The Construction of the Enemy v.05b

Since I'm a Christian I believe in the Spirit of Truth. 

The Truth is about there's only one past, one True past. 

Now the argument against being in the side of Christianity is the accumulation of pain. In the realm of Truth there is accumulation of pain, while in the realm of the "enemy chaos" everything that's not the Truth, you could have multiple past and therefore pain is not real when you looked at it that way or whatever. Therefore the only benefit of the Truth is that to reveal this Anti-Truth dimension which probably could be achieved by accelerating a particle or something beyond the speed of light until emerge this reality where quantum possibilities extended through time negatively. Or whatever

I'll point out that this is depression, meaninglessness. Also if you could be disciplined about a realm that's completely out of the norm, going out of your way to there like that, why wouldn't you use that to eliminate sufferings in the Truth itself? It already has precedence and we are making progresses, why not have that instead of going against that and making it harder for people like me who want that?

Edit: I mean not to demean great scientific achievements, I'm against the spirit of going against the Truth. Such that would normalize lying and encourage it, and thing they are better than people like me. They would create policies and change infrastructures irresponsibly including attacking language upon we review each other. Scientific experiments though are great especially because they are scientific and open. 

Edit2 Fri, 7th 2023

I watched Heaven Sent Honey (https://youtu.be/DjSE-naY1Xw) today talking about the cult of Dyonisus, and somehow it got me thinking of how; apart from the order of the Truth, lies would be something that's close to real, that it would be torture if the lie was violent. False pasts that are evil but not real, would be like a nightmare but there's no Truth upon where the permanent cure, permanent solutions for them would be hinged on. No reality to wake up to, just a jump to another dream... no progress 

----------------------------

Apart from the point of views of Truth vs Anti-Truth we got the Primordial which contains both, the Chaos. If you're trapped in there sufferings would be real, would be not, yourself would be and suddenly would be something else, and nothing, and everything. Tommorow exists but it could be the day before yesterday, or, now. 

Trapped in such dimension one might experience extreme joy but also extreme pain and the next thing you know it didn't exist. The next thing you know, what is next? What is know? 

Bearing a child arguably could mean pulling him/her out of that dimension, if you considered that a jail, that would be a good thing, if you considered it a peace that would be a bad thing. The point is the order of Truth wants to give that sequences and so, hope for the complete control/choices about what's desirable and what's not. For me that's freedom, for you it maybe not. 

As much as it is a blessing to be in this world, it is still a responsibility for parents to guard their children from depression, because per case that could be worse when it happened in here wouldn't it? While it happened

--------------

My Stupid. Truth doesn't have to mean one past, like sudoku could be cleared with multiple ways sometimes, it's about the law and order and probably not about One Past.

Ridiculous me

However... we should always act like it's One Past, given the chances, and how worth it it is to protect against lies

I changed my mind v.02

Transaction tax is not superior from VAT as far as I could understand now. 

Maybe there's benefit to implement both, with very very low transaction tax rate (in order to penalize a way of money laundering) but to replace it, I don't know

The problem with auto AI corrections v.02

When we make programs or assets with AI, if something needed to be modified, the AI still couldn't be held responsible with the consequences compared to human inventors. The problem also is that we couldn't really assess comprehensively the codes of AI, how do they get there, and how reliable the results are. If anything wrong happened, what if the AI was unable to correct "responsibly", while we as mere humans couldn't understand or comprehensively assess the weaknesses of the results, say the solutions were complex. 

How auditable are AIs?

The Morality of Asset Relevance v.05

The Printing of Money in the economy should go hand in hand with the presence of (the circuit of..) assets in the economy. If there were more assets that means more organs therefore need more blood. 

Really by asset I mean the relevance of assets not merely the existence of assets. 

However I would point that nobody should maintain the relevance of the asset. Everyone who has control over the presence of money should just pay attention to the reality of the economy and adjust accordingly, people should keep their hands off of micro managing the circuits themselves. 

I'm talking about innovation and the second law of thermodynamics, don't go against it. Things always change, we could steer the path towards more justice instead of more chaos but we couldn't make it so that it wouldn't change, and so we shouldn't act as if we could (no matter how powerful the impacts of our PR campaigns).

In fact, to me it smells like those who were under appreciated for their PR prowess started this whole gatekeeping, karen culture, to make a statement. Uuu Reality sucsk, we worth so much more... UUU. 

Okhay, so... I do anticipate in the future that the central banks are going to share their authorities in one way or the other. One manifestation of this is a mechanism where people could prevent some new assets from distruptively entered the market before everyone else were prepared enough. Remember that it's bad to force upon the relevance of an asset, if some configurations have been improved by reality, we, and our policy makers should react accordingly. 

------------------------------------

Notes:

I don't believe that the 2nd law says that everything is moving towards net chaos, instead I believe that everything keeps on changing. 

The meaning of relevance of an asset is its ability to improve Justice sustainably. If one disruptive assets were deemed to be unjust then preventing it must have been based on Truthful evidence that it is unjust (for example poisonous toys that are gaining popularity). With the same spirit a good innovation if implemented wrongly, in a manner that would hurt the whole economy, it would ruin the good purpose and the potentials of it. So that mechanism to gradually introduce the technology is good which also telling the conditions:

1. We must introduce it and ultimately expire the existing irrelevance, no getting around it. 

2. Its presence must be exposed in public so that everyone could expect the standard and the Truth of it.

For me in the future in case you read this and think this is Bullshid:

The "asset" relevance manipulation is not changing the asset from v.01 to v.02, rather kept on the v.01 but lying and commit crimes and tricks so that it's still be the go to solution while it doesn't check all the boxes anymore (because the checklists have changed and the new better ways have already been revealed).  

So the direction to go in the future is probably going to be; instead of setting up new entrepreneurships and let them die out of raw market mechanisms, the new market is going to come together and decide which solutions they were going to incorporate next and commit to (at least) its break even before moving on to the next. So it is like a more democratized central bank role where "banks" would also mean a venue where financials decisions were made collectively rather than just by an individual for an  individual, or by an individual with the bank only. 

It doesn't mean that such "banks" should have the power to decide the outcome of new entrepreneurships, its just that for those who were participating they would commit to a measure of return for an agreed upon venture before moving on to the next (or to compensate if drastic changes were desired). We shouldn't increase the barriers of entries for entrepreneurships (legal entrepreneurships)

-----------------------------------------

There's a less micro managy way of doing this, which is to make the share market accessible to all not only for big businesses but also for small businesses. However the problem is with the honesty of the management and it's hard to assure. Also people should be let to own shares with very little money, likely the shares of their own environments.