/lit/ - Literature

>>20406293
Post the full version.

Better version

>Posting a redacted version

>>12514958
i mean i sort of agree with this but the graph still made me kek, why the fuck do people insist of graphing things that are ungraphable and make themselves look like retards?

>>11950714
>For me the main stake of Big Data, together with algorithms, is prediction. It is another form of the determination of time, which is probably not the same form of temporizing the past, the present, and the future that we can find in Bergson, Heidegger, Lyotard, Deleuze, etc. This means that we must discover in Big Data a new and powerful synthesis of time, and figure out how to deal with it.
i think the issue with seeing big data this way is that even if we got a really huge computer, the computer could simulate the world, but it could never simulate itself adding input to the world, so we have different scenarios:

[a] the computer stays "outside", it predicts everything perfectly, but adds no input, which means it's irrelevant to the course of history

[b] the computer adds input, but by doing so modifies the world and its predictions are no longer accurate

[c] The computer only adds inputs "small" enough that its predictions are still accurate while directing the course of history and remaining accurate in its predictions, this could limit the possibilities of history, for example say that it predicts a catastrophic event and the machine is able to determine that if we take path α humanity will be destroyed, if we take path β 99% of humanity will be wiped and 1% will survive, and if we take path ɣ the computer is unable to predict the consequences because his input is too big to follow that path, we may be limiting ourselves to path β because of the security of it but gambling on path ɣ may have lead to a better future but that path will never be explored because it breaks the prediction powers of the machine

or maybe that example is not great when it comes to survival, but let's say that exploring path ɣ leads to the creation of a technology powerful beyond all imagination, a civilization that creates a predictor machine of type [c] too soon will never explore this path and obtain this technology, a civilization that creates a predictor of type [b] may discover this and steamroll over a civilization with a type [c] predictor, but a type [b] may have also destroyed itself way before they get here

found the chapter on the hand a bit baffling, like i understand his point that most animals habit niches and don't really evolve, just stay in a stasis on those niches while they remain

But when about the periods between those static moments? he seems to mock evolution but certainly there has to be some mechanism that transforms the organisms when change is required? maybe he doesn't really deny evolution, just changes the focus to those moments where nothing changes and organisms just express their nature up to their logical conclusion and then pass away when their time is over?

>>11804095

>>11180692
I am sure we would be exploring the stars by now anon

If you wante'd a good book, a fulfilling book about completed character arcs and personal development... I'm your man.

Is P&V really that bad? Particularly in reference to Dosto
picture unrelated