Is every human interaction a type of power struggle? I am throwing this around in my head (To maybe figure out how to express this mathematically). Think about one of the most common practices today: gossip. Why do people gossip (or "talk shit")? I think it is so that when the person being gossiped about enters the immediate environment that the gossiper and their cohorts will laugh at/ scoff at/ despise that person with the gossiper. This is the gossiper's attempt to gain a type of power, or a type of following.
Think about this on a larger scale. Talk shit about an entire group of people, get many to agree with you on what you say. You get people like Hitler, Pat Robertson, and the like.
This whole idea is based on "the one who is the enemy of my enemy is my friend". This is a very basic, and i think, primal idea. Probably because it is the easiest way to create a following, team or "tribe".
It is interesting how it works too, because as soon as you gain power over someone or a group, the more likely you are to have a following. This of course stems from the non-alphas fear of becoming a victim of your "gossip". They don't want to be made fun of by all their peers. So they join you in hopes of being the beta male/female or in hopes of overthrowing you and becoming the new alpha.
Evidence of this is apparent. Look at any social setting. You can easily pick out who is the alpha simply by observing how many interactions there are per person per direction. What I mean is that more people will be interacting with the alpha than anyone else in the group. The way they will talk is in such a manner as to be talking to the whole group but have the focus of their attention on the alpha to gain their approval. If the alpha approves, the team will approve(in most cases). This is to gain ranking in the heirarchy of social interaction. It is the desire to be number one.
This also leads into the reason why there is such thing as "group think", which is basically not thinking for yourself, but letting a group or the leader of group tell you how to think. Religions, political parties, gangs, groups of friends, families, all fall into this catagory.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Social Optimization
I have established that the only kind of plausible deity that could exist would be that of the pantheistic philosophy. Basically, if a god exists, it is equivalent to the universe, and isn't personal in any way. It probably has no feelings towards us at all, really.
I have also established that the universe works quanto-deterministically. This means there is underlying randomness to causality, but when viewed from our level of awareness, things are deterministic in nature. [What we do is completely based on causality or total randomness, both are outside of an "ultimate control" that we may have in a "freewill" universe].
Also, I figure that all human action is ultimately self-serving. Altruism is just a ruse. One performing a charitable act does so to calm any sympathy they may feel. You want to know those you are helping are in a tolerable state of being. You will do what it takes to destroy any potential guilt by "doing the right thing".
No matter what we do, it is caused ultimately by the initial conditions of the universe. So if some deity was responsible for the generation of this reality, then that deity is responsible for what we are doing right now.
Every little electric discharge and molecular process in your brain in ultimately caused by the big bang, or any causal chain that preceded it. This means no matter what you do, you can never be wrong in the eyes of any creator, unless they are willing to punish themselves and even care. Does that fact that we have the ability to care mean anything?
Any kind of apparent "karma" is artificial. "Karma" isn't spiritual or supernatural. It is just a causal/behavior consequence of humans living together. If you are an asshole then people will hate you, if you are nice then people will like you. [DUH!] Ultimately, if we are part of the universe, can we say that any "karma" witnessed is the universe (or god) acting on our behavior? I don't think so. To presume that may be a cop-out. However, there may be something to the basic idea behind this.
Some type of objective morality????....But the morality may have some type of relativity dependent on the form of society that forms it. There would be an equation that would have the type of society as input and morality its output. Even if there is no deity, could the universe itself hold some type of objective morality for any self-aware beings? Of course, we create it ourselves, but since we are part of the universe....holy shit, subjectivity and objectivity have a GRAY AREA!!!
This can't be. This would be a contradiction in definitions. [True can't be false.] Maybe morals are objective in a way. If you take into consideration everything that is occurring and plug it into the afore mentioned equation you will come up with the most efficient option. Is this morality, or just self-serving optimization...or are they equivalent?
I think for all intents and purposes, "optimization" can be used to describe these desires to be "good".
BLAM!
-Chax
I have also established that the universe works quanto-deterministically. This means there is underlying randomness to causality, but when viewed from our level of awareness, things are deterministic in nature. [What we do is completely based on causality or total randomness, both are outside of an "ultimate control" that we may have in a "freewill" universe].
Also, I figure that all human action is ultimately self-serving. Altruism is just a ruse. One performing a charitable act does so to calm any sympathy they may feel. You want to know those you are helping are in a tolerable state of being. You will do what it takes to destroy any potential guilt by "doing the right thing".
No matter what we do, it is caused ultimately by the initial conditions of the universe. So if some deity was responsible for the generation of this reality, then that deity is responsible for what we are doing right now.
Every little electric discharge and molecular process in your brain in ultimately caused by the big bang, or any causal chain that preceded it. This means no matter what you do, you can never be wrong in the eyes of any creator, unless they are willing to punish themselves and even care. Does that fact that we have the ability to care mean anything?
Any kind of apparent "karma" is artificial. "Karma" isn't spiritual or supernatural. It is just a causal/behavior consequence of humans living together. If you are an asshole then people will hate you, if you are nice then people will like you. [DUH!] Ultimately, if we are part of the universe, can we say that any "karma" witnessed is the universe (or god) acting on our behavior? I don't think so. To presume that may be a cop-out. However, there may be something to the basic idea behind this.
Some type of objective morality????....But the morality may have some type of relativity dependent on the form of society that forms it. There would be an equation that would have the type of society as input and morality its output. Even if there is no deity, could the universe itself hold some type of objective morality for any self-aware beings? Of course, we create it ourselves, but since we are part of the universe....holy shit, subjectivity and objectivity have a GRAY AREA!!!
This can't be. This would be a contradiction in definitions. [True can't be false.] Maybe morals are objective in a way. If you take into consideration everything that is occurring and plug it into the afore mentioned equation you will come up with the most efficient option. Is this morality, or just self-serving optimization...or are they equivalent?
I think for all intents and purposes, "optimization" can be used to describe these desires to be "good".
BLAM!
-Chax
Particles and Forces
Because of forces and particles, there are only a limited amount of configurations. [If pure random chance exists in the realm of these configurations, then there are only a limited amount of configurations possible, then quantum effects may exist.]
This means there are only a limited amount of configurations the molecules in your brain can have. Since the molecular arrangement in your brain is what essentially forms your thoughts, memories, and consciousness. Does this mean there are only a limited amount of things we can learn? Does this mean there are only a limited amount of consciousnesses that can exist? Can consciousnesses reoccur? [The numbers are so vast due to all the combinations possible, that reincarnation would have not occurred yet.]
So maybe there are physical things we cannot interpret. If there are more physical facts than there are "thought-molecule" configurations, this would be the case.
It is possibly the case that there are things we just can't understand!
[I am comforted by my assumption that what we can know is good enough to keep us functional, since it has so far...]
Holy shit!!! The fundamental idea behind omniscience would fall apart!
We could empirically disprove god!
I just made a PERSONAL GOD FALSIFIABLE!!!!
I ruined everything!
Unless what I just summed up is actually unknowable, which I doubt, since it's just counting. We would need to know how much material there is in the universe, and how it behaves...which seems reasonable.
LOL!
This means there are only a limited amount of configurations the molecules in your brain can have. Since the molecular arrangement in your brain is what essentially forms your thoughts, memories, and consciousness. Does this mean there are only a limited amount of things we can learn? Does this mean there are only a limited amount of consciousnesses that can exist? Can consciousnesses reoccur? [The numbers are so vast due to all the combinations possible, that reincarnation would have not occurred yet.]
So maybe there are physical things we cannot interpret. If there are more physical facts than there are "thought-molecule" configurations, this would be the case.
It is possibly the case that there are things we just can't understand!
[I am comforted by my assumption that what we can know is good enough to keep us functional, since it has so far...]
Holy shit!!! The fundamental idea behind omniscience would fall apart!
We could empirically disprove god!
I just made a PERSONAL GOD FALSIFIABLE!!!!
I ruined everything!
Unless what I just summed up is actually unknowable, which I doubt, since it's just counting. We would need to know how much material there is in the universe, and how it behaves...which seems reasonable.
LOL!
ethics
An act that is originally dubbed wrong will become acceptable when the more desired act is no longer attainable.
Also, if a wrong act is almost committed, but, in the process, a more morally acceptable act is attainable and performed, was the act altogether wrong? The initial desire was wrong, but purity was, by accident, achieved. Is this entity, performing these acts, a hero or a criminal?
Also, if a wrong act is almost committed, but, in the process, a more morally acceptable act is attainable and performed, was the act altogether wrong? The initial desire was wrong, but purity was, by accident, achieved. Is this entity, performing these acts, a hero or a criminal?
I found God
For real this time guys...
I found God.
I'll allow time for any necessary double-takes....
Well, my friends, it's pretty involved, but here is how I came to this realization....
Now I am a materialist. This means I hold the stance that there is only "one" substance: material. The idea of the immaterial like spirits and souls is doubted heavily, and the notion is held that if such things do exist, they must be made of some kind of material... since we would be able to observe them. To sum it up: everything in the universe is made out of matter/energy (material) to the best of our knowledge, and any other substance that exists should be observable/testable and therefore also material.
I am also a determinist (who take quantum effects into account, so I dubbed myself a "Quanto-determinist" [This idea has some really cool consequences that I will share in another entry]). This means I entertain the idea that every event must have had a cause and if it is uncaused it is purely random. Of course the idea of an event includes our own decisions. Knowing your past (this includes your past from one second ago) is what purely dictates your actions, it is then implied that your actions (and anything else's actions) are predictable by observing the state of things from some previous point in time.
FORMULATION
If E(x,y) is some event where x is its place in the order and y is the number of the event in the causal "web".
E(1,1)+E(1,2)+...+E(1,n)=E(2,1)+E(2,2)+...+E(2,m)
n and m aren't necessarily equal.
This of course throws freewill out the fucking window. Even if you take quantum probability into account. Because events are either causally determined or uncaused random events. So your thoughts are either completely determined, completely random or have components of both. Either way, you have no uncausable control; no real freewill. It is an illusion generated by your lack of knowledge of the future. [Real knowledge of the future could be paradoxial in some cases...but that's neither here nor there.]
"So what does this have to do with god, Chax?"
Good question, me.
Well I have always supposed that if there is god it is probably synonymous with the idea of "the universe", basically the idea of pantheism. I still hold this stance.
Now if you think about the mind or brain from a materialistic and deterministic standpoint (or really any standpoint, if you don't want to think too much about it), your brain formed out of millions of years of evolution (even more immediately, from your mother's and father's food in a matter of 9 months (and over the course of your life)).
Now your brain, somehow, out of all these electro-chemical signals and brain-cell configurations generates "I AM"; what makes you you; your self. Through these causal chains the universe has arranged your configuration and has generated your conciousness and self-awareness. This means the UNIVERSE has generated self awareness...YOU.
You are the universe looking back on itself.
So since you are part of the universe and you are self-aware, the universe is self-aware.
We are the gods we've been looking for all this time.
...but we hardly deserve the title, unfortunately. So my initial claim was merely a ruse.
With no actual freewill, subject to the whims of causality and randomness, we are just a result of happenstance. [eh... redundancy]
We are not in charge of the universe's will, but it is safe to say we are, in a way, it's consciousness(es).
Peace,
-Chax
I found God.
I'll allow time for any necessary double-takes....
Well, my friends, it's pretty involved, but here is how I came to this realization....
Now I am a materialist. This means I hold the stance that there is only "one" substance: material. The idea of the immaterial like spirits and souls is doubted heavily, and the notion is held that if such things do exist, they must be made of some kind of material... since we would be able to observe them. To sum it up: everything in the universe is made out of matter/energy (material) to the best of our knowledge, and any other substance that exists should be observable/testable and therefore also material.
I am also a determinist (who take quantum effects into account, so I dubbed myself a "Quanto-determinist" [This idea has some really cool consequences that I will share in another entry]). This means I entertain the idea that every event must have had a cause and if it is uncaused it is purely random. Of course the idea of an event includes our own decisions. Knowing your past (this includes your past from one second ago) is what purely dictates your actions, it is then implied that your actions (and anything else's actions) are predictable by observing the state of things from some previous point in time.
FORMULATION
If E(x,y) is some event where x is its place in the order and y is the number of the event in the causal "web".
E(1,1)+E(1,2)+...+E(1,n)=E(2,1)+E(2,2)+...+E(2,m)
n and m aren't necessarily equal.
This of course throws freewill out the fucking window. Even if you take quantum probability into account. Because events are either causally determined or uncaused random events. So your thoughts are either completely determined, completely random or have components of both. Either way, you have no uncausable control; no real freewill. It is an illusion generated by your lack of knowledge of the future. [Real knowledge of the future could be paradoxial in some cases...but that's neither here nor there.]
"So what does this have to do with god, Chax?"
Good question, me.
Well I have always supposed that if there is god it is probably synonymous with the idea of "the universe", basically the idea of pantheism. I still hold this stance.
Now if you think about the mind or brain from a materialistic and deterministic standpoint (or really any standpoint, if you don't want to think too much about it), your brain formed out of millions of years of evolution (even more immediately, from your mother's and father's food in a matter of 9 months (and over the course of your life)).
Now your brain, somehow, out of all these electro-chemical signals and brain-cell configurations generates "I AM"; what makes you you; your self. Through these causal chains the universe has arranged your configuration and has generated your conciousness and self-awareness. This means the UNIVERSE has generated self awareness...YOU.
You are the universe looking back on itself.
So since you are part of the universe and you are self-aware, the universe is self-aware.
We are the gods we've been looking for all this time.
...but we hardly deserve the title, unfortunately. So my initial claim was merely a ruse.
With no actual freewill, subject to the whims of causality and randomness, we are just a result of happenstance. [eh... redundancy]
We are not in charge of the universe's will, but it is safe to say we are, in a way, it's consciousness(es).
Peace,
-Chax
Materialism
So, I am a materialist. This means I don't believe in immaterial stuff. Even when I consider the possibility of ghosts and the like existing, I figure they would have to be made of SOMETHING. I don't see how this is an extreme position.
I have no reason to believe in anything non-physical. Even if something isn't explainable with what I know, to assume that it is something immaterial is a copout explanation that doesn't help in actually explain anything. For instance the question, "How does conciousness exist?" may get the answer "It is made out of an immaterial substance". This doesn't help advance our knowledge of the mind, since this explanation is non-falsifiable. You can never prove something intangible exists, so why believe in it? Subscribing to a notion of immaterial substance existing is an attempt to satisfy one's curiousity with an answer that is unsatisfying to anyone who thinks it over for half a minute.
So to call me extreme for being unsatisfied with such a view of the world is highly erroneous.
I have no reason to believe in anything non-physical. Even if something isn't explainable with what I know, to assume that it is something immaterial is a copout explanation that doesn't help in actually explain anything. For instance the question, "How does conciousness exist?" may get the answer "It is made out of an immaterial substance". This doesn't help advance our knowledge of the mind, since this explanation is non-falsifiable. You can never prove something intangible exists, so why believe in it? Subscribing to a notion of immaterial substance existing is an attempt to satisfy one's curiousity with an answer that is unsatisfying to anyone who thinks it over for half a minute.
So to call me extreme for being unsatisfied with such a view of the world is highly erroneous.
Art Pisstory
I used art history in an explanation of quatum physics...
Quantum Randomness. Ok determinism in general states that a die can be thrown and if you know all of its physics you can predict exactly what side it will land on. This eliminates classical randomness as an obstical. Now, in quantum randomness, there aren't precise ways to calculate an objects position or momentum. Instead, there are probability fields, for example there is a probability field that an electron exists in. Now one part of the region may be more likely to contain the electron than another, but we know where it probably is. Now all of these tiny probabilities all added up and super-positioning on one another create a very classical looking macroscopic universe. I have done the calculation myself. It is called the correspondence principle, if you want to look it up. Basically, even though the basic constituents of the universe are run by probabilities, the universe as a marcoscopic whole is very deterministic. A good analogy would be Seurat's painting, "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte", it is made out of random colored dots if you look at it up close, but from far away it looks like a picture of something.
I guess I was wrong when I said that class was totally useless.
Quantum Randomness. Ok determinism in general states that a die can be thrown and if you know all of its physics you can predict exactly what side it will land on. This eliminates classical randomness as an obstical. Now, in quantum randomness, there aren't precise ways to calculate an objects position or momentum. Instead, there are probability fields, for example there is a probability field that an electron exists in. Now one part of the region may be more likely to contain the electron than another, but we know where it probably is. Now all of these tiny probabilities all added up and super-positioning on one another create a very classical looking macroscopic universe. I have done the calculation myself. It is called the correspondence principle, if you want to look it up. Basically, even though the basic constituents of the universe are run by probabilities, the universe as a marcoscopic whole is very deterministic. A good analogy would be Seurat's painting, "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte", it is made out of random colored dots if you look at it up close, but from far away it looks like a picture of something.
I guess I was wrong when I said that class was totally useless.
Algorithmism
The entirety of the universe is dictated by a master algorithm. All the evidence points to this. The way galaxies form, the way stars orbit, the was gas clouds collapse under their gravity...the list goes on.
Even on a more human scale. People are predictable. Every little neuron firing and every chemical enduced signal is caused by some outside event, if not a memory, then a current event (current meaning something happening at that very moment).
We do things based on our past. Now even if you think "well i'll do soemthing random to disprove you, Chax!" Then you just did that "random" thing to try disprove me... and thus you just did something because of something else...not random, which just further proves determinism true.
Even dice are not random. If when a die was thrown you knew the exact speed the die was moving, how fast it was spinning, what directions it was moving and spinning and what the initial position of the die was, you could predict exactly what side it would land on.
The only reason things seem random and like choice is because we are not omniscient.
Now does this mean I believe in fate or destiny? Yes and no. I do not believe we have a reason for doing things...maening there is no ultimate goal designated by a god or soemthing of that nature. We are simply predetermined by the logics and maths of the universe to do what we are doing. There is no intrinsic purpose. I am typing this blog untimately because of the big bang. Cause and effect times 9308947923849387498374983749384.
Even on a more human scale. People are predictable. Every little neuron firing and every chemical enduced signal is caused by some outside event, if not a memory, then a current event (current meaning something happening at that very moment).
We do things based on our past. Now even if you think "well i'll do soemthing random to disprove you, Chax!" Then you just did that "random" thing to try disprove me... and thus you just did something because of something else...not random, which just further proves determinism true.
Even dice are not random. If when a die was thrown you knew the exact speed the die was moving, how fast it was spinning, what directions it was moving and spinning and what the initial position of the die was, you could predict exactly what side it would land on.
The only reason things seem random and like choice is because we are not omniscient.
Now does this mean I believe in fate or destiny? Yes and no. I do not believe we have a reason for doing things...maening there is no ultimate goal designated by a god or soemthing of that nature. We are simply predetermined by the logics and maths of the universe to do what we are doing. There is no intrinsic purpose. I am typing this blog untimately because of the big bang. Cause and effect times 9308947923849387498374983749384.
Gauss
The famous mathematician, Carl Friedrich Gauss. figured this out when he was a kid in school...
His teacher asked his class to add up all the numbers from 1 to 100.
Gauss figured out that the numbers on opposite ends added up to 101. (i.e. 1+100=101, 2+99=101, 3+98=101, etc...) and since this pairing would occur 50 times due to 100/2=50, the addition of all the numbers could be figured out by 50x101 = 5050. This is a faster than doing 1+2+3+4+...+100=5050.
Gauss figured this out in minutes, and impressed the shit out of everyone.
Its a good story. Gauss was sort of a dick, but he discovered some important shit.
His teacher asked his class to add up all the numbers from 1 to 100.
Gauss figured out that the numbers on opposite ends added up to 101. (i.e. 1+100=101, 2+99=101, 3+98=101, etc...) and since this pairing would occur 50 times due to 100/2=50, the addition of all the numbers could be figured out by 50x101 = 5050. This is a faster than doing 1+2+3+4+...+100=5050.
Gauss figured this out in minutes, and impressed the shit out of everyone.
Its a good story. Gauss was sort of a dick, but he discovered some important shit.
Quanto-Determinism
Quantum mechanics tells us that at a certain microscopic level the physical dynamics of particles becomes based on probability.
"Classical" or Relativistic Mechanics tells us that everything is clear-cut and completely predictable. Which would mean in the grand scheme of things, the universe is deterministic (free will doesn't exist since EVERYTHING is fundamentally mathematical and therefore, predictable [it is possible to predict the outcome of dice mathematically]).
Now some people have speculated, since quantum mechanics came around, that since the subatomic world is based on probability, determinism was out.
But this isn't necessarily true. Determinism still can exist, but with an underlying quantum probability component. That means that even though there is randomness in the universe, the outer more classical shell will still behave predictibly. This then means that the smaller you get, the most unpredictable things become.
On a side note, some people think that just because randomness exists, that free will exists. This is not true. Even if the brain worked on a quantum level, your thoughts and actions would still be "caught in the wind" of what ever random outcomes your brain spat out. There is no room for free will in any modern model of the universe. What you do is the ultimate outcome of everything that happened before that time.
The end.
"Classical" or Relativistic Mechanics tells us that everything is clear-cut and completely predictable. Which would mean in the grand scheme of things, the universe is deterministic (free will doesn't exist since EVERYTHING is fundamentally mathematical and therefore, predictable [it is possible to predict the outcome of dice mathematically]).
Now some people have speculated, since quantum mechanics came around, that since the subatomic world is based on probability, determinism was out.
But this isn't necessarily true. Determinism still can exist, but with an underlying quantum probability component. That means that even though there is randomness in the universe, the outer more classical shell will still behave predictibly. This then means that the smaller you get, the most unpredictable things become.
On a side note, some people think that just because randomness exists, that free will exists. This is not true. Even if the brain worked on a quantum level, your thoughts and actions would still be "caught in the wind" of what ever random outcomes your brain spat out. There is no room for free will in any modern model of the universe. What you do is the ultimate outcome of everything that happened before that time.
The end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
