/sci/ - Science & Math

>"...every human being has an empirical character for his power of choice, which is nothing other than a certain causality of his reason, insofar as in its effects in appearance this reason exhibits a rule, in accordance with which one could derive the rational grounds and the actions themselves according to their kind and degree, and estimate the subjective principles of his power of choice. Because this empirical character itself must be drawn from appearances as effect, and from the rule which experience provides, all the actions of the human being in appearance are determined in accord with the order of nature by his empirical character and the other cooperating causes; and if we could investigate all the appearances of his power of choice down to their basis, then there would be no human action that we could not predict with certainty, and recognize as necessary given its preceding conditions. Thus in regard to this empirical character there is no freedom, and according to this character we can consider the human being solely by observing, and, as happens in anthropology, by trying to investigate the moving causes of his actions physiologically"

>>2233892
While I recognize the distinction, I have a problem with the claim. What evidence do you have that directly disproves that math = reality? On what grounds do you refute the mathematical, computational, or holographic universe hypothesis? Where is your evidence? What are your citations?

I propose we architect a society founded on scientific method and the process of elimination.

The Society would be secular and the freedom of and from religion would be secured
The Society would reject ideology which entails rejection of most historical systems of governance
Rejection of democratic vote as the default decision making process does not entail fascism
The Society has reciprocal responsibilities to the responsibilities of the person
The Society must be scalable and should not fail under high population
The Society would supplement at least one pre-existing society through a transition process
The Society would necessarily be open and inclusive to participation by present and future generations
Contribution by the participants of the society would be a necessity only where machines can not be implemented given current technological limitations
An economy is not a system of money. It’s a system of information, space, and time. Action and energy are derivatives.
Technological unemployment is an expected and desirable outcome to iterate towards as it frees up people to work on other projects
The objective of the society is to systematically eliminate the largest pools of human-dependent labor which require the least effort to automate first.
People who have been unemployed need to be not only retained but empowered and enabled to further contribute to Technological unemployment efforts.
People give us the baseline needs of the society in a per unit basis. The material needs are the easiest to meet and the easiest to estimate, so it is with material needs that we should start.
We can reduce the physical problem of the society to how to build a structure which most efficiently distributes and links people and resources among the most socioeconomically beneficial tasks.

The only concern of the society would be the advancement of the participants of the society socially, psychologically, and physiologically.

>>2103067
>You didn't even understand the first post.
You're criticizing him for making an attempt? Anon's guess is so far better than yours.

I don't want people in my life that doesn't mean I don't want people to be able to walk in my shoes, see from my perspective. It doesn't mean I'm not interested in swapping perspectives with others. It doesn't mean I don't want to share what I make and do with others. I don't want to be bullied for doing so. I don't want to be told that I need to avoid comparing myself to other human beings like Tesla, Einstein, Godel, etc as if doing so was sacrosanct. They were people every bit as fallible as you or I. They simply tried harder for longer than their fellows.

I'm not interest in being responsible for other people's choices or the consequences of other people's choices. I don't want people to shove their insecurities on me.

>>2014380
It's unlikely, I'll get through the papers you've posted in reasonable time for such a transitory medium as this, so instead, let's see if we can find a place where our research meets up.

I'm working on formalizing the computable universe hypothesis into a holographic theory of matter and information based on the holographic principle. I'm approaching this from a theoretical computer science perspective in which we view physical systems as manifestations of computing machines where physical systems are both the input and output of the machines.

You interested in collaboration?

>>2005779
At this time, my primary research is into the way in which a complete quantum logic effects and is effected by theories of computing, artificial intelligence, choice, and physics.

I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not.

Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control.

As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly's systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche.

She stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.