The Zeitgeist Movement - Podcast show now online!

Post Reply New Topic

I just learned that hard way. So now I know and will not spend another 45 minutes as I did yesterday.

You tried watching the podcast? You poor soul.

So unless I roll over and tell you that you're right and I'm wrong, that automatically means that you're wasting your time?

Have you read a single thing I've stated about opinion? Coz as far as I can tell now, you have only posted on this thread coz you were determined to be "right" and Hense force your opinion. However when I have countered and caused you.to.reconsider the validity of you preconceived notions, and stood my ground that means you have wasted your time.

This my friend, says more about you, than it does about me.

I apologise that I didn't roll over and exclaim:

"You're right! And I've been so wrong! I have been debunked by someone who gets their biased incomplete information from people who have made a point of insulting me and have actually ADMITTED that they don't need to do any research to know what they're talking about."

Just look at the threads and you will see reams of them insulting and mocking me. Just coz they have been here long enough and posted enough to gain "veteran" doesn't make them an authority on any given topic. They have clearly illustrated this. Repeatedly. But hell, if you would rather take the word of someone who has relentlessly demonstrated an emotionally vested interest in trying to coerce me into agreeing with them, than to THINK FOR YOURSELF, then you have already made your choice.

I actually engaged you because you were being respectful. But I understand how easy it is to just throw up your arms and blindly believe someone who throws insults such as "bat s**t crazy".

Mdd123 said he listened to a podcast, I didn't see where Janissy did. She could have been referring to the 45 minutes she wasted responding to him, which was surprising enough considering what happened the last time she did that.

It seems Mdd123 learned faster.

Yea, coz my podcasts are 60 minutes long. Not 45.

But whether they felt they wasted their time is down to them. It just goes to show what constitutes that statement. For instance if you challenge someone on a discussion forum and you fail to disprove them or worse fail to provide supporting data and you still haven't succeeded in forcing the person you have challenged into dropping all their data and agree blindly with your hollow suppositions, then yes that will qualify as a waste of your time. But not coz the person you're challenging is too inflexible, but coz you haven't provided sufficient data to convince them and as a result have stated that you have wasted your time in a bid to make it look like the other person is just being inflexible, ignorant or unreasonable. Big difference. And that says more about the challenger than it does about the challengee.

i have asked repeatedly for this supposed "scientific and logical" evidence to be presented but conveniently its completely abscent. Coz of course I'm expected to look at this, that and the other, and yet those same people are refusing to even listen to a podcast. How interesting.

I have provided an explicit mathematical proof that you are wrong. I believe I also went on to provide a rigorous proof that you are crazy.


Text can be read quickly, or even skimmed when necessary. An hour-long podcast is a huge time sink, and not one that prior evidence indicates would be worthwhile.

first of all i wasn't talking to you. There's your lack of attention yet again.

Second, mentioning the poincare conjecture, which is an old astrophysics problem which as NOTHING to do with automated resource management is HARDLY "explicit mathematical proof". I even discussed the poincare conjecture with my friend doug who used to work with NASA as a systems engineer for the space shuttle program, and now does the same job for Boeing, and he agrees that you're just blowing smoke out of your backside with poincare. If you listened to my most recent podcast where my first question i answered was your question, you'd know that.

And thirdly, you come to a forum for AUTISTIC people telling those who don't agree with you that they are "crazy"? *doubles over with laughter* people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones. That is not only an ad hom at me, but to EVERY autistic person on this forum that doesn't blindly agree with you. You are not my psychologist. Sorry to inform you that you don't have the ability to diagnose me. You're not qualified to be stating anything more than your own biased opinionated ad homs. Sorry



That certainly explains how you have conveniantly missed so much data. Thats why i messaged you directly with links to my youtube videos coz i directly answered the most succinct question you have asked me. It is YOUR problem if you can't even be bothered to check it out. Tell you what, I'll post up a transcript of my answer to your ultimate question so when you grow up you can read it.

Actually, the Poincare conjecture was a problem in topology. Nothing to do with astrophysics. And it was not what I referenced. So you're wrong in two different ways at the same time. Congratulations.


Fine. Reading is faster than watching videos.

Nice to know you're not even addressing all the points. And you STILL haven't proven how the poincare conjecture figures into let alone debunks the feasability of automated resource management. Congratulations.

when i have access to my netbook later tonight since I'll be attending a teamspeak meet, I'll post the transcript of my answer to your question. If you skim it, then YOU are accountable for your lack of understanding so don't try and hold me accountable.

Um... it doesn't, and I never claimed it did. The Poincare conjecture is a claim about hyperspheres in topology. I never brought it up; you did. I'm sorry that you are mathematically illiterate, but that is not my problem. My mathematical claims against automated resource management were based on nonlinear dynamics, colloquially known as "chaos theory." That is a very different branch of mathematics than topology, so I have no idea why you're talking about the Poincare conjecture.

I have a question for you Adam. It seems to me, and you can stop me if you think I am wrong, that your position on opinions is that unless they are based on the scientific method they are baseless?

Now, for someone who has read some epistemology, this sounds eerily like logical positivism. Logical positivism failed because it held that unless a view was verifiable then one was not warranted to believe it.... it obviously followed that positivism presupposed logic and math and could not ground itself inline with its own standard. What I would ask you, is if an opinion is only valid if it flows from the scientific method (or you endorse some other descriptive but essentially similar form of logical positivism) how then do you escape from the same criticism?

Well first off i extend to you a thanks for being respectful and civil.

An opinion, if based upon the scientific method is no longer a mere opinion, but an educated one. For example you know that turning a door handle and either pushing or pulling will allow you to pass through it. That is the knowledge attained from the physical world. So its not so much the scientific method alone that is replacing the use of subjective human opinion to arrive at decisions, its the collecting of feedback from the physical world and gaining a physical refferent. If you encountered the exact same door again, you wouldn't have an opinion concerning how you get to the other side of it, you would have knowledge based upon a physical refferent. You see, right there you have arrived at a conclusion concerning how to pass through the door without opinion.

Likewise in our everyday lives we use the scientific method to deliberate that putting one foot in front of the other and repeating this process alows us to walk. No opinion required.

But yea, as I have described, having an opinion, is fine. It's when we try to base our perceptions on this and this alone while discounting evidence from the physical world that it reveals itself as unreliable and hense quite dangerous.



i can understand the comparison here, and i can see how this seems similar to logical positivism. Likewise when you're talking to a staunch capitalist and used the word "share" they would be "eerily reminded" of communism since the formality of charged words and concepts are taught to us so we discard things not on a basis of analysis, but on association.

Arriving at decisions using the scientific method has to be utilised with the acknowledgement of emergence. Meaning that the means and methods used have to have the facility of being falsifiable. Its the reason why science is never wrong, but always wrong at the same time. Coz views held are not dogmatic. When a new process is proposed that falsifies the current process, then the new process BECOMES the science. Science is always trying to disprove itself. Its like the Tim Minchin line:

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved".

For an additional insight into this issue i would recommend visiting www.v-radio.org and finding the radioshow entitled:

"No opinions. Arriving at decisions using the scientific method".

Yes, you have suggested in the past that the poincare conjecture, AKA the 3 body problem is something that puts the concept of an RBE into unrealistic grounding. Maybe you forgot.

Here follows a transcript of your question which you asked me quite a while ago, and my response:

"QUESTION 1
How, specifically, do the Zeitgeist people intend to allocate resources? You have indicated before that some sort of computer system would be responsible. Who is going to program that computer? Do you have any idea how such a program would work? Are you completely unaware of the developments in modern mathematics from Poincaré and Lorenz onwards that pose significant problems to any attempt at a command economy?

ANSWER
Quite a mouthful there, Ok, first of all, we need to acknowledge that a resource-based economy is not made up of "Zeitgeist people" as you refer to them. An RBE is made up of everyone on the planet, once we move through the transition to it that is. In effect we are already in the transition. But when it comes to the Zeitgeist Movement, this movement will only exist until it is no longer needed. There will be no Zeitgeist Movement in an RBE coz it would have done it's job so to speak and we will have a better world. It's like the theme song from the cartoon The Boondocks:

"And I will remain a soldier, until the war is won".

The programming of the computers will obviously be done by people who can, and want to. And it's not like their programming can be written with certain abuses and trickeries, coz we will always be constantly updating, optimizing and assessing how things function to ensure the highest possible efficiency. In addition to certain levels of redundancy that will be in place, realtime analysis of the functioning of all systems will instantly be able to tell if something has been programmed wrong, or nefariously, with your implication here, and as a result can be adjusted accordingly. It is the scientific method applied for social concern that is the goal and principle driver for any programming done. And it is easy to spot any developed vested interest with that in mind, coz even if hidden amongst heaps of logical processes, it will still stick out like a sore thumb. Coz its designed to work in the way that its designed to work. And if that isn't in line with the logical train of thought, then it sticks out, doesn't it?

Now, moving onto how resources are allocated by this cybernated system, I can demonstrate this much better if I give you a present day scenario that explains this process in a microcosmic way. Coz this orientation of systems is suprisingly widespread already throughout the world, but these things only exist in microcosms. But as for an example, think about a taxi cab service. You have a central office which utilises a radio in order to send the differing taxis to certain areas and certain clients for their own transportation. This is one of the closest analogies to demonstrate how the computerised system will allocate resources. It's just a matter of applying this model on a PLANETARY scale, and therefore on a decentralised scale. Not centralised, not command economy, decentralised. So imagine this taxi cab service where instead of a central office you got the processes routed through other offices in each area. There's no single central computer that lies at the centre of this. It's very much like the internet. There's no central super-computer that could be "hacked" and some ridiculous armaggedon projections that people have talked about in the past, it's not gonna happen. It's like the internet. Can anyone "hack" the internet? People can hack certian parts of it, but they can't hack the internet as a whole, can they? And that's the point. Decentralised with redundancy built in at all levels. Now that isn't to say that the human element will be completely abscent, afterall the system will need supervision, of course it will. The difference is that the decisions will be ARRIVED at using systems theory and scienctific methodology, instead of made by subjective and biased human considerations. If you think about resource management in more or less the same way that the taxi service operates, you get a better picture. It's not about what algorythms are utilised, I'll get to that in a minute, coz that becomes self-evident when you think about the task at hand, and the most efficient, and logical way to operate such a system. In a sense, the train of thought will be sprouted from what we call "the scientific method" utilised for social concern, but also applied dynamically.

To think about it another way, imagine this taxi service was completely automated, so no humans were needed to be employed, that means that first the control centre would have to use inforential logic in order to operate and delegate certain tasks, and the taxis themselves would not be driven by humans, but self-driven, utilising GPS systems to know exactly where they are going. And this technology exists today by the way. So this isn't sci-fi. This stuff exists.

And tell you what, if we still wanna pursue the algorythm line of questioning, then think of whats known as "industrial engineering inventory management", or as it is better known, as barcodes. This has been used for decades, and is a very good example and a very well functioning example, of algorythmic systems management.

Also to expand on this even further if you still don't like my answers on algorythms, to show what can be used that is already being used, the kind of technical processes utilised by search engines such as "Wolfram Alpha". Essentially giving a mathematical answer to a human question. Wolfram Alpha is quite a revelation in the logic applied to search engines, in the respect that it actually "thinks" to a certain extent. It doesn't override you. It doesn't rule your life, however it utilises inforential logic to provide several different answers. To see exactly what I mean you can go onto the Wolphram Alpha site and theres an introduction video that takes you through how it works, and how it can work for you. It's very, very interesting.

So to summerise, imagine that automated taxi service, utilising the programming of Wolfram Alpha possibly and the same train of thought that barcodes came from, but in fact it's not a taxi service at all, but a decentralised computer database and resource management system that works dynamically with continual feedback from the environment. THAT, is how resources are allocated.

As for the "mathematicians" that you have mentioned, I honestly can't see how something like the Poincaré conjecture, and the 3 body problem has any relevance or reference to cybernated resource management, I mean the 3 body problem is an old astro-physics problem that NO-ONE has been able to solve yet. It's one of those conundrums that is up there with "What is the meaning of life?" I'll tell you what, when Neil DeGrass Tyson or Stephen Hawking or a similarly brilliant individual comes up with the solution to the Poincare conjecture, then there will be a solution, besides that, it bears no relation WHATSOEVER to our proposal for an RBE, it's functioning or success.

As for Lorenz, I think you need to be specific as to which Lorenz you are referring to. In my research I counted 3 different individuals in the field of m,athematics that have the surname Lorenz. So message me and be a bit more specific so I can address it.

I guess my point when it comes to mathematics and an RBE, is that they in fact compliment each other, because they are based upon the same principles. You can't honestly say to me, that an RBE is not mathematically sound, and yet uphold the capitalist system. Because the idea of infinite growth and infinite consumption in a finite environment, you're saying that THAT is mathematically sound?"

So as you can see you will have to be a liiiiiiitle bit more specific as to how you espouse that chaos theory, or whatever you think throws the concept of an RBE into unrealistic grounds, coz your blanket statements aren't proving anything.

The Poincare Conjecture is not the 3 body problem. Those are completely separate things. One is topology, one is physics. You can't just throw around terms when you have no idea what they mean.


OK, the Poincare conjecture was a claim about certain 4-dimensional objects in topology, which was recently proven by Grigori Perelman. The 3 body problem has not been solved, but your assessment of it as a conundrum analogous to "what is the meaning of life?" is incorrect and shows a misunderstanding of the problem. Not only has the three body problem never been solved, but we know that it cannot be solved analytically. The study of nonlinear dynamics does have quite a bit of relevance to RBE proposals, since a RBE will have to deal with a large number of nonlinear problems, and many of those will be even harder than the 3 body problem.


Ed Lorenz. He coined the term "butterfly effect" and was an early pioneer of chaos theory.


No they don't, and no they aren't.


I already did that. If you propose to have a computer allocating resources, that computer must have an algorithm for doing so. I claim that optimal allocation of resources is a problem that involves a great number of nonlinear interactions, and thus there is no analytical solution that you can use an algorithm to obtain. At best you may obtain numerical approximations, but because of the nonlinearity of the system and sensitive dependence on initial conditions, your numerical answers will very quickly diverge dramatically from the actual trajectory of the system, leading to wildly inaccurate forecasts and correspondingly poor decisions based on those forecasts.

But you have tried to suggest both as attempts to debunk the feasability of an RBE.



So what relevance does this have to automated resource management?



Still you're making blanket statements that still don't prove anything. Sorry.



Yet again, what relevance does this have?



Says the guy who can't be bothered to do any objective research into what he is criticising.



And if you have actually paid attention, you will notice that I have explained this in detail.



You're gonna have to better than "claim".



And RBE is not a non-linear system in the sense that you understand it. But the fact that you can't even be bothered to research it shows that you won't understand it.



You clearly don't pay any attention at all.

Considering that you have not addressed the main body of my answer, I don't think you are paying enough attention. Howabout you actually READ?

No, I didn't. I never once mentioned the Poincare conjecture before you brought it up. I have no idea why you started talking about it.


Resource management will require solving analogous problems.


His ideas apply to resource management.


RBE isn't a coherent "system" at all, but the problem of allocating resources among competing demands does involve nonlinear interactions, thus any attempt at computerized management of this process needs to first "solve" nonlinear dynamics, and that's not gonna happen. Ever.


That's because it was incoherent rambling. I did read it, I just did not find anything worth a response.