Note 1. Each main section (with green box in the section title) is an independent topic.
Testimonials:
Note 1. Each main section (with green box in the section title) is an independent topic.
Testimonials:
This tests:
Anyway, here we go:
Extra test(s) unrelated to the above:
The coronavirus economy demonstrates that my theory on perfect money is right. Here is how:
Lesson learned:
Societies that contain such selfish people are doomed to progress at a slower pace. So I can't stress enough how horrible this is as an investment opportunity. Only a blind would oversee such dangers.
You sold a sandwich to person $p_1$, and another identical sandwich to person $p_2$. With the current monetary system, you'd usually charge $p_1$ and $p_2$ by the goods that you gave them, not by who they are or what they did with it. So you'd charge them, say, $10$ bucks each.
But, a question is: what if person $p_1$ used that sandwich to energize himself to discover (or invent) good science that would save the lives of millions, while $p_2$ simply used that sandwich to sit on ass and watch TV — is the worth of both your efforts at giving them sandwiches equivalent?
The current monetary system assumes that yes, both of your sandwiches, are equivalent regardless of the fact that they have lead into different outcomes: sandwich eaten by $p_1$ resulted in science that saved lives, while sandwich eaten by $p_2$ resulted in only increasing the net carbon emission.
Assumption 1. Today's monetary system ignores the results lead to by an effort or work.
There is no proof that shows that Assumption 1 is optimal. In fact, we can easily see that it is wrong as soon as we start choosing a goal. E.g.:
So, as you see, there are many reasons why Assumption 1 is totally wrong.
Assumption 1 also implies that the current monetary system assumes that the worth of works in the past is frozen. E.g. what if it turned out after, say, $5$ years that person $p_1$'s discovered science was actually harmful to the progress of our civilization? The current monetary system will assume that sandwich given to $p_1$ it is still worth $10$ bucks, which is not true (since it turned out $p_1$ put the sandwich to harmful use).
Theorem 1. Amount of money $m$, given to work $w$ (e.g. selling sandwich) which resulted in outcome $o$, is said to be perfect, if $m$ equals the total number of seconds reduced in our journey towards becoming an immortal civilization according to hypothesis $h'$, thanks $w$'s fair share contribution of allowing $o$ to happen.
In other words, money $m$ is rather a value mapped to a function: $$m = \text{t}(w, o, h')$$ where $t$ is a function that maps work $w$ that lead to outcome $o$ to the total number of seconds reduced in our journey towards the nearest immortal civilization, by using the hypothesis $h'$. $h'$ is our best estimation to model reality and gets updated over time.
So, in other words, the unit of the perfect money is measured in metric seconds. That is, International System of Unit (SI) unit of money must be seconds. Isn't this fascinating?
We only need to prove that the best goal to have is the goal of reaching an immortal civilization. For this, we need a few axioms:
Axiom 1. Evolution is true.
Axiom 2. The superset of freedoms is better than its strict subset.
Axiom 3. The set of freedom's available while being alive is the superset of the set of freedoms available when dead.
Axiom 4. When causality is unknown, assume the most accurate available statistical correlation.
Then those axioms will lead to that our goal in life (in general) is to maximize survival of life forms in general (not only humans). And the only known way to maximize that is by achieving an immortal civilization. Everything (including feelings) is therefore only a randomized approximation of a solution to maximize the survival of life forms. Asymptotically our happiness is defined after this. This also solves morality paradoxes.
The proof is easy, but a bit lengthy. So I'll omit it for now. Maybe I'll be more explicit in another time (even tho I think it's easy for your to prove it yourself).
Rule 1. Recipient must not waste any resources. I.e. recipient will only spend it in things that help maximize life forms' survival.
Rule 2. A recipient that violates Rule 1 will be punished according to the expected harm that he has caused against the survival of life forms, such that —once punished— the expected harm would balance out to $0$.
Note 2. Someone else did something better.
Recipe:
Note 3. Do not do anything extra. E.g. no heating. Maybe don't even wash.
Pros:
Cons:
Synopsis—Basically, a food is perfect, if and only if, it is the cheapest thing that offers you the nutritions that you require. Else, you are wasting your money.
As a result, pizza, for example, is clearly not perfect, but rather a waste, because think: do you really think the process of making a pizza slice is the cheapest way to get 285 calories, 12g protein, 10g fat, and 36g carbs?
Think of the operation cost of pizza making, which requires running an oven and baking. Imagine the energy bill, and time needed. Clearly pizza is a wasteful way of creating nutritional values, as there are many ways we can optimize the process.
On the other hand, you could get what a pizza slice would give you, by simply frying some egg, with cheese, and potatoes, for example, at a cheaper price point. I'm not saying that this is perfect either, but it suffices to show you that pizza is clearly a waste as it is very easy to think of the same (nutritional value-wise) at a cheaper price point.
But people buy pizza coz they think it's sounds crunchy when you eat it. F*ck that nonsense. There is no nutrition in crunch. This makes pizza a form of drug that creates artificial need (by the allure of its crunch and smell) to cause people to make the irrational decision of buying it.
Say that $\mathcal{F} = \{f_1, f_2, \ldots, f_n\}$ is the set of all foods. For example, $f_1$ could be fried chicken breast, $f_2$ could be orange, etc.
Also say that for any food $f_i \in \mathcal{F}$, $c_i$ is the cost of $f_i$ (i.e. money and time needed to be spent in order to get $f_i$ into ur belly), and $n_i$ is the nutritional values that your body obtains after eating $f_i$.
Then, if your body needs nutritional values in interval $[n_a, n_b]$ (for whatever health goal you have), then:
Definition 1. Food $f_i \in \mathcal{F}$ is said to be perfect, if and only if: $$ n_a \le n_i \le n_b $$ and, for all $f_j \in \{f_l \in \mathcal{F} : n_a \le n_l \le n_b\}$: $$ c_i \le c_j $$
Well, then it's a waste of money. Period. Could be a little waste to you, depending on how spoiled you are, but it remains a waste nonetheless, and you will be at a loss.
Today's food is mostly heavily a waste of money as they fail to meet Definition 1. Sadly, the concept of food —today— is looked from the view of taste and joy, very similar to how drugs are looked at.
Therefore, it's fair to say that today's food industry has morphed into a fork of the drug industry, where unnecessary additives are added to lure people in in order to take maximum money. It is no longer only nutritional. It is now partly nutritional, and partly wasteful to fool idiots to get a slice of their money (almost everyone on this planet).
We need to find a principled methodology to objectively guide us on the process of creating perfect food. I will keep you updated when I nail this. Plz stay tuned.