### Conversations

I would love to see television programs about people working and exactly what they do in a day. And folloe a project to completion. Like documenting a business process. It would teach so many people.

Yes, well, it is almost done in Japan. Students do go almost directly to the enterprises and companies after graduation via something called shūkatsu (就活), whereby job is almost guaranteed, because the relationship usually starts way before their graduation, usually with internships a year before graduation, which are more like relationship building than usual internships.

However, only thinking about education and industry is too narrow. I think, there should be integration between:

Education = Industry = Entertainment, and I've described that here (section about schools and jobs).

--io

Future doesn't actually exist but is refreshed and happens after every decision or thought in the now. We live in a cause and effect universe - every change in the universe gives the effect for the next state. So you can run the universe to completion by knowing all the conscious decisions each particle makes. Your coffee mug is conscious. "Now" is refreshed repeatedly like a rhythm. Every other being gets to make a decision to react to your decision. So past present and future happen all at once, together. Like one event. This is how eternity exists between each second. Every effect on the universe creates a separate timeline that is true to that decision. That's your memory. Every you is true to yourself. I think people who suffer or have pain have it incorporated into their lives to serve some greater experience or purpose. God is good he doesn't make us suffer for no reason. We might even cause the suffering to ourselves. I truly believe everybody gets what they want and believe to be true. In other words, everybody gets the consequences of their thoughts and decisions.

This is how God can show you your own funeral a near death experience when you get to decide whether to stay in the world and fulfil your mission or die in the world and complete your mission here for spiritual growth.

This is why imagining the future and defining what we want is so important to getting what we want. We need to visualize what we want to the universe so that the universe gives it to us.

What you imagine or think is a noumenon. It's a real object that can be interacted with and perceived in the spiritual plane.

I want travel to be unnecessary to get to work. My living quarters should be 5-10 minutes away from my work place. So this implies a dense living arrangement.

I want computer computation to be used for socially beneficial purposes that's why I created the category for computation for normal people. I want a resurgence of desktop computing, self hosting and the web to get better. I want organisations doing administration and necessary work for individuals - organising things of the home and supplying food deliveries. People don't have to waste their time shopping for essentials. Someone needs to organise food transport from organic farms to people's houses or communal kitchens.

I had a dream as a child of an island with an underground railway system which was concentric circles. The idea being you could travel around the circle easily. I never did solve the problem of going more central than going around laterally. You live your life as if in a particular ring.

We need more readily available cruelty free food so meat free, more vegetarian recipes/dishes. Each chicken and cow is a loving being.

Imagine a world where hotels and housing is free and you can live where you want.

thinking, if Future is just an extension of Now, we probably will have the same Needs, but Solutions will be different. So to imagine the future is about observing now. What needs do we have - what elements are in our environment - like housing, transportation, work, education, etc.? Then, what would these elements look like in the future? Probably they will be made of different ingredients: have different features and be developed on a different set of values. Say, housing likely won't be a square box, but be more about biophilic design or in contrary - something else. How to include diversity here? What could these values be? A palette! Some will be organic, ecologic, integrative; some - darker shades.

Also, to me it seems that exploring a transitional phase from Now to Future is interesting. Where would all current buildings, things, stuff go? How would current materials/things be composted, transformed into future objects? Also, how our human identitied would transform into perceptions of the future?

--Ruta

The linked topic (link) has been inspired by this video. It talks about the same kind of problem, so you might want to reflect on it.

--Mindey

I think of the Bauhaus as the futurists who turned intention into pedagogy, practices, designs, artifacts, and architecture. They turned intention into the modern world. Now that we live in a postmodern world, we are thinking through the errors and mistakes in our designs and iterating on those designs with incremental changes to the way we live modern life. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us.

A letter to the future in the form of a manifesto:

“Let us then create a new guild of craftsmen without the class distinctions that raise an arrogant barrier between craftsman and artist! Together let us desire, conceive, and create the new structure of the future, which will embrace architecture and sculpture and painting in one unity and which will one day rise toward heaven from the hands of a million workers like the crystal symbol of a new faith.”

— Walter Gropius

--bauhouse

To answer the topic and not Mindeys time capsule text document, sorry Ruta for that digression.

I have often wondered why all our storytelling narratives - science fiction, video games, films are so dystopian rsfher than utopian.

I want to see utopian films about societies that are different to ours. That are perfect like heaven.

// be careful to associate destruction or destroy with bad. //

There's a concept of non-destructive destruction. The example in of "non-destructive" digestion would be factories -- that, for example, use the wood because of what wood is and can do for us due to its high level qualities, rather than because of its low level qualities (like carbon content). "Digesting" wood merely for its carbon content is a form of "destructive" destruction, destroying the essence of what wood is, disregarding the tree's efforts to grow that what it is. The "non-destructive" destruction would be the use of wood for what it is, highlighting its essence in what is being created from it, rather than using it for low-information-content substance...

Same example generalizes to other areas, for example a "non-destructive" digestion would be the one that synergistically utilizes the ingested food for what it is at high level, rather than destroying it into very low-level un-informative constituents...

I think equating "non-destructionism of essence" with "good" rathe than evil is reasonable...

--Mindey

Clarification:

I intend to use this puzzle to research and discover methods for imaginative storytelling and then use these storytelling methods to create solarpunk art. All commenters - before posting, could you please think - does my comment help this puzzle reach a conclusion?

Thank you!

--Ruta

[chronological] can you clarify your point? how does your comment relate to this research puzzle of "SolarPunk Future" (Imagining Futures in Detail in Storytelling)?

--Ruta

Mindey be careful to associate destruction or destroy with bad.

There is no bad action there is only the knowledge of good and evil.

To digest food is to undergo catabolic chemical reactions to break down larger forms into smaller forms. The act of digestion is not evil but it involves destruction of forms.

Burning coal is not evil but it causes things that are considered bad.

Intent is not enough to say something is evil either.

Killing someone can be good if it stops more people from dying for example. The killing itself is not evil.

Killing others to steal their things is evil depending on your perspective. I have no problem with the killing during the French Revolution for example where the aristocratic government that starved the people were killed. But a drug addict killing someone to buy drugs would probably be evil.

Treating animals cruelly is evil. But killing animals for food is less evil.

The action and intent is not enough to decide if something is evil. It requires knowledge of every variable to decide if it is evil.

If someone is wielding a knife to kill somebody we have to know why they are wielding the knife to kill somebody. The intent to kill is not enough to designate it evil.

// I had an entertaining thought which I don't understand myself: "..we can talk to future now!" //

Indeed. The ancients like Aristotle, Plato, Democritus, etc. perhaps did not imagine that they are writing their works for someone to read thousands of years into the future -- they probably were thinking that they are writing practical things for the current or next generation or education of the next generation, without the intent of it to be messages to the distant future, just like most people these days do not think of writing on-line as a form of writing for the future. However, the long-lasting web projects make us realize that this is the case.

I have once came around the KEO (time capsule)project, that encouraged me to write to the future, here's my attempt: KEO-message.txt (written more than 15 years ago).

--Mindey

Yesterday I had an entertaining thought which I don't understand myself: "if time is a looping circle, and if we know the language of the universe now, we can talk to future now!" So this is a creative prompt to start exploring solarpunk 😀

--Ruta

// In that same sense, aliens are real, because we think about them, and make them part of computer games that soon will become indistinguishable from reality (so, they will be our thought, but at the same time real to experience).

This is the case for all evil. It is imagined by someone and executed by another.

There is evidence that the first person to learn something or is difficult for them. But as more people learn it, it becomes easier. This points to a shared consciousness. Or infinite consciousness or cosmic consciousness.

https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/carl-jung-and-the-concept-of-collective-consciousness/

// I guess so. I can't explain time progression without interaction. Hence, I'm also panpsychist.

You need separation too. I believe unity and separation are key attributes of God, consciousness or existence.

For a form to function, it must have attributes that are distinct from other forms. This is separation. One molecule is separate from another. One cat is separate from a dolphin. One person is separate from another. One electron is separate from another.

On earth all forms are present together at the same time. The boundaries are loose between forms. In a mind, a form is perfectly separate from another form unless you choose to interact them.

Unity is the idea that all things are connected and separate. Which is simultaneously true. I want more unity and more separation.

Without separation we cannot have letters and words. Letters have a distinct meaning, but it is above our consciousness or needs to be studied in depth to understand.

It's a duality I find particularly interesting. This is why I believe nation or cultures need separation or one will extinguish the other, losing information or individuality. Also there is a natural order to forms - one form is better at cutting and another at stabbing. You can think of different forms of blade where this is true.

// the idea that there is one cosmic consciousness and we are just one being in a thought //

Had you come across Christopher Langan, and his CTMU (cognitive-theoretic model of the universe)? I liked his concept of UBT (unbounded telesis), explained in this paper. He views the world via the prism of Model Theory (the theory about theories and formal languages), and makes a distinctive connection between ex-nihilo and intelligent design, through "Mind Equals Reality" principle, creating a basis for logical theology.

In that same sense, aliens are real, because we think about them, and make them part of computer games that soon will become indistinguishable from reality (so, they will be our thought, but at the same time real to experience).

// Separationn is just an illusion. //

I guess so. I can't explain time progression without interaction. Hence, I'm also panpsychist.

--Mindey

Should anybody's opinion be ignored?

Yes. Lots of inertia. It needs to be broken up into granular sandy structure to lose it

--skihappy

This idea is subtle but our society is full of failure - failure of students at school, failure of businesses, failure of marriages, failure in terms of health problems such as mental illness.

We don't set people up to succeed. We don't train people to be mini CEOs at school to start a business. We fill their heads with barely connected facts - that someone designed in a poorly constructed curriculum which is not fundamental but arbitrary.

Graduates come out of school into minimum wage jobs - not high paid jobs. They have learned rarely practical theoretical made up nonsense in psychology or sociology - it's a far cry from mathematics, physics or computer science.

Maybe follow up on this could help?

1. assume "Nothingness"
2. conclude "Equidistance"
3. see balls, cause equidistant defines them.
4. see the Pi and the universal Turing machines. :)

--Mindey

Knowing that green stars can't exist naturally in the Universe, we could purposefully make a green star (link leads to a video answering why green stars can't exist) with a green laser to appear green to someone viewing MilkyWay galaxy from Andromeda ;) On the other hand, perhaps the fact that we and life on Earth primarily sees in the visual spectrum is quite random, -- who out there would be looking specifically for stars with 520 or 532 nm wavelength light?

--Mindey

I agree land is the problem. It's too expensive and the profit motive has superseded every other use of land. Even if something is socially profitable, the money incentive comes first.

Sheltering people should be a society wide imperative of a loving community or society. But it isn't. Profit is.

What we really need a s land, to form new communes, nurturing better culture. Building brand new is much easier then fixing the old. We got plenty of tech but land is always the biggest problem. Simply, all land been horded up by just a few people, and that's the root cause of all the misery. The only way it can be helped is by more sharing, by spreading land a little wider. I hope wealth generated on Blockchain can be used for that, that's my hope.

--skihappy

I think it's very simple and basic. Just make it easy for people to form and maintain local communities. The rest will fall in place. Community is a basic human need. a healthy local community will take care of all other human needs, like food and shelter. Let's get to the basics. That's what our tech should facilitate, the simplicity and f human existence, thru self sufficient communities. Also, I really object to calling most people stupid and selfish. When you do, that's what you gonna get. They are all at the same time, but all wanna be on the good side, side of community. That's just wired into us. We survive by clinging together. Our brains develop to live in peace with each other. Simply, if you succeed in providing basic needs from outside the community, you will fail , for what's the point of having the community. So we all gonna be lonely and miserable, just like now. We already have it.

--skihappy

Agree, [尹与及], and there's also a saying, "You get what you reward for," which is statistically true, so the question could be raised, -- how to evolve the features that are the best of human values. The technical research (with good animated simulations) into the behaviors that evolve can be performed, and is relevant to this category.

--Mindey

I agree with the concept that any body or any thing that was necessary for you to succeed should be rewarded a portion of the profits.

We should reward those that are right and those that are necessary. So this means any worker that contributes to you or any service or product on the way that enhanced your output.

I called this idea chain of necessity - that taxi driver that takes you to a job interview or to a business meeting is someone who chose you over someone else. He deserves something extra for his work and contributing toward your success.

Every worker in getting your product or service out the door should agree with his cut of the profits.

https://0oo.li/method/59001/chain-of-necessity-or-chain-of-distribution#1630399963

One idea I had that we should invest in the success ingredients of individuals and share their outputs. I call this baby citizen investment.

https://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Baby_20citizen_20investment

I think the finance industry is corrupt, bloated and not very innovative. It's very self serving and provides very little toward society. The stock market does not reflect on the health of the economy.

However index funds reveal a very important and useful idea of distributing your bets across everybody for success. We should do that with people and projects. Government and other people have a stake in your success and they also contribute to your success. Taxation can be just another chain or necessity or claim on your success.

If it weren't for your government funded education, you probably wouldn't have been able to read and write unless your parents taught you. So you owe the government something for the money the government spent on you.

Government spending should be a bit like index fund investment. Invest in lots of people and things and hope that some items grow more than others. Government should invest more in successful students at school. Doing well should unlock more investment in you because you're a winner.

I received a scholarship, bursary and grant when I applied for university because of my grades and writing quality when I applied to my department.

If I give someone and idea they wouldn't have originally had then I deserve some profit from the ultimate result.

The same way that Jeff Bezos parents are probably the true cause of Amazon's success because they gave him \$245,000 to start up.

The VC model in society is truly messed up. The relationship between a investor and founder is adverserial and the investors try to remove the founder ASAP by diluting the shares and equity of the founder. They try get as much equity as possible for the least investment. They're greedy and over state their importance in what makes a successful company.

This post covers how bad it can be

// People don't like giving up their surpluses to other people for free. //

It's the zero sum mentality, and lack of tracking systems that would give them credit feedback systems for what they did. Imagine if every donation and giving, that every read of your idea and every fetch of data from your repository was tracked by you, and you could connect someone's super-duper startup with the ideas that the person had read from your blog or your repository, making it possible to get back the credit from that startup, and every other success, that you had inspired.

I think the optionality for enforcement of traceability of the transfers of assets copies of information by the source of assets and information, can reduce the "zero sum" calculation, because suddenly people would think long-term about what they share and what they read. Howevertheless, anonymous information exchange markets will exist regardless of such tracking, a bit like pirated data stripped of identifiers, even with something like New IP. However, it certainly has side effects leading to surveillance society and erosion of privacy.

I think, just the actual presence of easy tools and optionality for systems to demand read receipts and fetch histories with anonymous identities that care about their track records (WoT) would create a new game, that people concerned about the future credit could opt to use, and that possibly may lead to new social norms.

--Mindey

People don't like giving up their surpluses to other people for free. People feel that there is a free loader problem in society. You 'have to earn your living'. I think it's wrong and incredibly short sighted. Theres this prevailing mainstream opinion 'i have got mine, fuck everybody else'.

People deliberately vote to remove benefits from other, less fortunate citizens. That's how terrible human nature is.

In my email based social network I defined lots of schemas upfront. To handle shares of various things.

I wrote example XMLs of each message. But didn't use the examples after writing them.

The schema registry could be ran in high availability mode.

orderData = db.get_order(order_id)

context.put("order", order_data)

context.put("user_id", user_id)

message = context.render("new-order-message")

Where new-order-message is looked up in the schema registry to see what data it contains

The registry decides what data in context or inside context subobjects appears in the message payload when rendered.

Many services pass on messages or store data from other services within the payload. Sometimes the service in question doesn't care about particular fields particularly but another service might further down the chain.

For example in event driven microservice architecture I have used we had MongoDB store cached payload of data from a previous service to preclude having every service thereafter fetching it. Also it keeps data in sync.

Schemas are used in RabbitMQ systems but are often managed in an ad hoc way. That is you have a Java class in each microservice of the network of microservices that you have to keep in sync. It's a nightmare.

Versioning manually is a solution I just think it could be done automatically. Press a new version button in a schema management UI and add the new fields. And tick check boxes where the field applies for each message kind.

If we want autonomous self managed organisations like DAOs there will need to be some agreement on the protocol format.

For me, it looked like some "docker registry" (~"schema registry"). So, I asked a friend specialized in devops to comment on this. His thoughts were:

"Makes sense, however a db or files, another state feature are supposed to have only owner, if various services use 1 db, it means you will loose consistency. In terms of schema yes, it makes sense. However owner of service use different versions for API. Once you release some new changes on API, you have to increase API version, like /api/v2/blabla.I think Protobuf or graphql can solve this problem partly."

Me: "So, you mean, a point could be made, that protocol buffers, and API versioning make the central management of messaging schemas not necessary?"

Him: "All modern API providers use versioning... Ok, field appears automatically, but if application is not aware what it is, the field is unuseful."

// Someone can move a piece of context to the protocol schema centrally. So adding a new column to a database or to a protocol message is as simple as changing it in one place.

Personally, I like the idea of developing schemas of data independently of microservices, because then everyone can be part of the development of ontological model of the system, which never ends with just one microservice.

--Mindey

You can't currently rent a house long term through an app.

I think you should be able to buy a house like buying milk at a grocery store.

What's new in this idea? The "no end date", the "auto-concierge", what else?

I prefer a world without buildings, just living in "hivecells" directly on planets. Clothes should be made convenient and safe enough to replace housing.

--Mindey

I definitely prefer the nomad lifestyle. I used to be a consultant and travelled all the time in the UK and Ireland. I was always in a hotel and in a different city every 9 months.

I rented a flat and bought an expensive computer and coffee machine - now I feel restricted where I can be. I have to stay in one place. So I'm thinking of moving again and sending away my computer and coffee machine to some central location such as my family home and use my nice computer as a server.

IT contracts can cost millions of £££ for development of cloud systems.

If enough people on Infinity family congregated we could do bids on public tendor for information systems.

I agree, but I think it's more of a cultural issue rather then technical, as most of the problems worth solving. I picture a society of semi nomads, freely moving thru the land held in common, joining many available communities, where everyone is accepted, learning at each place, as well as teaching. Kinda like a human flux thru a more stable matrix of community nodes. I imagine life as a fun road trip, in anticipation of new friends and new experiences, travelling light, worry free. That's what freedom is to me. But such a vision would take a cultural shift. As of now, yeah, we can create an accommodation sharing app, there are already many, like time shares. So, of you have lots of money, we can make moving even more convenient. Unfortunately most people are bound stationary by that necessity of making money. We are all frozen into a rigid social structure. There's no single app that can change this. It's a generational change needing to happen. What's gonna change it is building those communes, one by one, nurturing the culture of sharing, community living and openness. Then, those communes attract by their success, more get started, they get interconnected helping each other. A new economy gets born. That's what we need to help to happen with our apps. We need to provide organizational tools to make forming such communes easier. It's very hard right now. Many are trying, and everyone is groping in the dark.

--skihappy

Well, triples are redundant, because tuples are enough: (a, b, c) = ((a, b), (b, c)) (the point (video) I made in an e-mail to [Telmo]).

Thus, we can think of triple stores as just semantic indices. Indices speed up querying, yes, but but otherwise, they are redundant. When it comes to semantic indexing, then, it would make sense to make such said "triples" not just between more popular graph nodes, but hypergraph nodes as well (doing the power-set indexing would likely exhaust computational resources in most cases).

Is there at all such concept of "semantic indexing" in the literature? It seems nobody calls "making triple stores" for a database -- "semantic indexing".

--Mindey

Also that example was an inferred rule. The age less than 25 people use gmail is something that is learnt by the database based on the data.

It's a correlation of every piece of data with every other piece of data. Could be implemented with a simple loop and correlation function

The problem with computed properties in programming language - outside the database is that they're not very efficient. You would need truth maintenance which can be expensive if naively implemented.

Blazegraph (since acquired by Amazon) and Jena Fuseki are triple stores have truth maintenance features.

Don't discount what triple stores bring to the table.

If a database could have virtual properties that were implemented inside the database - also updated on any insert or changing data - then yes it could be efficient.

Isn't it just computed (virtual) properties to "sets of objects interlinked by desired properties" (a combined virtual object)?

For an example of computed properties, we can think of

"if someone is aged under 25 they only use Gmail as their mail provider based on database data"

as a single computed boolean property, namely Object.use_only_gmail(age): age < 25 => True ? False, to the objects that have "age" property. An implication can be viewed as just a property computation. The confidence level can be described, too, by simply computing the property, and observing that, in actuality this statement covers just 95% of cases.

For an example of a combined virtual objects, consider the below query:

"Search for the cases, where collocation of exactly 2 objects aged above 25 had spawned 2 living objects aged below 1 during a period of less than 1 day."

Assuming that the occurrences of "spawning 2 objects" and "collocation" is not something that the database naturally tracks, computing such property would involve creating "combined virtual object" (say, an occurrence where graph pattern of spanning objects with collocation is observed), and then computing the boolean property to such virtual objects, answering that exactly 2 objects were spawned.

I don't see why we'd need triplets stores anymore: it's all more naturally doable with just computed properties and their patterns specified by queries. A pattern is just a "combined virtual object", so, a query is just a construction of a "template virtual object" (in fact, I've explained that in "purposefulness" section about desired data properties, when supplemented with metaformat). This would enable to query for any patterns imaginable.

--Mindey

I have an idea in my startups list called manufacture app.

The idea being is you could request a phone with certain specs or laptop. Upload PCB designs and 3d models and get it manufactured.

Your idea addresser app made me think of this idea - I would like the key interface with my computer to be search.

Search someone's name, email text, file text - anything and results should show up. I should be able to provide a complex query about attributes of the solution I want and find them. Like a join but a converging function of multiple variables.

Like What If.

I don't know how reasoning engines work but I think it's a replicated application of modus ponens

It would be nice if you had one built into a database or a prolog engine built into a database. You could generate facts like if someone is aged under 25 they only use Gmail as their mail provider based on database data.

If computers used a standard ontology of relationships as proposed on the Smart ontologies page, we could store everything on the screen and abstract things not on the acreen in a data structure that could be used to support Window merge.

Would be nice to have an ontology for computers and relationships between files, processes, threads, containers, permissions etc

Then we would have a simple data structure for everything that wasn't so implementation defined.

Reasoning on ontologies is a special case of querying of datasets, and most databases are just specialized ontologies, optimized for certain types of queries. Some databases, like triple-stores, may be optimized or logical inferences.

You're correctly noticing that Infinity family ontology is pragmatic from the business sense. In fact, I had worked on Odoo (previously OpenERP), which is a Wordpress-like framework for enterprises to run, and I thought (back in 2010) -- that AI-augmented corporations are already happening, so, we need a system that would enable them to be transparent with the society, and, since companies are just sums of people, I thought, there must exist common denominator between how individuals, companies, and even governments operate, and in fact, the Infinity family ontology is an attempt at arriving to that common denominator from the first principles, described in the paper on the equation model. A more concrete version of that, is the NRV (network resource vocabulary), the idea of which is to introduce something like HTTP response code numbers to responses, but rather, semantic codes to data objects.

In theory then, to make systems understandable, we can go around all the systems (such as each app) and data packets (such as the internet traffic), and project them in the human semantic space, -- by having such codes attached to their tables, requests and responses -- make all systems understood to humans, and even make them mathematically tractable.

--Mindey

When you think about it though, browser is just a UI Protocol, defined by W3C, and the main feature is not the browser, but the address field! Your idea has inspired a related idea of Addresser App.

--Mindey

I envision this collective becoming an Ecosystem of Organisations mentioned by [malü].

Synthesing as I type this:

As a collective we unite professionals and businesses who want to help people in the world to realise true potentials through collaborative creativity.

Our mission could be to advance human development tools and promote symbiotic creativity as a process for human development.

Human development includes all aspects of personal growth, from nutrition to exercise, biohacking, spirituality, creativity as a mental activity, ... and the latest research done on the link of gut health and mental health, the benefits of social activities for wellbeing and longevity, and more. To sum up, seeing creativity as a healthy output out of human development activities (input).

Our core activity could be to facilitate knowledge exchange between members through hands-on co-creation experiences.

We could operate as a volunteer run membership based organisation (like various nonprofit organisations do, e.g.JCI, Toastmasters, Open Knowledge Foundation, etc). The difference is, in SYMBES our members come together online to exchange the latest tools for human development and to advance their creative abilities. This happens when members attend small "co-creation experiences" online.

This is a draft obviously! Editions welcome.

--Ruta

A friend of mine is working on Cohado Philosophy and a game based on that, where it's said that "one cannot see themselves and a need a mirror". So this makes me think how important is to have mirrors-collaborators in the journey of creativity.