East Meets West Logic...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

good post

... ... ... unless we all get a teensy bit crazy

Been crazy all my life, but I don't gut the power to show others crazy/sanity__Bliss...rrr

[SB_UK]

In a sky full of people only some want to fly,
Isn't that crazy?
In a world full of people, only some want to fly,
Isn't that crazy?
Crazy...
In a heaven of people there's only some want to fly,
Ain't that crazy?
Oh babe... Oh darlin...
In a world full of people there's only some want to fly,
Isn't that crazy?
Isn't that crazy... Isn't that crazy... Isn't that crazy...

Fly as a metaphor for freedom.
Freedom (from repression).
Repression - societally enforced - though not through design - instead solely historical {sequence,process}.

Freedom though as a 'state' of mind which when we all get a teensy bit crazy - will result in the more formally identified {tools,agents,Institutions} of repression
melting
away.

People no longer wanting to be a part of some agency which exerts net harm -
- no longer wanting to be a part
--following--
acquisition of an understanding of how their organization is perceived -
- of how their organization fits into the global scheme of interaction involving all 'things'

- the individuals within such organizations no longer seeking to be a part of a group which exerts net harm

- the individuals within organizations exerting net harm de-selecting themselves from such roles.

~*~

What's required for 'all of this' to happen
- simplification of the global system such that we may all gain an understanding of how things work.

Human systems are only impenetrable because there has been a vested interest to develop 'things' in this way.

It's very easy to confuse people -
- much more difficult to simplify (importantly though without loss of information).

[Lloyd Gillespie]

My son is 36 and has the same idealism as you SB. We were talking the other day along the same lines, and he thought the money system problems would just drift away with the new global views taking over__but I do not share his views. After talking for an hour or so, he realized we needed an interim system to get from here to there, after I asked him if he could design a future model of computerized perfection_as close to perfection as humanly possible_and he hadn't thought of it, but he did realize it's feasibility quite easily, as he's as sharp minded as you are.

So now he's off to design the perfect set of algorithms to run a properly computerized world of incentivized liberty, respecting all peoples' innate rights and feelings... Interested to talk to him in a few weeks, or month or so. We've worked together on many projects_he catches the drift immediately. He'll come up with something, that's for sure. My daughter has been working on the same systemic problems since about August, and she's progressing a little slower, as she's working within a systemic framwork already, but using her new self-categorized systemic education instructions in her school of college agers. I'm also interested to see how she makes out, as I'm one of her main guides. We are in contact often. All three of us study Ibn Sina, C.S.Peirce and Leszek Kolakowski thoroughly, along with many other lessers, of course...

As you may well imagine, we all see the information systems' evolutions to dedicated formal insanities, especially as relates to the www, and all other semantic webs__that are truly parasitic on the possible ideal real pragmatic web_we all want to see...rrr

Fly as a metaphor for freedom.
Freedom (from repression).
Repression - societally enforced - though not through design - instead solely historical {sequence,process}.

Freedom though as a 'state' of mind which when we all get a teensy bit crazy - will result in the more formally identified {tools,agents,Institutions} of repression
melting
away.

People no longer wanting to be a part of some agency which exerts net harm -
- no longer wanting to be a part
--following--
acquisition of an understanding of how their organization is perceived -
- of how their organization fits into the global scheme of interaction involving all 'things'

- the individuals within such organizations no longer seeking to be a part of a group which exerts net harm

- the individuals within organizations exerting net harm de-selecting themselves from such roles.

~*~

What's required for 'all of this' to happen
- simplification of the global system such that we may all gain an understanding of how things work.

Human systems are only impenetrable because there has been a vested interest to develop 'things' in this way.

It's very easy to confuse people -
- much more difficult to simplify (importantly though without loss of information).

[labelwench]

..... I just thought I'd clarify my purpose of using hydrodynamics as an em-wave descriptor of force. I just want to make sure others do not think I am speaking of a liquid, as I am not. Hydrodynamics has been used since the forties, when building nuclear bombs, to describe the flow of plasma dynamics in stars__as the U.S. Military had to use a probability mathematics of different star sizes, to understand these complex dynamics, before exploding the first A-bomb, as even the physics community__of the time__had many who thought they may explode the entire planet
Originally posted by Lloyd Gillespie

You gentleman have been busy! Took me a while to catch upon the path, lol.

Being of the female persuasion, different points may strike me as pertinent, and I may not always express them in the order of their priority in my own perception, merely as they flag me down. So bear with me, and if I drift too far off topic, politely advise me, and I shall rein myself in.

Your personal experience in the field of nuclear science, Lloyd, speaks to my inner concern over what use any new knowledge or scientific breakthrough shall be put to.

The record shows, that power is most often yielded to the advantage of a few, usually those who control the resources behind the discovery, not often the owner of the mind that makes the breakthrough.

It shall be very interesting, with the means of the internet and near instantaneous communication, to see what form new discovery shall take.

Here's a wild thought for you.

If someone were to start 'broadcasting' a very interesting and powerful piece of technical information, what would, or could be done?

Do the global power brokers have the means to shut down the web? They certainly shut down the skies on 911.

How much control do they have over this new information delivery system, which almost anyone can obtain access to?

Just my first thoughts after racing up the backtrail.

As ever,

Lorrina

[SB_UK]

After talking for an hour or so, he realized we needed an interim system to get from here to there, after I asked him if he could design a future model of computerized perfection_

An interim system is most certainly required.
Fully computerised - - absolutely

- our problems begin when some human body is given the keys to the safe.

Too difficult to resist.

A fully automated system

... ... from previously

- a system which dampens strength so that growth inhibits its own continued growth.

Using greed to balance greed.
~paraphrase~

Growth leads to imbalance in the current system where growth in one isolated part leads to its own increasing {potential,capacity} for further growth
further growth -
--- however ---
at the expense of other component parts.


Anti-tumour therapy for local communities.

[labelwench]

After talking for an hour or so, he realized we needed an interim system to get from here to there, after I asked him if he could design a future model of computerized perfection_as close to perfection as humanly possible_and he hadn't thought of it, but he did realize it's feasibility quite easily, as he's as sharp minded as you are.
Originally post by Lloyd Gillespie

Now that promises to be an interesting piece of research, and one would think that others must likewise be working on it, although quite likely in seclusion.

My prediction, is that the technology tasked with such venture, is either going to emerge as sentient artificial intelligence, or quite possibly go insane, or experience gridlock, even with the huge increase in memory systems and processor power presently underway.

Six billion minds can't do the job, so now we're going to task a computer with it, even the supercomputer of all supercomputers?

Perhaps we shall have to name it the

Global Overview Determinant.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Lorrina, and in answer to your questions, the sedition acts are still on the federal government's books_law that is. They have the power to shut out any and all information deemed dangerous to the continuence of their self-deemed form of sound government.(Joke...) They, I believe, have had these powers since the great arguments period of J.Q.Adams administration, when he censured all voices against him, where he could_so they published underground against him. But the laws usually stay on the books, so lawyers can manipulate as desired... Most are un-aware of this... They also increased the powers of these acts during the WWI and WWII inter-war years, and some even earlier in the 1900's during the union organizations periods, etc...

Don't kid yourself_just kidding_If the government wants to exorcize power__They've got the power of law behind them_Already...rrr

P.s.
Btw Lorrina, loved your comments in the post above, about the Global Overview Determinant, etc...

If someone were to start 'broadcasting' a very interesting and powerful piece of technical information, what would, or could be done?

Do the global power brokers have the means to shut down the web? They certainly shut down the skies on 911.

How much control do they have over this new information delivery system, which almost anyone can obtain access to? Lorrina

[labelwench]

People don't like ideas which invalidate their own expertise
- neither do people like ideas which destabilize their own conception of reality
- unsteady they feel.

All of which raises an interesting question
- and that is how to perform research in a manner which doesn't penalise the scientist
- moreover does not penalise the scientist who speaks over the head of another.

Experts don't appear to like admitting that there're ideas in their discipline which they cannot understand; pity that the expert fails to remember that just a few years back
- they knew nothing, not even their own name.

Seems unfair that the scientist who tells the truth and underplays the importance of their area of research (relative to others) is rewarded by unemployment.

Originally posted by SB__UK

Carried this over from another thread as it seemed applicaable.

Just a thought, but you don't really think we are ever going to discover how it all works do you, any of you?

That would surely be our undoing.

While we may be permitted the keys to our own destruction, I rather suspect that we shall never be granted the power to effect the 'big picture' in any truly signficant way.

What's a planet or two, a solar system or two, in the great scheme of things? The universe is quite capable of rebuilding, and possibly such renovation will be an 'upgrade'.

The present planet and inhabitants seem rather hard to improve upon, with one possible exception.

Maybe we could have done better with that species know as 'mankind'. Never figured it to become so invasive to other species, and even destructive to itself. Where did that get programmed in? Flawed from the start or was it a mutation?

[SteveA]

At the simplest possible level we know that there's something called 'energy'

- a simple model for energy would be a 1d linear motion over the surface of a torus
- gravity
(not negotiable, fundamental, non-polar)

and then some mechanism for that energy to do stuff
- evolution
(of structure)
- gravity seeds the quantum realm (electromagnetism)

n=24 hierarchies built on recursion
- with completion of recursion comes revolution.

A novel emergent property arises.

Although it is tempting to believe that reality is too 'complex' to have been built from such a simple pattern -
- that simple pattern (by virtue of hierarchy)
capable

- not only all of this
(quite considerably (unimaginably so) more).

Yes, a single continuous/infinite dimension, or even the "space" of real numbers between 0 and 1 can describe any 10+ dimensional string theory.

The operations performable on that space determine it's complexity and you actually only need a very small set of operations to construct all the rest.

So we can unify all string theories to a few operations with fractions (of course we need to be able to reference/locate/construct unlimited quantities of space ... how high can we count? ).

It appears that at any moment there exists a finite set of structures we can work with. Given that assumption, what's the most efficient set available to allow the potential of constructing the broadest array of distinct derivative forms?

I think we're looking for an efficiency based upon the extraction of the prime components to structures.

As an analogy, let's say we were on the Titanic ... and it had the possibility of sinking

What would be the most efficient set of supplies to pack into a life boat? (At a minimum we'd probably want the blueprints for Titanic I, but it would also be good to collect a few samples from the scenary along the way to add a few additions so that Titanic II could be better ... for example, making sure it has a nice supply of isolated ballasts. Then again, it might be good to have a repair kit so that you don't even need the second one )

Anyway, I'm just trying to point out that much information is redundant and one of the best ways of having the largest picture possible is to be able to carry as much as possible in as little space as necessary - data compression and expansion.

In fact, it may be that we're generally looking at the wrong set of primes because we're not using the right algorithm for unfolding space - what do you attach the "far corner" of a square to? (Yes, I just found something useful that was sitting on a back burner for a long time )

Multiplication is more of a mental abstraction and not a physically realizable structure because it requires the construction of a space not contained by the "endpoints" of the space. Basically, exponentiation is not a process that we can geometrically construct within a space (at least not without first "cutting out" a space from within it, but if we want to perform operations on the entirety of all space, then we need to locate all the "prime" endpoints that give it its maximal extent and then use operations that operate within those constrains and don't require the addition of unknown spaces beyond ... or it will take a lot of time to fill that )

So normally we have the orthogonal progression for a Euclidean space of point, line, square, cube, ... and various n-dimensional hypercubes.

But consider how a square is constructed - we have two orthogonal attributes/directions of motion and a common origin for these.

If we were moving "within" a space with such an origin and 2 processes/attribute/properties, we basically have 3 possible "directions" to move.

From an external perspective, we could not move outside the boundary of the triangle defined by these three endpoints.

If we imagined the motions to be orthogonal then our interpretation of motion versus the continuity of properties across this space could appear "warped" - we think we're moving in a straight line that extends "beyond", but we'd actually just be approaching an endpoint within this triangle (constructing new space near it, by laying down references approaching it, i.e. similar to a generation of .999... approaching an endpoint of 1).

(Continued below ...)

[labelwench]

Hi Lorrina, and in answer to your questions, the sedition acts are still on the federal government's books_law that is. They have the power to shut out any and all information deemed dangerous to the continuence of their self-deemed form of sound government.(Joke...) They, I believe, have had these powers since the great arguments period of J.Q.Adams administration, when he censured all voices against him, where he could_so they published underground against him. But the laws usually stay on the books, so lawyers can manipulate as desired... Most are un-aware of this... They also increased the powers of these acts during the WWI and WWII inter-war years, and some even earlier in the 1900's during the union organizations periods, etc...

Don't kid yourself_just kidding_If the government wants to exorcize power__They've got the power of law behind them_Already...rrr

Perhaps I know a bit more law than you might guess. One of my mentors.......

There is also a law that one cannot legally sell a horse without a proper halter as means of restraint, although which jurisdictions have that on the books, I cannot call immediately to mind, but I always sold every horse with a new and durable halter.

Never a doubt that government would have or could contrive the legal authority, to act in their own interest, under the mandate of protecting the public.

Just wondering, from a technical standpoint, if they have the access, and would they use it? Seems that persons such as yourself might have a better understanding of such capability.

Thanks for the response.

Lorrina