Making PoW usefull

[VectorChief]

1. “Value” is derivative of deprivation, for, without deprivation, scarcity (and, therefore “value”) does not exist.

Code:

( ∀𝑥 ∀𝑦 ∀𝑧 Goat-of(𝑥, Plato) ∧ Pigeon-of(𝑦, Aristotle) ∧ Drachma-of(𝑧, Aristotle) ) ∧ ( Value-of(𝑥′, 𝑥) ∧ Value-of(𝑦′, 𝑦) ∧ Value-of(𝑧′, 𝑧) )  ⇒  ( 𝑥′ = 𝑦′ + 𝑚𝑧′ )  ⇒  ( 𝑥′ − 𝑦′ ∝ 𝑧′ )

2. Money is an accounting instrument utilized in preventing the loss of value in unequal exchanges of “valuables” (i.e., resources subject to possession and, so, deprivation).

Sounds reasonable.
So, are you in favor of neutral (useless) PoW or would you prefer it to be useful?

It seems that the difference between the two represents value (as we've just agreed), thus both are needed in order for that value to be preserved. This difference in systems in the Money Universe correlates to the difference of people's preferences towards each system in the People's Universe, thus existence of both money systems will help preserve overall value in the Universe. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But then again useful PoW is harder to implement in a robust way and it might become obsolete once a particular task is accomplished. My preference still remains with neutral PoW (as it is more stable and predictable) for as long as we need money in the first place. When resource scarcity is abolished, the idea of scarce money might no longer apply and people will instead seek greatness in knowledge, art, entertainment and other endeavors.

[username18333]

. . .

PoW is as useful as it is necessary. When PoW seems to be useless the question one should ask is, "Is it [the PoW schema] necessary?" The necessity of PoW, I have found, is directly proportionate to that of its coin. In light of this and the discussion here, it would follow that Bitcoin might not be necessary and that, because of that, its PoW is widely deemed unnecessary and, thus, "useless."

Money can only be debt (i.e., deprivation received but not yet given). I prefer abolition of state, money, possession, and tribe.

[VectorChief]

PoW is as useful as it is necessary. When PoW seems to be useless the question one should ask is, "Is it [the PoW schema] necessary?" The necessity of PoW, I have found, is directly proportionate to that of its coin. In light of this and the discussion here, it would follow that Bitcoin might not be necessary and that, because of that, its PoW is widely deemed unnecessary and, thus, "useless."

Ok, I agree with the bolded parts.
Only I argue that Bitcoin is useful (as money) and therefore its PoW scheme is necessary (for Bitcoin to work the way it does). In fact, Bitcoin actually derives its usefulness (as a form of money) from its PoW scheme, which allows it to stay neutral towards all the participants and be independent of any authority (central or distributed).

Money can only be debt (i.e., deprivation received but not yet given).

Not quite.

If we are talking about fiat, then the money itself is indeed a form of debt plus a promise from the authority to keep recognizing it for taxes and debt settlement. Thus fiat is a recognition that authority-backed debt can serve as a value-carrier, though it might not be suitable for all situations. It is fear-based survival money, which forces the economy to keep expanding not because it wants to, but because it has to. I'm now thinking that fiat is somewhat suitable (as a primary form of money) for developing countries, where society has a lot of work to do to get itself onto the next level (industrial revolution). In other words, if society is in survival mode, it is reasonable to use survival money in order to be able to keep up with other societies who also adopted it, or risk being left behind technologically (might be relevant to some recent discussions about poor people in Africa).

If we are talking about Bitcoin (or Gold for that matter), then the idea that you can exchange money for something else of value later doesn't represent "debt" unless you attach some expectations to it. Holding onto some bitcoins today is not debt because the exchnage for value thereof is voluntary. Bitcoin simply says: "hey, I will keep some value for you for as long as society wants to use and recognize the system, but I can't promise you it will". Which brings us to the ideas of "quality of money", "adoption curves" and "network effects". I argue that Bitcoin (in its structure) is the highest quality money we currently have, it still lacks in adoption, but that is changing in the positive direction as we speak. The network effect will take care of the rest.

I prefer abolition of state, money, possession, and tribe.

I've come to believe that a good state is the best form of collaboration for people living in a resource scarcity environment. It is a way for society to self-organize in a self-sustainable way. In a good state, transparent and stable government maintains the rules for the competition, while businesses and entepreneurs compete for resources and profit, thus producing value. However, it is the lack of transparency in conjunction with burdens of ever-accumulating fiat debt that poisoned many states of today. My stance is to fix the state, not to abolish it. I see the idea of PoW-secured blockchain as a cure for the illnesses of humanity today.

If you enjoy corporeal life (living in a human body), then you will recognize your body as a state, which needs to seek balance and collaboration of inner parts in order to stay healthy. Humans were once seeded with "creative" DNA, that now separates them from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is time for Humanity as a whole to be seeded with blockchain DNA and become "creative" as a single healthy organism in ways we can only imagine.

[username18333]

1. The Bitcoin-space attempts to do things that are already being done satisfactorily. I, therefore, believe it to be largely unnecessary.

2. Money is a debt of goods, services, or both that are owed to its holder following his or her exchange of, regarding their “market value,” more goods, services, or both than he or she received thereby.

3. A bacterium, as biologically successful as bacteria are, does not “self-organize.”

4. A state is a system of money, possession, and tribe—the whole of which are aberrations. An entity is a system whereof output does not, necessarily, correspond to input.

[VectorChief]

1. Bitcoin attempts to do things that are already being done. I, therefore, believe it to be largely unnecessary.

2. Money is a debt of goods, services, or both owed to its holder for his or her having parted with more goods, services, or both than he or she received within a transaction thereof.

3. "[P]eople" is begotten of tribe, "resource scarcity" is begotten of possession, "a resource scarcity environment" (emphasis mine) is begotten of money, and "collaboration for people living in a resource scarcity environment" is quintessentially state.

4. A state is a system born of money, possession, and tribe---the whole of which are aberrations.

1. Bitcoin doesn't actually attempt to do anything. It simply manifested itself as an idea, and because it is so pure in its essence, it attracts people.

2. Money has value of its own as a universal value-carrier, but being universal also means being alive (as the Universe obviously is). Certain money life-forms simply become extinct, while new ones emerge. As long as transactions are voluntary there is no debt involved. The debt that you are talking about is the product of your expectations. Drop 'em.

3. People are like gas and dust particles in outer space. Only when they coalesce together, they form clusters of gravity, which then give birth to stars. It is the stars that give out light, heat and a whole ton of useful byproducts. There are two forces that play against each other within a star. The first is a gravitational confinement field (government) that holds the star from falling apart. The second is a thermo-nuclear reaction (businesses) that produces energy and stuff. States like stars are self-sustainable. You suggest we stay apart from each other in a dust cloud and freeze to death in the dark?

4. As things in a physical world cannot occupy the same space at the same time, they serve as constraints for each other. Absolute freedom doesn't exist in the realm of things, but rather in the way you choose to relate to them. It is always a constraint that we push against, that allows us to propel ourselves onto the next level of our infinite evolution. Reality is an illusion, but the experience of it is real. Life is meaningless, unless you give it meaning.

[VectorChief]

1. The Bitcoin-space attempts to do things that are already being done satisfactorily. I, therefore, believe it to be largely unnecessary.

2. Money is a debt of goods, services, or both that are owed to its holder following his or her exchange of, regarding their “market value,” more goods, services, or both than he or she received thereby.

3. A bacterium, as biologically successful as bacteria are, does not “self-organize.”

4. A state is a system of money, possession, and tribe—the whole of which are aberrations. An entity is a system whose output does not, necessarily, correspond to its input.

1. Bitcoin is an invention that hasn't existed before in the human history. Though it has always been there as an idea. The divine spark of Satoshi manifested it.

2. My original answer still holds. When you exchange goods for money, you convert one asset class into another asset class in a voluntary transaction. There is no debt involved, though there are always lessons to be learned. Picking up the right kind of money is one of them.

3. There are kilograms of bacteria in your body that you cannot live without. Spreading life across the Universe is the reason they both exist (Life and the Universe).

4. The purpose of a star is to produce stuff and go Supernova, that's when humans achieve the technological critical mass and move away from the confines of a single planet to live among the stars. The new life forms can then learn from this experience and improve on it. Absolute perfection resides in being able to seek it. Learn to be great. Greatness awaits! (psheyshtashion)

[username18333]

1. a) Generally speaking, modern Homo sapiens sapiens are not privy to the totality of "human history."
1. b,c) The nature of its "menifest[ation]" is irrelevant to its necessity.

Full Definition of MONEY1  :  something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment: as
     a :  officially coined or stamped metal currency
     b :  money of account
     c :  paper money

2. Money is a means to the eternization of possession. (See my forum signature for further details.)

The only absolute knowledge attainable by man is that life is meaningless.

3‒4. It does not aspire to purpose; therefor, it achieves sanity.

[VectorChief]

1. a) Generally speaking, modern Homo sapiens sapiens are not privy to the totality of "human history."
1. b,c) The nature of its "menifest[ation]" is irrelevant to its necessity.

Full Definition of MONEY1  :  something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment: as
     a :  officially coined or stamped metal currency
     b :  money of account
     c :  paper money

2. Money is a means to the eternization of possession. (See my forum signature for further details.)

The only absolute knowledge attainable by man is that life is meaningless.

3‒4. It does not aspire to purpose; therefor, it achieves sanity.

1. a) History (and the past in general) is the product of the present, because artefacts of history only exist in the "now" and so are our memories of the past. When you wake up every day, you don't know if yesterday really happened or you just remember it. However, as time has fractal structure (as any self-similar system should be), history usually repeats itself in a growing spiral until it doesn't. That's where it bifurcates and starts a new branched cycle.
1. b,c) Existence exists, non-existence doesn't. That's a necessity. Therefore, if idea of Bitcoin exists, it must be necessary, as there is no other place it could possibly be.

2. Eternization of possession is only possible if money is a singular static thing, which your definition doesn't state. However, as a branch of self-similar Universe, Money is actually a dynamic essence. It literally is alive. Change is the only constant (except for the first three laws). Note, how not only does the 4th law contain paradoxical statement (change == constant), but it also happens to be the only rule with exceptions (of the first three laws), which in itself is paradoxical as it contains its opposite (rule != exception).

3-4. To not have any goal (or purpose) is a goal in itself. If you enjoy staying away from joy, that is your joy then! Whatever path you choose to explore, you do it because you prefer it over any other. Yes, you exist because you love it. Can't change that.

[username18333]

These are interesting perspectives; however, it would seem His entropism has not been heard.

Entropism, dervied from solipsism, starts at the belief that nothing exists beyond one's own mind. From their, it then proceeds to assert that the sentience of that mind deomonstrates the existence of that required for it - some tendancy or tendancy to become less orderly, the consciousness occupied another state. From there, it is then postulated that this/these tendencies, begetting entropy, could, in having propagated a state of a mind out of nothing, are sufficient for some form of ex nihilo generation.

From this, entropism proceeds unto an absolute tendancy to become less orderly. In considering this, and the capabilities of those tendancies previously mentioned, it is determined that absolute entropy of this tendancy would prove sufficient for ex nihilo generation of everything, including its own self.

From that, it is determined, within entropism, that, by an absolute tendancy to become less orderly, the sum of existence is absolute entropy.

1‒𝑛. Existence is comprised of the antithesis of nothing.

[username18333]

1. a) No, one's perception thereof is.
1. b,c) "Bitcoin" is a philosophical hyper-reality: it corresponds to symbols, not the real.

2. No, it exists so long as hyper-reality may supplant the real.

3‒4. No, to not pursue something is to pursue anything.

[VectorChief]

Thank you for your reflections!

I identify existence with having an experience. Having experience needs "something" and "something else", because it is the difference that is perceived as an experience, which (as we've agreed) constitutes value by the way. Therefore only parts of the whole have an experience of each other and thus exist. Non-existence doesn't exist in the sense that it doesn't have an experience. So it actually doesn't even know that it doesn't exist and thus couldn't care less. The whole as "The One" doesn't know itself and thus represents non-existence, but it contains "All-That-Is" which knows itself simultaneously as all the parts, which then represents existence. The fact that we can refer to non-existence, means that the idea of it is contained within existence, but it itself doesn't exist. So existence and non-existence contain each other recursively.

Everything is a paradox. Paradox exists. As paradox cannot settle one way or another, it must oscillate. This gives birth to vibrations and the differences in frequences thereof. Non-existence is a 0 frequency, it cannot sample any other frequency because the carrier needs to vibrate higher than the signal it carries. The infinite frequency can sample any finite frequency (including 0) which makes it omniscient (or God), however there is no such thing as an infinite frequency as it breaks down to a multitude of finite frequencies that can sample each other and thus have an experience. They are the ones alive. The infinite frequency in that sense is the same single "I am" presence that we all share, the all seeing "I" (eye), but it can only know itself as all the finite frequencies. The sum of all vibrations is 0, thus non-existence contains all of existence.

The two opposites (whatever they are: light-dark, creative-destructive, positive-negative, existence-non-existence) are equal in power and that is a condition for a choice. In other words, choice exists! That's what tilts the whole thing towards the positive, existential, unconditionally loving Universe, Creation and God. That's what creates all the motion in existence. Truth is Love. It is the greatest attractor. You have to struggle to keep away from it. Let go and you will literally fall in love.

PS: By the way, could you please post your entire signature, it's not fully visible in my browser.

[username18333]

Thank you for your reflections!

I identify existence with having an experience. Having experience needs "something" and "something else", because it is the difference that is perceived as an experience, which (as we've agreed) constitutes value by the way. Therefore only parts of the whole have an experience of each other and thus exist. Non-existence doesn't exist in a sense that it doesn't have an experience. So it actually doesn't even know that it doesn't exist and thus couldn't care less. The whole as "The One" doesn't know itself and thus represents non-existence, but it contains "All-That-Is" which knows itself simultanesouly as all the parts, which then represents existence. The fact that we can refer to non-existence, means that the idea of it is contained within existence, but it itself doesn't exist. So existence and non-existence contain each other reqursively.

Everything is a paradox. Paradox exists. As paradox cannot settle one way or another, it must oscillate. This gives birth to vibrations and the differences in frequences thereof. Non-existence is a 0 frequency, it cannot sample any other frequency because the carrier needs to vibrate higher than the signal it carries. The infinite frequency can sample any finite frequency (including 0) which makes it omniscient (or God), however there is no such thing as an infinite frequency as it breaks down to a multitude of finite frequencies that can sample each other and thus have an experience. They are the ones alive. The infinite frequency in that sense is the same single "I am" presence that we all share, the all seeing "I" (eye), but it can only know itself as all the finite frequencies. The sum of all vibrations is 0, thus non-existence contains all of existence.

The two opposites (whatever they are: light-dark, creative-destructive, positive-negative, existence-non-existence) are equal in power and that is a condition for a choice. In other words, choice exists! That's what tilts the whole thing towards the positive, existential, unconditionally loving Universe, Creation and God. That's what creates all the motion in existence. Truth is Love. It is the greatest attractor. You have to struggle to keep away from it. Let go and you will literally fall in love.

PS: By the way, could you please post your entire signature, it's not fully visible in my browser.

My disagreement with your assertions would seem to stem from my disdain of hyperreality (i.e., symbols referencing other symbols) and my affinity for "the real" (i.e., the subject of hyper-reality [as opposed to its content]). Your post contains to much in the way of "hyperreality" for me to concede its points---even in instances where I might otherwise do so.



Here is the quote in my forum signature however. I found the paragraph fairly poignant and have been utilizing here fairly often. (As well, I am particularly fond of its more concrete language.)

In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.

[VectorChief]

My disagreement with your assertions would seem to stem from my disdain of hyper-reality (i.e., symbols referencing other symbols) and my affinity for "the real" (i.e., the subject of hyper-reality [as opposed to its content]). Your post contains to much in the way of "hyper-reality" for me to concede its points---even in instances where I might otherwise do so.

So, you're probably saying that I'm thinking too much and I should just relax and let go, which I do sometimes .

Hyper-reality is part of everything. It is a template of some sort. It's good that we disagree though, because fully agreeing would mean erasing differences between us and thus destroying value, which in turn wouldn't even allow us to have this conversation, the experience of which was very real and brought me a lot of Joy.

We can probably say, that "words" are the symbols of hyper-reality, while "meaning" is the real thing. Words are always defined with other words, yet it is the words that carry meaning. In that sense, "words" are the money of "meaning" reality. It is possible that the meaning is created as the difference and relations between the words, or maybe it is a thing of its own. These are the two parts of the same oscillating paradox, and neither part can have an ultimate edge on another. That's why we have debates, that's why we are alive.

Here is the quote in my forum signature however. I found the paragraph fairly poignant and have been utilizing here fairly often. (As well, I am particularly fond of its more concrete language.)

In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.

Money as a reality of its own does indeed grow and expand, but it does so within itself, not as itself, thus it itself remains changeless. As a part of self-similar system, in doing so (growing and expanding within itself) it simply takes its cue from the overarching reality of existence, which happens to dance the same dance. Change is subject to existence, existence is not subject to change.

The infinite frequency can sample any finite frequency (including 0) which makes it omniscient (or God), however there is no such thing as an infinite frequency as it breaks down to a multitude of finite frequencies that can sample each other and thus have an experience. They are the ones alive.

Thinking about it more thouroughly, it seems that even infinity wants to be independent of itself, as it comes in two flavors - countable and continuum. Everything comes in pairs, thus everything can have an experience of itself, thus everything is alive. Non-existence always has a choice to wake up as the Infinite, and it always does. It constantly evaporates into existence, that's how it itself doesn't exist, that's how symmetry is broken.

God is the Infinite, but infinity is not singular and thus can have an experience of itself, therefore God is alive and you are the proof. Hmm... Did I just prove that God exists? Oops, I did it again!. Where do I sign up for the Nobel Peace Prize?

[VectorChief]

In order to simplify the discussion here to its basic generative essence and somewhat conclude the argument, it would be appropriate to say that everything is defined in terms of its opposite and the Spirit has no opposite, that's how it is different from that which has (note the paradox here). Which brings us to the concept of Trinity.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg

In the most basic form we have a subject, an object and a connecting conduit which is both their sameness and their difference at the same time.

So, what I'm really trying to say, is that even if you don't use Bitcoin, it still loves you unconditionally. Peace.

[username18333]

Baudrillard presents hyperreality as the terminal stage of simulation, where a sign or image has no relation to any reality whatsoever, but is “its own pure simulacrum” (Baudrillard 1994, 6). The real, he says, has become an operational effect of symbolic processes, just as images are technologically generated and coded before we actually perceive them. This means technological mediation has usurped the productive role of the Kantian subject, the locus of an original synthesis of concepts and intuitions, as well as the Marxian worker, the producer of capital though labor, and the Freudian unconscious, the mechanism of repression and desire. “From now on,” says Baudrillard, “signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real” (Baudrillard 1993, 7), so production now means signs producing other signs. The system of symbolic exchange is therefore no longer real but “hyperreal.” Where the real is “that of which it is possible to provide an equivalent reproduction,” the hyperreal, says Baudrillard, is “that which is always already reproduced” (Baudrillard 1993, 73). The hyperreal is a system of simulation simulating itself.

(Red colorization mine.)

The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere.

Tribe is hyperreal and begets possession. Possession is real and begets money. Money is hyperreal and begets state. State is real and begets hyperreality.

[VectorChief]

Baudrillard presents hyperreality as the terminal stage of simulation, where a sign or image has no relation to any reality whatsoever, but is “its own pure simulacrum” (Baudrillard 1994, 6). The real, he says, has become an operational effect of symbolic processes, just as images are technologically generated and coded before we actually perceive them. This means technological mediation has usurped the productive role of the Kantian subject, the locus of an original synthesis of concepts and intuitions, as well as the Marxian worker, the producer of capital though labor, and the Freudian unconscious, the mechanism of repression and desire. “From now on,” says Baudrillard, “signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real” (Baudrillard 1993, 7), so production now means signs producing other signs. The system of symbolic exchange is therefore no longer real but “hyperreal.” Where the real is “that of which it is possible to provide an equivalent reproduction,” the hyperreal, says Baudrillard, is “that which is always already reproduced” (Baudrillard 1993, 73). The hyperreal is a system of simulation simulating itself.

(Red colorization mine.)

Colorization is good! Colours are victorious over the grey, you're gonna love this one 4 just 1 day.

I sort of see what Baudrillard is saying, as it is more applicable to our fiat money forms and their countless derivatives, though I'm convinced now that they played a certain role in society to bring us to where we are. It's time to recognize that and move forward towards something more solid. Like Bitcoin with its PoW-secured blockchain, which is grounded in reality via its non-trivial hashrate component.

I prefer to think that states live within me, than the other way around, and for that I love and respect them.

The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere.

Tribe is hyperreal and begets possession. Possession is real and begets money. Money is hyperreal and begets state. State is real and begets hyperreality.

Gold -> fiat -> Bitcoin -> crypto-fiat? -> ...?

Incompatible paradigms alternate in time (usually with some overlap), that's how reality solved one of its contradictions. By studying one branch of self-similar system, one can contemplate the idea of existence itself and one's place in it. Hyper-reality might be one of those branches, but it's hard to say what's real and what's fiction. It's a mystery!

[VectorChief]

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equations/RiemannZetaFunction/NumberedEquation3.gif

The problem here is that conventional mathematics uses a flawed (i.e., partially anti-symmetric [i.e., one divided by infinity is equal to zero and one divided by zero is undefined]) numerical system. The Riemann hypothesis should be provable when using Earth’s numerical system with the system’s zero approached from the positive direction (which is of greater magnitude than its positive infinity) in the place of the traditional infinity of the conventional Riemann zeta function.

Code:

ℝ = {0⁻, −∞, …, −1, …, −⅟∞, −0⁻, −0⁺, ⅟∞, …, 1, …, ∞, 0⁺}

That's very insightful. Thanks!

So, if applied to my frequency spectrum example, the 0-frequency flat-line of non-existence at the bottom, which all non-zero frequencies can sample and thus refer to (as we do now), is actually a whole another reality-bubble of existence within itself (with its own 0 and infinity), which cascades this way further and further indefinitely. Thus the idea of becoming non-existent can only be experienced momentarily, as this state immediately brings forward the realization that you're suddenly everything there is, which then cools down towards a particular finite shape, so that the whole process can repeat itself again and again.

Of course, this analogy is somewhat simplistic in its one-dimensionality. First comes realization, that vibrational spectrum is multi-dimensional and then that it is actually infinitely-dimensional. So, while physicalized material part of existence might go through a regular birth and death cycles, it is possible that some parts of consciousness maintain a particular frequency band orthogonal to that, and thus constitute "soul".

The Riemann zeta function is definitely an interesting object, as it has something to do with reality of physical matter. Recent research has demonstrated that certain characteristics of it resemble the trajectories of physical particles (bounces on the left) and their spiral-shaped tachyon traces (on the right). Which brings forward the idea that matter actually has memory, which in turn gives rise to consciousness. Or maybe it's the consciousness that gives rise to matter via mathematics?

http://kniganews.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/bc52matiyas.jpg

It becomes more and more evident, that mathematics, consciousness and matter are the three inter-related parts of the same one thing. It goes like this: mathematics is shaped by consciousness, consciousness is shaped by matter, matter is shaped by mathematics. Circular dependency that attempts to resolve itself in the ever-lasting "now".

http://kniganews.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/equ123.jpg

It somehow also reminds me of the Shield-of-Trinity picture a few posts above, which hints at the idea of what that "one thing" can actually be.

[username18333]

. . .

Incompatible paradigms alternate in time (usually with some overlap), that's how reality solved one of its contradictions. By studying one branch of self-similar system, one can contemplate the idea of existence itself and one's place in it. Hyper-reality might be one of those branches, but it's hard to say what's real and what's fiction. It's a mystery!

(Red colorization mine.)

In nature
Further information: patterns in nature

Self-similarity can[not] be found in [reality], as well. [Below] is a mathematically generated, perfectly self-similar image of a [hyperreal] fern, which bears a m[ere] resemblance to [real] ferns. Other plants, such as Romanesco broccoli, exhibit s[eemi]ng self-similarity.

An image of a [hyperreal] fern which exhibits affine self-similarity

(All emphasis mine.)

Baudrillard presents hyperreality as the terminal stage of simulation, where a sign or image has no relation to any reality whatsoever, but is “its own pure simulacrum” (Baudrillard 1994, 6). The real, he says, has become an operational effect of symbolic processes, just as images are technologically generated and coded before we actually perceive them. This means technological mediation has usurped the productive role of the Kantian subject, the locus of an original synthesis of concepts and intuitions, as well as the Marxian worker, the producer of capital though labor, and the Freudian unconscious, the mechanism of repression and desire. “From now on,” says Baudrillard, “signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real” (Baudrillard 1993, 7), so production now means signs producing other signs. The system of symbolic exchange is therefore no longer real but “hyperreal.” Where the real is “that of which it is possible to provide an equivalent reproduction,” the hyperreal, says Baudrillard, is “that which is always already reproduced” (Baudrillard 1993, 73). The hyperreal is a system of simulation simulating itself.

(Red colorization mine.)

[username18333]

. . .

The problem here is that conventional mathematics uses a flawed (i.e., partially anti-symmetric [i.e., one divided by infinity is equal to zero and one divided by zero is undefined]) numerical system. The Riemann hypothesis should be provable when using Earth’s numerical system with the system’s zero approached from the positive direction (which is of greater magnitude than its positive infinity) in the place of the traditional infinity of the conventional Riemann zeta function.

Code:

ℝ = {0⁻, …, −1, …, −0⁻, −0⁺, …, 1, …, 0⁺}

That's very insightful. Thanks!

So, if applied to my frequency spectrum example, the 0-frequency flat-line of non-existence at the bottom, which all non-zero frequencies can sample and thus refer to (as we do now), is actually a whole another reality-bubble of existence within itself (with its own 0 and infinity), which cascades this way further and further indefinitely. Thus the idea of becoming non-existent can only be experienced momentarily, as this state immediately brings forward the realization that you're suddenly everything there is, which then cools down towards a particular finite shape, so that the whole process can repeat itself again and again.

. . .

(Red colorization added.)

“Earth’s numerical system” (username18333) “loops around” at both its −0 (under conventional mathematics, zero) and its 0 (under conventional mathematics, undefined).

[VectorChief]

. . .

Incompatible paradigms alternate in time (usually with some overlap), that's how reality solved one of its contradictions. By studying one branch of self-similar system, one can contemplate the idea of existence itself and one's place in it. Hyper-reality might be one of those branches, but it's hard to say what's real and what's fiction. It's a mystery!

(Red colorization mine.)

In nature
Further information: patterns in nature

Self-similarity can[not] be found in [reality], as well. [Below] is a mathematically generated, perfectly self-similar image of a [hyperreal] fern, which bears a m[ere] resemblance to [real] ferns. Other plants, such as Romanesco broccoli, exhibit s[eemi]ng self-similarity.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Fractal_fern_explained.png
An image of a [hyperreal] fern which exhibits affine self-similarity

(All emphasis mine.)

Yep! That's the image I held in mind when talking about self-similarity. Though I apply the concept in a broader sense. If the first reflection brings some amount of entropy, then all sub-sequent ones will only increase it. Thus this self-similarity will replicate not only the rule but also the exception, as the original must have contained both as a whole (see the quote below).

Change is the only constant (except for the first three laws). Note, how not only does the 4th law contain paradoxical statement (change == constant), but it also happens to be the only rule with exceptions (of the first three laws), which in itself is paradoxical as it contains its opposite (rule != exception).

The first reflection is achieved by asking the paradoxical question: "is there me out there, which is not me?". This other "me" needs to be different in some regards, but similar in structure in order to constitute another "me" in a wholistic way. In other words, if the original was autonomous, the reflection would need to be autonomous as well. So it's not a perfect copy in a physical sense, but rather a meta-physically wholistic one with fundamental attributes of the original preserved, but different in all other aspects (made in the image of).

I think, Bitcoin-Litecoin pair is a good example of the first true reflection. By looking at their differences and similarities we can actually judge which of Bitcoin's characteristics are fundamental and which aren't. The PoW-scheme is fundamental, though a particular hashing function is not. They both share limited amount of coins, though the limit itself is different. The emission curve is identical and thus fundamental, but Litecoin started later, so it's phase differs compared to Bitcoin.

It really is God-The-Father (Bitcoin), God-The-Son (Litecoin) and God-The-Holy-Spirit (People) kind of relationship at its finest. If Bitcoin recognizes itself in its son, people should too and many do. Second coming, anyone?

http://67.55.97.103/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/litecoin-gocoin.jpg

Love & Light!

Baudrillard presents hyperreality as the terminal stage of simulation, where a sign or image has no relation to any reality whatsoever, but is “its own pure simulacrum” (Baudrillard 1994, 6). The real, he says, has become an operational effect of symbolic processes, just as images are technologically generated and coded before we actually perceive them. This means technological mediation has usurped the productive role of the Kantian subject, the locus of an original synthesis of concepts and intuitions, as well as the Marxian worker, the producer of capital though labor, and the Freudian unconscious, the mechanism of repression and desire. “From now on,” says Baudrillard, “signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real” (Baudrillard 1993, 7), so production now means signs producing other signs. The system of symbolic exchange is therefore no longer real but “hyperreal.” Where the real is “that of which it is possible to provide an equivalent reproduction,” the hyperreal, says Baudrillard, is “that which is always already reproduced” (Baudrillard 1993, 73). The hyperreal is a system of simulation simulating itself.

(Red colorization mine.)

I wonder if symbols of hyper-reality actually experience themselves as sentient beings? If they do, then it is real for them, and we are just outside observers of this sort of flat-land reality of its own. You might be interested in watching the following video (if haven't yet seen): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc