Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 363. (Read 646804 times)

Those "abilities" (TPTB_need_war) exist only in the phenomenology of consciousness. Conscious experience does not physically exist (A physical system which facilitates it physically exists; however, the phenomenology of that consciousness does not.), so the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable to it.

I believe God gave me the abilities I have for a reason. If that reason is to serve a Babylon that could be eliminated if would ascribe to an Eden where I forsaked the abilities God gave me and live in a utopia where there is no challenge, then I'd be bored out of my fucking mind.

So thus I conclude I am destined to my destiny. You somehow think we can just skip some steps and arrive at the end game of infinite entropy = 0 entropy, i.e. where we are all back as one with God and can't be distinguished any more.

I rather think God fancies a toy simulation he can watch, sort of like when I was playing with trains and erector sets in my youth.

username18333 argues that knowledge creation is merely an illusion to support the existence of wealth. I agree.

Well the prior posts I explained that existence is an illusion that requires friction.

So he can have his illusion by removing his body thus for his "soul" from that point forward past = present = future.

And we can have our illusion with our bodies, friction, reputation, wealth, family, production, competition, etc..

To each his own to choose.

If there is a God, he created us this way so we'd exist this way. I am following the plan here for the limited duration it lasts for me.

You've made no argument. Do it again, and I will ignore.

(that people ascribe to a tangible reality is our choice. You can remove your body if you wish. We are not arguing your freedom to do that. We won't follow you. Address our world or we will ignore you. I don't speak for everyone, but I am confident I speak for the majority. At least we want reputation and social interaction as a minimum reward for production. Sounds to me like your life's reward is sitting alone reading books. I understand the Bible talks about forsaking the body and the wants of the tangible world and producing for nothing but the cause of spreading the word. How will we get people to work on knowledge where nearly no one interacts with them because the topic area is so narrow? Should we forsake that and the Second Law of Thermodynamics...well we can't...the Bible apparently has an error...without friction there can't be existence because the speed-of-light would be infinite and the past and present and the future would be same thus no change and no existence...you ascribe to destroy existence by destroying tangible friction... rather I choose to continue the progression towards maximum entropy in which of course the information moves to the small and out of the top-down macro...)

You have faltered in that you hold the Theory of Forms to correspond to anything but a flight from reality for the inability to encode reality (indeterminate, as Heisenberg demonstrated) in knowledge (determinate).

WHAT ONE "KNOWS" IS FICTION FOR THE MERE KNOWING OF IT.

Plutocracy thrives on the notion of the objective existence of "knowledge" and "wealth" when these only exist within the physical universe insofar as your brain exists therewithin to facilitate the conscious experience of them. Psychology dictates what "knowledge" is admitted widespread adoption and, through media, PLUTOCRATS DICTATE PSYCHOLOGY INTO THE VERY BRAINS OF THE PUBLIC.

What you contend about Armstrong is what of his works confirms this.

You have failed. You ascribe Communism as the solution. Or non-production, which is the same as Communism.

Stop piecemealing your understanding of what I wrote. Read all the way to the end.

Of course there are many reasons the people fell under the plutocracy, including protection and road building during the agrarian Age (e.g. Rome). But that is irrelevant to the punchline of my post.


Why will a person produce if they can't attain something in return such a reputation, the good feelings of a gift economy, or money?

Communism assumes people will produce just because they are ideological slaves.

You propose slavery. Can't you see you are with Marx?

"[W]ealth" (TPTB_need_war) does not exist without one to conceive it (Note: I do not subscribe to philosophical realism.); therefore, the destruction of Earth through its conversion into energy (which would not violate the second law of thermodynamics) would, necessarily, destroy all "wealth" (TPTB_need_war) (save, of course, for the conception of it elsewhere).

As well, that you would contend an objective existence to what is mere notion is, in this case, "in service of plutocracy" (username18333).

Governments were under the control of plutocrats from the innovation of central banking, for their endeavors (invariably?) required an appeal thereto.

I addressed your response in the rest of my post. If you are so fucking lazy as to not even read, then clutter this thread with your laziness. Fuck! People are getting tired of your shit. They really are. Elevate your discourse please.

You can't erase wealth without also erasing the Second Law of Thermodynamics, at least not until we achieve the zero margin economy or you expect people to work for no return not even reputation as I explained. Read my post for the reasoning.

Plutocracy is "government by the wealthy" (Merriam-Webster); therefore, it requires some set of conditions whereunder "wealth" (Merriam-Webster) can exist. In the case of modern plutocracy, that is the manipulation of culture to condition a people to accept a money in service the service of that plutocracy regardless of the detriments inherent to the money as regards that people's interests.

username18333, please do not falsely accuse me of supporting the plutocracy nor of not undertaking actions to realistically remove their power from our lives. The power is granted to TPTB because the people rely on industrial goods and physical protection from those who have access to those industrial goods which can kill. Up until the recent invention of the 3D printer, industrial goods required large fixed capital investments in factories, which thus required large capitalists and large capitalists required protection for their factories against those who had the power to make war. And since aggregation of capital was natural in this system, the oversupply of laborers were at a disadvantage in terms of demand the lion's share of the factories profits and as competition has driven profits down, more and more of the profits necessarily had to go to the capitalist funding the fixed capital investment to produce industrial goods. The people responded by banding together with unions and government to expropriate profits from the capitalists and the capitalists then banded together to capture the control of the governments and unions from behind the curtain. Thus handing the power to make war to the composition of government with capitalists controllers. As the capitalists were able to aggregate much wealth this way, they could not invest in more factories without causing an oversupply, so in order to get a ROI they have to loan their capital but they needed a public back stop so they could loan to any one with a heart beat and be guaranteed to be paid back. Also this situation lead to too much power in the hands of these bankster capitalist TPTB (plutocracy), thus formed new corruptions such as the investment banks Goldman Sachs which do what ever in the fuck they please running amok pleasing Satan greatly.

So then I wrote those 3 seminal essays that CoinCube linked to from the opening post of the Economic Devastation thread, wherein I explained about technology was changing the basis of finance which has the potential to destroy the basis of that morass of the Industrial Age. It was in one of those essays about the fundamental qualities of entropy that I predicted in 2010, the ultimate federalization of Europe was inescapable. And it is your lack of understanding of entropy which causes you to propose an entirely unrealistic (non-)solution of anti-money, which I will explain below. I am not going to get in a long noisy exchange with you and your bizarre noisy way of quoting by butchering content with colorization and inserting people's usernames into text in parenthesis and generally writing in a way that no one can hardly comprehend your sentences. I will explain what is and leave it for the readers to decide if I am correct.

As we move into the Knowledge Age, the relevant capital is the ability to create knowledge and no longer monetary savings because I can go start creating knowledge in my nipa hut or home office and all I need is my brain and a cheap computer. Heck one can build in the USA from newegg.com (which accepts BTC) a very powerful development computer (as powerful per core as an i7) with a dual-core Pentium with a large flat screen monitor for < $400. Even a rudimentary Rasberry Pi 2 costs $75 complete without monitor.

Thus since knowledge is owned and created by the individual (due to the Mythical Man Month not even collaboration competes with individual creation of knowledge), it can not be financed with usury. I explained the reasons in detail in my aforementioned essay. Go read it, if you want to understand.

Thus the greatest ROI will go to the creators of knowledge themselves, there is no way that the usurists will be able to grow their capital fast enough to keep up. Thus the usurists will try as they are to enforce totalitarianism to try to expropriate capital. But all they can do with this is destroy knowledge capital by destroying the knowledge creators. They can never, ever again get back their power from the Industrial Age. It's over for them. They should accept it. They have no choice.

So we knowledge creators mostly want to trade our knowledge. We want to leverage the knowledge creation of others and interopt so as to produce greater and greater knowledge making the world more and more prosperous. So how can we trade our knowledge? We could just share it for free (open source with no business model) but there are two issues to consider:

1. How do we produce/attain the industrial and physical goods we need? How do we attain land to live on? Obtain weapons to protect ourselves?

2. What is our way to incentivize knowledge creation that is worthy, and disincentivize knowledge creation that is wasteful or harmful (e.g. code with lots of bugs or poor quality)?

We must recognize that knowledge creations are not fungible. Thus how do we incentivize someone to work on a knowledge area that only a few people need? If we argue that reputation and a gift economy will be the substitute for money, then how do we concentrate reputation to incentivize the maximum division-of-labor so that experts will work on very narrow areas of knowledge that only a few people will care to even know about? The maximum division-of-labor is required by the irreversible progression of entropy towards maximum per the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

In short, we can not get rid of fungible money and still have an economy that is compatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

So thus I realized that the only path forward was to create an anonymous money and network system so the Knowledge Age could flourish unfettered by the old world industrial capitalists who want to expropriate our economy because they can't compete with us any other way.

The Knowledge Age will not eliminate money entirely but it will have some major differences from the Industrial Age:

• Any autodidact can obtain capital simply by doing, no need to seek our vulture capitalists
• Knowledge capital will always be fleeting because those creating will outpace the wealth of those who are not.
• It becomes impossible to finance knowledge creation, thus the monetary capital has to be distributed by investment in those who actually own their knowledge. So the money will turn over very fast (much higher velocity of money) because no one wants to hold it for very long. You as a knowledge creator can't really leverage more knowledge than you can understand, thus utility of money diminishes rapidly the more you have. As industrial goods (and even the cloning of humans) moves towards zero margins, you can have as many physical things as you want nearly for free, so who needs to hoard money?

Thus you see the money I am creating is an anti-money of sorts, but it is done as a realistic transition from the current Industrial Age to the near zero-margin economy of the future.

Whereas the anti-money you are proposing can never get adopted because it is an abrupt assumption that we are already at the end game of a near zero-margin economy of the future.

I urge you to stop wasting your time and throw your support behind my or any other's efforts to create the anonymous money and network system we need. And please stop cluttering the threads with your redundant arguments that we all need to give up on society and becoming foraging nomads surviving on seeds, which effectively what a world without fungible money would be.