It was discussed previously that evolution can be expressed in two equivalent ways. Picking one expression over the other results in fundamentally different development paths.
This is the battle between the older version of evolution (competitions between variations) and the newer version (symmetry of the system).
Based on the discussion on 23 Sep 2024, the input and output of a class should be structured based on diagrams. this means the i/o of each function should interact with the i/o of other functions in a class. Then those interactions combined define an entity. This is the same idea as personality. People have different characteristics but all of them combined define the personality of a person. This is the main challenge in design: building small elements in such a way that they can be combined into one unified entity. For example, there are different properties in a car. However, all those properties should be designed in connection to all other elements. It’s not possible to design the light of the car and put it aside, then design the overall shape and put the design aside and start designing another part of the car. Instead, all of it should be designed interactively. That is the main challenge of designing.
So the next task is to construct that idea mathematically so that different functions (i.e. properties) of an object interact with each other.
This is a symbolic gesture. Collective intelligence will be produced in a symbolic battle.
UPDATE 1:
When you reveal your cards and we’re not impressed, it means you’re in huge trouble. Pretending is your way of doing things. This platform is open and frank. You know our (i.e., the community’s) next moves. You all can calculate why your moves were unimpressive.
Clearly, the platform tries very hard to prevent the escalation of tensions, however, there is a real possibility that there will be a huge war. The platform should be prepared for this possibility.
The aim of the platform is to use economic and entrepreneurial leverages to stop wars and authoritarianism. If Lebanon’s tensions turn into a war, the platform should provide an example of how this aim can be achieved in real situations.
In the past, I wrote about organizing anti-war communities in different parts of the world. One of the best ways to achieve that can be to form communities around cryptocurrencies built for this purpose. I explained different ideas previously, but they can be combined into one idea. The region affected by the war will be divided into different zones. A wallet will be assigned to each zone (wallets are controlled by the UN). Coins will be distributed among those wallets, and people around the world will work to increase the value of those coins as briefly explained yesterday. So social anti-war protests will turn into economic activities around the world.
UPDATE 1:
I sent an email to a researcher at the UN and discussed the idea.
A bazaar (called Madani) in a southern city in Iran was burnt today. The plan of the other side is to make me angry (in any way they can) and disrupt the project. That’s their main technique. In negotiations for example they try to disrupt things. Netanyahu’s camp kept adding new conditions and did other things to disrupt the negotiations. They’ve done it in the past and they do it now. You can disrupt a negotiation using specific techniques but you can’t stop a platform.
UPDATE 2:
Iran’s regime’s policies about Israel are the same as those of the Paidari people. So it can’t tell who is who because everyone says the same thing and supports the same policy. The difference is that Paidari wants to take down the regime and the entire region with it. So in a critical time such as this one, it’s wise for Iran’s regime to keep a distance from those who want to undermine it.
Khamenei said the Lebanon and Gaza war will be similar to the Iran-Iraq war. which means he probably expects a very long war that will weaken Israel and will push Israelis to migrate to other countries. The issue is that Iran’s social situation is already so unstable (worker’s uprising can be ignited at any time). Years of involvement in an erosive war will extremely destabilize an already destabilised society.
UPDATE 3:
The Iran-Iraq war saved the regime from collapse. However, this won’t be another stabilizing war for Iran.
On the other hand, Netanyahu’s camp persists in its old plan as if nothing has changed, although everything has changed.
The platform meanwhile will keep going forward. It will take advantage of the huge mistakes of the sides.
It seems Paidari’s plan is to ignite a workers’ lead revolution. They think they can hijack the leadership of such a revolution with populistic ideas.
People’s tolerance of pain is limited. People facing less pain can tolerate it more compared to those experiencing severe pain. The first group is more probable that they reject populistic immediate pain-relief medicine in exchange for a real cure. But those who are in severe pain seek anything that stops that pain. And so they are prone to accept populist ideas. This is a purely natural human response to pain.
Populists like ideas such as distributing money among people. UBI (universal basic income) is recommended by some economists but doing it in the worst way possible with no resources to support it, can undermine the entire system.
However, because Paidari people support populistic policies, why not distribute free cryptocurrencies among the part of society with low income and access to the internet? They won’t need any tech expertise at all.
UPDATE 1:
Unless Paidari ignites a social uprising after a sufficiently long time, any new uprising can be easily linked to the “woman, life, freedom” movement. So a new version of this movement is vital so that the link between this movement and workers’ possible uprising can be established. At this point, the new version of “woman, life, freedom” doesn’t require a functioning cryptocurrency or platform.
The new version of the movement doesn’t mean new social demonstrations, it means a new interpretation of the ideals of the movement. Paidari will emphasize racial issues to break down Iran into small, unstable segments.
UPDATE 2:
In fact, if any new uprising starts, inevitably it will be merged with the “woman, life, freedom” movement. Paidari thinks they can ignite different social conflicts to divide society. They think when the workers’ movement starts workers will consider “woman, life, freedom” as a bourgeoisie movement or something. and this will divide society. That’s impossible. Any new uprising will produce a new version of “woman, life, freedom”. The previous one was mainly around women, the Z-generation and racial minorities. In the new version, workers and low-income income people will come to the core of the movement.
New social tension is bad for Paidari and is bad for everyone.
I think I misinterpreted the signal I received recently (in fact there were two messages). I was probably told (threatened) that the platform is prone to the danger of populism if the platform neglects the part of the society with low salaries. The snapp project involved this group (see 20 March 2024). However, the snapp project is over but its ideas will be used in the dark web platform.
This is the first version of an idea and is incomplete:
If the same coin is used to buy different things, that is a fraud. For example, if objects O1, O2, O3, … each cost 1C (C is some currency), and someone uses a coin worth 1C to buy O1 and then uses the same coin to buy O2 and so on that will be a fraud. But that can be the basic idea for a cryptocurrency. This means that coins won’t be issued with pre-specified values. Instead, its circulation in society determines its value.
CryptoKitties is an example. The value of each cat is not pre-specified. That’s similar to an auction. The same idea can be used to build a new cryptocurrency. The value of each coin is specified by how it is being used. At first, the coin might be used to buy something worth 1C but when exchanged with several people and used in several businesses, the value of that will change. After that, the same coin can buy something worth more than 1C.
It’s true that the value of 1 bitcoin for example changes over time too, but its value is not a function of how each coin is being used. If the history of all exchanges of a coin is attached to that its value can be the function of that circulation. Based on this design illegal activities can be discouraged because they will degrade the value of the coins.
These coins with variable values can be used in the dark web version of the idea mentioned on 20 Mar 2024.
UPDATE 1:
The main idea is that coins are distributed among low-income people (for example workers in a specific sector in the first phase), and investors and entrepreneurs work on those coins to increase their values and earn a portion of the profit. This idea is incomplete but it’s something like that.
This writing is in response to things people said today and yesterday.
I wrote something a while ago that purpose doesn’t justify action. This is a really difficult question and I clearly tried to avoid responding to that when I faced questions about that. There are types of answers in politics that keep everyone happy but they are not practical responses. A politician can say I will try to work on plans that make everyone better off. No one can oppose this purpose. People are happy, opponents can’t criticise it so it seems to be a very good public policy. But that’s populism. Hard questions should be answered.
Doctors for example might prescribe that a body part should be removed (for cancer, etc). This will impose enormous difficulty but it can be necessary for survival. What about politics?
I should say that “purpose doesn’t justify action” is an incomplete expression. Everything is based on cost-reward evaluation. The question then is how individuals evaluate costs in different situations. One decision cannot be judged in an isolated environment. The same person who evaluates something worth a specific cost will evaluate other things based on the same system that concludes the first object worth that specific cost. So ” purpose doesn’t justify action ” seems to consider actions as isolated decisions.
As an example, people who enjoy watching fancy movies probably like specific types of colours, etc. all that should be defined in one system which is called personality. The same is true about any system. The vital question any system should provide a clear answer to is how things should be evaluated. If the survival of the current structure of the system costs inf (meaning that absolutely anything is eligible to defend the current structure of the system) then this system will make decisions about different topics in specific ways.
So the question of whether purpose justifies action or not should be rephrased. The question is how the evaluation mechanism of a system functions. The morality of all decisions will be the by-product of that.
So when a system specifies the purpose of building the region, for example, decisions about ways to battle those who want to destroy the region will be evaluated based on the evaluation system provided by that system.
UPDATE 1:
I said before that systems require a mechanism to predict the future so that the system can prepare for it. This is also true in moral issues. Each system should predict how each decision affects the evaluation system. For example, if a leader frantically and savagely removes every possible threat to his/her position, this will totally affect the evaluation system. After a while, the evaluation system will become a distorted malfunctioning system. So predicting how decisions affect the evaluation system in the long run, is a critical part of any system.
I saw a video of Khamenei’s son saying he would pause his online class. He then said whether that is permanent to temporary is “something to be discovered”. Observers interpreted this as a signal that he was being prepared for leadership. He paused his class (that publicly announced he teaches the materials of sufficient level for leadership in Fegh’h) and also that was the first step to publicising him. That was also a gesture that he is willing to restrict the internet for a period, which, at this point, is something to be discovered.
Firstly it shows he is highly unaware of current and possible future trends in technology. So again this sends a signal that the prediction mechanism of the regime is intact and its policies rely on unrealistic predictions. In fact, when the basis of the regime is shaking at its core, the most irrelevant move is to ignore the shaky basis of the regime and replace the piece at the top.
The consequence of replacing a weak yet stable piece at the top (Khamenei) with a weak and unstable piece (his son) will be a total collapse of the system and so huge chaos.
I think the theoretical basis of the wave structure is sufficient to start building the mathematical structure. Of course, the theoretical aspects evolve.
First, the wave group theory should be constructed mathematically to construct the layer-by-layer structure of wave statistical mechanics. It was said that V space is defined by scalars and vectors. Classes (in OOP) are a collection of vectors represented in the form of something similar to a matrix. Then Scalars will initiate those vectors (functions). So the multiplication of a “scalar” and a “matrix” constructs an instance of some class. For this purpose, scalars should be defined as such:
R_1:[int_1,int_2,…,int_n, float_1, float_2, ….,float_n,…]
R_2:[int_1,int_2,…,int_n, float_1, float_2, ….,float_n,…]
.
.
R_m:[int_1,int_2,…,int_n, float_1, float_2, ….,float_n,…]
So this is a table with m rows and each row consists of n copies of all possible data types (i.e. n integers, n floats, etc). n and m are large numbers. Each row initiates a function in a class (as explained before each function is a sequence of several base vectors/functions). So for example, if a functions get an integer and a float as input then the row associated with that will be:
[I_1,0,0,…..,F_1,0,0,….], where I_1 is some integer and F_1 is some float.
To initiate a function (i.e. a sequence of base vectors), all base vectors should be multiplied by a scalar. In other words:
V = V_1 +V_2+ …V_n. Here V refers to a function constructed by the sequence of n base vectors: V_1, V_2, …
Then V*S (where S is some scalar) equals:
S_1*V_1 + S_2*V_2 + ….+ V_n*S_n = V*S; S_1+S_2+….= S
The addition of scalars will be defined later, first, the addition of vectors should be defined. The sequence/addition of base vectors means that the output of V_1 should be fed into V_2 as input, then the output of V_2 initiates V_3 and so on. This requires that all scalars are of the same size (n*m; note that if square tables are required, all scalars can be n*n tables; n>m).
However, there is an issue. The previous setting implies that all V_i base vectors should be initiated in the same way, and the output of V_i (for any i) should match the input of V_j (for any j). This can be solved if V_i comes with a default initializer (d_init).
Consider the previous example, V*S = S_1*V_1 + S_2*V_2 + ….
S_1 initializes V_1, and S_2 is the output of V_1 that should initialize V_2. If the format of S_2 doesn’t match d_init_2, Then S_2 should be set to zero, and as a result, S_2=0 removes V_2 from the sequence (note that even if V_i doesn’t require any input, by construction it should get some arbitrary input to differentiate it from S_i=0)
S_1*V_1 + S_2*V_2 = S_1*V_1
This implies that the output of V_1 specifies the equivalency set of zero. This constructs a new type of algebra where (A+B)+C != A+(B+C). Also the identity element zero is an equivalency set which is specified by the output of the previous base vector in the sequence.
This provides a mathematical tool to construct different layers. By this construction irrelevant base vectors to some function will be in the zero zone (null space), so they will not be available in that layer.
UPDATE 1:
This is an example of a scalar:
R_1:[(int_1), NULL ,…,NULL, (float_1), (float_2), NULL, …]
R_2:[(int_1), (int_2), NULL, …, (float_1), (float_2), NULL …]
.
.
R_m:[NULL, … , (float_1), NULL , …. ]
Each value, such as int_1, is denoted as (int_1)
Then (int_1) + (int_2) := (int_1, int_2)
For example:
S_1=
[(int_1), NULL ]
N
U
L
L
[ NULL ]
and S_2=
[(int_2), NULL ]
N
U
L
L
[ NULL ]
Then S_1 + S_2 =
[(int_1, int_2) , NULL ]
N
U
L
L
[ NULL ]
UPDATE 2:
Because the null space is based on the input and output (i/o) of V_i, then the format of i/o can be constructed more suitably. So instead of (int_1,int_2,…..), pattern-based structures will be constructed.
Because the conflict in the region is escalating, these are two possible scenarios:
A) If the war ends, the platform will start in Iran and then it will gradually expand.
B) If the war expands, Israelis will also be very affected. So the platform will concentrate on anti-Iran regime Iranians and also Israelis. If the war expands, it will hugely affect the US election because it will be held at the peak of the new war. So it’s predictable that the platform will soon spread from Iran/Israel to the US and Europe.
It will be a suicide for the Netanyahu’s camp if they insist on the war and try to expand it.
UPDATE 1:
The type of work I’m involved in requires that all possibilities should be considered. It means all elements that affect the situation should be considered. Not all elements are obvious. However, all such elements should be taken into account as well. Consider this example. If an object moves, people conclude some force has been applied to it. some people might guess the force was the wind, some other people might have other ideas. The point is that any possible assumption should be taken into account. If it is proved that the assumption is wrong then it should obviously be discarded but if not, the assumption should be taken into account. In other words, anything with a probability above zero should not be discarded so that future predictions will not neglect a factor that might change the environment.
What I will say now is not a deduction from past events, what I’m trying to say is that if a specific element (not considered before) affects the equation, how should the platform react?
Netanyahu clearly wants to save himself. What if some people around him in the background support him for other purposes? The war has changed the image of Israel globally, even its closest allies are now expressing their huge concern. This makes the position of Israel fragile globally. There are groups of Jewish people that don’t support the idea of the country of Israel.
All I’m trying to say now is that any non-zero possibility should not be discarded for the sake of future predictions because the next moves rely on forces that affect the situation.
UPDATE 2:
One of the ways to specify the probability of some assumption is to consider it in a bigger picture alongside other elements in the environment. This is how scientific theories are built. There are a number of assumptions and then it should be tested to see if it contradicts reality or not.
It’s normally hard to tell the difference between hardliners in Iran and Israel. For the sake of building a model, let’s assume there is a group in Israel that opposes the idea of Israel. If Israel fails, this idea will be removed from Judaism forever. However, for this purpose, a group in Israel alone is not sufficient. Although this group can push for policies and activities that destroy Israel’s reputation globally, there should be another group in Iran for example that pushes for policies that actually endanger Israel. If a regional war starts, Iran’s regime will be gone and the region will be destroyed. But there will also be huge immigration from Israel to other countries due to this huge conflict. Israel’s reputation will be hugely affected, and that can be the starting point to end the idea of Israel.
Again this is only a model, the aim is to specify how the platform should react to that scenario. It was said before that the coexistence of Israel and Palestine (written alphabetically) in the same land is critical for building the future. This will be a model that can be used to end racial conflicts around the world.
Israel has blocked Hezbollah from using communication technologies. They have been pushed to use basic tools but the recent incident showed even those tools cannot be trusted. That was a huge blow because this interrupts communication.
The same trick is being used here. Whatever I watch may contain some keyword that Iran can use to pretend I want to send a signal. For example, I exercise on Friday mornings and listen to something normally. Today I decided to watch tech news. Then I decided to watch the physics news and searched for the term “physics news”. But realized all videos contained some problematic keywords in their titles, things that could be used to pretend I wanted to send a signal. At first, I thought I shouldn’t watch anything because those videos were traps (the videos themselves were normal physics videos but there were keywords on the title). But then thought if I wanted to play this game I shouldn’t do anything online because anything can contain something that Iran can pretend that I used as a signal. The main trick was to force me not to use online tools and websites at all because any normal activity could be interpreted in a problematic way. I don’t send signals by things I do online unless I mention it. For example, I wrote about Home Alone last week.
The method Iran/Russia is using is problematic for themselves. Whatever anyone does (or doesn’t do) can be said to be sending a signal to a colleague, for example, things as simple as scratching one’s face, etc. That’s important because in systems that rely on total trust in a leader when that trust becomes shaky people in that system will start asking questions about things they have been asked to do.
To disrupt the coherence of such a system complicated secret activities are not needed, once the trust becomes shaky people in the system will start asking questions themselves. But those people of course won’t publicly say it to their colleagues so hidden signals can be used for this purpose, very simple gestures people do every day can be used to send signals between these people. This is really bad for those systems where anything can be interpreted in any way.
