SpaceCollective: Bizarre Systems Thinking
http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr/6251/Bizarre-Systems-Thinking
Tue, 14 Sep 2010 05:36:51 +0000http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr/6251/Bizarre-Systems-ThinkingenNew comment on: Bizarre Systems Thinking
http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr/6251/Bizarre-Systems-Thinking
http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr/6251/Bizarre-Systems-ThinkingTue, 14 Sep 2010 05:36:51 +0000CoCreatr6251<a href="http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr">CoCreatr</a> wrote:<br /><br />What experiments? <br />
<br />
Can help with electronics, design and building experience. Software building too, but rusty. <br />
<br />
Re: The global money and power system #Synapse <a href="http://www.ingenesist.com/introduction" target="_blank">The Ingenesist Project</a> http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr/6251/Bizarre-Systems-ThinkingNew comment on: Bizarre Systems Thinking
http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr/6251/Bizarre-Systems-Thinking
http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr/6251/Bizarre-Systems-ThinkingTue, 14 Sep 2010 01:36:58 +0000CoCreatr6251<a href="http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield">BenRayfield</a> wrote:<br /><br /><blockquote>What would there be that is not bizarre?</blockquote><br />
<br />
Logical patterns don't have consistency problems until they become complex in certain self-referencing ways. For example, USA's Constitution (the highest law) requires that no religious laws be made, but in North Carolina USA, its illegal to buy a certain product (which many religious people think is evil) during church hours (Sunday morning until 12:00). There was some sequence of laws created over the years that resulted in that logical contradiction, and most people are confused by the whole system so they can't see it. There are lots of bizarre systems. The systems that are not bizarre are mostly in math books and electronics and the rules of games.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>It seems we both agree that reductionist science only goes so far. How about a few more steps of progress using holistic approaches as advocated by Monica Anderson and others. Are there others? Who?</blockquote><br />
<br />
The global money and power system has the effect of making money move away from anyone who does that. For example, Monica Anderson's ideas are much more advanced and useful than most others but, the last I heard, nobody is offering any money and they are using much less advanced things instead. Its similar for the things I build. Statistically only half-broken slow hard-to-use high-cost high-maintenence stuff will be bought by businesses. So I have a different strategy than searching for people doing advanced research... That would be like selling towels to people stuck in the middle of the ocean with no boat. Businesses control most research and most businesses don't care about doing anything new unless its just a little new. Instead of trying to make small improvements and sell it to them, probably the only effective way of doing the kind of research you're talking about is... plan to take it all the way to changing the world before making any money from it. Its much more long-term planning than most businesses do. If you can find me some people to help with experiments using new kinds of software and electronics and things like that, then I could make some progress in lots of areas of science that businesses would probably never get to because they are against thinking those ways.http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr/6251/Bizarre-Systems-ThinkingNew comment on: Bizarre Systems Thinking
http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr/6251/Bizarre-Systems-Thinking
http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr/6251/Bizarre-Systems-ThinkingSun, 12 Sep 2010 02:25:06 +0000CoCreatr6251<a href="http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr">CoCreatr</a> wrote:<br /><br />Thank you, Ben. Indeed you showed me bizarre — as scientific. I only showed bizarre as primitive art and bow in admiration. What would there be that is not bizarre? <br />
<br />
<blockquote>The fact that truth transcends theoremhood , in any given formal system, is called "incompleteness" of that system . <br />
<br />
Douglas R. Hofstadter: Gödel, Escher, Bach (1999) p. 86 </blockquote><br />
<br />
Which is essentially proof that you are right. It seems we both agree that reductionist science only goes so far. How about a few more steps of progress using holistic approaches as advocated by <a href="http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr/6023/Science-Beyond-Reductionism" target="_blank">Monica Anderson</a> and others. Are there others? Who? http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr/6251/Bizarre-Systems-ThinkingNew comment on: Bizarre Systems Thinking
http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr/6251/Bizarre-Systems-Thinking
http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr/6251/Bizarre-Systems-ThinkingSat, 11 Sep 2010 19:20:36 +0000CoCreatr6251<a href="http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield">BenRayfield</a> wrote:<br /><br />You think that's bizarre? I'll show you bizarre...<br />
<br />
A fact of math is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem" target="blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem</a> which proves things like this:<br />
<blockquote>The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (essentially, a computer program) is capable of proving all facts about the natural numbers. For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem shows that if such a system is also capable of proving certain basic facts about the natural numbers, then one particular arithmetic truth the system cannot prove is the consistency of the system itself.</blockquote><br />
...and...<br />
<blockquote>Gödel's theorem shows that, in theories that include a small portion of number theory, a complete and consistent finite list of axioms can never be created, nor even an infinite list that can be enumerated by a computer program. Each time a new statement is added as an axiom, there are other true statements that still cannot be proved, even with the new axiom. If an axiom is ever added that makes the system complete, it does so at the cost of making the system inconsistent.</blockquote><br />
<br />
That appears to be more technical than is relevant to this thread, but its the core subject which all bizarreness comes from, usually indirectly.<br />
<br />
Everything can be divided into 3 groups. We don't know which things go in which of the 3 groups, but there is some true grouping of them that way. Such uncertainty is predicted by<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem" target="blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem</a><br>
<br />
The 3 groups are:<br />
(1) Things that are completely random. They are not influenced or changed by anything. They are the definition of everything thats not logic.<br />
(2) Things that are completely logical. Everything that can be completely known based on the things it depends on.<br />
(3) Combinations of (1) and (2) that are not completely (1) and are not completely (2).<br />
<br />
(3) is a subset of the combination of (1) and (2).<br />
<br />
At any 1 observation, (1) is a subset of (2), but (1) is a different subset of (2) each time its observed.<br />
<br />
Therefore all possible things are a subset of (2) in 1 way or another.<br />
<br />
Therefore the entire universe (including everything that was, is, and will be) is a subset of (2) in 1 way or another.<br />
<br />
(2) is proven to be accurately described by<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem" target="blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem</a><br>
<br />
Therefore, whatever subset of (2) the universe is (subset of all possible things), the universe is accurately described by<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem" target="blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem</a><br>
<br />
Therefore those things I quoted above apply to the universe.<br />
<br />
Therefore, as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy" target="_blank">Douglas Adams wrote</a>, and I mean this in the most abstract and indirect way...<br />
<br />
<blockquote>There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Douglas Adams was obviously writing about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem" target="blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem</a> because of this quote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>He attempts to discover The Ultimate Question by extracting it from his brainwave patterns, as abusively[2] suggested by Marvin the Paranoid Android, when a Scrabble-playing caveman spells out forty two. Arthur pulls random letters from a bag, but only gets the sentence "What do you get if you multiply six by nine"?<br />
“ "Six by nine. Forty two."<br />
<br />
"That's it. That's all there is."<br />
<br />
"I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe"<br />
<br />
Six times nine is, of course, fifty-four. The program on the "Earth computer" should have run correctly, but the unexpected arrival of the Golgafrinchans on prehistoric Earth caused input errors into the system—computing (because of the garbage in, garbage out rule) the wrong question—the question in Arthur's subconscious being invalid all along.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Its a fictional book, but theres parts of it that he meant as real philosophy questions. If you really want bizarre... Figure out why Douglas Adams wrote as fiction what <a href="http://spacecollective.org/Wildcat/2459/Mathematics-itself-is-on-fire" target="_blank">Max Tegmark more recently wrote as serious physics research papers</a>.<br />
<br />
Language is bizarre, but so is everything else, because logically it has to be.http://spacecollective.org/CoCreatr/6251/Bizarre-Systems-Thinking