...
I think also xSplit is unwilling to accept a world in which the children suffer if their parents don't or can't provide well for them. He thinks we are all collectively responsible for all the others. Again this is a low entropy philosophy of collectivism. Those who want to adopt or help others are free to do so, but forcing collectivism on everyone is a low entropy MEGADEATH directed outcome. Basically he demands that nature not be allowed to have failure and thus he demands non-existence. This is the common trait of the leftist insanity.
...
We are collectively responsible for each other. What is your logic? I think we are only responsible for not injuring others or unnecessarily interfering with the free will of others. Making us all responsible for the mistakes of others is a very low entropy result and does not improve diversity. Giving us the freedom to be choose to be responsible for others on an individual case-by-case basis is high entropy and diverse. Empathy should be personalized and from closeness, not coming from a State (which can't be empathetic because it is ruled by the Iron Law of Political Economics). Every form of top-down control is a form of collectivism and top-down control will always be necessary.
The scope of top-down control declines as humans anneal their diversifications with less noise. So I think the level of top-down control required can decrease as our knowledge and technology improve (which I also thought was your theory?). Open source (decentralized, bottom-up) proved this to be case as compared the closed-source (centralized, top-down). Open source is the only known positive scaling law of software engineering, i.e. the more developers added continues to improve the quality and rate of development of the software (whereas in closed-source the coordination load reduces the quality and rate of improvement and can even cause the software to worsen as the number of developers and duration of development are increased). Thus what ever the cause of Leftism, I view it as a diseased religion that is on its deathbed as it culls itself because knowledge and technology are ready to move forward out of the Industrial usurious (high concentration of fixed capital) Age into a maximum division-of-labor (highly diversified annealing, low concentration of capital) Knowledge Age. |
|
|
|
those locations are not that good for supplying energy (electric power anyway -- transmission line losses) to the largest population centers.
Transmission line losses can be quite small over long distances if the AC voltage is high enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#LossesFor example, a 100-mile (160 km) 765 kV line carrying 1000 MW of power can have losses of 1.1% to 0.5%. A 345 kV line carrying the same load across the same distance has losses of 4.2%.
|
|
|
|
...the summary is that around 2020 or so the Russians start to have problems keeping up with exports...
Confiscation of the oil companies by Putin's corrupt oligarchs wouldn't have anything to do with that would it. Another example is Venezuelan production after they nationalized the oil industry, because ongoing investment (and technology from major oil companies) is required. Corruption. Or the Iron Law of Political Economics which is that governance will always overcentralize. And remember Russia also is the source of the science on abiotic oil theory which states oil is replenished by the earth. This is probably why the US is subsidizing the hell out of Elon Musk. But, getting rid of gasoline and using coal to power literally everything would likely make every human habitat on earth resemble ecological disaster China, so I'm not sure how much of a solution that is.
Society is simply deciding that cheaper environmentally unfriendly energy sources are less desired than more expensive solar panels. It is a rational decision, because energy cost is not the fundamental or major driver of the Knowledge Age economy. The theoretical area of the small black dots is sufficient to supply the world's total energy needs of 18 TW with solar power:
 Following the work of Russell Ohl in the 1940s, researchers Gerald Pearson, Calvin Fuller and Daryl Chapin created the crystalline silicon solar cell in 1954.[62] These early solar cells cost 286 USD/watt and reached efficiencies of 4.5–6%.[63] By 2012 available efficiencies exceeded 20%, and the maximum efficiency of research photovoltaics was in excess of 40%.[64]
Occam's Razor informs you that corruption is the reason. You don't need to invent some elaborate delusion.
No, Occam's Razor does NOT give you that conclusion for why they keep trying to ram carbon tax on people. It doesn't whatsoever. Mostly because you would need to believe there is a conspiracy among scientists, govt, liberal celebrities, etc, to falsify data, which might be the case, but Occam's razor doesn't give you that solution. Occam's razor is of ZERO USE for figuring out most things that go on in govt. You definitely don't figure out jews run the entire media and banks or that our entire foreign policy is based around benefiting their middle east cult using Occam's razor either, but that is the case. The only people that deny that current state of affairs are idiots and shills. Again corruption, the Iron Law of Political Economics which is that governance will always overcentralize. No nightmares of Jewish boogeymen are necessary. There is no peak energy. It is another religious, Malthusian delusion.
This is wrong once again. See those tiny black dots on the image I posted. The only constant is the Second Law of Thermodynamics which informs us that entropy is trending to maximum. The Knowledge Age is all about increasing entropy. You had better make sure you understand this and stop clinging to incorrect bullshit.
You keep repeating this nonsensical statement over and over. Arguing with a zealot is a waste of my time. Enjoy. You don't even seem to understand the science and math of what you are writing. |
|
|
|
CoinCube is positing that Ethical Monotheism is the absolute truth that maximizes freedom and knowledge formation consistent with driving humanity to higher entropy levels. As I understand it, the essence of Ethical Monotheism is that morality must be absolute, thus it requires a supranatural (i.e. external to the bounds of our existence) basis, i.e. a God. Unfortunately I can't (yet) find any rational support for this thesis. The key is morality. For example, the argument is made that we would not value humanity if we did not have an absolute God telling us to. I find this to be ludicrous and I don't understand how any smart person could come such a conclusion. Even if entirely self-interested, we value humanity because our existence would be irrelevant and unsuccessful without humanity. Man is nothing without a society. The maximum division-of-labor dictates that our production and achievements can only increase (and be meaningful existing outside of our own perception) by being a member of a society. The righteous points in the Bible are simply what smart men would realize are necessarily to have well functioning society. It doesn't require any God. The "judgments" against our sins are simply natural outcomes of not understanding the principles of a well functioning society. The God part is necessary to get the people to follow who would otherwise defect from the principles of a well functioning society. But dumb people following blindly is top-down mind control and thus is not maximizing freedom and knowledge formation. I am leaning towards Ethical Monotheism is counter-productive.However, there is a theory that women are naturally prone to hypergamy and would naturally choose a False Life Plan (<-- click the link) if they were not mind controlled: R&L: What are the differences between the genders as articulated in your book Men and Marriage and what impact does this have on the social order?
Gilder: The key difference is that the woman holds in her very body a link to the long term future of the race. Her sexuality determines her long term goals. As a very physiological consciousness, she knows she can bear and nurture children. She has a central role in the very perpetuation of the species. The man is estranged from this process; his sexuality arises merely as a compulsive drive to pleasure. It’s short term by nature. It’s predatory and quickly gratified. The Women’s Movement tragically reduces female sexuality to the terms of male sexuality. When this happens, she reduces herself to the male level of recreational sex. Paradoxically, when that happens the woman loses all her power over men and the reverence and respect toward the procreative potential of woman is lost. And that really destroys the family. But if the power of “choice” is given up, the woman actually ascends to a higher level of sexuality and her body attains an almost mystical power over men.
Note a man should realize that he has a role in a well functioning society and also can't just view sex as for pleasure. By well functioning society, I obviously don't mean the leftist insanity. There is also the issue of an undersupplied public good, in that every person may perceive it is in their self-interest to defect from the principles of a well functioning society because they assume others won't. A little cheating here and there won't hurt, except everyone is doing it. The fear of a God may be necessary to defeat this Tragedy of the Commons. Yet this seems to be part of diversity of nature than an absolute truth, for even the R selection strategy is necessary to advance the entropy of the human race.
It means that suttee, the now rare but once widespread Hindu practice of burning widows with their husband's body, is wrong. It means the killing of a daughter or sister who lost her virginity prior to marriage, practiced to this day in parts of the Arab world, is immoral.
And their societies are languishing in extreme suffering because of their inability to comprehend how disrespecting their fellow humans is destroying themselves. They reaped what they sowed. We don't need a God to tell us that. First, nature is finite and God is infinite.
Incorrect. Nature is unbounded. Nothing can be infinite, by definition. Fairy-tales may help though to keep the pagans locked in an unfalsifiable fear/superstition? It further argues that information (degrees-of-freedom) cannot be infinite or it would not converge to become knowledge.
The conflation of infinite and unbounded is a fundamental error. Knowledge and Power by George Gilder ...Smith himself spoke of property rights, free trade, sound currency, and modest taxation as crucial elements of an environment for prosperity. Smith was right: An arena of disorder, disequilibrium, chaos, and noise would drown the feats of creation that engender growth. The ultimate physical entropy envisaged as the heat death of the universe, in its total disorder, affords no room for invention or surprise. But entrepreneurial disorder is not chaos or mere noise. Entrepreneurial disorder is some combination of order and upheaval that might be termed “informative disorder.”...
...Freedom must be subject to the constraint of convergence. Some top-down order must be maintained to prevent destructive chaos aka noise that would otherwise destroy rather than create knowledge. The amount of top-down control needed increases in the presence of increased noise... Information is distinguished from noise by the mutual information (what I had sometimes informally referred to as "resonance"). If every outcome is independent (i.e. maximum entropy/disorder/equiprobable randomness), then there is no mutual information. Thus, information requires some order. Entropy is unbounded, but it can't be infinite else existence would not be perceived because every outcome would be entirely independent sharing no mutual information with each other.
I looked into the genius Freeman Dyson's view on religion and he seems to be approaching from the position of wanting to feel he is connected to whole of society: Freeman Dyson thinks science and religion aren’t at odds: “I think it’s only a small fraction of people who think that. Perhaps they have louder voices than the others . . . I think Richard Dawkins is doing a lot of damage. I disagree very strongly with the way he’s going about it. I don’t deny his right to be an atheist, but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist. That simply turns young people away from science. He’s convinced a lot of young people not to be scientists . . . they don’t want to be atheists. I’m strongly against him on that question. It’s simply not true what he’s saying, and it’s not only not true but also harmful. The fact is that many of my friends are much more religious than I am and are first-rate scientists. There’s absolutely nothing that stops you from being both . . . Dawkins has the arrogance to say that anyone who does not share his views is infected with a virus. No wonder he cannot coexist peacefully with them”.
“For me, “ Dyson says, (much as Santayana had observed before him), “religion is much more about a community of people than about belief. It’s fine literature and music. As far as I can tell, people who belong to my church don’t necessarily believe anything. Certainly we don’t talk about that much. I suppose I’m a better Jew than I am a Christian. Jewish religion is much more a matter of community than it is of belief, and I think that’s true of us Christians to a great extent, too . . . they [my parents] were practicing Christians, but not believing Christians . . . a practicing Christian is somebody who lives a Christian life and likes to worship in common with a lot of other people and considers the church as a community to which to belong, but you don’t inquire closely as to what the others believe. Of course, some people take belief very seriously, and others don’t. My conception of God is not weakened by my not knowing whether the physical universe is open or closed, finite or infinite, simple or multiple. God for me is a mystery, and will remain a mystery after we know the answers to these questions . . . I cannot imagine that he is greatly impressed by our juvenile efforts to read his mind . . . I don’t remember the context out of which this remark arose. Maybe I was thinking of the fight between Galileo and the Aristotelian philosophers of his day. The Aristoteleans wanted to keep the heavens separate from the earth so there would be room for God in the sky. Galileo said the moon was a world like the earth with mountains and seas. Translated into modern language, Galileo was saying that the size and shape of the universe are not telling us anything about God.”
Cosmology and the Divinity Blankie
“It [biology, physics and quantum mechanics] impacts upon our understanding of theology,” Dyson has said, “ What I was pointing out is that human theology is based on our own value system – above all our knowledge of good and evil as we experience it. Take an autistic child. I took the case of Jessica Park, who is a friend of mine who happens to be autistic. If she had a theology, it would be quite different because she cannot understand other people suffering. She has no conception of other people’s existence in the way we have. It’s a radically different world that she lives in. You can tell by the fact that she can’t understand the difference between ‘I’ and ‘you’. She uses the words indiscriminately. So the idea of a suffering savior would have no meaning for her at all. If she had a theology, it wouldn’t involve sin. One thing that is characteristic of autistic people is that they cannot tell a lie. Jessica never tells a lie because to tell a deliberate lie, you have to have the idea of deceiving somebody. That’s something she couldn’t imagine. Since there is no sin, there can be no fall from grace and no redemption. The example of Jessica shows us how our own view of the world might be equally skewed. There may be many essential features of the world to which we are blind, just as she is blind to other people’s thoughts and feelings. So our theology also reflects our possibly skewed view of the world.”
I think I am disagreeing with Dyson on the following point, because the discussion I've been having with CoinCube is employing the science of entropy (which I think is fundamental) to theorize about human nature and society (and its relationship to knowledge formation and the Second Law of Thermodynamics): What Dyson has said is that it’s impossible to observe both the scientific and the religious aspects of human nature at the same time. “For me,” he says, “science is just a box of tricks, and I enjoy playing with them. It’s a form of exercise. It has nothing to do with philosophy, certainly even less to do with religion. It’s essentially just a skill that I happen to have learned. Some people think about science much more solemnly. For me, science has nothing much to do with deep thoughts.”
I found this quote of Dyson which based on my writings and the work I aiming to do with crypto-currency appears to be incorrect: *Technological progress does more harm than good unless accompanied by ethical progress. The free market by itself will not produce technologies access-friendly to the poor.
|
|
|
|
CoinCube is positing that Ethical Monotheism is the absolute truth that maximizes freedom and knowledge formation consistent with driving humanity to higher entropy levels. As I understand it, the essence of Ethical Monotheism is that morality must be absolute, thus it requires a supranatural (i.e. external to the bounds of our existence) basis, i.e. a God. Unfortunately I can't (yet) find any rational support for this thesis. The key is morality. For example, the argument is made that we would not value humanity if we did not have an absolute God telling us to. I find this to be ludicrous and I don't understand how any smart person could come such a conclusion. Even if entirely self-interested, we value humanity because our existence would be irrelevant and unsuccessful without humanity. Man is nothing without a society. The maximum division-of-labor dictates that our production and achievements can only increase (and be meaningful existing outside of our own perception) by being a member of a society. The righteous points in the Bible are simply what smart men would realize are necessarily to have well functioning society. It doesn't require any God. The "judgments" against our sins are simply natural outcomes of not understanding the principles of a well functioning society. The God part is necessary to get the people to follow who would otherwise defect from the principles of a well functioning society. But dumb people following blindly is top-down mind control and thus is not maximizing freedom and knowledge formation. I am leaning towards ubiquitous Ethical Monotheism would be counter-productive.However, there is a theory that women are naturally prone to hypergamy and would naturally choose a False Life Plan (<-- click the link) if they were not mind controlled: R&L: What are the differences between the genders as articulated in your book Men and Marriage and what impact does this have on the social order?
Gilder: The key difference is that the woman holds in her very body a link to the long term future of the race. Her sexuality determines her long term goals. As a very physiological consciousness, she knows she can bear and nurture children. She has a central role in the very perpetuation of the species. The man is estranged from this process; his sexuality arises merely as a compulsive drive to pleasure. It’s short term by nature. It’s predatory and quickly gratified. The Women’s Movement tragically reduces female sexuality to the terms of male sexuality. When this happens, she reduces herself to the male level of recreational sex. Paradoxically, when that happens the woman loses all her power over men and the reverence and respect toward the procreative potential of woman is lost. And that really destroys the family. But if the power of “choice” is given up, the woman actually ascends to a higher level of sexuality and her body attains an almost mystical power over men.
Note a man should realize that he has a role in a well functioning society and also can't just view sex as for pleasure. By well functioning society, I obviously don't mean the leftist insanity. There is also the issue of an undersupplied public good, in that every person may perceive it is in their self-interest to defect from the principles of a well functioning society because they assume others won't. A little cheating here and there won't hurt, except everyone is doing it. The fear of a God may be necessary to defeat this Tragedy of the Commons. Yet this seems to be part of diversity of nature than an absolute truth, for even the R selection strategy is necessary to advance the entropy of the human race.
It means that suttee, the now rare but once widespread Hindu practice of burning widows with their husband's body, is wrong. It means the killing of a daughter or sister who lost her virginity prior to marriage, practiced to this day in parts of the Arab world, is immoral.
And their societies are languishing in extreme suffering because of their inability to comprehend how disrespecting their fellow humans is destroying themselves. They reaped what they sowed. We don't need a God to tell us that. First, nature is finite and God is infinite.
Incorrect. Nature is unbounded. Nothing can be infinite, by definition. Fairy-tales may help though to keep the pagans locked in an unfalsifiable fear/superstition? It further argues that information (degrees-of-freedom) cannot be infinite or it would not converge to become knowledge.
The conflation of infinite and unbounded is a fundamental error. Knowledge and Power by George Gilder ...Smith himself spoke of property rights, free trade, sound currency, and modest taxation as crucial elements of an environment for prosperity. Smith was right: An arena of disorder, disequilibrium, chaos, and noise would drown the feats of creation that engender growth. The ultimate physical entropy envisaged as the heat death of the universe, in its total disorder, affords no room for invention or surprise. But entrepreneurial disorder is not chaos or mere noise. Entrepreneurial disorder is some combination of order and upheaval that might be termed “informative disorder.”...
...Freedom must be subject to the constraint of convergence. Some top-down order must be maintained to prevent destructive chaos aka noise that would otherwise destroy rather than create knowledge. The amount of top-down control needed increases in the presence of increased noise... Information is distinguished from noise by the mutual information (what I had sometimes informally referred to as "resonance"). If every outcome is independent (i.e. maximum entropy/disorder/equiprobable randomness), then there is no mutual information. Thus, information requires some order. Entropy is unbounded, but it can't be infinite else existence would not be perceived because every outcome would be entirely independent sharing no mutual information with each other.
I looked into the genius Freeman Dyson's view on religion and he seems to be approaching from the position of wanting to feel he is connected to whole of society: Freeman Dyson thinks science and religion aren’t at odds: “I think it’s only a small fraction of people who think that. Perhaps they have louder voices than the others . . . I think Richard Dawkins is doing a lot of damage. I disagree very strongly with the way he’s going about it. I don’t deny his right to be an atheist, but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist. That simply turns young people away from science. He’s convinced a lot of young people not to be scientists . . . they don’t want to be atheists. I’m strongly against him on that question. It’s simply not true what he’s saying, and it’s not only not true but also harmful. The fact is that many of my friends are much more religious than I am and are first-rate scientists. There’s absolutely nothing that stops you from being both . . . Dawkins has the arrogance to say that anyone who does not share his views is infected with a virus. No wonder he cannot coexist peacefully with them”.
“For me, “ Dyson says, (much as Santayana had observed before him), “religion is much more about a community of people than about belief. It’s fine literature and music. As far as I can tell, people who belong to my church don’t necessarily believe anything. Certainly we don’t talk about that much. I suppose I’m a better Jew than I am a Christian. Jewish religion is much more a matter of community than it is of belief, and I think that’s true of us Christians to a great extent, too . . . they [my parents] were practicing Christians, but not believing Christians . . . a practicing Christian is somebody who lives a Christian life and likes to worship in common with a lot of other people and considers the church as a community to which to belong, but you don’t inquire closely as to what the others believe. Of course, some people take belief very seriously, and others don’t. My conception of God is not weakened by my not knowing whether the physical universe is open or closed, finite or infinite, simple or multiple. God for me is a mystery, and will remain a mystery after we know the answers to these questions . . . I cannot imagine that he is greatly impressed by our juvenile efforts to read his mind . . . I don’t remember the context out of which this remark arose. Maybe I was thinking of the fight between Galileo and the Aristotelian philosophers of his day. The Aristoteleans wanted to keep the heavens separate from the earth so there would be room for God in the sky. Galileo said the moon was a world like the earth with mountains and seas. Translated into modern language, Galileo was saying that the size and shape of the universe are not telling us anything about God.”
Cosmology and the Divinity Blankie
“It [biology, physics and quantum mechanics] impacts upon our understanding of theology,” Dyson has said, “ What I was pointing out is that human theology is based on our own value system – above all our knowledge of good and evil as we experience it. Take an autistic child. I took the case of Jessica Park, who is a friend of mine who happens to be autistic. If she had a theology, it would be quite different because she cannot understand other people suffering. She has no conception of other people’s existence in the way we have. It’s a radically different world that she lives in. You can tell by the fact that she can’t understand the difference between ‘I’ and ‘you’. She uses the words indiscriminately. So the idea of a suffering savior would have no meaning for her at all. If she had a theology, it wouldn’t involve sin. One thing that is characteristic of autistic people is that they cannot tell a lie. Jessica never tells a lie because to tell a deliberate lie, you have to have the idea of deceiving somebody. That’s something she couldn’t imagine. Since there is no sin, there can be no fall from grace and no redemption. The example of Jessica shows us how our own view of the world might be equally skewed. There may be many essential features of the world to which we are blind, just as she is blind to other people’s thoughts and feelings. So our theology also reflects our possibly skewed view of the world.”
I think I am disagreeing with Dyson on the following point, because the discussion I've been having with CoinCube is employing the science of entropy (which I think is fundamental) to theorize about human nature and society (and its relationship to knowledge formation and the Second Law of Thermodynamics): What Dyson has said is that it’s impossible to observe both the scientific and the religious aspects of human nature at the same time. “For me,” he says, “science is just a box of tricks, and I enjoy playing with them. It’s a form of exercise. It has nothing to do with philosophy, certainly even less to do with religion. It’s essentially just a skill that I happen to have learned. Some people think about science much more solemnly. For me, science has nothing much to do with deep thoughts.”
I found this quote of Dyson which based on my writings and the work I aiming to do with crypto-currency appears to be incorrect: *Technological progress does more harm than good unless accompanied by ethical progress. The free market by itself will not produce technologies access-friendly to the poor.
|
|
|
|
Again this is a low entropy philosophy of collectivism. Those who want to adopt or help others are free to do so, but forcing collectivism on everyone is a low entropy MEGADEATH directed outcome. Basically he demands that nature not be allowed to have failure and thus he demands non-existence. This is the common trait of the leftist insanity.
CoinCube's source George Gilder writes about this also: Knowledge and Power by George Gilder The most manifest characteristic of human beings is their diversity. The freer an economy is, the more this human diversity of knowledge will be manifested. By contrast, political power originates in top-down processes—governments, monopolies, regulators, elite institutions, all attempting to quell human diversity and impose order. Thus power always seeks centralization.
Capitalism is not chiefly an incentive system but an information system. We continue with the recognition, explained by the most powerful science of the epoch, that information itself is best defined as surprise: by what we cannot predict rather than by what we can. The key to economic growth is not acquisition of things by the pursuit of monetary rewards but the expansion of wealth through learning and discovery. The economy grows not by manipulating greed and fear through bribes and punishments but by accumulating surprising knowledge through the conduct of the falsifiable experiments of free enterprises. Crucial to this learning process is the possibility of failure and bankruptcy.
R&L: What has been the impact of environmentalism on American economic and spiritual life?
Gilder: The essential proposition of the environmental movement, that we should protect our environment, is positive. But it has been delivered over to an almost entirely dishonest, deceitful, and scientifically discreditable movement. It is amazing how any group could perpetrate so many preposterous howlers in a row and retain the respect and attention of the country and the press. And it really has become a kind of pseudo-religion, a new kind of paganism. It is accepted as the only religion in our public and most of our prestige private schools. They all worship nature in this perverted way.
Environmentalism is part of this multicultural vision which denies that any one culture is better than any other. Indian culture didn’t fail because it was virtuous. It failed because it was a corrupt and unsuccessful culture. These tribal cultures they are trying to import from Africa are tragic failures, too. To uphold these destructive cultures that have been virtual social suicide for the people who live in them is a terrible perversion. That is what multiculturalism is. And environmentalism is a kind of religious rite of the multiculturalists.
And I was pointing out that the Apache culture did not fail against the conquistadors, because it was decentralized. Even Geronimo said on his death bed that he should not have surrendered because to be free was more important than to be safe: On his deathbed, he confessed to his nephew that he regretted his decision to surrender.[37] His last words were reported to be said to his nephew, "I should have never surrendered. I should have fought until I was the last man alive."
|
|
|
|
Such twisted thinking follows naturally from a culture of entitlements. The concept that are "owed" large financial rewards from birth. In a world of entitlements more children means less for those already born. Thus it becomes logical to turn on the unborn.
That is an interesting point. I was wondering why xSplit viewed additional population as a threat or hell on earth. He probably thinks of it as we can give a higher quality of life if we have fewer mouths to feed, but that is an incorrect logic because lower entropy is destructive. xSplit's fundamental myopia is he doesn't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics and thus he doesn't understand that UNIFORM AND UBIQUITOUS strategies which lower entropy are MEGADEATH directed outcomes. To increase the entropy, we must also compete/contribute with our genetics. The fundamental education problem is that no one understands entropy. I think also xSplit is unwilling to accept a world in which the children suffer if their parents don't or can't provide well for them. He thinks we are all collectively responsible for all the others. Again this is a low entropy philosophy of collectivism. Those who want to adopt or help others are free to do so, but forcing collectivism on everyone is a low entropy MEGADEATH directed outcome. Basically he demands that nature not be allowed to have failure and thus he demands non-existence. This is the common trait of the leftist insanity. Singapore will disagree successfully for a while because they can leverage their good fortune (of billions of cheap labor resources in Asia, etc), but eventually their idealistic insanity (this concept that everything must be "fair") may run it's course (I am still not yet 100% decided if their subsidy programs are rational investments in their citizenry or collectivist top-down misdirection of the free market, my intuitive reaction is they are appropriate in the small/seedling stage but need to be phased out over time lest they become Coasian misincentives). The leftist "idealistic" ideology insanity is so self-destructive. They are culling themselves. My son said he doesn't want to work at a casino in Asia because you have to share your tips with the 6 tables around yours. In the USA, his tips are his own and he was earning up to $500 a day. Many co-workers were jealous of him, and they tried to sabotage him. This concept of "fair" and sharing everything is pervasive in Asia. Edit: Singapore the gleaming glass house in a sea of billions of those suffering. A socialist nirvana leveraging a massive suffering. Ironic (and instructive to my point) isn't it. |
|
|
|
Shelby, what about POS coins? Don`t you think they are totally immune from government controls?
Expect they are always controlled by a few whales, and thus the authorities can target those whales. Centralization is always the weak point. But if this POS coin is based on TOR or I2P? So you have no answer to my question? Apologies I've been suffering a bad GI infection past few days so my attention span was quite limited. I didn't see your reply. TOR and I2P can be subverted by national security agencies (don't ask me to rehash the details of this as I already had these discussions long ago in the context of Monero and anonymity). Bottom line is that if a government wants to pinpoint an individual, they have the resources to do so. Again I repeat, Centralization is always the weak point.Please read my prior post just above yours. Understand how the pathetic Apaches defeated the mighty Spanish. Also it isn't just that the whales can be targeted by the authorities, but the whales themselves ruin the ecosystem. Only decentralized systems can scale. This is why open source trumps closed source. Who would invest in an ecosystem controlled by individuals. Imagine if the underlying Internet protocols such as TCP/IP were controlled by whales. |
|
|
|
[discussion of the mind control and hedonism of Internet addiction]
We can look at that as a market opportunity instead of as a destined failure: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg17529904#msg17529904If you view the links I provided for Internet addiction in above quoted post, you will see that a driver is the lack of feeling of control or empowerment that Internet addiction soothes. |
|
|
|
I have been following you for years with much interest, I post very little. How to you plan to stablize the price of your coin? I realize that the market will ultimatly decide the value of a coin but for mass adoption I believe you will need some measure of stability, even if it means a slow and steady increase in the value of your work.
It seems most people will not 'mass adopt' unless there is some level of stability.
I visualize a mass adoption wherein the users are watching their balances grow continuously and thus they are not concerned about volatility because they are invested in the paradigm. They are involved because they love the concept and what it provides for giving them more freedom to do various endeavors on the Internet. Do people use Facebook because the price might go up or down? We can't successfully approach crypto-currency as a checking account. That will never happen. See my prior post about my bifurcation thesis. Crypto-currency will serve a fledgling niche that can't be served by fiat. Why? Because fiat can't be spent globally in a millisecond to a microtransaction. There are billions of people who don't have a credit card or who wouldn't even hassle with entering their credit card number for some microtransactions. Onboarding is a key concept (millions or billions of them won't be buying the crypto-currency for these micropayments). The larger the ecosystem, the more demand for the crypto-currency, thus the price increases. Thank you for all your inputs. These are the differing ideas that I wanted to hear(who is correct only the future will tell). Some very good points were brought up, my Idea of "mass adoption" equated to "mass use"...which was faulty. I now have a better understanding of what crypto might achieve,
peace,
D
I was suffering a very bad GI infection when I wrote my prior posts, so I wasn't able to think or articulate well. I think mass adoption is about enabling more software developers and users to find new ways of earning money and increasing their collective knowledge/experience (trading) that can't be done with the existing paradigms of payment systems and centralized databases. The paradigm/system must be an open ecosystem and decentralized, analogous to the Internet itself. And combining that with an onboarding mechanism that symbiotically drives it. The blockchain technology must have certain performance and decentralization attributes in order to make this plausible. For example, we need sub-second transactions (both monetary and other blockchain events) and unbounded scalability. Steem(it) had some of my ideas incorporated and I also gained some insight/ideas from that experiment. But I think some of the details of Steem are lacking. Essentially I don't see crypto-currency's killer feature to replace what we already do with fiat paradigms. I rather see it opening up new capabilities that we can't do with existing fiat based, centralized systems. However, I am not intending to disparage any other project's differing strategy or perspective. Decentralized experimentation is good, per the Apache versus Spanish story I linked above.We all know that essentially the only way to monetize these days is advertising. But advertising is only worth about at best $1 per CPM, thus less than $0.001 per page view. An economy is about trade. There are billions of creative people out there who would feel a lot better about themselves if they were trading instead of being Facebook zombies (see quote below). The transition from the one-way media of TV to interactive media of the Internet was more engaging, decentralized, and thus more valuable to the viewers/users. But still the users are basically powerless in the economic system and configurations of the Internet, i.e. the economic system and configurations of the Internet is up to now still more of a one-way action analogous to the TV era. Let's disrupt that and create another revolution. Essentially Google's business model has to die. And they know it. They are trying to diversify into products, but that is not the solution. The solution is disrupt Google. More details about what I have in mind should hopefully be forthcoming. As much as possible I want the project to be adaptable to decentralized improvements, analogous to how HTTP sits on top of TCP/IP. I am designing a base protocol and the world has to innovate on top of it if I am correct. Also I need to adjust to feedback and learn as I proceed. We need an initial kickstart feature to drive it. Also what reasoning do you apply to put Hedonism in Cycle #6 and not #5?
Seems to me the hedonism will head for a peak as the Marxist crap heads for a peak in Cycle #5 because it is the Marxist crap that finances wide-scale hedonism.
Hedonism as a mechanism of mass control is not yet ready for prime time. Much like most of us are not yet ready to be knowledge workers. Both of these are coming but not quite yet. The links below highlight some of my thinking on the upcoming power of hedonism. At war with World of Warcraft: an addict tells his story https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/29/world-of-warcraft-video-game-addictAt the height of his addiction Ryan van Cleave had little time for his real life. World of Warcraft, a video game, had crowded out everything: his wife and children, his job as a university English professor.
Living inside World of Warcraft (WoW) seemed preferable to the drudgery of everyday life... "Playing WoW makes me feel godlike," Van Cleave wrote. "I have ultimate control and can do what I want with few real repercussions. The real world makes me feel impotent Kids turn violent as parents battle ‘digital heroin’ addiction http://nypost.com/2016/12/17/kids-turn-violent-as-parents-battle-digital-heroin-addiction/“He would refuse to do anything unless I would let him play his game,” she said. Barbara, who had discarded her TV 25 years ago, made the mistake of using the game as a bargaining tool.
When she tried to take his computer away, he attacked her “with a dazed look on his face — his eyes were not his.” She called the police. Shocked, they asked if the 9-year-old was on drugs. Virtual reality is coming to sex, sports and Facebook http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/03/27/virtual-reality-oculus-rift-facebook-vr-will-be-everywhere/70547882/VR now is poised not only to challenge reality's stranglehold on the way we engage with life, but possibly even eclipse it for sheer thrills.
Gaming. Concerts. Family reunions. Sporting events. Even sex – all of it will be experienced in a hyper-real fashion and with a commonness that technologists predict will rival our incessant smartphone use today.
“'VR has been around for decades, but it will stick this time.'” - Todd Richmond, USC Then there is the whole robot 'girlfriend' thing http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/first-interactive-robot-girlfriend-china-7800073China has unveiled its first interactive robot - which can chat away to humans and even take orders from iCloud.
When the researcher says "hello" to the robot, she replies: "Yes, my lord, what can I do for you."
When asked to "please wave your hand" she does just that, much to the astonishment of those watching.
Her developers say she is programmed to match human facial expressions, body and mouth movements.
Hedonism will probably be the primary mechanism of social control but not quite yet its time is coming. The surveillance state by contrast is more or less ready to take off now. First comes Orwell [surveillance state] then Huxley [the blue pill]. Ah I see you are employing the definition of hedonism to a wider scope than I was contemplating. I of course already concurred with the blue pill future: https://steemit.com/society/@anonymint/the-red-pill-blue-pill-election-nyc-slumlord-vs-globalistsI was thinking of the peaking of sexual liberalism which seems to me is financed by socialism so I was thinking that as socialism peaked, sexual liberalism (e.g. feminism, rampant birth control, etc) would lose its financial support:  Are you sure that such control is that far into the future? Had you not heard on the recent Pokemon Go phenomenon? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3693814/Chaos-Central-Park-gamers-leap-cars-leave-engines-running-catch-rare-POKEMON.htmlInternet addiction is another drug escape, and potentially capable of creating much more controllable zombies: http://www.techaddiction.ca/internet_addiction_statistics.htmlhttp://www.techaddiction.ca/video_game_addiction_statistics.html |
|
|
|
|
dinofelis's posts are very articulate. I don't think I could have stated it that well myself. Although I disagree with the effects of his idea to not adjust difficulty (which he also seems to allude to).
hv_ I think your point has merit and I relate to the Q factor and quiescence in dynamic systems.
Fuserleer there is no action of top-down interference with the bottom-up free market which doesn't have some unintended impacts. I wonder what those impacts would be for trying to smooth out volatility?
|
|
|
|
Let China and the IRS suffer the same fate as the Spanish did if they try to play Whack-A-Mole against a decentralized phenomenon: |
|
|
|
Let China and the IRS suffer the same fate as the Spanish did if they try to play Whack-A-Mole against a decentralized phenomenon: |
|
|
|
Let China and the IRS suffer the same fate as the Spanish did if they try to play Whack-A-Mole against a decentralized phenomenon: |
|
|
|
If we do not compete with our genetics, then the entropy declines and we (humans) potentially go extinct.
I will let CoinCube take a stab at explaining this in layman's terms and also the vacuum in another room that I mentioned upthread, if he wants to. I think most readers haven't yet grasped the (what seems to be an absolute truth) of universal trend of entropy to maximum, because it is a mathematical concept. |
|
|
|
You apparently did not have a loving family environment in your youth. Nature takes care of culling those who aren't moving towards higher entropy. We don't have to become psychotic about the wonderful experience of family, but if you didn't experience this then your psychology would be warped. Frankly I didn't experience all the loving family experience, but I got a taste of it, so I have some inkling of its worth. Yet I had enough suffering to relate to your psychology but I know it isn't healthy. You are culling yourself (your DNA). 1) I consider myself a spiritual being, no DNA defines me but only my will 2) No experience will save you from death and what comes before it 3) If you want a family adopt a child do not make new ones, stop pretending to love your children only because they come from your sperm I have nothing more to say, you are clearly deluded as about 90% of people on earth, and this is why you are creating hell on earth If you are so enlightened with the truth, why does your truth require you to ridicule my free will? Without free will, how could our existence be anything but prescripted puppets, i.e. a static non-existence? I am warning you that CoinCube and I (and others here) are very intelligent and you had better be prepared to defend your logic. Running away isn't impressive. You can't know who and what is creating hell on earth, because omniscience would require a total order which would require a static non-existence. This has been explained scientifically numerous times upthread. Everything has a purpose in nature. The entropy continues to trend towards maximum. If we do not compete with our genetics, then the entropy declines and we (humans) potentially go extinct. |
|
|
|
You apparently did not have a loving family environment in your youth. Nature takes care of culling those who aren't moving towards higher entropy. We don't have to become psychotic about the wonderful experience of family, but if you didn't experience this then your psychology would be warped. Frankly I didn't experience all the loving family experience, but I got a taste of it, so I have some inkling of its worth. Yet I had enough suffering to relate to your psychology but I know it isn't healthy. You are culling yourself (your DNA). You do not need to fear overpopulation. The population will congregate in high-rise cities. There will be abundant land and resources still. |
|
|
|
xSplit has suffered a lot. Try to understand his psychology with empathy. How could we turn his experiences and give him hope? ...don't let fear control you, having a family gives you something to live for when everything else collapses.
I can forget the rest of the world exists when I spend time with them, the marxists will cull themselves and that's not a bad thing, don't get caught up in the cancer of politics and swept away by fear.
Do your own thing and only worry about that which truly matters.
I have watched my own friends turn into hardcore SJW'S in the last 12 months, you can't do a damn thing about this, I have really tried, now I just have to laugh at it all and enjoy the freakshow they're putting on.
I agree with this. I contemplate if there are ways we could get organized and fight back as a society of like minded men, but we also have to remember that we are all different. So what would be our common goal or bond that would be compatible with increasing tolerance of differences (i.e. increasing degrees-of-freedom) yet also sustain the coordination long-term across generations? Even my Cherokee ancestors who were very organized and well guarded canyon entrances were duped by some traitors within their ranks, then ensued the Trail of Tears. That was done by Andrew Jackson, that so many goldbugs admire. What is the absolute truth that would unite men? When Jason Hommel asked me in 2006 what was my goal (he is a psychology major), I said, "I want to know the truth". Edit: the unstoppable power of leaderless organization: http://www.starfishandspider.com/preview/index.html |
|
|
|
|
Correction he didn't text me. That was before cell phones were widely adopted in the Philippines. I think they sent the trailing van back to my house to inform me.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
