Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection


dkomo <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:-

Richard Dawkins proposed that a rough measure of complexity for an organism
is the length of its description. [...]

That's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

LOL.
"Incomputability of Kolmogorov complexity
The first result is that there is no way to effectively compute K.
Theorem. K is not a computable function.
In other words, there is no program which takes a string s as input and
produces the integer K(s) as output."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity#Incomputability_of_Kolmogorov_complexity
http://tinyurl.com/5vjtkl

JE:-
This means to me that a non reversible, i.e. entirely _nested _logical
relationship between a minimum of two sets does not exist. Mathematics
only allows a reversible intersecting relationship only allowing a
tautology. At the very best, K remains a tautological belief which
cannot be falsified. If K could be deduced from X then the reverse set
nesting will provide a minimal refutation because a non reversible set
nesting has now become prohibitively reversed (the reverse set nesting
necessarily contradicts the original).

Any computer program is a proposed nested set of things. The largest set
everything else remains within as proper subsets provides the most
critical, _inductive_ frame of reference while the smallest nested set
provides a _deductive_ frame of reference. Only a mind can produce an
induction, i.e. not any machine.

When you study epistemology you will discover that induction remains
wrongly deleted, even by people of the stature of Karl Popper. Any
computer programmer knows that induction and deduction are necessarily
100% dependent propositions, i.e. you either have both or just none at
all. It was the mathematicians who reduced induction and deduction to
become just reversible intersecting propositions allowing either as
independent, via a massive but uncorrected oversimplification allowing
what can be termed a Post Modern epistemology. This has spread like a
cancer throughout the arts, economics and even the sciences deleting any
requirement for a basic, falsifiable frame of reference (as was
originally proposed by Galileo in the mid 1600's).

Today we are reaping the rewards of a Post Modern financial system which
has irrationally deleted a critical frame of reference: the worth of
money AS A CONSTANT (only constants i.e. not any variable can provide a
valid frame of reference simply because variables cannot be falsified).
When money remained based on a old fashioned gold standard, just by
chance, the production of gold expanded the money supply at about the
rate of a productivity increase allowing the worth of money to remain
close to a constant. After the gold standard was removed "anything goes"
because _no other frame of reference was provided to keep the market
value of money close to a constant_. The initial result was that
governments profligately printed money to pay their debts at a rate far
in excess of productivity providing inflation at 20% or more. Today,
deregulated banks (mostly within the USA) did not lend out a paltry ten
times or so what they hold in deposits but over fifty times that amount
privately expanding the money supply. This combined with Post Modern
derivatives e.g. future contracts which actually deliver nothing has
reduced markets to the status of just a crazy casino. Free markets
respond to any inflation of the money supply via the private sector by
increasing the premium on risk. This in turn produces massive,
unpredictable swings in free markets. The larger the market swing the
greater the risk to investing and the LESS efficiently the free market
works. What are free markets attempting to do? Provide and meet an
ongoing, changing point of MUTUALITY between buyer and seller (here the
seller maximizes TOTAL profits while at the same time the buyer
minimizes cost for the same quality). This allows capital to more
efficiently flow across sectors of the economy allowing goods and
services to appear as-if-by-magic, as demand for them starts to crease.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher


edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT:411 redux
    ... Do you have any frame of reference ... No but now I don't work and I make more money. ... I get paid to read email. ...
    (microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse)
  • Re: Origin of Mahjong (MJ) / other Hu Pai Design
    ... The frame of reference is Chinese playing card games. ... I said Chinese playing cards are the frame of reference. ... Superficial objections readily explained with reference to money cards ... three suits, with one suit represetation identical to money cards, ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • Re: Raleigh Record Frame: Worth Saving?
    ... I had the sense it was not a "notable" frame and don't think I'll take the ... >> should invest any time or money. ... > have) for pushing out the cotterpin with lots of leverage. ... they all had standard 68 mm bottom brackets and English ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: C# developers going back to vb.net
    ... would anyone want a complex number reference type...?) ... found the same kind of thing in my own code today; a Money class, ... EmptyThing is a private inner class. ... I can only imagine that when I wrote the code, at the back of my mind, I had the concept that value types were for optimisation of performance rather than for representing things which really do have value semantics. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: arabic puns in folktale
    ... > I just finished reading Inea Bushnaq's anthology, Arab Folktales, ... > can say which reference this particular story comes from. ... > the original puns since I may not be able to extract the information ... > friend who had lent him a small sum of money. ...
    (sci.lang)