consensusFieldPrompt - jalToorey/IdealMoney GitHub Wiki

On Hidden Variables As The Deconstruction of Quantum Physics as a Wrapper to Experimental Inconsistency

Einstein famously said something to the order of "I, at any rate, am convinced that [God] does not throw dice". This was with respect to the concept of the probabilistic nature of reality that physical experiments seemed to suggest.

As quantum theory evolved it has been believed that god does indeed throw dice-ultimate reality, it seems at a quantum level, is only explainable probabilistically.

Bohm however believed it worthwhile to consider that underlying sub quantum phenomena deterministically decide our reality.

He proposed this hidden variable theory was countered and rejected in several ways.

He then re-proposed his theory addressing each of the counter-arguments.

On The Broad Definition of the Crypto-currency-sphere as a Consensus Field

Our simple idea here is to map Bohm’s work to the crypto-currency phenomenon as if it is a field that is describable by Bohm’s formalization of the quantum realm (and its relation to the classical realm).

We feel if we can define a consensus field in a meaningful manner then this type of mathematical transformation is natural (explicate order etc.).

Our definition of such a field, or rather the definitions or related words and phenomenon related to the crypto-currency phenomenon , need to be fit, as much as possible, in such a way that Bohm’s formalizations fit usefully both from a high level mathematical point of view (ie that complex physics formulas might meaningfully apply to the complexity of the crypto-currency realm) and from a metaphorical or laymen type framework (ie people can make metaphors such as comparing bitcoin to the sun which map nicely to the actual underlying high level math.).

On The Periodicity Requirement of Crypto Projects For Mapping The Crypto-Currency Phenomenon to The Bohmian Deconstruction of Quantum Physics

At one point the canonical transformation in Bohm theory involves gathering all of the considered variables from the context of them having periodicity.

So one aspect of mapping the crypto-sphere as something that fits Bohms work is to consider how a crypto-project such as a Bitcoin or Ethereum might have some aspect or phenomena that is ‘periodic’.

Some ideas perhaps are block times, equilibrium oscillations around price discovery, and perhaps oscillations are design decisions-somewhat radically different considerations of periodicity.

Depending on what is used as the basis for canonical transformation then would determine which ‘projects’ count as being represented in the consensus field (then we would like to be as broad as possible perhaps but with the importance weighted on the overall fittingness of Bohm’s formalizations).

And so this is an example that shows how the consensus field can be a concept that is very well and broadly defined.

On The Fluxation of the Consensus Field

We haven’t yet fully defined the consensus field, and we mean it to be defined as usefully as possible, and so thus we have implied a transformation from the former to the latter.

Then if we move towards more useful we are observing over this time a type of flux in the concept of the consensus field.

We should consider this as a broader concept than the crypto-currency phenomenon as a consensus field and perhaps give it syntax to refer to it and place it in our formalizations.