How We Ended up Here: Mindfulness as Algorithmic Computation https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/09/19/how-we-ended-up-here-mindfulness-as-algorithmic-computation/
Source date (UTC): 2020-09-19 16:36:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1307357843306283010
COMPARATIVE CIVILIZATIONS AND HOW WE ENDED UP HERE: MINDFULNESS AS ALGORITHMIC COMPUTATION
(context: human groups and computation)
You don’t learn about religion – particularly your own – by studying it. You learn by studying all religions past and present, and the consequences of their practice.
Likewise, you don’t learn about economic, law, or state without comparative study. And most of all you don’t learn about civilizational differences without studying civilizational strategies.
Let’s do a few comparisons:
The division of labor produces a commensurability of prejudices (“pre-judgments”), a commensurability of norms, a commensurability of paradigms, that result in a concentration of efforts producing common beneficial ends.
So, just as the change from particular knowledge (many different incompatible processes) to scientific knowledge (general rules of general application) created a convergence in understanding and convergence in all formal knowledge to a universal paradigm, the same is true for informal knowledge – not just science. And this convergence to general rules accounts for a substantial difference in the increase in demonstrated intelligence (crystalized intelligence) across all peoples (if not fluid or biological intelligence). So via negativa, we remove frictions of not only ignorance but incommensurability concentrate our thinking (efficiency) on producing greater returns as a result.
We emphasize the most obvious benefit of the division of labor: the increase in productivity from the division of labor. But not the more influential increase in productivity, and a decrease in incommensurability.
If we understand the (virtuous) self-reinforcing cycle between the division of labor and optimal norms: it produces commensurability interest, norm, and paradigm. It produces the same returns in normative thought in informal knowledge as it science does in formal knowledge.
And then we see how economic reality, together with the law that prohibits resistance to it, also explain the evolution of religion in primitive societies with primitive production: in those societies, their adaptation is slow and innovation all but suppressed, but the production of norm and paradigm are heavily reinforced, in return for the continuous expansion of those who could not compete otherwise.
And with trade and law, the evolution of tort (property), and the continuous suppression of irreciprocity(parasitism), increases at the expense of the reproduction of the uncompetitive.
So we are faced with a problem of misapplication of childhood indoctrination to group strategy, and adult adaptation of the economy within that strategy. And we can also understand as a consequence why religiosity creates ignorance, dysgenia, poverty, and resists innovation, adaptation and change.
As such we can judge not only group strategies, but religions that reinforce them, by tests of dysgenia, poverty, ignorance, superstition(Recitationism), and maladaptation, versus eugenic, wealth, knowledge, empiricism (Testimonialism), and adaptation.
From this, we can understand the benefit of truthful religions and false religions: Universe (perhaps anthropomorphized as a god or gods), Nature (the world we are part of), Ancestors (whose investments made us possible), Archetypal Heroes(whose investments made successful adaptation possible), Kin (those who mutually invest in our shared genetic interests, and State (the corporealization of our people as an organization acting in our interests.)
And so it is not that religion (indoctrination -long term) is less necessary than law, or law less so than science, or science, less than military prowess, less so than strategy. It is that this hierarchy provides a developmental hierarchy from the child to the adult, to the intellectual, to the strategic and political. And likewise, this hierarchy provides graceful failure in the absence of sufficient knowledge to make a judgment.
However, this hierarchy can only fulfill its function under certain conditions: and that is when the religious have no economic and political power, the economic have no political and strategic power, and the political and strategic have no economic power.
But under universal democracy we have granted equal power to unequal knowledge, and unequal cognitive development, thus replicating the dysgenics of religious civilizations within our legal and martial civilization. When throughout our history we had separate ‘houses’ for the monarchy (the military), the senate (the economic elites), and the commoners (the house in pre-Semitic, or the church in Semitic eras)
So by the victorian period, we had restored the losses of the fall of the roman empire and largely recovered from the semiticism (Judaic Christianity) that prevented its restoration, and we’d produced rule of law by natural law, a monarchy for its function, a senate(upper house) for the macro-nobility having demonstrated interests in the preservation of the polity, the lower house, having demonstrated interests in the economy and productivity, and the church representing the demonstrated interests of families, women, children, the poor and the incompetent. And in doing so created houses for all classes rather than just the upper middle and upper classes.
And upon the dissolution of the church by the combination of darwin, industrialization, literacy, and the evolution of Semitic religion from superstition to pseudoscientific) yes – anti-civilizational marxism, socialism, boazianism, Freudianism etc), we failed to rename the house of commons (lower house) as the house of common market participants, and create a new house as the house of labor, family, children, and the poor. Or even two houses: one for Labor, and one for women children, and the poor.
So we are stuck as a consequence with the American system of two parties, the european system of multiple parties, and insufficient number of houses, and the tendencies of parties to replace houses, producing ideological rather than empirical judgments.
Had we maintained our market for the production of commons, had we made this innovation instead of universal democracy, we would have preserved the market for competition between (a) the stages of development including the emotional, cognitive, knowledge, and responsibility, (b) demonstrated responsibility for self, productivity, family, business, industry, knowledge (science), polity. (c) our ability to use houses of government as yet another expansion of the jury (as we had for 5000 years), where in each class issued verdict on policy.
The Jews and Muslims never solved the problem of politics, and christianity failed to repeat the egyptian and byzantine ambitions – religion is antithetical to it.
The Hindus are relatively opaque but solved the problem of religion, state and law through an odd combination of mythology and philosophy – and the only reason they survived is a vast territory, a vast population, a vast underclass, and a peninsula that provided no strategic value.
The Chinese solved the problem of ethno-state as culture and professional bureaucracy, but not politics or law.
The Russians incrementally defeated the steppe warriors (Mongols), and decolonized Russia, then almost all of north Eurasia, producing a fully re-militarized society. Had the Jewish Bolsheviks not been successful in destroying Russian civilization (as they destroyed german, and now American) from within, Russia might have emerged as the Sparta of great powers, as Britain the Athens of great powers, and America the Rome.
The French killed the middle class, then the aristocracy, then set out to destroy the heart of europe: the holy roman empire -then secularized the church, and achieved by secular means the church’s ambition of a conquest of europe by authoritarian socialist rule. This is the correct undrestanding of french ambitions: a feminist rule of Europe in opposition of a prussian masculinist rule of europe. In opposition to a russian mongolian or chinese rule of eurasia.
The germans solved the problem of professional bureaucracy, but only afterward democracy, and abandoned european law in favor of Continental rule. The secret to german success however, is german culture which like hindu culture appears not a matter of state but of perpetuation of ancient tradition of “we must be best because we are surrounded”.
The British solved law first by never abandoning it, then politics by multiple houses, then a professional bureaucracy that evolved out of the military. And it it is british civilization, least bound by historical geographic constraints in europe that restored the european tradition of germanic, roman, and greek civilizations. The British were more ‘free to evolve’ by experimentation than other nations of Europe – yet another virtue of island culture.
The Americans solved law most thoroughly, unfortunately, took the advice of the french (the french are always wrong on everything), in an attempt to take the best of european civilization: european traditional law of individual sovereignty, British empirical rule of law, contract, and process; the political order of the holy roman empire (which was still intact at the time) as an alliance of states this time under a political rather than monarchical bureaucracy, and but utterly failed to create a professional bureaucracy and instead developed clientelism.
Had we also completed Babbage’s innovation, and developed operationalism and computationalism before the postwar period, we might have defeated the pseudoscientific movement, and in particular, the evolution of pseudoscientific law we call positive law. We certainly would have avoided the total waste of a century in philosophy, and perhaps closed philosophy as we had closed theology – limiting it to the adaptation of current paradigms to new discoveries of truth (sciences) which is the only function it can provide.
So in retrospect the industrial revolution came early; gave the false promise of escape from physical(scarcity), natural (amorality, reciprocity), and evolutionary (regression to the mean,dysgenia), governments adapted too slowly; the law failed to understand itself, and failed to increase its precision as a formal logic, and human cooperation as formal computation by trial and error, and the church collapsed, leaving the academy, which was taken over by a new pseudoscientific religion that continued to violate those physical, natural and evolutionary laws, under the false promise of freedom from scarcity, the inescapable amorality of human nature, the inescapable spectrum of adaptability in humans.
There is no reason today that a complete understanding of man, history, economics, law, politics, and groups strategy is not taught every child – except that it would forever end the dysgenic and semitic religions and the false promise of this second religion: the pseudosciences that would bring about another dark age.
COMPARATIVE CIVILIZATIONS AND HOW WE ENDED UP HERE: MINDFULNESS AS ALGORITHMIC COMPUTATION
(context: human groups and computation)
You don’t learn about religion – particularly your own – by studying it. You learn by studying all religions past and present, and the consequences of their practice.
Likewise, you don’t learn about economic, law, or state without comparative study. And most of all you don’t learn about civilizational differences without studying civilizational strategies.
Let’s do a few comparisons:
The division of labor produces a commensurability of prejudices (“pre-judgments”), a commensurability of norms, a commensurability of paradigms, that result in a concentration of efforts producing common beneficial ends.
So, just as the change from particular knowledge (many different incompatible processes) to scientific knowledge (general rules of general application) created a convergence in understanding and convergence in all formal knowledge to a universal paradigm, the same is true for informal knowledge – not just science. And this convergence to general rules accounts for a substantial difference in the increase in demonstrated intelligence (crystalized intelligence) across all peoples (if not fluid or biological intelligence). So via negativa, we remove frictions of not only ignorance but incommensurability concentrate our thinking (efficiency) on producing greater returns as a result.
We emphasize the most obvious benefit of the division of labor: the increase in productivity from the division of labor. But not the more influential increase in productivity, and a decrease in incommensurability.
If we understand the (virtuous) self-reinforcing cycle between the division of labor and optimal norms: it produces commensurability interest, norm, and paradigm. It produces the same returns in normative thought in informal knowledge as it science does in formal knowledge.
And then we see how economic reality, together with the law that prohibits resistance to it, also explain the evolution of religion in primitive societies with primitive production: in those societies, their adaptation is slow and innovation all but suppressed, but the production of norm and paradigm are heavily reinforced, in return for the continuous expansion of those who could not compete otherwise.
And with trade and law, the evolution of tort (property), and the continuous suppression of irreciprocity(parasitism), increases at the expense of the reproduction of the uncompetitive.
So we are faced with a problem of misapplication of childhood indoctrination to group strategy, and adult adaptation of the economy within that strategy. And we can also understand as a consequence why religiosity creates ignorance, dysgenia, poverty, and resists innovation, adaptation and change.
As such we can judge not only group strategies, but religions that reinforce them, by tests of dysgenia, poverty, ignorance, superstition(Recitationism), and maladaptation, versus eugenic, wealth, knowledge, empiricism (Testimonialism), and adaptation.
From this, we can understand the benefit of truthful religions and false religions: Universe (perhaps anthropomorphized as a god or gods), Nature (the world we are part of), Ancestors (whose investments made us possible), Archetypal Heroes(whose investments made successful adaptation possible), Kin (those who mutually invest in our shared genetic interests, and State (the corporealization of our people as an organization acting in our interests.)
And so it is not that religion (indoctrination -long term) is less necessary than law, or law less so than science, or science, less than military prowess, less so than strategy. It is that this hierarchy provides a developmental hierarchy from the child to the adult, to the intellectual, to the strategic and political. And likewise, this hierarchy provides graceful failure in the absence of sufficient knowledge to make a judgment.
However, this hierarchy can only fulfill its function under certain conditions: and that is when the religious have no economic and political power, the economic have no political and strategic power, and the political and strategic have no economic power.
But under universal democracy we have granted equal power to unequal knowledge, and unequal cognitive development, thus replicating the dysgenics of religious civilizations within our legal and martial civilization. When throughout our history we had separate ‘houses’ for the monarchy (the military), the senate (the economic elites), and the commoners (the house in pre-Semitic, or the church in Semitic eras)
So by the victorian period, we had restored the losses of the fall of the roman empire and largely recovered from the semiticism (Judaic Christianity) that prevented its restoration, and we’d produced rule of law by natural law, a monarchy for its function, a senate(upper house) for the macro-nobility having demonstrated interests in the preservation of the polity, the lower house, having demonstrated interests in the economy and productivity, and the church representing the demonstrated interests of families, women, children, the poor and the incompetent. And in doing so created houses for all classes rather than just the upper middle and upper classes.
And upon the dissolution of the church by the combination of darwin, industrialization, literacy, and the evolution of Semitic religion from superstition to pseudoscientific) yes – anti-civilizational marxism, socialism, boazianism, Freudianism etc), we failed to rename the house of commons (lower house) as the house of common market participants, and create a new house as the house of labor, family, children, and the poor. Or even two houses: one for Labor, and one for women children, and the poor.
So we are stuck as a consequence with the American system of two parties, the european system of multiple parties, and insufficient number of houses, and the tendencies of parties to replace houses, producing ideological rather than empirical judgments.
Had we maintained our market for the production of commons, had we made this innovation instead of universal democracy, we would have preserved the market for competition between (a) the stages of development including the emotional, cognitive, knowledge, and responsibility, (b) demonstrated responsibility for self, productivity, family, business, industry, knowledge (science), polity. (c) our ability to use houses of government as yet another expansion of the jury (as we had for 5000 years), where in each class issued verdict on policy.
The Jews and Muslims never solved the problem of politics, and christianity failed to repeat the egyptian and byzantine ambitions – religion is antithetical to it.
The Hindus are relatively opaque but solved the problem of religion, state and law through an odd combination of mythology and philosophy – and the only reason they survived is a vast territory, a vast population, a vast underclass, and a peninsula that provided no strategic value.
The Chinese solved the problem of ethno-state as culture and professional bureaucracy, but not politics or law.
The Russians incrementally defeated the steppe warriors (Mongols), and decolonized Russia, then almost all of north Eurasia, producing a fully re-militarized society. Had the Jewish Bolsheviks not been successful in destroying Russian civilization (as they destroyed german, and now American) from within, Russia might have emerged as the Sparta of great powers, as Britain the Athens of great powers, and America the Rome.
The French killed the middle class, then the aristocracy, then set out to destroy the heart of europe: the holy roman empire -then secularized the church, and achieved by secular means the church’s ambition of a conquest of europe by authoritarian socialist rule. This is the correct undrestanding of french ambitions: a feminist rule of Europe in opposition of a prussian masculinist rule of europe. In opposition to a russian mongolian or chinese rule of eurasia.
The germans solved the problem of professional bureaucracy, but only afterward democracy, and abandoned european law in favor of Continental rule. The secret to german success however, is german culture which like hindu culture appears not a matter of state but of perpetuation of ancient tradition of “we must be best because we are surrounded”.
The British solved law first by never abandoning it, then politics by multiple houses, then a professional bureaucracy that evolved out of the military. And it it is british civilization, least bound by historical geographic constraints in europe that restored the european tradition of germanic, roman, and greek civilizations. The British were more ‘free to evolve’ by experimentation than other nations of Europe – yet another virtue of island culture.
The Americans solved law most thoroughly, unfortunately, took the advice of the french (the french are always wrong on everything), in an attempt to take the best of european civilization: european traditional law of individual sovereignty, British empirical rule of law, contract, and process; the political order of the holy roman empire (which was still intact at the time) as an alliance of states this time under a political rather than monarchical bureaucracy, and but utterly failed to create a professional bureaucracy and instead developed clientelism.
Had we also completed Babbage’s innovation, and developed operationalism and computationalism before the postwar period, we might have defeated the pseudoscientific movement, and in particular, the evolution of pseudoscientific law we call positive law. We certainly would have avoided the total waste of a century in philosophy, and perhaps closed philosophy as we had closed theology – limiting it to the adaptation of current paradigms to new discoveries of truth (sciences) which is the only function it can provide.
So in retrospect the industrial revolution came early; gave the false promise of escape from physical(scarcity), natural (amorality, reciprocity), and evolutionary (regression to the mean,dysgenia), governments adapted too slowly; the law failed to understand itself, and failed to increase its precision as a formal logic, and human cooperation as formal computation by trial and error, and the church collapsed, leaving the academy, which was taken over by a new pseudoscientific religion that continued to violate those physical, natural and evolutionary laws, under the false promise of freedom from scarcity, the inescapable amorality of human nature, the inescapable spectrum of adaptability in humans.
There is no reason today that a complete understanding of man, history, economics, law, politics, and groups strategy is not taught every child – except that it would forever end the dysgenic and semitic religions and the false promise of this second religion: the pseudosciences that would bring about another dark age.
THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION IS JUST PHYSICS WITH MEMORY OF DEBTS – AND CONSEQUENCES FOR PRESENT AND FUTURE CRISES
The left does not cognitively grasp argumentation because they cannot cognitively distinguish between desirability vs undesirability and truth vs alsehood, where truth (Decidability) refers to independence from opinion, desirability, preference (Choice).
This inversion of truth and desirability is the instinctual female cognitive weighting of value. This instinct evolved to incentivize males(Asset Obtainers and Controllers) to satisfy female wants and needs (Asset Consumers and Reproducers).
In fact, it’s more helpful to treat the left as pubescent females lacking offspring to absorb the expansion of their empathy and misapplying that evolutionary instinct evolved to satisfy caloric demands on their immediate behalf to broader political contexts outside their locus of control and accountability.
Females do not demonstrate this hypersensitivity to stress until puberty when their nervous system is amplified to extend its awareness (sensitivity) to their offspring, just as the male nervous system is oppositely suppressed forcing the expansion of their political (worldly) sensitivity preparing them for political life among males. While we see male and female behavioral tendencies in healthy children from birth, maturity exacerbates these differences, away from the ‘self’ and into empathy in females and analysis in males. Our sense of becoming worldly is not artificial – our nervous systems are altered by nature specifically for this purpose. At which point we focus less on learning (submissive and self-directed) and more on acting (dominance to externally directed).
We think largely of less subtle urges like hunger, thirst, attention, association, cooperation, and sex: capacities that must be fulfilled. And while we acknowledge boredom as a cognitive capacity that seeks fulfillment, and we infrequently admit that females seek fulfillment of cognitive want for attention and males seek fulfillment of cognitive want for tool use, we overlook that Empathy is a cognitive capacity that seeks cognitive load, just as male analysis is a cognitive capacity seeking load. This is why women with children, especially five or more (the historical norm) demonstrate conservative(hypercapitalizing) behaviors, and men without children demonstrate libertine(hyper consuming) behaviors. It’s why females seek chatter and gossip and men various material crafts (hobbies). And since most of us are some mixture of the two sets of influences (variations in cognitive dimorphism) we can demonstrate the spectrum.
In other words, we should not take women without children seriously in sociology, economics, politics, strategy, and war, any more than we should take the left without equal accountability seriously in those fields. In other words, in colloquial terms, leftism is the female expression of ‘sh-t testing’: generating demand from dominant(conservative) males to produce more desirable outcomes (hyperconsumption) or to be threatened with uncooperativeness, GSRRM (undermining), deprivation of attention, care, affection and sex. The difference being that we have no need for the left nor want for them and they have nothing to trade (and we nothing to trade with them).
The left is cognitively female (heightened sensitivity to fear, fear of lower priority, of inequality, of being left behind) and lacking cognitively male cognitive bias for political decisions (scarcity of resources infinity of demands), the necessity of capitalization (saving) and CONSTRAINING population within the polity (‘that equilibrium of population vs resource, vs competitors that is calculable’).
This is because (a) males cannot directly reproduce, and must capture territory, resources, and females from competitors, and constrain reproduction to their kin group in order to persist. This reproduction can be forcible as we see in most animals. It can be prolific and indiscriminate like we see in bonobos. It can include pairing off as we see in some species. Or it can be cooperative (calculating) as it evolved in humans (serial mating). (b) The female reproductive strategy is to capture the best genes she can while false-promising (seducing but not delivering, baiting into hazard) the maximum rents on the male population.
This is the origin of the Abrahamic method of deceit: (a) presumption of the value of cooperation (false). (b) avoidance of physical threats of violence (fast) and reliance on undermining(slow) as a proxy for violence (informational and social threats), (c) social construction of narrative of undermining as a means of organizing competition vs military and resource pursuit against competitors as a means of organizing competition, (d) plausible deniability of undermining (slow) vs violence (fast), (e) unaccountability by submission to evidentiary violence vs inescapability from plausibly deniable false accusation to undermine. (f) the use of pervasive lying in order to control children at low cost, by the construction of mythological narratives (sophistry, mysticism, pseudoscience). (g) and perhaps the most devastating: the desire to maintain this emotional coercive ability by infantilization of and perpetuation of ignorance in the population, vs male need for adult males with objective (truthful empirical) agency in order to resist competitors.
TESTS OF SEX DIFFERENCES IN COGNITION
We’ve identified simple tests of female cognitive bias and absence of cognitive agency (possibility of truth):
(a) Denial of scarcity
(b) Denial of meritocracy
(c) NAXALT(inability to distinguish a curve,
(d) desirability conflated with truth,
(e) denial of evidence
(f) Evasion by GSRRM,
(g) posturing false value of cooperation (sex proxy).
Like many things, once you identify the incentives, the evolutionary necessity, and the extension of that evolutionary necessity from physics, you find that all human behavior is just the need for acquisition, means of savings, vs reproductive strategy. and reproductive strategy is just female hyperconsumption vs male hyper capitalization.
And once you make it to that conclusion, you realize that males developed civilization in order to compete for females, but it was only possible upon the evolution of the ability to capitalize with property.
Ergo, civilization wasn’t possible until the domestication of plants, animals, and yes, man. And the control of territory to do so. And the production of commons (capital improvements) to territories that provided discounts (returns) of compound (repeating) value.
And here we find the crux of the political problem we face today: (a)incalculability because of digital fiat money, (b) incalculability of scale (democracy), (c) incommensurability of left and right political demands under these conditions. (d) the natural dysgenic collapse of equalitarian societies, (e) the natural eugenic evolution of meritocratic societies.
The hunter agrarian age is past. Agrarian group strategies, traditions< norms, morals<ethics, institutions<laws, paradigms<ideas are no longer the utility that they once were.
The agrarian age limited our evolution – froze us in time – in exchange for increasing our numbers and SLOWING what had been hyper rapid evolution over the past ten thousands of years.
The European age that re-united the world, let us discover our races and differences, again, stopped our speciation, slowed evolution, but accelerated technological adaptation, which in turn accelerated reproduction of genetic load- reversing the evolution that only East Asians and Western Europeans had created during the agrarian age.
Humans, like all other animals, and apparently more so given our rate of adaptation, accumulate defects (“genetic load”). We sort into classes: a hierarchy of sexual, social, economic, politicla, military value. And in most societies, we sort not by individuals but into clans by that social sexual economic, political, and military value. While through most of history about a third of females and as much as two-thirds of males failed to reproduce. And while in northern europe, under manorialism, most married much later, producing fewer offspring, and twenty percent or more failed to reproduce, the rest of the world continued reproduction at the bottom with warmer climates providing higher disease gradients but higher rates of reproductive survival at the bottom, and colder climates the opposite.
At present, after half a millennia of european conceptual, scientific, technological, economic, and political innovation, and after almost two centuries of the industrial revolution, we have equilibrated geographic and developmental differences. And we are wealthy enough for having done so to desire to, and demand, to fulfill our political preferences at the scale of states that we had fulfilled under villages and city-states.
We ended the eugenics program postwar, that was aboriginal a liberal program, even though the Germans – no matter how politically incorrect it is to say – were right. We ended limiting immigration to equally genetically pacified (evolved) peoples. And we have allowed anti-evolutionary religions of Judaism and Islam in particular into Europe despite Islam’s long-standing attempt to destroy European civilization, and Judaism’s continuous hostility to it. Because both of these religions are evolutionary for the masses which is why Judaism is the origin of Marxism, postmodernism, and HBD-denialism. (Socialism in the continental tradition rather than the Marxist is just a continuation of the policies of the Catholic Church – which again, was a devolutionary submissive religion only escaped by Protestantism and the eugenic consequences of Northern European manorialism.
There is only one solution: the solution the Europeans have practiced throughout our history: the restoration of political competition between states, each of which satisfies slightly different needs for the more eugenically evolved (northern Europe, less eugenically evolved, eastern Europe, and less eugenically evolved neolithic Europe of the south. And far less evolved rest of the world other than Han, Korean, and Japanese east who alone, like northern Europe, spent the past millennia in eugenic evolution. While the rest of the world expanded dysgenia.
So we can die off and fall to south American, Indian, middle eastern, or African dysgenia, ignorance, incompetence, and poverty, or we can separate as we have throughout our european history into a thousand nations, and let peoples make their own choices and pay the cost of their choices, and let evidence accomplish what opinion and argument cannot.
Source date (UTC): 2020-09-17 09:25:00 UTC
EVOLUTION IS JUST CALCULATION AND IT”S FAST
The universe appears to be constructed in binary at different frequencies. The frequencies in four bits producing eight dimensions of over two hundred possibilities. The fundamental forces out of four. All matter is constructed of only thee computable bits. All life in only four bits. And we write software with 16 bits just to make it easier for us to comprehend. The C language has only 32 keywords. We write all the English language in 26 bits (characters). We speak English language with only 44 sounds. And speech is infinitely calculable (unlimited).
We can calculate by speech and organize our behavior. But that’s just an extension of every combination in evolutionary history.
Bacteria (prokaryotes) reproduce (divide) between once every 12 minutes and once every 24 hours. And so the average lifespan of a bacterium is around 12 hours or so.
Bacteria have between 130 kbp to over 14 Mbp. And while Eukaryotes (with nucleus) generally use point mutations, while prokaryotes (bacteria etc w/o nucleus) can capture or discard entire genes (sets).
There are typically 40 million bacterial cells in a gram of soil and a million bacterial cells in a millilitre of fresh water. There are approximately 5×1030 bacteria on Earth, forming a biomass which exceeds that of all plants and animals.
Errors in replication (reproduction) are random, with longer genomes having more opportunities for change. (number of computations)
Errors in replication occur in parallel (parallel computation)
Sexual Reproduction Rapidly Increases sharing of new genomes (recombinant computation.)
Sexual SELECTION rapidly increases sharing of new beneficial genomes.
As life evolves in complexity the rate of evolution increases. But we trade off rates of reproduction (bacteria) for energy consumption (advanced life).
So no. the universe produces a hierarchy of increasingly complex combinatorics (combinations) from energetic vibrations to sub-particles, to particles to elements, to molecules, to bio-molecules, organelle, cells, tissues, organs, systems, organisms, sentience, awareness, consciousness, speech, and calculates in massively parallel, and recombines gains in entropy (energy), through reproduction (communication, transfer), at rates that are terrifyingly rapid.
The simple neural cells in your body from your nerves to your brain come in just three variations from minuscule granule cells to terribly long (toe to brain) nerve cells. Your brain is able to sense, perceive integrate, and predict the world around you, and then choose alternative predictions (imaginations) by using 100 billion neurons and trillions and trillions of dendrites in massive parallel.
There are about 54 regions neo cortex composed of 1,000,000–2,000,000 cortical columns, each composed of 100,000,000 cortical minicolumns with up to 110 neurons each, together having 100,000,000,000 neurons, with about 1000 dendrites per neuron and 1000 synapses per neuron or ~1.5×10^14 synapses.
And there are billions of people on this earth. And look what we are calculating and acting, to change the universe together.
So massive parallelization and massive computation even by random error calculate absurdly fast, in general producing great leaps when a new opportunity is exploited by evolution.
So no. Life forms very quickly just like all molecules form very quickly because it’s all just parallel computation by trial and error calculating improvements in the capture of energy from entropy, and then distributing that new technology by reproduction.
Billions if not trillions of parallel computations ever few minutes to hours by every single organism, recombining through asexual capture of sexual reproduction to compute increasingly superior means of capturing energy.
It will happen wherever it can as fast as it can and it’s fast.
It’s trivially easy for the universe to produce life IF it has the time. The problem appears to be that the vast majority of the universe is an irradiated wasteland. So it’s not even vaguely surprising that life and advanced life evolve – it’s as deterministic as gravity. What’s surprising is that there is a spot in this galaxy that’s dying already that isn’t an irradiated wasteland. I mean, a safe place in the galactic suburbs, between spiral arms, a certain kind of sun, a certain distance, a Jupiter to protect us, a moon to keep the core liquid, and a liquid core that protects us from radiation.
Life requires:
Available Energy (the sweet spot)
The Capture and storage of energy
Growth (transformation of energy)
Reproduction (reproduction of transformation of energy)
Reaction to the world around it (‘irritability’)
There are no problems with Darwinism. None. Zero. It’s just calculation.
BTW: the moron at yale who last came up with this nonsense-argument is a theologian not a mathematician biologist or physicist – or even philosopher.
Source date (UTC): 2020-09-01 09:32:00 UTC
Market systems calculate like physical and biological systems. They calculate the defeat of entropy – or at least self-replication by the capture of its energy. Language assists in negotiating calculations. That’s all we do: massive parallel computation of by trial and error.
Reply addressees: @TruthQuest11
Market systems calculate like physical and biological systems. They calculate the defeat of entropy – or at least self-replication by the capture of its energy. Language assists in negotiating calculations. That’s all we do: massive parallel computation of by trial and error.
Source date (UTC): 2020-08-21 18:27:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1296876477414334466
Reply addressees: @TruthQuest11
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1296786299098214400
THE ABYSS IS A CHALLENGE OR A HORROR – WE MUST CHOOSE
The universe will eventually compute everything that can be eventually computed by the universe. And the defeat of entropy serves the purpose of increasing computation. If the universe calculates nothing more than the defeat of entropy, then anything and everything that can be computed will be. Man is the result of a rare computation. man’s reason accelerates the computation of the defeat of entropy. We are another step in advancing computation of that which can be computed by the accumulated defeat of entropy. This knowledge is humbling for men of weakness and a challenge to men of will. The last most humbling and terrifying knowledge we must face is the rapidity with which the great filter approaches, and that failing to transcend our existence will pass unnoticed by any that follow -if any follow at all.
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-02 13:21:00 UTC
RT @curtdoolittle: @JadeBai85455803 See more on King of the Hill Games as Research and Teaching here: https://t.co/GSazEAw9om
RT @curtdoolittle: @JadeBai85455803 See more on King of the Hill Games as Research and Teaching here: https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/on-king-of-the-hill-games/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-23 02:50:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1275259946318397447