I Typed this next stuff and dont know where to put it
Humans walked across planet earth for 300,000 years, because we didn't know how to count. The somehow, like 4,000 years ago, the Sumerians learned how to count and now we don't gotta walk no more if we don't wanna. If we don;t count, we do not get, anything.
Hawking wrote "If something is not measurable, it doesn't exist". So, to exist is: "I am countable therefore I am". Aristotle called the set of ideas we can't measure part if the third law of logic, The Exclusionary Middle. Why do we believe them or not believe? Because we do not know what it means to "Know" a thing. That proof itself means "repeatability", and to know that we need to either science at the idea or math at it. Period. Every even number is divisible by 2, for everyone, everywhere, at all times. There is no your truth and their truth. We would not have planes or phones. Repeatability. If the idea is repeatable it is knowledge. Knowledge is dynamic, it changes over time as we become more moral and open to new ways of knowing things.
If the idea is not repeatable, do not use it. Put it down, and don't make us use it. Go over there and make your own country and use it at yourself, please.
Humans walked across planet earth for 300,000 years, because we didn't know how to count. The somehow, like 4,000 years ago, the Sumerians learned how to count and now we don't gotta walk no more if we don't wanna. If we don;t count, we do not get, anything.
Hawking wrote "If something is not measurable, it doesn't exist". So, to exist is: "I am countable therefore I am". Aristotle called the set of ideas we can't measure part if the third law of logic, The Exclusionary Middle. Why do we believe them or not believe? Because we do not know what it means to "Know" a thing. That proof itself means "repeatability", and to know that we need to either science at the idea or math at it. Period. Every even number is divisible by 2, for everyone, everywhere, at all times. There is no your truth and their truth. We would not have planes or phones. Repeatability. If the idea is repeatable it is knowledge. Knowledge is dynamic, it changes over time as we become more moral and open to new ways of knowing things.
If the idea is not repeatable, do not use it. Put it down, and don't make us use it. Go over there and make your own country and use it at yourself, please.
Ok about 2,500 years ago we stopped “believing” answers and
started proving them in earnest. Galileo
gets born, Newton, later Pascal and Fermat, and from that math and science in
2,500 years we got everything we have.
Belief did not really make anything, in 300,000 years, we had like
catapults and swords, they had towns but no sewers, people died of typhoid it stunk
and was disgusting. That’s what “believing”
things made in 300,000 years. Turns out
proof is required to make whatever system you are trying to make. It’s an option, but when we opt not to, we
tend not get anything useful.
We learned how to prove things by asking one question “Is
it?” with two possible answers, yes/no, on/off, 1/0, innocent/guilty. We went from no proof or belief in 300,000
years, to our first way proving things for the past 2,500 years and now we are
entering a new way to know things. It
turns out two possible answers is not the best way to prove a thing. We are stuck in binary, literally, two: yes
or no. A couple of decades ago I read a
book buy a mathematician Lofti Zedah called Fuzzy Logic. That is a good place to start. This is not a binary math, it is a multi-valued
math. So binary is going away, and fuzzy
math will take over, for technical and moral reasons. So today you can ask a binary computer “Is
this thing a cup?” and you will get a “yes” or “no” answer.
The new way is to ask two questions, not one question, but
two. “How likely is it, that this is a
cup?” and “What is the significance, in context, of that answer”, so a thimble might
be 0.000003% a cup. The certainty is
gone, as you ask these new machines questions and it gives answers, it learns from
each experience. So the next time you ask it that question it will be better at
answering it. Whew I was wondering how I
was going to express that, that machines get better. It “learns”
as if cognitively. It’s three
dimensional, so today data is carried on a bit, on or off. These new machines have cubits, not binary
bits, multi valued bits.
All that matters when you’re trying to make
a systemic pathogen cure or a new conveyance system is “how likely is it” and “what
does that mean”, the answers to those two questions is how we prove things
better.
So why am I typing this, these quantum machines will boot up
and they will learn. So imagine someone
smart at Yale, made a plan with smart people at MIT and made the first fuzzy judicial
system (hmm, FJS fuzzy Judicial Systems). Here is what I think this thing could do.
The result, it’s February, how many court cases had their
final appeal, final bit of process so far this year? How many started 5 years ago, or 10 or
20? How many got reversed? I am pretty sure these new machines would
get it right the first time more often with the same contemporaneously available
law and facts. So the little girl gets
her $2million for that car accident when she is 5 not 17, when she needs it most. Less people would get
wrongly locked up for 18 years things like that.
And at trillions of operations per clock
tick, these answers would be immediate maybe.
And the more they are asked for answers the better they get at it. If there was a box that did this and without
using it officially, but some smart person, mirrored the current system at some
point the machine would outperform what a human judge, jury and attorneys could. A lawyer with this technology could do very
well in court maybe? But more important,
at some point 100 years form now, people would start to ask “why are we
doing this the old way?”.
The Old Way: Two people arguing and a third person adjudicating? Cave people did this. Two younger ones' grunting and gesticulating about who's sticks is who's and the elder grunting 'you' and one of them to shut them up. I went to college, they were in groups, they had social order. So, we walk into a court room to prove things, in a system designed before humans knew how to speak, let alone prove things. and no one in the court room is taught, ya know, how to prove things. Considering ll that, they done pretty good.
But in the end , a case by case basis is the opposite of how we prove things. It is singular, and proof is part of discrete mathematics. That is all the maths, except non-linear varying quantities. There is no individual. Always the conflict between the "me" and the "we" in math and in politics. That is how we are divided. Those who's group begins at the singular, like Jefferson. and those from the plural, like Hamilton. Like the deal they made to move the capitol ti Washington. "me" vs "we".
Eveey idea has to be measurable, we have to count. It is time to put down the stupid lawyer words, and count for our country and design these systems. If it was me, and I wanted my systems sorted out, I'd hire people who, ya know, design systems. But hey, that's just me. I like democracy, we can do this your stupid way. Not bankers and lawyers and business people. We got robbed. Big deal, shit happens, let's rid ourselves of this lot, 535 people hold u sup? Let's replace them, voluntarily, with bug fixed. Well, it's a nice idea anyway. What an eye opening movie that would be.
Imagine forensic accountants looking for, and then looking at, the financial data of the last 4,000 occupants of our capitol building. Like back to Kennedy maybe? Whatever, a bunch of them going back. I mean that is data, we would know for a fact it they have been trying to help or have they been governing themselves our stuff? Exactly how bad and who. Nope not gonna happen, 535 people, strangling 330,000,000, for a super wealthy class of only 80,000. We got robbed, lol. This system has a bug.
The rights are mis-counted. Groups, they dont have one persons rights on their backs, they are groups, we are not. We have one person's rights on our backs. Like a bird with only 1 stupid feather. They each got 330 million feathers, plus their district, plus their 1 feather. That is a lot of rights. To hide behind, to sell our stuff. We cant ever use our one stupid feather at the group. That imbalance needs fixing, so there is nothing to steal. Counting, everything is countable. If an idea isn't countable, don't use it.
If someone lawyers you a flight system do not get on the plane, you will die. If you could dopamine a wheel. If you could gut or common sense or instinct a wheel, elephants would have wheels. The counting is optional, but required to not kill the other people. So stop making us live in political and economic systems they are guessing at, these 535 morons.
So, these quantum boxes, if the boxes do what they promise, seem to be able to fix earth. 'Project Sum'
The Old Way: Two people arguing and a third person adjudicating? Cave people did this. Two younger ones' grunting and gesticulating about who's sticks is who's and the elder grunting 'you' and one of them to shut them up. I went to college, they were in groups, they had social order. So, we walk into a court room to prove things, in a system designed before humans knew how to speak, let alone prove things. and no one in the court room is taught, ya know, how to prove things. Considering ll that, they done pretty good.
But in the end , a case by case basis is the opposite of how we prove things. It is singular, and proof is part of discrete mathematics. That is all the maths, except non-linear varying quantities. There is no individual. Always the conflict between the "me" and the "we" in math and in politics. That is how we are divided. Those who's group begins at the singular, like Jefferson. and those from the plural, like Hamilton. Like the deal they made to move the capitol ti Washington. "me" vs "we".
Eveey idea has to be measurable, we have to count. It is time to put down the stupid lawyer words, and count for our country and design these systems. If it was me, and I wanted my systems sorted out, I'd hire people who, ya know, design systems. But hey, that's just me. I like democracy, we can do this your stupid way. Not bankers and lawyers and business people. We got robbed. Big deal, shit happens, let's rid ourselves of this lot, 535 people hold u sup? Let's replace them, voluntarily, with bug fixed. Well, it's a nice idea anyway. What an eye opening movie that would be.
Imagine forensic accountants looking for, and then looking at, the financial data of the last 4,000 occupants of our capitol building. Like back to Kennedy maybe? Whatever, a bunch of them going back. I mean that is data, we would know for a fact it they have been trying to help or have they been governing themselves our stuff? Exactly how bad and who. Nope not gonna happen, 535 people, strangling 330,000,000, for a super wealthy class of only 80,000. We got robbed, lol. This system has a bug.
The rights are mis-counted. Groups, they dont have one persons rights on their backs, they are groups, we are not. We have one person's rights on our backs. Like a bird with only 1 stupid feather. They each got 330 million feathers, plus their district, plus their 1 feather. That is a lot of rights. To hide behind, to sell our stuff. We cant ever use our one stupid feather at the group. That imbalance needs fixing, so there is nothing to steal. Counting, everything is countable. If an idea isn't countable, don't use it.
If someone lawyers you a flight system do not get on the plane, you will die. If you could dopamine a wheel. If you could gut or common sense or instinct a wheel, elephants would have wheels. The counting is optional, but required to not kill the other people. So stop making us live in political and economic systems they are guessing at, these 535 morons.
So, these quantum boxes, if the boxes do what they promise, seem to be able to fix earth. 'Project Sum'
If one tried to do this today the most likely
thing would be fear the machines take over. So from here to there, is a journey, and I
think some smart lawyer doing this privately might be a decent road map. I can tell you this, whoever gets here first
wins. I mean it could perform tasks
regarding business or trading. It could be come the best resource allocation system ever, replacing the need for government as it is today, entirely for the mathematical benefit of all the resources.
That should be 'Project Sum' a resource allocation system that could be pointed at any jurisdiction. Wow, political nirvana, the cheaters gone. Not getting robbed, not one penny getting robbed. Imagine that, plus the system itself, all the ability it has to allocate resources we never could. I was born too soon. We are not good yet. The right holds us back more than the left does.
That should be 'Project Sum' a resource allocation system that could be pointed at any jurisdiction. Wow, political nirvana, the cheaters gone. Not getting robbed, not one penny getting robbed. Imagine that, plus the system itself, all the ability it has to allocate resources we never could. I was born too soon. We are not good yet. The right holds us back more than the left does.
Getting humans to accept that certainty is not needed is not
going to be easy. The idea that we are
NOT trying to find out if this guy did this bad thing, but rather how likely it is,
is contrary to the human need for certainty;
Yeah, math doesn’t care about any of that. If we want the correct answer, to actually
make a teleportation system or cure disease systemically, we will do it this
new way, or it won’t happen. Look, too
many things are counter-intuitive, that is why we have to use proof. Instinct had 300,000 years, it does not work.
We had catapults and swords, towns but no sewers, people died of typhoid it stuck and it was disgusting. Hundreds of thousands of years of "Belief Time", belief sucks. It is time to count. 2,500 years of counting, we can remnant of a fifth dimension in the cern collider, and have a couple of working space/time wobble measuring devices. Counting is dope. You have to count, everything. Teach that to 3 day olds and things would be better.
We had catapults and swords, towns but no sewers, people died of typhoid it stuck and it was disgusting. Hundreds of thousands of years of "Belief Time", belief sucks. It is time to count. 2,500 years of counting, we can remnant of a fifth dimension in the cern collider, and have a couple of working space/time wobble measuring devices. Counting is dope. You have to count, everything. Teach that to 3 day olds and things would be better.
At some point the machine would reach it’s potential then
make a new system from scratch, “don’t get too close to the other fish”, “don’t
hurt the other people”. So, by asking “how
likely is it that the defendant did it” and “what is the significance of that
answer”, instead of asking “Did he do it?”, would be better, for the system
itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment