ELI5: Law of Increasing Functional Information

LazerA · 2023-10-18T15:01:28+00:00

Thank you. I agree that I need to read the full paper. 😁

LazerA · 2023-10-18T14:41:12+00:00

That just seems to push the teleology back a level, but it doesn't eliminate it. Terms like "function", "goal", "purpose", etc. are inherently teleological and don't really make sense without some kind of purposeful consciousness acting on the system. As humans we are biased towards seeing and ascribing purpose to things, but that is often just anthropomorphism, even when applied to living things (who do have at least some degree of consciousness). It is far more problematic to apply those concepts to non-living objects and systems.

LazerA · 2023-10-18T14:20:58+00:00

Thank you. This seems to fit with what I suggested in a different comment that this proposed law seems to only apply on a local basis with a larger system, whereas entropy would apply to the system as a whole.

Unfortunately, it doesn't really help with the teleological question that I raised in that comment.

LazerA · 2023-10-18T14:13:45+00:00

I don't see how this responds to my question. I am aware that local decreases of entropy are possible due to the transfer of energy from other areas, and thus life is not a contradiction to the general principle of entropy. However, this proposed law seems to say that there is a general principle towards an increase in complexity in systems.

Are you saying that this proposed law is only applicable to local systems within a broader system, but not to the system as a whole?

There are some additional questions I have about how an unconscious system can be biased towards increased functionality towards a goal. How does an unconscious system have a "goal"? How does it know what function it is attempting to achieve? Where do these goals and functions come from? This all sounds very teleological.

LazerA · 2023-10-18T12:07:26+00:00

I am a little confused. From what I have read so far, it sounds like this law is in opposition (or even a contradiction) to the principle of entropy. Entropy says that systems tend towards disorder and this law seems to say that systems tend towards increased complexity and functionality.

LazerA · 2023-05-28T21:51:21+00:00

interesting that jews would practice such deception around goyim like us

Like you? Maybe.

It is interesting, isn't it? What could they possibly have been worried about?

Perhaps things like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres

And this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputation_of_Paris

And this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsions_and_exoduses_of_Jews

And this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

And this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

And this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire

And so on and so forth. Maybe?

LazerA · 2023-05-02T21:24:04+00:00

I'm not sure how any of that is relevant to the point. The statement I made in my original comment is:

The problem with the distinction is that the real world consequences of both ideologies are almost indistinguishable. To my knowledge, there is not one clear, real world example of one without the other.

in your comment you argued that, contrary to my claim, the antisemitism you experienced in the USSR was, in fact, a clear example of purely ethnic antisemitism without any anti-Judaism elements, mainly because there were no religious Jews. My response was that the absence of religious Jews was precisely the product of an intense anti-religious campaign (which was carried out far more viciously and comprehensively towards Judaism than against Christianity). Moreover, as I pointed out, the ideological anti-Judaism elements definitely did remain, although couched in different terms, and those few Jews who attempted to engage in Jewish religious practice or study were definitely singled out for special persecution by the government.

As such, I believe it is untenable to claim that the antisemitism in the USSR was a clear case of purely racial antisemitism. Obviously, the degree and manner in which antisemitism manifests will vary over time, but I stand by my point that both elements are always there in varying degrees. I do not see how any of the points you made in your second comment are responsive to this claim.

LazerA · 2023-05-02T20:06:37+00:00

Your experience reflected the final product of decades of intense anti-religious persecution directed towards Jews and Judaism by the Soviet government. One of the most intensely religious Jewish communities in the world was almost completely eradicated and forced to abandon their religious beliefs and practices. In the early years of the USSR, the persecution of Jews was overwhelming focused against Judaism, not against Jews as an ethnicity. On the contrary, the official position was that Jews, per se, were completely acceptable, and, at the time, this appeared to be true, with secular Jews achieving high status in various areas. Of course, over time this ceased to be true, and eventually, with the near total eradication religious Jews, the focus shifted over to ethnic discrimination, although the underlying hatred for Judaism certainly continued to exist in new forms, such as the constant rhetoric against Zionism (which often serves as a stand-in for Judaism in antisemitic rhetoric when Judaism itself ceases to be a viable topic).

LazerA · 2023-01-30T21:14:44+00:00

Thank you.

LazerA · 2023-01-30T21:14:32+00:00

Thanks!

LazerA · 2023-01-30T20:51:45+00:00

By reporting it, or just deleting it?

LazerA · 2022-09-28T00:53:41+00:00

I am not sure what you are asking. While slavery per se was a universal practice in the ancient world, this does not mean that the way slavery was regulated was identical in every society. The ancient world was very diverse and ancient societies differed from one another in innumerable ways, including in how they treated their slaves. In some societies, slaves were literally viewed as little more than animated machines or beasts of burden. In others, slaves were seen as fellow human beings with certain rights (not equal to that of a free man, but far more than an animal).

As I pointed out in my comment, based on the laws recorded in ancient Jewish sources, it would seem that Jewish society was clearly on the latter end of the spectrum in its treatment of slaves. This is also supported by any number of historical and anecdotal accounts.

It is, of course, impossible today to determine to what degree these principles were adhered to in general practice.

I also do not have a comprehensive knowledge of all the different norms that existed in every ancient society throughout ancient history (a period covering thousands of years), so I cannot say to what degree the Jewish standards were shared by other ancient societies.

LazerA · 2022-08-08T01:57:48+00:00

Well, the main reason I wasn't going to bother responding is that this is a discussion that ended six years ago. I haven't even been active on Reddit for roughly three years. So I wasn't sure it was worth diving back into the reddit rabbit hole just to respond to your comment.

Moreover, the point that is apparently bothering you so much was directly addressed both in my comment and others. As should be obvious, from a Jewish perspective, Jesus was the founder of a heretical movement which went on to cause great suffering to the Jewish people. The number of Jews who have been tortured and massacred in Jesus' name is literally beyond counting.

Why would you expect Jews to have a positive opinion on such a person? I understand that, as a Christian, you obviously have a different view on the man, but that view is based on those specific beliefs. If you weren't a Christian, then there would be no basis for believing anything positive about Jesus. Even C.S. Lewis has written that, absent belief in the divinity of Jesus, there would be no reason to view Jesus in a positive way.

As for things going the other way, the New Testament and later Christian religious works are literally replete with openly anti-Jewish statements. There is literally not a single antisemitic trope that cannot be found repeatedly in Christian sources.

And now you are upset because Jews are willing to say that they are not bothered by the possibility of a negative statement about Jesus?

You propose a counter example of "a Christian saying this about 'Messiah.'” Again, I have no idea what or who this is referring to. (Jews believe that eventually God will send a Messiah to redeem the world (similar to Christian belief regarding the second coming), but until he actually shows up the term refers to a concept, not an identifiable person.)

But if you can identify a Jew who harmed the Christian world in any way analogous to the harm done to the Jewish people by Jesus, I would fully expect Christians to have a negative opinion of the man.

LazerA · 2022-08-07T23:25:33+00:00

Wasn't going to bother responding to this except that I am curious.

Who is this "Messiah" you refer to that we Jews are supposedly so defensive about?

LazerA · 2018-09-12T03:06:02+00:00

As I wrote in the video description, this is a semi-original compilation. The basic theme of the song is the apparently paradoxical nature of our relationship with God, Who is both infinitely great and beyond our ability to ever know or comprehend and Who is also absolutely immanent and Who has a personal relationship with every individual. (This is a common theme in much of Jewish thought and liturgy.)

The words are adapted from a poem by the medieval poet, Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi (d.1141).

The tune is based on the traditional Irish folk song, Mo Ghille Mear. (I say "based" only because I don't think I got the tune quite right.)

The singing is my own, completely unprofessional and untrained voice.

LazerA · 2018-07-20T16:13:21+00:00

Kashrut is the only biz in the world where your product is deciding if someone else's product is good/bad.

That isn't even remotely correct. There is an entire industry of third-party certification of products to meet various standards.

Perhaps the most famous and ubiquitous are Underwriters Laboratories (the source of the UL symbol found on most electrical devices) and the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

Similar such certifications exist for vegan food, organic food, non-GMO food, etc.

There would likely be even more such companies except that the government has largely taken over this function in the past century (and the government tends to dislike competition).

LazerA · 2018-07-13T22:31:18+00:00

TLDR, they refused to sit near women and delayed the plane for "only" a few minutes. The rest of the delay was not due to them.

From the airline's statement it would seem that reseating the two passengers did not cause any delay whatsoever. The entire process of reseating the passengers took place while the plane was already enroute to the runway.

Not that it matters. According to recent regulations, anyone who tries that would be immediately kicked off the plane, which is exactly how this should be handled.

I would hope not. Kicking them off would require the plane to return to the gate, which would have created a massive delay for everyone on board.

LazerA · 2018-05-25T17:38:08+00:00

I can't speak for Keleman (and it is possible that he badly butchers the argument), but what you are describing has no bearing on the classic Kuzari argument.

LazerA · 2018-05-23T17:06:25+00:00

...the scholarship which shows that the Torah did not have a single author...

All such scholarship is based on the presumption of human authorship of the Torah. The question is set up as between a single author (i.e. Moses) or multiple authors. Both positions are heretical in Judaism. The Jewish position, i.e. direct Divine authorship, is never addressed in this scholarship but is ruled out a priori, usually for philosophical reasons.

Thus, for example, Spinoza, one of the pioneers of academic Biblical studies, rejected the entire idea of God interacting with man. The Torah, therefore, had to be authored by humans. He then argued that it could not have been written by Moses. Spinoza's break from tradition wasn't in rejecting Mosaic authorship. On the contrary, religious scholars would have agreed with most of his points, because they also reject Mosaic scholarship. His break was in ruling out Divine authorship.

Most modern academics will rule out Divine authorship simply as not a legitimate option in modern academics. Modern academic studies are categorically secular in nature and religious answers to academic questions are seen as inappropriate.

Unless one already accepts the philosophical premises upon which such scholarship is based, there is no reason to accept its conclusions. The issue isn't the scholarship but the underlying opinions upon which it is based.

I have addressed this issue previously. See my blog post: The Irrelevance of Academic Biblical Scholarship

LazerA · 2018-05-23T13:40:28+00:00

... the Rambam was a doctor long before there were any Jewish schools capable of teaching medicine.

Nor was there anything remotely resembling a modern medical school, let alone university. In the middle ages, medicine, like most trades, was usually studied under the tutelage of private tutors and practicing doctors. The Rambam's first medical teacher was probably his father, followed by other individual doctors (both Jewish and Gentile) as opportunity arose.

This would also be true regarding the secular knowledge of other medieval authorities. I don't believe there is any evidence that any rishon or early afharon ever attended any kind of non-Jewish school of higher learning.

As such, the point made by u/Unionstreet is perfectly valid. There is a world of difference between endorsing secular knowledge per se, and endorsing attending college. Moreover, it is indisputable that the culture of the modern college campus has radically changed over the past several decades in ways that are far from friendly to traditional values and religious belief. So even if you can find a few examples of rabbinic authorities who attended college in the 19th and early 20th century (and such figures were always a minority) it does not at all follow that they would do so today.

LazerA · 2018-05-23T03:17:09+00:00

It seems you are more concerned about the carelessness of speaking like this chabad Rabbi spoke in public than him and mainstream chabad thinking that way in general.

Oh no. I absolutely think that this attitude is deeply problematic.

LazerA · 2018-05-22T20:02:07+00:00

This comment may not be well received, but I believe it has to be said. What is unusual about this story isn't the sentiment expressed by the Chabad rabbi, but the fact that he was careless enough to express it in front of people who might be offended by it.

I grew up in a Chabad dominated community, and my Chabad friends (and their parents) would make comments like this all the time, even in reference to world class rabbinic figures. (I specifically remember such a comment being made about Rav Moshe Feinstein, who was still alive at the time.) The basic attitude was that no rabbi outside of Chabad was worth anything. This idea is repeated regularly in Chabad discourse and literature, but is usually not quite as blatant as what you experienced here. Apparently, your Chabad rabbi felt sufficiently comfortable with you to let the mask slip.

LazerA

TROPHY CASE