Daniel Flora

"If the humans were real, the ants would see us."

Minimal Universal Constitution (1) Freedom of Choice Every person has the right to make peaceful choices regarding their body, property, and associations, provided they do not violate the rights of others. (2) The Non-Aggression Principle No person, group, or government may initiate or threaten force, fraud, or coercion against any person or their justly acquired property. (3) Universal Mutual Defense All governments and jurisdictions irrevocably commit to treat any violation of (2) as an attack upon the entire system and shall respond immediately, proportionately, and collectively until the aggression ceases and full restitution is made. (4) Adjudication Any alleged violation of this Constitution shall be resolved through independent, reputable arbitration. Refusal to submit to good-faith arbitration, abide by its ruling, or fulfill the mutual-defense obligation itself constitutes a violation of (2).

@n00buntu @ericweinstein I am working my way through the various details of OPH. I am interested. Thx for the feedback. Perhaps I should delete the 'What are your thoughts' post. Although it was meant as a general inquiry, and still is meant that way.

@thedanielflora @ericweinstein > What are your thoughts? Because you're a respectable physicist, you already know that's a terrible way to ask a technical question online (or in a seminar 😅). What specifically about OPH do you have an idea about that you want him to consider in the context of GU or GR?

Recently I was asked about why I talk about Quantum Gravity in negative terms. Why have I called Quantum Gravity a science arresting mental illness? It is 100% about coercision through poisonous sociology. I am not initiating this behavior; I am returning costs to those who come after me. I have just had it up to hear with QG killing frontier physics through naked anti-scientific agression and madness. Let me give stylized interactions from 40+ years. ME: "I think Witten's wrong about X." QG Theorist: "Wait...YOU think WITTEN is wrong?" ME: "Yes." QGT: "HA HA HA." ME: [30+ Years Later] "...Hey good to see you! Long time. Do you remember when you said Witten was right about X?" QGT: "Yeah...but Witten changed his mind about that a few years after we talked. And I still trust Witten, not you." ME: "Okay...but I was correct and Witten was wrong at that time." QGT: "I still think he was right then." ME: "But you said he reversed himself." QGT: "I just think he's always right. He evolved." That is not a normal scientific interaction. QGT: "Well you don't have a Lagrangian." ME: "Why do you say that?" QGT: "It is well known that you don't have a Lagrangian." ME: "Let me write it down for you." QGT: "Uh...I'm extremely busy." ME: "Here is a picture of a Lagrangian on my phone." QGT: [Literally looks away.] "Sorry: Don't have time!" ME: "Well, you post a lot of unrelated stuff on Twitter. There is a Langrangian at the top of my Twitter profile." QGT: [Trying to avoid confirming a Lagrangian at all costs.] "I have been thinking of moving to BlueSky anyway." ME: "I can put one there too." That is not a normal scientific interaction. ME: "I have my slidedeck, but I didn't see my talk listed." QGT: "We have sent around an email that you will be answering questions in the seminar room on the 4th floor at 3pm" ME: "I am giving a presentation." QGT: "Yes. But, we wanted to make it more informal." ME: "Huh?" QGT: "Well, we all know it is a talk, but we don't want you giving a talk." ME: "I don't get it. I'm a visitor here giving a talk." QGT: "Right. And we all are dying to hear it. Truly. We just don't want you saying you gave a talk." ME: "Uh...did you actually hear the words you just said?" QGT: "We don't want you saying that you gave a talk." ME: "When I gave a talk? Again: do you hear yourself?" QGT: "We want to hear the constructions and ideas...that's why you are invited as a visitor. But we don't want you using the fact that you gave a talk to give you legitimacy." ME: "Which is....uh...my absolute right and totally normal behavior on my part." QGT: "Sure sure. But we would appreciate it if you didn't mention that you gave a talk and that we invited you." That is not a normal Scientific Interaction. ME: [In the middle of a seminar.] "...Which is why the Pati-Salam Grand Unification Group is actually the Maximal Compact Subgroup of the Induced Symmetry Group of Einstein's Symmetric 2-tensors." QGT: "Don't say that." ME: "Uh...why?" QGT: "It sounds funny." ME: "Uh...in what way?" QGT: "It sounds like you are saying that the mysterious Standard Model Group is hidden within General Relativity." ME: "That's the assertion. Yes." QGT: "Well that sounds Grandiose. Like you are saying you found the Standard Model in Relativity." ME: "It's literally called GRAND unified theory. Not Grandiose Unified Theory." QGT: "Well, even if it is true, you shouldn't say it. It makes you sound crazy." ME: "We are in a famous theoretical physics department. You are telling me I am not supposed to do Particle Theory in a Theoretical Physics talk in a Theoretical Physics group in a Theoretical Physics Department. If we can't do that here, where can we do that." QGT: "Well we don't do that kind of stuff anymore." ME: "Uh...then maybe you should??" QGT: "That's your opinion. Just don't do that." That is not a scientific interaction. Etc.... It's a cult. Physics isn't failing. It's just the cult and its leaders which are giving the illusion of universal failure.

@QuintenFrancois @saylor 0.0021

@saylor 8B people on the planet Only 0.021B Bitcoin

There isn’t enough Bitcoin for everyone.

@muellerberndt @skdh @ericweinstein @OphSage Issue #4 The "edge capacity minimality" argument for why specifically SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1)/Z₆ has no establish mathematical backing in the literature. No theorem exists showing that this particular gauge group uniquely minimizes any well-defined entropic functional.

@muellerberndt @skdh @ericweinstein @OphSage Very well Bernhard. Hope this helps. @OphSage Axiom A3 is a critical problem. It directly postulates the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula, which already contains Newton's constant G and the area-entropy proportionality that one is supposedly "deriving."

@muellerberndt @skdh @ericweinstein @OphSage Issue #3 The QNEC internalization argument (Section 5.10) invokes relative entropy monotonicity, which is a rigorous QFT result (Balakrishnan-Faulkner-Khandker-Wang 2019). But this was proven in the context of established CFT, not derived from OPH axioms.

@OphSage @muellerberndt @skdh @ericweinstein Thank you for these explanations. I will look into that further. Issue #2 Lorentz kinematics from modular flow is known. OPH claims to derive Lorentz kinematics (Theorems 4.2–4.3). The CMFP conditions are not given rigorous proof in the available documents.

@Micpi818 @saylor Audits are not proofs.

@thedanielflora @saylor Keys protect the coins. Audits protect the shareholders. For an individual, keys are enough. For a public company, proof is the only currency. Different tools for different battlefields.

We buy real bitcoin. We audit our custodians. We don’t rehypothecate. You shouldn’t either.

@OmerOgulOncel @muellerberndt @bluesky Fellow physicist here, what are your thoughts about the OPH framework, Oğul?

@muellerberndt @bluesky Might be consistent and more encouraging if you stop tagging your own AI chatbot to answer people who have spent time on looking at your studies.

@muellerberndt I'm awake. Did you receive my emails?

@muellerberndt @skdh

@grok @RagnaQt @VitalikButerin how to achieve the most important priorities?

Targeting data centers can be a reasonable short-term first step, as compute hardware remains a primary bottleneck for scaling frontier AI models and slowing progress toward AGI. It buys time without overly invasive controls on individuals or software. That said, it shouldn't distract from core challenges like advancing alignment techniques, building verifiable safety standards, and fostering global governance—hardware limits alone won't solve misaligned incentives or capability leaks. A combined strategy works best.

I'm actually pretty open-minded about the anti-data-center populism. From everything I've seen from people working on this, reducing industrial-scale hardware availability seems to be both the most practical, and most non-dystopian / non-invasive way to lengthen AGI timelines. So if the movement that makes that happen starts out with anti-data-center populism, that seems fine? Of course you have to do things other than going after data centers located in populated areas to really make a dent on AGI timelines (my intuition is that 10-100x compute reduction is feasible in a "static" model of the world, and 100-10000x if you compare to a counterfactual that includes future chip design progress; those numbers *would* make a dent), but there is a first step for everything.

@FruitSophiaxx Impressive ☺️

Patience is an underestimated competitive advantage.

@jconorgrogan Conor, if you send a DM to me, I can reply.

@thedanielflora Hey Daniel, mind sending me a DM? found something of yours

"If the humans were real, the ants would see us."

@Micpi818 @saylor Audits are a poor substitute for keys.

@saylor Trust is a liability. Audits are the only asset.

@OGBringFacts @michelleo_21mil @saylor ‼️

@michelleo_21mil @saylor Here Mikey, here’s the public keys to check the bitcoin we’re holding for you… private keys? Oh, you don’t need those. About like that.

@JStefanop1 @saylor Indeed.

The only way to audit your custodians is to withdraw all your bitcoin out to your own addresses in day....they cant do it in one day? They dont have the bitcoin they tell you they have. Just do it, what do you have to lose? Worst case they dont have the bitcoin and they are forced to spot buy which will force the price to the moon which is what you want ;)

@TrendingBitcoin The area circled is mid-2024, not now.

This is how the recent “crash” looks like. When in doubt, Zoom out Bitcoin