## 1. perfect money

### 1.1. mistakes with today's money

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.:

- If we choose our goal to be to maximize our GDP, then Assumption 1 is obviously wrong, since sandwich given to $p_2$ did not result in anything useful to the economy ($p_2$ just used it to sit on ass watch TV), while sandwich given to $p_1$ resulted in a major progress that would most likely boost the GDP.
- If we choose our goal to be to advance our civilization so that it gets closer immortality, then Assumption 1 is still wrong for the same obvious reasons.

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).

### 1.2. perfect money

**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?

#### 1.2.1. proof

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).