Thursday, March 30, 2017

A Physics Speculation: 1D space as the past, 1D time as the future

Warning: this includes many factual and intuitive ideas that try to make connections between thought and physics.  Landauer's principle shows one if not the central basis of the connection. I always try to be exact, efficient, and correct. Sometimes my reasoning and presentation just fall apart.  But it is not easy to identify when. I do not have the energy or desire (since these are notes to self, not just to the world) to take out or refine the trash and hope you will try to take it all seriously at first before discarding a paragraph as an example of my confusion or inattention.  I hope the imaginative aspects will be understood and appreciated.  I am always trying to explain ideas I have not seen elsewhere, otherwise you could just do a Google search. This means I am often trying to break from established "facts" like the belief that entropy always increases (this is not true as established by cosmology and the great physicist Richard Feynman as I have explained before). The most important ideas are the ones that are new  and therefore are harder to grasp or appreciate when they are read.  If a sentence is correctly parsed it does not mean the importance has been grasped. This is all the more true if you are incredulous. I regret and warn that sometimes you need to be. But even if an imaginative idea is factually wrong, logically inconsistent, and badly presented, it may be useful to have it go into your bag of imaginative tricks.

All logic can be reduced to the placement or interaction of 1's and 0's which are just "yes/no" or "true/false". Boole showed this in the 1800's. 

Geometry was the first "math" that went beyond addition, subtraction, and multiplication.  The ink is 1's and the space is 0's. The ink holding firm on the paper is for letting the paper keep a good memory of the things being claimed. The logic of stories, law, and advanced math still use the ink on the paper as a memory and syntax rules for the valid ways in which the ink can interact with itself, across the space of the paper. 
The physical objects we see in space are also a rigid memory. The relationship between the objects is largely defined by the space between them.  Unlike geometry, law, and math, the object relationships in space are changing in time, as if the ink on the paper is moving around, according to additional syntax rules.
But there is a rigid relationship between time and space. We have units for energy which we now know is the same unit as mass, specially E=mc^2.  But that's not exactly right.  The correct formula is E= -mc^2 (with the negative sign, they are equal and opposite).  Or rather, the E+mc^2=0.   Similarly it is not exactly meters=seconds anymore than energy=mass.  Obviously there is something different.  The exact relationship is meters = SQRT(-1) * c * seconds.   Also, space is 3D and time is 1D.  Or rather, the position of objects in the 3D changes with time.  But the 3D is a consequence of us having a 6-layered brain.  To solve 3D of rotation and 3D of velocity, our brains needed to have 6 layers of neurons in the cortex in the same way you need 6 equations to solve 6 unknowns.  The process of learning since or before birth or even hard-wired develops the 6 equations we use for the rest of our life to conceive of objects with mass when we are presented with 6 data points of rotation and velocity.  What I'm getting at is that the newish "holographic" view of the universe that attempts to say 2D is more accurate than 3D is still 1D short.  Physics should always be reduced to the simplistic but complete form, and 1D of space should be sufficient. Objects are no longer objects with mass in 1D, but just more like the 1's occurring in the midst of 0's along a single line.  There are patterns to the sequence.  Our 6-layered brain is made useful by the existence of those patterns. If they were random, 6 layers would not have any use.  To see 4D space in 1D time we would need 10-layered brains and the mass we would perceive in that world would be related but very different.  Everything with velocity in 3D is static in 4D.  And everything with acceleration in 3D is a velocity in 4D.  It would be E=-mc^3 instead of E=-mc^2. 
But my point is this:  There appears to be a "space-line" of 1's and 0's (whatever that means) that we call the past that underlies our perceptions.  Space is the past.  Time is the future.  I said meters=i*c*seconds.  But a little math can restate this as seconds = -i / c*meters.  So seconds might be the negative of meters (scaled by "c" and times "i").  That is, our perception is standing at the origin of a "timeline" or "spaceline" where our position is = 0.  And from there goes a positive sequence of 1, 2, 3 with each spot in that sequence of 1D "space" a 1 or a 0. That would be our 3D space converted to 1D space and is strictly a recording of our past. The positive sequence of 1's and 0's is what we perceive as objects in space at this moment of the origin.  They are a recording or perception of our past that determine via logical consistency what is possible for our future.      And the negative numbers on this "space-time-line" is the future of 1's and 0's about to unfold.  And maybe EVERY possible sequence is unfolding, which creates the many-world's interpretation of quantum mechanics.   "i" in engineering and physics is always used when it is describing something that "varies".  In this case the "i" might be stating the next value can be 1 or 0.  If you do not know the value, you use "i" in it's place.  The space-time-line might be more properly a sequence of SQRT(1) and SQRT(-1) or +1 and -1.  0 and 1 in Boolean logic are not really values, but simply signify there are 2 possibilities.
As I've posted previously, the expanding universe is extracting entropy out of gravitational systems in order to keep a constant entropy per expanding (comoving) volume of space.  The entropy that leaves a gravitational system might be a record of what path the system took.  Since mass is the negative of energy, there is no creation of energy with a many-world's view.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Transaction fees should govern all aspects of a cryptocurrency

In response to a wired article:

Instead of voting based on ownership of tokens, voting should be based on amount of fees paid in transactions. Those USING the coin as a CURRENCY, would then get to decide its design and future. If you view transaction fees as "taxes" to support the "governing" of the coin and how transactions are handled and paid for, then those who pay the most in taxes (transaction fees) should get the strongest voice in directing the future of the coin. "Pay to vote" sounds ugly because it sounds like a lobby, but it's not the same. The transactions fees conducting the voting is a real market-place legitimate force. No one other than the market place should be influencing the coin design and even new-coin production rate. Not developers, not nodes (basically the banks), and especially not miners. Marketplace voters based on fees paid is even smarter than a democratic vote where an infrequent user of the coin would get the same vote as a frequent user. In this scheme, it's a democratic currency instead of an oligarchical asset like bitcoin. Transaction fees as a percent transferred would cut down on day trading and on micro-payments that are not carrying their weight. Currencies are meant to be fluid assistants to marketplace transactions, not assets to be hoarded like bitcoin.
We will not have a good cryptocurrency until the transaction fees dictate all aspects of the coin, especially coin quantity and coin release rate. Programmers and stakeholder should never make decisions regarding a currency. The distributed marketplace should be the supreme unquestioned leader of developers, miners, and nodes, not their hapless victim. When it's functioning like this, you will find the coin will have a stable value and not reward early adopters. Greed and ignorance is what's stopping the emergence of an intelligent peer-to-peer cryptocoin.

Monday, March 13, 2017

Bitcoin, currency in A.I., and rise of the machines

comment in reddit:
I'm objecting to your the implication that "no one" is in control of bitcoin. You actually said "anyone" which leaves open the possibility that "everyone" or "consensus" is in control of it which is my position. I've tried to show why bitcoin is not fundamentally different from the status quo. The only way to fix it is to have a coin who's code is simple enough to write once and it inherently disallows future changes no matter what the consensus wants. I suspect the physics of evolution seeks this so that machine technology can continue to replace biological technology (5000x more extinctions right now than the historical rate).
That bitcoin needs to be changed is proof of its imperfect security (where "security" includes it's value as determined by its usability).
Not defining what is meant by "best" for the coin is also always a problem in these discussions. Increasing its value is in direct opposition to increasing its use as a currency. It is an asset like gold but not a currency (gold has always been the most horrific currency for the masses and very much loved by the 1%). Its limited quantity blocks its widespread adoption as a currency.
Distributed, secure, efficient, intelligent systems depend on a currency that expands as the size of the system expands. This is not bitcoin. Bitcoin is the digital asset that may soon represent percent control of the total physical assets of society that are being guided by it. It needs an expandable but not inflatable currency to go along with it for use in the marketplace. By this I mean we need a currency that expands as its use expands but no faster, so that wages, prices, and contracts remain valid and accurate (a coin that is constant in value but not in quantity). So the marketplace needs to set difficulty and coin emission rate by feedback from total coins per day transacted (not transactions per day), not by programmers arbitrarily deciding the coin emission rate and total final coin quantity. A currency needs to be a living beast, not controlled by anyone or even by everyone but only by the marketplace needs. In this way the corporate machine can continue to take biology out of the economic picture in its pursuit of thermodynamic efficiency.
As an asset Bitcoin may be the one coin to rule them all. But it desperately needs to get married to an efficient, expandable currency in order to exert and extend its control of society. This is an error in your post. You speak as if you are addressing global issues. The other shoe has not dropped. It's going to be as simple as bitcoin and not subject to bickering or change. It will adopt to marketplace change as I just described.
I suspect the bickering is from the lack of understanding that there is this other shoe that is missing. It can't be both the ideal currency and the ideal asset. Each bitcoin can and should represent a percent control (1/20M'th) of assets under its roof. A percent is not a unit of account that can or should be used in the marketplace. The currency should be expressed in "Available Joules" (aka Gibbs free energy).