In this chapter, I will propose a system of currency and economy that may already exist, in the realm of pure science, and also that may be implementable in our current manifestation of currency and economy.
Today’s currency is limited in that it is very general regarding the value it represents. Currency, as a whole, is treated as a unique denominator of value. There is a flaw with this ideology, in that value may not be easily singularized into a single denominator. While many countries exist, in our modern world, and they generally possess different units of denomination, each denominator unit nonetheless represents the same ideology — that all value can be enumerated using a single symbol of denomination. Thus, the flaw exists pervasively and globally.
The ultimate purpose of currency is to ascribe, recognize, save, and trade value, itself. This allows value to be recognized and abstracted away from a particular item or service, which thus allows for a freer form of trade that regards the value that has been obtained, rather than specific instances of that value. This generalizes value, while also recognizing value. By allowing value to abstracted away from the items, pure value can be recognized. By recognizing value, that value that existed in the items from which the value was garnered can be recognized and saved, such that the amount of value that is available in the world does not become lost. In this way, by saving the value we find in the world, we save the value from becoming lost.
However, the flaw mentioned previously does exist. For instance, can the value of wheat really be directly translated into the value of taxi services, or the value of piloting an airplane? While one may argue that the value of wheat represents a value of food, which thus applies to all people, this argument may not hold true for every example. For a more illuminating example, let us ponder whether the value of a meteorological forecast (something people use occasionally) can be translated directed into the value of fresh air (an indirect expenditure, often done through selective product selection, charities, and, in modern times, taxes). The nature of these two value, which both pertaining to people (who may eat wheat or other foods), is not exactly similar. Additionally, different people have different appropriations of the value of various items. A good example is the value of music, which is widely diverse in terms of true value — that is, the value that a person perceives — more diverse than the value of wheat.
I propose a better economic system (and I suspect that the nature of science, itself, uses a system similar to the one I propose, although I only suggest this as a possibility — perhaps the compound word “space-money,” is a fun term to use to refer to this). Instead of regulating currency to be of one single denominator, when we know that the value of items varies in nature by what kind of item is being represented, a system could exist, instead, where any form of currency could be created to represent any type of value. In this currency system, a number of currencies that approach infinity could possible exist, and in the spirit that the truth is discovered rather than invented, an infinite number of currencies already exist, although their acknowledged utilization bears a finite quality.
Let’s begin abstractly. Let’s suppose instead of a singular unit of currency, there are three: red currency, green currency, and blue currency, corresponding to the presently popular system of using red, green, and blue in illuminated displays, in order to represent any visible color (although perhaps some work needs to be done with near-ultraviolet). Using this system, one may value the price of a cow at 200 red, 500 green, and 30 blue, making the cow’s trade value 200R,500G,30B. Other valuations would follow in the same nature, and these three units of currency would find each a unique category of value.
Continuing with that example, but instead using more concrete terms, let us instead say there are three units of currency: fun, work, and health. We’ll refer to these as F, W, and H. Now, a cow is valued high in both work and health, but less in fun, although cows still are pretty fun, and children find animals wonderful, and most adults, do, as well. If one is buying a cow, then the context of their purchase alters the value of the cow as the person perceives it. Let us suppose one is buying a cow for the person’s farm. A cow would thus be valued highly in work (to allow the farm to function), highly in health (to provide sustenance), and less highly, but not zero, in fun (because animals are wonderful, and even more so, cows are wonderful creatures). Let’s say that the work value is the highest, as the residents of the farm often shop at the local market for health-related goods. Thus, the value of the cow may be rated as 55F,3000W,600H. Considering this, the owner of the farm may be willing to trade 55 fun, 3000 work, and 600 health units of currency in order to procure the cow, and transfer the cow into his or her ownership.
Using the same three categories of value, let us consider a more interesting example. A taxi company wants to buy a car that is generally available to anyone. Since the taxi company believes the car is primarily for work, while the common person may believe the car would be primarily for health, the value of the car is technically different for each of the buyers. The common person certainly may use the car to travel to work, so let’s limit this category to people who commute to work (perhaps they live near their office, they live in a convenient city with good public transportation and bad traffic, or they work from home). For the taxi company, the car would be almost entirely for work, while very little of the value of the car would be used for fun or health, although those aspects are considered. For the example person, the car would be almost entirely used for health (shopping for groceries and commonly used house-items), and for fun (for vacations or for the excitement of such a vehicle). Therefore, it may be appropriate that the taxi company values the car at 15 fun, 3000 work, and 80 health (fun as it should be a bit entertaining to the driver, while 30 health as it should be comfortable to the driver who works long hours sitting and using the car). That would mean that the taxi company would be willing to trade 15F,3000W,100H for the automobile. The example person, however, may value the car at 2000 fun, 10 work, and 2000 health, meaning the person would be willing to trade 2000F,10W,2000H for the automobile. (It is worth nothing that the value of work units may be proportionally higher than the value of other units, due to the nature of business. Additionally, for various other reasons, the different units of currency do not occur in a locked denominational system, but, instead, in a free system, which each type of currency finds its own valuation.)
What’s beneficial about this, is that the funds possessed by a person or corporation are, as a result, more flexibly understood, allowing for a greater dynamic in the entity’s trading strategy. By isolating different forms of value, the value of the enumerated value is actually increased. In contrast, by generalizing value, as is seen in our modern world, the specific reasons of value are muted, and thus the real appraisal of value is lessened, resulting in a lessening of total enumerated value. Using a system which allows for a differentiation of types of value allows for currency to be worth closer to what the real value of the currency is, rather than a generalized, rather removed, approximation of value (noting that the value of items is truly a personal appraisal and thus varies from person to person and from entity to entity. Because a business pays its employees, the business may be, at times, desiring more fun and health units of currency, and may accept those currencies at times with a higher valuation, and when the business is in need of more work currency, the same idea applies, except with regard to the work unit of currency, instead. Thus, by appraising value in a more specific and relevant way, the actual total value traded is, indeed, increased.
It’s worth noting that psychologically, everything being worth one singular mode of currency, as is common in today’s world, blunts the meaning of the currency, and also creates a haze of boredom and reluctance, as the people who are participating in the economy lose the perception of the value of the currency, and find it to be a type of tunnel, with a light, which they must run in a simple straight line, ongoingly, to obtain. This, psychologically, is, in contrast, boring and uninspiring, and, in some ways, it is evil to treat a single entity as the representation of any form of tradeable value, as this may provoke a Luciferian mindset, which is a mindset in which one is focused on a boring light, and works endlessly for something that appears without any liveliness. In this way, the value of the currency becomes weaker, as it is uninspiring and thus less valuable than a dynamic currency system. (Stated bluntly and simply, “money is boring.”)
Let us take our three type currency system and this time, allow anyone to create their own type of currency. Now, instead of red, green, and blue, or fun, work, and health, there are potentially an infinite number of currencies. There could be a dairy currency, promoted by a dairy association, like the American Dairy Association, and there could be a car currency, promoted by an association of automobile manufacturers. People could promote various currencies and provide them value by: 1) offering to purchase items with the new currency, 2) selling items with the new currency, and 3) giving away an amount of currency to begin its trading. This would be both an act of charity and, also, an act of creativity. Music labels would create currencies and so could particular artists, people, and even businesses. Charitable causes could create currencies as well, and a currency could be created for any reason. Additionally, people could create currencies just for fun, and over time those currencies, if they are enjoyed by people, would take on greater value.
With this approach, we may easily have an economic system with 5 million forms of currency. This would be wonderful for our modern data-oriented financial analysis endeavors, as it would create a greater breadth of techniques and strategies, as well as an entirely new conversational topic. For simplicity, some currencies could be used as generalized forms of various currencies (like milk currency and dry cereal currency could be transformed into general cereal currency, or various currencies related to automobile maintenance could be transformed into a general automobile maintenance currency). The generalized currencies could exercise intelligence, for instance, if they used a currency that promoted a certain business, then the appropriate currency would be used when conducting transactions. At the level of highest generalization, a currency broker could exist to manage currencies and deduce prices according to a single generalized unit of currency, for the ultimate in simplicity. This would preserve the nature of the simplicity of modern currency, but without forcing a valuation into such a narrow and limited confine, as well as allow a greater understanding of value, and a much more accurate enumeration of value. A more accurate enumeration of value would eliminate the bluntness present in today’s world’s generalized currency system, and thus increase the total value present in the economy. It is good that we account for tradeable value, as this helps prevent value from getting lost. For any value that one finds, its value is then accounted for, and that value is sustained more easily than with the very much older barter system.
Of course, as with any currency, an entity of trust would be needed. This occurs in the form of a ledger, whether it be cryptocurrencies with its blockchain, a trustworthy group of people, or a ledger owned by an entity of governance (or even a mixture of the options). In the realm of science, all laws of science are recorded, and that ability for science to have a written record of any truth of history allows for this ledger to exist, on a scientific level, as well. As such, this currency system could and may also simultaneously be universal. The different ledgers, on which the currency tabulations are recorded, could be used to transfer currency from one ledger to another.
Another benefit of this form of currency system is in the valuation of the currency itself. The modern system of a generalized indicator of value can much more easily detach itself from the reality of value. Sensationalism can induce a Satanic fervor, which could misevaluate currency. (This may be what happened in the Great Depression, which followed the Golden Era — perhaps a misevaluation of currency proceeded with the windy fervor of an exciting new world, and later the true value came about surprisingly.) This currency would more frequently be appraised, and its value more deliberately and with a greater awareness determined, thus producing a more accurate and thus, as is commonly described, a more stable currency.
Along, with the currency system I have just proposed, I also propose an alternative economic ideology, perhaps in contrast to the commonly used ideology exemplified by Adam Smith, in his famous book, The Wealth of Nations. It is commonly known that Adam Smith vouched for a free-market economy, with little government regulation, that relies on the idea of “enlightened self-interest.” Understanding this, however, I find this term to be a little vague, and it could be possible an overly brave assumption that an economy would follow this ethical ideal. More importantly, however, the modern economy is focused primarily on the value of goods and services, which are products of people, rather than on the value of people, themselves. To categorize the modern world’s general economic strategy, I refer to it as a resource-oriented model. It is not true value, as true value is directly related to a person’s appreciation of the goods and services, but a proxy value that is fairly presumptive. Because of this, it is misleading in its approach, assuming resources to be the source of value, rather than people. I believe this misunderstanding reduces the ability for an economic system to grow to a level in which it is able to take care of the true desires of people, and finally leave a system that is hinged on a form of slavery. (The modern day’s economy is far too naïve and impoverished to truly take care of the people.)
Instead of a resource-oriented economic system, I propose a value-based economic system, understanding that true value comes from the happiness of people. Using a highly dexterous currency system, like the one mentioned previously, it is possible to have a currency system that is both flexible and fluid enough to allow people to generously pay others, even if they don’t possess much of a certain type of currency unit. (If a person happens to possess a lot of grass currency, but does not possess many other currencies, that person could be more generous with the grass currency, and not be limited by the averaging of values of different forms of perceived personal value.)
Thus, a more prosperous and beneficial economic system would focus on the satisfaction and happiness of people, as well as facilitating generosity, as well. Even a person who possesses no currency could potentially create a new currency that the person honors, in some way, and freely give it away, as a way to generate value for the currency and subsequently honor it, as a means of public service. With a varied currency system, people could more easily afford to be generous with donations, and ideally, a person will freely give money due to happiness received, and the stringent and often tedious price-dilemma of our modern age will largely be alleviated.
That covers the idea of an innovative, inspiring, accurate, and prosperous currency system, as well as a method of a more generous, considerate, and free economic model. The next topic uses the theory earlier postulated, that suggests that reality is a communicative being, where signals of consciousness arise at one’s mind, and one forms a portrayal of reality through the understanding and appraisal of those signals. This covers how the money would function in such a world. Additionally, in the future, it is likely that we would purposefully chose to perceive reality in this fashion, whether this theory be true or not, as we would have the capability to communicate with all people in a simplified and aggregated format.
In the theory of a communicative reality, the people you speak to, unless you specifically know a particular individual, are aggregated people who fall into a categorical identification. These people you communicate with are not necessary a collection of people, but instead a collection of activities of people. Therefore, the joyous mindset of a person may be known through a particularly joyous person, where the more pensive and analytical mindset may be known through, perhaps, an engineer. Of course, there are an infinite ways to aggregate and portray reality, and these are very simple examples. (We understand people to be quite a bit more complex than these examples, and thus the people we know also exhibit that complexity, being direct representations of facets of people, and being people themselves, as they are direct connections to other people.)
Understanding that in aggregating people into to a simplified perspective, there becomes a duplicity of people, and that would indicate a duplicity in money, which seems nonsensical. However, if we approach this matter more cautiously, there is a way to make it all make sense, in a writeable and knowable way.
The idea is astronomically simple. While the question itself does seem, at first, quite confusing and paradoxical, it can be answered by taking a clearer look at reality.
With this theory of communicative reality, let us imagine that every individual person lives on a fairly large and isolated island. The communications of consciousness, perhaps cursorily explained as quantum entanglement, which bears the capacity to assume that distance is simply a communication and not a fundamental aspect of reality, are received by the mind and the mind places all of the information on this island. Each individual person does the same thing, such that there is an island for each individual, and on that island is a personal interpretation of the information that the individual person is receiving. If we suppose there are five quintillion people in existence, then there may be only 30 million people per island. The person then represents the communications of those five quintillion people, along with the angel which bears remembrance of the truths of the past. (As discussed in an earlier chapter, we assume there is only one angel, which holds the memory of eternal truths of humankind and of life, in general, so that science exists, and history exists, as well.) Clearly, since there are only 30 million people on the island, but 5 quintillion individual people, the people are aggregated according to different personalities and characteristics. The language spoken is intuitive and upon communicating with the people perceived, reaches the intended audience, who live on other islands. The communication is delivered through the intention and deliberate clearness from the person communicating. Thus, we notice the nature of a communicative reality. We should also note that it is not impossible to choose to portray all 5 quintillion people, or, at least, to know them. In fact, one could portray a mixture. The problem with attempting to portray the individuals themselves, is that the individuals may not want to communicate entirely everything about themselves, leaving one with partial people. However, it is nonetheless possible to acknowledge each person, while at the same time using a more convenient aggregated portrayal system.
The solution to the quandary mentioned above thus becomes more obvious. What we notice, then, is that there is a duplicity of money. When the individual who owns the island (who owns his or her own perspective and portray of reality) pays one of the perceived entities, that payment is a package of information that is psychically transmitted to the other actual person, and would likely be represented by a person living on the recipients island, who represents that quality of the sender. In this way, there is apparently twice as much money. With the ability to perceive the entirety of reality (as long as one does not bear an adulterous mind, which desires to perceives lies instead of truth), one may become confounded by this strange duplicity of money. With the observation, it would be important to enumerate money appropriately, such that this duplicity, which does not represent a doubling of value, is accounted for.
Thus, we arrive at the idea of true money versus inductive money. When one pays a person on his or her island — perceived by the payer according to his or her chosen portrayal, the immediately perceived person receives what would be referred to as inductive money.
Induction is the process of information inference, where through a gap in understanding or space, information is duplicated. I use the term with an engineering mindset, as I find engineering to be very clear. In engineering, induction is the transfer of electricity over a gap. To do this, two coils are often used and spaced apart in a way such that the coils are not touching nor too distant. When electricity flows through one coil, the electro-magnetic field induces a flow of electricity in the other coil. This technique is often known through inductive stovetops, where the surface of the stove does not produce heat, but instead transfers a flow of electricity to the pan, and the pan directly heats up. It is often used in transformers, because the size of the coils and wires has an effect on voltage and amperage, allowing voltages to be converted. The most common example of electrical induction, in today’s world, is wireless phone charging, which uses a current of electricity produced by the charger that sits next to a coil of wires in the phone, such that when electricity is sent through the charger’s coil, electro-magnetic induction causes the coils in the phone to generate a current, which then charges the phone.
Using this understanding of the word, “induction,” one can easily say that the person that the own of the perspective and portrayal is paying, to the perceived person, inductive money. This money exists in order to facilitate a fair representation of the information the owner of the island (the producer of the perspective) is receiving. Therefore, the people on the island, except the owner or creator of the island, are receiving a form of currency known as inductive currency. When the packet of financial quantification is transferred, as a message, to a person who owns a different island or portrayal, that person receives actual money. The person that is perceived to pay that person is using inductive money, in order to maintain the portrayal, such that the reality being presented is still of truth. As we become able to perceive the very true nature of reality, and under the circumstances that this very plausible and sensible theory is, indeed, true, understanding inductive money and real money is very important.
Money is meant to quantify and save value, and is used to reward the transfer of goods or the performance of services. All services are fundamentally cognitive, and goods are a form of memory that is transferred psychically. The goods that exist are present on each person’s island, and when the goods are transferred, the person perceives the goods being transferred from the individual’s own island, in order to keep reality consistently true. Thus, if there are five quintillion people, then there are perceivably five quintillion times the number of each good and of each currency. Understanding this topic of inductive money and how a reality functions, while it is composed of islands of portrayal, is important to not becoming confused when understanding the full gamut of reality.
An additional topic remains regarding the existence of portrayal of reality versus the technical constituency of reality. In the example portray — that a person portrays the existence of 5 quintillion people as 30 million people — there is a proportionality that is important to recognize. This issue of proportionality is particularly noticeable in the observation that if every of the 5 quintillion island-owners owned one cow, then there would be 5 quintillion cows. However, in the portrayal of the island-owner, that would equate to an average of 166.7 billion cows per person, which would seem absurd. Therefore, in addition to inductive money, there is also the concept of perceived money versus actual money.
Because currency is a denomination of value, the personally known value a person perceives should remain the same, even if the island is portrayed as having a vastly different number of people (and cows) than technically exists in reality. Therefore, if every person of the 5 quintillion island-owners possesses one cow, then, on average (I say, “on average,” due to the categorical organization of perceived information), each person on the island would possess one cow. That would mean there would be a proportional difference of approximately 166.7 billion percent in actual cows vs perceived cows. That’s a huge difference! Therefore, if a person possesses one perceived cow, the person would own somewhere around 166.7 billion actual cows, and those cows would provide 166.7 billion times as much utility as one actual cow.
The same concept would apply to money. Using the dollar as the example unit of currency, if one person possesses one perceived dollar, then that person actually possesses 166.7 billion real dollars. The amount of value the person perceives should be equivalent, with respect to the island, as 166.7 billion real dollars, but since the population of the island is 166.7 billion percent less, the true economy, itself, exists as an economy functioning on a 166.7 billion percent increase in denominated prices of goods and services (with a 166.7 billion percent decrease in the appraised value of those goods and services). Therefore, the prices of everything on the island and the quantity of everything on the island are adjusted to form a perceived valuation, which is essentially a proportion of an actual valuation. Because people can communicate and perceive in complex ways, the very specific amount of money and goods traded would be more specific than simply a percentage, and the person may portray the technical existence of billions of cows as the cow’s quality, breed, health, and age, therefore one cow could technically represent possibly anywhere between 100 billion regularized cows to 200 billion cows, depending on the cow chosen. Therefore, in addition to inductive money, services, and goods, there is also the proportionality of the money, goods, and services. The person would perceive the same standards of living, according to the actual reality, although the perception of the reality would appear different proportionally, and in different ways that are also an effect of the difference in portrayal versus the technical reality. Therefore, in addition to inductive money, there also exists perceived money. A person who owns his or her portrayal would possess both perceived money, as well as technical money, each representing a different perspective of reality.
An interesting dilemma regards a person wanting to purchase one single actual cow. Knowing that on the island, one actual cow would actually be 166.7 billionth of a perceived cow, perceiving this small proportion of a perceived cow is implausible. Therefore, the perceived value of one actual cow would be converted into a different perception that represents the same feeling and personal appreciation that one actual cow provides. This is due to the ability to comfortably portray reality, which ultimately maintains the amount of value perceived, while producing a comfortable portrayal of that value. The value perceived thus remains the same, while the perception of the world is, additionally, more comfortable and more natural to the subjective person.
There is another topic that regards the ability to comfortably portray reality in the way an individual sees favorable. If the island-owner decides that there are other islands out there, then the perceived number of people would change. The people on the newly found island would possess a different aspect of the people of the technical reality, such as is common in history when a civilization discovers a remote tribe. A person may decide that there should be another island, somewhere fairly distant, to explain a facet of reality that the current portrayal was becoming unaware of, and that island would possess unique characteristics, to expand the diversity of what is perceived. A simple phenomenon that may occur would be to find the island to be of a lesser level of financial enrichment. Thus, the economic system would then integrate with the trade of the newly found foreign habitat. This would result in a story which represents a mutation of the portrayal that the island-owner, at first, had chosen. During this mutation, the people would interact with the inhabitants of the new island, learn of their ways, trade ways, and learn of new forms of goods, which possess different qualities of value, and diversify and unify into a different portrayal of existence.
A more difficult question regards the notion of the island-owner discovering a new island of great prosperity. Let us assume the new island is perceivably twice as prosperous. This would, at first, seem like a tripling of the total amount of money in the world. Additionally, per person, or per capita, the amount of money would be 1.5% as much as it was. This presents an interesting anomaly. The island would be presenting, perhaps, a lesser seen aspect of reality. This could happen if the island-owner started to notice that the portrayal began to fail to represent reality appropriately, leading to the desire to discover new civilizations. The new island, being of a significantly different nature, would, then, again, highlight some aspects of reality that were not before as easily noticed. Perhaps, the understanding of the value of goods would lead to there being an apparent doubling of money per capita in the new civilization. Additionally, new ideas may have emerged on the island-owner’s original island, that didn’t quite become present in the island-owners original portrayal, indicating that there was something missing to reality, and that missing component would be what the newly found island possesses. Therefore, the perception that the newly found civilization is far richer (which does seem rare in history), would be the realization of what already exists, but was before unseen, perhaps, due to the limitations of the island-owner’s original portrayal of reality. Similarly, however, as with the last example of the newly found island being far less wealthy, a story of mutation would then occur, where the diversity of reality is realized to a greater degree. Thus, the perceived value the person perceives would actually increase, due to the gaining of an understanding of greater value. It is the education and learning of the value of various different natures that would create the new value, and thus the value perceived would be directly correlated to a person’s growth. The economies would interact, and each economy would learn from another, and thus the perceived value would increase due to an increase in knowledge, while the total value in reality would also increase, due to a participant finding new ways of providing value, thus enriching the entirety of reality.
Now, let us suppose the newly found island was of an enormously more prosperous society. This, perhaps, applies to the question of whether or not advanced alien life exists in the universe. Suppose this society used a completely different system of understanding value, a system that was engrained the functioning of a great machine habitat which took care of the people’s desires, without their noticing much the trading of value. Then, instead of a currency dilemma, there would only be a great abundance of technological wealth. This wealth would be learned by the original island, and the total prosperity of the combination of islands, which would then indicate all of reality, would then increase. If some people on the island were objectionable to new ways of life, due to the possibility that some of the 5 quintillion people in the technical reality were hesitant about change, then the society would form a segmentation between those who enjoy technological advancement and those who subscribe to a more traditional way of life. Nonetheless, in any mutation of portrayal, the same qualities would apply, however, their representation would change. The total value would increase due to an increase in knowledge and expertise, and that would be communicated to the rest of reality, being represented by perceived people on other island-owners’ islands.
If we consider the planet to be the island, then today there are approximately 8 billion people represented. Let us keep with the notion that there are 5 quintillion people in existence, each, perhaps, with his or her own planet. If we were to communicate with advanced space-faring intelligence, that would imply that the ideas and the ingenuity of the mind of the people of the technical reality had increased faster than the portrayal had demonstrated. Thus, the missing innovation that exists due to unseen ingenuity and creativity would be understandably represented by what we refer to as “alien intelligence,” or, perhaps, more concretely, “space-faring intelligence.” (In this case, both terms refer to a level of intelligence and technological sophistication that seem alien to the existent portrayal’s interpretation of reality.) Discovering alien intelligence would simply be a discovering of the innovation and knowledge of the people of reality that had been missing from the modern portrayal. It is not unlikely that a portrayal could fall behind the creativity and ingenuity of the people of reality, and thus, the new ingenuity would appear as an advanced technological civilization. This would be a process of realization and would enrich reality ever the more, and expand the portrayal to include the newly realized knowledge and enrichment. If, perhaps, a group of people who are, in this case, planet-owners, found a great abundance of knowledge and technological wealth, then the presence of the products of these people may lead another planet owner to the portrayal of an encounter with an alien civilization, in order for the planet-owner to accurately account for the new form of information being received. Nonetheless, the portrayal would mutate, hopefully gracefully and with a story of change, into a new portrayal, where the planet has met an advanced space-faring civilization and has received much of the knowledge of the civilization.
A problem can occur with the personal ability to portray reality, as may exist presently and may have existed historically. This problem is something I refer to as, “cognitive adultery.” Adultery, in its most historical sense, is to pretend false information is truth. (Looking up the definition in a couple of dictionaries, I find this definition to be missing, although I do remember as a child learning about the word, “to adulter,” which appears to not exist anymore. Nonetheless, in the etymology of adultery is the meaning, “to alter,” or, “to corrupt,” coming from Latin. Noting this, today’s world may already exist in a state of an adulterated environment, which would not be surprising, from the precept of ideological philosophy which states that reality is, by default, a perfect Heaven, which is logical and falls in line with religious thought, as well.) Cognitive adultery, therefore, perceives false information as truth. When applied to this understanding of portrayal, a person’s island or planet may begin to misrepresent reality. Cognitive adultery is possible, and while the information being communicated in the technical reality remains the same, with a false portrayal, one may be led to incorrect solutions, guided by perception alone, in contrast to being guided by knowledge. While the knowledge of reality is unchanging in its ways, portrayal can vary dramatically. A frightening aspect of cognitive adultery is that it can be contagious, such that the portrayals of others’ are affected in a way, such that the other island-owners’ (or planet-owners’) portrayals begin to lie. The sin of lust, as I define it, is to prioritize perception over knowledge. While knowledge is definitively true, according to the theory that perceived reality is of a personal assimilation and portrayal of information, and including the possibilities of the type of habitat in the future, perception can be very subjective. Prioritizing perception over knowledge could lead to an adulterous environment, and in order for people to understand each other, other planet-owners may be led to a false and misleading portrayal of reality. While reality occurs in the psychic communication between people, the portrayal is simply a way to enjoy perceiving what is already true, in a comfortable manner. However, if the portrayal is misleading, perhaps due to people lying to others, on a cognitive level, which can occur to deceive, illude, and feign ignorance of ill-behavior, then solutions to various dilemmas become unapparent, and reality, itself, can begin to make less and less sense. It is important to note that the reality occurs in the psychic communication between island or planet-owners, and that portrayal is the enjoyment of perception and perspective. Therefore, when portrayal both becomes misleading and, additionally, portrayal is favored over knowledge, the people’s minds may become corrupt. This leads to a hazardous disintegration of reality, and reality becomes less manageable.
With the notion that this system of personal portrayal, based on a comfortable assimilation of information, may, indeed, already exist, it is important to understand these concepts, as we discover reality to a greater level of understanding. Additionally, should this theory be false, one should consider that with the future possibility of performing this type of activity — the ability to personally portray reality in a comfortable manner — it is nonetheless still important to understand the notions of such a system of reality. The ability to portray reality based on a personal assessment of the information that one is receiving provides a greater degree of comfort and a more natural subjectivity to a person’s environment, of which both are certainly desirable characteristics of a person’s enjoyment of life.
In summary, this introduced form of currency, which I enjoy referring to as, “space-money,” provides many advantages over the modern world’s current currency system. Additionally, a (personal) value-based economic model is likely to be far more profitable, comfortable, fun, and considerate than the current resource-based economic model, which often neglects that value comes from people and focusses on tangible artifacts and resulting effects, rather than the people, themselves. Furthermore, to put the economic system in the current theory of communicative reality, as well as to present a solution for any future contexts, where one enjoys the same type of personal portray system as the one described, understanding inductive money (and inductive goods), as well as perceived money and goods versus actual money and goods, is important. (Additionally understanding aggregation and how that affects the perceived reality is an important consideration, with a now fairly obvious solution, as well.)