Quote from: blablahblah on November 23, 2013, 01:15:46 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 23, 2013, 12:13:59 AM

Quote

Read this to understand why I think plethora of unique brains are more valuable than a few very smart brains (when we are outside the 3% in the power-law):

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html

The math of the entropy applies even to phenomena which are not tangible, e.g. Shannon Entropy for information.

Cite for me anything written by Penrose or Gödel which disagrees. I actually incorporated Gödel's completeness theorem into my analysis.

Gödel's theorems are a kind of critique of the language of mathematics:

Quote from: wikipedia

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). 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, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

Therefore, any mathematically described "theory of everything" is going to face the above problem with the underlying maths. Try explaining the "hard problem of consciousness", or belief, or the 'delusion' of free will, or qualia, or just the mere existence of any observer... using the empirically observed laws of entropy. Circular reasoning.

Incompleteness is explained by my conceptualization of matter as a continuum. Try reading it. Here is the link again:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum

I have already alluded to the explanation of all those phenomena. I guess I will need to write a treatise to expound for those who can't/won't extrapolate from the generative essence I have presented.

Quote from: blablahblah on November 23, 2013, 01:15:46 PM

Quote

Creativity is merely the congruence with diversity in dynamic time, i.e. matching the dynamic configurations of the system as opportunities for fitness of each unique mind.

No, that's an empirical interpretation of what creativity appears like, in hindsight no less.

You're still not giving any material to suggest that objective value judgements on the creativity of different brains is even plausible.

It is my belief that you are missing the salient point. Nothing is absolute, dynamic inertia (gravity) is all relative. Objectivity is just a side-effect (aliasing error) of limited sampling (limited perception, nothing is omniscient).

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 19, 2013, 10:52:53 PM

Quote from: GCInc. on November 19, 2013, 10:11:47 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 19, 2013, 09:41:56 PM

OMG, the dopamine spikes from the get-rich-quick-fever are running so high that the new religion is finding information in aliasing error[1].

Nice catch, but I carefully picked the image from dozens to not refer to aliasing error.

Generally speaking only if the alignment of the overlapping circles is not randomly chosen.

See the fundamental point of the Shannon-Nyquist theorem (and yes I had to argue with the Wikipedia editors to get this language in their summary) is that a signal can not be both band-limited and time-limited (e.g. if time-limited you have infinite frequencies at the start and stop points).

In short, we can't know what is random and what is not. We can only base our expectations of those fixed points which are only fixed relative to the world we perceive (shared amongst those who share the common perception). I get deeper into the math in my blog article about what the universe really is made of:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html

So therefor you make your assumptions then you place your bets on those assumptions holding for the duration of your bets.

You won't be able to rule out serendipity ever. Long-tail distributions lurk, which is the point of Taleb's Antifragility taken with the inertia of concentration of mass.

Cheers

Nice to talk with someone who can (I assume) understand what I wrote above.

Quote from: 2017orso on November 19, 2013, 10:17:29 PM

@gcinc

I enjoyed your analysis. Group behavior is definately measurable. Applied to financial instruments esp. Speculation on potential adoption can obv render the spec line inflated for the time, until adoption ensues...find rptiela's work interesting, and slippery slope's log model convincing.

Obv it's a gamble, obv it's risky, and obv it's about making money, so what...that's how markets work and innovations come to life.

Indeed, serendipity for example an altcoin comes along which allows you to exit BTC without it being a ponzi scheme, by gradually sucking value out while increasing distribution to the masses.

But in this case it isn't random relative to our shared perception, because I just told you what will happen Wink

That is unless it disappears from your consciousness, which is quite likely I presume because you are not privy to everything I can see at the moment.