Bitcointalk Posts

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10424919#msg10424919

Quote from: mortified on February 11, 2015, 09:58:54 AM
That’s not what I mean at all. Bitcoin will create entirely new industries that don’t currently exist like the internet has only begun to do. There will be plenty of incentives for operating nodes and resourceful ways to expand Bitcoin’s pipelines. It’s not just about Moore’s Law, it’s about a New Industrial Revolution, not some armchair philosophy. Your x-y financial charts will require a z-axis with Bitcoin.
This is an important clip from one of Szabo recent blogs, the significance is that it bridges all our current economic knowledge in the physical world with the software world in a very tight package:

Quote from: N.szabo
Metcalfe’s Law states that a value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of its nodes. In an area where good soils, mines, and forests are randomly distributed, the number of nodes valuable to an industrial economy is proportional to the area encompassed. The number of such nodes that can be economically accessed is an inverse square of the cost per mile of transportation. Combine this with Metcalfe’s Law and we reach a dramatic but solid mathematical conclusion: the potential value of a land transportation network is the inverse fourth power of the cost of that transportation. A reduction in transportation costs in a trade network by a factor of two increases the potential value of that network by a factor of sixteen. While a power of exactly 4.0 will usually be too high, due to redundancies, this does show how the cost of transportation can have a radical nonlinear impact on the value of the trade networks it enables. This formalizes Adam Smith’s observations: the division of labor (and thus value of an economy) increases with the extent of the market, and the extent of the market is heavily influenced by transportation costs (as he extensively discussed in his Wealth of Nations).

Now speaking of transportation costs and especially in relation to software Adam Smith makes some interesting observations that aren’t necessary against bitcoin DEPENDING on the parameters set for it:

Quote from: Smith
The gold and silver money which circulates in any country, and by means of which, the produce of its land and labour is annually circulated and distributed to the proper consumers, is, in the same manner as the ready money of the dealer, all dead stock. It is a very valuable part of the capital of the country, which produces nothing to the country. The judicious operations of banking, by substituting paper in the room of a great part of this gold and silver, enable the country to convert a great part of this dead stock into active and productive stock; into stock which produces something to the country. The gold and silver money which circulates in any country may very properly be compared to a highway, which, while it circulates and carries to market all the grass and corn of the country, produces itself not a single pile of either. The judicious operations of banking, by providing, if I may be allowed so violent a metaphor, a sort of waggon-way through the air, enable the country to convert, as it were, a great part of its highways into good pastures, and corn fields, and thereby to increase, very considerably, the annual produce of its land and labour.

Smith seemingly isn’t disliking gold and silver but rather makes observations on them and their relation to types of money that might fly freer than the physical metals (which act like highways?). And also when thinking about optimizing currencies and especially in relation to market equilibrium and voting etc, it might be helpful to consult Dr. Nash and the lectures on “Ideal Money”:

Quote from: Dr. Nash
Illustrating the principle of these optional choices, the people of Sweden recently had the opportunity of voting in a referendum on whether or not Sweden should join the eruoc-currency bloc and replace the kronor by the euro and thus use the same currency as Finland. The people voted against that, for various reasons. But it cannot be irrelevant whether or not the future quality of a currency is really assured or whether instead that it depends on the shifting sands of political decisions or the possibly arbitrary actions of a bureaucracy of officials.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10442877#msg10442877

Nice, quoting my signature, which comes from the album The 2nd Law by Muse.

It should say, or could say, a sustainable economy must necessarily be stable, stability must necessarily be secure. And these things might not necessarily have a finite-ness to them, but we might agree that stability must be achieved as a movement in time.  Meaning there is no static solution. (which is how I was relevated to this dialogue/discussion https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/securing-decentralization-through-nash-equilibria/)

We understand that shells (and/or even more archaically stone tools) may arise as the foundation of a civilizations economy. but that certain metelogical expansions or discoveries may have overtaken the use of these things. Or for example there maybe have been a new discovery of more shells or metals as two civilizations collide or clash (which don’t share the same standard or in others might have plenty of shells).  Such an instantaneous “rocking” of the economic standard would not be favorable for the evolution of man. But would necessarily occur over and over again until a certain point.

Having a pyramid scheme akin to the monetary supply of bitcoin (such as the decreasing blocks on the steps of a pyramid), would certainly be a great bedrock up until either the monetary standard comes to an end or a new metal standard completely takes over  (ie gold becomes mined/discovered at the ideal rate, in tandem with no new collisions of continents of civilizations).  Each successive bedrock technology becomes a kind of incentive for the arisal of the next. But you need a certain momentum in order to economically over come certain boundaries.

Quote from: Smith
The nations that, according to the best authenticated history, appear to have been first civilized, were those that dwelt round the coast of the Mediterranean sea. That sea, by far the greatest inlet that is known in the world, having no tides, nor consequently any waves, except such as are caused by the wind only, was, by the smoothness of its surface, as well as by the multitude of its islands, and the proximity of its neighbouring shores, extremely favourable to the infant navigation of the world; when, from their ignorance of the compass, men were afraid to quit the view of the coast, and from the imperfection of the art of ship-building, to abandon themselves to the boisterous waves of the ocean. To pass beyond the pillars of Hercules, that is, to sail out of the straits of Gibraltar, was, in the ancient world, long considered as a most wonderful and dangerous exploit of navigation. It was late before even the Phoenicians and Carthaginians, the most skilful navigators and ship-builders of those old times, attempted it; and they were, for a long time, the only nations that did attempt it.

This is not different than the realization that if the great pyramids did not exist, we would today be lost to our true origins (I know some here disagree and should speak up).  So then of course among other things, they attract the “sea peoples’ which is a natural evolution pointed out by Smith (https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/twon-in-relation-to-egypt-and-the-block-chain-excerpts/) in relation to what arises a foreign commerced based nation (that sea peoples necessarily are but alas the Egyptians necessarily were not).

Quote from: Smith
The course of human prosperity, indeed, seems scarce ever to have been of so long continuance as to unable any great country to acquire capital sufficient for all those three purposes; unless, perhaps, we give credit to the wonderful accounts of the wealth and cultivation of China, of those of ancient Egypt, and of the ancient state of Indostan. Even those three countries, the wealthiest, according to all accounts, that ever were in the world, are chiefly renowned for their superiority in agriculture and manufactures. They do not appear to have been eminent for foreign trade. The ancient Egyptians had a superstitious antipathy to the sea; a superstition nearly of the same kind prevails among the Indians; and the Chinese have never excelled in foreign commerce. The greater part of the surplus produce of all those three countries seems to have been always exported by foreigners, who gave in exchange for it something else, for which they found a demand there, frequently gold and silver.

This simply then means, that we needed to discover the entire planet, before we could stop wiping each others bedrocks out.  And so rocks evolve to structures, and this might arise shells as highly transactable money, and then pyramids evolve, with certain “tally” practices, to be wiped out by metals and coins, and then soon to arise a new gold standard upon which “cash” and keynesian standards are birthed from. And then bitcoin as a new currency might move to be a gold standard to which new “currencies” technologies might arise…The key change sirs and madame’s….is simply that will not be conquering any new foreign lands of civilizations on this planet (and of course a realization our gold reserves are not at all finite).

Or in other words, the birth of “space commerce” must necessarily be secured with a stable global civilization (excerpts from Ideal Money):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10432632#msg10432632
In the ideal case, we would discover this method of calculation, and that would let us avoid future forks over this same issue in case it ever must be re-readdressed in order to “save Bitcoin”.

Ah, I think you’ve missed my perspective!  and possibly the very nature of this problem.  First in relation to money and what is considered “ideal”, we should definitely consider 20 years of lectures on the subject: http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf

And then of course we must consider what it is, in fact, that does create the wealth of the wealthiest “nations” http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-h/3300-h.htm (AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. By Adam Smith)

It might be helpful as well, if you would be so kind to stand atop the great pyramid whilst we discuss this important matter:

Quote from: thewealthofchips
Launch the interactive, choose “khufu” and then “view from top. Stand on the pyramids: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/explore-ancient-egypt.html

And so truly we end up with the realization that CANNOT in fact have the ideal case, that by discovering a method or measurement then we might be able to choose what is ideal.  Because we are simultaneously asking the question of what that method should be.  Or in other words, because of a shit ton of backwards reverse engineering type maths, there has been a realization that there can be no consensus on the ideal.  Consensus will only come on some that is not ideal.

In other words there MUST be a single static consensus and it cannot then therefore be ideal…and so in light of such insanity the only logical solution would be to take the architects advice, and I simply point out the relation of his specific advice to the royal cubit.  We will tell the masses it is related perfectly to the pyramids, and that will make sense to them:

Quote from: wiki
In Ancient Egypt, cubit rods were used for the measurement of length. A number of these have survived: two are known from the tomb of Maya, the treasurer of Tutankhamun, in Saqqara; another was found in the tomb of Kha (TT8) in Thebes. Fourteen such rods, including one double cubit rod, were described and compared by Lepsius in 1865.[6] These cubits range from 523 to 529 mm (20.6 to 20.8 in) in length, and are divided into seven palms; each palm is divided into four fingers and the fingers are further subdivided.[4][6][7]
The scale canard is the same used by those opposing a gold standard.  Low TPS isn’t an obstacle to scaling any more than a limited supply of gold.  The price of each simply increases and scaling is provided by quality (magnitude), not quantity, of transactions.  Substitution also plays a key role, as the more numerous but less important transactions migrate to secondary networks like silver/copper or Litecoin/Primecoin.

To me, and I come from a completely different paradigm, which is the obvious arising of a universal poker coin which cannot be said to be unrelated. The ideal poker markets that are eventually created by having a near instant and near costless means of exchange creates a cradle for a solution basically that is “quixcoin” (I “think” Szabo mentioned it recently and is Sergio L’s coin). I am far from technical, but to me this is the birth of the actual implementation of “mental poker”.  But I instantly get confronted with the question or assertion about why one would not just use bitcoin. This is of course in relation to many skilled type games, and the markets that support them.  Thats a mutibillion dollar industry that could snap over the bitcoin nearly over night which is contingent on bitcoin having some form or amount of limitations (transition from fiat to bitcoin, but ultimately to separate value from the game with separate “coins” protocols, or networks, however we view it all) . This is an incredibly interesting conversation.  I am almost sad I will not be able to share the contents and meaning with many people I know irl. Someone accuses someone of being a thief, but I think rather we must all think like thieves in order to create the ultra secure platform.

I think I do see an inevitable “test” or experiment, and so then there is a democratic choice, you can vote for change or not for change, you can try to be malicious or try to be cooperative.

Here is the outline:
https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/outline/

Here are notes on “dialogue” which may be useful:
https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/notes-on-on-dialogue-and-in-relation-to-the-block-size-discussion-dialoue/

Quote from: bohm
Thus everybody is quite free. It’s not like a mob where the collective mind takes over-not at all. It is something between the individual and the collective. It can move between them. It’s a harmony of the individual and the collective,in which the whole constantly moves toward coherence. So there is both a collective mind and an individual mind, and like a stream, the flow moves between them. The opinions, therefore, don’t matter so much. Eventually we may be somewhere between all these opinions, and we start to move beyond them in another direction-a tangential direction-into something new and creative.

Now, that would be the ideal situation. I’ve painted the ideal picture.

And so that is the ideal and we perhaps have the possibility for the truth of this, although somewhat shocking about how far back certain “protocol” technology may have gone:

Quote from: bohm
The tacit process is common. It is shared. The sharing is not merely the explicit communication and the body language and all that, which are part of it, but there is also a deeper tacit process which is common. I think the whole human race knew this for a million years; and then in five thousand years of civilisation we have lost it, because our societies got too big to carry it out.

With respect to TWON it might simply have been the outgrowing (or sinking ;p) of continents and especially in relation to the sea or “other lands” and the feasibility/economics of conquering/discovering them that caused us to “lose” this ‘technology’ bohm speaks of.

Very related vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRn23dQ_uJA

And then an auspicious comparison by bohm:

If the possibility of the choice of two coins arises, there might be some helpful strategy here: http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2008/03/logical-emergence-of-money-from-barter.html#links

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10432336#msg10432336
It seems then that we could think about different ways to implement bitcoin from the get go.

So, Mr. “Registered: 27 May 2014”, where did you come from, and who exactly do you mean by “we”?

I came from the same place we all came from, we just seem to have forgotten.  But to be clear I am only extrapolating the past from current knowledge (like pyramid archeology), as well as help from Szabo’s concise article’s and interesting lectures about “ideal money” and how it might come about.

I think though, we can take all this further and begin to take a look at what the market mechanism, voting system, or bargain might look like.  First we need to verify we see the problem correctly (I say “we”, because I cannot self verify myself). It seems that the Architect (Gav), is suggesting after some initial pyramid data that there may in fact be an optimal “cubit” size.  There are those that recognize this and will support such a change and those that have their own ideas on what is optimal.  Since it must be some form of mass consensus only the popular ideas can win, and in fact it seems then we are left with the possibility of only the strongest (or well supported) concept in order to change, where as any amount of significant disagreement will necessarily produce “no change”.

We can start to ask silly questions, such as how much will the change side be willing to pay the no change side, and what form of payments will they take?  In other words what is the market equilibrium in which you could offer enough incentive for those that do not support the most popular change to adopt/enact it?

If enough players voted they would not accept any amount of incentive in order to make this change (especially to the royal cubit sized blocks), then it could be shown that no change could in fact take place.  What happens then if it can in fact be shown that there is some how enough incentive to transfer to those that could in fact be “bought”?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10431669#msg10431669

So then assuming we don’t believe the story of a random ghost person posting a 9 page solution that radically changes the world nearly overnight…

It seems then that we could think about different ways to implement bitcoin from the get go.  And especially if we think in terms of building pyramids, there must then be successive iterations of such “structures”. Other types of digital currencies that may have been useful only up and until a certain point (ie hash cash).  Knowing then that over history many such structures have been rebuilt using at least some remnants of old or “conquered” structures, we should expect then some extrapolations from past attempts projecting foreknowleagabe about how this iteration (bitcoin) may or may not work…

Putting a small limit on bitcoin initially then would be useful perhaps to reducing spam attacks (?), whereas at that stage a larger (but albeit) limit would possibly function the same as “no limit” (making adoption and price stabilization near impossible or impossible or more costly etc.). And so it may have been (or must have been) foreseen that in the future upon some x amount of acceptance (ie probably decentralized exchanges locking into equilibrium) that there would in fact need to be a consensus amongst the users (which should have the most political influence or at least enough vs the mining pools).  If we waited too long to have this discussion, such a discussion and an intelligent (or most or more useful) consensus, would be difficult, near impossible, or impossible to arrive at.

What is interesting is seemingly all major currencies in the world have been stabilizing vs bitocin in the last few weeks:

Quote from: Ideal Money
Starting with the idea of value stabilization in relation to a domestic price index associated with the territory of one state, beyond that there is the natural and logical concept of internationally based comparisons. The currencies being compared, like now the euro, the dollar, the yen, the pound, the swiss franc, the swedish kronor, etc., can be viewed with critical eyes by their users and by those who may have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened inflationary depreciation in value.”

This does in fact seem to imply that the problem is really simply only consensus.  And such a problem could seemingly be solved with reason rather than conflict.  In other words, it is possibly that when viewed from the correct perspective, the consensus becomes immediate and obvious.  Sending the world into economic shock.

For example, is there a decision, that makes each of us bitcoin holders the richest fastest?  I’m sure the collective masses will “agree” to it.

Or in other words, I’m not sure reason is the reasonable course of action here.

(all this while we watch live as euro decides the fate of the ancient nation that helped us get here, and whether or not the euro currency might dissolve itself completely Smiley http://video.consilium.europa.eu/webcast.aspx?ticket=775-983-15407)

(I just picked up 5 euros with “bitreserve” just to make it fun and interesting

“Sources are saying that ‪#‎Eurogroup‬ statement is ready but ‪#‎Greek‬ minister is on the phone trying to get a yay or nay from ‪#‎Athens‬.”)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10432757#msg10432757

Effectively the economic majority of future Bitcoin users decide which changes will be accepted and which will be rejected, based on the present Bitcoin actors’ best guess about those future decisions.

It would be quite helpful if we could collectively realize the direct significance of the lecture ideal money but I will continue to post clips that are related/prophetic:

Quote
Quote from: Dr. Nash
Illustrating the principle of these optional choices, the people of Sweden recently had the opportunity of voting in a referendum on whether or not Sweden should join the euro-currency bloc and replace the kronor by the euro and thus use the same currency as Finland.  The people voted against that, for various reasons.  But it cannot be irrelevant whether or not the future quality of a currency is really assured or whether instead that it depends on the shifting sands of political decisions or the possibly arbitrary actions of a bureaucracy of officials.

I do not at all mean to suggest the consensus must be 100%, but rest assured there is some amount of “political” popularity the consensus must have because ultimately bitcoin is simply a bunch of people that have gotten together to agree…

If an important decision fragments the community too much then nothing really matters, you dissolve the entire movement.  We shouldn’t need to show the maths or computations for that. I’m not sure if we realize this is the difficulty, and the only difficulty.  Those that are arguing clear points, from clearly sides, do not seem to fully grasp the difficulty of the issue.  In short, the trade offs do not permit “ideal-ness”, and the logical argument is not necessarily going to align a large enough consensus.

What we seem to have gents (and ladies!), is a very clear game, possibly only akin to a complex PD, and what we are seemingly about to realize, is a new type of solution that brings about a new social paradigm. But what I am seeing, and my gift is only solutions and never to explain them…is many of the variables of this game cancel each other out…leaving only a SINGLE POSSIBLE FAVORABLE clear path forward…

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10444125#msg10444125

We might continue

Quote from: On Dialogue
An essential feature of the dialogue group is that it is able to reveal assumptions. These assumptions are actually making us ill. And in that sense, it is therapy to reveal them. The content here, then, is more in that direction and eventually moving toward being free of those assumptions, and exploring something new beyond the assumptions. The point is not to establish a fixed dialogue group forever, but rather one that lasts long enough to make a change. If you keep holding it for too long, it may become caught up in habits again. But you have to keep it up for awhile, or else it won’t work.

So isn’t the really question here, in another form, whether or not Satoshi is an Alchemist?  Or whether or not they have turned something that is not gold into gold? And that this is not so true unless there is some limited block size that means bitcoin wouldn’t be the highly transactable good some expect it to be. Interesting this “religion” or “myth” about what we call “alchemy” that certain peoples might be so knowledgeable they could do such an impossible task.  Much like the solution to the byzantine generals problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy

Quote
“The word alchemy was borrowed from Old French alquemie, alkimie, taken from Medieval Latin alchymia, and which is in turn borrowed from Arabic al-kīmiyā’ (الكيمياء) ‘philosopher’s stone’. The Arabic word is borrowed from Late Greek chēmeía (χημεία), chēmía (χημία)[25] ‘black magic’ with the agglutination of the Arabic definite article al- (الـ).[26] This ancient Greek word was derived from[27] the early Greek name for Egypt, Chēmia (Χημία), based on the Egyptian name for Egypt, kēme (hieroglyphic khmi, lit. ‘black earth’, as opposed to red desert sand).[26]”

“Technology – The dawn of Western alchemy is sometimes associated with that of metallurgy, extending back to 3500 BCE.[33] Many writings were lost when the emperor Diocletian ordered the burning of alchemical books[34] after suppressing a revolt in Alexandria (292 CE). Few original Egyptian documents on alchemy have survived, most notable among them the Stockholm papyrus and the Leyden papyrus X. Dating from 300 to 500 CE, they contained recipes for dyeing and making artificial gemstones, cleaning and fabricating pearls, and manufacturing of imitation gold and silver.[35] These writings lack the mystical, philosophical elements of alchemy, but do contain the works of Bolus of Mendes (or Pseudo-Democritus) which aligned these recipes with theoretical knowledge of astrology and the Classical elements.[36] Between the time of Bolus and Zosimos, the change took place that transformed this metallurgy into a Hermetic art.[37]”

And this is interesting I think in relation to what is called the philosophers stone, “sometimes believed to be an elixir of life”, in relation to what the ramifications might be of a single global currency standard (if the community came to a consensus that bitcoin should be a “gold”).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher%27s_stone

Quote
“The philosophers’ stone or stone of the philosophers (Latin: lapis philosophorum) is a legendary alchemical substance said to be capable of turning base metals such as lead into gold (chrysopoeia, from the Greek χρυσός khrusos, “gold,” and ποιεῖν poiēin, “to make”) or silver. It was also sometimes believed to be an elixir of life, useful for rejuvenation and possibly for achieving immortality; for many centuries, it was the most sought-after goal in alchemy. The philosophers’ stone was the central symbol of the mystical terminology of alchemy, symbolizing perfection at its finest, enlightenment, and heavenly bliss. Efforts to discover the philosophers’ stone were known as the Magnum Opus (“Great Work”).[1]”

“Mention of the philosophers’ stone in writing can be found as far back as Cheirokmeta by Zosimos of Panopolis (c. 300 AD).[2] Alchemical writers assign a longer history. Elias Ashmole and the anonymous author of Gloria Mundi (1620) claim that its history goes back to Adam who acquired the knowledge of the stone directly from God. This knowledge was said to be passed down through biblical patriarchs, giving them their longevity. The legend of the stone was also compared to the biblical history of the Temple of Solomon and the rejected cornerstone described in Psalm 118.[3]”

Many religions seem to have this lore:

Quote
The equivalent of the philosophers’ stone in Buddhism and Hinduism is the Cintamani.[13]

I do have an interesting insight into the squaring of the circle as well, but I should save it for a later post, and reference it here:

Quote
“”Squaring the circle”: an alchemical symbol (17th century) of the creation of the philosopher’s stone”

Gold can actually be synthesized (interesting word “syn-thesis), apparently it is costly (for now):

Quote
“As a heavy element, the cosmogenic origin of gold must be in extremely energetic nuclear reactions, which occur only in high-mass stars. It has been proposed that most of heavy elements like gold are produced in neutron star collisions.[11] Thus, all gold on Earth was accreted on Earth during the formation of the Earth and the solar system, and no new gold is being created.

Very small amounts of gold can be created artificially with particle accelerators or nuclear reactors, see Gold in synthesis. However, these methods produce radioactive isotopes and are extremely costly
, requiring rare precursor isotopes and expensive product separation and purification. Thus, synthesis of gold by nuclear reaction does not appear commercially viable.”

Particle accelerators have sparked another insight, in relation to our mastery of circles/squares (specifically Pi) and in relation to building the pyramids:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher%27s_stone

Quote
Synthesis from other elements

Gold was synthesized from mercury by neutron bombardment in 1941, but the isotopes of gold produced were all radioactive.[98] In 1924, a Japanese physicist, Hantaro Nagaoka, accomplished the same feat.[99]
Gold can currently be manufactured in a nuclear reactor by irradiation either of platinum or mercury. Only the mercury isotope 196Hg, which occurs with a frequency of 0.15% in natural mercury, can be converted to gold by neutron capture, and following electron capture-decay into 197Au with slow neutrons. Other mercury isotopes are converted when irradiated with slow neutrons into one another, or formed mercury isotopes which beta decay into thallium.

Using fast neutrons, the mercury isotope 198Hg, which composes 9.97% of natural mercury, can be converted by splitting off a neutron and becoming 197Hg, which then disintegrates to stable gold. This reaction, however, possesses a smaller activation cross-section and is feasible only with un-moderated reactors. It is also possible to eject several neutrons with very high energy into the other mercury isotopes in order to form 197Hg. However such high-energy neutrons can be produced only by particle accelerators.[clarification needed]

In light of emerging dialog and recent spikes in price we might cause, I should be allowed one final large deviation to a side street before we tie this all together.  We need then to relevate the works of Shinichi Mochizuki and especially in relation to the alchemist or philosopher stones “symbol” or “symbolic meaning” of “squaring the circle”.

It is in fact quite the impossible feat and therefore dubbed the mark of a madman to suggest one could in fact square a circle (Nash to the NSA):

It has been a significant problem over the history of man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle

Quote
Methods to approximate the area of a given circle with a square were known already to Babylonian mathematicians. The Egyptian Rhind papyrus of 1800BC gives the area of a circle as (64/81) d 2, where d is the diameter of the circle, and pi approximated to 256/81, a number that appears in the older Moscow Mathematical Papyrus and used for volume approximations (i.e. hekat). Indian mathematicians also found an approximate method, though less accurate, documented in the Sulba Sutras.[2] Archimedes showed that the value of pi lay between 3 + 1/7 (approximately 3.1429) and 3 + 10/71 (approximately 3.1408). See Numerical approximations of π for more on the history.

Its seems likely that our ability to more accurately calculate Pi, is very related to the macro scale evolution of our civilization in relation to the cosmos (ie our understanding of circles and how they relate to squares is crucial for the next “age”). Or in other words and in relation to the pyramids, our knowledge of the relationship of Pi and circles to squares (or that which we could measure or define) was also that which allowed such a great structure to arise and carry the back bone of our civilization.

This in relation to Mochizuki’s work is important (although on the surface seemingly unrelated):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-universal_Teichm%C3%BCller_theory

Quote
In mathematics, inter-universal Teichmüller theory is an arithmetic version of Teichmüller theory for number fields with an elliptic curve, introduced by Shinichi Mochizuki (2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d) as an extension of his work on p-adic Teichmüller theory.[1][2][3][4][5] The main theorem of inter-universal Teichmüller theory gives an explicit description of the arithmetic Teichmüller deformations of a number field with an elliptic curve. The paper (Mochizuki 2012d) claims to use the main theorem to give a proof of several outstanding conjectures in diophantine geometry, including the abc conjecture, the Szpiro conjecture, and part of the Vojta’s conjecture for the case of hyperbolic curves.[6] The proofs are unusually difficult to understand, and as of 2014 there is no consensus on whether or not they are correct.

It’s interesting (as if out of a movie), that all of these geniuses (if we include gavin the architect) seem to have converged somehow/sometime, at Princeton uni (einstin, von nueman, bohm, nash, gavin, mochizuki).

Quote
When he was five years old, Shinichi Mochizuki and his family left Japan to live in New York City. Mochizuki attended Phillips Exeter Academy and graduated in 1985.[7] He entered Princeton University as an undergraduate at age 16 and graduated salutatorian in 1988.[7]

And in specific regards to Shinichi’s works (and in his own words) we do in fact have “relevance”:

Quote from: Shinichi
Even under circumstances where one is only linked by a “narrow pipe” (i.e., such as an astronaut on a space vessel or miners work-ing in an underground mine), it is possible to reconstruct and grasp the situ-ation on the “other side” by making wise use of the limited information available.

The reason this is all important, and I believe should be relevated, is not only TN’s belief that Shinichi is in fact Satoshi, but also that seemingly inter-universal geometry, should allow us to Square the Circle, or in other words, I suspect Mochizuki is a “circle-squarer”, and this should then have relevance in the quantum physics field. (And more importantly but more difficult to relate, is that Mochizuki among other things seems to be laying down the formalization of the “field of consciousness” mathematically.

Shinichi:

Quote
That is to say,“inter-universal geometry” allows one to relate the “geometries” that occur in distinct universes.

Here, again we recall from the discussion of Remark 3.6.2, (i), (ii), that it is only by working with such correspondences that may be described by means of set-theoretic formulas that one may obtain descriptions that allow one to calculate the operations performed in one universe from the point of view of an alien universe

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10445683#msg10445683

anonymint is that you? coincube maybe?

No I should think not, but I should be allowed to relevate side tangents, especially since no one can match me on these interrelating subjects, and nor their interelation.

Quote from: On Dialogue
In the beginning, people won’t trust each other. But I think that if they see the importance of the dialogue, they will work with it. A basic notion for a dialogue would be for people to sit in a circle. Such a geometric arrangement doesn’t favour anybody; it allows for direct communication.

So tying this all together (getting to the points), and in relation to for example newton:

Quote from: Ideal Money
…the pound was the original currency of “the gold standard”, with its value pegged to gold in 1717 by Isaac Newton who was then Master of the mint.

Seemingly these masters of the broad view, have some form of a break through that allows them to progress in many fields, more relevantly here we see newton had developed calculus (certainly mastering the measuring of a circle), generalized binomials, and eventually began to  “quantize gravity”.  Why the relation of all these things, and especially to alchemy and pegging the pound to gold? Why does one fear publishing calculus?

Beyond his work on the mathematical sciences, Newton dedicated much of his time to the study of biblical chronology and alchemy, but most of his work in those areas remained unpublished until long after his death. In his later life, Newton became president of the Royal Society. Newton served the British government as Warden and Master of the Royal Mint.
Newton had been reluctant to publish his calculus because he feared controversy and criticism.[31]
In 1679, Newton returned to his work on (celestial) mechanics by considering gravitation and its effect on the orbits of planets with reference to Kepler’s laws of planetary motion.
Sir Isaac Newton is generally credited with the generalised binomial theorem, valid for any rational exponent.[6]

I must bring forth what may at first seem not at all related, but we must trust the possibility that it is not at all unrelated:

Quote from: Nash; An Interesting Equation
Existing Ideas of the Literature on Quantum Gravity

I remember reading, some time ago, in a few places, that a Lagrangian having metric curvature terms in quadratic combinations would give rise to a “re-normalizable” theory while the regular Lagrangian (which involves simply R) of the standard GR theory does not give a “re-normalizable” theory. And this was considered by the writers to be very important in connection with attempts to form a theory of quantum gravitation.

But I don’t myself understand either re-normalization or the general theory of quantization. (To me it seems like “quantum theory” is in a sense like a transitional herbal medicine used by “witch doctors”.  We don’t REALLY  understand what is happening, what the ultimate truth really is, but we have a “cook book” of procedures and ritual that can bused to obtain useful and practical calculations (independent of fundamental truth).)

So it seems of some interest, indeed, that a tensor equation of fourth order may have some possible eventual connection with some conceivable theoretical concept of quantized gravity but it is for me need to find other reason for justifying the study of an equation such as that given here.

My understanding is this:  I suspect then, that the problem of actually physically building a large(er and larger) pyramid truly boils down to the “geometric” problem of circling a square.  Or in other words the question we face today is identical to the measurement problems the Egyptians faced. Those that call for a more accurate projection of what block size should be do not understand the problem.  And this is interesting because if we think of this in relation to what should be the bedrock of our universe, or some form of standardized or uniform field energy or force, then we might understand for example gravity and its uniform relation to a sphere (ie earth).  In other words if gravity were not uniform in an archaic simple thought experiment then naturally a “circle” (sphere or ellipsoid in cosmic reality) would not be the product of that uniform measurement.  Furthermore then the way that gravity effects the stability of the pyramid in relation to block size, would necessarily restrict both the “economic possibility” of the size/magnitude of the largest pyramid standard that we might finally leave through a new digital gold standard.

It means we are capable of not only defining our universe, but in relation to other universes, hence “inter-universal” geometry.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s