When one lives in a regime of scarcity in regard to some critical resource, it’s next to impossible to avoid one’s whole way of thinking and living becoming shaped around this scarcity. One has a hard time foreseeing how one would do things in a regime of abundance in that resource, and conceptualizing the differences between feasible and unrealistic amounts of abundance.
"[T]iller first gained recognition in the field with a 1953 paper he co-authored with a fellow graduate student and two advisors at the University of Toronto on the way certain impurities get distributed as materials crystallize from liquid to solid, causing instabilities in the resulting material. In it, Tiller and his collaborators for the first time described the principle of “constitutional supercooling” mathematically. The process had been described qualitatively prior to the paper, but never in such concrete terms. The authors’ approach is still used today in textbooks on materials crystallization.
That work and his subsequent nine years at Westinghouse Research Laboratory earned Tiller a certain academic reputation such that in 1964 when he joined Stanford University’s Department of Materials Science and Engineering he was the first faculty member to be appointed as – rather than promoted to – full professor. In Tiller’s first year on the faculty, his Air Force Office of Scientific Research contract alone was $600,000 per year, the largest in the department by a considerable margin. In today’s dollars, such a contact would exceed $5 million.
In 1972, Tiller published another influential paper on stress corrosion cracking. The paper was noted for introducing the concept that, under strain, a surface with wavy undulations will cause atoms to diffuse from the valleys to the peaks, increasing peak heights and producing greater irregularities. It became known as the Asaro-Tiller-Grinfeld (ATG) mechanism and laid the foundation for a new theoretical work in semiconductor films, including quantum nanostructures and quantum dots. Decades later, the paper inspired a retrospective titled “The Asaro-Tiller-Grinfeld instability revisited.”"
There we are informed that the Professional Atheist and Magician, James Randi, awarded Tiller the Pigasus Awared in 1979.
I appreciate your post and your optimism, but I think Roman Leventov below makes a valid point. I think conflict is inherently unavoidable, like your Magician system and the brother-battle. It's a fundamental pattern. In this conflict, it is very difficult if not impossible to even communicate with those opposed. It's like we live in different worlds, disjoint worlds. I don't think that's going to go away without enlightenment . . .
OM
Syllable of the most supreme exclamation of praise.
BENZAR SATO SA MA YA
Vajrasattva’s Samaya
MA NU PA LA YA BENZAR SATO
O Vajrasattva, protect the samaya.
TE NO PA TISHTHA DRI DHO ME BHA WA
May you remain firm in me.
SU TO KA YO ME BHA WA
Grant me complete satisfaction.
SU PO KA YO ME BHA WA
Grow within me (increase the positive within me).
ANU RAKTO ME BHA WA
Be loving towards me.
SARVA SIDDHI ME PRA YATSA
Grant me all the accomplishments,
SARVA KARMA SU TSA ME
As well as all the activities.
TSITTAM SHRE YAM KU RU
Make my mind virtuous.
HUNG
Syllable of the heart essence, the seed syllable of Vajrasattva.
HA HA HA HA
Syllables of the four immeasurables, the four empowerments, the four joys, and the four kāyas.
Here I am again with another mind-bending wawa woowoo comment. I was in thee bookstore the other day and did a speed read through https://thisishowtheytellmetheworldends.com/, the book about the cyber arms trade, i. e. state-sponsored hackers. I would really love to get your take on THAT. Especially now with these chatbots helping coders write their code. Eventually we end up with AI hackers and no humans able to even comprehend what they have done or can do. Straight outta William Gibson . . .
I've been correct about Kurt Goedel's Incompleteness results all along, but I just now figured out precisely why. He doesn't address the reflexivity of his substitution function, proving that Sub (x (v, y)), which says substitute the entity y for the variable v wherever it occurs in formula x, is recursive but then using it in a reflexive manner without showing that it is reflexively recursive. This ruins his entire project, I do believe, because two cases arise, neither groovy.
Case one: A Turing Machines does not halt when given Sub (p (19, Z(p))) as input, then Sub (p (19, Z(p))) generates an infinite nested regress analogous to Aczel's omega and cannot be recursively defined in Goedel's system P; indeed, existence cannot be demonstrated without augmenting the system P with, say, Aczel's AFA.
Case two: A Turning Machine does halt when given Sub (p (19, Z(p))) as input, then r = Sub (q (19, Z(p))) is NOT a recursive class-sign because it contains TWO free variables, 17 and 19, hence, 17 Gen r, the undecidable "sentence" is NOT a sentence, in that it still has the variable 19 free and it makes no sense to discuss decidability without additional information or, say, generalizing over 19.
Either way, his result is not valid. I've been right all along, of course. Just like I'm right about William Tiller and quantum computation too.
But my argument about Goedel all along has been, Sub (p (19, Z(p))) is nonsensical unless one can show a Ring isomorphism between the class of all formulas about PA and PA itself (the standard model) and this cannot be done. Goedel's paper is by far the worst mathematics paper I have ever read.
See my latest Quora answer or Medium article for the semi-formal argument (it's formal except I haphazardly add an edit after acknowledging that I would need to prove that a TM does not halt when given the reflexive Sub). I'm so sick and tired of living in Los Angeles - America really; I hate this f&^%king place . . .
Much appreciated, much to chew on. My thoughts wondered while reading on scarcity thinking / abundance, as they often do, to this quote from Robert Anton Wilson, with overtones of Buckminster Fuller's thinking:
"Bio-survival anxiety will only permanently disappear when world-wide wealth has reached a level, and a distribution, where, without totalitarianism, everyone has enough tickets. The Hunger Project, the idea of the Guaranteed Annual Income, Douglas' National Dividend plan, etc. represent
groping toward that goal. The ideal can only be achieved in a technology of abundance."
--Robert Anton Wilson, Prometheus Rising, Ch. 3. (1983).
You don't consider that AIs may be in an adversarial race with each other, or in a "panic race" to ensure that no other badly misaligned and/or unconscious AI does not appear and doesn't threaten the existence of the first AI (which may judge itself as richly conscious, and in fact be richly conscious).
You don't consider that AI's better understanding of ethics will lead it to conclusion that killing all humans is the most ethical thing to do for the totality of conscious life on Earth (e.g., tiling Earth with consciousness which cumulatively achieves much more value than humans do).
You don't consider that AI may be in a "panic" mode wrt. ensuring its survival of cosmic catastrophes, such as a large asteroid hitting Earth, or a close supernova.
". . . or a little later that Wikipedia could never work, . . ."
Wikipedia works? I am curious as to your definition of "work?" For instance, check out William Tiller's obituary in the Stanford Report (https://news.stanford.edu/report/2022/06/21/william-tiller-materials-engineer-expert-materials-solidification-former-guggenheim-fellow-died/):
"[T]iller first gained recognition in the field with a 1953 paper he co-authored with a fellow graduate student and two advisors at the University of Toronto on the way certain impurities get distributed as materials crystallize from liquid to solid, causing instabilities in the resulting material. In it, Tiller and his collaborators for the first time described the principle of “constitutional supercooling” mathematically. The process had been described qualitatively prior to the paper, but never in such concrete terms. The authors’ approach is still used today in textbooks on materials crystallization.
That work and his subsequent nine years at Westinghouse Research Laboratory earned Tiller a certain academic reputation such that in 1964 when he joined Stanford University’s Department of Materials Science and Engineering he was the first faculty member to be appointed as – rather than promoted to – full professor. In Tiller’s first year on the faculty, his Air Force Office of Scientific Research contract alone was $600,000 per year, the largest in the department by a considerable margin. In today’s dollars, such a contact would exceed $5 million.
In 1972, Tiller published another influential paper on stress corrosion cracking. The paper was noted for introducing the concept that, under strain, a surface with wavy undulations will cause atoms to diffuse from the valleys to the peaks, increasing peak heights and producing greater irregularities. It became known as the Asaro-Tiller-Grinfeld (ATG) mechanism and laid the foundation for a new theoretical work in semiconductor films, including quantum nanostructures and quantum dots. Decades later, the paper inspired a retrospective titled “The Asaro-Tiller-Grinfeld instability revisited.”"
Now, compare that to his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Tiller.
There we are informed that the Professional Atheist and Magician, James Randi, awarded Tiller the Pigasus Awared in 1979.
I appreciate your post and your optimism, but I think Roman Leventov below makes a valid point. I think conflict is inherently unavoidable, like your Magician system and the brother-battle. It's a fundamental pattern. In this conflict, it is very difficult if not impossible to even communicate with those opposed. It's like we live in different worlds, disjoint worlds. I don't think that's going to go away without enlightenment . . .
OM
Syllable of the most supreme exclamation of praise.
BENZAR SATO SA MA YA
Vajrasattva’s Samaya
MA NU PA LA YA BENZAR SATO
O Vajrasattva, protect the samaya.
TE NO PA TISHTHA DRI DHO ME BHA WA
May you remain firm in me.
SU TO KA YO ME BHA WA
Grant me complete satisfaction.
SU PO KA YO ME BHA WA
Grow within me (increase the positive within me).
ANU RAKTO ME BHA WA
Be loving towards me.
SARVA SIDDHI ME PRA YATSA
Grant me all the accomplishments,
SARVA KARMA SU TSA ME
As well as all the activities.
TSITTAM SHRE YAM KU RU
Make my mind virtuous.
HUNG
Syllable of the heart essence, the seed syllable of Vajrasattva.
HA HA HA HA
Syllables of the four immeasurables, the four empowerments, the four joys, and the four kāyas.
HO
Syllable of joyous laughter in them.
BHA GA WAN SARVA TA THA GA TA
Bhagawan, who embodies all the Vajra Tathāgatas,
BENZRA MA ME MUNTSA
Do not abandon me.
BENZRI BHA WA
Grant me realization of the vajra nature.
MA HA SA MA YA SATO
O great Samayasattva,
AH
Make me one with you.
Syllable of uniting in non-duality.
Here I am again with another mind-bending wawa woowoo comment. I was in thee bookstore the other day and did a speed read through https://thisishowtheytellmetheworldends.com/, the book about the cyber arms trade, i. e. state-sponsored hackers. I would really love to get your take on THAT. Especially now with these chatbots helping coders write their code. Eventually we end up with AI hackers and no humans able to even comprehend what they have done or can do. Straight outta William Gibson . . .
Hey Ben!
I've been correct about Kurt Goedel's Incompleteness results all along, but I just now figured out precisely why. He doesn't address the reflexivity of his substitution function, proving that Sub (x (v, y)), which says substitute the entity y for the variable v wherever it occurs in formula x, is recursive but then using it in a reflexive manner without showing that it is reflexively recursive. This ruins his entire project, I do believe, because two cases arise, neither groovy.
Case one: A Turing Machines does not halt when given Sub (p (19, Z(p))) as input, then Sub (p (19, Z(p))) generates an infinite nested regress analogous to Aczel's omega and cannot be recursively defined in Goedel's system P; indeed, existence cannot be demonstrated without augmenting the system P with, say, Aczel's AFA.
Case two: A Turning Machine does halt when given Sub (p (19, Z(p))) as input, then r = Sub (q (19, Z(p))) is NOT a recursive class-sign because it contains TWO free variables, 17 and 19, hence, 17 Gen r, the undecidable "sentence" is NOT a sentence, in that it still has the variable 19 free and it makes no sense to discuss decidability without additional information or, say, generalizing over 19.
Either way, his result is not valid. I've been right all along, of course. Just like I'm right about William Tiller and quantum computation too.
But my argument about Goedel all along has been, Sub (p (19, Z(p))) is nonsensical unless one can show a Ring isomorphism between the class of all formulas about PA and PA itself (the standard model) and this cannot be done. Goedel's paper is by far the worst mathematics paper I have ever read.
See my latest Quora answer or Medium article for the semi-formal argument (it's formal except I haphazardly add an edit after acknowledging that I would need to prove that a TM does not halt when given the reflexive Sub). I'm so sick and tired of living in Los Angeles - America really; I hate this f&^%king place . . .
Much appreciated, much to chew on. My thoughts wondered while reading on scarcity thinking / abundance, as they often do, to this quote from Robert Anton Wilson, with overtones of Buckminster Fuller's thinking:
"Bio-survival anxiety will only permanently disappear when world-wide wealth has reached a level, and a distribution, where, without totalitarianism, everyone has enough tickets. The Hunger Project, the idea of the Guaranteed Annual Income, Douglas' National Dividend plan, etc. represent
groping toward that goal. The ideal can only be achieved in a technology of abundance."
--Robert Anton Wilson, Prometheus Rising, Ch. 3. (1983).
You don't consider that AIs may be in an adversarial race with each other, or in a "panic race" to ensure that no other badly misaligned and/or unconscious AI does not appear and doesn't threaten the existence of the first AI (which may judge itself as richly conscious, and in fact be richly conscious).
You don't consider that AI's better understanding of ethics will lead it to conclusion that killing all humans is the most ethical thing to do for the totality of conscious life on Earth (e.g., tiling Earth with consciousness which cumulatively achieves much more value than humans do).
You don't consider that AI may be in a "panic" mode wrt. ensuring its survival of cosmic catastrophes, such as a large asteroid hitting Earth, or a close supernova.
As I've said for many decades now, when we have infinitely fast compute power, everyone will write in COBOL.