My First Blog Post

Aspiring to be worthy of being a philosopher #

I start with… #

Just some not - formatted thoughts on various subjects.

Subjects(to be refutable in K. Popper sense) #

  • Dire “c’est vrai “ ou “c’est pas faux “ - ça n’est pas une simple inverse. Il me semble que “ pas faux “ c’est comme une partie, une minute partie n’est pas faux mais ça ne rendre de toute chose vrai. Alors en disant c’est vrai on faire un quelque sorte de mental raccourci - le fragilism. La terre tourne autour du soleil- vrai. C’est bien du boire du café - ce pas faux mais pas 30 par jour

  • Dogs and animals domesticated is a wolf breeded too closely and it came out some sort of retard. That’s how it started since human got wolves mates in captivity ( for sacrifice maybe ? - Rene Girard). The same with cows. How about humans, are they also domesticated?

  • Anti fragilité - ce qui n enrichie pas - fais un plus pauvre - au temps l’argent l’amitié etc.. tous… grâce à covex - concave. Covex c’est l’opposite de concave Soit tu es malin ou dupe il n’y a pas un mielieu. Hence gros Tony categorized people only by dupes and non dupes. There’s nothing in the middle

  • Stoic wants last word with fate. Transform fear into prudence, pain into information, mistakes into initiation and desire into undertaking

  • Taleb dite que le chose s’empirant, eg. Les guerres- mais pourquoi ? Convexité et toit ça ? Est ce le désir mimétique ? Écrire une livre sur ça ?

  • Najgłupsi ludzi to są type z doktoratami, type akademickie, nauczyciele akademiccy etc. Little education is dangerous. Wole porozmawiać z kimś po zawodówce niż taki pseudo intelektualista. Given similar level achievement both one after zawodówka i doktorat, ten po zawodówce będzie dużo mądrzejszy bo zdobył jakiś sukces pomimo braku papierów. Zadawaj się albo z takimi albo z prawdziwymi intelektualnymi którzy są jednak bardzo rzadko spotykani.

  • Read de oratore de cicero

  • I’m studying to unlearn thinking

  • The proper measurement of Risk is to multiply probability and consequence eg. 0.0001 risk * 0 ( consequence, ruin ) = 0 which is ruin - thick tail domain and interdependence

  • On est Que une véhicule pour notre gènes. Un véhicule qui transporte les gènes à travers le temps

  • Via négative - concentrate on what the thing is not rather Than what is. Not all can be said or explained. Its definition indirect. In practice is what not to do, rather what to do in complex system. Less is more and things can always be added late, removing don’t harm complex systems. Removing what is fragile

  • In skin in the game - this is a filter because we don’t learn anything form ours or others errors. It’s rather we get eliminated from environments where we don’t fit and by taking risks we can find by trial and error where we fit like a blind one guided by white stick. And it’s system that learns not us by selecting those who don’t do certain errors. Eg. Bad drivers in cemetery - system selects not individual.

  • We know better what is false than what is true. Eg. What god is not vs what is he

  • Avoir raison ou pas ne compte pas. Si c’est tromper ne coûte rien ça ne compte pas

  • Pour la société être tolérant elle doit être intolérant face à l’intolérance

  • L’art de conversation - éviter tout déséquilibre

  • Nothing in universe is linearly connected. Everything is R2 r square, log n…. From atoms to social units and countries

  • Technology is a yoke for humanity. Same as yoke on ox, humans put that yoke on themselves. A constraint, something that requires work, and restrains. Tak jak kierat. And they soften body and mind.

  • Technology trinkets degenerate into true needs and into yoke and slavery in the end

  • On the nature of thought: is thinking been added to human as a device to primarily self-fool ? I came to this thought that when I was in my kitchen cutting up goat cheese as I was peckish, and the cheese slept from my hand, and my body reacted automatically to catch the falling cheese, without my intervention mental — by the time I realised what’s happening, the cheese was already in my hand and I got suprised (I was smoking as well at that moment so I was more receptive ). So we are at least 2 different minds (as Kahnemann wrote in his book ) the primitive one and cognitive one. My theory is this is what makes us different from animals, addition of this second brain 2. In a way, it is the animal Kamil that caught the cheese, the mental Kamil needed more time to undestand it, because more brain cells are required to process this information in a human way, the animal part needs less cells because it runs on heuristics, not analytics and imagination like human 2 part, the higher human. So the only question rests: who is doing thinking, and who executes these results of thinking ? and is thinking not a reverse process (on this later ) ? First let’s define more: when I decide to get up and go to fridge to have a bite of cheese, is it the analytical Kamil doing the decision (I want to go eat cheese because I want to ? Where is this impolse from ? ) or is it the animal Kamil doing the decision (body sends a hormone/singals to brain to feel hungry? ). It is evident that it is the animal Kamil deciding, even if higher Kamil thinks he decided (I decided it is a good idea based on the need for calcium). Even if the body needs calcium, it will send signals so that one is feeling pekish for some specific food - as body knows the food and its compositions. So that agian it is Kamil 1 doing the decision and Kamil 2 rationalizing it backwards to show an illusion of control ? I think that at lest in some cases, it can be proved (need to find a method) to show that the causation is from Kamil 1 to Kamil 2, not the otherwise as everyone seems to thinking, this is counterintuitve, that all the decisions are made by the animal who is only interested in survival, and then makes up all sorts of theories to fool others, because in society one cannot just kill others physically without suffring the counsequences sooner or later) and that is how culture runs. So my thesis is that we are a bunch of monkeys that fool themselves that they are humans because they don-t have a tail, or some other exotic definition on cortex thinkness, etc etc ? . We must be a bunch of apes that went to the apex of animals at this stage.

  • Jak sie opazymy, to nie dotykamy goracego zelazka znowu, reflexy is umysl 1 bedzie zbyt silny azeby umysl 2 mogl cos zorbic. Co zamierzam powiedziec, ze w fizycznym swiecie ktore sie zadzi ludzimi ale ci na poziomie 1 (from Kaheman thinking fast / slow). Ci na poziomie 2 maja swoje urojone problemy, na przyklad sa w toxycznym zwiazku i w nim pozostaja, a czy jakby w padli w fabryce w cysterne chemikalow toxycznych, i czy be wysoczyla taka osoba czy siedziala w tej beczce, jakby pod wplywem narkotykow (Munger i jego zaba co sie ugotowala bo wode sie powoli podgrzwala)? W fizycznym swiecie nie dotykamy sie ognia reka , ale w swiecie mentalnym robimy to, i pomimo ze sie parzymy dalej tak robimy? Moze swiat umyslowy to taka wielka gra komputerowa, taki wielki RPG zeby nam pomogl zyc jak malpom w tym swiecie ? Malpy ale ulpszone bo bez futra i dodatkowym ‘umyslem’ ktory pomaga im stworzyc bardziej kompleksowe spoloeczenstwa, ite spoleczenstwa maja individualnych (nodes in a network) i to ma efekt covex, tzn. ze kazdy dodatkowa noda ma wplyw exponentalny na jakas charaktersystyke. Wiec te malpy z extra umyslewm beda w stanie ulepszyc im technologie i zyc w technologicznych warunkach, made by humans. Tak czy siak, jest roznica pomiedzy reakcjami umyslu 1 (nie dotykam sie ognia) i umyslu 2 (nie moge sie powstrzymac/oprzec tej reakcji). Wynika z tego ze taki ktory nie moze sie powstrzymac od zlych reakcji - ma A. jakies nieporzadane reakcje (z umyslu 1 ? ) i ktore wie ze mu szkodza B. te reakcje ktore wie ze sa zle - sa silniejsze (albo sa tylko fikcyjnie silniejsze bo - z kad viemy ze wogole nie mozemy sie powstrzymac ? no bo czujemy to ? A co moze jesli w codziennych normalnych reakcjach, umysl podejmuje decyzje (uzywajac jakichs heurystyk, no bo wie ze swiat to chaos i zadne reguly jak wschod slonca co taki sam czas (cycliczny) i poza tym nie wiele wiecej, wiec musi uzywac heurystyk i im wiecej (albo mniej ? bo tylko zle przeszkadaja tym dobrym ? i.e. lepiej jest mniej heurystyk i wszystkie dobre niz wieceij ale z mixem dobre/zle - no bo to jakby mix wody i troche trucizny — cala woda bedzie zla. tak samo z heurystykami - nawej 1 zla moze psuc wszystkie inne, e.g. - wredny sposob zycia bedzie wplywal na wszystko bo podstawowa komunikacja miedzy nodami sieci jest zabuzona przez to ze nikt z chamem nie chce sie zadawac. Wiec mniej heurystyk (ta sama zasada w zyciu ? tylko dobre zeczy i ludzie, nigdy mix bo 1 zla rzec czy czlowiek moze zepsuc cala reszte wiec trzymaj sie z daleka ) OK. to tereaz spowrotoem do watku. Primo jestesmy ulepszonymi malpami z samo-oszukujacym sie dodatkiem jaki jest mozg. Secundo umysl 1, ta malpa z przykladu, podejmuje decyzje w ten sposob jak orangutan na drzewie. Tzn. Jesli orangutan chce banana to go zerwie z drzewa, orangutan nie potrzebuje zadnych teorii o braku magnesu bo pije za duzo kawy itd, on wie ze chce banana i go bierze. W swiecie zwierzat (i czlowieka 1) nie ma kogos kto rozdaje banany bezinteresownie, zawsze bedzie jakis interest dla sprzedawcy bananow w dwoch przypadkach - orangutan numer 2 sprzedawca bananow nie zna pojecia pieniedzy ale moze dawac banana w zamian za sex z orangutenem 1, no bo orangutan czego chce ? females, bananas, securite and that-s all. And humans ? need much more so the banana seller in the version 2 (only humans have brain 2 / the frontal cortex) orangutans don-t have it (so it is the theorzy). Orangutan 2 will be seomeone who sells sophisticated stuff for simple stuff (money) or something (sex, promis of a similar favour) so it will be for instance a banker. Instead of banana banker sells toxic stuff (CDOs, derivatieves of junk, etc) and it is much easier for some banana sellers 2 to fool other orangutans (clients of bankers).

  • Popper’s truth seeking - (I add personally - if the world is chaos and we need some theory that works most of the time) . The assumption is A. The truth is something like a 3d tunnel that is inifite between dimensions - this cannot be touched but we can get closer to it by removing false, by seeking wha is not truth, so there is less noise, by removing everything that is not trugth. This way doing science, testing theories and finding them false, brings us closer to truth. But only such theories that can be falsfied, e.e. tested and theoretically found not working, because theory tht is true if either A or B happens, it is.not a theory because there is no test attached to this theory that makes it false. So the theorsies need like test cases from programming, where the theory (program) is tested by another program. The test program will run conditions where such theory (the program) is false and will expect failure, which proves that given some conditions, the theory fails (the program).

  • Z wieloma developerami trzeba rozmawiać jak z programem komputerowym tak są wyprani od programowania. Tacy zostaną zastąpieni przez maszyny - tym razem AI - tak jak samochody zastąpiły konie, kopacze dołów koparkami etc. Dlatego trzeba być jak najbardziej człowieczym żeby być odpornym na maszyny

  • la publicite (the ads) servent à attacher un label, une etiquette, a quelque concept, thus les vendens. E.G. Advert in TV of Valais, and the slogan Grave dans mon coeur. Then another advert selling cheese or something, also utilising this slogan Grave dans mone coeur and his cheese, so that any thouth about Valais will be automatically and subconscously attached to the concept of monanous area in the southern europe, called Valais. Cette communaute fait partie d autres communetes (Cantons) that make up a country. So that anyoe who thinks Valais will autically have food and the emblematic product auto attached to Valais. So this is the way of adertising, (maybe other things too ), it is sneakly attaching brand, une etiquiette, to another brand, here ‘Valais’ in the context of TV ad that it is worth coming to valais for activities and relaxiation (I personally fully agree ). In some real world examples products are so clesely associated that it is inperceptible, for instance Egipt - the piramides, Paris - le tour d aiffel, Rome - colloseum (where these things are much more than their represenationtions, in different dimensions , why not associating work of art with a city, or a dish ? ) they will rest representations, a model that is always only an approximation of the thing itself. So it is attachinng, or merging, one label with another to create quasi-system of labels, like with it’s own personality, proably due to the effect of non linearity, logarithmic croissance, power Laws, Antifragility, or convexity, or optionality. And these systems which are netowrks of models, has simple nodes that are just individual models. In the end - all are models, nothing is really as it is described due to the model, even human languge being a model , has limitations inherit to the model e.g. difficilty to explain complex feelings, feelings when looking at art, during sex, etc. these cannot be exactly put into words. So it is a limitation of a model, then other models that are approximations, that are in turn based on approximations, and this ends up in power laws. that is each model, prediction, prophecy, depends on other, prior to, models, predictions, prophecies, histories, etc. that the theory is based on, and so it continues, and then each error in model feeds into another, then A, this ends up in power laws since each node is raised to the n 2 B. any small perturbations at the far end of the node, can end up with the effect of tsunami, since each irregurality is also propagated thru the nodes by the power of n2. this might explain to some extent the black swan events (et least their amplitude, but not still how are they formed, how they become, those small irreguralities, is it hasard etc, and if the hasard exist , these are the questions that would need deep deliberation, or beter still, designing empiricial tests and falisify the conjectures , or not, in Popperians sense, I went a bit deeper into the model problem, and would like to even approfondir the philosophical problem (and also phisical, and in many ‘sciences’ those artificial compartements). At any rate Ads are labels on labels, models on models, illusions on illusions, all raised to the power of n , in a sense that each of the models, labels, illusions, is made up of others models etc. that are still. based on predecessors etc. Some of them are even heuristics and this is the overlapping terrain I feel Since we might be building new heuristics that will get falisfied by reality or not, or if they will survive the clash with reality, that is the ultimate test. and if survieves long it become some heuristic, some rule of thumb or folk - lore, etc. If we donàt take heuristic as something in born. It can be old heuristic, but maybe humans build up their own heuristics - eg. don’t touch hot stove as a kid. Since it could not have been in born - the kid had to get burnd, and mother said but the kid didnt learn or care, or was too curious. so we learn for sure by pain, and trial and error like the kid and the stove (or cat). so heuristic can be personal that is learnd by pain. Learned nad followed, e.g. church rules, etc. or inborn - some sort of body animal movement. like when touching hot you will auto retract hand before you think.

  • Diversity - you want at work people who look different but think the same or look the same and think different

  • Nothing we know from having seeing it - the truth is hidden in deep and not accessible to human, only to god. All we can hope is to conjecture and refute. Propose bold theories and have them tested or criticized by others. This is the nature of learning - trying things out, for we know nothing and cannot know a thing as humans we are too limited. Just look at a horse, is he aware that the earth is round ? Could you explain statistics to a horse ? And does he need statistics to survive ? What style diff. Between a human and and horse ? Both animals, still human has this reasoning ability that he uses to explain things post factum ? Is that all ?

  • Why power laws rule in the world ? What is power law, or ‘a law’, or even the word ? It is representaton of a concept. And concept, or conjecture in Popper, is always a model, doxa, maybe because the world is multi dimensional and our brains 3 dimensional ? So maybe they can-t process it as a worm cannot imaigne flying since he lives in 2D world ? So maybe these concepts, of Climate warming, is made of smaller concept, e.g. co2 and link with ocearn, land, temperature, etc. All different sub-theories, and so on recursively ad inifitum maybe. And each of these theories, being doxa as any human theory, is cause of another theory, so they are linked like xmas tree lights, the electrons go from the first bulb, then next and so on. If imaginons each bulb was changing the phase from say starting 50hz and adding + 5 % by such a strange light bulb. So that 50 * 1.05 ‎ = 52,5 and the next bulb 52,5 * 1.05 ‎ = 55,125 and third one 55,125 * 1.05 ‎ = 57,881 which can be written as D being deviation of conjecture from reality D = model ^ prob(error). So that you see a model is always made of smaller models, and those still from smaller models. Therefore A. Any model is not a monolith, but a linear (or a network ? not likely, I think linear is what it is the closest). So each change that affect all the nodes (theories) error rate, has exponential effect so that if one take a function F.error.rate = Prob.of.event ^ delta (prev - current error rate) C. As in humans a group and inividual are competely different animals, so also any model is a complex system, because made from other sub models (see above) so that each model even if well ‘modeled’ will fail to grasp the nature of a model because any levels of sub-models will be considered still as a monolith model where we most of the time how deep the recursive would go to get to the root , or principle (which for Popper didn-t exist (I writie it 2025 and my views migh have changed many times over my life as I tested new teories where most of them were refuted, or failed, so eliminated by nature in a way. So back to the central point - we live in power law universe (universe don-t give a damn what we think about him , and also we are part of him and he part of us, since we are a species of organice creatures living on some planet). What statistical chace is that I (you dear reader) is that you have been born in this planet in your body, and that this is the only time that you will be born, and times go fast so you don’t have that much time to accomplish your task, or finding it which can be the majoritz of the task, the execution being he minority. So go and look for and if your are one of those lucky ones - go and finish your task so after living this planet and your body, you will have satisfaction that you well used the time given you by the universe and that you made the world a little bit better, that you made a positive contribution - in lives of other human beings. And rememeber the power law and the model times model , model squared , which is equal model bis = idiotyzn squared. And one more general point: since a model is root of the errorr rate, what is the root to take , 5 because we estimate tha the theory has 5 causaully linked theories ? what if they are complex system and totally not lenear ? bref it is an estimate. so as the complexity (number of subtheories, like 50 subheories in some complex maths problem or some medical theory vs one that has 3)We see the the more complex the theorz the more exponentially the error rate will rise because the number of sub theories servers as a root of the error rate. I think thats how power loaws work, and that world runs on power laws - world is a mental concept, what do we mean , a forest for a indian, a planet for most , or some edge of galaxy for astonomoer ). So basically this thing ‘world’ this mental concept is made up of infinite number of conjectures, or theories, or laws, or lores, or heuristics, or reflexes. All of this makes up a world, is infietly complex and any law, rule, or theory is oboservation of reocurrence of some event, the cyclicality. E.g. pulsars that cyclically send pulses, kicking someone in an ankle will allways cause the victim to cry, scream, attack, etc. so some laws can be drawn , some theorz of pulsar, and some heuristic about well manners. So these are basic laws and how many are the in our social universe ? inifite amount ? All of this makes the world chaotic and exhibiting power laws (but this is only our oboservation of extreme deviation of wat we are comfortable with). The universe don’t care if we have laws or not, e.g. law gravity will always be more real and winning where possible, any contests. So you see the world is a cosmic soup of ideas, beliefs, heuristics, religious systems, political systems etc and all of thsi can interact in impreddictebale way, by any means known. and if we come up with any ideas used as measures

  • Plus vous etez manipulable per media, culture, people around etc. Plus vous etez rentable. parce que vous povez etre manipule en croire des theories stupides like Gender, etc. plus vous serez rentable parce que vous achetez des voitures ‘ecolo’, des frangues la dusieme main, etc. Et etre manipulable c-est etre stupide. And being stupid is evil, the action of stupid and malicious can be the same, so there is no higher moral obligation as to first A. get rid of stupdity B. acquire erudition

  • I am too sensitive to alcohol, drugs, sugar, and the news! I recently discovered that 3 month absolute break from the news stopped my bipolar mood swings. I just feel good in my skin, and relaxed, all of this because I stopped feeding my brain circuits and chemistry by looking at this negatively sqewed stuff.

  • Nous vivons dans une culture de consumptioun, pire la vie est ainsi consomee, pas vecu avec addittion comme cluture, art, aid etc) mais dans une mode de la consomer, ainsi le temps pas vite , parce que one consomme la vie, ne la vivre

  • The above in engligsh - we live in a consumptionist society where life is also consummed but not digested. So it is eaing the life, instead of growing and adding to it) and this consumption is like social media posts, it is consuming attention, the modern consumption is attention based, that is, social media platforms lure users and this competiotion of luring the users is the nature of those companies). Going back to the main point - that is consuming the life without diesting, seems to be a good summary of this life of short clicks of attentions that are shoot at social media posts, the look when one woman looks at the dress of ofthers, work and consant distractions, to make us stupid ? to wear us out ? So that we become mindless slaves of the system ? or maybe this is purely mimetic behaviour ?

  • L’ignorance engendre plus de confiance que la connaissance. Why is that so ? If you know, then you know that whole world is random and impredictible and when you don’t know, that is you dogmatically believe in ideas, ideologies, the this is ignorance. Such an ignorant will be believing in simplistic world, with absolute rules. For him there the world is simple and believers in the theory are the chosen ones. So it was one of possible examples how ignorance with some dose of stupidity can fool people to commit heinous crimes - here example of religious war, or any war.

  • Novoczesne diety takie jak ‘veganska’, wysoko/bialkowa, etc etc. to so bzdurne wymysly. Nejlpeije jesc to co nasi prodzkowie jedli i nie padli droga samo/eliminacji/evolucji wiec logicznie biorac taka dieta (i wiele roznych zwyczajow ) jest opcjonalna. Nowosci nie zostaly odpowiednio przetestowane / trzeba na to wiele lat. wiec jedz tak jak prozdokiwe jedli, w tej chwili jestem zadowlony z greko/ortodoxyjnego kalendarza Nauczylem sie dowartosciowywas proste jedzenie tak jak swierzy chleb (sam chleb), owoc, jogurt, etc.

  • What if we didn’t know how human organs work ? What if brain was not for thinking but the whole body thinked and brain was there to coordinate the thinking but not doing it itself?

  • Question is more important than answer bcz question is definitive but answers are conjectures that cannot be sure to be true

  • Change in human society doesn’t mean progress. Only in science there is change for progress since the theses are criticized. In a way trial and error

  • The law of diminishing returns has something to do with convexity - but what is the link ?

  • Super agers book why time flies, why is it more precious with age (and consequently you don-t see older people hanging around). It-s because if thinking about time, one thinks forward. and thinking forward means from now till say 80. With each day this distance is shorter, so that proportion of say 10 minutes divided by expected time left , gives real measure of time, not the mechanichal clocks who don’t know themselves the concept and preciousness of time. What a paradox - a clock that don-t understand time.

  • I stopped watching news and no more bipolar issues

  • Hisserl - opinion is ignorance that pretends to be knowledge

  • 4.22 Consider a machine (invested with a lens, an analyser, and a speaking apparatus) which pronounces, whenever a physical body of medium size appears before its lens, the name of this body (‘cat’; ‘dog’, etc.) or says, in some cases, ‘I don’t know’. Its behaviour can be made even more human-like (1) by making it do this not always, but only in response to a stimulus question, ‘Can you tell me what this thing is?’, etc.; (2) by making it in a percentage of cases reply, ‘I am getting tired, let me alone for a while’, etc. Other responses can be introduced, and varied— perhaps according to inbuilt probabilities.
  • 4.23 If the behaviour of such a machine becomes very much like that of a man, then we may mistakenly believe that the machine describes and argues; just as a man who does not know the working of a radio receiver may mistakenly think that the receiver describes and argues. Yet an analysis of its mechanism teaches us that nothing of this kind happens. The radio does not argue, although it expresses its physical states, and signals. Popper - conjectures and refits to one p 399
  • All the theories that are iireconcible
  • When buffet reads financial statements it’s like chess master sees the opportunity at a glance of chessboard. Its practice
  • Wrap ideas when writing into histories and methaphores. Ils ont plus facile à lire et à retenir
  • We don’t see the nonlinear but why ? Is it because we are non linear ? Develop it
  • Starting private bibliothèque first because I wanted reminder of a book I had envie to read at some moment - so I bought them as a reminder to read them. But another unexpected thing is that these books are menacing, they are tool of recherche, and most importantly- remind me how little I know. And the more one knows the more unread books one has - as they have higher value than those already red (good books also need to be re read )
  • The reason we do t learn from history is maybe that each new évènement is different - since the works is mainly random so that knowledge cannot help a lot ? Is this the case ?
  • La categorization sert toujours à minimaliser la complexité réelle des choses
  • What if black Swan was called a black mamuth or black dinosaur, gigantic dinosaur that can swallow you like a fly ? This will be better to understand the importance of these random events. What if a positive one was a goose laying golden eggs ?
  • Is dna similar to books ? What I mean is both transfer us beyond our lives. Also some books are bestsellers same as other dna s are bestsellers and survive
  • In the cinema, music, arts - it’s the success that belongs to decision of fortune - that produces talent. It’s NOT that talent produces success , it success that produces talent.
  • Success of art, depends on mimetic process. We like art imitating others, to belong to some culture. So art is to create some centre of interest, to create culture
  • Good mental exercise : imagine that Martian landed on earth and observes something. Eg. Observes 100 people to se how tall humans are, he would know in general how tall they get. Now if he checked bank accounts, it depends if there was someone very rich or not. In social domaines like „ success „ this effect exists.
  • Taking examples form life like X work this way ( in isolation) is like taking comportment of oj rowerom for a group. The individual and group and one thing and complex system are nothing very different
  • Comment on peut arriver a comprendre les proprieties de l’inconnu ( infini ) sur la base de connu ( fini, past ). Ça veut dire comment on peut prédire la futur ? La main qui vous nourrit peut être celle qui vous tord le cou - le dinde
  • It’s easier to think of nature as totally random with some rules temporary fitting in ( la dinde ) thank thinking of hard rules + occasional black swans , as per taleb works
  • Weź na przykład tego indyka - on myśli że będzie wiecznie żył. Ale to jest sprzeczne z naturą - nic nie trwa wiecznie. Taka jest kolej rzeczy.
  • Il n y a rien à comprendre dans le phénomène de cygne noir. Le monde est aléatoire et temporairement en ordre comme les plants, les animaux et les humains - sont temporairement qqch dans ordre mais even un expire day
  • Le cygne noir, ou un dindon , est un problem de dupe- le bûcher sait ce qui arrivera à la dinde, mais pas le dinde, alors il est un dinde pour ce raison- parce que il est un dupe .
  • Les cygnes noirs positives sont lents à accumuler, les négatives frappent inattendus- easier to destroy than build
  • Stop fretting about possible negative choses - des choses peuvent tourner bien. Qui le sait? Méfiez de tout.
  • Voit la livre de Sextus , pierre Bayle , Nicolas d’autrecourt
  • Computers slowly invade our lives and enslave us - even if they are useful for some things - like writing this text, they are everywhere
  • Our thinking changes depending on domain. That’s why it’s useful to use methaphores et analogies from another domain
  • Et si la terre arrête de tourner à cause d’un loi inconnue or même pas d’un loi, just comme ça ? C’est possible bien évidemment. Probable ? Comment la calculer?
  • What if I wrote a books as a series of fiction stories ? Or paragraphs like Wittgenstein ?
  • It’s strange that I see myself turning slowly and mostly surprising, imperceptibly- into heroes if my past , the figures I aspired to be. It feels like becoming old, because of these figures of mine were old, virtues men. But what if I start a tradition of young virtues men, as an example to follow in life?
  • La nom Di rose - film book Charles sanders peirce et Victor Brochard 1878- like popper. Check paradox de hempel
  • Learning playing piano is tinkering too - one keeps playing and trying new things and hearing ( feedback loop ) what works

Cahier 2 recherche philosophique

…the previous screen or file that has the first part of this book broke off so I am continuing here. BTW I do feel that thechology is getting worse, like software and hardware stopped progressing long ago, it is due to monopoly of big tech companies that colluded and corered the market. Bref, continuing here:

  • If you take human language, and look for paradoxes, e.g. All the Cretans are liers, or some other types of circular and other types or unclassified quirks, or, bugs, a common term used in IT sector. So if we take human language, and compare it to computer language, we know that computer languages, being made by someone, because computer language is a special type of program that is an interface between computer chip (oversimplification here for demonstration purpose), this program called computer language can have errors, mistakes, and miscalcualtions, that come out with time and are rectified by programmers. Now if we think of human language in terms of the computer language, our human language can also have built in errors, miscalculations, and irrationalities. For instance the Cretan paradox. The central argument is here, it is the very important point: by looking at the irrationalities as this paradox of Cretan, or some arthmetic irrationalities, or even irrational numbers (mathematics is just another specialistc language, like Latin, or Cobol, today., and is invented by humans, it doesn’t exist in nature that was ready and all laid out. Human developped it, starting from those, who still might use, the numbers 1, 2 and many.So going back, you might think that world is irrational, that things that happen sometimes don-t make sense, an idiot proted for a post, irrational numbers, etc.. Now all of these irrationalities are only in our imagination, or stem from our imagination and knowledge. The nature don’t know nor need maths, theories and even humans. It is the humans who need the nature. So all of those irrationalities are the faults in the Popperian sense Conjectures, that were not refuted, or refuted but still in use since nothing better is in place and the rule works good enough. E.g. When you have atomic clock, prooved by experiment, and then you go fly in jumbo jet for a few hours, and then the clock slows marinally meaning you were in a time machine in micro scale. So even if theory don-t exist and something happens, it only means that the theory correlated with X, this tiem. But since the theory, the conjecture, was never refuted before, means that there is no certainty that it won’t work one day, meaning also the reverse, that there is almost certain that won’t work one day. These are failures not of the nature but of the theories, for the theories, as any models such as maps, or maquettes, are only approximaiton and distoritions of reality, and it will never be possible to put the same details into a scale wiouth shedding and distorting some things. This is the fact, human language are bla blas and sometimes correspond to reality, sometimes even for long time, others not. Same as with nations, species, nature elimanates and experiments with another variation, alleale ? . So men keep making their theories, but it is the nature that has the last word.

  • La teroeme de Godel, is, what I understand, after watching a few videos, is this. I have only a small understanding of Godels philosophy, so dear reader exceuse me if that would be so. On the other note, if a base of a theory, or any part of any interconnected (where one element is connected with other nodes-elements of a mesh, directly, or by one or an infinite number of nodes. )is false, the entire theory is false, it is like putting a poison in a tank of water, even 1 drop of cyande ? will spoil entire water tank. Same with falsness of theory. So back to Godel theory, given that math is imperferct language, in order to fix this illogicalitz, or maybe falsnesness, he propose reduce this into some sort of smaller elemetns that will make this less obvious. It is like having an intricate carpet thrown over a puddle of soft mud. The mud and mosit will eventually transpire through the intricate carpet. So a theory B derived from false (and proven like irrational numbers etc,) that theorz cannot be true, since false + true = false, like with this tank of water and poison. So for me his theory is refuted on the basis that his theory is based by logical derivatoins from heory B. So given that theorzy A is false (maths is a perfect langugae) one cannot add any true logical object, such as theorzy of Goddel of smaller parts, made up of false elements to some extent, one cannot rebuild a new theorzy, having any probability of usuing those false elements from the previous false storz, nor there is no certain way how to judge if someone who chose which are good and true elements, and which are the false ones, how to tell that he, she, it is right ? So this theory cannot be true given A. Given theory B that we know that is false (Conjecture: maths is perfect human language -Refutation: No, there are paradoxes, and even in logic like the Cretan Lier. So building any theory using previous theory as a base, is a perikous endavour.

  • jak widze ludzi co sie gapia w te telefony to mysle o glonojadach w akwarium przyssanych do szyby

  • Jak patrze na moje biblioteki, to widze wrote do nieskonczonych universow, tam sa mysle ktore sie przejawialy odkad odkrylismy pierwszse zaspisane artefakty. Podrozowac w swiecie fizycznym ma ogrsniczenia, w swiecie umyslowym natomiast nie.

  • we have to advance standing on the shoulders of others, otherwise we will by in the sae position as Adama nad Eva.