Chapter 3 - The Death Of Ethnicity, Culture, And Individual Distinction
Chapter 4 - Material Culturalism And The Lack Of Social Unification
Chapter 5 - The Death Of “God” And The Twilight Of Morality
Chapter 6 - Ponzi Society: Inside The Belly Of The Beast
Chapter 7 - Violence, Competition, And Warfare: Human Behavior Explained.
Chapter 8- Technology And Class Warfare
Chapter 9 - The Modern Phenomena Of Neo- Corporate Feudalism
Chapter 10 - The Death Of Socialism And Utopia
Chapter 11- The Death Of Democracy And The Groundwork For Self Destructive Capitalism
Chapter 12- The Inevitable Fall Of Centralized Authority
Chapter 13- Global Empire, Transhumanism, And Hidden Destroyers
Chapter 14 - Future Unknown And The Surrender To Entropy[/b]
This is a book I am currently writing. I am almost done with the rough sketch of the first chapter where I am currently beginning on the second chapter.
For example I am thinking of writing a book about The Little Elves for kids. Now I’m not good with kids, nor do I understand them, but I can put up chapters about how my childhood was, and then proceed to explain all children. But is that enough? Do you follow my analogy?
Well it kinda blows in chapter form. But then it would. Sneak peak, if you can justify all that then a Nobel prize is due. Talk is of course cheap.
It seems to me you have taken on too much, each of your chapters is worthy of a book in its own right. Good luck.
Entropy is bullshit in the human sense it’s a pseudo scientific term that lends itself only to abstraction. Never use it in a sentence, never condone it as a reason to believe in it. We are reverse entropy: humans, it might be a sad little reversal of the process, but it does not apply to us. Steer clear of pseudo science is my advice, and entropy has always only worked in pseudoscience. Never been well defined, never had a mathematical system that captures it. It’s not a well versed term for anyone, philosopher or scientist. I only used the term to show how indistinct the phrase is, one and a half bad philosophers could tear my corpse apart.
This brilliant thinker has a problem with the human construct of entropy, increasing randomness or complexity measured by time, along with the other dimensions…but he has no problem with the numbers.
He can quantify things with it, simplify them and make them comprehensible for a small mind.
What can be simpler than “one tree”, “one” dog, “one” idiot?
In this case "pseudo-science is anytime which hurts my feelings or lies beyond my capacity to visualize.
Here’s another “pseudo-scientific” construct: The Big Bang…but here my feeble little mind can imagine it like an explosion, and it “makes sense” to my predator mind.
Entropy sounds too abstract…and might lead to hurtful conclusions, like race or sex…best I file these under “pseudo science” and ignore them.
Now back to what really matter: quantities…for qualities are also dangerous ground.
Let’s start with something simple and binary…1…0.
No bullshit there…my computer, like my brain, works on it.
Entropy?
Order?
Nah, sounds too ridiculous.
The problems will remain. Seeing them doesn’t make them go away.
Wouldn’t it be a bit wiser to spend that mind time and book writing on probable solutions?
If you can’t think of any. Why write a book?
All I see is a sea…a sea of possibilities.
When I go for a walk in the park and I see a few trees lying around and a few racoons defecating, I do not want to “clean up the place”.
What I do is study the trees and observe the racoons, coming up with ways to not trip on the wood and not step on the shit.
This place is full of smelly landmines.
I had to learn to tap-dance so the resident turd did not think I was trying to step on it.
Ahh… I see. How enlightened.
Since your book is about the inevitable problems and mine is about the incontrovertible solutions, perhaps I should help you sell yours first so that they will have more incentive to buy mine.
You do realise of course no one has come up with a good mathematical model of entropy as holistic theory. It’s a pretty philosophical term even in science, except in very specific theoretical models.
Yeah I’m an idiot, I play banjo and my mum is my sister. Etc…
In which case you can provide us with a model of the numerical value of 1 or of 0, its binary brother, to show us the difference.
Let me give you a hint…a word is a symbol; a symbol is a representation of a mental abstraction; a mental abstraction is a simplification/generalization of fluid reality - a static singularity attempting to represent the multiplicity and Flux.
I short all language is art…including math and geometry, albeit a more abstract form of it.
We might say that the #1 is the extreme abstraction of the notion of God…and both are just as artificial. now ask me what is artificial, as all that exists, including ideas, are part of nature.
Next time you offer advice, know what you are talking about.
Huh? 1 or 0, well I explain it later. 1 or 0 are not exact descriptions of a wave function in quantum systems like packing frequencies into optical fibres, or radio waves or whatever.
Cool. What exactly does that have to do with what I said?
Agreed.
Ask you what you’ve blatantly not understood the point. And who cares about God? What does #1 have to do with anything anyway?
Why would I provide you with evidence that 1 or 0 works when considering what I said it will not model the system those guys were on about? Which is a statistical system based on probability not on exact sigmoid functions as you seem to think.
At least tell me you’ve browsed a few sites about wave theory? So I know you can tell me how waves work in entropic systems?
The fact remains no science can model entropy as an overarching concept, and no scientist broadly can define it. You think they can, then go for it, show me who has? And the problem of course is, when you scale up to human systems, entropy doesn’t get any easier, in fact it cannot be scaled up to human systems. Which was my point in the first place, the 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, and the Earth and hence man is not a closed system. Making crappy analogies to entropy which fundamentally only works well if at all at the molecular scale and under, in very specific systems, is stupid. No not stupid down right ignorant. People use the term incorrectly about macroscopic events, because they do not understand what entropy is. Welcome to the club most scientists aren’t prepared to use it sloppily at the atomic scale, unless it was tightly defined under parameters that were in a close system, and nor would they risk their career by applying it to the large scale.
I see: “not exact”, “wave”, “frequencies”.
The 1/0 is a human fabrication that can be applied to anything and everything…including your waves and frequencies.
A frequency can be given a numerical factor and this still can be divided.
The wave is the secret.
The number is a fabricated, simplified/generalized, point in space/time which only exists in the mind and is projected by it.
Try again…what can the 1/0 be reduced to?
What is its basic principle?
On/Off…Flow/No Flow.
From this all other dichotomies follow.
You’ve indicated, trying to exhibit your awareness, that entropy is a fabrication and that nobody should bother with it, no?
If so then what of the numbers?
A concept is a metaphor.
It is produced by the mind so as to project within the unknown and (inter)actions he is participating within, helping him guide his actions.
Indeed, just as with the mathematical terms of 1/0.
But you advise others to discount the idea altogether, but you do not do so for numbers or for any other concept which is also ill-defined, ambiguous and a human construct.
That human systems are simplistic does not make anything man cannot integrate within them a dunked idea nobody should waste their time with.
Entropy can very easily be integrated into a metaphysical system where it represents the arrow of temporal flow…a towards fragmentation or increasing randomness and/or complexity, chaos.
It represents the antithesis, in binary thinking - like 1/0 - to order…another concept that cannot be adequately defined to conceptualized.
In fact there is no human concept which can be adequately defined and conceptualized, because all human concepts are static human abstractions, human fabrications, human simplifications/generalizations, trying to represent a fluid reality.
No, but it is the only way man can think. In fact there is no possibility of thought without it, as the mind is an ordering organ within a disordering reality.
Therefore our concept of a “universe” is just as absurd, yet very useful.
If you wish to discredit all human language, including mathematics, as being limited and limiting, then I am with you…you choose one concept to dismiss while retaining others, just because you can understand those, or you think you do, is presumptuous.
You mean like your analogy of the number one being a 'wave" or a frequency…a static symbol, an absolute, referring to a dynamic process?
As a modern, pure and simple, I expect you to be a proud and fanatical worshiper of modern science.
i will expect you to adhere religiously to the mythologies plaguing the sciences called “humanities” or anything dealing with human nature.
In the other fields let me only mention a current, popular, modern obsession: The Big Bang.
It represents the inherit prejudices in your modern sciences. An endless search for the omega point; akin to Christian Theology.
I would say modern science is infected by humanism and your brand of Judeo-Christian nihilism.
Good God you are waffling. 1 or 0 can be reduced to binary, quantum states can be reduced to 1,0,1-0.0-1
What indeed, but since you aren’t using the correct numbers to explain yourself, I should perhaps ask what of your numbers?
You’re avoiding the point by digressing into a human mind. Human beings are not summed up by entropy. It is not possible to do so.
Oh good God no, we can define the tendancy to fluxuate between 1 and 0 easily in sigmoidal functions, it’s not so much easy as trite. What we can’t do is explain complex interactions with simple wave functions.
Whilst I agree , it does not relate to my point, you’re just going off into arm waving rather than address things we can define. Entropy as yet is one thing that is not easy to pin down.
Yes that’s precisely what I wish to do, discredit human language when it comes to probability, human language cannot explain something that is in multiple states. At least not yet. Bohr himself said we may not have the language to realise a coherent and adjunct system that relates to how reality is. He called it complementarity, certain behaviours of matter can only be analogised at the current time not precisely defined. Hence applying entropy to such a system is fraught with philosophical mine fields.
What? I never said that, you did? Come on you have to work harder than just making my argument for me. For a start an understanding of actual entropy would help, afraid that’s not something I am willing to teach you. Suffice to say entropy does not apply to human systems. It cannot and it will not, which is my point.
I would agree that modern science has exceeded it’s grasp often. But then that’s what it tends to do these days, if I could line all the string theorists against a wall and make them make a theory or die, they would be dead by morning.
We can of course agree that the big bang is at least able to be proved somewhat, do I think it is the answer? What decent scientist would?
Good scientists exist to disprove everything, even themselves, the others are just not playing the game.
“Wake up with a hypothesis, disprove it over breakfast, then you are ready to work.”
Do try to calm down.
Your master is watching trying to find a reason to ban me and to defend you.
Grow some testicles.
The scripture in your religion is the 1/0 binary system.
I will expect you to offer a definition without substituting one ambiguity with another.
1/0 is not a wave, it is a point on a wave. There is no way to describe a wave other than by using metaphor or artistic words trying to capture the nature of what can never be adequately grasped, such as vibration, frequency, tone etc.
Entropy, as a concept, can most definitely be used to apply to human systems.
For one it is a word denoting the passage of time; change from a state of more order to a state of less order.
It is also a term that can be used to explain why the perceived world is mostly dark and cold.
But this is part of my metaphysical world.
Just saying you can apply the 2nd law of thermodynamics to an open system does not make it so. It applies under rigid criteria, no amount of sophistry is going to change that.
I am calm?
Your the one banging on about 1s an 0s I’m showing areas where such things do not apply?
I don’t need anyone to defend me and your bans are your own affair, I certainly wouldn’t want you to be banned, but isn’t that up to you? As someone who has been banned numerous times, their protection if it exists, sucks.
