Calen Must make a Choice
For the good of mankind and as the inevitable requirement of reality

The following was composed on in a fit of Pique. By me. For posterity. Posterity being a 'friend' of mine. I use quotes because if I continue to repost this everywhere on the internet in a methodical fashion, he'll probably stop being my friend.

Special bonus: His response and my response to his response at the bottom!

Ha! What bullshit

Another place to write anything that pops into my tiny little mind? Amazing!

Ok fine. Here's a nugget for you

Heisenbergs uncertainty principle applies completely to any set of nodes in a system which are receiving minimum level behavioral input. In quantum physics this amounts to packets of energy impacting a particle (or other packets of energy).

This means

When people (nodes in a social system) recieve information which they do not come upon in the course of their own behavior, the following things are true

You cannot observe the interaction of information by any means (in this case because the only tool which can measure this system is information, the act of explaining, so to speak, the exchange, would constitute new information, and would not represent the interaction. Calen will probably try to argue this. Then I would patiently sit there and explain it to him several times until I A) got bored or B) said something silly to end the conversation, so, Calen, lets assume you're convinced and move on).

The more information which interacts with the target the A) more you know about it B) more disrupted the object is from its 'natural' state. The most elegant similarity to draw is with the double slit-experiment in which the wave-like behavior of particles gated through two slits in a surface interposed between an emitter and a measurement device (which is also a surface--how exiciting!) turns linear when the particles are measured at any stage in their journey after their emittance. The more information given to a person linearizes their behavior, and diminishes their natural tendency. Calen will split hairs on this point and Dan will help. The only way to overcome this is to gloss over their objections with reassurances like 'of course' and 'yes such a good point you make, me-oh-my, I like pie'.

You can only know individual facts about a person perfectly (in theory) and you cannot know more than one thing at once absolutely. At the level of quanta this is position and acceleration, but a human being has probably several more things to measure (teehee stupid humans) so I propose that the number of factors being measured simultaneously affects this accuracy. Dan can come of with some sort of X over E to the X or natural log of X times X squared expression for this. But the point is you know less and change more the more information you input. For some reason Calen is willing to 'buy this'. Like I give a shit.

Finally you can never measure the disposition of a group at a level any smaller than a single person. This may seem trivial, but is potentially important in identifying the number of individuals present in a single instance. A measureable result of somekind, and I mean this is in a BROAD sense, doesn't indicate simultanaity. Dan says something pertinent but annoying, since it interrupts my stride. I kinda forget the next thing I was going to say and conversation drifts on. Later it comes to me but fewer people are interested. Still, I continue just to be sure I'm making sense to myself.

The point comes out that, considering that it is the information age, and that the availability of unrequested information is so large, behavior has become linear. In sub-cases this is obvious. People in urban areas tend to have greater freedom because the quantity of received information turns it into static--the act of analyzing i...actually let me put this in first. Free will does not exist in some kind of pure happy sense that some jackass UW professor wants to think it does. If you had a computer larger than the universe running the solution to all the movements of the atoms in this universe, everything predicted would be true--so fuck you and your fucking free will, but here's the thing, we don't care about this example because it is stupid, or, to nail it down with terminology, it is insignificant. Significance is the matter which defines an interaction in a given plane. I should qualify that.

In quantum physics its impossible to measure things smaller than a quanta. Anything which is an exchange of energy 1 quanta or larger is significant--in that plane of existence. We don't know what happens inside electrons, or packets of energy, for that matter, and it is reasonable to assume that it is not significant.

This factor of a quanta might seem special, in that it's part of a physical 'law' or pattern, but it's best thought of as arbitrary. Why this much and not more or less? Who knows? And who cares. For the purposes of anything larger than a quanta, a quanta is significant. The difference between microscopic and macroscopic is similar. If you can't see it without help, it's microscopic. What's the measurement? The distance between rods and cones in your eyes, or whatever else. It is not significant visually, and only visually. It may be significant in other ways, but, when it comes to significance, scope is all important.

So some other possible scopes (or planes, as I introduced them) would be the cellular scope--anything large enough to interact with a cell--presumably some minimum level of atoms and molecules in a clump. A cell in an organism. This may initially seem like I'm wrong, since substances smaller than a cell can affect an organism, but the point is they are not significant until they affect a cell. If you are immune (for instance) to a poison or some viral agent, then it is not significant to the organism. In a way think of it this way: a virus has to highjack a cell before it matters to the organism. Merely floating around it's like a dead spaceship in some movie about aliens that eat peoples' faces--if no stupid people get on board, it just drifts forever--hinting at a possible summer blockbuster. I digress.

You can talk about the neural scale--significance being measured in neural activity, or the social scale--anything marked as an individual. So we get back to free will.

Anyway, the question of whether a giant parallel uniiverse of predicted behavior affects the significance of your free will boils down to this, your behavior is significant as 'free' when it is predictable by something larger than one (1) standard universe (as we know it {tm}).

So anyway, you're free, except when we can predit what you do. Adding information to you makes you predictable, thereby, or in addition, or whatever, reducing your free will. However, when there's a morass of crap that has no significant localized source or pattern (not a 'measurement', to return to the quantum concept), that is, something resembling the natural state, you are once again free. Or freer. You know, whatever. You're always going to get your free will in gasps and spurts because once your mind analyzes something it becomes input, and input affects your output (isn't this fun?). In a certain sense your unique movement come down to your choice of analyses. What do you analyze more or less?

For example. A certain couple, I'm not going to name names, are avoiding analyzing a certain 'situation' or 'question' or shall we say 'life choice involving each other in a church', in order to avoid the inevitable decision they know they must make when they finish analyzing the question. One of these people has probably analyzed the question and produced the inevitable behavior, but that behavior requires reciprocation to complete. One of these people is also at least partly asian.

moving on.

So we have a conundrum. The more input you give, up to the limit of processing an individual has, the more you control them (control being a relative term. I can hit balls around a pool table--doesn't mean I sink anything... ever..).

What this means, however, is that systems concepts of significance are tightly bound together throughout systems, and probably universally applied to all groups. One obvious outcome of this is that, in order for computers to start thinking for themselves, you need to hit them with more information than they can process (a lot more, simulating a natural environment of a thinking computer) and then waiting. Also they need to be able to select what they analyze.

Also it means that the statement 'people who judge something before they hear the issue are bad' is bullshit nonsense, because when you present 'the issue' whatever the fuck that may be, you are destroying someone's ability to think for themselves. The only way for that person to engage that information with a modicum of free will is to ignore you completely and put a meaningless summary of your statement on a back-burner in their head so that they can choose to analyze it or not at a later time. In a certain sense a zealot is acting with more freedom than a moderate, though, in many cases, a moderate is picking and choosing what to analyze from a larger pool of possible actions, which is more freedom. So... what do we come up with?!

"There's always someone who wants to shit on the apple pie. Well, you just met the apple pie that knows how to shit back..." --Club Dread (from teh guys who made supertroopers)

actually that's not relevant.

Calen, make a decision already. 

Why bother ragging on my life decisions if you already no (sic) what the result is going to be?   January 21, 2005 (Fri), 11:16 AM

Dude I have no idea. I'm just trying to scientifically prove that you *have* to make a decision, not what it will be necessarily.    January 21, 2005 (Fri), 3:59 PM

back to the news...