From TFA: "Premises connected to The Pirate Bay were first raided in 2006. The complexity of the case led to delays in charges being filed and the case being bought to court."
Although I did just realize how this actually works. My ballot is a 2-part paper ballot. At the top is a ballot serial number that gets recorded next to my name in "the big book" where I put my signature. The trick to keeping my vote secret is that when I put my ballot into the machine, the operator separates the 2 parts of the ballot. One part contains my votes, the other part contains the ballot serial number. Once separated, theoretically you don't know which ballot has which number... but you also have a tally outside of the machine of how many ballots should be counted. In other words, they audit the machine by counting the ballot "stubs"... if everything matches, that's good. If not, they have to reconcile the difference somehow.
I noticed that they recorded my ballot number next to my name. Hmmm.... I don't care if they know who I voted for. In fact, I like the idea that I could find my "paper trail" if needed.
As pointed out in "The Black Swan", this is HIGHLY dependent on the scenario in question. For problems where the bounds are easily determined (say, the number of jelly beans in a certain size jar), then "crowd wisdom" might apply. For example, you would be unlikely to guess to that a 1 gallon jar holds 3 million normal sized jelly beans.
But take a different scenario. Let's have the crowd guess the income of some random individual. Depending on the individual the crowd could be very wrong. If the individual is a homeless man with no income, they will be wrong. If the individual is James Simons with $1.5B (yes, that's a B) of income, they will also be wrong.
Only when the scenario in question is already "average", then a crowd may be able to make a reasonable estimate. If the scenario is not "average", the crowd will continue to make an average estimate.
So, while it appears that there may be wisdom in a crowd, really there's only mediocrity. If you apply the mediocre crowd to the mediocre problem, you should expect to get reasonable results.
Of course, the same dependencies on the problem also exist for the crowd. A crowd of A-list movie stars guessing the income for the random individual may be very different from a crowd on wellfare.
Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well. To what do I owe the extreme pleasure of this surprising visit?
If a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man.
Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who chooses to be bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him?
I'm not interested in semantic games - I consider names to be references to real objects in the same way that pointers are references to objects in code. They are not the same thing as the object, but they do share a certain relation, are useful, and point at the real object. That's the point though. It is merely a semantic game to call an object by some name or label... or more accurately to my argument, to call it by some archetype.
Sure there is. Or, if you're uncomfortable about how we apply labels to things, we can count how many atoms of various types are in my room, and then we can say I have 0 atoms of unnilhexium, quite precisely. The problem with this argument is that you could just as easily say that you have 0 Mercedes-Benz automobiles, 0 Black Holes, 0 oceans, and 0 Ancient Chinese Scrolls, ad infinitum. It adds no value, other than semantic.
You make the assumption that the universe is not a simulation (i.e. programmed according to a specific set of rules), or that it does not follow a specific set of rules without having a programmer as such*. If that is true, then all those rules are essentially sitting there waiting to be discovered by whatever emergent intelligent life inhabits such a system. If the universe is not a simulation, then my logic holds. If the universe is a simulation, then the universe, as you've pointed out, is already an abstraction... meaning that the mathematics are an abstraction on top of the abstraction of the simulation. Even if the mathematics were 'real' in this scenario, the simulation itself is an abstraction, thus supporting the initial argument.
In that situation, saying that we "invent" mathematics makes as much sense as saying an ant "invents" a spill of soda somewhere on the ground. Regardless of what the ant thinks, humans can observe the spill of soda and describe it's physical identity. The same can not be said for mathematics, which is an idea, not a real thing.
The reason why science progresses the way it does is because simpler models provide some benefit. Complex models provide increasing benefit, but the returns are diminishing. That is entirely correct. But the question, then, is - why are our models simpler than the universe? It's because they are abstractions. The are a "smearing" of complexity into simpler, less precise things. It is the utility of this abstraction, which makes the mathematics work. Take the simple example of 1 + 1 = 2, as someone earlier posited. That math only works if we assume at 1 and 1 each represent equivalent types of things. The only way to arrive at that result is to suspend reality and pretend that each individual thing has some characteristics in common with some other individual thing, which we now call a type or class of thing. But that archetype is an abstraction. To say that 1 penny plus 1 penny equals 2 pennies, requires us to pretend that those pennies are equivalent. The equivalence only exists in our idea or archetype of pennies. It does not exist in the real pennies.
But... by no means did they invent anything, they merely discovered what was already in the source code. That's a bad example for the reasons illustrated initially. The ability to fully describe a simulation from within a simulation does not reveal anything about reality, only about the simulation, which is an abstraction. In other words, "people" living inside the game of "life" may be able to fully describe their environment or model of the game of "life"; yet, their description is one of the simulation we create. It would reveal much about our ideas for the game, but nothing about the real world within which the simulation runs.
I think that in order to qualify quantum numbers as different from abstract numbers, we would have to agree that the items being quantified are equivalent. In other words, I cannot count coins because each has its own identity. Do the energies being measured have their own identity? Or can one energy be qualitatively and quantitatively replaced with another and be unrecognizable/unobservable as a change?
If they can be said to have their own identity, then any counting or quantification of them involves an abstraction. If, on the other hand, you can say they have no identity, then perhaps this may be an instance where you are counting real things. That said, I'm not sure it would lead to us having "discovered" mathematics (which in this case would be described as the study of quantum identities).
1. The 3 cents you mention are real. They are physical minted objects. Please re-read the argument. I did not say that each coin wasn't real. What I said is that "3 cents" isn't real. It's easy to observe that each coin exists on it's own. But in order to count them as a set, I must make an abstraction, which reduces the identity of each member of the set. In other words, each member of a set that really exists are not equivalent. To make them "countable", I must make an abstraction which ignores their individual identities... which in effect "smears" their identities in order to count them as being equal. So, yes, they are physical minted objects as individual things. I can say I have 1 of this kind, and 1 of that kind. But to say I have 2, I have to create an abstraction.
2. You are talking about human abstractions more associated with sociology and economics, not mathematics. Depending on the physical qualities of the cents, they may be worth far more to a coin collector. "Value" is a very different basis for abstraction than "1". Yet value is itself an abstraction. Value is not an intrinsic quality of coins. It's a quality that humans project onto the coins. If there were no humans here, the coins would cease to have value. When I speak of 1 cent coins, I'm using it in the descriptive sense, not the value sense.
3. All communication is abstraction.
You are writing in ASCII and/or Unicode right now -- how can it NOT be an abstraction? That has nothing to do with whether the basis of mathematical principals are "invented" by humans that happen to be able to figure out ways other humans will believe the same things, or "discovered" and then interpreted into human languages. In this case, because human abstraction of external and internal principals are innately confused, the term Mathematics is used for both the "invented" form of communication, and the "discovery" which is being communicated.
Just because all communication is "abstract" doesn't mean the whole universe is made-up! If that was the case, the only possible God is the one in your own head. I'm not sure what your point is here. I did not suggest that the universe is made up. I suggested that the human model for simulating the universe through mathematics is made up. This has no bearing on any argument for or against God.
There's no such real thing as "0 Jersey Cows". Your statement is not a mathematical quantification. To say you have "precisely 0" is really a semantic mimic of mathematics. The reason is that all items that really exist have identity. The problem with "precisely 0" is that all things which are not in your room right now share the quantity of "precisely 0". In the context of "your room, right now", there is more than one thing which is not there, thereby removing the identity of any one thing which is not in your room.
It might be more interesting to say "I have precisely 0 of all things which are not in my room right now, in my room right now." --- although maybe not all that interesting.:-)
It is coincidental that I was just reading about this in Paul Davies' book "The Mind of God". My opinion on the matter is fairly simple. Mathematics are invented. Period. The reason is simple... all of mathematics is an abstraction. There is no "real" thing called 1 or 2 or 3. In fact, the "integers" we use for counting things is only allowed because of the way we abstract the thing which we count. If we really defined whatever we were counting (say, coins for instance), then we could not count more than one of them.
Here's a thought problem for you.
You have the following in your hand:
A one-cent piece from 1978 A one-cent piece from 1986 A one-cent piece from 2004
I could have said you have 3 cents. But there is no such thing as 3 cents. 3 cents is an idea, an abstraction. It is not a concrete thing in the real world.
So, despite all that we appear to discover about the world through mathematics, we cannot really say that math is "out there" somewhere waiting for our discovery. Rather, mathematics is our projection onto the universe. It it because of the shortcomings of our abstractions and models that our science must be continuously revised.
For example, Newton did not discover anything about the universe. He made observations and rationalized (projected?) an abstract model which works very similarly to the observations. It's repeatable and consistent, so we call it a theory.
But then along comes Einstein. He makes some new observations, some new hypothesis, and voila, a new theory. Even if you argue that Einstein, or anyone else for that matter, has made such discoveries through mathematical observation, that doesn't discount the fact that the observation in that case is made upon the abstraction of the universe, not the universe itself.
In summary, mathematics is a simulation of the universe. It's an abstraction. One we humans invent. The fact that our model is observable, predictable, and so on in no way justifies the position that we are discovering some thing which pre-existed. Here's a final analogy - a computer model can be created to simulate the design of a car. We can study, observe, made predictions, corrections, and so on with the model. Yet, despite how relevant those observations, predictions, corrections, and so on are to the real car, they are still NOT the real car. The model is our interpretation, our abstraction of the car. We invent it. We make it. We project our ideas about the car into it. We do not "discover" it. The model does not exist without us.
Now everyone go make your own knock-off. Call it a p-meter, or a g-meter, or a niceta-meter and sell them as alternatives to e-meters... or better yet, sell them as parodies of e-meters!!
wait. let me re-state this in slashdot-ese
1. obtain e-meter schematics from web 2. build clone or parody e-meter 3. sell them on ebay 4. profit!!!
Can someone direct me to the federal copyright which includes language that grants sports bars the right to show NFL games on a big screen but not churches (or other establishments)?
If you surf exclusively through Google cache, I think that just makes it easier to resolve the correlation between sites. After all, at that point the logs are centralized and synchronized already.
apparently we all want there to be a single explanation for this. could it be... just possibly... that multiple events took place which led to mass extinction of dinosaurs? couldn't it be that a combination of factors which are inclusive (as opposed to mutually exclusive) of meteors, volcanoes, and possibly earth climate cycles and other events all contributed? it turns out the universe is a big, complex, inter-mingled mix of stuff... and sometimes it conspires against itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Are we sure the first person they talk to should be named Mr. Tough?
"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone."
Hrmm...
maybe for Krispy Kremes - but not for Red Bull. :-)
Everyone knows the laser beams go on top of sharks, not gamer's heads! Get with the program!
What if I used Schroedinger's cat? Then it would be unknown whether the EULA was accepted or not, right?
From TFA: "Premises connected to The Pirate Bay were first raided in 2006. The complexity of the case led to delays in charges being filed and the case being bought to court."
What's this "away from the computer" you speak of? Please elaborate.
At first, I thought the advertisement for Tom Cruise in Valkyrie was a related crackpot scandal story.
Although I did just realize how this actually works. My ballot is a 2-part paper ballot. At the top is a ballot serial number that gets recorded next to my name in "the big book" where I put my signature. The trick to keeping my vote secret is that when I put my ballot into the machine, the operator separates the 2 parts of the ballot. One part contains my votes, the other part contains the ballot serial number. Once separated, theoretically you don't know which ballot has which number... but you also have a tally outside of the machine of how many ballots should be counted. In other words, they audit the machine by counting the ballot "stubs" ... if everything matches, that's good. If not, they have to reconcile the difference somehow.
I noticed that they recorded my ballot number next to my name. Hmmm.... I don't care if they know who I voted for. In fact, I like the idea that I could find my "paper trail" if needed.
If only someone would invent a device capable of automating those tasks.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
As pointed out in "The Black Swan", this is HIGHLY dependent on the scenario in question. For problems where the bounds are easily determined (say, the number of jelly beans in a certain size jar), then "crowd wisdom" might apply. For example, you would be unlikely to guess to that a 1 gallon jar holds 3 million normal sized jelly beans.
But take a different scenario. Let's have the crowd guess the income of some random individual. Depending on the individual the crowd could be very wrong. If the individual is a homeless man with no income, they will be wrong. If the individual is James Simons with $1.5B (yes, that's a B) of income, they will also be wrong.
Only when the scenario in question is already "average", then a crowd may be able to make a reasonable estimate. If the scenario is not "average", the crowd will continue to make an average estimate.
So, while it appears that there may be wisdom in a crowd, really there's only mediocrity. If you apply the mediocre crowd to the mediocre problem, you should expect to get reasonable results.
Of course, the same dependencies on the problem also exist for the crowd. A crowd of A-list movie stars guessing the income for the random individual may be very different from a crowd on wellfare.
Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well. To what do I owe the extreme pleasure of this surprising visit?
If a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man.
Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who chooses to be bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him?
I think that in order to qualify quantum numbers as different from abstract numbers, we would have to agree that the items being quantified are equivalent. In other words, I cannot count coins because each has its own identity. Do the energies being measured have their own identity? Or can one energy be qualitatively and quantitatively replaced with another and be unrecognizable/unobservable as a change?
If they can be said to have their own identity, then any counting or quantification of them involves an abstraction. If, on the other hand, you can say they have no identity, then perhaps this may be an instance where you are counting real things. That said, I'm not sure it would lead to us having "discovered" mathematics (which in this case would be described as the study of quantum identities).
It's an interesting question though.
1. The 3 cents you mention are real. They are physical minted objects. Please re-read the argument. I did not say that each coin wasn't real. What I said is that "3 cents" isn't real. It's easy to observe that each coin exists on it's own. But in order to count them as a set, I must make an abstraction, which reduces the identity of each member of the set. In other words, each member of a set that really exists are not equivalent. To make them "countable", I must make an abstraction which ignores their individual identities
You are writing in ASCII and/or Unicode right now -- how can it NOT be an abstraction? That has nothing to do with whether the basis of mathematical principals are "invented" by humans that happen to be able to figure out ways other humans will believe the same things, or "discovered" and then interpreted into human languages. In this case, because human abstraction of external and internal principals are innately confused, the term Mathematics is used for both the "invented" form of communication, and the "discovery" which is being communicated.
Just because all communication is "abstract" doesn't mean the whole universe is made-up! If that was the case, the only possible God is the one in your own head. I'm not sure what your point is here. I did not suggest that the universe is made up. I suggested that the human model for simulating the universe through mathematics is made up. This has no bearing on any argument for or against God.
There's no such real thing as "0 Jersey Cows". Your statement is not a mathematical quantification. To say you have "precisely 0" is really a semantic mimic of mathematics. The reason is that all items that really exist have identity. The problem with "precisely 0" is that all things which are not in your room right now share the quantity of "precisely 0". In the context of "your room, right now", there is more than one thing which is not there, thereby removing the identity of any one thing which is not in your room.
:-)
It might be more interesting to say "I have precisely 0 of all things which are not in my room right now, in my room right now." --- although maybe not all that interesting.
It is coincidental that I was just reading about this in Paul Davies' book "The Mind of God". My opinion on the matter is fairly simple. Mathematics are invented. Period. The reason is simple... all of mathematics is an abstraction. There is no "real" thing called 1 or 2 or 3. In fact, the "integers" we use for counting things is only allowed because of the way we abstract the thing which we count. If we really defined whatever we were counting (say, coins for instance), then we could not count more than one of them.
Here's a thought problem for you.
You have the following in your hand:
A one-cent piece from 1978
A one-cent piece from 1986
A one-cent piece from 2004
I could have said you have 3 cents. But there is no such thing as 3 cents. 3 cents is an idea, an abstraction. It is not a concrete thing in the real world.
So, despite all that we appear to discover about the world through mathematics, we cannot really say that math is "out there" somewhere waiting for our discovery. Rather, mathematics is our projection onto the universe. It it because of the shortcomings of our abstractions and models that our science must be continuously revised.
For example, Newton did not discover anything about the universe. He made observations and rationalized (projected?) an abstract model which works very similarly to the observations. It's repeatable and consistent, so we call it a theory.
But then along comes Einstein. He makes some new observations, some new hypothesis, and voila, a new theory. Even if you argue that Einstein, or anyone else for that matter, has made such discoveries through mathematical observation, that doesn't discount the fact that the observation in that case is made upon the abstraction of the universe, not the universe itself.
In summary, mathematics is a simulation of the universe. It's an abstraction. One we humans invent. The fact that our model is observable, predictable, and so on in no way justifies the position that we are discovering some thing which pre-existed. Here's a final analogy - a computer model can be created to simulate the design of a car. We can study, observe, made predictions, corrections, and so on with the model. Yet, despite how relevant those observations, predictions, corrections, and so on are to the real car, they are still NOT the real car. The model is our interpretation, our abstraction of the car. We invent it. We make it. We project our ideas about the car into it. We do not "discover" it. The model does not exist without us.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/E-Meter/
... or better yet, sell them as parodies of e-meters!!
Now everyone go make your own knock-off. Call it a p-meter, or a g-meter, or a niceta-meter and sell them as alternatives to e-meters
wait. let me re-state this in slashdot-ese
1. obtain e-meter schematics from web
2. build clone or parody e-meter
3. sell them on ebay
4. profit!!!
Can someone direct me to the federal copyright which includes language that grants sports bars the right to show NFL games on a big screen but not churches (or other establishments)?
If you surf exclusively through Google cache, I think that just makes it easier to resolve the correlation between sites. After all, at that point the logs are centralized and synchronized already.
how about ANYTHING from this company:
... who spends money on a box of rocks?
http://www.machinadynamica.com/
I mean - "Brilliant Pebbles"? I'll say
apparently we all want there to be a single explanation for this. could it be ... just possibly ... that multiple events took place which led to mass extinction of dinosaurs? couldn't it be that a combination of factors which are inclusive (as opposed to mutually exclusive) of meteors, volcanoes, and possibly earth climate cycles and other events all contributed? it turns out the universe is a big, complex, inter-mingled mix of stuff ... and sometimes it conspires against itself.