Uk Mortality Files 1901 - 2012

Some data that may be of use: England & Wales Total Mortality 1901 - 2012

England & Wales Mortality Files from Office National Statistics
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-215593
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health1/the-21st-century-mortality-files/2001-2012/index.html

Year	Deaths	POP	%Death
1901	551585	32612100	1.691351
1902	535538	32950800	1.625266
1903	514628	33293400	1.545736
1904	549784	33731300	1.629893
1905	520031	33988900	1.530002
1906	531281	34342000	1.54703
1907	524221	34699000	1.510767
1908	520456	35155400	1.480444
1909	518003	35423700	1.462306
1910	483247	35792000	1.350154
1911	527810	36136000	1.460621
1912	486939	36327000	1.340433
1913	504975	36574000	1.380694
1914	516742	36967000	1.397847
1915	562253	35284000	1.593507
1916	508217	34642000	1.467054
1917	498922	34197000	1.458964
1918	611861	34024000	1.798322
1919	504203	35427000	1.423217
1920	466130	37247000	1.251456
1921	458629	37932000	1.209082
1922	486780	38205000	1.274126
1923	444785	38449000	1.156818
1924	473235	38795000	1.219835
1925	472841	38935000	1.214437
1926	453804	39114000	1.160209
1927	484609	39286000	1.233541
1928	460389	39483000	1.166044
1929	532492	39600000	1.344677
1930	455427	39801000	1.14426
1931	491630	39988000	1.229444
1932	484129	40201000	1.204271
1933	496465	40349500	1.230412
1934	477075	40467000	1.178924
1935	477401	40645000	1.174563
1936	495764	40839600	1.21393
1937	509574	41031000	1.241924
1938	478829	41215000	1.161783
1939	498968	41246000	1.209737
1940	572644	39889000	1.435594
1941	524434	38743000	1.353623
1942	470657	38243000	1.230701
1943	491531	37818000	1.299728
1944	481050	37785000	1.273124
1945	481274	37916000	1.269316
1946	489054	40595000	1.204715
1947	515591	41786000	1.233885
1948	468645	42750000	1.096246
1949	509973	43100000	1.183232
1950	510301	43830000	1.164273
1951	549380	43815000	1.253863
1952	497484	43955000	1.131803
1953	503529	44109000	1.141556
1954	501896	44274000	1.133613
1955	518864	44441000	1.167534
1956	521331	44667000	1.16715
1957	514870	44907000	1.146525
1958	526843	45109000	1.167933
1959	527643	45386000	1.162568
1960	526254	45775000	1.149654
1961	551758	46196200	1.19438
1962	557599	46657400	1.195092
1963	572868	46972900	1.219571
1964	534737	47324200	1.129944
1965	549379	47671200	1.152434
1966	563624	47966500	1.175037
1967	542516	48272100	1.123871
1968	576754	48510700	1.188921
1969	579378	48738200	1.188755
1970	575194	48891300	1.176475
1971	567262	49152000	1.154097
1972	591889	49327100	1.199927
1973	587478	49459000	1.187808
1974	585292	49467900	1.183175
1975	582841	49469800	1.178175
1976	598516	49459200	1.210121
1977	575928	49440400	1.164893
1978	585901	49442500	1.185015
1979	593018	49508200	1.197818
1980	581383	49603000	1.172072
1981	577890	49634300	1.164296
1982	581861	49582100	1.17353
1983	579608	49616800	1.168169
1984	566881	49713100	1.140305
1985	590734	49860700	1.184769
1986	581203	49999100	1.162427
1987	566994	50122900	1.131207
1988	571408	50253600	1.137049
1989	576872	50407800	1.14441
1990	564846	50560700	1.117164
1991	570044	50748400	1.123275
1992	558313	50854200	1.09787
1993	578512	50986100	1.134647
1994	551780	51116300	1.07946
1995	565902	51272000	1.103725
1996	563007	51410300	1.095125
1997	558052	51559600	1.082344
1998	553435	51720100	1.070058
1999	553532	51933600	1.065846
2000	537877	52139900	1.031603
2001	532498	52359978	1.016994
2002	535356	52602143	1.017746
2003	539151	52863238	1.019898
2004	514250	53152022	0.967508
2005	512993	53575343	0.957517
2006	502599	53950854	0.931587
2007	504052	54387392	0.926781
2008	509090	54841720	0.92829
2009	491348	55235253	0.889555
2010	493242	55692423	0.885654
2011	484367	56170927	0.862309
2012	499331	56567796	0.882712
2013	506790	56948200	0.889913992
2014	501424	57408600	0.873430113
2015	529655	57885400	0.915006202
2016	525048	58381300	0.899342769
2017	533253	58744600	0.907748116

Why are people speaking of Austerity measures?

It takes just a few minutes research on Uk Public Spending to determine that the Conservative Coalition Government under David Cameron has been lying. The argument I hear in the UK is that because of over spending the country is in danger of being downgraded and losing the low interest rates on its debts. This may or may not be true - that belief in itself is hard to prove (worth pointing out that debts in the past have been 10s of times larger than they are today). The cause we are told of this debt has been over spending on the social security system. This is easy to test. The graphs below show (Fig.1) the Inflation Adjusted Debt in £Billions, and (Fig.2) the same as a percentage of GDP.

Fig 1 - National Debt in Billion GBP

Both graphs show that almost 50% of the debt has occurred not in the 1997 to 2008 period but in the 2009 to 2013 period. This is the period of Conservative government, and the period of bank bailouts.

Furthermore a £300-400 Billion debt (adjusted for inflation in 2005 pounds) seems to have be acceptable since the 1970s, and as a percentage of GDP 40% was tolerated throughout the Thatcher years.

So it is hard to see why the Conservative government went into panic when they took the reigns in 2010. It is even harder to understand why the decided that the solution was attacking the welfare state when it is clear that there was no problem here and spending was quite in line with the past 40 years and even previous Conservative governments.

Fig 2 National Debt as % GDP

The new problem has been with the banking sector. It would appear that it is the banking sector that has created this unusual debt and it would follow that the banking sector should deal with it.

What is revealing is that it cannot. So the great powerhouse of free market, the city, has actually had to turn to the tax payer to bail it out of a situation it cannot create wealth to solve.

This begs the question why do we tolerate The City in the first place? It when the going gets tough they have to turn to the tax payer as the lender to bail them out, why was the tax payer going to them in the first place to get mortgages for houses. The tax payer should have been going to themselves!

What the credit Crunch proves more than anything is the World's economic thinking has been going in the wrong direction. Rather than deregulating markets, and privatising capital, instead loans should be backed by the tax payer (as they have eventually become anyway). The Treasury should be the national lender, and profits from rent should be used to run the country rather than line the bladders of bankers with Champagne.

Such logic will fall on deaf ears in the Conservative upper ranks because it is apparent that the attack on the Welfare system has been a long planned war of attrition and along with privatisation has been the wish of the Conservative party funders for many decades. The removal of government backing to both the poor and various sectors would improve profits for business owners, and provide a windfall of cheap industry to buy up.

It would appear if this reading of the UK state of affairs is true that the UK is heading downwards to the aristocratic days of the 19th Century and the loss of everything that was fought for in the 20th Century. A land of a few supremely rich who hold all the power and a land of a vast dispossessed poor. Either that or the voting public puts pressure on politicians to perform and explain themselves and questions the media and the propaganda that it is pressured to spread.

Fine Tuning the Proof of God

Have been looking for a neat proof of the conditions under which the "Viscious Circle Principle" (previously the Self Reference Hypothesis - SRH, that some self-references were impossible) could be tightened to prove fatal for certain types of arguments that presuppose themselves. This is the basis of a proof of God.

BackGround
The observation is that when an argument becomes so general that it starts making statements about its own foundations then it becomes meaningless.

The classic example would be the search for the Unified Theory in physics. Were such a theory to become really comprehensive it would have to start making statements about the reasons why the theory was in the form it was. Why for example does it concern things like fields at all. All theories must be limited then, since any theory which could theorise about itself would cease to be meaningful.

Another example (and the first I noticed) is with consciousness. I believed it was the singularity created when a sensing system sensed itself. Like the neurologist examining a patients visual system using his own visual system: there are things he cannot conclude because those conclusions undermine his own vision: for example the idea that the patient sees only an image on their retina. Such a thought would imply that he wasn't seeing the patient but only an image himself. The Viscous Circle begins and ends defeating his aspiration of discovery.

This is related to the idea Fixed Points in mathematics and fractals. A fixed point is a point that remains unchanged when operated on by some function. Function here means any procedure that can be used to move from input to output reliably. A fractal is a complex fixed point generated by repeated application of a function or series of functions and the system tends to become "trapped" in a stable space attracted to but not arriving at a "Strange Attractor". Certainly meaning is created by self-reference, and self-referential systems have some very interesting forms. However "interesting" fractals require mapping to subsets of the space to create internal structure and hierarchy. It is that mapping structure that creates the form of the fractal and that mapping structure is not itself part of the fractal space. The viewer can work this out for simple fractals (like a tree) and very simply "compress" or understand the fractal. Godel's Theorem, Turing's Halting Problem and all the paradoxes of logic depend upon anti fixed points that contradict themselves when put through the system.

The observation is that no system can support itself. All systems must ultimately be grounded in the "outside" world, or the system in which they are embedded, or the context. This fits with almost all philosophy and religion that states that the Truth is beyond the grasp of Man and must be in principle also. It fits the Buddhist ideas of emptiness (sunyata) and non-self (anatta) also : that is that there are no fixed knowable entities that somehow underlie the world of impermanence, and that there is no such self that hides within us.

Conclusion
Russel's Paradox however puts an end to this search however. The goal is to create a method for generating the set of self-referential systems (SRSs) that defeat themselves (SRS0) (like the Unified Theory) and the SRSs that do not (SRS1).

However the union of these two sets is the set of all self-referential systems {SRS}. There is no issue with this set, but the complement of it is the set of all non-self-referential systems {¬SRS}. Now which set does {¬SRS} go in; it must be in one. If if it is in {¬SRS} then it does contain itself so is self-referential so contradicts its definition, and if it goes in {SRS} then it is not self-referential either.

It turns out the idea of the SRH (or VCP) it is an example of self-defeating self-reference. The theory is impossible due to the theory it itself is espousing! It is self-contradictory.

So the proof of God remains but it can't be accurately defined with the my current understanding of self-reference.

Rooting an HTC Wildfire S bought after 2011

Rooting an HTC Wildfire S (bought in 2013).

After 2 days messing around with marvel rom images, finally came upon this http://d-h.st/bmg

This contains a working recovery.img file (at last) and recovery.bat batch file that when run flashes the recovery partition. When rebooted (with power button + volume down) and recovery selected from menu, it finally gives a menu for Clockworkmod (CWM). Finding the right root.zip file, putting it on the phone SD card and running it through the CWM menu is straightforward. Then the phone is rooted.

Proof of God at last (SRH)

 

Very excited! After 6 years I have my anti-self-reference proof! Consider: Wall-E can fix his eye. There is a proof (adaptable from one already existing*) that there is at least 1 thing he cannot fix. In reality it will be something to do with the circuits that he uses to recognise faults. It therefore follows that he cannot be entirely sure by himself when he is faulty. Thus any independent system can't call itself faulty or non-faulty. To be faulty or non-faulty can only be applied to what is not self.
Now EVE mends him. But if she has a fault he will be mended faulty, which means if she ever relies on him she may be mended faulty. So any closed system of any number of components can't escape the problem.

ERGO: a correct/truthful system can't be closed.
e.g. truthful statements about everything imply there is an even bigger everything.

This is my proof of God.

*The existing proof states that for a map of england in England there will be one point that is in the same place on the map as it is in England.

p.s. I discovered the existing name of the SRH, Horatio Principle, +1 principle and other name for it: Vicious Circle Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicious_circle_principle)… or at least similar. The issue of circularity is an issue in logic, but the problem will be fleshing out a definition that defines which circularity is benign and which is vicious. So there will be two approaches the Benign Circle Principle BCP and the Vicious Circle Principle VCP.

Narrative v Casuation

An episode of Peep Show has Mark wanting to get out of marriage and Jeremy gives him the perfect excuse by telling him he has kissed his bride. Mark is both relieved and angry, at the same time.

In classical science everything has some cause. In the Peep Show episode a single event (Jeremy kissing his fiance) has caused two quite distinct processes in his mind: the relief that he can get what he wants and not marry his fiance, but also the anger that his best friend has betrayed him. How can a single event be viewed in two different ways at the same time by the same mind? It is because any number of narratives or stories can be told about the things in the world. This is because of what the Buddhists call sunyata, which is to say that in one story the kiss is an act of betrayal, while in the another story the kiss is a means to an end -- in other words the kiss by itself is neither and both!

Originally this thought came to me considering group selection and alarm calls in birds, after seeing a nearby bird give an alarm call along a river in Oxfordshire. One story says that the bird gives the alarm call because it wishes to help its friends. Another story says that the gene causing such behaviour is prevalent in the population because groups with this gene do better than groups without this gene. Another story says (and this is the one I realised after years of pondering is the truth) that the bird gives the call because upsetting all the birds in the area will distract the predator and enable it to escape in a flock. Now in this situation we might say the bird acts because it wants company when it escapes. But why don't other birds stay down when they hear the call and let the calling bird be preyed upon? In this story we say it is in their interests to escape the predator also. What this creates then is a situation when a gene to call spreads and one individual giving the call may feel they want company when they escape, while those hearing the call feel fear and save themselves. However in another story the group can be seen to working together, alothough no individual is actually thinking this.

It made me realise that much (if not all of Human life) is made up of people operating at one level of personal interest, and perhaps co-ordinating their actions by accident or not, and trying to believe in a narrative where they are really working together. Does this suggest that really working together is only possible when people don't focus too much on personal narraitives? Is this why Socialism has failed so far?

The Public/Private Funding the Conning of the NHS!

The hypothesis is that when public and private funding join forces it simply results in a susbidy to private individuals.

To illustrate I create this model of NHS treatment.

In summary first. The model involves people arriving at hospital in a queue. Private patients (quite rightly) because they have paid more, get to go to the front of the queue. The remaining capacity treats public patents.

Once through the admission gate (G) all patients enjoy access to the same health-care, which is better than public funded alone because of the extra contribution of privation patients.

All looks good. However what really happens is that as more people go private, public patients have to wait longer, and since a large number do pay tax they actually end up getting a poorer service than if there was no private contribution.

Private individuals actually get a better service than they would by private means alone, since they are "stealing" resources from the public that are waiting.

The obvious question is at what rate of private admissions do public lose out. The suprising answer is that if there are any private patients, then the public lose out!

While the model may be simplistic, and even inaccurate, it illustrates how easy it is to misunderstand the logic of systems. I'm beginning to realise such misunderstanding are not the exception, but the rule. All of biology, genetics and economics is suspect due to such misunderstanding. As a result "private/public" is far too complex an issue to be handled by anyone but real professionals and has been sold to the nation either deliberately or accidentally by mistake.

The Model

========
Assuming that all patients are treated in same hospitals with money pooled from public and private sources,then:

N : size of population
i : illness rate
p : probability they go private
V : Total value of hospital services (pooling both tax and private insurance)
G : number admitted through Hospital gate per time
t : tax rate (all)
s : insurance rate (Private)

Therefore:
Nlp : patients go private in time.
Ni(1-p) : go public.
Nip : go 1st through the gate,
G-Nip : remaining spaces for public

Total amount paid by people in the queue =

Nip(t+s) : Total amount paid by ill private [they pay taxes too].
Ni(1-p)t : Total amount paid by ill public

Total value of the health service = V
V is the sum of these two + (taxes of healthy individuals)

Share of health service =
Private get : Nip/G % share of service V
public get : (G-Nip)/G % of V

The value of private is then value of treatment over cost of treatment:
(VNip/G)/(Nip(t+s)) = V/[G(s+t)]

Value public: value of those thru gate / amount paid by public

(V(G-Nip)/G)/(Ni(1-p)t) = V(G -Nip)/(GNit(1-p))

Let 'a' be the ratio of the number admitted to hospital over the number needing treatment i.e. a = G/(Ni)

V/(Nisa+Nita) == -((pV-Va)/(Nita-Nipta))

they are equal when p = (sa+ta-t)/s

Let 'b' be the ratio of tax to insurance rate: b = t/s

p -> a - b + a b

This is the proportion turning to private that gives equal value for public and private:

The contour plot for: (tax rate / private insurance cost) / (healthcare admission per ill person)

When number admitted is equal to the number ill (a > 1) it can be seen that increasing the tax rate (increasing b) bends the line of equal value to the left, i.e. fewer people must be admitted to give private a good value. This is obvious as if all public get treated, then being first in the queue has no meaning and so the private pay extra for nothing.

However if people are waiting in the queue, then increasing tax means that the curve bends the other way meaning that more people need admission to keep public and private experiecing equal value for money.

Clearly room for a better model, but it illustrates how easily the private can end up having the public pay for them if health services are shrunk, and how easily the public could have the private pay for them if the services are expanded too much. The problem is that what incentive is there to support the public? Governments and private companies will be all to happy to shrink admissions, thereby leading to a subsidy of the rich by the poor. This I suspect is the true process of society across time: the subsidy of the wealthy life style, by the poor.