CoinCube,
That is really brave of you. You have done a service of showing how academics are trained to view humans as dumb-downed cells and thus why they think we have to controlled like cows in a corral.
Your academic cathedral entirely missed the point that the potential network effects of billions of unique human minds is an unfathomably high entropy. I suspect that potential energy efficiency exceeds the number of atoms in the universe, but I haven't tried to calculate it. Perhaps I should try to think about how to calculate the human entropy. Would be a very interesting thought experiment.
Topic: Economic Devastation - page 85. (Read 504813 times)
I think TPTB is being too strict to define the word. CoinCube's points and explanations are very admissible from the Wikipediatic standpoint.
We can say that the block hashes are valuable in because they have low entropy. It costs a lot (25 BTC
) to produce one, even though it is only a short string of characters and compressible to half in length due to the other half being zeros.
In contrast, generating new private keys is not very costly. Their entropy is high. A private key is even harder to crack than a block hash. In this case entropy actually corresponds to information content.
But if a book is generated via a random method, it does not contain information and is not interesting to readers. Neither it is if it is too little entropy.
The number of possible states of the system is per se not much indicative of anything. Life has a balance, it's not excessively low entropy but it's also wrong to say that higher entropy always makes things better. My computer has higher entropy if I smash it into pieces, but then I cannot use it. Also it has a lower entropy if it is powdered and elements separated, but it's equally useless this way.
So the intermediate result is that both have brought good points into the discussion.
We can say that the block hashes are valuable in because they have low entropy. It costs a lot (25 BTC
) to produce one, even though it is only a short string of characters and compressible to half in length due to the other half being zeros.In contrast, generating new private keys is not very costly. Their entropy is high. A private key is even harder to crack than a block hash. In this case entropy actually corresponds to information content.
But if a book is generated via a random method, it does not contain information and is not interesting to readers. Neither it is if it is too little entropy.
The number of possible states of the system is per se not much indicative of anything. Life has a balance, it's not excessively low entropy but it's also wrong to say that higher entropy always makes things better. My computer has higher entropy if I smash it into pieces, but then I cannot use it. Also it has a lower entropy if it is powdered and elements separated, but it's equally useless this way.
So the intermediate result is that both have brought good points into the discussion.
Again the frame-of-reference is critical, because the entities that are creating the most entropy in their system decide what is information content and what is not because they are maximizing the overall entropy.
Does a tree fall in the forest if no one ever sees it and it decays before anyone does? In what relevance did it exist?
A random generator could spit out zillions of "books" but do they exist if no one reads them?
But even that is not the rebuttal (well actually relevance is exactly what I write below so the above is the same point as below but that is too abstract for most readers).
The actual rebuttal cuts straight to the meat of the issue. All those random books can be described by the instructions on how to create the random generator.
Again you are commiting a similar error as CoinCube.
It is the humans who are creating the entropy, not the random generator.
TADA!
(Don't even try to win a debate against me that I've already told you that I can't lose)
(For any readers that didn't understand the above point, remember entropy is the minimum information required to describe the outcome, thus instructions on building the random generator is the compressed information content and thus the actual information content)
Having earned a 4.0 in simultaneous biochemistry and mathematics degrees I can assure you that I know when I write at an A level.
Good slaves always give the "correct", indoctrinated answers.
You again demonstrate the classic ENFP weakness.
http://www.16personalities.com/enfp-strengths-and-weaknesses
Quote
Independent to a Fault - ENFPs loathe being micromanaged and restrained by heavy-handed rules - they want to be possessors of an altruistic wisdom that goes beyond draconian law.
The challenge for ENFPs is that they live in a world of checks and balances, a pill they are not happy to swallow.
The challenge for ENFPs is that they live in a world of checks and balances, a pill they are not happy to swallow.
You've made no point. My accusation was backed by my prior factual rebuttal. You've tried to say entropy is only about 3D information. Duh!
P.S. I am very much aware of my rebellious nature and also I am aware of where I need to toe the line and where I don't. In the case of the Knowledge Age and the fall of the old world into a one-world eugenics and the Knowledge Age breaking away into the new world, I am confident I am aligned with reality. My correct understanding of entropy and economics tells me this.
Add: Attaining a 4.0 GPA (and with a dual major!) is not easy and I applaud your achievement. Surely you have learned many things that can be usefully applied to the real world. And since you have real major in Math and I only dabbled in a minor in math, then surely you can run rings around me in areas where I haven't formally studied, e.g. Topology, etc.. Before I got ill, I had intended to go back and complete all the academic books for a Math major on my own. But unfortunately life robbed me. I suppose I am getting too old now (although this may be more the effects of the Multiple Sclerosis). The mental dexterity for Math declines precipitously after age 40. I never claimed that I don't have weaknesses nor am I trying to boast. My emphatic point is that you are debating me on a topic I spent years thinking about and even wrote 3 essays on. And this information content topic falls right into my career vocation of computer science. So please don't feel bad if you lose this debate.
Having earned a 4.0 in simultaneous biochemistry and mathematics degrees I can assure you that I know when I write at an A level.
Good slaves always give the "correct", indoctrinated answers.
You again demonstrate the classic ENFP weakness.
http://www.16personalities.com/enfp-strengths-and-weaknesses
Quote
Independent to a Fault - ENFPs loathe being micromanaged and restrained by heavy-handed rules - they want to be possessors of an altruistic wisdom that goes beyond draconian law.
The challenge for ENFPs is that they live in a world of checks and balances, a pill they are not happy to swallow.
The challenge for ENFPs is that they live in a world of checks and balances, a pill they are not happy to swallow.
Having earned a 4.0 in simultaneous biochemistry and mathematics degrees I can assure you that I know when I write at an A level.
Good slaves always give the "correct", indoctrinated answers.
Quote from: Jason Hommel
I have two examples from school I'd like to share. In my High School Junior English class back in 1987, I was getting discouraged. I kept getting B's on my essays, despite my best efforts at analyzing the literature up for discussion. I didn't know what else to do, and one day I just gave up. Instead of analysis, I simply said how great the literature was, and I parroted back the same exact analysis that was discussed in class with absolutely zero new insights. To hide the lack of real discussion and analysis in my essay, I enlarged my handwriting to fill the page. I was expecting a D minus, or even an F. I was almost ashamed of myself.
Some of you might guess what happened next. I got an A. My first A. I was simply astounded. Flabbergasted. Surprised beyond belief. I could not believe it. I seriously wondered why. I went to the teacher. I explained myself. I admitted there was no analysis. She rebuked me. Of course there was analysis; the same one we discussed in class, she said. Exactly, I said. Exactly, she said. What? I don't get it, don't you want us to analyse it? But you did, she said. And you kept it short, simple, to the point, and you were exactly on point, and understood the class discussion exactly, she said. But I felt I didn't analyse anything; I felt like a tape recorder with zero brain activity or real analysis. I brought no new insights to the table, nothing original, no indication that I was thinking about what we read. But I showed I was paying attention in class, she said. That's thinking about it. Wow. I don't know if the goal of my teacher was an intent to crush my spirit, but wow.
My second example is from my college days. I was three credits short to graduate, and so I took one final class, stretching out graduation another semester. (I now realize I should have taken two classes that last semester on the rare event that I failed a class.) Anyway, it was some sort of political science class that I thought would be easy and interesting. But it was more like political indoctrination, and I ended up hating the class, and during discussions, I mostly was just working on keeping my mouth shut so I could get through it. I could sense that arguing against the indoctrination was risking being failed, and I really didn't want to risk not getting my diploma for another semester!
For the final exam, I had to write an essay. The topic was something like "fairness in education". The basic thrust of the essay was to parrot back the views presented in class, that equality of funding was the only way to really ensure fairness of opportunity in education to be able to allow the potential geniuses of the world the chance to better themselves to allow them to make the maximal contribution to world society. So, my innovation that was not any sort of innovation, was to advocate a world government, and equality of funding for all children all over the world, to ensure the most fair educational environment to most greatly assist in the development of humanity. In other words, I had to pretend to be a socialist! I hereby admit my guilt, and let me pay my penance and make up for that essay now.
Some of you might guess what happened next. I got an A. My first A. I was simply astounded. Flabbergasted. Surprised beyond belief. I could not believe it. I seriously wondered why. I went to the teacher. I explained myself. I admitted there was no analysis. She rebuked me. Of course there was analysis; the same one we discussed in class, she said. Exactly, I said. Exactly, she said. What? I don't get it, don't you want us to analyse it? But you did, she said. And you kept it short, simple, to the point, and you were exactly on point, and understood the class discussion exactly, she said. But I felt I didn't analyse anything; I felt like a tape recorder with zero brain activity or real analysis. I brought no new insights to the table, nothing original, no indication that I was thinking about what we read. But I showed I was paying attention in class, she said. That's thinking about it. Wow. I don't know if the goal of my teacher was an intent to crush my spirit, but wow.
My second example is from my college days. I was three credits short to graduate, and so I took one final class, stretching out graduation another semester. (I now realize I should have taken two classes that last semester on the rare event that I failed a class.) Anyway, it was some sort of political science class that I thought would be easy and interesting. But it was more like political indoctrination, and I ended up hating the class, and during discussions, I mostly was just working on keeping my mouth shut so I could get through it. I could sense that arguing against the indoctrination was risking being failed, and I really didn't want to risk not getting my diploma for another semester!
For the final exam, I had to write an essay. The topic was something like "fairness in education". The basic thrust of the essay was to parrot back the views presented in class, that equality of funding was the only way to really ensure fairness of opportunity in education to be able to allow the potential geniuses of the world the chance to better themselves to allow them to make the maximal contribution to world society. So, my innovation that was not any sort of innovation, was to advocate a world government, and equality of funding for all children all over the world, to ensure the most fair educational environment to most greatly assist in the development of humanity. In other words, I had to pretend to be a socialist! I hereby admit my guilt, and let me pay my penance and make up for that essay now.
CoinCube,
That is horrendous. I give you a D.
That is horrendous. I give you a D.
TPTB I am amazed you did not give me an F.
Having earned a 4.0 in simultaneous biochemistry and mathematics degrees I can assure you that I know when I write at an A level.
rpietila, wait i am not done editing that post. Continue reloading the page until I have addressed every point in his post.
You look like you are still composing your rebuttal so I will reserve judgement until you are complete.
Unfortunately I have used up all my Bitcointalk time for this week. I will be back next weekend. Hopefully thaaanos or L3552 can carry the torch for me until I return but if not I will continue to try and help you see your logical blind spot next week.
rpietila, wait i am not done editing that post. Continue reloading the page until I have addressed every point in his post.
Being admissible in Wikipedia is not always a badge of honor. Wikipedia is often incorrect.
I will also address your post soon after.
Being admissible in Wikipedia is not always a badge of honor. Wikipedia is often incorrect.
I will also address your post soon after.
I think TPTB is being too strict to define the word. CoinCube's points and explanations are very admissible from the Wikipediatic standpoint.
We can say that the block hashes are valuable in because they have low entropy. It costs a lot (25 BTC ) to produce one, even though it is only a short string of characters and compressible to half in length due to the other half being zeros.
In contrast, generating new private keys is not very costly. Their entropy is high. A private key is even harder to crack than a block hash. In this case entropy actually corresponds to information content.
But if a book is generated via a random method, it does not contain information and is not interesting to readers. Neither it is if it is too little entropy.
The number of possible states of the system is per se not much indicative of anything. Life has a balance, it's not excessively low entropy but it's also wrong to say that higher entropy always makes things better. My computer has higher entropy if I smash it into pieces, but then I cannot use it. Also it has a lower entropy if it is powdered and elements separated, but it's equally useless this way.
So the intermediate result is that both have brought good points into the discussion.
We can say that the block hashes are valuable in because they have low entropy. It costs a lot (25 BTC
) to produce one, even though it is only a short string of characters and compressible to half in length due to the other half being zeros.In contrast, generating new private keys is not very costly. Their entropy is high. A private key is even harder to crack than a block hash. In this case entropy actually corresponds to information content.
But if a book is generated via a random method, it does not contain information and is not interesting to readers. Neither it is if it is too little entropy.
The number of possible states of the system is per se not much indicative of anything. Life has a balance, it's not excessively low entropy but it's also wrong to say that higher entropy always makes things better. My computer has higher entropy if I smash it into pieces, but then I cannot use it. Also it has a lower entropy if it is powdered and elements separated, but it's equally useless this way.
So the intermediate result is that both have brought good points into the discussion.
I am waiting for TPTB to come back and admit that I am correct on all points 
Entropy
Entropy is both beloved ally and mortal enemy of life.
To understand the dichotomy of entropy we must delve deep into the heart of thermodynamics.
There are two fundamental laws of thermodynamics
Law #1: The total quantity of energy in the universe must remain constant.
Law #2: That the quality of that energy is constantly degraded irreversibly.
From these laws we can derive some general principals:
1) Ordered energy -> Disorganized energy
2) High quality energy -> Low-grade energy (heat)
3) Order -> Disorder
4) Improbability -> Probability
These principals outline a grim universe. At first glance they seem more compatible with a barren wasteland than a vibrant jungle. Thermodynamics demands constant and progressive degradation yet somehow we live in a world teaming with life and growth. Lets explore why.
The Genius of Life
Life is able to increase its internal order while simultaneously satisfying thermodynamics. At first glance this appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Instead of disorder and death life forms order and birth. Instead of probability and cessation it does the improbable and continues. Rather than disorganized heat it forms the ordered thought and action. Life is able to do this because it is a dissipative structure. It is a structure that achieves a reproducible state operating far from thermodynamic equilibrium in an environment in which it exchanges energy and matter.
Chemists can create complex high energy molecules in reactions that would not occur naturally by coupling those reactions with others that degrade other high energy molecules in low energy ones. As long as the combination of both reactions leads to an overall higher level of entropy the laws of thermodynamics are satisfied.Life has mastered this same process with stunning majesty. By coupling its existence to reactions that increase the entropy of the universe life is able to swim upstream against the tide of entropy. Plants harvest the energy of the sun. Animals consume that same energy indirectly.
Entropy is Mixedupness
There are numerous definitions of Entropy. When talking about the mechanics of life the most useful is the one given by statistical mechanics.
Entropy is the amount of additional information needed to specify the exact physical state of a system, given its thermodynamic specification.
Entropy is a measure of the uncertainty which remains about a system after its observable macroscopic properties, such as temperature, pressure and volume, have been taken into account. For a given set of macroscopic variables, the entropy measures the degree to which the probability of the system is spread out over different possible microstates.
The simple system of four balls traveling in the same direction, has less entropy than an otherwise identical system with 4 balls traveling in random directions as it takes more information to describe the exact physical state of the second system.
Entropy Devourers Life
All life struggles to avoid its eventual guaranteed entropic end.
The conditions of death, decay, cessation are higher entropy then the conditions of breathing, growth, and body integrity. Therefore life is always in constant danger of death able to delay it's destruction only by constant feeding. Deprived of energy for a prolonged length of time life quickly falls to the laws of thermodynamics.
In reproduction this gives rise to a great need for fidelity. When reproducing life must protect the integrity of its information. Unless both the ability to gather energy and the ability to reproduce is successfully transmitted that branch of life will cease.
The genetic information transmitted from parent to child is not immune to entropy. Random mutation's introduce variations into genetic code. These mutations increase entropy as they increase the spread over different possible microstates. This mutation is very dangerous to life as the vast majority of mutations either have no effect or have a detrimental one. Life acts to minimize the danger by purposefully limiting this entropy. Most multicellular organisms have DNA repair enzymes that constantly repair and correct damage. Fidelity of information is thus largly maintained between generations.
Fidelity, however, can never be 100%. The environment is not static but dynamic. Life must be able to adapt in response or life will cease. An organism with 100% fidelity of reproduction would never change improve or evolve. It would stand still while its predators and competitors grew more efficient. Long term survival requires mutation and change. For this life needs entropy.
The tradeoff between fidelity and adaptability can be best thought of as the balance between search and exploitation. If replication was without entropy no mutants would arise and evolution would cease. On the other hand, evolution would also be impossible if the entropy/error rate of replication were too high (only a few mutations produce an improvement and most lead to deterioration). Increasing the entropy results in the potential sacrifice of previously acquired information in an attempt to find superior information. Life must master the deadly dance of harvesting entropy. Absorb too much and the species succumbs to mutation tumors and death. Absorb too little and the species stagnates and succumbs to more agile competitors. Life it seems walks the razors edge.
Multicellular Organisms and Collectivism
The single celled organism is an anarchist. The multicelled organism is a collectivist.
Life is in constant search of frontiers for it is only at the frontiers that competitive advantage can be found. The single celled organism is in a constant war for survival. It lives in the base state of nature and any advantage may mean the difference between life and death. The cell with improved locomotion may find food or escape predators, the efficient cell may avoid starvation in lean times, and the larger cell may eat its smaller competitors. As a cell increased its internal complexity, however, diminishing returns accumulate. A single flagella allows a cell to move but having two does not double cellular speed. A larger size may be advantageous but cellular volume increases at a faster rate than its surface area making it difficult to transport enough materials across cellular membranes. Once a cell reaches this point it is economically more efficient to form multicellular organisms and specialize.
High levels of specialization requires collectives composed of many cells. In the multicellular organism cells trade independence and degrees-of-freedom in exchange for the benefits of size, specialization, and efficiency. Cells in a multicellular organism lose the freedom to independently move and reproduce and their survival becomes dependent on their fellow cells. In exchange they get to be a part of something larger and can benefit from the development of specialization including specialized neural tissues.
Not all cells toe the collective line. Some cells throw off their chains and do whatever they want. When the rebels cells decide they want to divide and keep dividing the process is called cancer. In multicelled organisms cancer is simply the result of accumulated entropy gone wrong. Multicelled organisms like their simpler cousins need to adapt, change, and evolve. A species with 100% fidelity would have no cancer but it would also never change.
Civilization and Collectivism
Civilization is collective of mutually interdependent multicellular organisms.
Civilization represents the next stage of evolution beyond the multicellular organism. Like the transition from the single to the multicelled organism it arises from the specialization and resultant interdependence of the sentient organisms that comprise it. With the onset of civilization environmental selection gives way to the selection of self-organization. The organization of the system increases spontaneously without this increase being controlled an external system. Civilization is a state of vastly higher organization and specialization. This increase in organization can be looked at objectively as an increase in potential energy.
Civilizations must change, grow and adapt or face stagnation, decay and collapse. They must maintain fidelity (stability over time) while also allowing for adaptability (growth). Self-organization to higher levels of potential energy in a self organizing system is triggered by internal fluctuations or noise aka entropy. These process produce selectively retained ordered configurations and is the order from noise principle. Search and adaptability must be maximized subject to the constraint of maintaining fidelity through time and not losing the information that has already been gained. It is only through balance that optimal outcomes are achieved.
The Future
The next stage in evolution may be the transition to an interstellar species.
If we achieve that goal we will create a system of yet higher order. This will be the entity formed by the interaction of multiple interdependent interstellar civilizations. Such an creation will have a potential energy that dwarfs our current society. It will only form if we find ways to vastly improve our technology and significantly improve our current dissipative structures. These improvements will be made possible by the very entropy we seek to overcome as we make the climb from probability to improbability.
Edit: Post edited 10/30/2015 for clarity and brevity
Entropy is both beloved ally and mortal enemy of life.
To understand the dichotomy of entropy we must delve deep into the heart of thermodynamics.
There are two fundamental laws of thermodynamics
Law #1: The total quantity of energy in the universe must remain constant.
Law #2: That the quality of that energy is constantly degraded irreversibly.
From these laws we can derive some general principals:
1) Ordered energy -> Disorganized energy
2) High quality energy -> Low-grade energy (heat)
3) Order -> Disorder
4) Improbability -> Probability
These principals outline a grim universe. At first glance they seem more compatible with a barren wasteland than a vibrant jungle. Thermodynamics demands constant and progressive degradation yet somehow we live in a world teaming with life and growth. Lets explore why.
The Genius of Life
Life is able to increase its internal order while simultaneously satisfying thermodynamics. At first glance this appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Instead of disorder and death life forms order and birth. Instead of probability and cessation it does the improbable and continues. Rather than disorganized heat it forms the ordered thought and action. Life is able to do this because it is a dissipative structure. It is a structure that achieves a reproducible state operating far from thermodynamic equilibrium in an environment in which it exchanges energy and matter.
Chemists can create complex high energy molecules in reactions that would not occur naturally by coupling those reactions with others that degrade other high energy molecules in low energy ones. As long as the combination of both reactions leads to an overall higher level of entropy the laws of thermodynamics are satisfied.Life has mastered this same process with stunning majesty. By coupling its existence to reactions that increase the entropy of the universe life is able to swim upstream against the tide of entropy. Plants harvest the energy of the sun. Animals consume that same energy indirectly.
Entropy is Mixedupness
There are numerous definitions of Entropy. When talking about the mechanics of life the most useful is the one given by statistical mechanics.
Entropy is the amount of additional information needed to specify the exact physical state of a system, given its thermodynamic specification.
Entropy is a measure of the uncertainty which remains about a system after its observable macroscopic properties, such as temperature, pressure and volume, have been taken into account. For a given set of macroscopic variables, the entropy measures the degree to which the probability of the system is spread out over different possible microstates.
The simple system of four balls traveling in the same direction, has less entropy than an otherwise identical system with 4 balls traveling in random directions as it takes more information to describe the exact physical state of the second system.
Entropy Devourers Life
All life struggles to avoid its eventual guaranteed entropic end.
The conditions of death, decay, cessation are higher entropy then the conditions of breathing, growth, and body integrity. Therefore life is always in constant danger of death able to delay it's destruction only by constant feeding. Deprived of energy for a prolonged length of time life quickly falls to the laws of thermodynamics.
In reproduction this gives rise to a great need for fidelity. When reproducing life must protect the integrity of its information. Unless both the ability to gather energy and the ability to reproduce is successfully transmitted that branch of life will cease.
The genetic information transmitted from parent to child is not immune to entropy. Random mutation's introduce variations into genetic code. These mutations increase entropy as they increase the spread over different possible microstates. This mutation is very dangerous to life as the vast majority of mutations either have no effect or have a detrimental one. Life acts to minimize the danger by purposefully limiting this entropy. Most multicellular organisms have DNA repair enzymes that constantly repair and correct damage. Fidelity of information is thus largly maintained between generations.
Fidelity, however, can never be 100%. The environment is not static but dynamic. Life must be able to adapt in response or life will cease. An organism with 100% fidelity of reproduction would never change improve or evolve. It would stand still while its predators and competitors grew more efficient. Long term survival requires mutation and change. For this life needs entropy.
The tradeoff between fidelity and adaptability can be best thought of as the balance between search and exploitation. If replication was without entropy no mutants would arise and evolution would cease. On the other hand, evolution would also be impossible if the entropy/error rate of replication were too high (only a few mutations produce an improvement and most lead to deterioration). Increasing the entropy results in the potential sacrifice of previously acquired information in an attempt to find superior information. Life must master the deadly dance of harvesting entropy. Absorb too much and the species succumbs to mutation tumors and death. Absorb too little and the species stagnates and succumbs to more agile competitors. Life it seems walks the razors edge.
Multicellular Organisms and Collectivism
The single celled organism is an anarchist. The multicelled organism is a collectivist.
Life is in constant search of frontiers for it is only at the frontiers that competitive advantage can be found. The single celled organism is in a constant war for survival. It lives in the base state of nature and any advantage may mean the difference between life and death. The cell with improved locomotion may find food or escape predators, the efficient cell may avoid starvation in lean times, and the larger cell may eat its smaller competitors. As a cell increased its internal complexity, however, diminishing returns accumulate. A single flagella allows a cell to move but having two does not double cellular speed. A larger size may be advantageous but cellular volume increases at a faster rate than its surface area making it difficult to transport enough materials across cellular membranes. Once a cell reaches this point it is economically more efficient to form multicellular organisms and specialize.
High levels of specialization requires collectives composed of many cells. In the multicellular organism cells trade independence and degrees-of-freedom in exchange for the benefits of size, specialization, and efficiency. Cells in a multicellular organism lose the freedom to independently move and reproduce and their survival becomes dependent on their fellow cells. In exchange they get to be a part of something larger and can benefit from the development of specialization including specialized neural tissues.
Not all cells toe the collective line. Some cells throw off their chains and do whatever they want. When the rebels cells decide they want to divide and keep dividing the process is called cancer. In multicelled organisms cancer is simply the result of accumulated entropy gone wrong. Multicelled organisms like their simpler cousins need to adapt, change, and evolve. A species with 100% fidelity would have no cancer but it would also never change.
Civilization and Collectivism
Civilization is collective of mutually interdependent multicellular organisms.
Civilization represents the next stage of evolution beyond the multicellular organism. Like the transition from the single to the multicelled organism it arises from the specialization and resultant interdependence of the sentient organisms that comprise it. With the onset of civilization environmental selection gives way to the selection of self-organization. The organization of the system increases spontaneously without this increase being controlled an external system. Civilization is a state of vastly higher organization and specialization. This increase in organization can be looked at objectively as an increase in potential energy.
Civilizations must change, grow and adapt or face stagnation, decay and collapse. They must maintain fidelity (stability over time) while also allowing for adaptability (growth). Self-organization to higher levels of potential energy in a self organizing system is triggered by internal fluctuations or noise aka entropy. These process produce selectively retained ordered configurations and is the order from noise principle. Search and adaptability must be maximized subject to the constraint of maintaining fidelity through time and not losing the information that has already been gained. It is only through balance that optimal outcomes are achieved.
The Future
The next stage in evolution may be the transition to an interstellar species.
If we achieve that goal we will create a system of yet higher order. This will be the entity formed by the interaction of multiple interdependent interstellar civilizations. Such an creation will have a potential energy that dwarfs our current society. It will only form if we find ways to vastly improve our technology and significantly improve our current dissipative structures. These improvements will be made possible by the very entropy we seek to overcome as we make the climb from probability to improbability.
Edit: Post edited 10/30/2015 for clarity and brevity
Discussions about entropic frame-of-reference, referential transparency, and closed systems will have to wait because that is going to require me to get much deeper than I want to write today.
Anonymint you will have a hard time writing that essay on entropy you mentioned upthread because it is in your definition of entropy that you error. As far as I can tell your misconception regarding entropy is the following.
Increased Entropy -> Increased Freedom-of-Action -> Increased Potential Energy
This argument while not necessarily wrong is an oversimplification.
It skips several intermediate steps and it is in the skipping of these transitions (your mind seems to jump immediately to end states) that you error.
When you are ready I have written the essay below that may (or may not) bring us closer to consensus.
Gold and BTC are preparing (within next several months) to dump down to a final capitulation low some 20% or more lower.
I have been and remain a seller until next year.
I have been and remain a seller until next year.
So you think the lows will be slightly after 2015.75?
Gold and BTC are preparing (within next several months) to dump down to a final capitulation low some 20% or more lower.
I have been and remain a seller until next year.
I have been and remain a seller until next year.
TPTB, my response re Flash Crash is on that other thread. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if you read my response, you will note that I am quite hostile to ANY real totalitarianism, having experienced it myself in at least three countries as well as my granny having suffered BIG TIME in the late 1940s in Poland after WWII by the Reds.
CoinCube has a point re government, my inclination is closer to yours (less is better, my wording), but some .gov seems to be necessary to get some stuff done. But, there is no doubt that we have been heading the wrong way a long time.
A small .gov supervised by an alert & well-armed populace.
CoinCube has a point re government, my inclination is closer to yours (less is better, my wording), but some .gov seems to be necessary to get some stuff done. But, there is no doubt that we have been heading the wrong way a long time.
A small .gov supervised by an alert & well-armed populace.
I replied there:
Indeed, TPTB, this guy may just be a fall-guy or merely one of many involved. Not all of the facts are in, still. And they certainly were not all in when I started this thread. It has taken "just" five years after all under our pal Obama´s administration just to get this far.
OROBTC, the problem is that you trust anything that is written by government. That you believe anything from a government larger than your local white wooden church that doubles as a makeshit townhall, makes you a Marxist/Statist sheeople. The facts will never come out from the government. Don't you understand everything is propaganda?
Turn off the news and turn off the TV.
It is all lies. All of it. Will never be fixed. Never. The solution is only to be found in the free market as I am explaining in the Economic Devastation thread.
Strong antipathy for Armstrong is probably motivated by circumstantial evidence and signalling cues to the effect that he is a scammer of questionable sanity and competence. I think that is unfair, although I do find some of his clearly established puffery distasteful - so distasteful that I have not, even yet, done appropriate diligence on his body of work. Also, if his model is consistently proven to be highly predictive on an on-going basis, it will destroy a lot of deeply held, almost religious, views on market behaviour, and damage the incomes and reputations of of many financial professionals and academics. I would enjoy seeing that. Also he will have scooped me. That would tick me off.
His ECM model has already proven it is highly predictive. I watched it predict the 2011 high in gold+silver, and it has predicted the coming low in them too. And many other correct predictions, some I have observed before they came true such as the prediction (first seen several months before) for oil to close at the exact price it did for the end of 2014. And current predictions are coming true as well:
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/04/25/updating-the-markets-the-key-is-the-corruption-that-will-make-the-turn/
Armstrong agrees with the coming Knowledge Age but he doesn't yet agree that it will transform political economics. Thus he still clings to reform of government as the only way to avoid the worst of outcomes.
His reform proposals are all somewhat logical (although entirely impossible to achieve before the current system crashes and burns) if you remove the possibility of the Knowledge Age to change the everything. His proposed "solutions" would be the only option in that case.
Armstrong doesn't agree with me (and my female neurobiologist email mate) that there exist globalists who are driving us towards a NWO. He thinks the powers-that-be are clueless idiots along for the ride.
TPTB
Thanks for sharing some code. I will study it. I like learning new tricks with SQL, I will see if I can get something out of it for my analytical sales database (alas, MS Access, as I am not a programmer, but I do write most of my good queries with their SQL option, a lot of the info I need can ONLY come by writing SQL not via their "wizards").
Thanks for sharing some code. I will study it. I like learning new tricks with SQL, I will see if I can get something out of it for my analytical sales database (alas, MS Access, as I am not a programmer, but I do write most of my good queries with their SQL option, a lot of the info I need can ONLY come by writing SQL not via their "wizards").
Here is a somewhat tricky query I wrote last night in a groggy/M.S.-foggy state-of-mind.
Code:
// Retrieve some to relay
$sql =
"SELECT r.MsgId, m.Text, t.Cellphone, t.FirstName AS `To`, f.FirstName AS `From` \n".
"FROM relay AS r \n".
"INNER JOIN msg AS m USING(MsgId) \n".
"INNER JOIN user AS t ON t.UserId = m.ToUserId \n".
"INNER JOIN user AS f ON f.UserId = m.FromUserId \n".
"LEFT JOIN (SELECT MsgId, ByUserId, FromUserId, ToUserId FROM relay INNER JOIN msg USING(MsgId) WHERE RelayedDate IS NOT NULL) AS d ON \n".
"(d.ByUserId = '". $user_id ."' AND d.ToUserId = m.ToUserId AND d.FromUserId != m.FromUserId) OR \n". // ByUserId relayed to same user from a different user (IS NULL: ByUserId should not retrieve these)
"(d.ByUserId != '". $user_id ."' AND d.ToUserId = m.ToUserId AND d.FromUserId = m.FromUserId) \n". // Not ByUserId relayed to same user from the same user (IS NULL: only ByUserId should retrieve these)
"WHERE \n".
" r.RelayedDate IS NULL \n". // not relayed
" AND m.IsRead = 0 \n". // not read
" AND m.IsDeletedByToUser = 0 \n". // not deleted by recipient
" AND t.CarrierId = '". $query->quoteable($_GET['CarrierId']) ."' \n". // note CarrierId could have changed to NULL since record was added to relay
" AND d.MsgId IS NULL \n". // IS NULL:
"ORDER BY m.CreationDate ASC LIMIT ". $num_retrieved;
$query->query($sql, __FILE__, __LINE__);
Also, TPTB, I have been more diligent about reading Armstrong's blog almost every day now.
* * *
I recommend Armstrong for anyone interested in liberty, freedom and economics/finance. Note that he is very controversial and many people seem to hate him, I don't know why. I can understand disagreement, but HATE?!?!?
http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog/
* * *
I recommend Armstrong for anyone interested in liberty, freedom and economics/finance. Note that he is very controversial and many people seem to hate him, I don't know why. I can understand disagreement, but HATE?!?!?
http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog/
He is hated for different reasons.
1. He agrees with me that the hard-money (goldbugs, fixed money supply, no fractional banking, etc) folks are clueless.
2. He promotes "reformed" Statist "solutions" to the current crisis which include a one-world reserve currency outcome.
3. His economic cycles model is always correct and trumps the banksters. For example, he taught the Japanese corporations how to hedge against the New York banksters.
Etc..
concerning accessibility, imo maybe you1 should write a short piece that covers the most obvious2 angles of attack concerning the knowledge age. When it's coming, "what about bridges, hospitals, microchips, steel mills...". These obvious2 problems make it very easy to quickly disregard it as a crackpot idea.
1 or coincube like before
2 for average people
concerning armstrong && knowledge age; You have expressed frustration that he "doesn't get it".He (and probably his average client) is old and clever enought to allocate his funds in knowledge age resistent ventures. Might it not be more of a "not my (generations) problem/fight" thing?
1 or coincube like before
2 for average people
concerning armstrong && knowledge age; You have expressed frustration that he "doesn't get it".He (and probably his average client) is old and clever enought to allocate his funds in knowledge age resistent ventures. Might it not be more of a "not my (generations) problem/fight" thing?
OROBTC, you are naive Marxist simpleton. Please learn to read. I doubt you will ever understand. Sigh. I give up. 
TPTB is there anyone in this thread who you have not yet called a Marxist idiot?
Yes the female neurobiologist. Well she isn't exactly in this thread, only I quoted her.
The fact that most all people today are Statists (a.k.a. Marxists) even if they don't admit it to themselves, is why the world is headed into a tempest.
The gorilla roar male chest thumping strategy loses its effectiveness when it is repeated in every post.
You wish, but the fact is it is very effective. Men only respect someone who can dunk on them at will. I guarantee you Coinits will never forget me and I also guarantee you my legacy some years from now will be, "damn he was correct, we could have listened".
Calling a spade a spade is very honest and admirable way to conduct oneself.
(I do make mistakes of course and I acknowledge those who point them out)
I am very willing to be amicable and I love to joke around and am very friendly and loving to people in general. But here we are having a serious discussion about political-economics amongst men who claim to be very interested in this very important topic (at this juncture especially).
This is serious.
CoinCube,
My points are irrefutable.
My points are irrefutable.
I do not believe they are. However, to go further we will need to take this discussion to a more technical level and clarify some terms.
Please provide your definition of entropy.
If that data is irrelevant to a particular actor’s contribution to maximum entropy then it is not information.
See the Industrial Age required us to have information about political collusion of stored monetary capital that we couldn’t have because of the Dunbar limit, but the Knowledge Age renders that data irrelevant and thus destroys that information while replacing it with exponential growth of information with network effects.
Entropic frame-of-reference is a deep topic. I am not going to try to do a comprehensive essay on it today. I need a lot of thought time to make sure I cover it from every possible perspective and nuance.
Jump to: