the michaelmapes @unnnmslymchlmps@qoto.org

Last year was 2020
like
Next year is Global 1920

SUPERPOSITIONS i know nothing about, lol This is my hypothesis

The most important part of a superposition is the name because it represents two things relative to each other rather than just a state of something (which will be important, but isn't important for singular position when being measured because we already have names for the positions when we measure them)

Okay, the fun part. I've thought about this term I refer to as a Relationship Pet, which is the concept that a relationship takes more effort than caring about the person; Understanding someone's motivations is to a person as understanding relationship dynamics is to the Relationship Pet

EXample:
Your signo says they need to talk right before they get on a plane. What is the status of the relationship? You could make up a name for it, but the important part is that you don't know the position of the relationship relative to your idea of a functioning relationship
Similarly, I'm guessing that a superposition holds, not just because we don't know the position of a particles in a given moment, but also because it doesn't know the rest of the positions in its environment

The superposition becomes relevant when identifying the "Relationship Pet" of the particle, not the particle itself, and the naming becomes important over the group of measured particles

so if we stitched the up and down positions one day, it would change everything for us, but not the world because everything would be inverted perfectly

Again, not sure if this makes sense or not, this is just me approaching the concepts, lol

Ex:

0d A Rock
1d AC Tree
2d ABC Puppy
3d ABCZ Human

A - Self
B - Barrier
C - Goal
Z - X Variable of 4d Knowledge

A rock understands the force applied to it, and it processes its movement based on the interference between those forces

Trees do understand forces applied to them, but they also understand an ideal state of living by certain measurements (how much water they have, for ex) and they process their movement based on their highest functions first, even though the more fundamental functions are "more important"

Animals understand all these things, but also another thing: Barriers (B). Trees go in a straight line towards goals (they have bends in them, but they themselves go straight) and as close to straight when blocked. Animals process barriers as things that need to specifically be reacted to in order to over come and acquire resources (C) (a maze, a territorial animal) rather than just merely taking the straightest line

The only thing that humans do differently than animals is that they have the ability to look for problems to solve when there "aren't any", in case the findings happen to be helpful later

Humans don't magically feel pain (lack of something perceived as important) better than animals or plants (and we don't have a greater ability to believe with all our emotions that our experiences matter) just because people think we're divinely separated from animals. Pets look for love and attention in the same way children do -- when they are bored and loney, not the same way our guitars and possessions do -- when we feel a compulsion to give attention. Usually they look for attention in ways we find annoying (to take away our concentration, lol)

The implication of knowing things (B) are between one's self and one's goal is that one also has the ability to see how other beings benefit one's self. Most animals are social beings, but that doesn't mean they're inherently extroverted
The only thing that makes humans different is that we have the ability to know that our search for love (Social Interaction) and God (Something that doesn't change over time) are the forces that cause us to deny our Logic.
Otherwords, everyone acts like animals because we are, but accepting that a lot of what we do is derived from our environment is what allows us to move on from simply being controlled by it

Obviously, this post isn't about treating people the same way as one treats animals because I'm still saying they are on another awareness level

And

Treating animals like they aren't smart enough to know when we're talking about them is rude, lol
But we can talk about trees behind they're bark all we want

My Idea Of
Levels of Awareness

0d A
1d AC
2d ABC
3d ABCZ

Accept the Unexpected

@swiley I don't think everyone has necessarily consented to their morals, I think actually accepting our morals is the goal of the inner process of asking what our version of perfect morals would look if we created it ourselves

Morality, in my opinion, is an all-inclusive attempt at creating the most effective action paths to general (or any) life goals, so I think they can be how a person treats one's self as well

Each person in a group should probably make constant efforts to add discussion to (in the case of disagreements) and work to consent to the living, growing idea of what morality should define as acceptable within that social dynamic, and if I'm correct in feeling strongly that people will never define specifically enough to just be done thinking about what parts of their morality serve their purposes least effectively, then it's worth discussing new bases of morality (even though it's always scary to think of implications we could miss with new forms of morality, people could always find ways to take advantage of rules we place either way)

Other words, people will never be able to describe what will protect the most complexity in each situation with one blanket statement, but if people can agree that complexity is the actual goal (which, the definition of that complexity and the method to achieving it are what I'm proposing my ideas towards) Then we have a basis for a general morality

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, from my perspective, seem to base morality on the inherent value of being a human. That makes sense since that's who it's for, but if we get to define what humans are, we easily get to tell people how to live. We easily get to say that there are certain things we are allowed to keep them from doing specifically because it's our moral duty to protect them as humans (not developing minds). There's nothing in the inherentness of being a certain type of species that describes how to protect the outliers of the group, which is partially why I find it important to think about some new ideas for morality

Our basis of law, on another hand, is primarily protecting society. That's fair, but ultimately, if we protect society to the point of killing the development of eccentric or unconventional ideas that have negative impacts but are over all good for society (Example, if we made talking about socialism illegal -- even if you believe it's a bad concept -- we'd be killing discussions that are important and potentially contribute something useful), and we are more than defeating the point of human civilization, I feel, because we are now both forcing people to be part of our societies (which is the part I am in disagreement with the most) and providing them with societies that don't even allow them to reach their potential through the most possible experimentation (which is hard to do, fair, but something never to stop striving for)

There's a lot of implications to the ideas I'm presenting (For example, there's no way we could tell unmarried non-parent-being people not to do any drugs at their own home) because it describes a social system where people are allowed to do whatever doesn't affect anyone's view of people in general or their ability to accomplish their goals.
I believe this freedom to do things that aren't necessarily beneficial (maybe even destructive to one's self) is still experimentation that people need to be allowed to engage in to fully develop themselves
And, I guess, I'm attempting to go about this by asking people's reaction to this concept

@dv8 Haha yeah, it's helpful to write the words down on paper, and it will always come down to our follow through!

@thunderdragon900 Totally! I'll try to keep it a reasonable length😂 I meant to say self-defined as in: I believe an entity protects its body (foundational interface with reality) on a certain level relative to its possessions, which is true for people, animals, and companies (entity is to mean a force which the energy and controling reactions of that force are within the force itself, and being is meant to describe a physical version of that; a company being an entity but not a being because the people aren't all hopefully touching at the same time)

Consentual is supposed to refer to a level of tolerance that people have to allow each other the most room to personally experiment while giving everyone the same amount of room (which isn't the same as resources) Which, I'm proposing to be that, if people can choose their position at some point in their life and they are also given the option to make purly their decision, that they can't blame other people for those people being themselves within their space (as in, if the things Individual A does doesn't change the way that Individual B sees people in general or their ability to accomplish their goals in their environment, individual B has to tolerate what Individual A does so that Individual A can learn everything they can to find themselves, even if it's destructive only to themselves or the people that agree to it)

By complexity, I'm trying to use a term that describes the universe as being one level of "complexity" in all of it's reactions until considering life (which I'm definining as a process which creates the ideal environment for it's own continuation -- so if a computer just started building it's own factories for new computers autonomously, I would consider it to represent the same complexity level as bacteria, in that way)
The levels of complexity I'm using are Motivation (like bacteria), Planning (like a mouse), and Logic (Defined as a being creating it's own list of things it needs to find out how to learn)
The fact that the result of what life produces is both similar to the original and a catalyst for its own creation are the most basic "concepts" (building blocks of complexity on top of the basic complexity level of what things are happening) because, to process the fact that the result is similar to the input, you need to process more about them than just all their exact qualities and outcomes on a trial by trial basis (because, to the universe, life is just a bunch of processes happening and it doesn't consider them similar or dissimilar it just processes what happens because even the slightest change can have huge effects) but it's beneficial for us to group reactions to create an ideal environment for ourselves (pretend like all slight changes will have slight effects and then figure it out from there), and just that fact that we care (because caring helps us create a better environment for ourselves), which is a subjective process, is also the basis of concepts because it's a way of comparing reality in ways that aren't perfect representations (based on our bias and needs)
So complexity is just saying a specific part of reality where things are happening, and it's ideal for as many things to be conceptually happening in the smallest advantageous area because 1. it doesn't take more energy to create more complexity 2. if we could continue the universe into the conceivable future, which is the most inherent goal we could have if we had any other goal, it'd be ideal to have the most complexity to choose from possible for natural selection 3. the closer we can bundle our resources while keeping them safe from mass corruption, the less leakage we could have over all (which is also really important if we're going to continue the universe)

lol, and

Okay, yeah! I can definitely see where you're coming from; Personally, when I think of ideal self, to me it means that one is the best one could be in that moment, even if it isn't doing the actions it wants to do; I find it interesting you mention mistakes, I believe my ideal self for this particular universe will also make mistakes, but be in as good of a conceptual place to recover as possible, because mistakes don't inherently end badly, just usually; is that something you feel disagreement with?

It's completely true that people have their own preferences! My idea is that, maybe even though a lot of people have not been able to define "good" perfectly enough to keep beings who just wanted to live their lives unconventionally safe, maybe it's still possible... And my goal is actually becominh to define exactly how much people should be able to do whatever they want before it becomes intrusive to anyone else (and ideally, thus good, because people have to do everything they're possibly allowed ro to have the greatest range of complexity)

But I definitely think that the inward reflection represents probably the most important part of moral/behavioral growth! Maybe I should have said it in a way that was supportive of looking for things to react and grow from also, so maybe it's important but not just because they are those books themselves

I find your definition of ideal self really intriguing! If you don't mind, when you say potential given to you naturally I wonder, how much would you condiser it to be natural potential for people to constantly look for new interests and dissenting belifs on purpose?

My definition of moral good, from any being's perspective, is any self-defined consentual complexity

so do we still need the Torah, Quran, or Bible to achieve ideal self?

(Saying any because the statement has to always be true, and I'm trying to find times when it's not)

Because I was once a child,

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HXr4bbpS2eICkGv9BcRedwsokzzv7gapSukQrG4EUSc/edit?usp=drivesdk

Here are the open source programs I've found the most use out of (and wish literally any person in my life, besides just Jeff, would have told me about, lol)

@FailForward I mean, maybe acceptance also, if you work on super detailed projects that go into depth about your feelings, lol

but that's just me, and yeah, the risk is definitely always gonna be real

Be like *getting married

Ni be like "

My Idea of Steps in Relationship

Friendship + Attraction
Dating + Love Their Motivations
Linked + Compatible Planning
Move In + Partnership
Pet + House
Clinked + Success
Children

" #SocialDynamics #MayBWBU

I know that "this is just high school stuff", but the gravitational constant is literally in the units m^(3)kg^(-1)s^(-2) (meaning take away kg s^(2), replace with m^(3) )

So, doesn't saying "As something falls, the only way to tell how much that object could move each next moment is to convert it's mass and acceleration into cuboidal space"

somewhat imply and lead to the conclusion that energy and time are convertible to distance?

(I'm asking because my ontological hypothesis depends on everything being convertible to a linear distance, which I'll probably post about later) But also, because it seems like a combined theory of everything would have a basis for conversion *of everything*

Sources Page
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ddqBuNdkgLkHFgKTIkw35SoUlXR79vsd_lZVFRrNlg0/edit?usp=drivesdk

This is my idea of social incentives; They say Please...

Try to figure out how to live effectively, We'll let you choose who you want to be
Live With Us, We'll make it better for you to survive than in the wild
Learn the information we've gained so far, We'll accept that you are a responsible enough to invest our resources in
Contribute to our society, We'll give you more of what you want than we give other people if you give us something we want that they can't give us

@FillyAgioro Okay, yeah, so

Lists, you have to be following the people and it'll show you their posts but not then yours

Circles, they have to be following you, but still not totally sure (pretty sure though), but I think, in a circle, everyone can see each other's posts

@FillyAgioro Lol, I can definitely relate to that!

I follow a similar approach, but I try to assume everything is going to go the worst and try to just accept that I do what I do more in the interest of seeing what happens 😂 I'm only disappointed when something surpasses my expectations for how badly it would go (which I think about in terms of how many options I have in general life before and after), but it does happen! lol Most of the time I try to find myself trying to find some sort of solution more than I can think about everything together when it gets that bad, though 😶😂

But yeah! It's definitely hard when we get let down over things; I hope it doesn't scare you to see possiblities in things because of that, though! Cause I'm definitely trying to get off that boat, and I'm just learning how to swim👌😂

@FillyAgioro Not sure if you got your question answered, but from what I'm aware, you can make a Circle or a List

A List is for seeing a group in a special timeline and a Circle is for creating a private group where everyone posts to each other

(I have only used List to make a list of a bunch of news outlets, so idk how Circle works, for sure, haha)

I wanna start referring to people by their mind so I can just call somemind "it" instead of "he" or "she"

If we need to talk about your body, let's just talk about your hair so least we can pick you out of a crowd

#mayBWBU #SocialDynamics

(Straight males tend to be out, straight women tend to be both, and gender is just a state of relatability to a certain form of treatment)

There are just two main genders: Out and In

Contrasting opinions? lol

#MayBWBU #SocialDynamics