applied XQ — what a leap!

3 11 2013

I took a massive leap the other day, in terms of math and psycho-social dynamics. I followed it with a second dive yesterday related more with the direct application of number to actuality, and a third today, where I explored SEA and its various value vectors.

Cliff-Diving-Timelapse-Capture-800x533

the leap

I started off with the intention of being heavy on my coming death-day, to raise the stakes. Instead, I ended up applying number to language, and then developing a reflexive syntax, generating a fractal social algorithm Qunity, and creating a social contract with a viewer (or other person) that merges decision, hope, trust, power and all the good qualities that make is worthwhile to be human.

I recorded the leap, thankfully, as a textango, and have put it online, with the first 30 min of the first movement visible if one has the link. The second bit, as well as the second and third movement are private. The last movement is more of the ‘return’ from the dive, attempting to apply it to the real world, specifically to team Goose, Gunther, Sasha and Bernard, as well as genius Alex.

nervous second dive

I have shared this video now with 6 people, none of whom have replied. I don’t expect anyone to follow the line of thinking, but there is always hope.

So I conducted a second dive yesterday, with mixed results, attempting to apply the syntax to the application of number to actuality, and I got in a muddle with Bitcoin and Qubits. I have made the first part of the hour’s dive visible, and the rest is locked.

third dive and joy

I have been nervous because the territory explored is… not new exactly, but a conflation of a lot of thinking over the last decade and more. I have had very loose models of reality, minimal systems, and I was concerned that the leap I took with applying number to language and developing the syntax was into a territory that was… too large to explore.

Given time, given money flow, given relaxed conditions, I might be able to conduct this comfortably. Doing so under poor social, financial, material and temporal conditions, makes it all rather ‘pressured’, existentially. I got into this in a post I wrote yesterday on my main, more human blog.

I shall put up the initial track, and keep the other’s private. Although I conflate everything to something entirely meaningless, I feel that I have explored enough of the space to be assured that the task at hand is not impossible. It should be relatively easy to design an algorithm which combines people-money-time-resources using SEA value vectors and has touch-points with money and the current valuations of e.g. property. I do hope the guys, Gunther, Sasha, Doug and Brendan, get a sense of it, and manage to pull something practical from it.

in sum

So, I still don’t know if it has any meaning, actually. Which is why doing what I am doing… tricky, or even dangerous. Playing around with value equations, where one is uncertain of one’s value, is… a vulnerable thing to do. I hope one day you may appreciate this, whatever happens between us these days and over the coming months.
So, it’s not clear, and it’s not concrete, however, there is enough space to explore. I am not sure how useful it will be to concrete plans, but I am confident (to an extent, perhaps k=7) that we’ll be able to produce a simple enough equation for it to be useful in a first application. This may come more from your side (e.g. Sasha) than from mine, since I am approaching it from a generalised space, as usual. MTTP and SEA were penetrating results, but exploring the space around these, considering the variations, systemically, is a rather tricky task.




not good

31 05 2013

There’s good, there’s bad, and there’s not good.

When someone does something good, we may appreciate this. We can map it with the positive number +6 say.

When someone does something bad, intentionally, we may ascribe a negative value, -6 say.

There is, however, a grey space, when it is ‘not good’. We might represent this with ~6.

What does this mean? To do something which is ~6 intentionally. That is, they are doing something in ‘negative space’, in absence. It is not that they are doing anything to you directly, but there is a detrimental concurrent effect. Eg, giving a biscuit to one daughter and not the other. The kid who gets the biscuit is happy, the other is not. It is not that the parent did anything wrong, it is that they simply did not do something with the second daughter — did not give them a biscuit, in this case. Not bad, but certainly, undeniably, not good.

what’s the problem?

The chances are, most actions going on in the world, at the inter-personal level, are not meant badly. People do not set out with negative intent. Very often, they set out with positive intent. They start out with a +6 intention.

Same could be said for scientific solutions, and indeed most of social evolution. Most people mean well, and seldom is there negative intent.

What is characteristic in our social dynamics is that this ~6 is interpreted as -6. The ‘not good’ is interpreted as ‘bad’. This induces what I have called over the years, ‘oppositional state’. When two people seem to be on opposite sides of an argument, or a conflict, when there was no original intention of negativity on either side. And, sadly, it is oppositional state that grounds most of our institutions, from politics and law, to science and religion. And it is also at the basis of most of our internal mental problems.

So, this ~6 is interpreted as -6, and then this escalates until we have a breakup of our relationship, brothers estranged, fueds between families, and even international wars.

War, or inability to communicate, is not the problem. Obviously -100000 is not a good situation, but these explosions result from sparks. The problem is the mis-interpreting of ~6 as -6.

what’s the solution?

The obvious solution is multiply by -1.

This is a mental trick described in XQ elsewhere. Basically, it means reframe. A broken leg may enable a period of peace where you can get all that reading you’ve been postponing over the year. Raining? Good for the plants.

In terms of inter-personal dynamics, it is a matter of translating a negative intention towards one, into a positive one. The multiplication by -1 can occur when one is in rather aggravating circumstances, such as in math classes while doing supply.

The best place, however, is to convert the negative that arises in the mind. So, it is the interpretation of negativity that is multiplied by -1. So, when I got a feeling that my friend was doing well and there was the hint of jealousy, by thinking of the positive version of this, I managed to ascribe a positive result to this feeling.

So, when one perceives an apparent -6, simply multiply it by -1, think the opposite of it, and you are good to go. What was +6, initially interpreted as ~6 and then -6, gets converted back into +6.

Basically, it works.

the problem with the solution

Multiplying by -1 works with simple negatives. It doesn’t really work on ~6 directly. So, when faced with something that is ‘not good’ but we haven’t taken this to be ‘bad’, what is the appropriate conceptual/emotional response?

If we borrow from math again, we might consider multiply by i, the square root of -1. Something I have been hovering around for a few years now. But what does this mean?

So, when we have some situation where we don’t understand someone else’s behaviour, and it may appear to be ‘not good’, what is our response?

My basic response is to ask, in order for the other person to confirm that it is indeed +6. If I establish that actually there is an aspect of their behaviour which is detrimental, ie -6, to others in the classroom or myself, then we have an opportunity to think of something else that does not have these negative concurrencies. Ie something other than +6, perhaps +9 or +4.

If they insist on going ahead, then they are willfully perpetrating -6, knowingly.

Another response is humour, I guess, to play with the ~6. Or ignore it, and see what the result of the +6 activity is.

the subtle problem with the solution

This is the real problem, when someone insists on perpetrating what they think is +6, when they know there is danger of taking a -6 interpretation, ie it is ~6.

Now, the emotional response is to something that did not happen. It is not rightly -6, because there is no negative intention behind it.

When someone perpetrates -6, and they know it, then you have to suffer it. Someone means harm. They don’t care, they are going to continue. In a good world, it may be a surgeon making the required cut, or a parent who is aggressively pulling the child away from an on-coming car. The results will have to prove whether the action in the end is good or not, even if they are not perceived. In the first case, the abscess has been removed, health is restored; in the second, the car is gone and the child does resents the aggressive pull.

When someone insists on perpetrating ~6, knowing there is a good and a bad side to it, things get more complicated. The child observes the parent who is giving the biscuit to their sister. They balance on the knife-edge. They do not fall for -6, and they know it is not +6 at least with respect to themselves. Here is the opportunity for the mind to jump to an other level. And we have the response of suppression, ie resentment, or celebration, ie trust.

That’s all I’ve got at the moment. Still not clear. But definitely in the ballpark.





therapeutic math

30 04 2013

Recently, I have had the opportunity of experiencing hell. My previous offerings (2020worldpeace, eco^2) seemed abstract or detached, but they weren’t, they just weren’t down and dirty with emotional problems. Now, I might be able to provide a means which may actually prove directly useful in our daily lives. Transforming negative emotional states, as well as dealing with psycho-active agents which cause us so much internal and social turmoil.

When I first explored XQ way back in 2008 in Thailand, I wrote a section which suggested that if the premise is correct — that there is a subjective side to math — then the act of performing certain math actually performs certain processes in the mind which may be useful to us within our internal mental space. I think I am approaching a time where this exploration is now possible. Surviving hell has its benefits.

Unknown

I have finished (messily) three movements of a book I am writing called GIFT, and approaching the final movement. As with all my books, there is always something dramatic at the end. I set up up the book as I write, and create a mental space at the end which is entirely empty, hoping that inspiration will provide a fitting conclusion. Not so much a logical conclusion, but an emergent one.

With GIFT, the narrative is about an older man who is living in a period of time where society is approaching a massive global transformation, of which he is part. I do not know how this is to be written, the content, the drama. I do not know what format, first person, third, whether to write more dialogue, or to simply describe. I simply do not know.

However, because of my personal relationship, the hell I have been going through, I have undergone a form of transformation, and though math has been partly responsible, it is not entirely clear. I have had some projections into the verbal field, noticing how our mental environment matches our ecological one, or how self-denial matches our social-denial. But when I start to describe them, because of their nature, they tend to multiply in word and story. Hence, the desire to capture it in concise mathematical form.

Funnily enough, I started to write an article which goes into multiplying by negative one as well as multiplying by i, the square root of negative one, but I thought this material was too much for my 2020worldwalk blogpost and transferred it here. I continued writing it, but got bogged down in detail and have not returned to it yet.

I simply wanted to write this post to indicate where I am at the moment. Midway between a social, verbal description, and an XQ mathematical description.

XQ — a rigorous path to personal and social happiness!

And if I manage it, then not only will it align to my current mental trajectory, but it will fulfil my intuition of a therapeutic maths, as well as provide people with direct testable material which will not only improve the quality of their own lives, but will naturally lead to us all improving the quality of our lives collectively, globally.

images

But these are just words, not fitting for this blog. What is needed is math.





actual serendipitous alignment

13 09 2012

Having met Alan Raynor through Leon (who wrote this post) on an email engagement only a few days ago, and getting a fortuitous recommendation from John Wood of Metadesign to learn about Alan’s Inclusionality theories, Alan kindly shared his ideas on relativity which, as far as I can tell, is an attempt to include consciousness in the frame of reference.

As I write this, I have got as far as reading Newton’s famous equation, which Alan uses as a natural culmination of Parmenides’s discrete world view.

F = ma

and I simply translated this in terms of money rates as defined by mttp. That is, acceleration, rate of change of distance over a duration, as rate of change of money over a duration, for example, £100-day per week. Think of a bundle of people who are engaged with these different rates of moneyflow, multiply them by the number of people, and you get some notion of the force of a social movement.

(Why movement? Because my mind has just got off the back of engaging Indy with respect to Jeremy’s work with Purpose.com, who happens to be co-founder of avaaz. This video is a rather good example of the level of self-disclosure required for our new global “leaders”.)

Of course, the math of real cases is more complex than F=ma, and so is one where eg 50 people were working at different rates. F, in this case, would still give some idea of the “force” or “momentuum” of the movement. So far, the momentuum for ecological economics is around £10-hour per week, and it ends in a season. That’s barely a pulse. We were almost close to £100-day per week for a season, which starts to become reasonable, and ideally, and healthy, when it is five £100-day’s per week — for one individual.

And this is to talk about money. If we shift to subjective enumeration, where people are giving values for each other’s contributions, what kind of calculations can we derive regarding the “force” or “health” of a movement? Will increases and decreases of subjective enumeration derive patterns that we can study with standard mathematical tools? Will new laws emerge that capture how realistic a movement (or a project) is, the required “energy” to manifest results? Undoubtedly, in my mind.

(John, as you can see from his metadesign article based on our event, has been considering the required parameters for synergy to occur, but I feel he is jumping the gun slightly. I need to have more obvious palpable results, like the results that Jeremy has produced. Or, more like action cycles that derive some numbers in terms of moneyflow and subjective enumeration. That is, I would rather base analysis on what works. Hence my customary call to ensure we have moneyflow while we examine these equations, rather than attempt to derive them sui generis.)

I have now finished reading the article, and it ends with with rather loud statement:

Space is an intangible presence, with qualities vital to the very possibility of cosmic evolution. SPACE HAS
INFLUENCE, which INDUCES ENERGETIC FORM INTO CIRCULATORY FLOW.

I am looking forward to reading Alan’s rather longer paper written with others, where I hope there are attempts to mathematise his thinking. I expect to find some material which relates to material I have dubbed XQ, observations on how math needs to change to capture the kind of thinking he is demonstrating.

And just in case anyone reading this thinks this is all pie-in-the-sky thinking, Alan has conducted courses at Bath University where the effects on his students have been quite remarkable; here’s a video of some “results”. That is, his engagement with real people is the proof of his thinking, much like my experience with kids has influenced my thinking. It is grounded in inter-subjective reality.

The application of this thinking may prove to be substantial in terms of global movements, ala Jeremy’s Avaaz organisation, but I am personally interested in getting proof of process not only in classes (something we have achieved already), but in business. I am specifically interested in getting proof at the bleeding edge of business, in sales, marketing and advertising. I have met with some remarkable people, like Ken Dixon from Newhaven Agency, and if we get proof there, not only will we unlock unlock a source of moneyflow from companies, we will provide companies with a new business methodology which will greatly accelerate all the good work being conducted by theorists, educationalists, entrepreneurs, environmentalists, and everyone attempting to avert the very real ecological disaster we are facing.

If I had a wish in my life, right now I’d use it. I wish that all the players mentioned in this post aligned sufficiently strongly to be able to… if we were mountain climbing, it would be putting in the effort to reach the next camp, higher than any of us have so far been. A stable point which may enable others to reach without too much difficulty. A vantage point that allows a clearer view of the terrain around, the socio-economic and historical-political position we are in. And a point from which we may progress onwards. It is as if this point is the first above the cloud-line. What might this mean in the real world? An algorithm? An operational model which enables a group of people to achieve something remarkable, the first manifestation of the “confluence model”? I do not know. This is what my wish might be.





math of social unity

31 08 2012

An article was written back in 2004 or 5 entitled “the algebra of world peace”. It was a thought experiment which posited the psychology we must have should we achieve a global sustainable, environmentally sound, political and economically stable world situation — short-hand — world peace.

If one’s mind rebels against this term, world peace, consider the necessity for us all to be involved in a sustainable solution, like all members of a family need to be part of the running of a household (however useful or not any individual’s contribution is). That is, the following thought-experiment is predicated on the acknowledgement of social unity.

belief and probability of social unity

For social unity to occur in the future at some point in time, steps would have to have been taken. And for a step to occur, someone has to actually believe it enough to act. Does the state of belief in a future situation improve the chance of it happening?  Clearly the intention to write or read this article improves the chance of it happening, but for more complicated social events, it can get very easily become impossible to tell.

Applying numbers to this is tricky. Let’s say the chance goes from 0 to 1; 1 in the sense that the situation actually occurs by a certain date whether it is the year 3000, 2100 or even as early as 2030, and 0 before we had any idea and it was inconceivable. In a personal sense, 1 means that an individual now believes it enough to action it, and 0 in the sense the individual just didn’t think it was possible at all.

The experiment further examined who would recognise the truth of this mathematically, and those who believe because there are already thousands if not millions who believe by 2020.

The thought experiment took the direction of examining whether one’s belief influences the chance of it happening, and recognising that it does, the reason and logic (whatever any other aspect of the mind comes up with that is purely based on scathing scepticism or sheer disbelief!) to recognise the efficacy of belief. If we accept that sustainability occurs at some point in the future, then we must recognise the necessity to believe that it will happen. The probability might be incredibly slight to start with, with less than a fraction of a percent in 2000, but this must increase until it happens at the set point when it actually is attained. In this way, we overcome ego with reasoning. This is no longer a matter to argue, this is a simple matter of logic and probabilities.

thought experiment 2.0

The new bit to this thought experiment now is a calculation that gives us the estimate of 1 million believers by 2020. There are various ways this million might propogate, for example a simple doubling. Let’s say each person can invite one other person per year, say I invited you this year of 2012. The following year,  we could invite one each, thus there would be four people who believed for the next year, and so on. How long would it take before this simple doubling process could result in about 8 billion people being true believers, the required amount — the entire population of the planet — for the sustainable solution to actually work. With this doubling pattern, world peace would occur around 2045, hitting a million believers by 2022. So, with this pattern, we fall short.

So, where did I get my estimate for a million for 2020? Well, instead of inviting just one person, what happens if we invite two in the following year, three in the succeeding, and reaching a maximum of eight people each, before descending until we all only invite one other again in our last year. In this last case, a year before we are all united in our belief (which is logically derived), this would be half the population of the world, let’s say 4 billion. If you run the calculation based purely on this basic pattern(and we forgo any potential detail of birth and death rates, and the number of people who are aware but who do not follow through and so on), we pass from about half a million to a million and a half during 2020. This means we’d reach the total population of the world by 2027. Which gives us all — everyone on the planet acting in concert — three years to sort out a sustainable global situation by implementing an agreed solution.

Forget about what the solution is, for now. That’s a whole other kettle of fish. What we can say is that the solutions will become more apparent as we progress, as more of us believe and work together, trying out various social and political and economic solutions. Or, we might be able to apply the same pattern above — we could say that it only requires one of us on the planet in 2012 to have the solution, and if only one other gets it this year, and then another two get it in 2013, and so on, until everyone has got it by 2027.

So this extension of the thought experiment is an improvement from the original. With this simple numerical pattern — based on people inviting only one then incrementing this until in 2019 we are inviting eight people each then back down to one — this one simple behavioural rule is more precise than when I first came up with the thought experiment in 2004 or 5. Things have got more accurate than at the turn of the millennium when I started thinking about 2020 in this way. That is, my mind is manifesting the truth that the solutions will become more apparent and accurate as we progress.

um… why is 2020 important?

Back then, I just intuited that the year 2020 will attract some attention as we get closer to it purely because it is associated with opticians 20/20 vision. We can hook all our visions of what we may achieve by 2020, and as we approach it, those visions that seem more accurate demand more of our attention. It is like an evolutionary improvement as our ideas fit the conditions — given the fact that our thinking and belief about it actually influences the outcome.

I originally thought we could have achieved the sustainable situation by 2024 once we got the conditions for 2020 right, the first of which was that everyone was aware that 2020 was the year for us to realistically change our behaviour as a whole species and sort out the environmental mess. For us to have got to consensus by 2020, we must have worked out quite a lot of the problems. Totally unrealistic, of course, given our current conditions in 2012 — but back then at the start of the millennium, it was just the start of the mainstream internet and we have seen massive changes in the world since then, just not enough.

Now, given the numbers we have come up with and revising our projections, we only need 1,000,000 people by 2020, and that is based on only one person reading this and getting it this year. Getting it logically. Getting it in a way which makes them equal with me, that we both see the logic and reasoning — though more like purpose. Normal logic is timeless, it is applied to statements and facts, whereas our application of logic has direction in the future, and we have reasoned that belief is a necessary function for sustainability to occur. This logic with future orientation is a vector. We can understand this vector as purpose, a very human quality, motivation and understanding.

why it gets better with time

The next improvement to this thought experiment will perhaps give us more accurate maths as we logically explore the space.

And while the maths gets more accurate, and the numbers grow, and more minds are aligning to solutions, and aligning to hit a million by 2020 on purely logical grounds, after that, there will be plenty of people who get it because the scale of the movement is so impressive. That is, they do not respond to logic, but more the enthusiasm of others.

As a consequence, there will be plenty of people who hear about it have not seen the logic of it. Thus, we must get even better at ensuring we present the best logic and the best case studies as the remainder of the population join in, until by 2027 the most sceptical of us, perhaps half the planet, are presented with incontrovertible truth (based on logic that is, and perhaps the social fact that half the population of the planet believe it which alone might be enough to turn the most sceptical of us). And so it will have been wise for us to have reduced the number we invite as the years go on so that we can concentrate more on the few left, so that we only have one and only one invitation open to each and everyone one of us in the year 2027. We have a year to convince them using all our logic, all our experience, and all the evidence that half the planet are behind it.

We will have got pretty good at it by then. We will be feeling more confident with ourselves. Our sense of trust will be something we feel daily, with the people we meet, the people we live with, our neighbours, our colleagues, our partners. A great sense of family will occur, much stronger than anything anyone has ever felt at such a scale — more than the communist revolutions, more than the muslim or christian movements. It is not based on religious belief (other than we recognise one another as equivalent human beings), or political belief (beyond recognising the necessary polity of “all of us on this planet” for our solution to be valid), or economic for that matter (though we have recognised on the path of ecological economics that it is the equal distribution of money that is essential not goods) — these qualities of belief may help, but essentially it is rooted  firmly in logic. And this logic is not based on words, but the minimal language that is number, arithmetic, mathematics.

seeking a reasonable economic projection

Turning our attention to economics, since this is a blog about ecological economics after all, then we might expect the next significant revision in accuracy will be the economics for this to make sense, financially. First psychologically (or religiously if one wishes to locate it there), second the mathematical limit (or politically recognising humanity as a unity), and now economically.

We do not wish to steal the thunder from some future genius, perhaps the genius who reads this article one day. Suffice to evoke from my mind at least, that we will have transitioned from money (an abstracted number, the entire current economy being based on this unidimensional, impersonal measure, and mistakenly coupled to things) to subjective enumeration. The future economy of 2027 has had its operating system radically rewritten; it is a mathematical experiment where “money” has become “well behaved” as it has been coupled to time.; the future economy of 2027 is based on subjective enumeration, with only relative values in play. And for this to occur, money has shifted from operating as it does in the current economy of 2012 (which we have evolved over the millennia), to be operating as it does in the future economy of 2027.

What about 2026? What percentage of the economy will be using money as we are used to now, and what percentage using it in this alternative way? Half? Could we apply the same math pattern as we have above? If we did (and I think this indicates how clumsy we are now, but hopefully in a few years someone smart enough will come up with a better set of numbers), and we use $18 trillion for global trade in 2011, how much would we need to be playing with in 2012?

Whatever our answer, it needs to be reasonable. What equation to determine the ratio of  “old cash” for “new credits” might be continuously reasonable from now till 2027? One early observation I had while exploring ecological economics is the turning point of 50% where half the trade on the planet is done through mttp and dmp and the other financial protocols, ie manifesting the new economic entity. And if this is not critical, it may at least be remarkable. Apple may be the world’s most volumous business in a few decades with $84 billion reserve, but it does not compare with the US or other major countries with $1.4 trillion exports and $2.2 trillion imports for 2011. For the economic entity to operate with 50% of global trade, perhaps $30 trillion by then would be… awesome!

Perhaps scary for some, but only if thought of in terms of competition and aggression — if we are thinking sustainable and peaceful, it means we are all involved, which means monopoly in a collaborative world is a good thing. Which makes world peace, and this thought experiment, and these number games, awesome!

All that we need to wait for is for people to recognise the logic involved, the math, and some time soon, the economics, in order to believe it.

how much belief is needed?

Looking back at our simple table, we start off in 2012 with a number 0.547. This is the number of people who need to believe it in 2012 to start it all off. What could this number mean?

Playfully, we could suggest that what this means is that a person needs to be 54.7% certain this makes sense. It’s not 0%, and its not even 50/50. A person needs to be more than 50% certain to act on it. So, if it makes more sense than not, and only by a little, that’s all that’s needed.

So, what do you think?





alignment

31 08 2012

True horror is considering the negative implications of your actual course of action but from the vantage point of the future when those things have happened. Whether this is sexual decisions and behaviour or economics decisions and behaviour. That is, if it does impinge negatively on your children’ children, effecting intergenerationally perhaps seven generations into the future in a negative way as best you can see it — and you have looked at alternatives as they arise throughout your life — then now, how can one say one is doing the best one can?

Nope, because the best one can do, can not be compared to what one has been able to do.

(Breaking the negative, using a single stroke for negative “-“, and splitting it with a space “-  -“, a double negative?)

Socially, we have a lot to do if we wish to solve major global problems and that is through our individual, mature decisions and behaviours. It is not enough to be doubly negative, in the sense of trying to avoid making mistakes. Two wrongs – – doing what one is doing aware that it has negative repercussions, and trying to ascertain to the best of one’s abilities the course of action which has the least negative repercussions – – do not make a right.

Mathematically, if there are several wrongs and only one right given certain conditions, the probability may look small. Imagine a junction with a million paths and only one takes you to a happy world for the rest of our lives. We only get one pop at it and if we fail to manage this as a cross-generation engagement, the opportunity of the right path will pass and we end up on one of the many roads to disaster, environmentally, socially and so on.

The probability may look small but probability is not what we are interested in — we don’t want to make a blind guess. One sustainable solution out of a billion paths that end with disaster ——— that’s just way too stupid a way of looking at it! We need to increase the chances so that to all intents and purposes there is no choice but the one in front of us that happens to be the right one. Thus, the probability is 1, certain.

So, in order to get to that probability of certainty — that is, we’re doing it — we need the person reading this to take their reading seriously. Why? Because there is a similarity (perhaps fractally) between the “decision” made socially as a human collective in the future as the decision now made by a human individual while reading this.

That is, how you are reading will determine the success of our future lives together on this planet in a sustainable way for a few millennia at least. You meaning anyone as an example of all of us. And to be specific, you, reading this article right now, today, right smack bang in the middle of your life.

“then we need the person reading this” which was you back then you now reading and the you at the end of this article — we need this person to hit 1, certainty, basically, so that you actually do something about it.

Further, this decision by the individual may increase the probability of getting us on the right path, starting from a very very low quantity, a quantity that most individuals are not capable of seeing. That is, most of us as individuals may not see the possibility, the tiny one as it stands in 2012, turning into a large enough probability let alone that probability hitting certainty for us as a social collective!

Shall we turn to faith, then? Or belief? And if this fails us… a pure guess?

Nope, I prefer to use mathematics.

The probability is 1 at some point in the future if that is the future in which we exist, that we manifest. From our perspective now — this demands attention! — the probability at their time is 1. For us to get from where we are now, which is zero and we can represent as 0, we must rely on something we do not yet know.

That is, this thought-experiment is based on something we do not know.

That is, we are not basing it on anything we know — we are basing it on what we don’t know.

That is, necessarily, basing it on my trust of someone or something else, whether that is god, nature, science, money, planetary motion, words in the scriptures. But this basis of our belief is insecure, it slips because the very foundations of christianity or islam, or democracy or capitalism or what whatever institution that has formed has been because people base their decision on words, images and so on.

Our only alternative, if we are to trust others, is to place our faith on people we know, on living people, in those about us. But the consequence of this is that we are more easily swayed. Can’t really say this is fundamentalist, since what is trusted in not a word, not money, not institution, but the person.

(Things get a little confusing if we think too critically. For example, our minds might come up with more complex cases such as trusting an individual in an institution (I trust my friend who is a *anker) or trusting an individual because of the institution (I trust the clergyman with my child because I believe in jesus).)

Note, negative negatives, or not negatives, or double negatives are not bad, they are just stuff of the mind, scaffold constructions, based on logic and reasoning, whereas we need to actually be imaginative and make up stuff and try stuff out. We can’t just look at the alternatives in a “negative-minimising” way. We must be courageous and do new things together — trust faster and deeper and thus make deeper decisions. For us all collectively, we must be positive, but only slightly so. Non-zero in a positive direction. Perhaps it is best to say it is simply experimental. Not positive, just willing to see what happens, allowing, enabling, being responsive.

Thus the decision is a test, a true test to our selves and our children and their children’s children because such a test will be asked of them for this system that we enable must be capable of existing for millennia. A sustainable planet and all that this entails means a living participation, which means wholesale consensus as we have seen. This is less to do with probability as we know it and more a way of dealing certainty in a subjectively integrated way. And for this to happen we need equal diversity in terms of behaviour and moneyflow

And, isn’t it true that money is probably the most influential factor on human behaviour? Which means, altering the basic math of money will generate a completely different effect on social behaviour? Part of which will involve introducing people who are following the money, to examine the thought experiments you’ve just read. And thus, to be invited by someone trusted and recommending to someone trusted. That is all, just one person.

The catch, if there is any catch, is that it must happen this year, and if that was fun, two invitations the following year and increasing by one each year (and this is related to another post which involves the math of social unity).

Given the info, your decision is all that matters. And collectively, your decision is all that matters. This is a test of adulthood, for us as human individual beings, and for us as a whole species since we have grown from civilised babies to young adults.

What shall your decision be?

What is your decision?

What is your decision to be?





as fixed as a book

19 08 2010

The good thing about a book is that it is. It is a thing. It gets finished. It becomes completed, and gets dated. Of course, then people have to end up writing revisions, and then if enough ideas shift, another book. Whereas the benefit of a blog, as someone wiser than me pointed out, is that there is no need to revise since it is always in a state of revision.

But I do hanker for some location which means I can just fix an idea. Like wikipedia. Of course this can be done already, you can create a wiki for yourself, or for your community. Take p2p foundation as a good example of this. However, I know all of this is going to become obsolete at some point pretty soon, within a decade is my guess. A massively distributed system, personal and collective, where everyone one does, writes or reads or watches, is personally flavoured. In terms of knowledge, a thing like wikipedia but where every page, section even word is personally tagged. A version of wikipedia per person.

But until this time, I have thoughts in books, google docs, old blog posts, web-pages, and the like. It would be nice if I could have a system which could refer to them all in their disparate forms. The first extreme version of confluence model, point2, might enable this, funnily enough.

Anyway, I had a thought while talking with Leon. Or rather, it was Leon’s. He asked about “no brainstorming” rule in the action cycle and I explained it was to do with genuinely responding to new perspectives and thoughts. It was about filling the space between people, or making use of the differential between us. Like ingredients to make a dish, there are two ways of doing it (metaphorically for our purposes that is:). First, you can ask people to declare the vegetables they have, and you end up with a bunch of people with their vegetable. The second way is to invite someone to declare they have an aubergine, another then says they have a courgette, and a third person excitedly suggests they can use their pepper to make ratatouie. We are interested in this latter methodology. We can’t be too firm about asking people to declare their hopeful objective for the following week because then they will be deaf to others; we would like to be open-minded as we present our idea so that new ideas form.

Anyhoo, Leon asked what the mathematical application of this might be. I turned the question back to him, and he intuitively suggested it was to do with irrational numbers. By way of explanation, he suggested a square as a thought, the diagonal is invisibly inferred, and suggested of a new square whose side is root 2. Fair enough. His intuition sparked an alternative explanation in me, after he showed me a Cantor set of rational numbers. Participation in a normal meeting is like thinking in whole numbers, the number of people there indicate the number of whole numbers, seven say. Whereas, in an action cycle, one accepts one is fractional, a seventh of the whole that may emerge if everyone plays their cards right  (literally :). And irrational numbers are those ideals which have the greatest potential depth, continuance, etc.

And, for some reason, after the conversation, I started to think about ping. I wanted to ping the idea. Sally used this phraseology, to ping an idea my way. And I relate this to kernels of thoughts before jaxing. Instead of writing an idea up, like the one above, one just marks it with a phrase, and then when one gets down to jax, one recalls the kernels and extemporises live the idea. And this allows everyone the freedom and space to explore their own thinking, without this solidifying into books, etc. It is merely a verbalisation, an interesting one perhaps, but as vacuous and wonderous as any breath of wind.

And I wanted to just write this idea of ping as a kernel somewhere, and I’d love to have a place I know I can store it for some future reference which is entirely future-proof. This blog isn’t it, I am afraid.

Anyhoo, I wanted to relate the ping idea to the feedback loop from the universe. A book has a ping value of a few years. A blog post a few days perhaps, maybe weeks. Depends on how connected the person is, how deep it is in the mindstream. And a conversation is close to real time, a few hours, a few minutes even. And, then there’s the ping that happens in seconds, within a second, the micro of one’s thoughts and body, or even quantuum levels of self that the buddhists delve into.

As ping tends to zero, the non-self-reflected state. The state of engagement, of continuity, non-separation, direct experience. Stimulated by Jeddah Mali.

Actually, this makes me think that I’d like to reach that state I had before. I promised I would only reach it with others. I wonder if anyone wants to get there with me? Could I do another evening where I invite people to share this? HOw about bank holiday monday? Or the sunday, after Hannahs voice class?








%d bloggers like this: