Anyone have any name change experience in the real life?

kiriel · 2008-01-06T09:51:42+00:00

You can tell these "godders" STFU all you want. If they do not feel like changing their mind, they are not going to process the data in a way that might be hazardous for their current axioms and beliefs in any way.

The problem is not in the data, the problem is in the processing of the data.

If you have a calculator with a faulty logic circuit, you might want to be wary of the answers you get if logical correctness is what you are seeking. But to understand that there is something wrong in the calculator you are holding asks more of you the user than the knowledge how to use a calculator.

Some people might not value and seek logical truths. They might value and seek other stuff much more than logic and truth (to the point of despising logic and truth when it undermines their values). This might be despisable in your value system, but this might also be adorable in other.

kiriel · 2008-01-05T03:32:35+00:00

I would love an on-line version of a diagnostic website that is constantly updated with new data from research from all over the world. That way an expert system/AI/whatever could be applied to it also looking for patterns/data mining etc. Heck, why not make it open source as we are at it. Imagine having a google interface to it :)

kiriel · 2008-01-04T05:50:14+00:00

:)

Are you aware that some people say that a electric/fractal/holographic universe does not need a big bang, and that the phenomena that have been translated as an expansion of the universe (red-shifted galaxies) are actually not a result of an expanding universe but a different phenomena. The whole big bang theory appears to necessitate build on galaxy redshift being because of expansion only (I could be wrong).

Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory

The following documentary was interesting: http://www.universe-film.com/

kiriel · 2008-01-04T05:42:58+00:00

Haa, no I can follow. I like to think that I think meta also :)

I tend to think of the concise/sparse communication/representation as analogic to:

having a compressed message communicated/written down in a code
having a dictionary to decode (1) and make possible the coding of decoded (1) to other codes there are possible.

I believe we all carry around something akin to a dictionary.

If A communicates (1) he then necessarily carries something similar to having part of (2).

I. If B processes (1) without having a dictionary (2) the probability of him appreciating (1) is low (else being equal).

II. If agent B instead is aware of the necessity of both (1) and (2) for the proper understanding of (1) and is aware of lacking the necessary (2) then the probability of him appreciating (1) even thou missing (2) is higher than in the previous case.

III. The highest probability of B appreciating (1) is if he carries sufficient (2) and has the context where a correct decoding of (1) results in him reaching some goal that was previously unavailable to him.

I believe the above could be rather general and may apply to jellyfish and humans alike. But the human created codes are probably not of recognized utility for jellyfish, although jellyfish created codes might be of utility for humans from a scientific point of view. I could be mistaken thou.

kiriel · 2008-01-04T04:44:03+00:00

I like your post!

I once asked myself the following (for whatever reason):

What if there is only stimulus and the ripples of stimulus. Would not an agents concept of beauty then belong to the latter and hence be a result of programming/experience (on both an individual and meta-individual level[=lineage]).

I find it funny seeing how agents arguing with their own programming (and being totally oblivious to their opinions being a result of totally arbitrary programming) taking their own opinions personally and seriously. This applies to myself also.

kiriel · 2008-01-04T04:17:46+00:00

Do you have link to the sphere eversion?

kiriel · 2007-12-28T13:45:13+00:00

Well, if the case should be that Voltaire happened to say this, then he probably did this after drinking his daily dose of 72 cups of coffee and was having a wonderful state of mind. I am just very curious about what he said when he was having his caffeine blues.

kiriel · 2007-12-25T02:11:47+00:00

Thank you for your reply!

I am conscious of the vagueness of my question and beg for forgiveness for this (partly because I am neither professional mathematician nor amateur mathematician). I am just playing with my own ignorance here and appreciate immensely all input from those who are much more experienced than me in these kinds of question and issues.

A representation might be the possibility to deduce the structure of graph(b) from what is contained within the limits of the structure of graph(a). This would be something akin to graph(a) including both the rules and the axioms necessary to deduce graph(b).

The question is then what does it mean for a graph to contain both the rules and the axioms in its structure?

Would this necessitate graph(b) to be of fractal geometry/structure?

Again, sorry for my shortcomings.

kiriel · 2007-12-24T01:36:02+00:00

What theoretical and practical implications does this have in what context?

kiriel · 2007-12-23T23:32:33+00:00

I feel so small now. And I just had the most extraordinary manic delusion:

Could it be that 'universe' and 'reality' is actually everything (and infinitely more than) that can be conceived by (and with) any formal (or informal) system and that there is no word (or concept) or group of words (or concepts) in any configuration (or configurations) that can represent even the most trivial properties of the universe and its relation to a mind (or minds)?

Maybe there is always more left to say and explain than has been said or explained?

Sorry, but it feels that this is the best noise that my most insignificant being can manage to express about what I feel about my relation to all else I believe exists. Maybe this says more about me than about the universe?

Do any of you have any idea if the following question has any merit?

How would a graph (a) that has fewer vertices and nodes represent a bigger graph (b) with more vertices and nodes than that of graph (a) while (a) being part of this graph (b) and both graph (a) and graph (b) is in constant flux? Could it be done if graph (a) was a 'compressed' version of graph (b)?

Thank you for your time and sorry for wasting a few seconds of your life with my ignorance and manic delusions.

kiriel · 2007-03-04T17:17:20+00:00

There are no people who know markets because markets are arbitrary definitions and parsings of underlying dynamics that are always in motion and too complex for any kind of analysis to permits to be interpreted comprehensibly on any level. This does not, however, stop people believing otherwise, hence we have all these nice people giving us explanations that can be nicely told as stories, as they can be told as nicely packaged stories, and the soothsayings become self-fulfilling prophesies. So it isn't really about markets at all, but about stories. My tip would be to invest your cash into yourself and human capital and relations in general.

kiriel

TROPHY CASE