Is Entropy really a measure of disorder?

 From wiki:

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time, and is constant if and only if all processes are reversible.

 Armed with this Boltzmann concluded that the universe would always inch towards increased entropy (assuming that it was not reversible which means assuming that time flows forward).

 So what is the end game?

Well one thing we know is that the 2nd Law itself does not change. The universe remains permanently and incredibly structured under the laws of physics.

Now if thermodynamics really was that profound wouldn't it effect the very structure of the universe? Why do the Laws remain constant?

We have SRH here. To form any construction e.g. the laws of thermodynamics we must establish a foundation which cannot then be effected by the construction. Whatever that foundation is that we built the laws of thermodynamics upon it remains outside the scope of the laws.

When we create a foundation we do it with the intention of giving our construction some "power." The problem however like the Little Mermaid is that to get that power we have struck a bargain with the devil. Nothing is free. The bargain is that this power cannot be used to change the foundation. If we want to change the foundations later then we cannot have a very powerful system. It is this that needs to be formalised into a general theory. However what we are looking for with SRH Theory is a powerful foundation for the reason why powerful foundations cannot change themselves. We would need to show that changing the foundations of any theory causes a contradiction, or requires an outside. No system has the explanatory power to understand its own foundations. Power must come from outside etc etc  

Anyway: There will always be an outside.

SRH was part inspired by this necessity for systems to have an outside, that the idea of a system being self contained is a contradiction.

SRH was the realisation that God is always present in human endevour no matter how much we wish to construct a rational world, it always depends upon assumtpions that are established outside the system.

In logic the Axioms are these mysterious starting points that in some views are considered "self evident" or more broadly just the smallest set of starting points that do not contradict and from which all other theorems are derivable from the rules. Needless to say the rules themselves cannot be derived from the axioms because how could you "derive" the process of derivation. This is pure SRH.

It means all human and machine endevours are self-limiting. The very foundations that we accept to get started, become the yoke around are necks that hold us back. The good thinker is very light footed and picks up and puts down rules as needed, and when the restrictions of that set of foundations becomes too limiting they put the tool back down. The good thinker therefore has no fixed foundation. There are, and can be no fixed foundations to good thinking because those very foundations would become the prison.

Now perhaps the logically minded might think that good-thinking requires exactly this prison to remove the possibility of bad thinking. But the prison becomes our thinking then, and as we have seen we would be unable to see the assumtions that underly the prison. And wasn't the idea of logic to determine in a transparent way what bad thinking was. Yet if we just have prison guards telling us what is good and bad thinking we are as blind as before. This was Hegel's critique of Kant, that his search for the foundations of Reason (which ended in a museum of transcendental conditions which were suppose to lend authenticity to Reason) were like an astronomer using his broken telescope to investigate itself. How would the astronomer know given that all he has is the one telescope. He wouldn;t know what a good or bad telescope was.

So we always end up at the same place, the start. We can build our construct and go some interesting places, but we always come home.

Hmm what actually is Anti-Semitism?

 Its going to come as a shock to Margaret Hodge (and I suspect many Jews) that actually they have never experienced Anti-Semitism.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-hodge-labour-anti-semitic-abuse-b74084.html

I love how this articles goes off on a anti racist tirade without actually establishing evidence of any anti-semitism. Such is the modern hysteria.

So Hodge says:

she “dies soon”, others calling her a “Zionist stooge” and “funded by Israel”, and other racist and misogynistic abuse.

is problematic. Really? Wishing someone "dies soon" is ugly but is just standard trolling, nothing anti-semitic here. Calling someone a "stooge" is pretty standard in politics too, just suggesting that they are being bent by greater political powers. If someone said she was a "banking stooge" how would that be racist? And being funded by Israel is just the same. If someone had said she was funded by USA would that be racist? Israel is just a country.

The problem Hodge has found for herself is because she is Jewish and arguing in favour of Israel she is obviously going to get the type of comments she gets. If she thinks that's anti-semitic the quickest way to end this is just to argue for another country.

This is a perfect illustration of how the Jews have entered into a group psychosis and paranoid delusions of persecution. All Jews alive today need to realise that the Holocaust has ended and only a literal handful of them today ever experienced it. The rest are like the rest of the planet as only having heard about it. No excuses for PTSD or any other psychological illness. Time to get over it and move on.

Its a strong lesson to Non-Jews not to get sucked into this paranoia and mental illness. I heard about "Jerusalem Syndrome" recently, I think medical books should document "Jew Syndrome" also and Margaret Hodge can be their normative case.

"Jew Syndrome" is a bit like Narcissism, where everything that happens to you gets interpreted as being because of your Jewishness. So when someone says "they hate you" most people don't even take it personally, they just realise that this person doesn't like them. The Narcissist gets obsessed and takes is very personally. And the Jews thinks they hate them because they are Jewish. They then interpret it as Anti-Semitism and so a crime. They don't realise that they might actually be a dirty little smuck and would be hated Jewish or not.

The test for people with "Jew Syndrome" is just swap out the "jewish" part of it and see if it still makes sense.

So for Margaret Hodge. If someone say "hope you die soon" imagine you are not Jewish and see if they still want you dead. If someone calls you a "stooge for Israel" imagine you are Russian and arguing for Putin and see if they still call you a "stooge for the Kremlin." etc etc

This is how stupid "Jew Syndrome" is. The Nazis were all Germanic Saxons. They were Nazi because they were Germanic Saxons. This means that if you criticise a Nazi you are not just arguing against anyone who believes that Germany is the homeland of Germans but an actual German. Being German the Nazi beliefs are therefore racial, and not accepting them is anti-germanic. Are we really going to say that destroying the Nazis was racist? Utter absurdity. And Germans who adopted Nazi ideas cannot say they had no choice being German, and finding people criticising their Nazi ideas does not become an attack on their being German.      

So as the American say: Jews just get over yourselves already.

No-one but Jews and Nazis actually care about Jews. The real problem here is that the Jews will poison the world with their nonsense. We are going to get other races with "Jew Syndrome" and its going to mess up all the progress that has been made with racism.

The moment people cannot enter into discussion about things because one or other of the members of the discussion starts taking everything personally then its game over for freedom of speech and the end of a unified world of non-racism. The moment a white person cannot speak to a black person cos either the white person or the black person is going to interpret anything negative as a personal racist attack then its game over. The Jews are just absolutely the worst at this and do need to be internationally called out before they succeed in messing everything up.

The Germans tried this with the idea that Germany belonged to Germans and that they were the "first amongst nations." Had this idea spread then every country would have become the homeland of its racial people, and each country would be at war as it sparred to become the master race. Thankfully only Israel has adopted these ideas. But they need to end if we stand any hope of ending racism once and for all. It means that ironically that the Jews stand as the biggest hurdle to ending racism in the world today. How many Jews actually realise this. Margaret Hodge for certain doesn't.

btw the very worst anti-semitism I heard was in an exchange from Mel Gibson to Winona Ryder. At a party apparently he called her "an oven dodger." Now unlike anything that Margaret Hodge has ever heard this can only be applied to Jews, Russians, Gays, and Roma. And it not only makes reference to the mass slaughter of people in Concentration Camps by the Nazis but it suggests that Winona Ryder should have been among them. If Winona was French for example this wouldn't work. It passes the Anti-Semitism test. So as argued I think most modern Jews have never actually experienced any Anti-Semitism and what they have is entirely in their heads for which they need a psychologist rather than the police.

The H-Bomb shortened the War

People really do talk absolute nonsense, and on certain subjects no one ever stops them.

To everyone who thinks the H-Bomb shortened the war perhaps they would have liked to have been a victim of the bomb and do their part in shortening the war.

But obviously we didn't need an H-Bomb to shorten the war. If all the soldiers had just committed suicide one night the war would have been over instantly. And if they wanted to save lives then just lay your weapons down and it would have been over instantly without any loss of life. In fact never even go to war and nothing would have happened.

No people chose to go to war and chose to die, and they did so to win. The H-Bomb helped the Allies win. And it was dropped not to shorten a war to save lives, but to hasten a victory for the Allies. Which is obvious if anyone thinks about it.

If Japan or Germany had got the H-Bomb first and used it on defenceless civilians they would have shortened the war too, but would have been viewed as Evil. And that is the correct view. It was Evil, and the people who both used it and supported the use of it are Evil. 

===

On the subject of shortening the war the absolutely best way to have done that would have been for Germany to have massacred the 338,000 Allied troops at Dunkirk in 1940. That would have been the end of the war and it would have saved the lives of 80 million people and the Holocaust would not have even been triggered. The Germans would have been seen as complete Heroes for quickly and decisively defeating the British Empire and liberating the world. With control of the Middle East, Germany would have easily found lands for the Jews and would have (probably with mutual agreement) relocated them all from Europe. But the Germans made a critical mistake of expecting rational behaviour from Churchill and unfortunately he did not surrender and so while British troops were spared it was only for them to prolong a war that destroyed Europe and let the US take over and rob everyone of their freedom.

And all her paths are Peace

So goes the poem by Cecil Spring-Rice, 1918

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;
The love that asks no questions, the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,^[9]
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.

And it captures the irony, contradiction and hypocrisy at the heart of those who choose violence. There can only be peace amongst those for whom all paths are Peace. If any path leads to violence then you can have war.

If a flow diagram was written for the Peaceful Heart then there would be no way to get to violence.

Yet for a large part of Humanity they do not have this skill to find Peace and many paths lead to violence.

War obviously is the greatest failure of the heart that seeks peace. But what an absurdity that those who have partaken in war and have chosen violence are considered to have anything to do with Peace when they have had everything to do with unrest, violence, hurt and harm.

Now it is true the Path of Peace is made difficult. In times of War the violent will persecute the peaceful. Those who refuse to bear arms against their fellow man will be ousted from communities, will be disgraced by their countries and will probably be charged with criminal offences and find themselves in gaol. But Jesus taught us most graphically that to defeat the Devil we will often be treated as criminals and we must be prepared to die a criminal to really choose the path of Peace. It is ironically the weak ones who give in to peer pressure and collective expectations and pick up weapons when it is quite obvious that by doing so they are taking the path of violence and only contributing to the bloodshed and unrest.

It has been argued in the blog many times that violence does achieve a type of peace that I have called The Pax after the Pax Romana. There is now a Pax Americana. This is the peace that arises when you have a tyrant that is so strong that no one can rebel.

In nature animals competing for resources never fight unless they think they have a chance of winning. A very powerful Tyrant keeps the peace easily as no competitor will risk a fight. And in animals the equation is simple as battles are one-on-one. In humans calculating your chance is more complex as battles are co-operative affairs and as has been seen many times in history a smaller well organised force and defeat what looks like overwhelming odds. Also humans are prepared die for ideas which muddies the water in a way animals never have to confront. 

But any silence achieved through this is not true Peace. When the Pax Tyranni fails then violence breaks out again. We saw that in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was "toppled" (literally as well as figuratively). This is not to say that violence was bubbling under the surface of Hussein's Iraq but it was to say that peace was not understood and when the conditions arose for violence people turned to violence automatically and unavoidably.

The truly peaceful NEVER chose violence under ANY circumstances. There is no excuse. Christians know this as Jesus never turned to violence even on The Cross. Yet even in the name of Christ many people have turned to violence demonstrating how little they really grasped the Path of Jesus. Some might argue that Jesus did display anger and violence for instance when he got angry with the money lenders in the temple shouting and over turning tables. Perhaps we can make a distinction here between getting angry and wishing to harm. We often do things when we are angry that we regret afterwards. The state of anger is a mystery. But violence and war is a way of life, it is far more than just a momentary loss of balance. 

Its a huge irony for the religious that every single person who died in WW1 and WW2 with a gun in their hands and hatred for the Germans in their hearts will find themselves in Hell. Maybe they will be surprised at this, but if they look at what they really desired it will be clear to them. A truly peaceful person would never have hated for their foe in the first place, they would have turned the other cheek when wronged, and would have profound pity and compassion for all those on all sides so blinded by the devil that they seek to harm each other.

In WW2 not the Japanese nor the Italian but just the Germans have a particularly grave mark against their name which seems to justify violence against them. But we know that no-one fighting in WW2 actually knew or cared about the Death Camps. That all came to provenance after the war. But this detail is actually irrelevant for the person of peace. Even in the full knowledge of the Holocaust there is still no reason for violence. Peace is always unconditional. If you see someone committing violence you don't then start yourself. Chances are they are only committing violence themselves cos they saw someone else committing violence. Violence is an infection it must stop somewhere. And that somewhere is with the Army of Peace.

So how do you handle Genocides like the Holocaust? First to note that many genocides have gone unhandled: Armenian, Rwanda, American Indians to name just 3. But we can agree that all genocides should not take place, and yet must also agree that each peoples is capable of Geocide. It is not something that only Germans or Turkish or Americans do.

We know when genocide happens there are people who have not accepted the path of peace. There are many peaceful routes open to us. First might be to politically reject them and economically reject them. The Treaty of Versailles after WW1 was not in response to Genocide it was actually ultimately the cause of Genocide. Rather than punish the German people then, when they hadn't actually done anything wrong other than lose a war, they should have been punished after the creation of concentration camps to fuel their economy. But the West actually just escalated trade with Germany and fuelled the creation of Concentration Camps. I can write on and on about this. The roots of the Holocaust do not lie in Germany at all but in the actions of all the countries who set up the conditions. If people really wanted to stop Holocaust the opportunities were present endlessly and always Peacefully.

Ultimately there will always be people prepared to harm other people for whatever reason. And we can always set up Pax Tyranni to avoid the conditions where they might be violent. The Holocaust could have been easily averted with wise government from the Allies. Germans where not especially racist before the loss of WW1 and the Versailles agreement. But if we really wish to have a world of Peace we need start setting down the roots of true peace which means refusing anything to do with violence or people who are or espouse violence in any form.

This would mean in the West for example not paying taxes if they will be used on violent means, or at the very least applying political pressure on all those who believe that some paths should lead to violence.

We are a far from, perhaps even further from, true peace now than ever before. And the Pax Americana leads the violent into a belief that they are somehow miraculously peaceful these days while clearly haven't learnt nothing but a respect and love for war that we see during Remembrance Day. We should be ashamed of this scar on humanity and all those involved should bow their heads in shame and if anything try to distance themselves from involvement in this Darkest Hour of mankind's existence where 80 million lost their lives for nothing. There is nothing to show for their sacrifice and people still don't say never again even after all this suffering. It seems Mankind enjoys suffering and the more the better. But the Peaceful reject all this. May all her paths really be peace. 

What is the meaning of meaning? And Nature.

 Nice SRH question to start the day. A question which must have an immediate answer. Obviously you must know what meaning is to understand the question to answer it so we must all know. There are 2 types of meaning however and we can write blogs without being able necessarily to tell someone how it all works.

Anyway not point of post. I picked up some terse notes just now from months ago and I can't understand what they refer to.

I need some memory of what was "topical" at the time in order to decode them. Its this working memory or context (or stack frame in computing) which we must load alongside the "notes" for them to make sense.

A point made famous by Structuralist philosophy but interesting to see it actually happening in daily life. Once we "forget" the context then things have no meaning.

So this blog post actually has no meaning to a vast number of people because it depends upon quite a specific context.

Its an interesting thing then to ponder the phenomenon of "viral content" or "fame." Like a fire, a spark is needed but it must occur in the right environment, or under the right conditions. In the rain no chance. Next to some dry tinder you may well get a fire. Equally the existence of memes and viral content depends more upon the context than the spark. When Darwin published "Origin of Species" that was the spark but the conditions were also right. He was living in a world awaking to the idea of geological history and processes, of the immense periods of time and gradual change that rocks went through and so it was much easier to imagine organisms doing the same. It was also the end of Religious Certainty and Church Power. A century of Capitalism and Technological progress was shifting power towards a competitive and free market. I studied Zoology and all the models of biological models are taken from finance and accounting. Darwin's idea is really the idea of free-markets applied to animals. The idea of Competitive Exclusion ripped directly from Capitalist ideology, and the idea that companies are forced to adapt and improve through competition started in Capitalism and went to Biology. This mirrors the origins of maths itself in the market place. Algebra and the "=" sign just a symbolic drawing of the traders scales.

I find this understanding very important because as the world shifted from Monarchy to Capitalism ideas of Nature shifted from God to Evolution. We find meaning and relevance for Nature within the context and terms of our current society. But Nature of course is far greater, it is the origin of everything and its good to understand that our attitudes to it will forever change as we reflect ourselves and our society into it.

Is the charge of "Anti-Semitism" really as simple as everyone makes out?

Here is a "thieving gypsy bastard" aka Tracy Ullman (sorry Mrs Ullman for using your image and identity but its meant in general for anyone who experiences racial prejudice who isn't a Jew).

Did you see what I did there? Well actually no you didn't cos there is no word for it? How weird.

If she was Jewish everyone would call it "Anti-Semitism" without thinking. But for poor old Ullman she's not so fortunate and protected and this is simply because of her race! Alarm bells.

For every 2 Jews in the UK their is a Gypsy but you'd never know. Ullman and her people experienced Holocaust just like Jews losing 25% of their racial population but no one says the Germans did a Roma Genocide, and they get no German Compensation Payments. Roma were given no country to "protect" them after the war either.

There is clear and provable prejudice in favour of Jews and so therefore clear and provable prejudice against Roma (swords are always 2 sided). And that prejudice is Racism.

Use of the word "Anti-Semitism" is actually a very serious form of racism but because people don't understand what they are doing they don't understand the error in using it. Calling anything "anti-semitic" is actually being deeply negatively Racist. It is discriminating race crimes based on race and attributing more meaning to certain races while prejudicing against other races.

The only way this issue is going to be solved is with people learning to respect one another and live together. The term "anti-semitism" is actually counter to this desire. Having differential courts of opinion based upon race is actually just amplifying the problem and making it worse. Any race crime should be treated as exactly that. If people need countries to protect their race then every race needs a country, if people need Holocaust compensation then every victim of genocide needs compensation. And so on. Once communities are divided by differential treatment based on race you have Racism. It means all the current pressure to change the law to protect Jewish interests is actually only making racism worse. And I imagine the last thing the Jews want (from what they say at least) is for racism to get worse.

Owning Existence and why Existentialism is nonsense

 So the great problem since Descartes and beyond is Mind and Body. Our experience of the world and the world itself are different. And when we try and locate our experience in the world we have a problem. SRH is here already. Somewhere in the world must be our experiences, but our experiences are of that world. Either their is a secret space we cannot experience where they reside e.g. soul or we have an overlap. Anyway that's the introduction.

The problem for a Capitalist is that we try and own this Mind and these experiences and if we believe in secret spaces those also.

And then perhaps we get struck by their existence which is Real. Often experiences get demoted as just subjective personal perspectives. [running out of power will finish later] but that they exist cannot be denied.

For Descartes the existence of thoughts proved that he himself existed. He was more than owner of those thoughts, he was those thoughts.

But quickly we can see that existence is just existence and its nothing special to us. That one day we won't exist is not a revelation and is nothing personal its just a fact about existence.

Indeed their is nothing personal about existence. So why the dread about non-existence? By existing and non-exiting we join the universe of things. It is a binding experience not a separating experience that Sartre saw.

And why did Sartre see this? Because deep down he was a Capitalist and viewed self and existence in terms of ownership.

Often we demote reality. For Plato's Idealism in his cave physical reality was demoted as an imperfect copy of Ideals in a realm apart from the world. The modern material view inverts this so that computers and brains make imperfect models of a Real existing external world. Phenomenology would demote both these views as both Plato's Ideals and the Materialist Ideal of Physical Reality are just ideas. Reality lies in experience or Phenomena. This is very much more aligned with Eastern Philosophy that sees thoughts and ideas as just sense processes alongside sight and sound. In the West much is placed upon the value of Narrative (ideas) while in the East, Narrative is itself an observable process. In Buddhism everything is demoted to the same level, which is also no level.

A general pattern for contradictions by self-reference

TODO

So Tarski, Turing, Godel and Russel all use the same pattern.

Regarding Halting:

A function H(h,x) determines if program h halts given input x.

Now we can construct I(h,x) which goes into a loop if H(h,x) says 'h' doesn't and vice-versa.

So what about H(I,I)?

If H says it halts we know that 'I' will loop and vice versa.

As usual I need tidy up the logic.

Regarding Tarski:

A function T(t,x) determines if theorem 't' is true given x.

Now we can construct U(t,x) which states the opposite. So that U(t,x) is false if t(x) is true.

So what about T(U,U).

And again with Provability for Godel and Selfincludes for Russel.

Tidy the logic up here.

Now is this the basis for Contradiction by Self-Reference.

If a statement can be transformed into this format it's game over?

Can all self-contradictory statements get into this format.

Are all other formats safe from self-contradiction?

Strong SRH is Dead Digest

 So if last blog didn't quite get there here it is:

Let us begin with the idea of "Contradiction by Self-Reference" CBSR. This is a contradiction that is derived by use of any type of self-reference. There is debate (that I am currently reading) on whether all paradoxes involve self-reference. It seems self-reference paradoxes can be rewritten as infinite paradoxes and vice-versa. But certainly not all contradictions involve self-reference. But that type of contradiction that comes from self-reference is what interests us.

Quick note on method. Theorems taking theorems as input is usually achieved through a mapping from the ordered list of theorems to whatever domain variables have. If the logic is about numbers this is very evident. Theorem(5) can mean both the result of operating on "5" and also the theorem that is listed at position 5 in the ordered list. This is called Godel Numbering.    

So Strong SRH hypothesises "all systems with self-reference can derive contradiction from that self-reference" SSRH (strong self-reference hypothesis).

Note to myself: I need give the logic here a little bit of thought to get it really accurate. Consider the a function like SR(x) that decides if the theorem x has self-reference. SR(x) is true if x involves self-self-reference and false otherwise. However I can't just do SR(SR) since SR is bound to a variable. It would be a whole family of theorems like SR(SRx) the theorem that comes from binding itself to itself with an input x. If "SRn" is the theorem at position n in the list of SR theorems then SR(n) is only self-referential if and when n = SRn. I'm unsure where we can argue self-reference is guaranteed in this construction!

So at the moment I don't know how to create a function like C(SR(x)) which would says that if x has self-reference then you have a contradiction. Which is not quite SSRH which states that the theorem itself is true i.e. SSRH(C(SR(x))) is true. Warning this could all be nonsense I'm just thinking it through.

Anyway concerns out of the way:

Suppose we construct a sequence of logic, a theorem called SSRH to illustrate this. It takes one theorem as input and outputs 1 if the theorem has CBSR and contradiction and 0 otherwise.

So SSRH(SSRH) = 0 is an obvious contradiction. SSRH says that all theorems with self-reference can derive a contradiction yet SSRH(SSRH) say that it doesn't. But that is itself a contradiction as this self-reference has provided a contradiction so the result should be 1. 

But SSRH(SSRH) = 1 is highly problematic too.

It says that SSRH is a theorem with self-reference that generates a contradiction from that self-reference.

Clearly it has self-reference since it has taken itself as input. But it says that doing so derives a contradiction. If we believe it, it has said that its output is a contradiction, and if we don't believe it it means that SSRH is inconsistent. Essentially Godel's result.

If SSRH is consistent then it says its own logic is faulty, which if it was true invalidates the outcome. Not "I am lying" but "I tell contradictions." In standard logic we reject contradictions so it means "If the logic is consistent then reject an assumption that you made in deriving this contradiction." But if we do that then we are actually taking a contradiction to be true! If we accept that the logic was good it would be a contradiction to reject an assumption! This road breaks the very process of logical truth! So we reject SSRH.

So what if SSRH(SSRH) is not the self-reference that is problematic and there is another one. If SSRH contains a self-reference that is problematic within the logic not bound to the variable then the result is even worse and applies to all input. So the problem above stands.

So we must reject the consistency of SSRH all together. There is no such thing.

Now what about Weak Self-Reference Hypothesis (WSRH). This is much more interesting. It says that where there is self-reference and definable conditions then there is CBSR.

Firstly let me introduce the theorem C(x) which sees if x contains a contradiction. (Note: this is proving a useful session as forcing it into logic is really breaking up what I've been trying to say here).

Suppose we illustrate WSRH like this: 

WSRH(x) := C( Conditions(x) && SR(x) )

Which says that if theorem x contains self-refence and it meets the conditions defined by Conditions then it will give a contradiction.

I'm going to leave this here for now cos I need to go back and sort out self-reference and the function SR(x). That might be very fruitful in itself.

Lots of meta-logic functions here (functions deriving results from the logic itself: Godel only had one Beq(x) which decided if a theorem was provable): probably too many.

Not getting stuck into the logic. To recap WSRH suggested that where a domain contained its range (like with fractals) you were guaranteed a "Fixed Point" and the existence of that indicated that SRH was true and problems with self-reference were guaranteed. Let me just define the meta-logic function FP(x) which for a logic decides this. FP(ZFC) is a valid statement since Zermelo-Fraenkel Choice logic enables Godel numbering and so there is guaranteed a statement with one variable in ZFC (e.g. F(x)) which calculates a number which is its own position in the list of theorems.

Note:

F(x) = x is a fixed point

F(n) where n is the position of F(x) in the list of theorems is Self-Reference i.e. n=G(x) is position in the list of theorems or a unique mapping to the domain somehow.

They are different.

OK racing through this. Need to go over the very faulty logic!!!

SRH is dead (after 13 years of struggle and 30 years of interest)!

So I've been insisting with someone they should keep a daily record of their symptoms (not coroanvirus). And we joked that the stress of keeping that record might set off the symptoms.

Now you could add an extra factor to your analysis, and extra row in the spreadsheet to record whether you were keeping a spreadsheet. However due to SRH this is meaningless. It would need to be always ticked. In logic it is a tautology and what is necessarily true is also meaningless. We might do some statistics using that factor but obviously we would never learn anything.

For this situation to make sense we need an independent recorder to make a new spreadsheet that records our symptoms and whether we are updating our spreadsheet. This row can now contain proper data with a decision being made on whether yes/no. That actual making of the decision is the basis of the data and meaning.

Now the patient can deduce all this from SRH because they know automatically that rows on their spreadsheet that are self-referential are open to issues.

But here is the crux. Not all self-referential rows are a problem! And this has been the sticking point for SRH. Can we determine absolutely a rule for knowing when self-reference will be a problem. The SRH was the hypothesis that there is a definite way to decide whether self-reference would result in paradox.

The classic example of self-reference not being a problem is in infinite sets. The Cardinality of Natural Number is a Natural Number. The interval [1,2] of the Real Numbers maps to the interval [0,3] thus a subset maps to itself. This result would appear to destroy the SRH. The Natural Numbers can be constructed from a natural number 1 and the S() successor function. It is therefore defined in terms of itself. Especially in maths there are examples of SRH that don't result in paradox.

The key concept I wanted to introduce here was "dependence." If we allow that a things have a logical dependence then its easy to express SRH. The classic sample from this blogs Past is "castles in the air" (CITA). The problem is that CITA are usually considered to rest on clouds. They cannot support themselves, and so are dependent upon some "ground." In  gravitational fields things are "dependent" upon other things. Now its interesting to observe that a single entity while creating a gravitation field is not influenced by its own gravitational field. It seems that self-reference is indeed protected here. Yet that entity is really just a collection of smaller entities that are both creating gravity and being influenced by each other. So you can never really have a single entity here. Its also interesting to note that a pair of entities while not being influencing by their own gravity directly can influence each other so that they do end up experiencing the influence of themselves second hand. Why is this? explore later. That "dependency" creates rules that underpin SRH. Once something is dependent on something else, paradox arises if that dependency is ignored. The King standing in our CITA will fall to "ground" when the CITA does since he depends upon it for support.

Now let me get to the point. Assuming "dependency", the SRH says that there is a definite way to determine whether self-reference will be a problem and that is by looking at the "dependency." Dependent Self-Reference is the issue here. Now SRH itself must conform, so it would be able to tell in a definite way whether the Theory has problematic self-reference.

Now its like the spreadsheet above.

The theory depends upon itself in this scenario, and so it must always be without problematic self-reference and so tautological. Otherwise it is problematic and we don't even get to updating the spreadsheet. There is a more rigorous argument here but its essentially Halting Problem (HP) revamped.

In fact using HP suppose there was a decision algorithm that took a theory analysed and decided if it was self-referential in a problematic way. e.g. "the set of all sets that don't include themselves."

Incidentally while Zermelo Fraenkel amongst others proposed a way around Russel's Paradox what interest me (and SRH) is why the paradox is there at all. There are definite conditions that lead to problems, and as Godel and others afterwards have shown the existence of these always self-reference derived problems can be used to cause all kinds of problems. And you can tweak things to avoid the paradoxes, yet they're always waiting to strike. Godel actually uses SRH to provide his proof. SRH is much bigger than incidences of self-contradiction occurring its about the existence of such a thing at all.

p.s. the real classic was machines understanding themselves. This is linked to AI and self-consciousness. All very Hofstaedter.

So SRH takes a theory and spits out whether it is clean (result 0) or self-reference problematic SRP (result 1).

So following Turing we build a new machine (SRHb) that uses SRH to decide the input. 

==NOTE SRHb is nonsense it proves nothing (logic below is faulty) BUT the gate is open. Should be able to complete this now. 

But its much bigger than Turing because these machines are actually examining the input for self-reference issues. They would detect the presence of contradictions and report on that, rather than just cause halting jams. If you put Turing's Halting Algorithm into SRH it would spit out that it causes a contradiction.

Now you put SRH into itself what do you get? Does knowing whether things cause contradictions (by specifically by examining their self-reference SRH) itself cause contradictions or doesn't it?

The other implication of SRH is that simply by looking at the self-reference relations of an entity you can decide whether a contradiction is possible. The set of self-reference relations includes all the contradictions. There are no contradictions that don't depend upon self-reference! That is an essential corollary of SRH. 

SRHb is then given itself. If SRH spits out 0 then it is not problematic, yet SRHb spits out 1 so it is problematic. 

But SRH should be able to see this Turing Contradiction coming so it must spit out 1 for itself. SRH must then be self-reference problematic (SRP) which means that we must reject it. Yet if we reject it we are conforming to SRH. So SRH gets us truly stuck. We can neither accept nor reject it!!!

So there must be contradictions that do not depend on self-reference, so we can reject SRH on a bigger scale than SRH itself (since we are rejecting that self-reference is the problem). OR we cannot decide before hand by any means whether something will result in a contradiction. SRH is dead.  

==== Update 25/9/2020

So there is a very obvious contradiction to note first.

Strong SRH (SSRH) says that self-reference always leads to contradiction. So what does SSRH say about itself? It says that it is contradictory to even ask! But this is worse.

Let us adopt function syntax to indicate applying a logic SSRH(x). So SSRH(x) says that if theory x contains self-reference it was derive a contradiction. So at first the above says that SSRH(SSRH) will derive a contradiction. But the very act of applying SSRH to itself is the cause of the contradiction. So if SSRH(SSRH) indicates a contradiction that SSRH is true. It is contradictory to even have a contradiction! There must be a meta-state that is beyond true/false (analogous to Turing Non-Halting) that SSRH(SSRH) implies. Interestingly this is the +1/Horatio parts of SRH. Self-reference has broken the system and implied a new "terms" or "domain". SSRH even breaks itself! I need think that through some more to tidy up. 

There is also the weaker SRH (WSRH) to consider. The special conditions for self-reference I was suggestion before are the same as for Fixed-Point. Any system that has a fixed point, and which is self-referential will have a paradox. So more subtle SRH includes this Fixed-Point axiom.

The point that all change leverages

So here is a busy scene

Despite its busyness there is a particular point that unifies all the movement: it is the centre. It doesn't need to be centre every transformation whose range is within the domain has such a fixed point. I've spoken at length on fixed points, this is a revision.

The fixed point remains unchanged under a transformation. Certainly if we refer to the set of everything then this must have a fixed point, since by definition the range is within the domain. And all transformations on infinite sets the same. This is the basis of Diagonalisation.

But its also the basis of Spirituality too. Which is much more why this blog spends so much time on SRH. Millennia ago people were talking about the hole in a wheel into which the axle fits, and around which the wheel turns. They spoke of rotation around the centre as referring to the world moving around an unchanging truth. The Enlightened Mind observes change fully because it itself is still.

"The point that all change leverages" is a good description of the Truth. In the picture above it is quite easy to see that all the zooming in and out and the cross hairs moving in are all aimed at or occurring round the single centre point. We can discover this special point quite easily here. But in the complex changing world of our Lives with everything changing from the weather to the news to the people and events around us to our own bodies, thoughts, emotions and minds: the World IS most definitely Changing! All of it is changing. They say in Buddhism it is a burning house. But all this change is swirling around a singularity of perfect peace and calm that is never-the-less not separate from the world. The Point that forms the special centre of the picture above, of any affine transformation is part of that domain and range. It is not "outside" the picture. The Peace of Truth Enlightenment and Wisdom is not outside the world, but is created through the very swirling of all the transformation that make up the change all around and in us.

One unfortunate thing is that the processes of education like explaining and showing people things are all part of the world's change. If one considers a student before standard education and after they hopefully have changed. The fixed-point of Peace is thus even a fixed point of the education system. You can't change to a state of Peace because obviously the new state would be itself be changeable and so not Peaceful. We must find the Peace that lies even in the states of change that regard education. Even while reading this the world and our minds are in Flux (to use Heraclitus' word): observing all this change closely so we can see where it has its unchanging centre is all we need to do. 

An algorithm you can use to find the centre of rotation is to take a point of reference that is outside the rotation. So for example on a computer screen with a rotating complex shape if we place our finger on the screen we can see that this point traces out a circle on the rotating image. If we then move our finger inside this circle and do again we will eventually arrive at the centre. Of course with the World it is harder to get a reference point that is "outside" the World, and so harder to get a reference point. However you can have two systems in different states of rotation. From the perspective of one the other traces a trajectory, and vice versa. This is like looking at the orbit of planets from a planet that is itself orbiting. No one can stand on the Sun so we effectively have no way of viewing from the fixed point, we cannot get a finger outside the picture. But we can look at these trajectories. Originally with Epicycles (a predecessor of Fourier Transform) and then we a Heliocentric solar system. we did eventually work out the fixed point of all these changes especially the bizarre behaviour of retrograde planets (which turned out to be just parallax). The process of spiritual progress is very analogous, comparing chaotic and changing systems looking for the centre. 

I won't go as far as Fritjof Capra in Tao of Physics to suggest that there is anything more here than just a nice analogy joining fixed points and spiritual peace. But it is uncanny how these ideas are so similar. It is almost as though through meditation and reflection we slow down the change enough to see the point that is not effected by the world's transformations. The point of Peace. Once found obviously all the changes make sense and have a centre and a grounding. And the more the world changes the more we see the point around which it all changes. This is quite different from the view of change which is trying to stop the world. This type of Peace is disturbed the moment change occurs again.

So regarding SRH. A quick stub to remind me to look at Fixed Points and Russel's Paradox. Excellent summary here in Scientific American

Little Stub for SRH

 Here's a nice intuitive demonstration of Turing proof that Halting cannot be determined by algorithm.

First thought was quantum theory like that "opening boxes" changes them.

But main purpose is to reconsider this in light of the idea there is really only 1 paradox: the liar paradox. And the conditions for this paradox are the conditions for SRH.

So what you have here is the negation box, and the whole thing encapsulated in an atomic statement.

But its slightly different. It uses the Halting Decision engine H to build a engine which negates and so fails.

But in fact this just says "I am false."

Consider some more when time. So is it really just Liar Paradox and does this give insight to that paradox cos it involved opening the box. 

Simplest Version of Godel Theorem

A while ago I read Smyllan's SELF version of Godel theorem which amounts to just a few lines.

The Liar paradox is universal in paradoxes. In fact there is only one Paradox and that is the Liar Paradox. It has been cleverly adapted to many, many situations but all are essentially the same. You wish to make a statement about the statement so that the statement can contradict itself. Since the contradiction is atomic you are stuck, there is no choice of statements to reject, you must either reject the whole statement making your system incomplete because by obeying the rule you make it True, or you just accept there are false statements making the system inconsistent. Godel's Theorem is so special because it formalises Paradox into symbolic logic providing a rigorous demonstration that is exists.

For SRH this is critical because it demonstrates the issues that lie at the basis of thinking in general. We often like to think that the universe and ourselves are fully rational and that everything is waiting to be uncovered. Or at least could be uncovered with enough searching. But if we ever tried to do this we would run into Paradox for the very reasons spelled out in the Liar Paradox and Godels Theorems.

Here's a simple version that captures Paradox perfectly. Credit to and quoted from Mark Dominus.

We have some sort of machine that prints out statements in some sort of language. It needn't be a statement-printing machine exactly; it could be some sort of technique for taking statements and deciding if they are true. But let's think of it as a machine that prints out statements.

In particular, some of the statements that the machine might (or might not) print look like these:

P*x	(which means that	the machine will print x)
NP*x	(which means that	the machine will never print x)
PR*x	(which means that	the machine will print xx)
NPR*x	(which means that	the machine will never print xx)

For example, NPR*FOO means that the machine will never print FOOFOO. NP*FOOFOO means the same thing. So far, so good.

Now, let's consider the statement NPR*NPR*. This statement asserts that the machine will never print NPR*NPR*.

Either the machine prints NPR*NPR*, or it never prints NPR*NPR*.

If the machine prints NPR*NPR*, it has printed a false statement. But if the machine never prints NPR*NPR*, then NPR*NPR* is a true statement that the machine never prints.

So either the machine sometimes prints false statements, or there are true statements that it never prints.

So any machine that prints only true statements must fail to print some true statements.

Or conversely, any machine that prints every possible true statement must print some false statements too.

On The Nature of Land and Trespass

 UK Government moving towards criminalisation of trespass. Sign the petition to get this discussed in parliament.

This highlights the spread of Capitalism and Ignorance.

Land was here before us;     It will be here after us. We never own it,     But can only put up fences to keep others off. We are only ever just transient visitors.

At the end we are buried and the Land consumes us. We all return back to where we came. Land is a far greater thing than any one of us, We forget this And we forget ourselves.

Are LGBT the most prejudice community?

A train has been launched that is staffed by only people who self-identity with LGBT. This means that 94.6% of the UK population cannot apply for a job on the train and will be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Yet the LGBT community pride themselves in their inclusivity and vocally reject prejudice and discrimination.

Now the ugly side of humans is revealed. LGBT are actually no different from anyone else, and share exactly the same levels of tight, self-protective, exclusive, clique, prejudice behaviour as any other humans.

One good thing to come from this is that the LGBT community should now be able to draw solidarity not just with themselves but with those who are prejudice against them. They will be able to see that the "us and them" distinction is false, and they are no different from the people they have sort to distance themselves from and assume moral superiority to. The stereotypical "gay hater" is actually the same as an LGBT person!

This is where Religions have trod so powerfully before. Jesus says love thy enemy, and most importantly to the crowd ready to stone a prostitute "if anyone is without sin throw the first stone." Humans are joined by their narrow mindedness, their sin, their frailty, ignorance and suffering.

The anti-prejudice movement may look on the surface to be very noble but it is nothing. There is only one prejudice and that is not respecting The Other. The Devil lies exactly in this tendency to view what is near as more important than what is far, to see oneself before we see others. Perhaps its a natural result of "perspective" that we see what is near before we see what is far. But as Buddha argues at length with Ananda in the Shurangama Sutra such a mind is extremely limited and fails to grasp the truth.

So LGBT like many groups need to be very wary of the Devil walking boldly in their midst. The goal here is to respect The Other, even when The Other is ones enemy and seems to threaten what we hold dear and close. What is close is really very far, like the person unable to leave their treasured possessions and so burning along with their house. To be truly free we must be able to leave what is close when the time is right.

That time has come. People who truly believe in diversity, freedom and respect should weaken their links to the LGBT community. They should not fuel greater divisions and prejudice in the community.

To me the whole thing is a mistake anyway. If any experiences violence or hatred on any grounds that is a crime. There is no need to specify the "type" of prejudice. Perhaps one day I will be prejudiced against by someone with a hatred of people who like snakes (as I do). Perhaps they have a snake phobia after being bitten, or believe that snakes are the devil. Perhaps that irrational fear will lead to me being attacked. So I report it to the police, and find they are snake haters too. So indeed I find the problem is big: the Bible has really made people hate snakes. So I join together with other snake lovers and sympathisers in my cause and begin a long political process to rid myself and others of harm and hatred. Great that is politics.

BUT, I don't enshrine snake loving in law, or form societies of snake lovers that exclude non-snake lovers. Or teach people about snake love in school. And yes "snake love" can be read as a metaphor for penis love too. The point is just to ensure that people are free from harm and hatred and nothing else.

So this train is a big problem and represents the very world it is supposed to be against. Humans 0 : 1 Devil.

Strong Economy is bad for the people!

 UK Fertility against Government (Red = Labour, Blue = Conservative) 

So the Tories argue that strong economy is good for the people. Yet in Biology it's well recognised that fertility rate is the best measure of what is good (Darwinian fitness). Unhealthy organisms do not breed well, and their offspring have lower viability.

It seems then that the Tories are actually bad for fertility which implies strong economy is bad for the people.

That supports the thesis that economics is really just the system that protects the rich and ensures a net transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich (aka Capitalism).

Hard Times are Here apparently. More economic nonsense about the Capitalist Burden.

So the UK chancellor Rishi Sunak is saying "Hard times are here"

What a load of nonsense!

Have people stopped eating, or have suddenly become unskilled?

No the real economy is just fine.

What has failed is that we still have Capitalism and we still need to bleed free wealth into the pockets of the rich at the same rate as before. Or perhaps an even greater rate if the government stupidly sells the public debt to the private sector.

Why not keep enabling demand through Q.E. at the tax payers expense, and collect taxes from tax payers as they rise to meet demand. What can go wrong?

Exactly capitalists never stop extracting rents, dividends and interest so while people and the economy is taking a well earned rest at the moment, the parasitic capitalists are still sucking blood out of the system at the usual rate hence the so called "issues". What after all is Capitalism? Capital-ism is the system that protects and rewards "capital." And what is capital? Its just another word for wealth. So properly understood Capitalism is the system that protects and rewards wealth! Now its obvious what a fraud and insane system it is! So why has any business folded recently? Exactly! the capitalists have sucked it dry over the last few months with rents and interest.

The proof of all this parasitism will be the vast increase in Capitalist wealth we will see as the economy shrinks to supply all that wealth.

Problem with our friend Sunak is his party (the Conservatives) is funded by Capitalists so he's unable to do anything right. "Protect our freebie income" the Capitalists are screaming at him, so he has no choice but to crash the real economy to supply their wishes. Stop voting Tory its what the ruling elite want!

===

Now what can go wrong with this demand led, public economy? Importantly we lose the private financial sector at no cost what-so-ever. We might have more sympathy for them if they were not continuously dependent on the National Treasury for bailouts, and then go on to charge us interest on that debt. And we might have more sympathy for the private financial sector if it didn't make huge profits in the good times, and then huge profits in the bad times, while also asking for bailouts to protect them from the very risk that they are supposed to be managing. They take the risks, reap the benefits and when it goes wrong ask for Q.E. and bailouts. Enough. It is time to drive a stake through the useless banking and financial sectors.

Instead, since the tax payer and the Treasury prop the whole system up anyway, we just borrow from the Treasury. The government needs to enter the markets with interest free lending. Unlike the financial sector it has the law to demand repayments of debt in Taxes. And if they do charge interest, since it is Public that money goes back into the Treasury and is owned by the Tax payers, and what we do with it is voted for at election. Light years better than the current antiquated system that essentially just promotes the same aristocratic control of wealth we had in the Feudal System under the Normans.

So the Square Mile has collapsed without tax payer support and all the international capitalists have fled to countries whose tax payer does hand out freebies. An important fact: FTSE dividends alone equal the entire unemployment package in the UK. Put that in other terms: those wealthy enough to own shares in FTSE companies extract as much wealth from the UK economy as the unemployed! By removing the private financial sector we save huge amounts of dividend money that is ploughed instead back into the Treasury to help the tax payers!

And consider that UK Mortgages alone bleed 2.8% of GDP every year into the private banks. The UK economy is like a sieve with money leaking everywhere into the pockets of the ultra wealthy capitalists. Obviously there are small time capitalists like myself who own a pension and some shares but we benefit very little compared with the professional capitalists. We still need to work for an income is proof we are not true capitalists. 80% of wealth is owned by 20% of the people is a very, very conservative estimate. That means at least 80% of Capitalist returns fall into the hands of just 20%. I say at least cos its exponential. The more capital you have the more quickly your wealth increases: that is the Law of Capitalism. The opposite is the rule that us non-capitalists all understand well: the larger your debt the faster it increases.

So I have proposed that the Treasury keeps Q.E. like the "eat out to help out scheme" drawing people into restaurants to eat out, and subsidising 50% of the meal (up to £10 off). This is a fantastic innovation. It takes the tax payers money and directs it to restaurants and food. Perhaps restaurants are not that important but food is. I'm becoming a huge fan of Milton Friedman just removing the elitist capitalist element of his theories. He advocates "meal tickets" and this would have been a better system. But however the government does this the point is to fuel targetted parts of the economy like with any Q.E. But this is better than previous financial sector injections of wealth cos only the rich need the Financial Sector. If you do not have enough money to eat, you most certainly don't need a bank or stock broker. That is unless you borrow, but if you don't have enough to eat tomorrow, you most certainly won't have enough to eat AND pay back interest tomorrow. Banks are for the rich only, those who seek leverage to increase their assets.

Now what do people in the hospitality sector do when they are payed by the government scheme? They spend. This is "trickle along." Now "Trickle Along" works. "Trickle Down" economics was clearly invented as a joke by the rich against the poor. Yeah right. Make us even richer and the scraps under the table will increase. They must think we gullible as hell. All the more reason for just removing the private wealthy elites from the system. Trickle Along creates demand in other sectors, and because people in the hospitality sector are likely to live ordinary lives, they are not going to just blow the wind-fall on stock market speculation or buying up houses (already in short supply) to rent out. They will fuel the real people and real economy. So the economy keeps breathing, and the government claims some of this back in tax.

Does it add up? Well this this where Friedman comes in. If it doesn't and the government debt starts increasing you will get inflation. This could cause a problem cos as prices increase the government would then have to increase the Q.E. amounts. So you could end up with run away inflation. But the fall in the pound would make the UK an attractive investment opportunity for businesses. We are still talking private business, but not private money! So car manufacturers might move car plants to the UK cos the pound is so very cheap. But this is where democracy comes in. The UK population have a vote, and if we don't like the falling pound and rising prices (same thing essentially*) we can vote in a government that seeks to increase taxes and reduce spending and so reduce the debt burden.  

But the beauty of this is that the economy is hermetically sealed. There is no leakage of free wealth to the rich just by virtue of them being rich. If the government creates a debt of $1b that remains on the books until it is returned. No selling into the private financial markets and then having to pay returns on Gilts (in US Treasuries). And no hyper inflating private financial sector with these debt purchases. No stupid derivatives betting market. None of this nonsense, no play ground for the rich, no absurd risks that the tax payer must bail out, and a stable productive economy.

It also means that suppose the population just gets tired of working and shopping. Perhaps they find a new enjoyment of family life and the beauty of nature. People would rather take a walk in the park than spend money to go to the gym. All the things that cost nothing and don't involve the economy. The economy would start to contract. In this Friedman view its a simple matter of the government taking money out of circulation. Clearing debt if it exists, and then just burning it. A clean way to shrink an economy to match the wishes of the people, rather than driving the people to always supply wealth for the rich.

Unfortunately at the moment the Capitalist driven economy needs growth to (1) encourage returns on investments (i.e. allow the rich to steal more) (2) pay back the existing debt that has been created in bailouts and other hyper-charging of the economy to attract investors and pay them their freebies. If the Planet is under threat it is not to do with population (there is plenty of room for us all) it is to do with this toxic economic system that seeks to line the pockets of the wealthy for free.

I respect David Attenborough in every way he has been the man at the forefront of awareness and appreciation of what we have in this world. A man not interested in the fantasies of economics and the future and what we may be able to achieve but a man who takes enormous pleasure in what we already have and has spread this awareness globally. But I think someone needs to take him aside and give him an economics lesson, for only that way will he see that humans alone are not destructive, we can only eat so much and use so much land. What is destructive is when we are forced by an economic system to work all the days of our lives to ever more exploit new markets and resources to create wealth for the rich. Then humans become these monstrous beasts of burden that just churn up the world in a desperate attempt to overcome the weight of the Capitalist aristocracy on their backs that means they have barely enough to live on despite working perhaps 100,000 hours in their lifetime or more. No other animal does this. Gorillas can survive on just 4 hours work a day. Yet with all our fossil energy and machines we are still unable to survive. It is capitalism not population that is the problem, and times are only hard because of the Capitalist Burden.

iSpy/Eyespy/Pokemon recording app idea

 In the UK there used to be identification books for kids in the eyespy range. You got points for seeing various things.

Following this idea a platform should be created that enables developers to quickly set up content for an eyespy of interest.

The obvious target is wildlife and citizen science.

Some ideas on how to make the platform engaging for users.

(1) A game like a Captcha where you try and identify a list of images. This is the backbone of identification and user ratings.
(2) A scoring system for users to measure their skill at identifying. Users who correctly identify lots of images get a high score. Users who agree with high scored users get a higher score. The system should quickly settle on clear identifications off images and determine who the experts are.
(3) A parallel scoring system for number of sets completed (see 6) and for the value of ones records i.e. average rareness of species seen.
(4) Options to add content, suggest identification. This will be moderated by (1) as user content goes through the game.
(5) Options to add new content and ask for identifications.
(6) Score things according to their frequency of uploading in the system. You get more points for rare things.
(7) Create and Select ID lists like Pokemon with the challenge to see everything in a list.
(8) Content is shared with existing recording databases. Updates on scientific research done with the data.
(9) A historical record of ones activity.

Existing platforms do rate users. But none create a Pokemon like, or Eyespy like game from it.

SRH inside/outside

So the SRH originates from ideas like inside/outside.

Are we confused? There are 2 formations:

A) a system isn't "big enough" to encode itself within itself. A crude reading of this leads to the Quine which apparently can produce itself. But a Quine must be "read" or "run"; it exists in a context. To take care of this suppose we have a Quine in ARM logic. We still need to know the ARM chip to make sense of the code. Perhaps the best quine would output an ARM emulator that runs on an ARM chip, with a hardcoded memory containing a quine that outputs the whole thing. When run on an ARM chip it emulates an ARM chip and runs its memory to create the source machine state. This way the Quine is at least isomorphic with the hardware. But the machine state and the emulator state are not identical. The machine is running an emulator, while the emulator is running a quine. I'll need to think whether there is a way out of this. But the point here is that we are saying that a true self-representation, a true mirror, is impossible because you can't mirror the mirror itself. There cannot be complete isomorphism between the system in situ and the system encoded because the "in situ" is too big.  

B) a system with self-reference must code an outside the "+1", "Horatio" formulations of the SRH.

Actually isn't this Godel's 2 theorems. "A" is the first theorem saying that if you try to take the whole system you will fail to account for everything. And "B" is the second theorem saying that if you have a system with self-reference it will create a contradiction.

Anyway the point of this post was to note that all these issues can be encoded at root with just a binary distinction. The inside is the 0 and the outside is the 1.

When Tarski argues that Truth and Falsehood cannot be encoded within a logic because then you have the statement "Sentence n is false." If you list all the possible statements (Diagonalisation) so that each has a number than this statement becomes a problem. What does this statement say about the 'n' that is its own number in the list? It says that this statement is false. Its the classic Liar Paradox. Essentially the problem lies in trying to order ALL the statements into a binary classification. Russel's Paradox is the same, and Godel's Theorem is exactly the same: Provable and Non-Provable (function Beq). When we take a language that enables self-reference even obliquely like with Diagonalisation (e.g. Godel Numbering) then we have a problem splitting it in half so that the system is isomorphic with the set {0,1}. By oblique "self-reference" we mean we have an isomorphism between the statements of that language and the entities that those statements are about x (x is always natural numbers) so that we can say things about numbers which are understood to also be the position of statements in a list, thereby making oblique reference to oneself e.g. "I am sentence 5".

At its simplest level the SRH lies in the problem of encoding the distinction between {0,1} in a system itself. A system simply cannot be perfectly divided, some parts will always fail to classify under any decision algorithm. Or if we succeed in dividing it then the system becomes isomorphic with the 1 and so the 0 implies that there is more (an outside) to the system which isn't encoded.

As an aside the kind of systems we are talking about are things like a map being placed within the territory that is isomorphic with the map. It means we can put a point on the map that corresponds with the position of the map itself. Such self-reference is what causes all the problems and why SRH is called "Self-Reference Hypothesis" although we do not yet know what that hypothesis is.

Its a bit like Hofstadter's observation that self-reference always seems to be self limiting. One needs to be very careful with such statements as like with Quine's which seems impossible at first glance turns out to have a trick. But once we have isomorphism with oneself and we introduce a division then this division can be applied to oneself and this is where all the internal contradictions come from. This is what Godel really showed. But going the other way up the tree, once we have a distinction and we have self isomorphism then we can show that the division must hold outside the system so the system becomes a part of a greater division. We can put the real position of the map on the map, or we can look at the position of the map and see what lies outside the map in the world. The difference between working out where you are on a map from the surrounding features, and finding the "you are here" arrow and then working out what is around you. In fact the 2nd formulation of SRH I will now term "You are Here" this is the "+1", "Horatio" or "Proof of God" versions previous mentioned in the blog. The "Proof of God" comes from the ability to always induce a greater context to any system with self-reference. God in Godel language are those statements that cannot be proven with the existing axioms. All systems have an "outside." Interesting that Godel himself searched for a proof of God but never accepted this as proof?

So indeed SRH does seem to have 2 versions. The "inner contradictions" from applying the divisions within oneself, and the "outer implications" from induction into the world outside the system.

On one level there is the search for a solid proof or at least formal description of this whole family of issues.

On another level suppose we already have such a formulation of the SRH. What would it say about itself? As mentioned before in this blog is there a fundamental problem with the SRH itself?

Transgender where is the issue?

 It's a simple provable fact that there are two sexes. Cells carry two slightly different versions of their DNA and through sex organisms combine one copy with that of their partner. This is the definition of sex.

Organisms package their DNA in either mobile or stationary cells called gametes. By definition the male carries the mobile gametes and the female the stationary gametes.

This is the definition of sex and all organisms including humans are either male or female according to this.

Despite much political wrangling no one has ever suggested a 3rd sex. There are just 2. People like to fact check: this is a fact and any other suggestion is nonsense.

It is well understood in Gender studies that sex should not be confused with gender. Gender unlike sex is fluid and changeable. The key genders are feminine, masculine and neuter. Many languages directly encode the idea of gender but there is no agreement. In French La Lune for feminine moon, while Der Mond in German for a masculine moon.

It is plainly evident that a male organism can have feminine thoughts and behaviour. Being of male sex does not limit you to a stereotypical masculinity. Masculinity has different meanings in different cultures also. Is for example the masculine loving and caring, or warring and powerful? Is the feminine? As archetypes we have strong cultural  ideas about the masculine and feminine but it is complex, fluid and personal.

What is interesting is that again despite all the political wrangling people have been very uncreative. LGBTQQIP2SAA sounds all very impressive but its really just politics. Almost no thought or creativity has been done. There are still only 3 genders, and one of these is really just an absence of the other two. However to be fair a new gender has emerged that is called "Camp". The "Camp" is now mainstream and adopted by many but interestingly its usually adopted by those of male sex. In fact I can't think of ever seeing a Camp female? But its not ground breaking just a slightly feminine version of masculine. Nothing has really changed, and as is almost always the case with politics there is no intelligence just sectarian division. This whole movement is little different from a fashion, and it needs to be understood as so.

This is not to say there is no future in the gender debate, but some work needs to be done. Our ancestors were incredibly creative creating the masculine/feminine distinction and everything so associated. Since then there has been little more than teenage tantrums about not wanting to accept this, but no actual work to develop it.

So what are the arguments?

There is the argument that certain sexes are forced into gender roles, and these gender roles are not equal. Especially the feminine gender roles traditional dominate the "home" space, while the masculine gender roles dominate the "world" space. This was fine, but in the modern world we are seeing the destruction and loss of the home. Both parents now live in the "world" space, and everyone spends their private time watching media that streams the world into their homes. Children are now born into the "world" there is no "home" any more. Capitalism is behind this as markets now dominate every aspect of our lives like a Vast Dominating Big Brother. Every aspect of our existence is now monetised and everything we do and think is just part of financial calculations. It will not be long before we think about ourselves in just these terms: what financial values does this though have?, how much money can I make from doing this? This is the worst dictatorship so far devised in history and beyond any level of imprisonment we could ever have imagined. Cutting through this is the gender argument, which when put in these terms seems like just a side show, an irrelevant side effect of the massive changes occurring in human society and thought.

Then there is the sexual preference argument. Traditionally males breed with females and vice versa. In UK 93.2% of people say they conform to this model. Certainly as a keen observer of nature, the annual nesting of birds and mating of insects is a constant reminder of the processes that surround sex and mate choice. However this is certainly not the whole picture. 6.8% of UK nationals do not conform to this. However the options are rather limited. As an individual carrying mobile gametes you can either engage in sexual activity with someone with mobile or stationary gametes. There are no other options. The only other thing you can do is not to engage in sexual activity at all. In a truly inclusive free society the option to not engage in sexuality, perhaps "non-sexual", should be an option. But its incredibly simple and non one has come up with anything else currently. Even Transgenders when they go to the surgeon still pick from a male/female menu, and even then they cannot really change their sex their gametes don't change. A transgender woman does not creates stationary eggs, she creates mobile sperm: she is actually still male! All that has happened is a bit of skin folding to hide this fact and persuade her that a change has happened! Sex is not skin deep, it goes into every cell in our body. We can run but we can't hide from it, and just changing the appearance shows how superficial the Transgender mind is. A sex change is essentially just a clothes change and no more. 

If Transgender we serious in their body-dismorphia why not change into something new. Perhaps a fin that erects when aroused, or a swelling on the back or head that has blood pumped into it. Be creative this is about freedom after all! But they don't they are as trapped in the male/female prison as much anyone else. But they would still need DNA therapy to insert the genes for this change. Perhaps in the future, but one has to start asking to what end? What psychological need does all this hassle and change really serve?

That is the incredible conservativeness of the sexual world. But the Gender world is pretty limited also. LGBTQQIP2SAA is actually very uninclusive and prejudice. It rejects the vast majority of people, the 93.2% of Heterosexuals to be precise and is far more prejudice than what went before which only didn't missed out 6.8%, and it rejects the Non-Sexuals. It is worse than what it set out the combat. This is important to understand, It is neither free, no a moral improvement on what went before.

I suggest HLGBTQQIP2SAANO with H representing the Heterosexuals, N the Non-Sexuals and O for others not specified. This is vastly vastly more inclusive and less prejudice than the current situation.

So a quick fact check shows what a complete mess and nonsense this movement is. I wish it luck in the future, but some serious content providers are required to actually create something for the movement to rally around. At the moment it is little more than fashion and pop music and it will die away without some substance. A new radical gender is needed at the very least, and ideally a new sex to prove the concept that the existing framework is not enough. Otherwise we are stuck with masculine and feminine and most certainly with male and female.

The one thing that is cited to give this movement content is the psychological suffering of those with gender issues. They have very high suicide rates. Its interesting however to note that suicide rates are substantially higher in males as well. Being male makes you more likely to commit suicide. Yet non-one suggests we should all become female to reduce the male suicide rate. But sex is apparently indeed linked to suicide rates anyway. But first a quick careful unpacking of that.

Its very unlikely that being male makes you more likely to commit suicide. What it means is most probably that people who are male sex are likely to adopt masculine gender roles and in a society that is slowly eroding the masculine gender role and making it part of the feminine gender role, it is no surprise that people identifying with masculine might be under threat. Society is literally excluding the masculine gender role and all those linked to it. We are seeing the removal of gender all together in the West, because once everyone has the same role then there is no gender. Sex of course will still remain as eggs need sperm. But technology can easily replace this and we can have children using DNA from cells using eggs from rabbits or similar. A womb is still needed but we could use sheep wombs or maybe in the future grow children in nutrient rich test tubes with heart bypass machines processing their blood. The options are endless. But we aren't really changing anything. People are still engaging in sexual activity, breeding and forming sexual partnerships. Nothing is really being challenged or changing. And given that this question keeps coming back to me: so why bother? What is the gain from all this hassle? But anyway its not the male sex that commits suicide but most probably the masculine gender in a society hostile to masculinity.

Now Transgender may say the same. Its a society hostile to Transgender that causes the high suicide rates. But Transgender is not a thing, its a derivative of the male/female distinction. And to be accurate its really a Transsexual. A transgender is just someone who rejects washing up as a feminine role and goes out to work as a masculine role. Or perhaps does the washing up with power tools to put a masculine gender spin on it. If you want to change your "sex" then you are transsexual. It is very concerning that people at the heart of this issue don't even understand it! How many people have had a sex change thinking its a gender change. How confused are they! But as mentioned a Transsexual still chooses between male and female. They are trapped in the same binary closet as the rest of the living world from mosses to fish and elephants.

Now can a woman really be born in a mans body? As said above a woman by definition is an individual that carries the stationary gamete. You may wish to carry sperm, but your body is either carrying sperm or eggs. In objective terms you are just a sex, there is no room for sperm inside a female, or eggs inside a male. You just have whatever gonads you have, like you are tall or short. How does a male transsexual prove they are female either to themselves or other people? If they fancy men they are homosexual, that doesn't change their sex. If they want to wear dresses and have long hair that makes them feminine gender but doesn't change their sex. I imagine the only way they can prove they are female is by desiring to get pregnant and give birth. Unfortunately a sex change won't give you this. Having a sex change is very superficial. And its the superficiality of it that suggests that transgender is also superficial. Anyway this is for transsexual people to resolve, but as already said a lot more work needs to be done because at the moment there is painfully little content, and spins completely within the established conservative world.        

A quick word on identity in general. So no-one is really anything. I've been told I have "white" skin. But I never thought about it before and I certainly don;t identity with it. I have "blue eyes" but there isn't a political movement about that yet to join up to. It seems to me that "identity politics" is just like joining societies in your 1st university year. what do I like, which sort of people should I hang with. So I chose Pot-Holing and made lots of friends. Other people joined the Gay Society and made lots of friends. Other people joined the Muslim Society and made lots of friends. But there is no difference between being Gay, Muslim or being a Pot-Holer from an "identity" perspective. You can identity with it, or not is up to you. Like I said I don't seem to have the political option to join a "blue eyed" society and make friends with lots of blue eyed people. But it seems that if I was Black I could join any number of societies that identity with this feature. "Identity Politics" is a dead end, something for teenagers but something to be dropped once third years and real life and living starts.

Probably should end this post. But in summary what a load of noise about something we can't really change anyway. And how confused and what wasted lives people have in the West. The more I live in the West the more I sense the "End of the Roman Empire" once again. Loss of direction, no thought, no inspiration just a herd of people running around a field like cows. Time for real change is long over due  and ending Capitalism with its monolithic fascist world view would cut the root of all this nonsense in one fell swoop.