Its still mostly empirical, doesnt show what protein this gene code for and how it influence a person behavior. You are saying it as though it is an invalid conclusion. They identified the gene variation: AVPR1A RS3 327 bp allele. Everything in science is validated experimentally. Not sure what your objection is, or is there? They identify it empirically, not structurally. Science is also axiomatic reasoning. A collection of statistics never made a science. Almost anything can be proven with empiric method and enough cherry picking. I still stand with edelman when he says the influence of genetics on the brain is not clear, and genetics doesnt code for brain développement. So that mean selfishness is not dependant on the brain, which seem contradictory with things like mirror neurons Who seem to take part in "empathy" or certain social behavior. |
|
|
|
Its still mostly empirical, doesnt show what protein this gene code for and how it influence a person behavior. |
|
|
|
Im not sure if randomness is really absence of pattern. Randomness as in chaotic system can have pattern like fractals, but a small change in starting condition will have unpredictible effect on the outcome. In this view randomness is a product of complexity, as number of input factors and relationship between them. Which is why thermodynamics doesnt work in open systems because entropy dominate.
People seem to be confusing two entirely different things That is, random patterns with repetitive patterns. The former are the characteristic of a random distribution, while the latter of a distribution which is not random. To make things easier to understand and probably to accept, it can be advised to think about the random patterns as irregularities (or grouping). However, if we consider these irregularities at a higher level, their emergence is not random at all Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns? Its a different definition than chaos theory then. Unpredictability: Because we can never know all the initial conditions of a complex system in sufficient (i.e. perfect) detail, we cannot hope to predict the ultimate fate of a complex system. Even slight errors in measuring the state of a system will be amplified dramatically, rendering any prediction useless. Since it is impossible to measure the effects of all the butterflies (etc) in the World, accurate long-range weather prediction will always remain impossible. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc.https://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/Note that snowflakes (as part of fractal patterns) aren't really random. The assumption is that they are simply following their pre-designed or preexisting microscopic structures. I remember they were thought to develop randomly. Assuming you pour sticky substance on an invisible ball, the substance sticks on the invisible ball and takes its shape. The new shape of the substance could blow the mind of an observe who may even consider it as random. What make fractal random is that small change in initial condition can lead to a completely different result after a certain number of iterations, so it make them hard to predict. If you pour the substance many times it will still take the same shape, and the sequence of outcome is still predictible, even if there is no explanation for it, statstics dont require To understand the phenomena to find regularities. Its interesting to see also why they came up with perlin noise algorithm to give computer generated graphics a more natural look, fractal can be used to generate trees, and adding some perlin noise can change a straight line adding slight twist to it, and can be used to generate 1000 trees that will all look slightly different but still using same core fractal pattern. Even in hair animation they probably use some kind of noise to make it more "realistic". I Guess its same with Snow flakes that They all Have same core pattern but not two are identical, even if they form in very similar conditions. Noise is often used to increase the complexity of computer algorithm in a cheap manner, and can end up with result that are statistically close To natural occurrence, even with simple repetitive/ iterative algorithm and very simple primitive patterns. |
|
|
|
A collection of facts and annecdots doesnt make a science.  |
|
|
|
How do you stop the expression of that selfish gene? That is a very difficult task.
The only way to solve this evolutionary 'defect' is to develop artificial reproductive technology where we can control the outcome and produce individuals who would be incapable of being selfish. Eventually, 'messy, selfish biological offsprings' would die-off and you would have only selfless people who were manufactured to order. Assuming the last 'selfish person' dies without abusing this technology, you'll end up with civilization that might be able to survive what is ahead of us.
How do you know selfishness/selflessness is the expression of a gene ? People's personal traits seem to be genetic. Why some siblings are born selfish (most of them) and some are selfless from the get-go? They share the same environment so it is fair to assume that their selfishness or lack thereof is genetic. Its a bit too empirical to be convincing for me  |
|
|
|
Im not sure if randomness is really absence of pattern. Randomness as in chaotic system can have pattern like fractals, but a small change in starting condition will have unpredictible effect on the outcome. In this view randomness is a product of complexity, as number of input factors and relationship between them. Which is why thermodynamics doesnt work in open systems because entropy dominate.
People seem to be confusing two entirely different things That is, random patterns with repetitive patterns. The former are the characteristic of a random distribution, while the latter of a distribution which is not random. To make things easier to understand and probably to accept, it can be advised to think about the random patterns as irregularities (or grouping). However, if we consider these irregularities at a higher level, their emergence is not random at all Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns? Its a different definition than chaos theory then. Unpredictability: Because we can never know all the initial conditions of a complex system in sufficient (i.e. perfect) detail, we cannot hope to predict the ultimate fate of a complex system. Even slight errors in measuring the state of a system will be amplified dramatically, rendering any prediction useless. Since it is impossible to measure the effects of all the butterflies (etc) in the World, accurate long-range weather prediction will always remain impossible. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc.https://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/ |
|
|
|
|
Im not sure if randomness is really absence of pattern. Randomness as in chaotic system can have pattern like fractals, but a small change in starting condition will have unpredictible effect on the outcome. In this view randomness is a product of complexity, as number of input factors and relationship between them. Which is why thermodynamics doesnt work in open systems because entropy dominate.
But even for gambling if the game is fair there should be a know distribution of events, its less and less random on longer period, the problem is having limited supply and not being able to play long enough to win the jackpot before you go bankrupt depending on the odds you take on a limited sequence.
|
|
|
|
I'm about to go to bed so I can't look at responses right away but dealing with this has caused my family to become separated, my hair to fall out and has caused me and I'm sure other traders enormous amounts of stress dealing with someone or something treating bitcoin like it's a game of attention.
I thought I'd share my story and my experience of what I've had to go through dealing with bitcoin since 2013.
I bought bitcoin at near 1000 dollars or something around 2013 and then went to college and it crashed to 300 dollars (wow totally normal for the old market).
I then sold my bitcoin and didn't get any profit and then it proceeded to constantly go up after that. I moved on like a man though because I realized I had things to learn. Later on though I got back into it early in 2017 nearly full time. I began to -try- to learn how to deal with the market instead of acting like it was mortal kombat. Treating the market like a game to fight people is literally a felony if the market isn't working and everyone knows it's wrong to go a certain direction.
Ever since the spike in 2017 to $20,000 things got out of hand though. Since July 2017 (and I've contacted the SEC,CTFC, and attorneys over this) bitcoin has been getting pushed forcefully to go higher than it needs to faster than it needs to when the market isn't there.
The problem lies in that people don't believe that there is actually a person/trader/ or exchange that was actually capable of doing something like this for this long since it costs millions of dollars per day.
The market got different in 2017 after it got to 3000 and ever since then felonies have been committed nearly every single day to try and force the price upwards whether or not the market is ready. Now we/I/you and the community are seeing the aftermath of the psychopath who thinks it's their job to "punish" people for selling bitcoin and it hasn't stopped since then.
I made over 10,000 dollars doing it right when everyone was ok with the natural market when it went up AND down (without getting harassed) but now it just doesn't work. This isn't bragging, this is just a fact. I learned how to do it right and I did well. (yeah I sold bitcoin sometimes instead of buying it)
EVER SINCE THEN though, it seems like THE ENTIRE internet is trying to FAKE their way into doing what I did.
This has really gotten out of hand and I expect people to do something about this. I shouldn't have to be calling attorneys at my age (but I am).
Well its a characteristics of cryptocurrency since the beginning that no one is legally accountable for anything, its anonymous, and decentralized so its hard for legislator to get a foot into this, and for many crypto enthusiast its also a good thing even if that mean you can have all kind of moves that would be fraudulent / scam as well. Its also why most banks refrain from putting crypto as regular asset with regulation etc because its nearly impossible to control it, or ban transactions or users from the network if they would break some law or regulation. Its not a regulated market, maybe with private blockchain where address and keys are attributed to legal entities with consencus based on trust and personal responsability, you can have more regulation using the legal system, but its not how public blockchain works. |
|
|
|
I understand the 2nd and 3rd points. High IQ people would likely be more conscientious and questioning of existing conventions which meant they're more likely to plan their families (and hence not have large ones) and be more secular. I don't understand why it would nudge them towards socialism though. Are you telling me the majority of people in Venezuela are above average IQ?
Anyway, don't let your religion kill you these holidays. Be easy on all the parties and on Christmas dinner.
Both the extremes of high and low IQ appear to nudge people towards socialism. Here is the original source for that point of discussion. If that really is the case then that's good that both groups are outliers and the "normal people" outnumber them. I'm still a bit skeptical though, I think empathy/selfishness is a trait separate from intelligence. For me intelligence is the same thing as empathy/consciousness. Its the ability to be aware of your surrounding. Some says the developpment of intelligence is more related to ability to live in large groups of individual rather than understanding physics with asperger syndrome. |
|
|
|
How do you stop the expression of that selfish gene? That is a very difficult task.
The only way to solve this evolutionary 'defect' is to develop artificial reproductive technology where we can control the outcome and produce individuals who would be incapable of being selfish. Eventually, 'messy, selfish biological offsprings' would die-off and you would have only selfless people who were manufactured to order. Assuming the last 'selfish person' dies without abusing this technology, you'll end up with civilization that might be able to survive what is ahead of us.
How do you know selfishness/selflessness is the expression of a gene ? |
|
|
|
What if I'm in an area without internet and I need to spend bitcoins? Wouldn't it help the decentralization principle if bitcoin doesn't depend on third-party internet connection? An internet built on the Bitcoin blockchain should be a possibility.
I already thought about that and i think it could work. If you break down internet what you have is low level protocols like ip, tcp/udp, which is useless in case of bitcoin because the protocol doesnt dépend on IP address to identify users, and its a message based protocol so it should work on connection-less protocol like udp or even simpler, and the blockchain protocol already allow To check data integrity so it in part redundant with lower layers, and all packets are supposed To be transmitted to all nodes indiscriminally, so there not even a real need for ip layer. Other part of internet is DNS server, but its mostly used To identify a particular machine as being controlled by the person owning the domain, and blockchain are trustless so doesnt require dns either. All nodes are supposed To have the same data minus few last blocks. Maybe there could be reason To want dns for initial download especially for staking coins to avoid sybil attack. To me you could perfectly have a system of datagram transmission over very simple radio protocol, and you just need To be in range of at least one node or a few in order To keep synchronized, and you would only need To have a few nodes that have internet for trans continental transactions. It might require some change to the bitcoin protocol as it is now To be efficient in block propagation and bitcoin protocol as it is still rely on internet To identify seed nodes and have certain part that depend on IP address like for banning or identifying nodes but its not critical and something based directly on cryptography could be used instead. And how profitable is your option if you use it directly on cryptography? With internet IP are attributed by a centralized or hierachised organisation, but there should be ways to do without. The only thing really needed is to identify a node to have directed message like request over a connection that would be directed at one node to have a potentially better distribution of requests or such. Using asymetric cryptography can prove the node answering has the private key that identify the previous messages, and it can be used to have connection-like behavior with several nodes without needing an IP To distiguish them. |
|
|
|
What if I'm in an area without internet and I need to spend bitcoins? Wouldn't it help the decentralization principle if bitcoin doesn't depend on third-party internet connection? An internet built on the Bitcoin blockchain should be a possibility.
I already thought about that and i think it could work. If you break down internet what you have is low level protocols like ip, tcp/udp, which is useless in case of bitcoin because the protocol doesnt dépend on IP address to identify users, and its a message based protocol so it should work on connection-less protocol like udp or even simpler, and the blockchain protocol already allow To check data integrity so it in part redundant with lower layers, and all packets are supposed To be transmitted to all nodes indiscriminally, so there not even a real need for ip layer. Other part of internet is DNS server, but its mostly used To identify a particular machine as being controlled by the person owning the domain, and blockchain are trustless so doesnt require dns either. All nodes are supposed To have the same data minus few last blocks. Maybe there could be reason To want dns for initial download especially for staking coins to avoid sybil attack. To me you could perfectly have a system of datagram transmission over very simple radio protocol, and you just need To be in range of at least one node or a few in order To keep synchronized, and you would only need To have a few nodes that have internet for trans continental transactions. It might require some change to the bitcoin protocol as it is now To be efficient in block propagation and bitcoin protocol as it is still rely on internet To identify seed nodes and have certain part that depend on IP address like for banning or identifying nodes but its not critical and something based directly on cryptography could be used instead. |
|
|
|
Fertilized eggs are not beings, never mind human beings.
Ontologically speaking even a stone is a being  So now we play with words. You know what I meant, a sentient being, not that it merely exists. Words are important Edelman and the likes show that its not that easy to know where sentience and consciousness really starts or ends. At which point you consider a cell or a group of cell is sentient or not ? It is hard to determine exactly when this happens as it is a cumulative process, and it is dependent on the environment and genetics. It is also species-dependent. To be aware of your environment you need some sort of complex brain. In the case of a human pregnancy, I am sure that in most cases, a viable fetus is a sentient being. Consciousness is a result of your brain processing all the inputs, current and past. When you deprive your brain of oxygen, it slowly dies, when all cells die and the RNA/DNA in your brain cells fragments, there is no going back, your brain is dead forever, and your consciousness ends forever. The claim made earlier in this thread that a fertilized egg is a human being is so ridiculous that it blows my mind how people can be so dogmatic. I only entertained it to lead them out of their logical fallacy. Its not a very good answer, edelman first got a nobel prize studying imune system, and in itself its aware of its environnement, able to have memory, detect infectious agent / toxins, albeit not being directly connected to the central nervous system. If you follow edelman boostrap theory with the reentrant connection and different level of consciousness, it show higher cognitive function are still heavily dependant on feedback from physiology. Essentially in this theory what drive the developpment of higher cognitive function is fitting physiological input, and physiology depend on chemical interaction and physical constraint etc Even monocellular organism can display a form of sentience, and awareness of environnement with "intelligent" reaction to promote its survival and reproduction. Just throwing this also as "food for thought" https://www.quantamagazine.org/choosy-eggs-may-pick-sperm-for-their-genes-defying-mendels-law-20171115/Joe Nadeau, principal scientist at the Pacific Northwest Research Institute, is challenging this dogma. Random fertilization should lead to specific ratios of gene combinations in offspring, but Nadeau has found two examples just from his own lab that indicate fertilization can be far from random: Certain pairings of gamete genes are much more likely than others. After ruling out obvious alternative explanations, he could only conclude that fertilization wasn’t random at all.
“It’s the gamete equivalent of choosing a partner,” Nadeau said.
His hypothesis – that the egg could woo sperm with specific genes and vice versa – is part of a growing realization in biology that the egg is not the submissive, docile cell that scientists long thought it was. Instead, researchers now see the egg as an equal and active player in reproduction, adding layers of evolutionary control and selection to one of the most important processes in life.Its really not simple to answer that. Well its clear we dont observe the manifestation of consciousness outside of a body, but in itself it also its hard To say where sentience really start, descartes tried to find this "seat of reasonning", which he located in the pineal gland, but now we know this to be false, and we still dont really know which organ or which part of the brain really make us sentient, if Its located in the brain at all. For me from the moment there is a will to survive and grow/reproduce it imply a form of sentience. |
|
|
|
No one can prove that God exists. I mean a scientific explanation!
We never proven a single thing to be true with absolute certitude in the whole history of mankind. Need to be a bit humble with what we think we know  Said the wisest man of athen. If by "proof" you mean formal proof, all you can prove is conformity of a statement with a set of axioms, but you can never prove the axioms are true. If you follow liebniz concept of sufficient reason that require To prove something true as Well as that it cannot be otherwise and the solution is the best possible, you can never prove this using a formal proof system, as godel theorem shows. |
|
|
|
Try to double or triple or even x10 the number of dots on your piece of paper and you get "patterns" forming. Repeat the experiment 1 million times and you might find other patterns appearing But that's what I'm talking about Randomness is all about patterns, even if those patterns are random on their own. With this in mind, you can try to exploit this property consciously once you definitely see or assume that you are dealing with random events, or if you know that beforehand (which is often the case in real life). In fact, we are all using this subtlety of randomness in everyday life without even thinking about it, without even being aware of it The way a dealer shuffles. The way a casino card stack is cut, the way the roulette wheels are oiled. The way the metal ball hits when it's thrown on the wheel I see what you are getting at, but in this topic I'm speaking mostly about the outcomes which are considered the representation of the built-in randomness of the world. Whether they are truly random in this sense is another question. Technically, our assumptions about these outcomes can just reflect our lack of knowledge (read, God doesn't play dice) Then the answer is 42 Montgomery had found that the statistical distribution of the zeros on the critical line of the Riemann zeta function has a certain property, now called Montgomery’s pair correlation conjecture. He explained that the zeros tend to repel between neighboring levels. At teatime, Montgomery mentioned his result to Freeman Dyson, Professor in the School of Natural Sciences.
In the 1960s, Dyson had worked on random matrix theory, which was proposed by physicist Eugene Wigner in 1951 to describe nuclear physics. The quantum mechanics of a heavy nucleus is complex and poorly understood. Wigner made a bold conjecture that the statistics of the energy levels could be captured by random matrices. Because of Dyson’s work on random matrices, the distribution or the statistical behavior of the eigenvalues of these matrices has been understood since the 1960s.
Dyson immediately saw that the statistical distribution found by Montgomery appeared to be the same as the pair correlation distribution for the eigenvalues of a random Hermitian matrix that he had discovered a decade earlier. “His result was the same as mine. They were coming from completely different directions and you get the same answer” says Dyson. “It shows that there is a lot there that we don’t understand, and when we do understand it, it will probably be obvious. But at the moment, it is just a miracle.”
The unexpected discovery by Montgomery and Dyson at teatime in the 1970s opened a tantalizing connection between prime numbers and mathematical physics that remains strange and mysterious today. Prime numbers are the building blocks of all numbers and have been studied for more than two thousand years, beginning with the ancient Greeks, who proved that there are infinitely many primes and that they are irregularly spaced.
More than forty years after the teatime conversation between Dyson and Montgomery, the answer to the question of why the same laws of distribution seem to govern the zeros of the Riemann zeta function and the eigenvalues of random matrices remains elusive, but the hunt for an explanation has prompted active research at the intersection of number theory, mathematical physics, probability, and statistics. The search is producing a much better understanding of zeta functions, prime numbers, and random matrices from a variety of angles, including analyzing various systems to see if they reflect Wigner’s prediction that the energy levels of large complex quantum systems exhibit a universal statistical behavior, a delicate balance between chaos and order defined by a precise formulahttps://www.ias.edu/ideas/2013/primes-random-matrices This is the zero of riemann zeta function  |
|
|
|
Try to double or triple or even x10 the number of dots on your piece of paper and you get "patterns" forming. Repeat the experiment 1 million times and you might find other patterns appearing.
I love thinking about the concept of randomness, too. Not so much from a mathematical perspective though.
When you flip a coin, the air, the way you flip, the way the coin is manufactured, all affect the outcome in ways we can't really calculate. When you roll a 10-sided die or 6-sided one, the manufacturing of it, the way some sides might have more density than others. The way a "10" is grooved means that side is ever so lighter than the side that has a "1". For sure all these affect the outcome, and, therefore, have a say in how random the coinflip or dice throw is. I've seen people manipulate dice throws, coin flips, measuring exactly how much strength to flip the coin, ensuring every throw has the same number of flips.
The way a dealer shuffles. The way a casino card stack is cut, the way the roulette wheels are oiled. The way the metal ball hits when it's thrown on the wheel.
How random is random? It's a lovely question!
I like the way you explain things that affects its random outcomes, but what if we consider randomness of a computer system? All physical tangible things could be impacted by their physical characteristics on how they were created. What about the computer system who uses random generating functions, do they have any basis at all? Are they really random? How come they are programmed to provide random numbers if computers are precise and absolute. In computer science there are lot of different kind of random number generators, not all of them are suited for gambling. You can have Perlin noise or fractal noise which can be used in computer graphics like to generate landscape or Marble or in audio synthesis etc but they will have certain distribution that doesnt make them suitable for gambling. Uniform distribution is white noise but there are other kind of distribution and algorithm that can be suited for some specific purpose. But you can easily say there will always be a known pattern in anything generated by a computer program, and the séquence can always be reproduced if you know the initial parameters ( seed etc) and the algorithm. |
|
|
|
Try to double or triple or even x10 the number of dots on your piece of paper and you get "patterns" forming. Repeat the experiment 1 million times and you might find other patterns appearing.
I love thinking about the concept of randomness, too. Not so much from a mathematical perspective though.
When you flip a coin, the air, the way you flip, the way the coin is manufactured, all affect the outcome in ways we can't really calculate. When you roll a 10-sided die or 6-sided one, the manufacturing of it, the way some sides might have more density than others. The way a "10" is grooved means that side is ever so lighter than the side that has a "1". For sure all these affect the outcome, and, therefore, have a say in how random the coinflip or dice throw is. I've seen people manipulate dice throws, coin flips, measuring exactly how much strength to flip the coin, ensuring every throw has the same number of flips.
The way a dealer shuffles. The way a casino card stack is cut, the way the roulette wheels are oiled. The way the metal ball hits when it's thrown on the wheel.
How random is random? It's a lovely question!
All thèse things you describe are things that actually make the game "less random". If the roulette is not perfectly oiled and the ball is not round leading to number 21 having 2% more occurrence than number 11, then you got a rigged game, which doesnt follow a poisson distribution. If one rely on such knowledge to win the game he is essentially cheating. |
|
|
|
1 + 1 = 2 is absolutely provable, and has been done so many times. Silly word play about things being different doesn't change a mathematical proof.
Perhaps you should take your own advice to learn about things before talking about them.
Try godbel theorem  Yes. 1 + 1 = 2 is not provable. After all, any "1" that you try to add to another "1" is slightly different than the other "1." The difference might only be in the location in space that it exists. Or it might be that the first "1" came first in the equation, but the second "1" came second. This makes them different... like trying to add apples and oranges. So, 1 + 1 always equals 1 + 1. They never equal 2.  Even in the pure logical/ abstract sense, even basic integer arithmetic has been shown to be unproveable formally. The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.After numbers are an abstraction that comes along with the idea of atom or monad but we still have to find a physical atom or monad that fit the abstraction. |
|
|
|
Everything in the universe can be gather to the science.as i think religion also one kind of a science.unfortunately when we say science we think only about provable things.no unprovable things also have science.so we can't rejected any things "this can't prove so this is not science".religion also science everything can't prove but humans not ask to prove them,they believe it.it not harmful to anyone.humans believe religion,it not harmful to anyone and make a better world so for what try to prove everythings?there are no differents in between science and religion.
Also you can have different meaning to "proof", you can have formal proof like in logic, or experimental proof. But experimental proof is still poor man science, as shown by masters of rationalism like socrate or descartes. Science is more about formal proof and axiomatic reasonning, and even this is brittle viewed in the lense of godbel theorem. |
|
|
|
1 + 1 = 2 is absolutely provable, and has been done so many times. Silly word play about things being different doesn't change a mathematical proof.
Perhaps you should take your own advice to learn about things before talking about them.
Try godel theorem |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
