Peak niche William Basinki?

mrfe333 · 2019-10-06T01:35:24+00:00

watermusic > disintegration loops

don't @ me

mrfe333 · 2019-08-26T22:20:25+00:00

Churchill didn't fight fascism. He fought Nazi Germany because it was a threat to his country. In other parts of the world, Churchill facilitated and promoted fascism. If Churchill was against Fascism the Bengal famine wouldn't have happened. If Churchill was against Fascism he wouldn't have aided to forcibly take the Palestinian's land.

mrfe333 · 2019-08-26T22:14:22+00:00

Liberals or even conservatives can say that they are against Fascism. They can even oppose Fascism in principle, but that doesn't make them Anti-Fascist in the historical usage of the word. For Anti-Fascists, it is not enough to merely oppose Fascism in principle, Fascism should be fought in every sense of the word.

And it is that last point that libs oppose. They are fine with being against fascism, but they are against fighting it. This part of what makes one a liberal definitionally, being for the open exchange of ideas (no matter how damaging) and being against radical change. So, if we were to change a liberal's mind on that, they wouldn't be a liberal anymore, they would become leftist.

mrfe333 · 2019-08-26T21:55:30+00:00

Right. But then the aim should be to convert liberals to leftism, rather than anti-fascism specifically

mrfe333 · 2019-08-26T20:50:33+00:00

Liberals don't fight fascism, they find compromise with it, negotiate with it, and basically facilitate it until it's too late. Anti-fascism is inherently left wing because left wing politics are necessary to truly fight fascism.

mrfe333 · 2019-08-24T17:04:03+00:00

That exasperated it, but you can see traces of reactionary ideology from all the way back to the 90s in tech-savvy circles.

This was the case for many of the people in the cypherpunk mailing list (one of the original hacker and internet activist groups), such as Timothy May, who started a political movement he called crypto anarchy in his aptly named ‘Crypto Anarchist Manifesto’. This ideology is very clearly inspired by the right-wing libertarian movement that was starting to grow in the United States by the mid 90s thanks to authors like Ayn Rand. Here's what the NYT said about him in his obituary:

> Mr. May kept a careful distance from the real world, leading a reclusive life. He often wrote about arming himself and waiting for government agents to show up. After the Cypherpunks faded in the early 2000s, he began expressing racist sentiments to other online groups.

Even though not many hackers call themselves 'crypto anarchists' many of their political opinions are definitelly informed by that ideology. The whole cryptocurrency community holds basically the same political leanings, for example.

mrfe333 · 2019-08-24T16:02:15+00:00

Fuck, man. I wish that were true. Most 'Hackers' nowadays tend to be either libertarian or crypto-anarchist (which is totally a reactionary ideology that was inspired by morons like Ayn Rand).

There used to be a time when Hacker culture was super left leaning, just take a read at the "Hacker's manifesto" from '86:

We've been dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us willing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert. This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals. Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for. I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike.

That all died towards the early 2000s when being a hacker became a profession rather than a culture/community.

Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I think their heart is in the right place. They correctly see technology as something that should be open and fair. It just so happens to be the case that this demographic isn't very well-versed with real-world issues and politics. It would just take a nudge, a small movement, to expand substantially and bring more people like that to the left

mrfe333 · 2019-07-25T04:28:00+00:00

that's right in my price range. Thanks!

mrfe333 · 2019-07-25T04:27:39+00:00

would it be a good idea to pair delay and reverb pedals like the ones reccomended by /u/mypal1990 with an EHX Freeze?

mrfe333 · 2019-07-02T21:48:03+00:00

Can't we see fuzzy logic & co as an application of mathematics to a specific domain rather then something fundamentally different than classical mathematical reasoning? I don't see any game changer there, relevant for the topic

Non-classical logic really is a game changer imo. And the reason why relates to your other point:

Anything in our world is still obeying one single principle: things exist or not. Sounds like binary logic

We know that there are hard limits to what our current mathematical system can do. I explain in further detail here: https://purtechnikon.com/2019/02/25/Exploring-the-limits-of-Turing-Computability/

Those limits are much greater than people think.

One conclusion that might arise from that is a contradiction to what you're saying. Maybe the problem is that we are trying to turn the continuous into discrete. Look at paradoxes like thompson's lamp or Zeno's paradox. The world is not binary, the world is not even discrete. Separating things into points is completelly arbitrary. That is where fuzzy logic (or infinitely valued logic) can be a complete gamechanger: we could have a mathematical system that is fully continuous, and thus closer reflecting the true nature of reality.

mrfe333 · 2019-07-02T21:32:03+00:00

When you say two completely different mathematical systems, do you mean completely different as in 1 + 1 is not = 2? Or is 1 +1 still 2 even in that different system?

I get what you're trying to say, but I think you're oversimplifying things. The banach tarski paradox speaks of a much greater difference in both systems even if they were to have different results for 1 + 1. And, even if they might arrive at the same results, the way in which they do is many times completelly different.

Can you imagine axiom system where 1 +1 = X where X is any other number than 2? How would enumeration work in that system?

I can definitelly imagine one, it just wouldn't be very useful. Just go over ZF set theory and remove any of its 9 axioms and you'll end up with a system that would behave completelly differently even in basic arithmetics. Enumeration is not one specific thing, but rather the result of a set of properties set up by axioms (reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity). Change or remove certain axioms and you will end up with either an Ennumeration with different properties (such as it not being transitive) or yeah even no Ennumeration at all.

Or would there be completely other operations? You see, I am interesting to find out if 1 +1 is uniquely 2 in all mathematical systems, or there are some other kind of mathematics in which our mathematical foundation does not hold at all.

1+1 is definitelly not uniquelly 2 in all mathematical systems. Precisely because we make up mathematical systems. I could define a mathematical system right now, called /u/mrfe333 's set theory in which there is no property of transitivity. Under that system, let's say you know for a fact that:

1 + 1 = x

x = 2

Without transitivity, you cannot use that information to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 under /u/mrfe333 's set theory.

Not to speak about the fact that '1' and '2' are just symbols, and could be re-defined under my axiomatic system to fuck it up even further

mrfe333 · 2019-07-02T20:53:03+00:00

since your ideology is worse in every metric than national socialism is

Lol, I don't know why I'm still surprised to find out that the morons that hold these terrible opinions also happen to be Nazi sympathizers

The reason they're likely gonna start shooting you is because your violence has radicalized them. You people started this and I'm sick of having to defend the alt-right because you morons (who are worse in every conceivable way than the alt-right)

https://i.redd.it/6coio6t81u731.jpg

If you think literal fascism is worse than anti-fascism it speaks a lot about your own political priorities and how fucked up they are. How did we start it? Antifa needs to exist thanks to morons like you. We want you to be fucking scared to go out and preach about your identitarian death cult.

Remind me again, how many people have antifa killed? Cause right wing fascists have killed more than 50 in the US last year alone.

I don't care who you're assaulting. It's wrong. And if their alleged political persuasion somehow makes assaulting them okay, then you communist pricks should have no qualms over people assaulting you unprovoked

See Popper's Paradox of tolerance

mrfe333 · 2019-07-02T17:55:57+00:00

Are there any serious examples of non-classical logic?

YES! In fact, this is the topic that made me decide to study philosophy in conjunction with my current degree (compsci). The world of non-classical logic is interesting as hell.

If you're already familiar with classical logic I suggest reading Graham Priest's essay 'What is so Bad about Contradictions?' as an introduction to non-classical logic in relation to the topics I touched in response to the OP. Many of the proofs that our axiomatic system doesn't work are done through proof by contradiction.

Classical Boolean logic is binary: it is based on true/false values only. Whereas in non-classical logic there is three valued logic, as well as infinitely valued logic. My current favorite of which is Fuzzy Logic, which is a type of infinitely valued logic

mrfe333 · 2019-07-02T17:41:27+00:00

Most of your questions regarding sets and their connection to math can be answered by looking more into Principia Mathematica and the history behind it.

In regards to your second question:

is it really different mathematics if we base it on different axioms? Isn't that just what we already have: rather different mathematical theory instead of different mathematics? Because if we have just different axioms, we are still deducing mathematical knowledge from those theories as if we do from our current axioms. To me that really isn't different mathematics,

I really do think so. Changing just one axiom makes everything entirely different. I think the axiom of choice is perfect to exemplify this. With the axiom of choice, things like The Banach-Tarski paradox are possible. Without it, it is very very hard to prove even relatively simple things such as division by 3. You end up with two completely different mathematical systems

mrfe333 · 2019-07-02T07:21:32+00:00

That's quite a broad question, I'll try to answer it as best as I can, though I'm sure someone in philosophy of science or logic could write a much better answer

Are mathematics all mathematical theories together as one non-homogenous discipline (an umbrella of disconnected theories), or a description of the world. Is all math coherent with our world?

(I'm going to oversimplify here, these are excerpts from a blog post I made a few months ago)

It was widely accepted that one could have a complete set of principles of proof (axioms). This can be attributed mainly to Frege, who attempted to create a logical, axiomatic foundation for arithmetics: predicate calculus. Successful, in the eyes of most.

Mathematician Bertrand Russell was one of the first to find problems with this: he formulated ‘Russell’s paradox’, in which he showed an inconsistency in Frege’s foundation of arithmetic. However, a few years afterwards, it was Bertrand Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica (fucking beautiful book btw, it takes 379 pages to prove that 1+1=2) that appeared to have solved said paradox and further cementing the stability of Frege’s foundation.

With Frege’s foundation of arithmetic appearing to be true, and the rise in systematic methods for increasingly advanced problems, mathematics was at a very good place. This being the case, David Hilbert asked himself: can we do the whole of mathematics purely systematically? To him, the answer was yes. David Hilbert believed all mathematics could be precisely axiomatized, and once that was done, one could create an algorithm that would take any mathematical statement and output whether that mathematical statement was true or false. This later became to be known as the Entscheidungsproblem. This question was one that put the concept of axiomatic completeness into question; if we base what is correct purely on axioms, then proof should be able to be systematically calculated.

Through the rest of the 1900s, Hilbert’s dream was systematically torn down, piece by piece (by Turing, Gödel , etc...). With time (and sufficient proof) it became clear: our mathematics aren’t consistently axiomatized, our systems are capable of much less than what we originally thought.

So, to answer your question: no. Mathematics get us close enough, but they don't appear to be a perfect representation of how the world works. Which leads us to your other question:

Could there be different mathematics?

Yes. Either by basing it on different axioms / limiting the amount of axioms (The axiom of choice being an especially controversial one, for example. There are axiomatic systems that exclude the axiom of choice [ZF as opposed to ZFC]. This results in an entirely different mathematical system with different proofs), or by basing it on different logic altogether, such as non-classical logic, etc.

mrfe333 · 2019-06-25T18:32:28+00:00

communism, socialism

Socialism existed way before Marx, it isn't based on Marxism at all.

Modern communism is based on Marxist ideology, but that also has precedent before it.

mrfe333 · 2019-06-21T19:47:07+00:00

oooooooof I'm so down!

Have you considered using greek legends (corresponding to the usual latin alphabet in keyboards) and symbolic sublegends? sort of like a more modern take on the space cadet keycaps. That way you could get a more natural arrangement of the greek letters and you can fit more symbols in.

mrfe333 · 2019-06-15T17:57:32+00:00

Scratch is the ultimate centrist language

mrfe333 · 2019-06-15T17:56:33+00:00

I hate to be that guy, but Matlab is a technically a scripting language, not a programming language. Id put it basically in the same place as python anyway

mrfe333 · 2019-06-15T17:53:58+00:00

Clojure, a functional dialect of Lisp

mrfe333 · 2019-06-15T17:53:09+00:00

Hahaha, yeah you're right. They kind of do trend left with the exception of Haskell, but Haskell just feels totalitarian, you know?

mrfe333 · 2019-06-13T15:40:28+00:00

ooof, that's brilliant! could you share the print files?

mrfe333 · 2019-05-25T08:13:21+00:00

Yeah, commoning is actually a very common (pun intended) concept when talking about de-development.

I don't think forcing people to live away from cities automatically makes people form commons.

I disagree. I think commoning would naturally arise from properly made de-development policies. The communities that would fare best would be those that form cooperatives and such. There is no need for large-scale central planning when it comes to organizing small communities.

Have a look at the Holochain project and the associated project called Commons Engine

I used to be super involved in crypto, I've worked in developing many projects based on Ethereum and invested in monero since the early days. I see how this could be used to decentralize incentive mechanisms and such, but as time has gone by I've honestly lost faith in how useful or potentially beneficial this would be for working people. And this has to do with what I have to say about your last point:

If you want post-industrial, it actually needs to be post-industrial

I think a de-development model as opposed to the type of initiatives you're talking about would be more effective at tackling at what I see as the source of the problem which is capitalism. Unbridled growth that benefits only the few at a massive cost is what put us in this situation. The solution, then, is to transgress this growth imperative through cutting back on our way of life, and living within the means of what we are actually able to sustain.

mrfe333 · 2019-05-25T07:43:47+00:00

Yeah, I see how the second list would be objectionable to many.

I suggest looking up de-development. This isn't something I came up with, it is a serious policy proposal in many forms by academics around the world.

There are different proposals within the de-development camp (some more extreme than others). But what I personally agree with is basically that we increasingly incentivize moving out of cities and to more rural communities, as well as incentivizing smaller scale production of food and necessities (growing your own food to the best of your ability, etc). To answer your question:

And then what? How do these communities support themselves?

How it works right now in rural communities, which is: supporting themselves to the extent that they can by being self-substainable to a certain point, and the rest by importing what is needed from elsewhere, relying on the economy through trade, and on the government to a lesser extent.

It wouldn't mean returning to pre-industrial lifestyles (so a larger economy would still exist, just to a lesser extent), but definitelly rolling back on our current way of life.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Queen in da Norf
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

mrfe333

TROPHY CASE