I wasn't trying to prove that reality is "either deterministic or random."  Furthermore, asserting that Reality is instead "self-determinate," and that self-determination is an explanatory model synthesizing both determinism and indeterminism, does not amount to saying that Reality is both determinate and indeterminate.  Rather, I'm asserting it is self-determinate, of which determinism and indeterminism are constituents.


Correct, but this doesn't necessarily lead to an infinite regression.  Where is the infinite regression, for example, in A --> B --> C --> A --> ...?


Incorrect, except at a topological level of understanding.  Determinism and indeterminism are concepts formulated out of relevance to each other, similar to causality and randomness.  Randomness is a product of a causal probability function of randomness.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/lpgerson/Plato_On_Identity_Sameness_And_Difference.pdf



Determinism and indeterminism, or causality and randomness, arise from a diversity of essence resting upon a common identity.  Any event we deem to be "random" is variant with respect to external causality (e.g. a random result "x" from a RNG is caused by a chance probability function), and any event we deem to be "causal" is invariant with respect to internal acausality (e.g. an RNG is not dependent upon its mutually-exclusive products).

Self-determinism (in this case, of logic, which both describes and is described by itself), synthesizes these perspectives to unify our understanding of them, relatively in terms of each other, and absolutely in terms of self-determinism.

The set of Reality contains that and only that which is real.  If there were something 'real enough' outside of Reality so as to be able to affect it, then obviously it wouldn't be outside of Reality, but rather inside.

Accordingly, there is nothing external to reality which is real enough to determine it.  There is no need to look for an infinite regression in a self-contained system.  Reality must embody the rules of self-configuration because there is nothing external to it which is real enough to configure it.

Edit:  Think of self-determinancy or self-configuration as a synthesis of determinancy and indeterminancy.  Note that logic is self-determinant or self-configuring, i.e. "sound logic is soundly logical according to sound logic."

 

Determinancy vs. Indeterminancy is a false dichotomy.  Self-determinancy or self-configuration is a 3rd option.

Make an offer on one or any number of these cards!  Excellent quality, negotiable pricing, and fast delivery with prompt communication.

I mentioned BTC to a State Farm agent the other day while getting an estimate for my car after a hit-and-run.  He's heard of it before through several media sources and articles.  He was completely under the impression of its potential to be hacked, manipulated, etc.  He also had a very difficult time understanding the concept of decentralization.

That is simply what many average, misinformed citizens think.  The State Farm agent was in no way a troll.

And yes, I noticed the OP's addendum clarifying it was a troll post, but that's beside the point.

@ OP, I'll get to your attackers in a second.  But first, it's clear you have fundamental misunderstandings about what actually constitutes a legitimate problem for Bitcoin.  Addressing your most recent concerns:

- Dev's -- even core devs -- making changes even frivolously or carelessly, is a non-issue.  It is software, but it is "open-source" software adopted democratically by miners.  Poor changes will not be adopted, and if they are, its a community issue and not a software one.

- The open-source nature allows anyone capable of reading code to find errors or carelessness.  This is how problems become identified and fixed.  This will not tend towards deterioration.  There are far too many eyes on the code for someone to slip in a major exploit that will go unnoticed.

- Your premise that software is necessarily, "theoretically" hackable is silly.  The nature of software is not that it's hackable "theoretically."  Software is hackable if the code allows it to be.  Good code necessarily and "theoretically" means it is either, entirely hackable, or all hackable exploits are known.

- Competition is "wonderful!"  This is not a bad thing.  Competition --> evolution --> better product.



@Everyone,

The "don't feed the troll" crap is immature, stupid, and reflects a hypocrisy in community mindset akin to, "We need to help everyone understand why this is the greatest technological development since the Internet...except you, because you don't understand it." 

Are there people who troll intentionally?  Yes, of course.  Is it easy to distinguish at face value who is and who is not just a troll?  NO.  Bitcoin is foreign to people.  When I first heard about it, I immediately had all kinds of red flags in mind.  Now, four years later, the knowledge I've gained has eliminated many of those red flags.  But I'm still aware that red flags most certainly do exist, that points of attack and weakness also still exist, and there are numerous, realistic scenarios which still exist that threaten BTC's existence on a daily basis.  To this extent, many devout community members still maintain a form of Mt. Gox Syndrome, but they'll never be aware of it unless/until something happens to change it.  Hindsight is 20/20, and foresight is apparently underrated.

There are people here who block others for the sole reason that they believe Bitcoin will ultimately fail.  Yeah...that really helps adoption 

That's nothing at all what this kid did.  Take a look at the article.  It wasn't even a mere description of how ISIL could use BTC to their advantage.  It was more like a, "Hey, *nudge nudge*, here's your "how-to" guide, and I even convinced this other dude I know to come join you guys!"

Yeah...some journalists are bound to start veering towards irrelevancy.  Still, this new reference doesn't seem to spin much, either.  The first half you mention is a direct quote from the kid's posting.  The second half arguably starts fueling one's imagination, but I'd say it also (arguably) doesn't.  It's information that highlights that his tweet wasn't a one-time promotion, and that he sought alternative avenues to distribute his information.

However, I wouldn't be surprised to see a few truly-sensationalist articles come from this event.

I'm curious:  In your opinion, how slanted to you personally believe these articles are?

Edit:  If you want to read some slant, check out my BTC Mag article on early payment processors 

The focus of this article is hardly about Bitcoin.  I do not see any spin whatsoever being cast about Bitcoin.  There's nothing here that intentionally casts BTC in a negative light, and omitting any mention of BTC would necessarily omit from the article the reasons for which the boy was actually charged.

The article is about an ISIL sympathizer who tried to directly provide information that could be used to propel terrorists activities using social media.  That's it.

The negative feedback I left has nothing to do with:


Instead, it has everything to do with:


Money that isn't yours, isn't yours.  Simple concept.  Whether or not you steal from someone else shouldn't, in any way, be dependent upon what Quickseller does.

He didn't "force" you to do anything.  It's called a choice.

You're greedy, and somehow you have convinced yourself that feeling as if you've been unfairly screwed over by one person gives you justification to screw over someone else.  That's an ugly and detestable quality.  All it shows is that your ethics are incredibly loose, and that whatever you think is right is accompanied by an unspoken footnote, "...as long as I get something out of it, too."

Self-apparently, yes.

Negative feedback left.  Nice blackmail 

I think the issue is that it's a ridiculous timeline, and structured in a way where it gives reason to think the payout will never happen.  Six weeks to vote?  I mean...why?

Why kind of teal hunk-a-junk you drivin'?! Lol

No worries don't happen to have a leather sofa hideaway do you? Lol

Cash or BTC is really what I need, unfortunately.  I'm trying to finish a massive home remodeling project, and someone just hit-and-ran my new car over the weekend  

I'm looking in the $275-$300/BTC shipped range per card.  All cards have seen very little use.  I'm open to offers.

I understand and agree with all of this.  Was this simply an addition rather than a point of correction or clarification?

Sure


I'd argue I'm just as trustworthy as an escrow and that it adds an unnecessary layer of trust.

You can trust one, or trust two.  It's up to you.  However, I've made it a point to consistently push no escrow in my sales so that I can continue to do so.  There have been no issues.  My buyers can vouch for me with their experience.

I also videotape the packing process and drop-off process when possible.

Ok, so you are proposing your own theoretical model. Let's look at it.

Responding in paragraphical order:

1)  While it is true we become aware of entropy because we identify it as separate from its inverse, i.e. non-entropy, this dichotomy doesn't serve as a great basis for formulating a model of reality.  Entropy itself is an abstract model of patterns which are directly observable in physical systems.  This has deep implications for your model; I'll get to those as I go on.

2)  Slight correction -- we observe that systems break down which both enables us to form an entropic model of closed systems, and also reinforces this model through continued observation.  But yes, you are correct that we do not observe any direct cause of the processes we have modeled as entropy.

3)  Although it's irrelevant, animals can make/build tools, homes/dens/nests, etc. which can be described as either extremely complex or extremely simple, based upon your perspective.  But again, all of this is really irrelevant, anyway. The point is that we have no choice but to rationalize with logic and form the best theoretical models that we can, inasmuch as our human minds allow us to do so.

4)  This is where the implications I mentioned in point #1 become important and relevant to your model.  You cannot infer from entropy that the human mind is also moving towards disorder.  This is because entropy, as I explained in #1, is an abstract (i.e. of mind) model of physical systems.  Based on this information, you cannot conclude that the abstract mind necessarily deteriorates as it does not fall within the scope of the model.

5)  Here, you start going all over the place.  First, you're not going to get a fundamental understanding of anything through extrapolation.  The process of extrapolating removes the ability to conclude at a 100% level of confidence.  

Second, you make contradictory statements with regards to time.  "Time" is better modeled in terms of "spacetime" where space and time are inseparable and synthesized in a unity of understanding, which thus provides broader scope than a discussion of "time" alone.  Because of its physical components, "spacetime" can be modeled as a physical system, and thus one to which entropy applies.  If you try to extrapolate back in time, you'll find that you can't assume any type of physical reality in which entropy didn't apply (and, therefore, can't assume any "time" at which entropy didn't apply).

Third, Einstein modeled via the Theory of Relativity that time is a relative function.  The model itself could be described as a superpositional explanation of time as it relates to space.  In contrast, you are describing/modeling time in a purely linear fashion. which falls short in scope to the Einsteinian model.  The result is that a correct answer to your question, "What would the mind of mankind have been like back then?" would only provide a topological understanding of mind.  Put simply, better models lending to more comprehensive conclusions must necessarily exist.

6)  Here, your premise that something existed to create the human mind which "deteriorated due to the addition of entropy" is invalid for the aforementioned reasons (e.g. we can't conclude the human mind is necessarily subject to entropy based upon laws of thermodynamics, etc.).  

What you can say is something like, "There is some unknown cause, 'x', and for practicality I'm going to say x=God.  And so, therefore, because the unknown cause exists, God exists."

What you can't do is reach this conclusion that God exists, and then say that because God exists it embodies all the characteristics you think it does based upon your Biblical understanding of it, or any other preconceived notion of God that you might have. This precludes your ability to make any other statements about God, unless you can form a sound, theoretical model for it.