RestoringGuy

I can't find any authors that are close. I am tempted to say there are traces of what I am saying from Penrose (the three worlds model) and additionally the so-called "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" , but those are not quite what I suggest, because they seem to presuppose that mathematics is more extensive than the physical universe itself, or at the least there are parts of mathematics that apply to us and parts that do not. Galileo is probably closest to my thinking. I did find this article "The Sin of Galileo" with the interesting quote (related to quantum mechanics): "a successful mathematical theory does not enable us to understand what is going on in reality." http://www.friesian.com/mumford.htm I welcome skepticism because I am at a crossroads of studying this sort of stuff for more years than I care to admit. There are a handful of paradoxes that I claim my theory solves. I accept it is probably flawed. But I feel compelled in this direction since I no longer can believe our objective reality lacks a real presence of mathematical prediction (it requires a presence much bigger than previous acknowleged anyway), nor do I care to go down the impossible road of subjectivists who suggest the universe emerges from our minds.

That makes sense only if you are comparing things in only one iteration. For example, 0.3 might be adequate approximation of 1/3 for some experiments. As a thought experiment, suppose all our instruments are too crude to see more than one significant figure. If you trisect a line using constructive methods, the significant figures of 0.3 are good enough for such a rough comparison between the trisected segment and our mathematical estimate. The error is (1/3-0.3)/(1/3)=10%. But when this step is repeated (0.3*0.3=0.09), the % error becomes larger and more detectable (about (0.09*0.09-1/9)/(1/9)=19%). Some methods of computing pi, say a continued fraction for example, gives the atoms in the computer a way of magnifying this hidden information in slow steps. The physicist will say now that the second digit is known, we must perform a more careful experiment. True the digits of pi will exceed any capacity to build any one-time experiment. But it does not eliminate our ability to build iterative experiments, much like trisecting a line repeatedly to prove the 0.3 isn't quite 1/3 even if your instruments cannot see the distinction all at once. I do not feel the predictive power of science is bound by a single all-at-once experiment, but a specific ensemble of small experiments is allowable. I could use a parabola to estimate where a cannonball will land, which I guess could be life-or-death predictive science. But if I have a blueprint for a system of pressure pipes and check valves that can open and close many times in well-known way with the digits of pi spit out on some gauge or display, using a continued fraction built into the pipes, releasing nerve gas if I fail to push the right button for the 100th digit, now knowing the 100th digit of pi has more clear practical scientific application. Because these pipes are an invention more complex than the cannonball, it does not prove to me that physical prediction suddenly becomes "non-scientific" once more than some special number of atoms are involved. Somewhere between computer-prediction and basic rock-throwing-prediction, i guess there is some arbitrary place where some people call it mathematics and not science. I challenge that notion, because it seems arbitrary and neglects the sense data we have that reproducible physical things can happen around us that , in specific cases, only the most abstract (and formerly useless) mathematics can predict.

Thanks. Do you know what prevents two accounts from moving BTC back-and-forth, or perhaps some complex pathway of BTC distributions so that there is sabotage by explosion of the block chain? Maybe put 2*Pi BTC in account 1, transfer to 2, transfer to 4, etc. Also, is there any competitor to bitcoin, perhaps that shuns big corporations? I could look this up I suppose, but your answers are easy for me to grasp and perhaps others here are interested.

Thanks. Man that's a rough story. Sometimes I think if I can at least outlive those who do harm, they at least have failed in their attempts to kill me. The extended family seems to sit back and allow bad things to happen.

I don't get that part about the atheist statist and God, but I sort of understand. My thinking is whether taxation and laws causes some guy to "go around" a plot of land as opposed to tresspassing through, or tithing and doctrine makes somebody go around it as service to God or church ideas, either way I am paying for a service I ask for, specifically my property rights. Just the middleman is the evil beast. Whether that dilutes the meaning, I don't know. But when anarchy is mentioned all that is thought of by the layman is hell will break loose. I get cautious about metaphorical representation, because religion is an optional element as is the state, but taxation and tithing are not in my mind requiring those options to exist. It is only a matter of scale. If you pay the King to leave you alone, it is called tax. If you pay your neighbor to leave you alone, it is called what?

That is great information, thank you. I thought network speed was not so important, and is it not feasible say at 56k dialup rate? You cannot run totally offline and sync only when score is made? As far as electricity, using off-peak (<$0.07/kWh) and only in a rural area where resistive space heating is actually the cheapest option, whether a given kWH produces BTC or not the same money is being spent in winter anyway. i am also curious if there has been discussion of the government turning supercomputers on it to simply nuke the value once visibility is high enough for them to bother. That would be good reason not to buy and hold.

My perspective is still being formed, but has been something on my mind for a while now. Not equal footing exactly with laws of physics, but all possible simulated universes are on equal footing with any deterministic rule the physical laws may provide. Your initial objection makes sense to me. Two vastly different computers may run the same round of Conway's Life, but the logical degrees of freedom do not capture the fact that only one of them is let's say using NPN transistors. In that case, I claim the simulation model is not truly an absolute prediction of what the computer will do in every attempt, but an expected behavior of a computer that is so designed. There will be a statistical dispersion. Despite the same logical programming, computer design A will fail at a different rate than design B, and fail in a different way with various statistical parameters. QM guarantees quantum tunnelling and microscopic effects will mean the physical computer is not a perfect entity, but one which runs Conway's Life only as its average long-term behavior. Although physical designs A and B are predicted in their average by the mathematical model, no information is lost because the physical degrees of freedom manifest themselves as higher order statistics. Once you sit down and choose a mathematical model, fix a failure rate, fix how often a transistor will fail every odd-numbered Tuesday, etc., you now have a rich set of statistics to go along with your mathematical model. My perspective is that, to the extent you can specify all these parameters, there will exist exactly one sort of physical entity that does exactly that job. So physics (eg. the physical universe) builds itself around a mathematical outcome, and reflectively we establish mathematics based only on what physical outcomes we can sense and construct. My other feeling is that if two distinct physical computational systems have not only the same logical outcome, but exactly the same set of behavior statistics (failure if you want to call it that), it will be quite difficult for the physicist to prove they are in fact different atomic arrangments and physics could become faith-based if such a claim were insisted upon.

I am thinking that males commit suicide many times more. Compassion is good, although I found it will not be reciprocated in most environments. Feelings of being sexually mutilated and unwanted are ridiculed and the establishment does nothing. Family certainly does nothing. In all of these cases, I only wonder whether I would exchange places with somebody. As gang rape victim, I could retain my raped genitals, get recourse and fairly wide expectation of emotional support. Not good, but an improvement. By perceiving myself in that situation I get perspective. It seems to me rape culture is cloaked promotion of female fertility as a commodity (the commodity becomes damaged), and not so much compassion for a victim because of how selective they are in choosing who gets to qualify as having been sexually attacked.

That only seems 5 or 6 times better (5GH/900MH). Neglecting setup/operating cost, is it worth the manual effort of setting up on an unused PC? I could use the space heating anyway.

That's true, but it's only useful if you know which piece of mathematics describes the physical behavior in which you are interested. A scientific theory links the behavior to its mathematical model. I don't dispute that physics is more interesting. Physics is my favorite subject. But if the main idea we have for determining predictive value is that such behavior must interest us, the distinction between mathematics and science now seems extremely subjective. In that case, science is now just mathematics that "works in those situations I personally like".

That is exactly the paradigm I challenge. We presuppose that models of mathematics are (or can be) distinct from the world. I have once believed that there are models that work, and those that fail. So physics is a subset of mathematics. But this now seems completely false. All mathematical objects and conclusions must remain accessible to us, because physical matter (brain or computer) must perform a proof. Independent mathematicians can confirm the proof, and you mention internal consistency. To maintain such consistency is objective, there must be a physical model even if it is symbols in chalk. Mathematics can tell you how the world operates at least as much as physics, because neither is divorced from the senses. I say this because we demand a physical model (a proof that is reproducible). The computational resources and experimental information seem very difficult for me to distinguish, and seems only a matter of opinion. You can have physicists witnessing radioactive decay and extrapolating the results a million years in the future. But a mathematician can prove 13 whole cookies can only be divided evenly to 1 or 13 people. Either way, you make a prediction about physical events. The mathematicians can distinguish between two models because the models make different predictions. The physicist is perhaps delusional that one of the models has no application. If the physicist points to a model that "doesn't work", I will put that model into a computer and ask the physicist what the atoms of the computer will do. When the physicist says "well the atoms of the computer are arranged so that an answer X will result, but that's totally wrong." Now I ask, "hey you just used that incorrect model to predict what a physical system is going to do, didn't you?" Therefore, the model does work to predict atomic motion, and I argue that particular physicist is a hypocrite.

Neglecting power or equipment cost, is it today simply a waste of time to start with GPU?

Sorry if I got on a tangent. It just seems like religious ideas revolve around who is the rightful owner (that we owe God, or are compelled to serve, etc.) Taxation was mentioned as part of the discussion of dogma, so I thought that was part of the correllation. To me a discussion of taxation is impossible without discussion of property rights.

Yes that is my view also. But I go further and ask "what exactly constitutes predictive value"? There are some who say the objects of mathematics are "unreal", products of human thought, or that at least some mathematics is "useless" or "just conceptual". I can't grasp that perspective, and I would challenge anyone who holds that view. It would seem to me, all mathematics has predictive value, because it predicts some physical experiment that can be devised. I have read once that having more than 200 digits of pi is "useless". Nonetheless, computers can reproduce let's say the billionth digit of pi reliably and reproducibly. So in fact, the billionth digit is useful for prediction: that digit tells you what a bunch of atoms in the shape of a laptop computer are going to spit out after running any pi calculating program! So whether it is Newton's prediction of what path a cannonball will take using calculus, or a billion-digit pi laptop, either way you are just predicting the future by applying a technique that has seemed successful in the past. For that reason, I have started to see no distinction between mathematics and science.

I am not sure the corollary is right. Mental beliefs are something we seem to own innately, but external belongings require going out and capturing them in some way and proving you own them. While I think taxing income and labor are pretty close to religious dogma, I do not think the same of taxing use of land, water, or air because those things become owned only by personal say-so. Land still exists even when nobody claims to control it, and then (as if by magic) user #2 of land is said to be wrong without prior permission of user #1. There is exclusive and time-dependent dogma going on in a first-claim property model. But it is worse with labor and sales tax, the government taxes something that exists only when a person makes a choice to work or sell, so the thing being taxed is actually brought into existence by personal action and it seems mainly through aggression can it be taxed. With land and water it seems you can just point to something and claim it is yours (as long as there is not a fight you cannot win). So whether the goverment does just that, or we anarchocapitalists do it, I cannot seem to find much philosophy to distinguish the two groups. To have the least amount of dogma, I feel that I have to oppose property tax but only in a somewhat weak way (we should all get to collect it, not just government).

I am reminded of a quote "Snoop on to them as they snoop on to us."

I had a poor situation financially and emotionally. But if I did it over and could somehow pick, I would rather have a parent "present" emotionally and provide useful advice compared to being a rich kid. Also, in public school I felt like I was dealing with teachers who were morons and could not answer basic questions, so having smart parents might have filled in the void.

I think the punishment is often meant by the word justice. But that is unlikely to help the victim, but does give the state more leverage, including leverage to tax people, and leverage to monopolize the justice system. The state maintains anybody who competes is called "vigilante". So I agree the victim should be on the benefit side in order to be compensated by the violator. Whenever I hear somebody say justice should be guided by "deterrence", I am baffled, because why are they arguing with me instead of deterring my argument by punching me into submission? And how many murderers could just say they were acting in pursuit of their own form of death penalty? It seems like vengeance requires flawed logic. We can't stop establishment violence, therefore the statists don't want "justice", they just want to own the word.

I have tried to discuss Ostrom: http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/22779.aspx That was in 2009. Today I personally think computer software is now becoming a much higher priority, since the tools of control are becoming less physical and more algorithmic. It seems to me in a couple years the corporate software platform gatekeepers will be acting in conjunction with central government regulators to facilitate their mutual goals. Current tablets, app stores, automatic-updates, and cloud storage are all centralization-based traps. It would be cool to come up with common pool resources, although I am now thinking it will be tough without preventing the central-thinkers from sabotaging at will. It is depressing to me that the technology is moving the wrong way.

In the Next Generation, Picard said they have no money or materialistic conflict. The only goal is self-improvement. If you can replicate anything for free, maybe that would work.

Does it seem beauty itself is necessarily a problem? If there is "distorted reality", my feeling is it is not the fault of beauty, but the incorrect assessment. If we perceive beauty and act irrationally on it, does it not seem the error is that that there was cloaked (or denied) ugliness, and beauty as a goal in itself was not a problem. We do this sometimes with truth. If somebody brings forth some self-defense scenario, they might say the truth of integrity (or NAP,etc) is debunked. But many of us will know it's not truth that is faulty, but there are hidden criteria, purposely being ignored by the truth-hater. We remind they must consider these objective things before discarding truth, and not just rely on a mental surface impression. Similarly, when there is a beauty-motivated error we see, then maybe we see a flawed inner beauty and should not just discard beauty as a concept.

The balloon absolutely does push back. Momentum is conserved. Whatever upward momentum the balloon gains is applied as downward momentum to the atmosphere. It is tiny amount, but it is equal by basic physics. A bird is the same way, the forces are equal. Orbit is exchange between potential and kinetic energy, so you're right that path is maintained because of gravity, but ability to move is not caused by gravity. While approaching apehelion, the object is moving against gravity at the expense of losing speed. I do not "attack" and that seems like a slightly abrasive answer. Just point out aspects of meaning. I do not know what it means to say something moves "on it's own" or why gravity should be mandatory. I cannot see why a non-moving and/or weightless object drifting in zero gravity should automatically be non-living. For sure I cannot see why a bird and airplane have different movement with regard to the term "on it's own". If you would please consider the word Moving to include internal metabolism or flow of nutrients or even information carriers, it would make more sense to me. Please tell me why my meaning is not correct.

By Newton's laws, that happens with all things. When I walk, the atoms of the earth/grass push my shoes forward, and the earth itself moves backward with equal force. Without that pushing, the movement of my feet would get no traction, so I am also moved by the grass as well as my feet. A flying bird is also moved by the atmosphere with equal force as atmosphere is moved by it. The idea of "what moves" also seems not too clear. The whole earth moves "on it's own" as does every object in orbit.

There is also the notion of beauty in mathematics. It does not have much broad social relevance, but it is a microcosm to study that helps explain what is going on I think with beauty in general as a mental process. There is a certain aesthetics and elegance in beauty that sometimes gives one the feeling of relief, that some problem is really challenging and almost impossible, and now it is so simple and the mind has been made free.

I especially like the phrase "Women confer status on men by allowing them to receive the love they receive from women as a result of high character and accomplishment”. This article though does not take into account modern tech -- the nerd factor is becoming cool sort of. Now that I think of it, in school, the highest rank male nerd is probably still less valued and loved than the least loved female.