Our existence and space-time are not an absolute but rather can only be a mutually shared (agreed upon)
illusion (i.e. mutual relative perspective).
I will quote an excerpt from my unpublished whitepaper for the Bitcoin killer:
1. Byzantine Fault Tolerance & Space-time OrderingA system which models an unbounded number of possible states
* cant have a total order, because the combination of unbounded state and a total order, would require an implausible static non-existence where the global (i.e. unbounded) future would be
undifferentiated from the past.
⁶ The only model that is coherent (i.e. differentiated from undecidable) with an unbounded global state, is where the system actors (e.g. the Actor model
⁷) each have an independent relative perspective constrained only to an
internally deterministic bounded state, i.e. a localized partial order with
no external deterministic reference point.
⁸ Any external, unbounded global coherence can be only probabilistic not deterministic, e.g. fault tolerant.
⁷For example, a deterministic Turing machine cant be proven to halt
⁹ unless it is executed on every possible input state, but (executing all of) the input is unbounded in (and would require unbounded) time
unless the machine will be externally disconnected. Thus a deterministic Turing machine has an
external partial order w.r.t. to any choice of
bounded input state (as its external reference point). Thus, a total order is never universally global and is instead relative― i.e. is one of an unbounded (in space-time) external partial orders chosen w.r.t. to some bounded external state. The bounded external state is shared coherently (i.e. consistently) with other actors in the system w.r.t. to the chosen total order.
1.1 Impossibility of Deterministic Fault Tolerance in Unbounded AsynchronyAnother example of this physical law that a total order is impossible in an unbounded system, is the impossibility of
deterministic Byzantine fault tolerance (aka BFT) for a protocol operating with
unbounded asynchronous latency, proven by the FLP theorem.
¹¹ Deterministic in this context means that such an unbounded protocol cant be certain to
complete with even one fault because unbounded nondeterminism
⁸ is one of the possible faults― i.e. the system is self-referential thus all perspectives within the system are indistinguishable from faulty ones.
*
Where possible states implies the inclusion of changes in state (aka state transitions) in space-time, which are just more dimensions of state. For example, if a state changes from the value 1 to the value 2, then the possible states include 1 and 2.
Any distinction between time and space-time is a semantic illusion.*References| ⁶ | Shelby Moore III, Entropic force, Kurzweils singularity, creativity, space-time, relativity, total orders, unbounded nondeterminism, Actor model. Unheresy.com blog and Bitcointalk.org, DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?) thread, post #889, 2013 - 2016. |
| ⁷ | Shelby Moore III. Actors, asynchrony via futures, fault tolerance, thermodynamic irreversibility, unbounded nondeterminism forsakes global omniscience and consistency. Zenscript Github project, §Concurrency, issue #17, Dec 8, 2016. |
| ⁸ | Unbounded nondeterminism and the Actor model. Wikipedia.org. |
| ⁹ | Shelby Moore III, Simplistic explanation of Scooping the Loop Snooper, Bitcointalk.org, Valid uses cases for Smart Contracts, Dapps, and DAOs? thread, post #59, Jun 19, 2016. |
| ¹¹ | Michael J. Fischer, Nancy A. Lynch, Michael S. Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. J. ACM, 32(2) pp. 374382, Apr 1985. |
We can observe this relatively of illusion (aka agreement) in the various interpretations of the Torah pointed out upthread. I find humorous that video cited by CoinCube, because the two Jewish sects interpretations of the Torah disagree on whether it is kosher to eat a cheeseburger or shawarma:
So the viewpoint I seem to be coming to is that religion is purely a matter of group evolutionary strategy choice. There can't be only one correct way. Religions are purposefully spreading (erroneous) selfish propaganda (that their way is the only correct way) because it is necessary for the optimization of the group evolutionary strategy― refer to my prior posts yesterday on why we need to play this mind control game in order to control defection as an evolutionary strategy.
I assume CoinCube is searching for statistical outliers (e.g. the
Nazi failure in Russia) to convince himself that there is one correct choice. But this can not be falsifiable because of the nature of existence per the excerpt from my whitepaper. Faith is not falsifiable. That fat-tailed distributions exist doesn't prove a God exists.
I assume all very intelligent people including Einstein are perplexed by this situation wherein our existence can't coincide with any total ordering and thus we can't conceive of what might be outside of our own existence other than it is unbounded. It doesn't explain how we got here or why we are here, etc.. We yearn for a total understanding, but our mere existence requires that there can't be a total understanding (this isn't a philosophical conclusion, please review the physics that I already explained and the footnotes cited).
I would be interested to learn more as to Freeman Dyson's logic on why he is a non-denomination Christian. Does anyone have any reference which provides that information?
Per
my definition of the leftist religion, all leftists are atheists whether they admit it or not, because they w(h)or(e)ship the State instead of a God (or NATURAL LAW), as the lord pointed out in 1 Samuel 8 of the Bible. Thus more than 50% of the western world's population are atheists.
Perhaps
one the smartest men alive on earth today, Freeman Dyson, is a non-denominational Christian. And btw, the 160 IQ Eric S. Raymond who says Dyson made Eric feel like the slowest one at the dinner table, is an atheist.
You atheists think someone of the intellect of Richard Dawkins has a high IQ, but see how
Freeman Dyson dismantled that asshat Dawkins. Dyson obliterated Richard's small minded perspective.
Inter alia,
that stuff about Freeman Dyson, talking about the ability to see the bigger picture, wow. I'm nowhere close to Dyson's IQ, and I was in line with Richard Dawkins thinking. Till I read and understood Dyson's response, impressive, to say the least.
Moloch, you are espousing
the group evolutionary strategy of those who choose mutual self-destruction. I don't consider that very intelligent.
You think it is intelligent to defect from group evolutionary strategy by lying to yourselves with the religion of leftism. Smart indeed!
P.S. my two posts in this thread today are due to information, research, and insight that CoinCube provided, which stimulated my reductionist mind.
We can objectively conclude that leftism is a group evolutionary strategy which results in eventual (but delayed!) self-destruction of large portions of the group, but that doesn't mean it isn't an effective strategy because culling the herd is probably an effective means of refining the gene pool, i.e. by participating in leftism you can gain some leverage if your individual strategy within the group strategy is effective for your genes surviving the periodic culling of collectivism.
It appears that group evolutionary strategy is a complex issue. It doesn't seem there is one correct strategy. Rather I am leaning towards the view that we are all pursuing (i.e. competing+interopting+cooperating) with a diversity of strategies.
I had written to CoinCube in private that it seems to me that rationality doesn't exist without a framework and choice of values. Good and evil are relative to one's evolutionary strategy, per my point above that even culling the herd could be considered "good" from objective standpoint of the evolutionary resilience of the human race. Damned facts are sometimes abhorrent.