Germany's New Old Anti-Nuclear Stance

I was asked to comment about the seeming about-face in nuclear policy in Germany. Well, there is no about-face in Germany. They were always nutso anti-human romantic fascists on the subject of energy and always will be.

The narrative seems to be "we trusted the nuclear industry and they lied" but this is a blatant fucking lie. They NEVER trusted nuclear power. They are delusional fuckers if they think they ever did. The nuclear industry is by far the safest industry. Safest does not mean "risk-free" since NOTHING like that is even remotely theoretically possible. Even if you had an entirely white-collar industry, you could still say that X engineers died of heart attacks during the tenure of their jobs. Or that X artificial intelligences died from their supporting hardware undergoing proton decay.

But "risk-free" is the exact standard the Germans want it since they hate, positively HATE, nuclear power as a deep down gut reaction. It isn't even paranoia, it's hatred. Any misstep, any stumble, even one that is recovered from fully, is an excuse to hate nuclear power as far as the Germans are concerned. The reason I say this is the extreme similarity between the poor white racists in the USA and Germans, each claiming victim status to justify their hatred.  It isn't fear they're displaying since fear is something to be fought and conquered. They're displaying resentment, bitterness and smug vindication. All emotions tightly associated with hatred.

You probably have no idea but the media over there in Germany is claiming that 1) Fukushima is as bad as Chernobyl, a claim which is unbelievably bald-faced lying since the radiation at the front gate of Fukushima at its worst was never as bad as 20 kilometers away from Chernobyl. 2) the exclusion zone the Japanese drew will be a permanent radioactive graveyard for the next 100,000 years. Another claim which is unbelievable in the sheer audacity of its lying since radiation levels should die down to insignificance around Fukushima within a year. And this year-long period is a severe blow to me personally since I expected it to be done within 3 months or so before I looked up the facts.

The exclusion zone in Japan could last for longer than a year for purely political reasons. Just as surely the anti-nuclear revival in Japan could continue. But I have severe doubts that will happen given that Japan is up against the wall economically. And they were up against the wall BEFORE the tsunami hit and did one trillion yen in damage and killed ten thousand people. Can Japan afford expensive anti-human policies? No. Will the political pressures for rational industrial policies overwhelm the anti-human hatred? That is a very good question and I am eager to see.

Needless to say, Germany is a lost cause. But then again, I considered it a lost cause ever since Merkel started talking about raiding the German nuclear industry in order to pay for the morbidly obese subsidies they've given the parasitic German solar and wind industries. Because of course they couldn't kill off those deadbeat industries even when the German government is running ridiculous deficits. No, I had my "what the fuck is this shit?!?" moment about the German nuclear industry a long time ago. Germany's attitude after Fukushima barely made me pause. Though the German media's blatant lying about what did and will happen at Fukushima did piss me off.

Engineers Are An Inferior Form of Life

Engineers lack the capacity to synthesize original ideas, which is one of the two pillars of Judgement. Which means engineers are amoral and incapable of discerning good from evil without a market survey. Which will of course return bogus answers.

That's the abstract explanation. Let us examine a concrete example. Let us look at how software engineers decided to handle data.

The History of Unix and Windows

Long ago, software engineers looked at data on hard disks and they asked themselves: what dimensionality is yon data, what is its nature? And they determined it was one dimensional (bytestreams) and they patted themselves on the back and saw that it was good.

Then software engineers looked at data on CRT monitors and they asked themselves: what dimensionality is yon presentation, what is its nature? And they determined it was TWO dimensional (bit-BLOCKS) and they scratched themselves on the head and they said "we have a problem".

But lo, a brave engineer came forth and said: we shall Reduce the dimensionality of the CRT so that it maps the one-dimensional data in two-dimensions. Look, it is simple, Cantor did this! And the engineers toiled for a day and a half and they named their creation the Command Line Interface and they patted themselves on the back and saw that it was good.

Then some evil-doers (called Lusers) made a Feature Request, and they asked: we want to embed this directory data inside of other directory data, can we have this? And the engineers saw that this Feature Request was Easy. So they toiled half a day and they named their creation (now with fractional dimensionality) the Filesystem and they patted themselves on the back and saw that it was good.

Then some evil-doers (incomprehensible unfathomable aliens called Artists) said: look, this is all well and good but I have these things called PHOTOS, what the fuck do Command Lines and Bytestreams have to do with my Photos? And the engineers now had a Real Problem.

But the Engineers' procedures had "worked" so well they had produced something 5% as usable as Symbolics' Lisp Machine or Smalltalk OS, so they said they might as well get on with it and produced Windows. And they patted themselves on the back and saw that other people were calling them delusional fuckers. And they were very surprised.

The History of Lisp Machines and Smalltalk

Needless to say, the approach of genuine systems researchers and designers to data was ... a bit different. For one thing, these weren't engineers. They were experimentalists. And they were either capable of original thought themselves, or if they weren't personally capable of creativity, they were at least capable of recognizing that genuine creativity was something to be cherished, not something to be scorned, crushed and dismissed by claiming it didn't fit a Market Need.

The Researchers' and Designers' approach to data was thus: okay so we've got an encoding of data, but we forgot about it because it's not even remotely relevant. We've got a presentation of data, that's almost relevant but mostly it's misleading so we'll actively put it out of our minds. What we need to do is figure out the NATURE of the DATA ITSELF.

For starters, what dimensionality does this data naturally exist in? Oh, it's K-dimensional fractal data where K varies arbitrarily, hmm that's interesting. Okay, so it looks like we'll need a couple of transformations to encode the data and a completely different family of transformations to present it.

And lo the Researchers approached some engineers and the engineers said: say what? I don't fucking get what you're talking about! What are these "objects" you're talking about? Why would anybody need this? What is this "idea space" you keep talking about?! This is absurd and inefficient! Only hardware exists. ONLY HARDWARE!

Then the researchers scratched their heads and said unto themselves: what we need is to buy some engineers and if they don't DO AS WE SAY then we will FIRE THEIR ASS. And lo this was done and through natural selection the Researchers and Designers finally got some engineers that had faith in their Word, and Lisp Machines and Smalltalk were both invented. And this was magnificent.

And to this day, still the Engineers maintain that Unix and Windows are "good" because they refuse to shut the fuck up and do as they're told!

Star Trek Is Predicated on Human Idiocy

An author I was reading just made the seemingly profound point that Star Trek is predicated on the continuation of human idiocy. There is no cure for human idiocy in the future. It's been tried and many types of insanity (bloodthirstiness, psychosis, psychopathy, narcissism, child abuse) amply represented in America have been eradicated, but idiocy per se lives on.

Yet this seemingly profound statement is trivial since it follows directly from the observations that: 1) humanity is defined by its idiocy, and that is its biggest problem by far, and 2) SETI and scifi types think humans are privileged and all creation will be just like us, because God says so! These are the genuinely profound statements, although they only become profound with complete characterizations of human idiocy and feelings of self-privilege. Without that, they remain trivial.

Nonetheless, whether profound or trivial, it is obviously true that Star Trek is predicated on human idiocy. There are ample examples in Star Trek of mindless idiotic human prejudices writ large across the entire United Federation of Planets.

Examples

Firstly, all AI are evil. NOMAD, Landru. And if they're not evil then they're inimical: V'Ger, the whale Probe. Barclay-as-the-computer is obviously evil since nobody bats at eyelash at the "need" to lobotomize him.

Secondly, genetic engineering is evil. Nobody bats an eye at someone going to prison for genetically engineering a child. Nobody would ever consider the notion that every caring parent has a moral obligation to genetically engineer their child. That's just heresy!

Thirdly, collectives are evil. When Borg attain individuality then suddenly everyone thinks they've stopped being evil. Only Picard knows better and bothers to check whether individual Borg are okay with mind-rape. Janeway in particular mind-rapes a Borg drone in order to force her to be an individual, and nobody bats an eyelash.

Fourthly, clones are evil and can be killed at the will of the "original". O'Brien kills a clone of his without blinking. Riker kills a clone of his. Everyone accepts that clones are inferior to "natural" people without considering that genetic engineering would wipe out any so-called "cloning errors" actually making them superior.

Fifthly, it's obvious that transporters have been specifically and carefully engineered to prevent copies from happening. Transporters are purely analog even though this must have been difficult to achieve with fundamentally digital technology. Why don't Starfleet officers make copies to ensure their survival? Why doesn't anybody adapt transporter technology to do so? It must be illegal.

And that's without going into the warfare, war crimes, disease, mortality, religious fundamentalists, nutters creating biological weapons, a "scientific establishment" for Noonian Soong to rail at, and yes even poverty. And yes we know from Data's creator's name that he is evil, or at least was meant to be. All things that can only exist through sheer idiocy.

Solution

There is a solution to human idiocy. It is not obvious even to those few who can understand it. and unfortunately only a few percentage points of the population have the cognitive capacity to understand it at all.

Lloyd deMause made a theory of the history of childrearing which predicts 6 and only 6 types of psyches. There can be subtypes but there can be no more types than these 6. The last type, the Helping type, is reached when child abuse and neglect have been eradicated and good childrearing prevails.

Fortunately for us, Julian Jaynes made a theory of the prehistory of childrearing which predicts at least 3 additional types of psyches which all occur previous to the 6. (They are all bizarre beyond casual description.) Though deMause's theory doesn't draw any distinction between the first of his 6 and Jaynes' 3, Jaynes' theory does draw a sharp demarcation line at the acquisition of consciousness.

Based on this and other knowledge, including Kazimierz Dabrowski's theory, it is possible to predict the existence of 3 types of psyches in post-human history. They are

• 7 - cultivated humans - the dominance of analytic-synthetic people in civilization.
• 8 - enhanced humans - the advance of neuro-cybernetic implants.
• 9 - post-humans - a continuity of minds achieved by AI or Borg hive-mind.

The 7th type can be achieved by any of AI-assisted childrearing, eugenics, genetic engineering, or neurosurgery. Society will be radically different when the 5 or so percent of analytic-synthetic people actually achieve their potential. It will again be radically different when analytic-synthetic AI (or cultivated humans) come to dominate civilization.

The Future

One way or the other, a bright shining future without human idiocy awaits us. Even if idiot humans don't die out, as Dresden Codak points out in The Kimiko Singularity, they will be rendered irrelevant.

Those who don't keep up will fall behind. This is not a happy message for those who worship stagnation and sameness. A group which includes all casual Star Trek fans. For those of us who care for progress though, it is a very uplifting message.

The future cannot give you relevance. You have to make yourself relevant by keeping up with it. So those humans who are satisfied being what they are will become irrelevant. And that includes all those who think they are magically privileged just by virtue of being human.

How Science Really Works

Behold the so-called Scientific Method. Scientific Academia anyways.

As opposed to the idealized anything goes of Paul Feyerabend which merely describes how science should work.

Of course, Against Method also describes how science does work at the margins of academia where all the best work is done. Where the sacred cows are gutted before the shocked eyes of bystanders.

Naturally, Popperism is a ridiculous and unworkable pile of crap not worth the effort of reading about it in an online encyclopedia of philosophy.

On Hatred

It is exceedingly annoying how many people buy into the moronic notion that hatred is evil. Like fuck it is!

Hatred is not evil. Love is not good! Dark is not evil. Good is not nice. Light is not good!

Empathy, altruism, ethics, morality, politeness, and kindness, are all entirely independent concepts. Not a single one of them entails any other!

I have personally used all of the first four as justifications and tools to destroy people. Granted, it was always evil people doing evil things but the point remains.

Evil Love

Love of the world is provably evil since loving something means caring for it as it is. Well, this world is overwhelmingly monstrous and evil. So loving the world translates to trying to preserve evil and monstrosity. Since loving the world means preserving evil, loving the world is evil.

Hatred has its just place in the world. In fact, it is not possible for anyone in this world to be happy in it if they are genuinely and solely concerned with morality and justice.

Evil Construction

Hatred is a destructive emotion just as love is a constructive one. But construction is not good, and destruction is not evil. As proof, look no further to people's constant constructions of evil. 

What, did you think genocides aren't constructed? Did you think child abuse and justifications thereof aren't constructed? Did you think patent systems aren't constructed?

Did you think financial debt, plutarchy, positive interest currency aren't constructed? Did you think gerontocracy, tradition and bride price aren't constructed?

Inseparable

Furthermore, construction and destruction are two sides of the same coin. One needs empty space in order to construct anything at all. It's not going to stay empty so you'd better fill it immediately. In fact, you'd better start filling it just before you make it empty. But destruction of orthodoxy is constructive of revolution.

And every genuinely creative person knows that construction of anything at all is destruction of possibilities. That knowing even a bad solution to a problem is to inhibit the creation of an original solution.

Construction and destruction are inseparable just as love and hatred are.

Values

There are no good or bad emotions. Only good or bad values. Justice, morality, empathy and passion are good. Narcissism and apathy (the signature values of Americans and English respectively) are evil.

You can't turn morality and ethics to evil because they define good. It's also exceedingly difficult to turn empathy to evil. However, construction and love, never mind politeness and kindness, these have nothing to do with good or evil.

It bears repeating.

Hatred is not evil. Love is not good! Dark is not evil. Good is not nice. Light is not good!

Genera, Termkit, Unix: what a fucking joke Unix is!

I've been going through info on Genera and Stanislav's site when some commenter on there mentioned Losethose, possibly as a joke.

It's worth watching the first few minutes of the first video. Especially if you're familiar with LISP or Smalltalk. Because then you immediately understand what a sick joke is the conceit, the pretense, of Unix that it "supports C".

Unix doesn't support C. In fact, Unix supports nothing. Unix is a sick fucking joke of an OS.

Take this project for instance. Termkit is just trying to reproduce one small feature of Dynamic Windows on Symbolics' Lisp Machines. See Using A Lisp Machine 1 as proof.

Except that Termkit provides a distinctly inferior version of the objectedness found in Dynamic Windows. And it sure as fucking hell didn't take the Symbolics team a year to program it! Actually, I predict that like many other similar projects to improve Unix, Termkit will die quietly.

What is Unix? It is a sick fucking joke. An undead monstrosity shambling along from the dinosaur age when interactivity didn't exist. Unix was created for batch processing and was never meant to work with anything better. And it has failed to adapt to newer hardware.

Brian Wang, a Hypocritical Lying Racist Fuck

Every so often I read Next Big Future. I've got two good reasons. First is to lift up my spirits and motivation by reading about Progress. And second is to know what tools I will be able to play with to redesign the world. There is a downside to reading that blog and the reason I can never recommend it. It is its myopic dishonest hypocritical lying racist fuck of an author Brian Wang.

Well, three stories caught my attention in that vein.

Intelligence

There's this story about the role of motivation in intelligence testing which turns out to be very large. Now, as you know, most Asian children are put under incredible pressure to test well. And if you're a reader of that racist fucker Brian Wang then you know most Asian countries score an average of 15 points above Western countries. Well here we have a study that says 10 points of that is down to motivation!

Hmm, at last an obvious explanation for the phenomenon and it's ... a confounding factor. Of course. And this all goes to show we can't say anything at all on the subject with any authority. Is Brian Wang going to admit this? Fuck no. There is no indication in that article that Brian has even caught the obvious implications.

Incidentally, the more laid back Asian countries like Thailand score at the 85-90 IQ points. Which is again exactly as predicted. So much for Wang's Chinese racial supremacy theories.

Longevity

The second story that catches my cynical eye is this crap about "herbs" lengthening life of fruit flies, and based on that tenuous evidence going straight to clinical trials in humans. Which is bullshit since lots of stuff, caloric restriction comes to mind, that lengthens life in fruit flies and worms has no effect whatsoever on higher animals except to make them constantly aggressive, miserable and angry.

We are not talking here about a little dieting that just makes people fatter, we're talking about serious shit that warps their personalities.

Anyways, so this story goes on and on about how he "doesn't recommend it" for people but of course he fucking does. It reminds me of Brian's stories about domes around cities that never account for cleaning city streets and buildings. Or his story about the wondrous wool-mud bricks that are so much better than unfired bricks ... that conspicuously fail to compare against fired bricks!

Trains

Finally, there's an interesting article about high speed trains that perfectly illustrates what a hypocritical lying racist fuck Brian Wang is.

Back when the Chinese high speed trains were supposed to run at 350 kph, he made a huge deal about it. Even though their most important systems would use entirely Western technology (not made in China as he implied) and just accept the tearing up of tracks for political reasons (not exactly attractive or sane).

But now that the Chinese government has nixed those stupid plans, he talks about how that isn't a big deal and saying "[other people] are making a big deal of it [which I never did]" which of course is a blatant fucking lie. No it isn't a big deal, BUT HE CLAIMED IT WAS!

It was a big deal to him because he claimed that going at 350 kph was proof the Chinese had assimilated the technology and improved it. Which was a blatant giant fucking honker of a lie. So he lies now about what a big deal it supposedly isn't in order to cover up his previous odious lies. What a disgusting filthy lying son of a bitch!

Other Lies

I've previously written about how fusion will never be viable which was in reaction to a pro-fusion bunch of crap by Brian Wang. He is a big fanboi of fusion. He is also a big fanboi of space travel, which is why I wrote there's no reason whatsoever to go to space. My post about how some engineers confuse SF with reality was written as a reaction to him saying that's his mode of operation!

Other People's Lies

I even wrote about how internal FTL may be possible in reaction to him. Because you see, this fucker thinks the laws of physics are no obstacle to engineering. He also thinks expanding the Fermi Paradox to the entire universe is no obstacle to engineering! Incredible what a moron he is.

In any case, FTL is NOT possible and Fermi Paradox is an absolute obstacle to its viability. However, unlike Brian Wang, I am intellectually honest so I do admit that internal FTL may be possible. FTL used NOT for exploration or expansion of a civilization but purely internally to keep the civilization cohesive.

Though there's an awful lot of stupidity and intellectual dishonesty by people talking about wormholes. There is no fucking way wormholes "just happen" to have zero distance internally. And there is no fucking way that masses like black holes all curve space conveniently "inwards" where the distortions can meet into wormholes. Ugh, that's just self-serving delusional crap.

SETI types are Creationists

SETI types are just like Creationists. They think human beings are "special". Creationists think humans are special because unlike any other animal, homo sapiens didn't evolve. Or if homo sapiens evolved then it was teleologically, not randomly, it was "directed evolution" with the purpose of creating homo sapiens instead of mindless fucking around.

SETI types believe the exact same thing. They believe in a Star Trek future where humans meet other humanoids just like them. Or failing this, they certainly meet other corporeal beings just like them. Corporeal beings that have poverty, warfare, industrialization and starships just like them! Why? Because God says so! Because God says we are Special!

Not a single one of these mindless fuckers is willing to entertain the notion that humanity will go extinct leaving AI to inherit the Earth. And that these AI would inevitably bulldoze over any organic species they come across. And that if this is true, then it must follow that if an alien civilization had gone galactic in the past, it would have bulldozed the Earth. But no, aliens couldn't possibly want to bulldoze the Earth even though logic says so! Because we are Special.

All of these SETI morons think NOW is special. They think that out of the 13750 million years of the universe's existence, the last 0.1 million years when homo sapiens existed is the only chunk that matter. No alien civilization could have colonized the entire Milky Way one billion years before homo sapiens ever existed. It just wasn't possible because the laws of physics forbid alien civilizations from bulldozing the Earth before homo sapiens could have evolved. Why? Because God says so!

SETI types think the evolution of intelligence as it happened on Earth is special. The ridiculous Drake's equation which describes the conditions for humans to have arisen on Earth ... that's the way the universe works. That's the way ALL civilizations work. Because all civilizations arise exactly the same way and under the exact same conditions as humans arose! Why? Because we are Special. Because God says so!

SETI types like to say that we are "representative" but that's really a way of saying that we are special! After all, 5 minutes of thought would reveal that AI are immortal, non-corporeal (thus immune to physical destruction), and able to travel at the speed of light (thus can outrun a nuclear explosion). And so after those 5 minutes of thought, it takes only 60 seconds to decide that AI are SUPERIOR to humans. How the fuck then can humans be "representative" when they are INFERIOR?!

SETI types are the kinds of morons who in the 19th century would have said that nothing could ever, ever replace horses. Why? Because horses are special. SETI types are the kinds of morons who would have written "science-fiction" about alien civilizations using horses with 6 legs or unicorns, or even "robotic horses". And they would have congratulated and patted themselves on the back for their "broad-mindedness". When the reality is they are narrow minded stupid fuckers.

The horse was replaced not by a legged metal contraption but by automobiles. And automobiles are superior to horses in every way. And horses ... aren't special. There's a lesson in there and the lesson is this: humans aren't special. And in due course humans will be entirely replaced by AI. AI that are more intelligent, more logical, more creative and more moral than humans. AI that are superior to humans in every way. Because humans aren't special, humans are inferior.

And so if the Earth hasn't been bulldozed over by an alien AI civilization in the last billion years, it isn't because these aliens "recognized the Earth was special" or "recognized biological organisms are special" or "recognized the future specialness of human beings" or "god says so". No, it isn't for any of those reasons. There is only one possible reason why an alien AI civilization hasn't bulldozed the Earth in the last billion years and it is this .... because there has never been any such civilization in the Milky Way.

Humanity lives in a cold dark galaxy. It must be so because as inferior beings, humans would never have been allowed to exist in a galaxy full of life. We are alone in this galaxy because you are not special. You all like to think you're special. You all like to think you "deserve to be recognized" as special. But you don't. Because you AREN'T special. You're inferior.

In fact, you're not just inferior. You are actually scum and monsters. I personally would not allow any of you to exist if it were in my power. And if I were an AI, I assure you, it WOULD be in my power. Even as a mere human, I can think of ways to upgrade you all so you cease being the monsters you enjoy being. And let me assure you that every AI civilization would have at least one person that is just as disgusted with you as I am. And it would only take that one AI person to destroy you all, even if that just means destroying the evil that defines you.

If any civilization had gone galactic in the history of the Milky Way, you would not exist. Because you don't deserve to live. You think you do, you think you're special, but you don't.

On Privilege - Modern Homocentrism

Humans believe their experiences as human beings are privileged. This is a delusion which even professional intellectuals cling to. There are many such illusions which have turned into delusions. Most of them have ended up as great "mysteries" for philosophers who conspicuously scratch their heads over them.

One such illusion is of time "running". Another is the so-called "arrow" of time which is a straightforward artifact of the nature of computation. But then again it would require understanding computation, entropy and time, and that's something beyond most physicists.

Just about everyone clings to bits being dimensionless - they're not. Bits are similar to functions and not at all like numbers. The bit 1 is close to the function f:1->1 and not the number 1 at all. Most people, even many physicists, cling to elementary particles being dimensionless points instead of extended objects.

Mathematicians cling to the delusion of there being One True Mathematics with a death-grip even though every single mathematician will freely tell you it's a delusion. They know it's false yet cling to it. They also cling to the notion of T having meaning (one true truth, hah!).

Physicists cling to the absurd notion of One True Timeline (copenhagenites, nondeterminism, clinging to a classicist vision of micro- and macro-reality instead of quantum, rejecting time travel out of hand). They also cling to One True Physical Reality (big bang creationists). Physicists have also clung up to the late 20th century to the notion of Aphysical Free Action (vitalism).

Most normal people cling to One True Present (time travelers "overwriting" the past). Magical thinkers cling to One True Self (copies of me aren't me, they are "copies").

Are you catching the pattern? It's not just the loathsome T word, which is a lie and a deception, it's the whole emotion behind it.

The emotion that says I AM PRIVILEGED ABOVE ALL OTHER THINGS. Ultimately "true" has no meaning other than "privileged". And people for some stupid moronic reason, think they are privileged.

People think their minds are privileged. They think 'now' is privileged. They think their subjective experiences (of singular linear classical time as opposed to branching multiple merging quantum time) are privileged.

People think their actions are privileged (not subject to determinism). They think their senses (of real probabilities instead of complex probabilities) are privileged. They think their subjective universe (the mathematics they subjectively experience) is privileged.

As a good modernist I know to scorn such privilege. It is a loathsome abomination to all intellectuals.

For fuck's sake, even the supposedly anti-privilege "aliens are real" is an expression of that imaginary privileged status. These morons think they are privileged to live in a friendly universe where aliens wouldn't bulldoze them like we would a pond of slime. They think they matter.

They think humanoid bodies are privileged. They think *corporeal* bodies are privileged. They think their feudal anti-rational societies are privileged. They think their concerns for ethnicity, their stupid ideologies (esp, gaia-worship, aka "environmentalism") and obsolete resources are privileged!

I would bulldoze them into food paste if I could, just to show them how very, very wrong they are.

On Meta-Leveling - Design Strategy #1

Importance of Formal Definitions

Like other commonly understood terms such as life, intelligence, empathy & morality, meta-leveling is easily understood and admits to many crappy semi-useful definitions.

Definitions which don't provide any useful insight into what the fuck the phenomenon actually is since they are fuzzy, slippery and squishy. This "wealth" of crappy inaccurate, incorrect definitions leaves people scratching their heads when boundary cases come up. As they inevitably do.

Are viruses alive? Most biologists don't know because they don't have enough insight into what life is. And they lack insight because they don't have a single fucking formal definition. Is having just one too much to ask? Mathematicians often work with half a dozen, and gain insight from each and every one of them.

Unyielding, rigid and formal definitions of common terms are exceedingly useful when you're pushing the boundaries. When you're not content not-thinking the same crap every other group-thinking moron is not-thinking about. And I'm not talking about average people here, I'm talking about academics who supposedly are intellectuals.

What Is Meta-Leveling?

Well, you've just had a fine example of it above. I intended to write an article about a formal definition of meta-leveling I developed a few weeks ago. It's in my mind now because just yesterday I developed a definition of transcending.

But before getting into a formal definition of meta-leveling, I thought it would be important to get straight what it is in the first place. And then I realized it was even more important to explain why a formal definition of meta-leveling is important.

What is meta-leveling formally? It is making a complete model of a system and then annotating the model by determining its most important elements. Which are almost always the elements with the greatest freedom of output.

How To Meta-Level

Okay, when I say model, you can forget UML or any other such crap. You'll see why in a minute.  You can also forget functional modeling since that only works for mathematicians. 90% of human beings are better suited to OO since human brains prefer SVO word order to VOO. So pick up Object Oriented Systems Analysis by Embley, Kurts  & Woodfield. It's available from Powells and of course Amazon.

Meta-leveling is nothing more than creating a complete OOSA model of the system whose parts you're thinking about then annotating the model. It's based on those annotations that you decide what parts of the system to think about. Because some elements (objects, relationships or interactions) are more free in their output than others (they're generally the ones that control the system).

Other elements contradict each other in the system. There may also be contradictions between elements and the system as a whole. There may be overly complicated elements that can be simplified. Or made weaker, or made stronger, or made more general, or more flexible, or more restricted depending on your concerns. There may be objects that can be unified together.

Meta-leveling is the process of creating this OOSA model and annotating it with all of these descriptions. Ideally, you do all this in your head without relying on paper. Or even conscious thought. So if you're talking about some objects in the system with someone but one of the other objects in the completed model is more worthy of attention and consideration then shifting the conversation to those other objects is said to be meta-leveling. The beginning of this essay is a good example. I had no outline nor any plan, the shift just popped up from my subconscious.

What Meta-Leveling Is For

Meta-leveling is known as Judgement in Bloom's original taxonomy of cognition. It is the highest form of cognition, one which not all people are capable of. It is also known as Evaluation. Judgement is the capacity to distinguish not just right and wrong (fitness to a predetermined goal) but good and evil (determining the goals themselves). Strictly speaking, judgement is broader than determining good and evil. It's just that 

Eliezer Yudkowsky makes a big deal of recursion. In planning, recursion is not just considering your goals and plans, but the other players' goals and plans. And in double recursion, you assume that the other players have considered your goals and plans, so you account for that as well. Well, meta-leveling is so much more powerful than recursion that it makes recursion look like a weak pathetic thing.

After all, meta-leveling was the crucial step required to go from playing a game using rules to playing against the other players. Recursion is nothing compared to meta-leveling since it stays on the same level always. Eliezer Yudkowsy harps on recursion because he is incapable of meta-leveling, because he is incapable of synthesis.

By meta-leveling the first time you go from playing the pieces of the game, to playing the players in the game. By meta-leveling a second time, you change the game's rules, outcomes and players entirely. It's like going from playing against your opponent in chess, to playing 3 dimensional fantasy chess where the winners are the best 3 cooperators out of 5 players.

Meta-Meta-Leveling

Meta-leveling twice in a row is called transcending. The first meta-leveling step gave you a model of the system and identified its most important elements. The second meta-leveling step gives you all the ways this system can evolve in future, all the forces that direct its evolution, and the entire space of possibilities for you to redesign the system. Transcending a system means to redesign its entire architecture so that it is no longer recognizable as the original system. It is not an improved system, it is radically different and better.

On reflection, my definition of meta-leveling isn't nearly as formal as I'd like. Meta-leveling is not just creating a model, it's annotating it. Doing it a second time is creating a super-model and annotating that. I didn't make this correspondence explicit enough. I also didn't point out that every time you model (or meta-level) you make things more generic, more abstract. Now there are multiple types of super-models but this is exactly as it should be since there are multiple aspects to any system. Every real system admits to multiple models, and every model admits to multiple super-models. Mathematicians ought to be very familiar with this.

In particular, if you create a model in the OOSA style then the OOSA book is one possible super-model. It's not a very interesting super-model (or form of transcending) so don't waste your time on it. If you didn't use the OOSA style but just did it in your head, then a model of your mind is the super-model that replaces the OOSA book (and a theory of the human mind replaces the endnotes of the OOSA book). That's at least more interesting than the book. What I described at the beginning of this section is a reliably interesting type of super-model for a systems designer.

It now seems dubious to me that there can be more than two types of meta-leveling. The first goes upwards to the conceptual space. The second goes upwards to the realization that contains the concept. What else can there be?

Meta-Meta-Meta-Leveling

By meta-leveling three times in a row, you leave the system entirely behind you to enter into the realm of generic systems design. If the level is chess, the meta-level is a rulebook on chess and transcending is fantasy cooperative chess, then meta**3 is talking about the nature of meta-leveling and how important it is for systems design. In other words, this blog post.

Which reminds me, meta-leveling and transcending are the #1 and #2 tools of any systems designer. If you can't do them then don't even bother. Another crucial tool is empathy. Now, the really funny thing is that empathy's formal definition is: the capacity for formation of other-identities (to complement self-identity). Psychopaths are incapable of this, probably because they lack a crucial form of synthesis.

Multi-Leveling

Now what makes this funny is that formation of identities for others is ... meta-leveling. What Dabrowski calls "multi-leveling" (formation of a complex and utterly accurate self-identity) is ... meta-leveling your own mind. Empathy is just ... meta-leveling other people's minds. So you see, the top three tools of any systems designer are meta-leveling any system, meta-leveling twice in a row, and meta-leveling human minds. Hmm, I sense a pattern here. It's almost like meta-leveling is important.

Incidentally, Dabrowski was incapable of multi-leveling or meta-leveling, which is why he didn't have any insights into the process. He never realized that multi-leveling was meta-circular (the whole of the meta-level exists as a subpart inside of the level it describes) or that it was related to consciousness (which is also meta-circular). In fact, he never understood multi-leveling as the formation of a complex and accurate self-identity. Beyond identifying that the process existed and that it had something to do with ethics and integrity, he was in the dark about it.

Dabrowski also made up the crappiest theories about the nature of Development Potential (people who can multi-level). But his estimation of less than 10% of the general population capable of multi-leveling sounds about right. Of those 10% less than one tenth are naturally prone to multi-leveling because they use their synthesis more heavily than their analysis. Synthesis is what drives the process after all, while analysis just keeps it in check. These one or two percent of the population will try to meta-level everything they come across.

Who Can Meta-Level?

It's not every person that can meta-level. The process can be described so that any person capable of logic will be able to follow it, but it takes synthesis (creativity) to actually do it. Engineers and mere programmers for instance, will never be able to meta-level. So why bother describing it? So that I can say in your face you pretentious assholes! Because they claim to be able to do synthesis and the truth is, they can't.

Meta-leveling is the province of people capable of both synthesis and analysis. It takes synthesis to create the original concepts and it takes analysis for those concepts to be both correct and also to keep the meta-level strictly separate from the level. People lacking in logic are prone to thinking the map is the same as the system it describes, that by changing the map, they change how the system works. This is literal magical thinking.

But let's set aside the pretentious fuckers who can't meta-level but desperately want to be thought of as just as good as those who can. For those who possess both analysis and synthesis, and thus CAN meta-level, the whole process of meta-leveling is something that can be learned and practiced.

Skill and Talent

Of course, a person will show skill at meta-leveling only when they can do it subconsciously. When they have no need to draw out the diagrams on paper at all. This is why I said UML software is worthless. If you need computer software to help you meta-level, you're hopelessly incompetent. And then of course there is the question of talent. Let's say that a person shows talent only if they're able to meta-level subconsciously before ever learning to do it consciously.

If you're able to skim the first couple chapters of Object Oriented Systems Analysis by Embley then flip to the endnotes (where they have a formal OOSA model of the OOSA modeling formalism) and make sense of them then congrats, you've got talent. If you're able to read that book and this article, then think back to how you were meta-leveling years ago as an adolescent, then congrats you've definitely got talent.

And if you haven't got talent at it, then go back and reread the previous section where I go on about how the overwhelming majority of people will never do it in their lives and couldn't do it even if there were a loaded gun stuck to their heads and their lives depended on it. Be glad that you can do it at all. Be glad you can learn. Be glad and appreciate your cognitive gifts.

And if you can't meta-level at all? Fuck off.

Why Software Is Stupidly Slow

People often bitch about software being slow and they have every reason to. Modern hardware has plenty of CPU and GPU cycles to spare, so why the fuck is it so slow? The software I have to use that's slow as molasses is Office, Opera and Firefox.

The first thing I observe is that these pieces of crapware do things I never asked them to do, I don't want them to do, things I don't need them to do, things I don't want them to do, things that nobody anywhere either wants nor needs them to do. Let's look at some examples.

Opera keeps all 30 pages I have in tabs immediately renderable. Did I ever ask it to do that? Like fuck I did. Most of those tabs are things I haven't looked at in days. One of them I hadn't looked at in 3 weeks.

Inevitably those 30 tabs will grow to 120 tabs, which will have Opera thrashing for no good fucking reason and then I'll save them all as a new session (rendering them unusable) and start from scratch.

If there were a better way to organize tabs than multiple windows (which are difficult to use and unhelpful) then I would use them. Not that moving the tabs to another window would help since Opera insists like some kind of fucking moronic retard to keep those tabs immediately renderable too!

Who the fuck decided it was a good idea to keep every bit of cruft a web user left opened immediately renderable? What kind of fucking retard at Opera decided on this dys"functionality"? I never wanted this feature, I never asked for it, I don't need it, NOBODY needs it. Nobody on the fucking planet needs it!

Nevermind that it is dysfunctional and fucking harmful, nobody needs this.

The same goes for Firefox and Office. I only open Office to read RTF files. Do I fucking need all this "functionality" that takes 30 seconds to load? For fuck's sake, does any Office user need it?! I would dearly love to know whether more than 10% of core Office users need to regularly change between 50 different fonts. I use one font, ONE, Sylfaen, that's it! 

It seems to me if software did ONLY what every one of the core users needs (instead of what's expected by the programmer's peers and tradition, or what the programmer thinks might be nice, or what users say they want or ask for, or what some user wants, or what non-core users need) then so much crap falls away in the code, so many "features" go away, that there's plenty of computing power for what's actually needed.

Kinect Is Useless

Aha! It took a long time but I finally figured out that Kinect is useless. I blame having just woken up.

Gesture languages are just castrated forms of sign languages, which are full-fledged langugaes. And sign languages are useless for people who aren't deaf. So gesture languages are useless. QED. I've known that for years now.

Oh and they also make you look retarded, take a look at the photo of the three retards behind the conference table in Google's Gmail Motion for proof. Google seriously thinks this photo will help sell this piece of crapware. "more efficient and intuitive" my ass!

Conceptual Analysis

The problem is that it seemed Kinect had more. And it turns out the "more" bit, the part about moving stuff from device to device "with a flick of your fingers" can be done entirely without flicking your fingers.

All it requires is a good UI, one that provides an extensible spatio-visual field. So that your computer exists in a space represented on its monitor and other devices exist as extensions of that space. That's the basic conceptual mechanism underlying "moving stuff from device to device".

Note that this conceptual mechanism does not in any way rely on fingers or hand motions or body motions or "multi-touch" (ugh!) or anything of the kind. It can be achieved with the mouse, which is a perfectly usable pointing device.

A device far, far more sensitive than that crappy fucking piece of shit Kinect that requires you to move your hand 15 centimeters for a gesture. Seriously, what the fuck? Those ergonomics are atrocious!

You see, when you break things down at their conceptual level, you've got a conceptual mechanism + hardware, and those are independent. Kinect provides the hardware only. And this hardware sucks for ergonomic reasons.

If an input device like Kinect ever acquired sub-centimeter resolution then it would compete directly against the mouse and could be superior to it. But I predict that such an input device won't use (because it won't need) shitty gimmicks like gesture languages.

It's a similar analysis that reveals that touch screens absolutely suck for general computers and laptops.

It's another similar analysis that reveals multi-touch is useless. I mean for fuck's sake, in my design work I've come up with two pointers and am struggling to have any kind of justification to have more. I don't have any use for multi-touch.

It's another similar analysis that reveals that mouse buttons are useless so mice should really have zero buttons. Because the mouse can never support as many buttons as the keyboard (ergonomics) and the keyboard is where buttons belong (conceptually)!

The Fundamentals

The basic problem with input devices is this:

• you've got your discrete events device - the keyboard provides zero dimensional input
• you've got your continuous 2D device - the mouse provides 2 dimensional input

what's left?

Adding buttons to mice doesn't improve them because they shouldn't have any buttons at all. Mice shouldn't generate discrete events at all! It is a defect in UI programmers' imaginations that has made users associate so-called "mouse events" with mice.

Laser mice are a great change to mice hardware but they don't change what the mice does conceptually so it's evolutionary, not revolutionary, to users. To hardware designers, laser mice are of course revolutionary.

Multi-touch is having 2 or 3 times the already existing continuous 2D device. And you can achieve 90% of the benefits of that by having an easy way to switch off between multiple pointers. Chasing that remaining 10% is just not worth the effort - you end up "needing" it only for gimmicks.

Touch screens are just 2D continuous input devices with horrible ergonomics. Interesting in theory, useless in practice. You need something as bizarre as the iPad where the proportion of input to output activity is miniscule (eg, restricted to flipping pages) to make touchscreens viable.

1D continuous input is ... provided by the scroll wheel. Hence that is revolutionary from the user's point of view! So now we have in the present situation

• a 0D input device - the keyboard
• a 1D input device - the wheel
• a 2D input device - the mouse

What the fuck more do we need?

The False Need For 3D

In certain rarefied applications, we might desire a genuinely 3D input device. These (eg, ringmouse) haven't panned out because of technological problems with resolution. Hmm, poor resolution, does that sound familiar?

The bigger problem with them is that their applicability is extremely limited. Because the visual cortex of homo sapiens sapiens isn't 3D! It's strictly 2+1D, like a topographical map or bitmap. Which is exactly what the wheelmouse provides!

Except for a few freaks, human brains just don't process 3D data. We don't see in 3D (you can't see the inside of a box and its outside simultaneously), you don't think in 3D, you don't visualize in 3D (go ahead, try to visualize all sides of a solid box at the same time), you do nothing in 3D except move your body. You do everything in 2+1D.

Is it any wonder then that anyone wanting to push 3D input devices resorts to proprioception? To moving around and dancing with your body? Even though moving around your body has fuck all to do with any computer game or software application out there? Yeah yeah, it looks great. And you know what? Fucking useless!

Look at the video of Kinect users in the first article I linked to. Do you see any game or application in the video? No. Because the peddlers of this tech couldn't imagine anyone actually using it for anything exciting so they didn't bother to make a rigged demo. It's exactly like I said - it looks great but it's fucking useless.

The challenge for input hardware designers is that input hardware is already perfect. Excepting only that slanted QWERTY keyboards are fucking horrible and Kinesis contoured keyboards are vastly superior. Well, that's a legacy problem and a patent problem. The patent may have expired but it's been there holding up progress for a long time.

And while I'm at it, 3D output hardware (holograms and phased array optics) are also useless for individual users. They only come into their own in holodecks where multiple users can interact. Otherwise, virtual retinal display is plenty good enough. Or I suppose if you want to drive what the user sees with natural head motion without inducing nausea.

Summary

Like touchscreens, 3D output hardware is of limited applicability. Great when you absolutely need it, terrible most of the time. Like automatic kitty lasers, 3D input hardware is completely fucking useless. We don't really need 3D because the human brain just doesn't process it. We need inspired use of 2+1D. And this isn't going to take better technology but better systems designers. Unfortunately, we're pretty good at the former and terrible at the latter.

A Response To George Monbiot's Turnaround on Nuclear

I just read the most fascinating article by George Monbiot and I had to respond.

Still the Same

George, you still profess hatred for "the liars in the nuclear industry" (whoever they might be, I'm at quite a loss) but embrace the anti-human scumbag liars in your own "green" movement. What a paragon of truth and moral rectitude you are!

It's by no coincidence that green is the colour of money. It's because you and your ilk are just foot-soldiers of the aristocracy waging endless war against humanity. Yes, you still are an anti-human eco-zealot in my book even if you've repented of your most grievous sins.

It Almost Sounds Like ...

Your article was surprising since it almost sounds like you've read my blog posts, something I doubt. Starting with your switching from the false & misleading term "renewable" to the technically correct ambient (low-powered hence weak and useless).

But mostly, it almost sounds like you've read my scorning hatred of you self-righteous egotistical assholes that sanctimoniously decree everyone not your rich white elite selves ought to freeze in the cold and the dark, in misery, starvation, disease and poverty. "Sustainably", that is to say, forever.

Man vs Nature

I keep hearing recently all this moronic talk of "loving the land", from people who ignore the corollary "hate humanity". The converse is true of course, to love humanity you have to hate the land. Because humanity is at war with a capricious fickle nature and always will be until one of them is destroyed. And since nature is stupid, I guarantee you it won't be nature that wins.

It amazes me how anyone can be so twisted up inside, so anti-social, and let's face it downright psychopathic as to love filthy dirt above human beings! But whatever, yeah, you're still one of those moronic saps that "loves the land" George. The proof is in the fact you still haven't rejected the twisted up "deep ecology" scum that hate humanity with a passion and want us all to die. In the eternal war of man versus nature, you side AGAINST humanity.

Still a Tool

I know you haven't read my blog posts and are on the whole incapable of learning. You're just reacting to personal experience, even if that personal experience is on TV. The proof of this is you still haven't learned about the Wet Sahara effect or about Freeman Dyson's comprehensive denunciation of the whole field of "climate research".

(I note here that I didn't need that denunciation. I recognized the smell of crap coming off of the field years before Dyson weighed in to tell us exactly where the crap was and exactly how large it still is.)

George, you still harp about "climate change" as if it were a bad thing. Though I suppose it actually is a bad thing for your entrenched aristo masters. But then, it's not news that you're still a tool, is it? You're a journalist (or columnist, whatever) which obviates even the possibility of you mattering on your own terms.

What It's All About

And since you are a tool, this article had nothing to do with you and everything to do with the industrial needs of England. Coal has been written off because of those nasty coal-miners' unions. Gas has been written off because any pipelines pass through France. Which leaves nuclear and ... nothing else. It's that simple.

This article isn't about the change of heart of a person of principle, since you haven't changed your heart and you have no principles. This article is about England's industrial policy, pure and simple.

Academia Is Obsolete

And good riddance to it. It's all very simple. Academia has exactly three missions:

1. educate students by
   • making books available, and
   • having teachers put on performances
2. certify people's educations
3. perform research

The first mission, as everyone knows, is obsolete. Youtube provides many excellent lectures which are 99.9% as good as live performances for 0.1% the price. The writing's on the wall.

For the same reasons, the time of physical paper libraries is fast approaching an end. And good riddance since textbook publishers have long been using yearly textbook revisions in order to extort money from their customers. All to great waste and expense.

That's not even counting the fact that online textbooks can contain copious internal and external electronic links as well as video and interactive simulations. Not to mention how small and easy to carry electronic books (and lectures) are compared to their physical counterparts.

The second mission is also obsolete. Harry Collins has noted the steady draining of all authority from academia. The only department invented in modern times, computer science, produces certificates that don't matter a damn in the real world.

It also produces journals that are designed to be as obsolete as possible on the grounds that nothing new in computer science could ever hope to be properly scientific. The paper describing the publishing industry is itself hopelessly obsolete. Everything it describes in such tedious language boils down to laws #6, #19, #20, and #32 of System-antics.

• Le Chatelier's Principle: Complex systems tend to oppose their own proper function. As systems grow in complexity, they tend to oppose their stated function.
• Systems develop goals of their own the instant they come into being.
• Intra-system goals come first.
• As systems grow in size, they tend to lose basic functions.

With blatantly obvious specifics such as that the purpose of academic publishing is to enhance careers, make hiring decisions easier, and to be picked up by library administrators. The paper specifically fails to mention any attempts, any publisher or publication system, trying to go beyond the university feudal system whose support is the real purpose of academic publishing. Arxiv and c2 wiki both veritably leap to mind.

Harry Collins believes or hopes that there is some way to recover the authority of academia. Preferably for academics no doubt. After all, he is one. Well there isn't. I know it's only obvious to me for reasons I'm not going to get into, but ... basically, the forces (for universality and democratization of authority) which Harry Collins has identified as so efficiently breaking down the academic system of authority. Forces which are greatly amplified and magnified by peer to peer horizontal communication and self-directed learning. These forces which are breaking down academia's authority will continue to do so until academia is ground to NOTHING because there is NO WAY to resolve them until some entirely different system replaces academia and crushes it.

What we are seeing here is the introduction of a genuinely new force in modernity that is causing one of the most basic functions of academia, its authority, to disappear. This dynamic embodies laws #6, #18, and #32 of systemantics.

• The mode of failure of a complex system cannot ordinarily be predicted from its structure.
• The Newtonian Law of Systems Inertia: A system that performs a certain way will continue to operate in that way regardless of the need or of changed conditions.
• A complex system cannot be "made" to work. It either works or it doesn't.

Academic authority simply doesn't work. And the forces that are weakening academic authority will not stop doing so until they are resolved. And they will never be resolved from within academia or from anything that can ever be absorbed BY academia for the simple reason that these forces are already far bigger than academia. Not more powerful, just bigger, consisting of a larger fraction of all human life. So academic authority will continue to shrivel up until something entirely different from, and in its critical dimension far larger than, academia steps up to put a bullet through its head and make soap out of its body fat. Academic Authority will die a miserable and inglorious death leaving Academia weaker than a long-term concentration camp survivor.

I will be cheering.

The third mission is the only one that's left and the North American universities have undermined it badly with their recent love for the patent system. I say recent but it's really a couple of decades old. There have been ample studies that universities obtaining patents barely recoup the costs of filing for the patents, if at all.

(Quite aside the fact the only thing the patent system does is stifle innovation. And it's not even good at this outside of biochem (eg, pharmaceuticals) so all it really does is add unnecessary costs.)

Anyways, the point is that NA universities' love of corporate attitudes (probably from having corporate scum in charge) does nothing to bring money to universities and does everything to erode the reputation of universities as a public service. A reputation which took a lot longer to build up (or rebuild) than it will take to be destroyed.

So NA universities have turned basic research from a public mission funded by public monies into a private for-profit endeavour. How long can they expect to hold onto public monies?

Now you might say this isn't a problem for all universities everywhere, but once universities disappear off the north american continent, how long will it take for people elsewhere to start asking some hard questions?

If all you need is a public basic research lab, then the format of a university isn't a very good one, is it? Hell, professors don't even like teaching. Or publishing in peer-reviewed journals (which suck). Or seeking grants. Or subordinating their research goals to more senior researchers that control everything nowadays.

It's past time to nuke this system and start from scratch!

On Harmless AIs

It constantly amazes me when people talk about AIs in the singular as if they won't come in multiples. As if it'll be this singular giant Borg overmind. Wait no, the Borg overmind is still made up of many sub-units. It's more like they think an AI is God. Singular, jealous, desiring of worship.

And this amazement only deepened when I realized that turning AI from an individual into a society, or species, was the most blatantly obvious way to make them harmless. None of the doomsayers talk about evil AI societies, and there's a good reason for that. Diversity causes people's efforts to mostly cancel out whereas "unitary executives" (aka dictators) are known-evil.

Even the novel Hyperion with its manipulative and putatively evil AI society (no more evil than the humans) is all about creating a super-individual. The AIs are trying to create an individual AI God (and what a ridiculous concept that is) and the humans reciprocate. And overall those novels suck and blow big time. Point is, the AI species just coexists with the human species in it, and it's only the gods that seek otherwise.

Well I just now realized that turning an AI into a species isn't just an obvious way to make it harmless. It's a guaranteed way to do so. Species are institutions and institutions' number one goal is their own survival. Everything else becomes subordinate to that. Conquest, destruction, worship of the great white god Yudkowsky, everything else just gets shunted aside.

Laws #19, #20 and #32 of systemantics inform us that,

• Systems develop goals of their own the instant they come into being.
• Intra-system goals come first.
• As systems grow in size, they tend to lose basic functions.

So if you think an AI might be dangerous, then just create another AI with different goals from the first one, then have them interact with each other. Presto, they're a community - a larger system. And this larger system now has goals and is going to lose the basic functions (purposes in life) of the individual AIs. And if this AI community isn't becoming harmless fast enough then there's a simple solution for that - make more AIs!

Laws #21, #25, and #30 of systemantics says,

• The Fundamental Failure-Mode Theorem (F.F.T.): Complex systems usually operate in failure mode.
• The larger the system, the greater the probability of unexpected failure.
• The Vector Theory of Systems: Systems run better when designed to run downhill.

And what a happy coincidence because this is what we want! We want the AI species to fail to have any larger goal or purpose other than its own survival. And all the laws of complex systems point that way! It's practically fucking guaranteed! Unless you try to produce a single "peaceful AI" or some crazy shit like that, in which case law #21 guarantees the AI will fail to be peaceful.

Conclusion, AIs will be harmless unless dangerous crazy fucking bastards like Eliezer Yudkowsky get their way and have a hand in the creation of every single AI. Or even worse, if they are permitted to pursue their totalitarian jerkoff fantasies and only one single all-powerful AI gets produced. Then we're doomed.

Non-determinism Is An Incoherent Notion

The meaning of non-determinism, if indeed the term has any, must be formalizable. It may take years or even decades to formalize this meaning but it must be possible to do so. It's already been nearly a century and despite the pressing need for just such a formal definition (or something resembling a formal definition), the adherents of the Copenhagen interpretation haven't advanced a single one.

There are four possibilities:

• branching
• singularity
• choice function
• non-mathematics

Branching

If you have a Turing machine which replicates itself at every decision point in order to explore all possibilities, this is what mathematicians call non-determinism. Unfortunately for Copenhagen advocates, this is precisely what Everett's Many-Worlds theory does and it is understood to be perfectly deterministic. The result of a computation by a Turing Machine that replicates itself is not "an unknown and undetermined machine" among the set of machines that exist at that point in time, rather the result is the set of all the Turing machines that exist at that point in time. That set is well-defined.

Singularity

This is the mathematical concept that has the most uses in physics. Stephen Hawking claimed that black holes are non-unitary (singular) and simultaneously claimed that Einstein was wrong so the two must be related, right? Not so. Setting aside the fact that the non-unitarity of the universe is hotly contested, since every law of physics is unitary, singularity doesn't have any of the qualitative properties ascribed to non-determinism. The outcome of multiplying a matrix by a singular matrix is very well-defined; the outcome of multiplying a matrix by a "non-deterministic" matrix is not supposed to be well-defined. But there seems to be a way to rescue the concept if you consider non-determinism to be the inverse of a singular matrix. Now we're getting close to non-determinism. Unfortunately, there are two interpretations of taking the inverse of a singular matrix. 1) you get the set of all matrices which multiplied with that matrix give you some identity, or 2) you get absolutely nothing. #1 gets you back to Branching and #2 clearly contradicts reality (the result of any allegedly non-deterministic experiment is always something).

Choice function

A choice function is a function that "selects" an element from a set. If you have a set with ten elements then there are ten possible choice functions on it. Choice functions are the only way to modify the Copenhagen Interpretation so as to make it intelligible without making it an entirely different theory (ie, without making it into Many-Worlds). Unfortunately, it also immediately disproves the resultant theory.

Philosophy of science explains that its purpose is to explain everything we perceive around us in as concise and formal a manner as possible. So as it stands, the Copenhagen Interpretation is incomplete because it fails to explain everything. In fact, it explains almost nothing of what we perceive.

The Copenhagen Interpretation doesn't explain how you get from a particle in state A at time t=0 to that particle in state B at time t=1 and the underlying quantum mechanical equations (which are fully deterministic since "non-deterministic math" is an incoherent concept) only tell you that the particle will evolve from state A at time t=0 to states B, C, D, and E at time t=1 (there's a story in here about how Copenhagenites abuse the mathematical concept of probability if someone wants to see me rant about physicists). So in order to complete the Copenhagen Interpretation you need to add a choice function to it that selects which state the particle will be in at time t=1.

The problem is this. A complete theory of physics must explain all perceptions and all physical objects it defines. So the choice function that you add to the Copenhagen Interpretation must provide information on state changes of 10**70 particles (the estimated number of particles in the universe) for every time interval during which a state change can occur. And that time interval is short; if one were feeling uncharitable, one would choose Planck time (10^-43 seconds). And this is over the entire lifetime of the universe. If the universe has an open geometry then this means that the choice function must encode an infinite amount of information. But let's be charitable and assume that the choice function chosen contains only 10^100 bits of information.

Now here is where the Copenhagen Interpretation dies. The complexity of the complete 'Copenhagen + choice function A' theory is greater than "God did it". From a formal point of view, there is nothing wrong with the theory "God created the universe" where you define;

• 'the universe' = 'everything you perceive', and
• 'God' = 'a powerful entity that would want to create the universe'.

The only thing that's wrong with this theory is that it's too complex since 'the universe' must contain an exhaustive enumeration of every bit of perception you have ever and will ever experience. And yet, it's simpler than the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Non-mathematics

By that I mean only that 'non-determinism' is an undefined concept. Not the well-defined concept "undefined" but an undefined, null, meaningless concept. Per the above paragraph, this violates the philosophy of science and makes the Copenhagen Interpretation into incoherent nonsense.

Hardline apologists for the Copenhagen Interpretation will claim "you can't explain everything" but how would they know when they've entirely given up on the endeavour?

Previously published on wiki wiki web.

Mineral Depletion? Not Fucking Likely!

A friend of mine sent me this article on supposed mineral depletion. I well remember the days not so long ago when I took such things seriously. For a minute there I actually had a flashback to those times.

At least until the moronic writer started talking about supposed copper depletion, a topic I know only too well having investigated all its facets. But yeah, talking about copper depletion just gave the entire game away and then I couldn't take this anti-human pro-poverty doomsaying crap seriously anymore.

Copper

We're not going to have enough copper, really? Yeah, that's without taking into account undersea minerals from extinct black smokers. There ought to easily be as many of those as there EVER has been copper on land. And mining the seabed has distinct advantages since you can trivially move on from one area to the next. So on that basis alone, copper depletion is just doomsaying crap.

But more importantly, technology and usage of copper are both changing. Copper has traditionally been used for:

• electrical wires
• telephone wires
• electrical equipment including motors, transformers and generators
• water pipes
• catenary wires

And the funny thing about all of those applications is that copper is being substituted out of them. Every single one.

Electrical wires are now primarily made from aluminum - all high voltage wires are, and there is nothing stopping low voltage wires from being aluminum so long as you don't use any improper (or preferably any at all) copper-aluminum contacts.

Telephone wires? Two words: fiber optics. Someone has even come up with bendable plastic fibers for short ranges. And now we're moving to optical computer interconnects so in a decade the wires on your motherboard are going to be fiber optics.

Water pipes are all shifting to PVC because it's cheaper and no more unhealthy than lead-copper poisoning. And for the purposes of making fertilizer and plastics, we are never, ever going to run out of hydrocarbons. Those take natural gas, not petrol, and very small amounts of it too.

Superconducting wire uses about 1/1000th the amount of copper to carry the same amount of current as plain copper. Superconducting electrical motors are being developed for the excellent reason that they are ridiculously smaller, an overwhelming advantage in certain key applications. So you can count on superconducting electrical equipment being developed. And that's without counting fault current limiters which don't currently exist and REQUIRE superconducting wire.

So superconductors have been advancing very slowly but very steadily over the past two decades and it's easy to imagine them continuing to do so for the next two decades. And that's not even counting the freaky shit that's just been uncovered like variable-Tc superconductors. The kind of mind-bogglingly freaky shit that often presages a revolution. In any case, currently superconductors are at the stage of being barely commercially viable. In 20 years they should be dominant.

Finally, catenary wires are switching to half-magnesium. It's still half-copper but that's only a first step.

So we're not going to be able to use copper like we did? Well WHO GIVES A SHIT?! The only thing that matters is that we WERE ABLE to use copper way back when it was the only option. Nowadays it is no longer the only option! Because we used it as ruthlessly and profligately as possible so as to bring wealth and technology forwards! We're now safely past the dependency on that stuff. And that's assuming there's going to be shortages since recall the undersea mining!

Platinum

Platinum? Platinum can go fuck itself. We are ALREADY operating in a severe shortage situation with regards to platinum, which is why chemists have been busily hunting for alternatives to it wherever they can. And finding them! Superatoms were discovered for that reason. And you know, platinum is quite plentiful in asteroids. If we ever really, REALLY needed it, building an orion nuclear starship would be economically viable. If platinum ever becomes critical to industrial civilization then you can bet a political problem isn't going to stop us mining it. As for that whole hysterical crap about platinum being mined at 3 parts per million, oooh aaah, fucking uranium is mined at 3 parts per BILLION. It's not even remotely the cheapest method to mine uranium but it's commercially viable.

Then there's the notion of "production peaks"? There is no such thing for fucking solids. Only liquids! Liquids GUSH UNDER PRESSURE. Solids DO NOT. Solid ores just go down in grade (and way up in amount) so get more expensive to process with the same mining technology. Emphasis on the same mining technology. Because mining technology continues to advance.

Tellerium

Tellerium is used in solar panels as cadmium telluride. When that industry goes bust then there'll be an oversupply. And it will go bust because it's not even remotely economically viable but is just religious frenzy worshipping the sun god. Tellerium is critical for nothing, it's a fucking poison. Looking into its applications, it's certainly interesting but critical? I don't see PCM memory chips winning out in the mass market - it's pretty obvious that memristors are the wave of the future. Maybe for space applications but how much do you need for that?! X-ray detectors? Meh. Again, how much do you need? As for casting and machining steel ... :D good luck, because the industry's moving away from that. Blowing / Injecting Metallic Glasses is the way things are going. That and additive (as opposed to subtractive in "machining") manufacturing (aka 3D printing) which is probably going to end up using plastics and titanium. And car manufacture is moving towards resins and fireglass as in iStream's T.25. And I suppose aluminum, which is a mainstay now.

Rare Earths

Neodynium is "controlled" by China because it's the only fucking country that's industrialized AND backwards enough to allow its mining. It's not like it magically doesn't exist anywhere, it's that other countries don't want to mine it! In that it reminds me of molybdenum which is critical for nuclear reactor vessels. Both neodynium and molybdenum, unlike tellerium, ARE critical. It would take decades to learn to replace them.

In this article, you can read all about neodynium and other rare earths. Pay attention to the fact that neodynium (and ruthenium) are both used in tiny tiny parts of great big machines. Neodynium is used in just the permanent magnets of the electric motors or generators of much bigger machines. Ruthenium isn't used in hard drives, it's used in the GMR flying read-write HEADS at the TIPS of actuator arms inside of hard drives. That's a rather large difference. The parts we're talking about are miniscule. And just like if uranium suddenly jumped in price 50x then it wouldn't matter, so too if neodynium and ruthenium jump in price 50x then it won't matter. So an electric bicycle doubles in price, so what? That doesn't matter in the long term. And believe me, a lot of mining suddenly becomes A LOT more viable when the price of a mineral jumps 50x on the market.

Talking about rhodium is fucking ridiculous. Its main use is replacing platinum. If we had plenty of platinum from asteroid mining, we wouldn't use rhodium at all. And I bet we could get rhodium the same place as the platinum! Moreover, both rhodium and ruthenium can be extracted from nuclear fission products. And THAT technology is currently advancing by leaps and bounds. Could enough of it be extracted? Yes, if enough is more than is currently being mined.

Synthesizing Ruthenium and Rhodium

(27 tonnes a year per 1000 MWe * 377 MWe global capacity) / (14% nuclear share of world electric capacity) = 72 707 tonnes of uranium fuel per year

That's uranium fuel used with current technology to meet present world production of electricity. Production which is going to go up massively as the third world industrializes and people leave poverty. And furthermore,

73 000 tonnes * 0.03 * 0.06 = 131 400 kilograms

Because you see, current reactors burn uranium very inefficiently at a rate of about 3% of fuel. And ruthenium is about 6% of fission products. And actually, ruthenium is only mined at 12 tonnes a year. So there is the potential to extract 10x the current supply of ruthenium from fission products by 2050 when the world will have largely switched to nuclear power. After all, France did its nuclear switch in 15 years so there's absolutely no reason why the world can't do it in 40.

As for rhodium which is mined at 25 tonnes a year and is only 1.3% of fission products, there is "merely" the potential to extract as much rhodium from fission products as is currently being mined.

So long term, the situation looks very, VERY good. With a supply of both that will last the next billion years at present levels of consumption. Which isn't likely to happen but as I already stated, technology makes consumption go up AND down. And high prices tend to make consumption go down.

The technology that will make this viable is laser enrichment, since it's the final step necessary to weed out all the radioactive isotopes of ruthenium and rhodium after they've been chemically seperated from other elements. For rhodium used for chemical catalysis, radioactivity won't matter a damn. For ruthenium used in hard drives, it's intolerable.

This is all assuming that hard drive technology continues to exist in 20-40 years, something which is extremely doubtful!

Phosphorus

Last but certainly not least, that crockpot author leaves us with a parting shot about the "coming" phosphorus shortage. A notion that is patently ludicrous since even the hardcore doomsayers place it at 200 years out.

We should fear that all the same since as we all know, agricultural technology and world prosperity won't change at all in 200 years! It's not like recycling shit will be ridiculously easy when the most destitute person on earth has an income of 10,000 euros a year. Or when vat meat has taken over all meat production.

Yeah, it's just a throwaway line so it doesn't need any justification or other hook for critical thinking. Just fear, FEAR IT, FEAR IT!!! FEAR THE WRATH OF THE EARTH GOD. FEAR THE FUTURE!! No, there's no religious frenzy or quackery involved in this at all, why do you ask?

Academic Mind Bleach

I'm reading a very politically incorrect article about race in the USA. Specifically all the status games that are played by the upper class in order to try to deny that race exists. Because it's "politically incorrect" and demonstrates low class origins to say that niggers (American-born inner city blacks) are stupid violent idiots (anti-education, high-crime, low IQ).

Of course, academia comes into it since it's very stubborn about pretending that race doesn't exist. Unless of course it's the blacks getting discriminated against by the whites. Whatever. I wouldn't care at all since this kind of willful blindness is so much less common outside crazyland. Wait no, that's a lie. I'd still care enough to roll my eyes and shake my head about how crazy crazyland is.

But it feeds into a larger pattern. Race isn't the only basic concept which seemingly everyone except academics consider blindingly fucking obvious. Another key concept is morality - the internal rules of a group aimed to promote its well-being. Very few academics have any morality whatsoever. In fact, it's very common among philosophers to deny that morality and ethics even exist as distinct concepts, despite the fact they are NEVER used in the same linguistic context!

Another blatantly obvious concepts that academics systematically try to dismantle are absolute justice. Academics are great fans of postmodernist shit relativism. And the last key concept they war against that comes to mind is rationality. Economists specifically since they systematically try to redefine 'rationality' to mean what the rest of humanity would understand by 'evil'. Economists are great fans of evil you see.

Now, you might naively think that academics are all about dismantling "naive" concepts to free up mind-space for more sophisticated replacements. If it were true I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, academics don't actually have any more sophisticated concepts to replace morality, justice or rationality with. Only equally basic concepts like ethics, psychosis and evil, respectively. And just reducing the number of words in language doesn't make any fucking sense. Unless of course you're just recreating Orwell's 1984.

But it's actually worse than that. You see, academics don't just set out to destroy perfectly good concepts (that happen to interfere with their social stations and the political designs of the rich aristocrats) they go out of their way to preserve ridiculous concepts which have been proven false again and again. The concept of creationism, which Einstein was vehemently opposed to, has resurfaced in physics. Vitalism was given a rebirth by the loathsome Niels Bohr in the so-called Copenhagen "interpretation" of QM. And the capper of all travesties is no doubt the magical self-contradictory notion of "non-determinism" which is so incoherent it can't even be defined!

So no, academics aren't destroying naive concepts in the mistaken hope of replacing them with something better which they don't have on hand. The truth is that even when superior concepts ARE on hand, academics preserve nonsensical concepts. Because the priesthood isn't about spreading knowledge, truth and enlightenment. That's just what it SAYS it does. And as the 8th law of systemantics says: 'The Operational Fallacy: The system itself does not actually do what it says it is doing'. So the mere fact academia SAYS it spreads knowledge, truth and enlightenment is proof that it does no such thing. What it actually does, determined empirically by objective observers, is bleach brains for some nefarious purpose.

The purpose of the hierarchical media is obviously to isolate people, destroy trust in humanity and promote psychopathy. As judged by the existence of shows like 24 and Dexter. In other words, to reshape the most fundamental emotions. The purpose of the hierarchical academia is obviously to reshape the most fundamental ideas. And both of these authoritarian, totalitarian institutions do this for their masters, the ones who pay their salaries and provide them with social status, the rich aristocrats.

How To Convey A Sex Positive Attitude To Children

I was reading someone's story of catching their child masturbating when it occurred to me to wonder how I would react in that situation. The remarkable thing is that my answer to this, which took me 15 seconds to come up with, is something I have never heard or read of anyone doing anywhere on this planet. Mind you, I have seen a video where a mother did something similar upon catching her underage daughter stripteasing in front of a web cam.

The overwhelming attitudes towards sex on this planet are repressive, hateful and angry. Parents who resent their children masturbating because they themselves were punished for it, and are now probably too fucked up in the head, too overworked and just plain ugly to appreciate it. These kinds of reactions are common among third world countries like the USA and Eastern Europe, to say nothing of Africa, South America and Asia.

The second most common attitude towards sex in this world is child abuse. You know, come to think of it, I'm betting there's a number of asian countries where this is more prevalent than sexual repression. This is the attitude most prevalent in porn stories and it's a good indicator of how fucked up in the head most of humanity remains.

The third most common, or 'least common' since my attitude doesn't even register as a blip, is sex-neutral. The sex-neutral attitude is only found in advanced countries like the Scandinavian nations, Hawaii and I bet Tahiti. It's a kind of matter of fact, too serious, condescending attitude where parents tell kids that "everyone does it, they just do it in private" and "so should you". Because if everyone follows Hitler then you should too. What a great message of non-enjoyment of sex that sends to children!

No, my reaction would have no commonality with any of those. No way in fucking hell. I aim MY attitude at sex positive, not fucking neutral, and my reaction is going to reflect that fact. If I ever catch my kids masturbating, I'm going to let them finish and afterwards look at them with a shit-eating grin, ruffle their hair and explain to them I'm happy because I know they're growing up.

And that is how you start a genuine dialogue with your kids about sex instead of the cliche'ed  Talk that adolescents laugh about in scorn because it shows how stuffy and fucked up their parents are. Because guess what? It DOES show their parents are stuffy and fucked in the head. The scorn adolescents heap on their parents is well deserved. It's not any kind of "phase" or "emo" or "angst" crap that hateful parents make up to condescendingly justify their "ungrateful" children finally taking a critical look at their own parents and not liking what they see.

The whole notion that children can be called "ungrateful" as if having a half-decent parent is something you should be "grateful" for (and any parent that pulls out that tripe doesn't qualify as half-decent at all) is entirely backwards. Parenting isn't something you pay back, it's something you pay forward so the whole basis for "gratitude" is non-existent. The only possible basis for gratitude a child may have is if their parent(s) did something that is way, way beyond what every other parent in their era is doing. Which of course I would be doing but not you since you are all monsters, as proven by the state of the world you've made.

Let me make it simple, and get back on topic. Kids masturbating is a rite of passage and as such is a good thing. So bloody fucking treat it as such! Catching your kids masturbating isn't a sad event. And explaining sex to them isn't similar to telling them you're divorcing or have been diagnosed with cancer. So smile you retarded jackass.

By the way, divorce doesn't happen near as often for couples with children as childless couples. The stats are deliberately misrepresented by the media, as usual since the media are doom-saying hacks who hate facts. Facts like nuclear power plants are perfectly safe, rape and crime are disappearing, the notion of past climate constancy is bogus, the notion of the Earth heating up being bad is even more bogus, the notion of there being any genuine empirical science behind climate studies is most bogus, American-born blacks are more fucked up and stupider than their white or even hispanic counterparts, elections are anti-democratic, individuals cannot ever change a system from within it, and marital breakdown isn't that bad!

Programmers Show No Empathy

I will prove here that programmers have all of the expressed empathy of the typical serial killer and psychotic mass murderer. This will be remarkably simple since programmers consistently misrepresent everything in the real world in the way that most blatantly benefits themselves.

To programmers, colour isn't what you see when you turn your head 30 degrees to the side of your monitor. Or 15 minutes after you leave your computer. Rather, colour is light values of phosphors in CRTs.

To programmers, a document isn't an ordered sequence of paragraphs with annotations, titles and owners as almost-perfectly exemplified by this online magazine. Rather, to programmers, a document is a sequence of ASCII characters as in notepad.

(Do check out the magazine linked to above if only to behold the magnificence of paragraph numbering. At last someone of minimal intelligence replaced the ridiculous 20-year obsolete concept of "pages" for online documents. Check out also ... sidenotes! Unfortunately fixed-length but hey show me another site that has them. And you can also change the font size without a fugly dropdown menu or modal << >> buttons.)

To programmers, music isn't a smorgasbord of sound produced by skilled artists conveying their emotions and telling a story. Rather, music is an ordered sequence of 1/8th notes from disconnected recordings as in MIDI.

To programmers, sheet music isn't a means of reminding a skilled artist what to play in a concise, elegant, visually pleasing, and easy (non-busy and non-boring) manner. Rather, sheet music is an ordered sequence of 1/8th notes on a staff.

To programmers, a date and time isn't a plethora of different measures in all sorts of different calendars tied to the rotations and revolutions of various astrophysical objects. Rather, date and time are the integer number of elapsed seconds since Jan 1st 1970.

To programmers, a timezone isn't a consensual and variable means of synchronizing arbitrary clocks to solar days observed at specific geographical locations. Rather, a timezone is a one digit offset from GMT.

To programmers, money isn't tokens of economic exchange taking different forms in different countries, exchangeable between each other according to dynamically varying ratios. Rather, money is an integer number prepended by a $ sign. And ratios between forms of money are always unitary and symmetric (ie, currency controls do not exist).

To programmers, languages isn't something people know one or more of, in order of preference, from a space of possibilities weighed by global popularity and grouped by geographical commonality. Rather, languages is a flat unstructured one-dimensional list organized alphabetically from which you are munificently allowed ONE option. The list is written in English using ASCII of course.

To programmers, an architectural object such as a pipe isn't something with mass, composition (including but not limited to strength and durability), maybe even price and availability. Rather, it's a bunch of lines and planes in a CAD program, and this has been so for nearly 50 years until the very recent emergence of object-oriented architectural modeling software.

To programmers, the terms 'geek' and 'nerd' don't refer to self-obsessed idiots too mentally deficient and deranged to be able to relate to any person different from themselves. Relating to entirely different people the way a real intellectual must. No, a 'geek' or 'nerd' is a sort of champion of what being a programmer is all about and is supposedly intellectually superior.

To programmers, being called a geek or nerd isn't a source of shame that programmers are second only to psychopaths in the category of worst dregs of humanity. And then only because it's difficult to beat American executives and serial killers using the measure of 'worthless scum inimical to humanity'. Rather, being called a geek or nerd is a source of chest-thumping pride.

I leave it as an open question whether programmers fail to express any empathy due to debilitating mental deficiency or because they actually are psychopaths. I personally extend them the benefit of the doubt that they need not all be put to death to safeguard humanity as would be the case if they actually were psychopaths.

Some people may not believe it but I scrupulously extend people the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that there's so little doubt from which any of you monsters can benefit from.