Create or die (a 3 months team mission)

[Nereid]

In this thread the stage is yours, to show how you can use your own ability in order to solve an unfamiliar situation and help your team and yourself to survive after the 3 months.

Who is in my team (apart from myself)?
Why do I not know who is in my team?
Why do you think that if I don't solve your puzzle I will die in less than 3 months?
What has morality got to do with this thread?
When you write 'morality', what do you have in mind?

 

[Lama]

Chroot,

The logical reasoning method that standing in the basis of the current language of mathematics is not evil, it is based on the idea of the scientific method of the last 400 years, that clearly separated between our technological skills (only matter, energy and quantity are taking in account) and our morality levels.

Please tell me what community of people gave us our abilities to destroy ourselves: the man in the street? the politicians?

No chroot, the scientific community of the last 200 years gave us these "toys"
and nothing prevent them from doing it, because their logical reasoning methods has no connections to their morality, and this is exactly the dangerous dichotomy that I talking about.

 

[fbsthreads]

if n is going to end L, then what system of mathematics was used to calculate that finite number, and can't we use that mathematical system if it works.

And if the current system doesn't work then we aren't going to die in three months and we don't need to invent a new system.

YAY, we win either way, the teams okay, we've overcome the problem using homegrown logic.

 

[Lama]

When you write 'morality', what do you have in mind?

Nereid, your question is for me like a cool breeze in the middle of a summer noone.

Morality for me is the finest logical reasoning system that the humam race can have, that gives it its ability to survive the bilnd forces of nature .

 

[chroot]

So, we have knowledge of the atom which enables us to build nuclear weapons, and hence destroy ourselves. We have arrived at this knowledge by the last several hundred years of scientific inquiry. We're all in agreement so far.

Now, this knowledge was not "made" by the scientific community, it was discovered by them. You seem to think that if we used some kind of different scientific process, then we would not be able to build nuclear weapons -- presumably this means that this alternative scientific process would not have led us to discover things about atoms.

So you seem to be advocating the crippling of science by using an alternative scientific method which would not allow us to discover things that could be used to build weapons. You seem to be missing the fundamental point that information cannot be evil. Scientists can learn how atoms work. With than knowledge, politicians can order the construction of nuclear bombs, threatening humanity -- or a doctor can order the construction of radiotherapy machines, allowing many people to survive cancer. Information is not inherently evil or good -- it is the application of that information that can be evil or good.

You seem to be advocating a system in which we stick our heads in the sand and discover nothing, because any knowledge could potentially be used to hasten our demise. Let's just make one thing clear here: you're not advocating some new mathematical formalism at all. You are trying to proselytize your anti-scientific world-view, couching your rhetoric inside some ill-formed pseuo-math to hide its true nature.

- Warren

 

[Lama]

Hi fbsthreads,

The idea is to develop such logical reasoning that will change the way we are thinkin' about Math and science, and will lead us to find reasonable methods which always avoid n of L.

 

[Lama]

You seem to think that if we used some kind of different scientific process, then we would not be able to build nuclear weapons.

Nothing, but our morality level, can prevent from us to build an atomic weapon.

What I am suggesting will not prevent from us to discover any new powerful thing.

The deep change that I am talking about is to use this powerful language of mathematics in such a way that any new student who learn it will use a built in methods that develop both his morality level and his technical skills in such a way that will give him the strategic insight not to use his power to develop destructive things from one hand , and to take care about life on the other hand.

 

[chroot]

Can you provide even a simple example of how a student is supposed to develop his morality while learning his multiplication tables?

You seem to be very keen on this idea, but you do not seem capable of providing even a basic example of how it might actually work.

- Warren

 

[fbsthreads]

math doesn't lead to n of L.
the proof of that is that we still have L and have never experienced an utter n.

although i don't deny that n is possible, it will not be caused by logic, maths or science, it will be caused by an abuse of these things that maths does not govern.



on a different note, did you ever think that maths might be able to stop n as well as cause it?

p.s. shouldn't this post be in the morals forum or whatever it's called as it is about morals and ethics, not general physics.

 

[Lama]

p.s. shouldn't this post be in the morals forum or whatever it's called as it is about morals and ethics, not general physics.

Look how you separate so easily between what is called science methods and morality.

And this is exactly what the academic system sells to young students and they buy it.

So let me say it again, because of this artificial separation between our morality and out scientific methods that are learned by the academic system for the last 200 years, our world got all its mass destructive weapon.

 

[PFanalog57]

Look how you separate so easily between what is called science methods and morality.

And this is exactly what the academic system sells to young students and they buy it.

So let me say it again, because of this artificial separation between our morality and out scientific methods that are learned by the academic system for the last 200 years, our world got all its mass destructive weapon.

Knowledge must continue to increase. Any attempt to stop the increase of knowledge is immoral



Society evolves via the majority shareholders of opinion, it seems. We
may incorrectly assume that all people are almost exclusively
motivated by their own material self-interest. Yet the experiential
juxtaposition of objective and subjective realities, called the status
quo "of the people, for the people, and by the people" systematically
refutes the self-interest hypothesis to a large degree. It appears
that many people are strongly motivated by concerns for fairness and
reciprocity.

Let there be a decision process in which one of two alternatives must
be chosen.

Group members may differ in their valuations of the alternatives, yet
must prefer some alternative to disagreement[game theoretically
speaking]. The process will be distinguished by three features:
private information regarding valuations, varying intensities in the
preference for one out-come over the other, and the option to declare
neutrality in order to avoid disagreement.

Variants on a "tyranny of the majority", will always be an equilibrium
in which the majority is all the more aggressive in pushing its
alternative, thus using the metaphorical "strong arm" to enforce their
will, via both numbers and voice. The metaphorical "might makes right"
scenario. Likewise, under very general conditions, an aggressive
minority equilibrium inevitably makes its appearance, provided that
the group is large enough. This equilibrium displays a "tyranny of the
minority": Yes, it is always true that the increased aggression of the
minority more than compensates for its smaller number, leading to the
minority outcome being implemented with larger probability than the
majority alternative.

 

[sparkster]

Because that's what happens when you are being sarcastic and post in all caps.

Oh, I know. I was just being sarcastic.

 

[Nereid]

The logical reasoning method that standing in the basis of the current language of mathematics is not evil, it is based on the idea of the scientific method of the last 400 years, that clearly separated between our technological skills (only matter, energy and quantity are taking in account) and our morality levels.

Please tell me what community of people gave us our abilities to destroy ourselves: the man in the street? the politicians?

No chroot, the scientific community of the last 200 years gave us these "toys" and nothing prevent them from doing it, because their logical reasoning methods has no connections to their morality, and this is exactly the dangerous dichotomy that I talking about.

You don't need modern day toys like H-bombs to destroy 'ourselves'; the Mongols a thousand years ago did a pretty thorough job of destroying an alarmingly large number of 'us' with just swords. Too, some very nasty poisons have been known for thousands of years, along with cheap and effective ways of making and distributing them. The early white settlers in Australia used poisoned 'gifts' to clear the land of the native aborigines. And the list goes on.

So by extension, any use of science and technology (irrespective of how ill-formed the understanding of it is) is immoral? Or is it the intention?

 

[Zorodius]

Please tell me what community of people gave us our abilities to destroy ourselves: the man in the street? the politicians?

No chroot, the scientific community of the last 200 years gave us these "toys"
and nothing prevent them from doing it, because their logical reasoning methods has no connections to their morality, and this is exactly the dangerous dichotomy that I talking about.

You'll be disappointed to realize that large-scale loss of human life to war predates the invention of modern weaponry.

 

[Lama]

Chroot,


The logical reasoning that I am talking about it is the included-middle reasoning, which is based on our abilities to develop deep interactions between abstract or non-abstract elements in such ways that they will not destroy each other during their interactions.


This kind of reasoning, when combined with our own cognition abilities to develop Math as part of the research itself, can lead us to develop a new kind of language of Mathematics which is deeply connected to our morality level.

And as I wrote to Nereid, Morality for me is the finest logical reasoning system that the human race can have, that gives it its ability to survive the blind forces of nature.

 

[Nereid]

Nereid, your question is for me like a cool breeze in the middle of a summer noone.

Morality for me is the finest logical reasoning system that the humam race can have, that gives it its ability to survive bilnd forces of nature .

That's nice. How does morality save 'the humam race' from the next KT asteroid? (for the avoidance of doubt, I'm assuming that you would agree that the KT asteroid is a very good example of 'bilnd forces of nature' - do you?

BTW, how about answers to my other questions?

 

[Lama]

Knowledge must continue to increase. Any attempt to stop the increase of knowledge is immoral

How is talking about avoiding knowledge from increasing.

On the contrary, I am talking about developing better methods which will give us the abilities to deal with the power of our discoveries and the knowledge that we get from these discoveries, in such a way that will save us from the blind forces of our discoveries.

 

[Nereid]

Nothing, but our morality level, can prevent from us to build an atomic weapon.

What I am suggesting will not prevent from us to discover any new powerful thing.

The deep change that I am talking about is to use this powerful language of mathematics in such a way that any new student who learn it will use a built in methods that develop both his morality level and his technical skills in such a way that will give him the strategic insight not to use his power to develop destructive things from one hand , and to take care about life on the other hand.

Do you know how the Nobel prize came into being? If you don't, please spend some time researching it.

A sharp knife is a very good tool for slaughtering chickens and pigs; efficient slaughter helps keep the cost of animal protein down. A sharp knife is also a very good weapon for killing people.

Please explain how your new morality would prevent the development of dynamite (which has a large number of positive applications to increasing the health and comfort of humans) or sharp knives?

 

[Nereid]

p.s. shouldn't this post be in the morals forum or whatever it's called as it is about morals and ethics, not general physics.

In principle I agree with this; in practice, I think readers of the relevant philosophy sections would be somewhat less than happy to have this dropped in their laps.

 

[Lama]

That's nice. How does morality save 'the human race' from the next KT asteroid?

Our morality first will save us from the blind forces which existing within us, and can be seen from time to time during our wars.

And the next global war will be our last war.

So this is the time to take the technologies which we developed during the wars between us, and real put our efforts in order to develop technologies that will save our planet from KT asteroid.

In short, the days of our wars between us must be changed by our morality level, and develop our technology in order to protect ourselves from the blind forces of nature.

 

[Nereid]

How is talking about avoiding knowledge from increasing.

On the contrary, I am talking about developing better methods which will give us the abilities to deal with the power of our discoveries and the knowledge that we get from these discoveries, in such a way that will save us from the blind forces of our discoveries.

The applications to which new scientific knowledge can be put are largely unknown (and to some extent unknowable) at the time of their discovery, how could a new morality ensure that only positive applications were subsequently developed?

In the US, in September 2001, several thousand people died when commercial airliners were deliberately flown into two large commercial buildings in New York. A great many of the deaths were the result of a combination of causes, including building design, building construction, building maintenance; lots of kerosene, and so on. No engineer involved in the design of the buildings or the aircraft had intended their creations to be used to kill thousands of people (indeed, the building designers had considered the possibility of a commercial airliner crashing into their building), yet their creations were used for just such a purpose.

Shouldn't your new morality also extend to users?

 

[Lama]

Please explain how your new morality would prevent the development of dynamite

Again, how is talking about preventing of using explosive matters?

I am talking about preventing of using explosive matters in such a way that will destroy life forms on our planet.

 

[Hurkyl]

Besides, the philosophy forum has been suggested to Lama before, and he preferred TD.

 

[Hurkyl]

I am talking about preventing of using explosive matters in such a way that will destroy life forms on our planet.

And why do you think that has anything to do with mathematics?

 

[Lama]

how could a new morality ensure that only positive applications were subsequently developed

Our morality level is our only guaranty to survive power that can be discovered by us in the future, and this morality level has to be developed all the time if we want to survive these discoveries.

This is a very long story if we keep continue to develop our morality, and it can be easily a short story if our morality level is neglected by us during our technological development.

 

[Nereid]

Chroot,

The logical reasoning method that standing in the basis of the current language of mathematics is not evil, it is based on the idea of the scientific method of the last 400 years, that clearly separated between our technological skills (only matter, energy and quantity are taking in account) and our morality levels.

Please tell me what community of people gave us our abilities to destroy ourselves: the man in the street? the politicians?

No chroot, the scientific community of the last 200 years gave us these "toys"
and nothing prevent them from doing it, because their logical reasoning methods has no connections to their morality, and this is exactly the dangerous dichotomy that I talking about.

And

Again, how is talking about preventing of using explosive matters?

I am talking about preventing of using explosive matters in such a way that will destroy life forms on our planet.

And

Our morality level is our only guaranty to survive power that can be discovered by us in the future, and this morality level has to be developed all the time if we want to survive these discoveries.

This is a very long story if we keep continue to develop our morality, and it can be easily a short story if our morality level is neglected by us during our technological development.

Lama, you seem to be inconsistent here, but perhaps it's just my understanding.

The ability of Homo sap. to slaughter large numbers of humans and other large animals has been around for at least 30,000 years - clubs and fire will do the trick, no need even for stone spears and knives. Although somewhat controversial, the disappearance of the megafauna in both Australia and the Americas may be laid at the feet of the early human invaders.

Your thesis seems to be, on the one hand, that new scientific discoveries may lead to better means of mass destruction (so we need a new morality); on the other that new technologies may be applied to making better means of mass destruction (so we need a new morality); on the one foot, new tools may be used for mass killing (so we need a new morality) ... but that the most critical place a new morality is needed is wrt new scientific discoveries (through the automatic inclusion of this fairy dust into the scientific method itself). But we all know that you don't need to be a scientist to give the order to launch 10,000 ICBMs (or to order your army armed with swords to slaughter every man, woman and child in the city), so how would a different way of doing science stop thoughts of mass murder from forming in the mind of a future Pol Pot?

Another part that I don't follow is why a reformulation of logic will lead to this magic new morality.

 

[chroot]

Another part that I don't follow is why a reformulation of logic will lead to this magic new morality.

I whole-heartedly agree. Matt grime, HallsOfIvy, Hurkyl, and others have already gone around and around in circles with Lama on the mathematical front. Since this hasn't been fruitful, and Lama continues to post virtually the same things as he always has, I assumed there must be some ulterior motive. I'm very interested, as you seem to be, to see what his motives really are in posting his mathematical theories here for years on end. Obviously, the central reason is some sort of anti-scientific moral issue for him, and he sees mathematics as a vehicle. Why? I don't know.

- Warren

 

[PFanalog57]

How is talking about avoiding knowledge from increasing.

On the contrary, I am talking about developing better methods which will give us the abilities to deal with the power of our discoveries and the knowledge that we get from these discoveries, in such a way that will save us from the blind forces of our discoveries.

You are talking about the nature of the mind, not physics

According to Freud, the id is the seat of our aggressive instincts.

The ego mediates between aggressive instincts of the id and demands of the superego; it uses defense mechanisms to ward off subconsciousanxiety.

The superego represents conscience and the demands of society; it follows a set of learned and "internalized" moral codes.

A person does not change their basic nature via the acquisition of more knowledge...

Or can they?

 

[Lama]

that new scientific discoveries may lead to better means

When I am talking about scientific discoveries, I am not talking only about new physical quantified phenomena and technological methods to use it.

I am also talking about the education process that will be an inherent part of the scientific framework, which takes in account the power of the language itself on the human mind and discover by using this power the most intimate and internal levels of the power of constructive life within each one of us.

This is the supreme responsibility of the scientific method, to use its power to support and save life phenomena, by using the best methods that can be found and developed by us.

Again, there is no Math without Mathematicians, there is no science without scientists, and there is no life without leaving creatures, simple as that.

We have no choice but to do the best we can in order to save and support life on this planet, because in this case, after we got the power to destroy ourselves, we cannot speak anymore on arrows or knives, because arrows or knives or not going to destroy most or all of us not today and not tomorrow.

We are no longer waking on a sidewalk but on a tight rope high above ground, and we have to use our best methods to not falling from this rope.

And more power means higher and thinner rope that we have to deal with, if we want to survive the blind power of our discoveries.

In short any powerful method always have its destructive and constructive sides, and we have no choices but to do the best we can in order to use it with open eyes, and nobody but us is responsible for this.

whole-heartedly agree. Matt grime, HallsOfIvy, Hurkyl, and others have already gone around and around in circles with Lama on the mathematical front.

You cause yourself not to understand my work by looking on the Langauge of Mathematics only from the point of view of its powerful technical abilities which are based on the 0_XOR_1 reasoning, and this reasoning does the best it can to clearly and sharply separate its methods from any philosophical, moral or ethical researches.

Furthermore, the mathematicians congenital abilities are not taken as natural parts of 0_XOR_1 reasoning.

And the reason is very simple, 0_XOR_1 is an artificial reasoning that has nothing to do with real abstract or non-abstract HIGHLY complex systems.

On the contrary the included-middle reasoning is the right logical reasoning that can support both our technological and non-technological abstract or non-abstract aspects of life.

And why is that?

Because it is based on the most problematic situation that can exist, which is: To find how opposites interact at least without destroying each other and at most to develop higher and deeper levels of interactions between HIGHLY complex phenomena.

Matt grime, HallsOfIvy, Hurkyl, and others...

Don't you have your own original voice, why do you need a group of people around you in order to air your view?

A person does not change their basic nature via the acquisition of more knowledge...

Or can they?

If we are using ! sign right from the beginning about this subject, then we are with our own hands fixed our destiny about this subject.

So I think that your "or can they?" question is the right answer to any defeatist attitude about this subject.

 

[Lama]

I call to each one of us first of all to find out what our civilization seriously do on order to avoid n of L of Drake's equation.

And each one of us have to understand that this is the most important question of our time, that can be answerd only by us.