No replies? I would like to know your first impressions then. Is it obviously a crazy idea? If so, please explain, because what's obvious to you is not to me.
I brain storm when I can, allowing many breaks and not thinking things through too deeply because this leads to wasted time. It's better to share ideas as you have them and let people point out flaws than it is for a few people to kill their brains coming up with something that is in the end fundamentally flawed usually.
Take for instance Chris Langon's CTMU theory. Granted the man is probably 100x more knowledgeable about math than I am, but he didn't see that he could bounce his ideas off other people from the start. Let's take a look at a quote from his CTMU Primer page:
Quote:
Reality Principle - The real universe contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is analytically self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality (up to observational or theoretical relevance).
Firstly, it's not very clear in his use of "up to". I've seen it used like A is the same as B "up to addition by constant" or "up to isomorphism" in math. But here to me, it's not that clear. Secondly, he uses the word "real" without defining it, and in fact reality is different for every perspective. And before deciding for the world what is real, the man really should learn to meditate or experiment safely with psychedelics, i.e. something that will make him re-question his basic assumptions.
So, he took the approach that his been used by many academic researches for centuries, to go off on his own and philosophize and later present it to the world. What drives someone to do this? What drives a mathematician to keep their work private or among only a few associates until it is finished? People could learn things together. How much more powerful of a theory would CTMU be if it were an open source community driven project?
I'm trying to remove my own ego from this work as much as possible, which is hard from a state of fear, fear that you'll be forgotten when you die or that someone will gain from you're work while you're living homeless, or whatever the fear may be. It takes very few rational steps to realize that doing it without ego and only using your ego when the work requires, is the best approach for humanity and ourselves. Of course it takes just as few steps to rationalize the other way. But in the first case, we have the opportunity for someone to shed light on such questions, where as if we thought too deeply ourselves, we're kind of re-inventing the wheel if someone already has come up with the same result we would stop at.
This project has the potential to expand many peoples' minds exponentially. When we come to reasons on our own, it's as if we're letting a door close in our mind, and we sometimes never consider leaving that door open with an "i don't know". Or we pick an answer based on our fears.
So enough of the soap boxing.
Keep in mind that this forum thread is the seed of the project. Whatever ideas are posted here are to be considered as if the site is already up. So if you have any light bulbs go off, mathematical, psychological, or whatever, then please share.
Here are some ideas. This is an idea on how one can present their ideas from all perspectives and potentially has inherent in it an easy-to-understand data structure that could be used in the mathematical side of things. What do we do when we reason naturally, i.e. when we're not blissed-out or meditating? We attempt to think of all likely scenarios and their causes and effects. We cull some of the scenarios based on our own perspective and our fundamental morals.
Well, using ourselves as inspiration, why not structure ideas / perspectives / votes like this:
Choice 1)
....Result 1)
........Result 1)
........Result 2)
....Result 2)
Choice 2)
....Result 1)
....Result 2)
i.e., a tree-like structure that can go arbitrarily deep, and at each node in the tree (these are the results or choices) we give an estimated probability of occurence, that is based on our perspective. This probability would be what a voter uses to tell us their perspective. This may not be simply a number but some complex yet-undefined mathematical structure. And it may be based on others' perspectives and so on.
Now, it would be nice to include the perspective of every atom of the universe, but for practical reasons, unless someone proves otherwise, this can't be done at the moment. And reason against it would be that if we want to consider the perspective of a blade of grass, it would be people who choose to incorporate that perspective, and so that choice is based on people's perspective. In a similar fashion all perspectives are incorporated based on the consciousness of the people.
For an exercise in this, the next time you're in a thoughtful mood, give this a try. Instead of cancelling possibilities, write down each one you can think of no matter how bizarre, and underneath each write your own perceived consequences and go as deeply on each one as you have time. You don't have to attach probability - I don't even know if that would be a good idea - it's just a poor attempt to mathematize things.
Now imagine a system where everyone's reasons are exposed for people to understand. 1) You have the opportunity to re-evaluate yourself based on others' perspectives, which you respect. 2) It gives others a chance to understand your perspective. 3) And this is the exciting part, this may lead to a deterministic algorithm for calculating abstract terms like "harm" based on the structures people come up with and the values they assign to things.
Should we let biology, chemistry, religion have their own perspectives since they are so powerful? Answer is no - see blade of grass example - the tendency to value a certain perspective higher than others will naturally arise out of the perspective of every person on the planet. If a group of people base their perspectives greatly on science, then so will be their perspective, and "the perspective of science" will be an abstract object (for lack of a better term) that exists within the "perspective structures" within the collection of all perspective structures.
Well, let me know what you guys think. I will try to test this idea out myself and make a post to see what it looks like for something completely random that happens in my day, though ideally the perspectives will be toward larger issues, but we can have fun can't we?
Remember, let your ideas flow, think of them for a while and let them go. And if you fear losing them, simply write them down! This can be hard though if you're stoned. Solution is then to not take them too seriously, or use an audio recording device. Just throwing that out there.
This is exciting!
Login
FAQ
Search
