The vast majority of Muslims are Sunnites. Sunnites are the most militant ones with extreme standpoints. I am not saying that they all run out and blow themselves up, but they are ok with what their extremists do. Alevites and Shiites are much more moderate and what I would call peaceful Muslims, but they are only very few.

So it is factually ok to call Islam unhealthy. There was a time when it was not, for example when the Arabic world was leading in mathematics and medical science, but those times are LONG LONG gone, after the militants took over.

@lantern53

Love, as a notion, is a human construct like all emotions. Asking us to prove it exists is like asking us to prove that mathematics exists.

Atoms existed before we discovered them. But no one assumed they existed before there was evidence to that effect.

Hey ChoasEngine, yep, you're right on the money. In a normal vector space, the dimensionality is pretty much defined by how many perpendicular (or orthogonal) lines you can have. So to get 7, you'd need a 7 dimensional space.

You can do it other ways, but the most common way of expressing things in a vector space is as multiples of the "standard basis", which is a bunch of lines all perpendicular to each other and one "thing" long, as you describe.

Mathematically speaking, there's nothing particularly interesting about 2, 3 or 7 dimensions, although you'd have a real hard time drawing lines in a 7 dimensional space on a 2 dimensional board.

Incidentally, a hypercube wouldn't cut it as it's only 4 dimensions. Maybe a wonder-mega-super-hypercube?

I don't think that's necessarily fair. I mean look at the presenter, she's a young lady who is used to editing and producing videos on YouTube. She can record the voice over several times. Make cuts and rewrites and basically hone stuff. She's not a public personality, maybe her only experience performing in front of people is making a prewritten talk about Mathematics, or playing music at a fair with bunches of other people. She needs training sure, but what kind of booking is this? I blame the people who put her on, you don't just say "Go up and do your thing!" to someone who makes YouTube videos, she's not a stand up comic.

That's why it's so great to adhere to science. Science is just the combined efforts of anyone who is inclined to understand stuff better. It looks at things and with a lack of bias only the mathematical can provide says what the likelihood of something is.

It's how the facts are then "spun" where the bullshit creeps in.

We've known for years that burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment, it's not even in question any more. We know it's bad but we keep doing it. We have the money to change it but it sits in the corporate sector bank accounts because a few would rather be richer than creosote for the duration of their life than to spread richness upon the world for the lives of those to follow.

Those to follow are me, you, your kids perhaps.

("Creosote" is a pun that my grandma uses - 93 years old - and i've seen Terry Pratchett use it as well. Creosus was very rich, creosote is a rich black tarry substance)

"They don't all agree with it, which is why it's not science."

If anyone is looking for absolute certainty, they should turn to their priests, their gurus, their investment brokers, their politicians, their snake-oil salesmen.

The only absolute certainty science can provide is in proving a wrong. Everything else is probabilities and exclusions, all the way to the end.

The fact that the public expects a proof of absolute certainty of a positive is maddening to me. Any assumed equivalency between "not knowing for sure" with "not knowing anything" is frustrating to no end.

Scientists have to enter the public arena and proclaim certainty to match the public's vernacular. If they were to stick to probabilities the way they do within their own realms, they'd fail to communicate the essence of their findings. Just look at how warped the common understanding of "theory" has become.

----------------------------

"Consensus, I repeat, is not science."

Everything scientific that is being communicated publicy is a consensus. The fact that statements of less than absolute, unanimous consensus are met with suspicion and a diminishment of trust in the process itself is one of the reasons why science cannot be properly discussed on the public stage. They cannot present the fuzzy edges of their findings as that would require a qualification in the form of probabilities. A consensus, the greatest common denominator if you will, is the best that can be done. The IPCC's reports are a magnificent illustration of that very issue.

And why can't we talk about the fuzzy edges? About scenarios and their corresponding probabilities? Because people are suspicious, even scared of numbers. Math as a subject is made fun of, a lack of mathematical understanding has become something to be proud of. An intuitive understanding of probabilities is the exception, not the norm. As soon as a prediction doesn't come true, people tend to dismiss the underlying theory, without any regard to the previously attached probability.

That's the climate the scientists have to endure when trying to present their work to the public.

Install HTTPS everywhere (was hesitant at first but it works really fine now). It makes NSA SIGINT hate you cause they got most likely harmless, useless info in encrypted form stored in their vault.. We can never fill up their space individually. Encryption is the only tool to at least cause resistance at individual level. So far, in the next 5 years the issue needs to be addressed globally (creating even better encryption methods is one answer, endless cat&mouse game played in mathematics) or nations will start to separate and control their own net...which is a huge step backwards, wiping 20 years of internet freedom in it's wake and doesn't address the issue in personal level.. Most likely such intranets are very very heavily controlled and monitored.. goodbye freedom.

Encryption is the first step and one that offers some personal privacy, next is to contact to every page you visit daily to request https if it isn't available (or works poorly).

Basically, using end-to-end encryption everywhere you can is the only thing the majority of us can do who don't live in US. Even then the major hubs (google, facebook etc) are not safe but at least lets make them go physically to each and every server farm to install signal splitters and backdoors. And Google and Facebook store your data anyway by default, that's how they work. But FB won't come knocking on your door in the middle of the night.

Those can vote in US, we are looking at you, why do we need to even think about this? Use your vote wisely. Rebel if needed. If this does not change, rest of the world WILL take measures to stop traffic going in thru US unnecessarily.

"As I see it, there is a finite amount of money"

This is only true if cryptocurrencies like BitCoin have their way. According to the Fed, by contrast, an infinite amount of money is but just one click away...

Cronyism aside, this is not true at all:
"When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly."

No minimally productive person would get 50% in a free market. And "minimally productive" according to whom? Are you going by the Labor Theory of value? Because the Subjective Theory of Value posits otherwise. It shows that this could not happen (providing an absence of cronyism which, at the moment, is baked into the system). In other words, no one would voluntarily pay 50% of anything to someone they consider to be minimally productive. Would you?

Money is just a medium of exchange whose value is determined by the market. There are some scarce resources (as well as some non-scarce ones). Having limited money/medium of exchange makes prices go down. Wouldn't you want to pay less for gas, food, etc.? When the central banks inflate the currency (i.e., increase the money supply), there is potentially "unlimited" money to buy scarce goods. The market then makes prices rise as a result, making people effectively poorer.

"To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty"

Flat wrong: Look at the statistics. Millions in India, China, Southeast Asia, and other places throughout the world have come out of poverty in the last couple of decades. This is a fact.

The ruling class is never among the poor so I don't know what you mean by, "perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty." What?

"This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them."

Sure, it is mostly because of governments that such poverty takes so long to be eradicated. Corruption and stupid ideas like the "war on poverty," along with cronyism, currency inflation, commercial regulations, taxes, "intellectual property" laws, and more all contribute to this stupidity which keeps people poor. Throughout the history of civilization, only innovation and free commerce has brought people out of poverty on a larger scale.

I won't argue, however, against the idea that governments are always corrupt, since I completely agree. Nothing good comes out of government that could not come to us, more efficiently, more cheaply, and more effectively from private free commerce.

"Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like"

More or less, it shows the logic and the logical consequences of the fact that humans act.

"it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis."

It depends on what you mean to predict. It is not prediction. It deals in apodictic certainties. Humans act and employ chosen means to achieve desired goals. These are certainties, not predictions. Other things are unknowns, like time preference, the means chosen, the goals desired, etc. and those you need to either predict (thymology) or wait and see (history).

"History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt."

So far yes, history would indicate this is a likely outcome or consequence, although you may need to look more closely at which sector of "the populace" has historically revolted or instigated revolt.

"I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France)"

What has he done to deserve being tortured and murdered? I am unclear about that. The revolution in France, of course, was a disaster that amounted to little good for all involved. But things like that have happened before, and could certainly happen again. Same with the Russian Revolution. Or the Nazi takeover of bankrupt Weimar Republic.

Human behavior cannot be predicted mathematically. Only econometricians seem to think so. Certainly not praxeologists! In fact, that's the basis of Misean praxeology: that you cannot predict human behavior and so economics differs from the natural sciences and requires a different method of analysis.

"that placates the Right Wing, right?"

I have no idea what would "placate the Right wing" or not. Let's not conflate right-wing statists with anarchists. Two completely different things. I also don't care what would "placate" the right wing.


If you really care about inequality, do what you can to oppose government policy, especially warmongering and central banking. They are the biggest contributors to the class divide, regardless of how you parse the data. (Of course, you may find that you can do very little.)

If you think you should be paid as much as the CEO of Apple, then by all means you should try applying to that job. I am not saying you are not worth it, but it's not me you have to convince...

It's funny you feel they are different things. As I see it, there is a finite amount of money, if one small group gets an unfair share (inequality) then the other groups MUST also get an unfair share. Equality (or to you, anti-inequality) means being paid in accordance with your production / productivity. When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly.
To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty, but at the expense of the populace of MOST of the world which is falling deeper into it. This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them. They have, in most part, become a heavy hand of the business world, bought and paid for with hundreds of millions in bribes (contributions) around the world. They then write laws, regulations, programs, and create loopholes that can only be advantageous to the rich and powerful while reducing the programs designed to fight poverty and force the payment of living wages.
Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like, it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis. History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt. I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France) along with a large percentage of the unapologetic 1%, then the people can redistribute their wealth without government intervention, that placates the Right Wing, right?
FYI: Thymology is not a word in the dictionary...at least not yet. Praxeology is the study of human behavior. It is not yet at a point where it's an accurate predictor. Sorry, but I don't see a "Foundation" story starting here. (sifi where human behavior CAN be accurately predicted mathematically)

@shatterdrose

Agreed, don't film while driving and the free market is very much like a highway.

At times things zip along quickly, but the selfish motives and aggressive acceleration and deceleration of the typical commuter are the main causes of both volume-related and collision based traffic jams. In much the same way, the risky bets in a Wall Street boom result in a painful economic correction or financial traffic jam.

In fact, there's now a mathematical model that demonstrates the cause of traffic jams (the bilateral-control algorithm.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk87bwAL6PI

Throwing your brain at that kind of stuff changes it for the better no matter what you remember a few years down the line. It's a muscle, and understanding the mathematics behind magnetism like bench pressing a few hundred pounds, and besides, you can always brush up.

You sir clearly do not fully understand the nature of entropy (and nor does about 95% of the human race so you can be forgiven there).

You have however stumbled into making a genuinely worthwhile point here (though I must state I think for completely the wrong reasons).

The idea that the universe inevitably moves towards a complete "heat death" is I think incorrect, it fails to account for the effect of ever increasing complexity within the closed systems the universe produces (i.e. evolution which applies as much cosmically as it does to organic life on earth).

If the universe remained with no more complexity than it currently has then yes everything would eventually "burn out" and spread the energy of the universe so thinly that everything would cease to work (if only on a space-time level).

But the nature of the universe does not remain static, it creates ever more complex and actuated systems dialectically. Energies>Particles>Compounds>Nebulae>Stars>Planets>Organisms>Unconsciousness>Consciousness>???>God! (not intended to be an exhaustive list it's purely for illustration)

Evolution does trump entropy IMHO but this is largely because the actual laws of entropy are crazy complicated to understand and most people (including to some extent myself) don;t fully understand the subtleties of how it really works.

If nothing else; to say that the whole universe eventually enters a state of complete entropy assumes that every complex closed system that does or ever will exist will eventually break down. This is far from a forgone conclusion, we alone as evolving conscious creatures are capable of developing means to circumvent or even prevent this. Let alone what other wonders we have yet to observe or the universe has yet to manifest!

In conclusion: The Universe evolves until it reaches God (or dies trying ). God does not then create the universe but rather commits suicide (what else is God to do? Eternity is a very long time for someone that already knows and has done everything...). Process repeats ad infinitum.


Makes a lot more sense that way around don't you think? (and no ancient books of dubious origin need ever be consulted to derive it either)

Saying God created the universe only leaves you with more questions which by their very nature cannot be answered. We would have to be God itself to ever answer them, so we are left with a judgement call. No logical certainty, only faith.

This way around we can by pure rationalism and empiricism arrive at an explanation of how the universe might evolve God via ever increasing complexity of consciousness and actualisation (true post-humans alone would be like demi-gods, it's not a huge leap to keep taking this idea further)

Further to that Ontological mathematics (that is to say "really real mathematics") can assess a framework to understand how the universe itself came to be (we can arguably go pre-big bang with this but that's always going to be a controversial idea here).

^ Now I might be wrong about some or even all of that but it is at least a reductive argument. Using God as an explanation for anything without first explaining God is always going to be a circular argument. If your going to use circular logic you can prove basically anything you feel like!

"God is dead!"

upvoted for the conversation sparked, not the video in and of itself.

Just to throw my two cents in: I think the vast majority of civilizations out there probably have intelligences similar to our own just because that is what evolution would dictate. This is of course based only on observing our own evolutionary path which is unfortunately the only model we have access too. But it does actually tell us quite a bit, based on an environment similar to ours it would appear that intelligence would plateau at a certain point because it just isn't beneficial to beings in early societal stages. Ie: you only need a certain amount of intelligence to outsmart a mammoth, this does not involve an innate understanding of complex mathematical principles.

That being said, since there are (probably) billions of planets that could support life I'm sure there are a couple outliers whose intelligent life has a more innate understanding of complex knowledge. It would "probably" be more nuanced than just beings whose intelligence completely dwarfs our own. Parts of their brain (or however you want to translate it to extraterrestrial anatomy) which handle physics or mathematics etc. may be larger giving an added dexterity to problem solving in that SPECIFIC cognitive fields. Similarly to how certain people have added capacity in one portion of their brain or another but does not make them gods in comparison to other.

The reality is that we probably already have met the superior godlike species and we created them. Computers already excel vastly over us in many areas and I'd assume it's only a matter of time before they surpass us entirely.

But hey there are almost assuredly an near infinite amount of planets out there, so maybe there is one where GOD evolved?

Actually, I did get your intention, and I'd planned a much longer response, but I got distracted and just ended up posting that pithy comment.

But yes, I understand the argument is not so much "we are clay" as "we are as clay".

I can completely accept the possibility of some kind of hyper-advanced species that absolutely dwarfs us in intellect. In fact, I think it'd be really cool if such a thing existed. But I have a sneaking suspicion that actually, it doesn't really get a whole lot better than us. But that's only because I'm a cynical bastard and tend to believe that most species wipe themselves out before attaining that level of awesome.

But let's say that there is some kind of hypothetical super genius race/being out there. They should *still* be able to talk down to us. There are certain fundamental mathematical truths that are constant in the universe. As dumb as we are, we have already figured out ways to communicate using these (CETI, etc). Surely super intelligent beings would be able to respond even if it felt like talking to a particularly stupid child to them. Again, even we manage a very primitive form of communication with animals.

I can definitely write similarly, but in cases such as those in this video, I get the sense that there's something significantly different about the mind in people who can do this. Maybe it's just me, but I used to try to talk backwards for fun when I was younger, and it would basically take me an hour to memorize how one sentence sounded. I'd still screw it up on repeating it.
I don't feel like this is a trained skill though. To me it's entirely unlike the kid in the Jimmy Kimmel video who can rattle off any nation or capital in the world instantly. I don't know if it's as simple as the difference between those who are naturally good at abstract concepts such as mathematics and those who are entirely, visually and artistically inclined, or something else (call Prof. X! Here there be mutants!)
I, for one, guess I feel the need to welcome our new backwards-talking overlords.