Bitcoin Forum
May 13, 2024, 02:00:44 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 ... 115 »
381  Other / Off-topic / Hilarious Video Banned By Facebook on: October 05, 2018, 02:41:00 AM

This fireman comedy sketch was initially banned by Facebook as hate speech. They reversed themselves after the ban received media attention. It's very funny

The Fireman
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=DECqrt9p5SA
382  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The difference between science and religion on: October 04, 2018, 09:40:34 PM
...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

In this also you are mistaken.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html

Congrats you found one to confirm your bias.


Thanks but credit for that initial logic goes to Perry Marshall who's background was in electrical engineering before he went on to make his money in IT. My own educational background was in biochemistry before I went on to a doctorate in medicine so your "bet" was really not a wise one. Perhaps having been shown incorrect in one area you should reexamine other axioms?

Regardless if you are interested in further exploration Professor Tegmark wrote an entire book on this topic.

Mathematical Universe
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307599809?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div

Here are some reviews of that book also by scientists.

Brian Greene, physicist, author of The Elegant Universe and The Hidden Reality
“Our Mathematical Universe boldly confronts one of the deepest questions at the fertile interface of physics and philosophy: why is mathematics so spectacularly successful at describing the cosmos? Through lively writing and wonderfully accessible explanations, Max Tegmark—one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists—guides the reader to a possible answer, and reveals how, if it’s right, our understanding of reality itself would be radically altered.”

Michio Kaku, author of Physics of the Future
“Daring, Radical. Innovative. A game changer. If Dr. Tegmark is correct, this represents a paradigm shift in the relationship between physics and mathematics, forcing us to rewrite our textbooks. A must read for anyone deeply concerned about our universe.”

Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity is Near
“Tegmark offers a fresh and fascinating perspective on the fabric of physical reality and life itself. He helps us see ourselves in a cosmic context that highlights the grand opportunities for the future of life in our universe.”

Prof. Edward Witten, physicist, Fields Medalist & Milner Laureate
“Readers of varied backgrounds will enjoy this book. Almost anyone will find something to learn here, much to ponder, and perhaps something to disagree with.”

Prof. Andrei Linde, physicist, Gruber & Milner Laureate for development of inflationary cosmology
“This inspirational book written by a true expert presents an explosive mixture of physics, mathematics and philosophy which may alter your views on reality.”

Prof. Mario Livio, astrophysicist, author of Brilliant Blunders and Is God a Mathematician?
“Galileo famously said that the universe is written in the language of mathematics. Now Max Tegmark says that the universe IS mathematics. You don’t have to necessarily agree, to enjoy this fascinating journey into the nature of reality.”

Prof. Julian Barbour, physicist, author of The End of Time
“Scientists and lay aficionados alike will find Tegmark’s book packed with information and very thought provoking. You may recoil from his thesis, but nearly every page will make you wish you could debate the issues face-to-face with him.”

Prof. Seth Lloyd, Professor of quantum mechanical engineering, MIT, author of Programming the Universe
“In Our Mathematical Universe, renowned cosmologist Max Tegmark takes us on a whirlwind tour of the universe, past, present—and other.  With lucid language and clear examples, Tegmark provides us with the master measure of not only of our cosmos, but of all possible universes.  The universe may be lonely, but it is not alone.”

Prof. David Deutsch, physicist, Dirac Laureate for pioneering quantum computing
“A lucid, engaging account of the various many-universes theories of fundamental physics that are currently being considered, from the multiverse of quantum theory to Tegmark’s own grand vision.”
383  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do you believe God exists? on: October 04, 2018, 05:43:08 PM
Let's be honest here, you are not looking for anyone to deconstruct your arguments. Nothing will change your mind...

The primary reason I post on religion is because I know this is a hostile forum on the topic and the intensity of the subsequent grilling helps me refine my thoughts.

For example af_newbie successfully highlighted that my first claim is dependent on the a priori assumption of a mathematical and logical universe.

That assumption was not as clearly specified in my Argument for God as it should have been so I added another sentence to make it clearer.

These exchanges are useful which is the only reason I spend time on them. BadDecker is looking to save your soul. He is probably a better person then I because I really don't care what you believe or do with your life.

I follow where logic takes me. Logic points to God.


you needed more so this ''evidence'' that you found was good enough to trick your brain. Now you think you know god exists, you don't just believe it like the other believers, you have proof, it's not faith.

You clearly didn't understand my argument. It is not a proof of God. I have said that several times.

Instead my argument shows that the belief in God is logically sound and that it is likely necessary for higher level coordination and cooperation. It is a powerful rebuttal to those who foolishly insist that a belief in God is illogical or irrational. It is not a proof nor does it replace the necessity for faith.
384  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The difference between science and religion on: October 04, 2018, 02:42:56 PM
...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

In this also you are mistaken.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html
Quote from: Tanya Lewis
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes.

In Tegmark's view, everything in the universe — humans included — is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical, he says. And space itself has properties such as dimensions, but is still ultimately a mathematical structure.

"If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk given Jan. 15 here at The Bell House. The talk was based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).

"If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."

The idea follows the observation that nature is full of patterns, such as the Fibonacci sequence, a series of numbers in which each number is the sum of the previous two numbers. The flowering of an artichoke follows this sequence, for example, with the distance between each petal and the next matching the ratio of the numbers in the sequence.

The nonliving worldalso behaves in a mathematical way. If you throw a baseball in the air, it follows a roughly parabolic trajectory. Planets and other astrophysical bodies follow elliptical orbits.

"There's an elegant simplicity and beauty in nature revealed by mathematical patterns and shapes, which our minds have been able to figure out," said Tegmark, who loves math so much he has framed pictures of famous equations in his living room.

One consequence of the mathematical nature of the universe is that scientists could in theory predict every observation or measurement in physics. Tegmark pointed out that mathematics predicted the existence of the planet Neptune, radio waves and the Higgs boson particle thought to explain how other particles get their mass.

Some people argue that math is just a tool invented by scientists to explain the natural world. But Tegmark contends the mathematical structure found in the natural world shows that math exists in reality, not just in the human mind.

Max Erik Tegmark is a Swedish-American physicist and cosmologist. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the scientific director of the Foundational Questions Institute.
385  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do you believe God exists? on: October 04, 2018, 01:49:50 AM

You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w  


Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted.  He uses a lot of word salads.  As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas.
...

As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew inspiration from those stories and myths.  Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that.


Your welcome af_newbie.

I think we have taken this conversation and its parallel partner in the other religious thread to its logical conclusion.

We have identified limited areas of agreement and isolated some core a priori philosophical differences where we likewise part ways.

These differences cause us to reach profoundly different conclusions about the nature of the universe and our role within it.

I always enjoy a determined attempt to deconstruct my arguments as there is no better way to test ones logic. Thank you for the conversation.
386  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The difference between science and religion on: October 04, 2018, 01:48:54 AM

You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w  


Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted.  He uses a lot of word salads.  As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas.
...

As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew inspiration from those stories and myths.  Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that.



Your welcome af_newbie.

I think we have taken this conversation and its parallel partner in the other religious thread to its logical conclusion.

We have identified limited areas of agreement and isolated some core a priori philosophical differences where we likewise part ways.

These differences cause us to reach profoundly different conclusions about the nature of the universe and our role within it.

I always enjoy a determined attempt to deconstruct my arguments as there is no better way to test ones logic. Thank you for the conversation.
387  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do you believe God exists? on: October 03, 2018, 06:14:54 PM

You are playing with the semantics. Logical universe vs universe that can be reduced to logical axioms.

Neither of the statements can be asserted.

BTW, many things that have been discovered by science are neither intuitive nor logical.

Good luck with your conjectures.


Good luck with your conjectures as well. Ultimately we all live out our beliefs an experiment in real time if you will.

Your belief's whatever they may be are similarly grounded in a priori truths which you cannot prove only assert. All beliefs trace back to the a priori aka assumed truths. Most people are unwilling or unable to actually question their foundations. Even nihilism is an assertion of this kind.
 
For clarity, however, I never said anything about the universe being intuitive. Nor do I agree with your claim that science has made discoveries that show the universe is illogical. I would argue the very opposite that the body of science is gradually revealing an highly ordered and logical creation.

"In principle, we can know all of mathematics. It is given to us in its entirety and does not change. … That part of it of which we have a perfect view seems beautiful, suggesting harmony; that is that all the parts fit together although we see fragments of them only. … Mathematics is applied to the real world and has proved fruitful. This suggests that the mathematical parts and the empirical parts are in harmony and the real world is also beautiful."

- Kurt Gödel
388  Other / Politics & Society / Re: ‘Black Box’ proble: people don’t trust AI because they don't know how it decides on: October 03, 2018, 05:27:28 PM
Artificial Intelligence scares the hell out of me.  Everyone keeps saying its inevitable that AI robots will overtake humans, umm WHY THE HELL are we still developing AI if its basically a guarantee this will happen.

Because we as a species are very stupid.

Development of something like AI should be done very slowly if at all and globally coordinated to minimize the chance of very poor outcomes.

We lack the wisdom for such coordination so we will rush full speed ahead each human faction seeking to one up the other with better AI.
389  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do you believe God exists? on: October 03, 2018, 04:03:57 PM

Again you are a talking in philosophical terms. Godel's theorem cannot be applied to that, period. There is even a book for it because so many people tried to apply it incorrectly.

Please try to keep up we just went through a long discussion of what is necessary to apply Godel's theorem in the way I have. Af_newbie summed it up immediately above.

If you want to prove that the universe is an incomplete system that has some axioms that are true but cannot be proven, you have to represent the universe as a system of such axioms, then the use of the theorem would be valid.

To apply Godel's theorem in the way that I did requires me to assume that the universe is ultimately logical aka that it is possible to describe every phenomenon in the universe mathematically. This is an assumption I make in my argument.

You can alternatively choose to believe as af_newbie apparently believes that the universe is illogical and thus globally indescribable with mathematics. Then you would reject my first claim as Godel's theorem would not be applicable.


I wish science would work like that.  You just state that something must be possible, and boom you have a proof.

Your claim is basically:  Arithmetic axioms that describe the universe must be possible to exist, therefore one of them is true but cannot be proven.
...

BTW, the world as we know it at the quantum level, near or at singularities (Big Bang or Black Holes) is not intuitive nor logical

You are twisting my words out of context again.

Who said anything about a proof? I have laid out a logical argument and like all logical arguments it rests on some basic assumptions.

I never said that I could prove the universe is logical. I said that if the universe is logical then it is incomplete. It is a conditional argument not a proof.

Everything in our lives including the reproducibility of science is consistent with a logical universe. Only at the very boundaries of our knowledge with esoteric phenomena such a black holes and quantum effects so poorly understood that their continue to be multiple competing theories explaining what exactly is happening it is more difficult to say things are logical.

Black holes and poorly understood quantum phenomena strike me as shaky ground to rest a belief in an illogical universe upon but to each his own.
390  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The difference between science and religion on: October 03, 2018, 06:03:50 AM
@af_newbie

We agree that if the fundamental tenets of a society are false then over time, as people become more educated, you will have fewer believers and the societal foundations will crumble. False fundamental tenets thus ultimately limit how developed a society can become before it turns on its own foundations and collapses.

We disagree that political or patriotic dogmas hold longer than religious one. History in fact argues for the opposite conclusion with religions that have far outlasted any empire. Perhaps this will change in the future but I am skeptical.

You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w  

Finally we agree that science is the best way we know to discover how the world works. We simply disagree on what is necessary for science to exist. Science is dependent on a supporting structure of culture which in turn rest on a foundation of apriori axioms aka religion. Science is something like the window in a skyscraper penthouse providing an unprecedented view over vast distances. The culture that enables science the steel support beams holding the building aloft and the shared aprior truths are the bedrock on which the entire edifice rests.

391  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do you believe God exists? on: October 03, 2018, 04:13:09 AM

If you want to prove that the universe is an incomplete system that has some axioms that are true but cannot be proven, you have to represent the universe as a system of such axioms, then the use of the theorem would be valid.


Yes and this requires that the universe be fundamentally logical.

In other words every phenomenon in the universe must be describable by some type of mathematical axiom. Such axioms may be totally beyond current human understanding or knowledge but their existence must be possible.

As I said the fact that the universe is ultimately logical is assumed in my argument. I think this is both a reasonable assumption and mostly self evident.

Our limited understanding of quantum mechanics is evidence only of our ignorance and in no way shows that the universe is illogical or indescribable by mathematical axiom.
392  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do you believe God exists? on: October 03, 2018, 02:42:30 AM

Read my previous post.  Our universe cannot be represented by the "elementary arithmetic". We have infinities and quantum effects that we know cannot be represented in a Turing automaton.

The above deduction is invalid.  Full stop.

You are misrepresenting my statement. I only need to show that the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic to show that it is incomplete.

I never said the universe can be entirely represented with elementary arithmetic. If the universe can be entirely represented mathematically such math is far beyond human understanding.

Here is the entirety of my first argument.

An Argument for God


Claim #1 There are things in this universe that are true yet cannot ever be proven true no matter how much knowledge or technology advance.

This first step is a general statement about the possibility of truths that can never be proven and it can be derived from mathematical deduction.

Gödel’s theorem proved that any generated system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. What this means is that in any created system that determines basic arithmetical truths/answers, there is at least one statement that is true, but not provable in the system.

The universe is a non-trivial computational system. We know this from the Church-Turing thesis which tells us that physical systems can express elementary arithmetic. It is a system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic.

Thus we can conclude that the universe is incomplete.

There is at least one thing in the universe that is true but cannot ever be proven from inside the universe. Optimal understanding of the universe necessitates we develop a way of evaluating concepts that are possibly true yet forever unprovable.

We know that we can prove some truths and we know that we cannot prove all truths. Therefore we must develop a theory of truth that allows us to prove the truths we can and infer the truths we cannot.
393  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do you believe God exists? on: October 03, 2018, 01:28:44 AM


CoinCube,

You should re-phrase the description of your claim#1 and state that you cannot prove it.  Then you can stop there.

Doing otherwise, you are just fooling yourself.  If you care about the truth, you should double check each step in your logic before you proceed further.

BTW, the universe as we know it has infinities and probabilistic representations that are hard to represent by logic or arithmetic.


This is a very foolish statement to make.

Even pure mathematics which is the closest we can come to absolutely proving something is built on core basic assumptions that cannot be proven.

Honest arguments clearly lay out the assumptions they make and allow the reader to decide if they accept them or not. Dishonest arguments hide their assumptions or deny that any such assumptions exist.

You can for example chose to believe that the universe is illogical and cannot be described with mathematics and that any success with this approach so far is just a very long string of random occurance but this belief is quite hard to reconcile with science let alone common sense.

394  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do you believe God exists? on: October 03, 2018, 01:20:01 AM
Please show us that the universe can be treated as a Turing machine.  

Here is the formal logic behind claim #1. Credit for this goes to Perry Marshal who outlined it here:

See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century

Stated in Formal Language:

Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”

The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.

Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.)

Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.

Syllogism:
1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete
2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete
395  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do you believe God exists? on: October 03, 2018, 12:53:31 AM

You are making logical mistakes in your claim#1, as follows:

You are assuming the universe is a machine that can be modeled by a mechanical machine and you applied Church-Turing thesis and claimed that the universe can be expressed in arithmetic axioms, then you applied Gödel’s incompleteness theorem to arrive that there must be a true axiom that cannot be proven.  Then you moved that axiom outside of the system, to make it your God I presume.

Please show us that the universe can be treated as a Turing machine.  Where is your proof of that?  Are you familiar with quantum effects, or you continue to live in the 1930s?

You are twisting the existing Math theorems to fit your conclusions.  Why do you even bother when you skip the fundamental steps along the way?

...

You are applying Math incorrectly and connecting the dots to fit your desired outcome.


This is a fair challenge.

"Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language or philosophy.

And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe."

My argument assumes apriori that the universe is mathematical and logical. I take the position that the totality of human experience including science backs that claim.

Nevertheless I concede that I cannot prove it.

All systems of belief can be traced back to assumed axioms. Belief in a mathematical and logical universe is one of mine.

I would note that quantum mechanics in no way shows that the universe is illogical or that it cannot be described with mathematics.
396  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do you believe God exists? on: October 02, 2018, 11:04:30 PM

And again there are huge problems with that.


Yes and we discussed your disagreement with my logic in great depth.
I hold that the argument is sound and found your rebuttals lacking.

Nevertheless I have no desire to rehash old debates and retread fruitless ground. If anyone wants to read that exchange they can do so.

The OP asked a question and I have responded. If he wishes to engage further I will oblige but otherwise am content to let the matter rest.
397  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do you believe God exists? on: October 02, 2018, 08:04:02 PM
Alright guys, let's get this back on track. So far I've had a lot of blabbering, and no real rationale behind beliefs.

I want you to explain to me WHY you believe in God despite the evidence presented in OP.

Parodium the link below is the logic that led me to believe in God despite the arguments outlined in your opening post.

It's a bit long so I will link to it rather then quote the entirety of it here. The words and logic are mine.

In it I demonstrate to my satisfaction that it is far more logical to believe in God then to deny his God's existence.

An Argument for God
398  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The difference between science and religion on: October 02, 2018, 07:45:54 PM
Nationalism, politics can unite people just as well, and unite them long-term.

No it can't not on non trivial time horizons. Nationalism and politics require a common cooperative foundation to sustain them. Inertia can only holds things together for a limited time.
...

And belief in an imaginary friend will hold the society forever? LOL.  You base this on what? .

Ultimately on the logical necessity of maintaining the top-down control necessary to prevent freedom from becoming destructive and the simultaneous logical necessity to minimize such control as it limits knowledge formation and progress.

A complicated answer to be sure but it's not a trivial question.

In the opening post of this thread I linked to The Rise of Knowledge where Anonymint discussed the the nature of knowledge and its relationship to entropy.

Immediately up-thread I discussed the prerequisites of freedom. What freedom is and what is necessary to achieve it.

This post will explore the relationship between freedom and knowledge.

Knowledge and Power by George Gilder
https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Power-Information-Capitalism-Revolutionizing/dp/1621570274
Quote
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. In this model, wealth is defined as knowledge, and growth is defined as learning.

Because the system is based more on ideas than on incentives, it is not a process changeable only over generations of Sisysphean effort. An economy is a noosphere (a mind-based system) and it can revive as fast as minds and policies can change.

That new economics—the information theory of capitalism—is already at work in disguise. Concealed behind an elaborate mathematical apparatus, sequestered by its creators in what is called information technology, the new theory drives the most powerful machines and networks of the era. Information theory treats human creations or communications as transmissions through a channel, whether a wire or the world, in the face of the power of noise, and gauges the outcomes by their news or surprise, defined as “entropy” and consummated as knowledge. Now it is ready to come out into the open and to transform economics as it has already transformed the world economy itself.

All information is surprise; only surprise qualifies as information. This is the fundamental axiom of information theory. Information is the change between what we knew before the transmission and what we know after it.

Let us imagine the lineaments of an economics of disorder, disequilibrium, and surprise that could explain and measure the contributions of entrepreneurs. Such an economics would begin with the Smithian mold of order and equilibrium. 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.”

Shannon defined information in terms of digital bits and measured it by the concept of information entropy: unexpected or surprising bits...Shannon’s entropy is governed by a logarithmic equation nearly identical to the thermodynamic equation of Rudolf Clausius that describes physical entropy. But the parallels between the two entropies conceal several pitfalls that have ensnared many. Physical entropy is maximized when all the molecules in a physical system are at an equal temperature (and thus cannot yield any more energy). Shannon entropy is maximized when all the bits in a message are equally improbable (and thus cannot be further compressed without loss of
information). These two identical equations point to a deeper affinity that MIT physicist Seth Lloyd identifies as the foundation of all material reality—at the beginning was the entropic bit.
...
The accomplishment of Information Theory was to create a rigorous mathematical discipline for the definition and measurement of the information in the message sent down the channel. Shannon entropy or surprisal defines and quantifies the information in a message. In close similarity with physical entropy, information entropy is always a positive number measured by minus the base two logarithm of its probability. Information in Shannon’s scheme is quantified in terms of a probability because Shannon interpreted the message as a selection or choice from a limited alphabet. Entropy is thus a measure of freedom of choice. In the simplest case of maximum entropy of equally probable elements, the uncertainty is merely the inverse of the number of elements or symbols.
...
Linking innovation, surprise, and profit, learning and growth, Shannon entropy stands at the heart of the economics of information theory. Signaling the arrival of an invention or disruptive innovation is first its surprisal, then its yield beyond the interest rate—its profit, a further form of Shannon entropy. As a new item is absorbed by the market, however, its entropy declines until its margins converge with prevailing risk adjusted interest rates. The entrepreneur must move on to new surprises. The economics of entropy depict the process by which the entrepreneur translates his idea into a practical form from the realms of imaginative creation. In those visionary realms, entropy is essentially infinite and unconstrained, and thus irrelevant to economic models. But to make the imagined practical, the entrepreneur must make specific choices among existing resources and strategic possibilities. Entropy here signifies his freedom of choice.

As Shannon understood, the creation process itself escapes every logical and mathematical system. It springs not from secure knowledge but from falsifiable tests of commercial hypotheses. It is not an expression of past knowledge but of the fertility of consciousness, will, discipline, imagination, and art.

Knowledge is created by the dynamic interaction of consciousness over time. This process results in surprise (new information) which is the foundation of new knowledge. Entropy in this context is a measure of freedom, it is the freedom of choice. An information system with higher entropy allows for greater dynamic interaction of consciousness and thus greater knowledge formation. 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. A primitive population may require the iron fist of a dictator whereas an educated one may thrive in a republic. However, power always seeks centralization. Thus the tendency of both of the dictatorship and the republic will be towards ever increasing centralization restricting freedom beyond that what is necessary and hobbling knowledge formation.

I posit that that the only model of top-down control that facilitates knowledge formation without inevitable progressive centralization is Ethical Monotheism. Uniformly adopted and voluntary followed it may be the only restraint on freedom that is necessary.
399  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on: October 01, 2018, 04:42:13 PM
....
The Senate has requested a supplemental FBI investigation to help them in their decision making and that is underway.

I think people may not understand the limits of "an FBI investigation" in this case. The FBI cannot issue subpoenas, the Senate committee can. The FBI cannot compel people to testify. Without subpoena power, the FBI cannot get phone records, email records or bank records.

The four people named by Ford have already produced sworn statements that they were not there, that the party did not happen, blah-blah-blah. They cannot change those statements without being under penalty of perjury.

The bet that should be made at this junction is whether one of the major Democratic operatives, such as Creepy Porn Lawyer, comes up with yet another delaying tactic at the last hour of the last day of the FBI investigation. You know they will.

A lot of people blindly worship the three letter agencies  FBI, CIA, NSA. When the FBI investigation finds no evidence supporting the accusations as is highly likely it will help wake some of the half asleep people.

It was not particularly logical to outsource this investigation to the FBI as you note. It is really is the Senate's job and they have the power to compel testimony under oath.

However the far left is not a particularly logical entirely and as a whole more motivated by identity politics and feelings. Traditional liberals who historically valued individual freedoms are marginalised and hold no power in today's left. Indeed liberalism today increasingly has more in common with conservatism than it does with leftism.

No matter what happens now Kavanaugh is going be be thought of as a dangerous rapist by a third of the country. USA today ran an article saying he was too dangerous to be allowed to coach his daughters basketball team. Nevertheless going through this week long FBI investigation will allow him to clear his name as much as is possible without allowing this tactic of last second uncorroborated allegation derail his nomination.

It's smart politics and probably the best possible response to this circus.

I won't take you up on that bet, however, as another attempt at delay after the FBI investigation is done seems almost a given at this point. However, that will be the time to vote which is what I expect the Senate will do.
400  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on: October 01, 2018, 12:07:43 AM
Everyone liberals and conservatives, Christians and atheists, black and white are entitled to the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof always rests on the accuser as it must.

And yet you wouldn't allow an investigation for the facts to be gathered because he denies it.  The same people that are entitled to the presumption of innocence are also entitled to due process...  

How is anyone supposed to objectively asses any statements for truth if an investigation is suppressed because he said it didn't happen.

I agree with you that accusers have the right to be heard. I never said these accusations should not be investigated. Any possibility credible accusation deserves investigation while holding firmly to the principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

The constitution clearly assigns this duty to the Senate which also has the power of the subpoena to carry it out. It is the job of the Senate and only the Senate to determine what investigation is warranted, see that it is carried out, and weigh the evidence.

The Senate has requested a supplemental FBI investigation to help them in their decision making and that is underway.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 ... 115 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!