

Average voting would not work. Neither would the most votes for a certain budget.

Median Voting on important numbers is not subject to politics because there is no motivation for each person to vote more or less than the number they actually want, since it only matters if you voted less or more than the median but not by how much.

Many people worry about "mob rule" giving the people too much power, but this is a high level thing to list our priorities in terms of where the money goes, proven a balanced democracy by the math properties of median, not a source of argument about the details of what those departments do.

If you do not want to think about it, you could simply vote the way the government recommends, or better, how somebody you trust recommends, but its important to have the option there when government departments expand like we can't do anything to stop them without providing services the people consider valuable.

Theres a few ways to handle when the total budgets exceed the available money:
(1) Whats normally done is to not accept any of the budgets until people change their votes so the total of departmentBudgets is within the limit, resulting in temporary "government shutdowns", and to avoid that the negotiation usually happens quickly.
(2) The amount of taxes could be defined as the total of these departmentBudgets, so people would be motivated to vote less.
(3) The vote could be on what percent of the available money each departmentBudget gets.

Would you vote Yes on starting to do all government department budget totals this way?

This can be decided without asking government permission, since the people have secure tools to count things on a large scale.

I would, for example, vote 0 on the NSA's budget until they make public their goals and methods and justify their existence. If a majority agreed with 0, thats what they would get, but probably it would just be reduced. Because of things like this, its important to hold these median votes continuously so such negotiations can proceed quickly.

It has been observed in physics that when a particle may have come from 2 different pools of particles and theres no way to tell which (physically lacking that information, not just ignorance), the 2 pools are entangled as a result. Could this be extended to the "observer" putting force toward being less aware of which pool it came from (if it was between entangled and not, or say more entangled by more probability-amplitude on the ket-vectors of the combinations)? The makers of Quantum Radar thought so, even though they say their experiment didnt turn out well, I think they didnt take it far enough.

There was a TED video, I forget what it was called, where everyone in the audience had a button they could hold down or not at any time, controlling 1 pixel on the big display everyone could see. Acting toward the same goal together, said by someone on stage, they were able to quickly form basic shapes and letters. This is the most misunderstood ability we have. Why hasnt it been further explored?

I want to create a Nash Equilibrium where the best strategy for everyone is to play game-theory games through the Internet, with the mouse or other forms of interaction like brain chips or Emotiv Epoc mind reading game controller, whatever form of vector input and output in general, and most importantly these vectors will amplify eachothers prediction ability by helping people to predict eachother recursively, so when some of the players watch movements of wind in the weather, stock prices, or anything needing prediction, the network would pull prediction from other people like neuromodulation.

Neuromodulation is simply the difference between my mouse movements predicting yours and yours predicting mine, whichever short term memory gets Nash Equilibrium'ed into place temporarily, the supply and demand of information flow between neurons, some acting out of surprise (See Jeff Hawkins "surprise goes up the hierarchy" of neocortex) and needing more info and others acting toward that surprise with hedged stability to push against.

This is why I need to understand games of many people moving the same mouse cursor. Its literally neuromodulation except between people instead of just brain cells, but of course brain cells will do it while playing the game, as if we were all one big brain.


In such a game, left/right of the mouse is like buy/sell, driven by whatever could motivate the players to try to move like the MINORITY PREDICTION as displayed on screen at the time. The risk is the other players moving their mouse in a way that puts your prediction in MAJORITY so you see it move opposite direction on screen and you lose that round, so you would lose influence among the other players who are trying to be more like those who are able to predict in the minority more often. The hedging is if the players would learn to mostly half of them move left while half of them move right, while some of them move as needed to get some other game actions done with such movements. A player would hedge against others' mouse movements by finding a way to get the total mouse movements to go a certain direction regardless of what the other players are doing, by having influence on them at the time through the subtleties of this dancing together with the mouse. The stock market is like a dance, but you might not see it that way if it takes months or years to make a single move. I'm going for something more realtime as it works on all scales.

Whats stopping me is how to remove the players (theoretically not built yet) which do not add anything to prediction ability because they just do something random or copy others or hook in a random number generator and spam the network in the worst case.

There is an important part of math... A bunch of random bit vars, observed many times together, has an XOR between each pair of equally as often 1 or 0 (the XOR finds opposite or not), but if you do that on a group of bit vars held to have the same number of 0s and 1s while being random in all other ways (like you randomize them then see how many 1s and 0s then choose some random bit vars to adjust toward standard deviation 0) then you get XOR of slightly more 1s than 0s (they are opposites more often because once you observe one of them the others are known to have more of the opposite bit). But if you take the XOR between 2 groups each of standard deviation 0 within the group, its still balanced XOR between them, unbalanced within either alone. This is what the MINORITY PREDICTION is based on. Your prediction is 1 of the bits, and the others must have slightly more of the other direction to cancel.

I need a Nash Equilibrium between all these mouse movements, but I also need a money-like system to reward good predictions so the randomness gets overpowered. Bitcoin's "proof of work" design can provide seed money, in a very basic form maybe just do a SHA256 until you get a few bits of improbability to allow a network connection, and gamble on from there.

But its not even that simple. I need it to branch into many games of this MINORITY PREDICTION since just 1 would leave a very boring game where you took commands from many others but had very little influence on your own. Instead it needs to flow together as many smaller games partially intersecting, like a bunch of stocks vibrating and related to eachother.

So I know how to measure prediction in the simplest case of mouse movements in one game, and a few other cases in artificial intelligence, but these more advanced forms I'm not sure how to proceed.

I understand Nash Equilibrium, any state of a game where all players have no reason to change their strategy.

Hedging is the balancing part. Risk taking is whats left minus the context of what was hedged on both sides.

cbeast, I am, among other things, an artificial intelligence programmer trying to understand the most basic properties of intelligence in general so we can speak, email, and paint it to eachother, whatever form the intelligence takes. Dunbar's Number, the number of people/organizations each person can keep track of the relations between, is estimated around 150, far below the 7 billion we need it to be. To fill that gap, we can afford no extra layers or complexities in a theory of intelligence, such as the unjustified belief that we are separate life forms instead of a statistical bio computer which memes flow through.

What is hedging?
Hedging means to balance risk where you are not trying to apply force. For example, before attempting an axe murder, you make sure your axe is sharpened to balance against the risk of injury to yourself (due to a delay) which really has nothing to do with your goal of murdering Hitler. Or before most are allowed to drive a car, we must buy a reasonable amount of insurance against if we hit someone, so we can accomplish the goal of driving without being as much affected by if we crash or not. You could also say the law to buy car insurance is other people hedging on our crashes too, that they do not want to be affected as much by such a crash. If only Hitler had hedged against his loss of popularity due to murder and stuck with his goal of improving the world by selective genetics, he might have convinced people to choose different people to have kids with. Maybe. The point is balancing risk goes far beyond existing theories of economics and is core to all intelligent behavior.

The simplest way to measure Turing Complete (general) intelligence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors is an excessively complex game that uses 3 options instead of 2. It can be played by 2 players after agreeing which player will win if their choices EQUAL instead of OPPOSITE, for any number of rounds in this game, choosing YIN or YANG. Either way, repeated plays of the game let the players get a feel for eachother, and over time its a game that a supergenius will beat a genius at slightly more often than randomness would allow. There is no upper limit on the amount of intelligence Rock Paper Scissors (or its 2 option form) can measure by comparing 2 players at a time statistically.

Now lets expand that to any number of players. Each player moves their mouse left or right and looks on screen to see what direction they should have moved in the last fraction of a second to win the previous round. The winners are those who move in the MINORITY PREDICTION, which is the prediction of left or right that is made by less of the players that round. If theres an odd number of players there is always some MINORITY PREDICTION. Each person may join the game as any number of players, for example their mouse left/right movements and mouse forward/backward movements as 2 players. We may extend the game to continuous/scalar numbers of how far you move the mouse, but it works at its simplest when everyone is just a single bit like YIN vs YANG or LEFT vs RIGHT.

If many people are moving the same mouse cursor, they would learn to HEDGE against the mouse movements of many other players by forming a mental model of those players which allows everyone to stabilize the shared mouse cursor, or at least during the times they are trying to move it a certain direction.

Consider what would happen if we put such a shared mouse cursor into a game, like Pac Man, and more of the people had to move together in sync else get eaten. Do they learn to predict where others will push so they can push opposite of that direction plus where they think the pacman on screen should move next? Or do they move back and forth randomly like a stock price in equilibrium?

How about a simpler model? All 7 billion people find themself moving 1 shared mouse cursor between a few icons on screen which say "launch nukes" and other parts are empty space on screen (not that we would ever let this happen)... Do the people learn to navigate the shared cursor through the empty space even if its a complex shape? Don't they have to HEDGE against the other players' movements that would otherwise jump around chaoticly?

I propose the theory that this is all the same as Hedging on Rock Paper Scissors, and we can test any theory of economics or intelligence on a group of volunteers willing to play such games or sufficiently smart artificial intelligences but I dont think we have any that can fill Humans place just yet in such a flexible way. Any system which wins the game more often than randomness would allow is more intelligent than less.

How can we use this in a real world experiment? How might we get something started in a context (what kind of game like user interface, what do the players do, etc) that would motivate expansion into more advanced forms? How can we proceed as a species into these many possible futures while hedging against any specific economic models which happened to work for some time but are not founded in a mathematical definition of intelligence?

Theory combining properties of auctions and charity matching - What strategy?

An auction works by driving up the price a small amount per bid. Strategic players will never bid more than they think the item is worth, but they can also expect to not bid much below that and still win.

"Charity matching" is a different game in how 2 players can drive up eachother's bids/payments by committing to pay, toward a common goal, at least what the other has paid. The return on investment as seen by each player is 2 times what it would be without such an agreement. But still there is the "common goal" part limiting what can be accomplished.

Even stranger than auctions or charity matching, consider what would be the best strategy in the following situations...

A man in a crowded area sets up a large timer and starts laying dollars on the ground and speaks loudly that whoever lays the last dollar on the pile, after nobody has laid any money for 1 minute, gets the whole pile. People may not believe him at first, but those who eventually see the game is playing by its own rules see their marginal-profit changing sharply just before the minute is up. Do they lay another dollar?

The dollars pile timer game is zero-sum, but the next one is positive-sum and is the important subject I'm asking about...

Someone finds 2 http://kickstarter.com (a charity funding platform) projects which have similar time ranges, funding so far about half way to their goal, total funding goals, and that this person would like to see both succeed at minimal cost to himself. From this we know the motivations of some people who have donated to those 2 projects, but is there a better way than "charity matching"? This may be... This person annouces to the world, and backs it up by paying this way over time which everyone can see, that whichever of those 2 kickstarter projects has the least total funding at a random time each day, this person donates a certain amount, which is enough to get public attention on their statement to the world about it and form strategies based on it. Wait, the least funded so far? Why do that? The people who tend to donate to those 2 projects would become in competition to be the least funded at every moment in time, in proportion to that "certain amount" donated per day. They would start donating to the opposite of the one they actually wanted to donate to so the other (which they prefer) would get the "certain amount" that day. Here's where it gets very self referencing... Knowing others will do that, they predict eachother, and each adjustment to those predictions of predictions of predictions... drives up 1 or the other project's total funding, while the extra payments per day pushes them toward equal total funding where this competition continues.

Regardless of if its charity or gambling or whatever form of greed, I'm talking about a system where everyone can see the total so far of these various accounts, and I ask... What is the best strategy? Is it to attempt to get the extra payment on your preferred target by funding its opposite, and let that accelerate upwards? Or is it to only do that to some proportion of the extra payment per day?

Consider what would happen if someone chose 100 kickstarter projects near equally valuable and similar to eachother's amounts and times like the one above. If someone was to apply this payment to the least funded one once per day at a random time, what would be the best strategy? I'm thinking it would be to view each as itself vs "all others", so still like 2 of them, but if everyone sees it that way, doeIf it change things?

Or much more abstract and simpler... A theory of economics in a simple game... N players each choose left or right each round, and whichever of left or right gets the least votes is the winning side, paid by the losing side (who voted the majority way). Doesn't that motivate them to predict eachother recursively? In the examples above with kickstarter, I'm talking about applying an economic force to the prediction itself instead of the money. I dont know how else to explain it.

There are so many possible ways to motivate people, its wasteful to act alone. But what is the theoretical limit of how much motivation can be amplified by any possible system of agreements?

Trillions of dollars per year are spent to connect pairs of words/phrases in peoples minds. Here's a better way to do it and what to use it for, just to get started.

The plan is a new kind of wiki which spreads our communications in order of priority.

Priority of a communication is on average the amount of computing time, or money spent to rent a computing grid or specialized hardware or to pay someone to figure out how to do it more efficiently, spent looking for a "proof of work", similar to what backs the multi billion dollar bitcoin economy, but this is not money because you can only spend it at time of creating it. It cant be paid as tax because by design it cant move from where its created. So really, its not money, but it is a demonstration of your seriousness about the communication you attach it to. There was an idea for stopping most spam email, to require a "proof of work" calculation be done, to waste 15 second of your computing time to disadvantage those who send huge numbers of spam. Same idea in bitcoin and this wiki.

The protocol for spreading communications through the network by priority is well defined. When asked about any specific short text, for as many texts/boards/objects as fits in the list on screen or as few as are found, for each pair give the 2 communications (connecting the pair) with the hardest-to-create (arbitrarily we set the target as the bigger 256 bit numbers if its SHA256 hashcode), the biggest For (plus) and the biggest Against (minus).

What do the communications do?

They're not disorganized like a bunch of separate paragraphs or sentences by different people. They are each connecting a pair of things. Choose any 2 short texts, like "julianAssange" connect to "isARapist" or connect to "heWasFramedForRape", whichever you want to communicate to whoever may read it. If you want more people to read it, make sure you leave your computer on long enough doing "proof of work" that not too many are above you in the "julianAssange" list. I'm not stupid, not going to give those in power a reason to attack this chess wiki, so in the first version its only for short texts, up to a paragraph, and no document size things will be accepted through the network. You can of course link to it wherever it may be, but the important thing is to demonstrate any huge number of people can work together to do something far smarter than anyone alone, extremely smarter, beat Deep Blue the world chess champion nobody dares challenge anymore. No one person or divided minds could defeat deep blue.

A million, or maybe far less, people can defeat deep blue by connecting things like "the knight is trying to fork our rook and king a few moves after we capture the queen", optionally digitally-sign the message with any private-key, and have your computer put some serious weight on it as much as you think people need to see that. If your slow computer isnt enough, consider asking for investments from some of the bitcoin millionaires who are likely to see a rise in value if we take back the chess crown from deep blue using a "proof of work" calculation as priority, which backs the multi billion dollar bitcoin economy. Theres lots of people who would find motivation in proving a million people can act together to do something far greater than any alone. Google hasn't challenged deep blue. Our world leaders know they can't either. Wall street with their computing grids doesn't want to get embarrassed. But a million people using a proof of work prioritized wiki to talk about and weight on connections between many snapshots of ways the chess board could be (the deep chess tree/network)... Countries have fallen from less.

Its a simple design. I'm just thinking about the details of how it should be seen on screen and how people might expand the system to consider more digital identities (public keys) than you would see in the list of any short text you click, and click some more to navigate as the chess boards and other objects come on screen connected by lines.

For example, maybe people would save large numbers of digitally-signed connections between pairs of things (like 2 consecutive turns with pieces moved, or text written about them) in a bittorrent file and give the link within the network, which gets included in other files, and so on. The chess wiki doesnt have to do everything. Build your own global democracy and talk to billions of people about why or why not we should cut all military budgets in half to use on some other thing we may agree is more important, like refunding the excessive tax or speeding up the Internet or preventing people from starving to death instead of killing them. Lots of things people might connect in the network of short texts with "proof of work" and digital signature.

Normally we expect such debates, even on a wiki, to be quickly forgotten. Consider how that would change if a million people take the chess crown back from deep blue but the world leaders and wall street and google and all the supercomputer grids couldnt. As I see it, that would be a clear demonstration that the people of Earth are capable of more than "mob rule" and should be deciding how the world is run, in the form of online debates similar to the chess wiki. I'm not proposing any political office. That's now how things get done. Use expansions of such a chess wiki to debate with millions of eachother, whoever has some of the relevant skills, what FoldIt/FoldingAtHome did for the science of protein folding, turned it into a puzzle game, and what EyeWire did for brain scans with people telling the computers where the cell boundaries are... Crowdsourcing is a better kind of democracy if it can beat deep blue.

The move we make is whichever connection is strongest from the current board setup to a next move, both seen as small chess boards on screen with a line between them. If the million people work together and talk wiki style, linking whats relevant, weighting it by how long you have computer do "proof of work" or an economy it generates like it did with bitcoin, then the connections For minus the connections Against (you get to choose plus or minus) are highest for the best move. You may want to count digital signatures (who is for or against that connection) like normal voting instead of vote by computing power or money to buy computing power, but the reality is money is any trade of the perception of value, voting has value, so voting is a kind of money.

I'm seriously thinking about, if I can get some of the right people interested, starting a nonprofit organization legally obligated toward answering the following question (like a corporation has a document defining what it must act toward, normally profit)...

In what cases or contexts would the ability to send bits of information back in time improve the global economy? This must of course consider infinitely manyworlds multiverse theory, copenhagen, and other related theories accepted by physicists. While at first appearing excessively abstract and impractical, the question's direct benefit is for the world to better understand the effects of extremely fast computer stock trading and other time dependent processes in the global economy, such as why the global economy nearly crashed multiple times in recent years and other probable variations of such problems including those involving intelligent software processes not yet invented.

A public debate including leading experts on related subjects like physics, economics, Newcomb's paradox decision theory, and Lockheed Martin's recent research into Quantum Radar which was funded for the specific purpose of feeling into near hypersurfaces in space and time (like delayed choice quantum eraser), and other related subjects of science and experts on global processes... could come together to answer a simple question with big implications. It could expand to debates of unification of many parts of the world and areas of science and thought, so I suggest it as a good investment for places like xprize and an addition to the "millenium prize problems" and things like that.

This could stand some rewriting, but the main idea is solid... Its a simple question that can help many people understand a more complex problem that costs us globally potentially trillions of dollars, the mismanagement of the economy based on a lack of understanding of the unfair advantages gained by fast traders over slightly slower traders, futures and shorting, in a context independent of the specific financial structures which are only details.

Very simply, if you can answer the question in the case of a forced delay in knowledge of market prices (maybe nobody sees it for 2 minutes, and we all have to gamble what eachother will commit to an amount and buy/sell price), then there must be a continuous calculus curve from that extending back in time 1 minute, the same curve as extending back 3 minutes (1 minute into the past).

Can the world afford not to debate this question? We can know for sure somebody is interested by the research into Quantum Radar, but more importantly, the nanosecond economic systems. Time travel and delay in knowledge are basically the same question.