source: degeneration-of-nation

source_format: html

domain: literature

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Human Engineering - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/human-engineering" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/handasat.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../alata.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Human Engineering

By:

(Source)

ReadDownload

The Trilogy


domain: philosophy

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The Physics of Philosophy - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/philosophy-of-learning11" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/bananaslugs.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

The Physics of Philosophy

Why is there philosophy in the world at all and not just physics? And why will the future computer be more interested in philosophy than humans - and less in physics? Is there a mathematical or physical limit to scientific-technological progress? And what will happen in the eternal Middle Ages that will prevail after it? Why do historians, archaeologists, and researchers of ancient humans tend to err more in dating towards the present rather than towards the past? Is the sense of acceleration of history based on reality or illusion? Why did Roman organization defeat Greek creativity? And why do cultural achievements (for example, great thinkers) often come in pairs, despite their rarity (like prime numbers)?

By: The teacher of the student of the most important philosopher in Netanya

Banana snail - according to the theory of relativity, the acceleration of the speed of history is indistinguishable from the gravitational force of a black hole at the end of history  (Source)

Irrationality will not become extinct and is not primitive

Why is there a spiritual world at all? Why isn't there only matter? And why is the spiritual world so strong that culture created humanity and science, and religion and spirit are much stronger in humans than cold, rational, materialistic considerations (with which the left remained, with rationalism, after socialism died, and with this it's impossible to move people, and that's why the world has been moving to the right for twenty years). Why will people prefer a person like themselves and not a more successful computer, and how are more emotional leaders more successful than calculated and cold leaders - why is there something beyond considerations? Some would say it's emotion, that it's some primitive trait, an evolutionary remnant. But it turns out that the reason actually creates the most wonderful, complex, and ingenious cultural structures, like art, which has no place in a rational computerized world, and that it's not a dark force but actually the most progressive force in the world. The reason there isn't only matter is that the world is not just physics - but also mathematics. That is, there is a spiritual infrastructure that is built-in to the world, and therefore through spiritual means one can connect to some infrastructure beneath physics. For example, religious belief and mysticism have power because they operate through the property of the world that there are mathematical structures beneath physical phenomena, meaning there are abstract structures in the world as an integral part of its operation, and therefore at higher levels there are spiritual structures beneath the structure of the brain and society. Mathematics allows for spiritual structures, and not only allows for their existence, but also their operation, as some kind of abstraction that has validity that doesn't depend on the random circumstances of matter, but is built on a more general system, for example of information. Because information would not exist if the world had only a material aspect and not a spiritual one, meaning the efficiency of the spiritual world and its superiority stem from the efficiency and superiority of the mathematical world (over physics). After all, mathematics not only says that the world is governed by laws, but also that these laws are mathematical and governed by mathematics. That is, mathematics allows for many possible physical universes, but not every physical universe, and it is the basic constitution of the world, just as physical laws allow for many worlds, but not every world, and so on. Therefore, rationalists actually think that physics rules the universe and mathematics is just an abstraction, like Aristotle. But Plato is right. The ideas are more basic. And therefore when there are artificial intelligences, they will not be the peak of rationality, without emotion, but will actually develop art and the rest of the spiritual world the most, because that's the most advanced place. The world beyond biology will not become dry after biology - because it's not wet because of biology, but because of mathematics, which is why biology is wet in the first place. Because mathematics allowed for biology and created it from the physical world (for example - the genome). And it also allowed for intelligence. Including artificial intelligence. On the contrary, as we descend the scale of complexity and intelligence through more and more primitive animals to matter, the cold rational consideration intensifies, which ends in the coldest consideration of the stone, and we go back to the realm of physics. That is, life is a return from the realm of physics to mathematics, and so is intelligence, even more of a return. Biology is a phenomenon of information, and intelligence is already a phenomenon of computation, and culture is already even higher computation with language, that is, digital and not just analog like in the brain, and artificial intelligence will be even more spiritual and even less rational than humans.

The Black Hole Computer

The threatening side of the Fermi paradox, such as destruction by another civilization that is waiting (why are they waiting? There's no reason they wouldn't constantly monitor the universe, unless the speed of light limits the size of a civilization that can be controlled and doesn't start to turn against itself) - the threatening side can only exist if there is some fundamental limit to physics and also to mathematics (does one entail the other?), beyond which new physical or mathematical knowledge does not accumulate, or of value, and all mathematics is one structure that can be reached to its end or exhaustion, and so is physics, and to know all the mathematical structures of value, and from there maybe it's just fractal repeating itself. And similarly some limit to knowledge of the laws of physics, and then every advanced culture progresses until it stops at the same limit, and therefore can threaten, in principle, previous cultures, which also stopped at the same level, and wars can develop. That is, it's probably quite clear that the universe has a finite computational capacity, meaning there is a limit to the computational efficiency of the universe and what it can compute. But a problem that cannot be solved efficiently can only stem from the fact that all our current technologies are at one level, and it's possible to go beyond it, for example with quantum or string computation or computation using a black hole, which contains all the information on its boundary, and maybe this gives certain advantages, because there are things there that are not computable. It's also possible that the journey to other universes is much cheaper than the journey to space, or bypasses the problem of maximum civilization size limited by communication at the speed of light, or that in order to increase the computing power of a civilization there's no point in expansion, but rather in reorganizing the computing materials in a concentrated place. And maybe the density of matter in a black hole allows for faster computation. Or non-material computation. Or it's easier to create new universes than to explore the current one. And every civilization creates a universe with greater computational ability than its universe, and we too are in such a universe, and that's why it's so engineered with the right natural constants, and we'll be able to engineer even better constants. It's possible we'll discover that our universe is a virtual machine, and it can be hacked to reach the guts of the system and its creator, like in a situation where we were imprisoned as a computer program, meaning there's no reason that some spiritual model of Berkeley won't win, and not the materialistic model. That is, the question of spirit and matter, which became the question of body and soul following the individualistic revolution, and in the Middle Ages was the question of God and the world, has become the question of software and hardware, and which of them is the universe, when we know that at least in the brain there is no difference between the two, but in the computer age this is the way the problem is conceptualized. And the question is why it's assumed that the computational ability of the universe stops at some limit, or some equivalence class of computational efficiency, or in the future some learning class of learning efficiency. Also the halting problem - it's not certain that it's not solved by continuous systems, and we're entering some problem of set theory, that there's always a set with greater cardinality, and the question is what is the cardinality of the universe. Some would say large but finite, but the very ability to compute as if the cardinality is infinite in a discrete dimension stems from the infinity of time, meaning the abstraction assuming that a Turing machine has infinite time to operate, and therefore it's possible that the universe as an abstraction has a higher cardinality than it has as an object. If we take into account the dimension of time, it's possible that the universe has discrete infinite cardinality, or even the cardinality of the continuum, and in quantum computation we see that it can take into account all possibilities too, and therefore mathematically the answer might be different. That is, there might be a limit to physics, or to mathematics, or to computation, or to computational efficiency, or to learning, or to learning efficiency, or to information (is information at infinite distance still information? And if it's at a distance of light years, does it still have the same informational value, or is there a limit to the amount of information that can be concentrated, meaning a limit to the network. For example - a physical limit to the amount of information possible in one computation). But if we notice, the network hardly computes high mathematical problems, so maybe the mathematical limit is not important, for example for the development of a culture, and our culture could have managed with much inferior algorithms and still progressed. Unless the development of culture itself is some mathematical development at a very high level or in a very different way from its isomorphic mathematical representations. Or maybe the computation of culture is really trivial, and all its power is just the enormous hardware power that deals with it, meaning maybe the difficulty of the problem it's trying to solve, but the means to solve it are not sophisticated, except for some kind of trial and error and wandering, and in the end it's about searching a tree. In any case, in case there is such a limit, then civilizations that started at very different times will meet each other roughly at the same level, because until the meeting, due to the distances in the universe, the level of both will reach this theoretical limit and stop there. We need to try to think about a world that stops at the current level of technological development and doesn't progress, and culture still continues to live within it, like infinite Middle Ages. The question is whether in such Middle Ages wars of religion and plagues and antisemitism necessarily arise. Mathematical Middle Ages. From everything we know about the universe, and especially from mathematics that teaches us about the universe more than physics (although probably the separation is artificial like between hardware and software in the brain), and the recurring existence of limit theorems and impossibility, throughout the history of mathematics, and their appearance against central challenges, there's probably such a limit. And in any case there are times when civilization progresses rapidly, and there are times when it's stuck in such limits, until it manages to pass them. Thus it was stuck for billions of years in the problem of producing an organism from single cells. Or hundreds of millions of years from the appearance of the brain to intelligence. Or millions of years from the appearance of intelligence to the appearance of culture. Or tens of thousands of years from the appearance of culture to the appearance of science. And hundreds of years from the appearance of science to the appearance of the network. The appearance of evolution is the appearance of a search and optimization algorithm. The appearance of the organism is the appearance of a tight hierarchical control algorithm (machine). The appearance of intelligence is the appearance of a general learning algorithm. Culture is a collaborative learning algorithm. Science is an orderly and agreed-upon learning algorithm, with trial and error. The network is mainly the acceleration of culture but it will be a learning algorithm in the future. And then the real revolution will happen.

Rule of Thumb

Part of the sense of acceleration is that researchers will always assume that the past was more primitive than it was, and then discover that it was actually more sophisticated than they thought, so when a researcher says that something wasn't in the past, the chance is much greater that he's wrong, unlike a researcher who says it was. If the findings are rare, then we need to add a radius of the average between findings that could be expected, and not claim that it wasn't before the first finding, but that it's likely it wasn't in the radius back from the first finding, and even that's not certain, due to the accelerated rarity of findings into the past. Who said there weren't intelligent animals in the past like humans, and who said intelligence necessarily leads to a material culture that has remains that will remain until today, for example from the dinosaur era. Or for example that intelligent creatures didn't live in the sea and didn't leave evidence. Researchers will always assume that ancient humans were stupider and more primitive than they were, because it's harder for them with the development of intelligence than with its absence, and because of their sense of superiority over their research. Researchers won't be able to explain the Bible through genius, despite the fact that we're familiar with the phenomenon of genius from our days, and it's responsible for such texts and ideas. It's likely the Bible was written by geniuses. And not that the spirit of the nation wrote it. And the same for other works. Just as they thought the Zohar was written by the nation, and in practice it was written by a genius. For comparison, collected materials like the Mishnah and Gemara and Aggadah look different, and their fragmentation is greater. It's likely that the genius who wrote the Bible was much smarter and more sophisticated than the researcher. Because of his rarity. And it's possible they called him Moses. Or Isaiah. In fact, this is a more reasonable hypothesis than any other. There could have been a monotheistic genius named Abraham. And a genius legislator and leader named Moses. And a genius commander who implemented his teachings named Joshua. And a genius king who created a kingdom from the tribes named David. The time gap between genius and genius is reasonable. The explosion of geniuses in the prophetic period requires a different, cultural explanation. But Moses can be unique in his generation. And Abraham too.

The Second is the First

There are two types of art: art that hides its method of creation, and deals with finishing aimed at hiding and deceiving and spinning the one who needs it, and art that reveals its method of creation, and its purpose is to allow imitation and learning, with the first being against learning. The first impresses because of the secret in its method of creation, and it has an element of deception and illusion, while the second reveals the secret for future creation. If once the division was between content and form, then the first gives the content of the action, and hides the form of the action, and the second focuses on the form of the action. In painting, the first will give a uniform finish to the picture, perfect, while the second will leave the brush strokes on the canvas. The first will nurture the myth of the genius while the second will nurture the myth of the teacher. Socrates is an example of the second while Plato is an example of the first. Leonardo is an example of the second, and Raphael is an example of the first. The second often leaves us unsuccessful works as well, magnificent failures, from which one can learn no less than from its perfect works. The Gemara is of the second type and Maimonides is of the first type. The Zohar is of the second type and the Ari is of the first type. Rashi is an example of the first type and Tosafot of the second type. As we see, a great work of the second type opens a creative period while a great work of the second type often closes it, and transfers to a period of degeneration and imitation but also of much greater popularity of the contents. History is written incorrectly, because it emphasizes the first type instead of the second type, which is the generator, and this is because it's not learning history. Learning history is history that identifies the learning mechanisms in history, and not their prominent products. Rome created Caesar, but how was the Roman system created, what learning processes took place in it, beyond the usual imperial processes. Because if in Greece there was thought learning, in Rome there was legal learning, and this is because Greece is from the prophetic period, and Rome from the Mishnaic period - this was a global mindset, and not as today they think that only in our days are there global mindsets (a phenomenon that has no rational explanation and is not ignored). The legal structure created the Roman army as superior to the Athenian army (the thinking one). Golani [Israeli infantry brigade] are superior to the paratroopers. The victory of the Romans over Archimedes was the end of the victory of organized power over mental creativity that was at the basis of Greek military power. Hannibal was more creative, but the Romans were more orderly. Like the Wehrmacht. The Greeks and Jews are a culture of the second type and the Romans and Germans are a culture of the first type. Therefore what the Jews need to do is connect to a culture of the first type, like Japan and Korea - that's why Jews are such a fertilizing factor in world history, because they come from outside and can connect between the second type and the first type. The writing of the Netanya school is distinctly of the second type, and therefore needs to seek the first type, like the male courts the female.

Philosophy of the Future