I found this paper that helps answer the question: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.10228.pdf
256 karma · joined June 15, 2017
It took me a while though:
I was wondering if this statement is self-contradictory or not. Eventually, I figured it is not necessarily self-contradictory, but that it declares itself to be an evil belief (since it is a statement of universal truth that declares that the belief of any universal truth is evil).
Of course I think it’s just incorrect.
For my sake, I believe in truth and good, and that if someone finds a good thing, they should tell others about it in a respectful and loving way.
- https://www.linkedin.com/in/rick-love/
- Developing Apps and Web since 2002
- Mobile Apps (React Native, Expo.io)
- Web Apps (React, Angular2, Typescript)
- Social Apps (Facebook)
- Chat Bots (Messenger, Skype, SMS)
- Back End (Node.js, C#, Asp.Net, Asp.Net Core)
- Data (SQL, NoSQL, Json, Key Value, Blobs, Graph Db)
- Full Stack .Net (C#, Asp.Net MVC, Entity Framework, SQL Server)
- Cloud Architecture (Azure, Google, Serverless, Firebase, Load Balancing, Custom Caching, Infinite Scalability, Global Deployment)
- Game Development (Unity 3D, HTML5)
- Stack Overflow Stats (Top 5% .net typescript, Top 20% c#)
Anyway, I'm a full stack developer so what about the back end stuff or mobile app development?
I'm interested in knowing where you source your leads so I might be able to find contracts in those areas.
Right now, I've only been able to find stuff through UW, so I'm curious that you've been able to find direct clients.
I would tell him about it and I'm sure he will have a favorable response. Help him make a good transition and find someone to replace you.
Oh and it's non of the other company's business what you say between you and your friend. Don't tell them anything about it, it's not ok for them to even ask.
Where do you find Remote jobs on Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn?
It has to be a big site in order to compete with the SEO and marketing budgets of big agencies.
Individual freelancers don't stand a chance of being found.
So I want to create a place where we can be found and also promote each other.
More importantly, it needs to be a site where clients can post potential jobs maybe with a process of clarifying job description and help identifying a realistic budget.
I want to build a site by developers for developers. I would make money by doing contracts myself, as would all developers who worked on the site.
We would all benefit by cutting out the middle man and offering a premium service where we can't compete today.
The overhead of a site like this is minimal and bandwidth costs would be paid on a volunteer basis (sponsored by developers/freelancers like me).
I would just request a fair hearing on the point of what a literalist Christian is by definition:
"Die to save your enemies" (Christ's teaching and action) is the direct opposite of "kill your enemies at all costs" (terrorism).
Just from the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7), a literalist Christian would have to do the following:
- Be glad when people insult you and falsely accuse you (5:11-12)
- Always be a good example for your community (5:14-16)
- Have a righteousness greater then the religious leaders (5:20)
- Not be angry or insult others (5:22)
- Make peace with others before coming to God (5:23)
- Settle with people quickly and find a solution to disagreements before it becomes a legal battle (5:25)
- Not look at a woman lustfully (or a man in the general sense) (5:28)
- Control yourself (5:29-30)
- Never seek divorce (5:31-32)
- Every single communication must be truthful (5:37)
- Don't fight back or resist those who attack you (5:39)
- If someone steals or sues you, give them double what they seek (5:40)
- If someone forces you to work, do twice as much as they demand (5:41)
- Always give whoever asks and always lend to others who ask (5:42)
- Love your enemies and pray good for them and be perfect in that love for them (5:44-48)
- Never do good just to look good (6:1)
- Do good in secret as much as possible (6:3-4)
- Pray in secret to God not to be seen by people (6:5-6)
- Don't pray like an idiot (6:7)
- Pray for God's honor (6:9)
- Pray for God's will be done (6:10)
- Pray for daily needs (6:11)
- Pray for forgiveness as you forgive others (6:12)
- Pray for avoidance of temptation (6:13)
- Expect to receive forgiveness equally to the way you forgive others (6:14-15)
- Only fast in secret (6:18)
- Do not have treasures on earth, but instead have treasures in heaven (6:19-21)
- Do not chase after money, but chase after God (6:24)
- Do not worry about food, clothing, and daily needs. Expect God to take care of you (6:25-32)
- Instead seek God's kingdom and his righteousness in your life and let him take away your worry (6:33-34)
- Do not judge others or you will be judged in the same way by God (7:1)
- Don't accuse your brother when you have your own problems. (7:3-4)
- Solve your own problems first, then you can try to help your brother. (7:5)
- Don't go around like your crap don't stink (being a jerk judging everyone else) or you will find enemies who will rip you a new one. (7:6)
- Ask and work to obtain your needs (7:7-11)
- Treat others exactly the way you would like them to treat you (7:12)
- Don't follow popular opinion because it leads to death (7:13-14)
- Watch out for false teachers who claim to be lambs but are really wolves (7:15)
- Judge a person's character according to the evidence of their life not by the name they claim (7:16-20)
- If you only claim Jesus and don't obey him, you do not know him (7:21-23)
- If you listen to Jesus and obey his teaching, you are wise (7:24-25)
- If you listen to Jesus but don't obey him, you are acting stupidly and will destroy yourself (7:26-27)
- Jesus teaching is amazing and completely different then the religious leaders (7:28-29)
I think in my best objective reasoning, that if every human lived like this, the world would be an awesome place to live.
Refer to Galations 5:22-23 (ESV): "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law"
(Before continuing, I would confess I fail to live up to these often and I recognize my own stupidity, arrogance, and selfishness. Despite that, as instructed, I seek forgiveness for my failings; and I strive to live up to these values, as I intend to love God and love others like this.)
Having said that, any hateful person can claim any name and use it to attack others. When that person is clearly acting in the exact opposite of the teachings of that group, should those teachings be blamed?
This is not a "No True Scottsman" claim:
I am not saying people who do evil are not Christians. On the contrary, a Christian might do evil things, but when they do so, they are acting in error - in direct contradiction to their teachings. The fault is not with the teachings, but with the failure of the individual to "practice what they preach".
As a tech analogy:
A diode with a flaw in it may act like a capacitor. Though it was intended to be a diode, it is no longer acting like one and it is now acting in direct contradiction to it's definition. The individual diode is in a failure state, but the failure state of an individual diode (or even some percentage of the group) does not apply to the definition of what a diode should be.
The definition of the diode is good and the goal would be that all diodes actually fulfill their definition.
So the argument should not be against "all Christian videos", but the argument should be that "all Christians should actually do what Christ said".
Concerning Islam, I think it would be great for any Islam teacher (and everyone) to preach love, forgiveness, and sacrificing yourself to save your enemies.
I agree that abusers will use any name for their own means, but generalization of a group because of false persons who claim that group is never helpful.
Of course there are the false teachers who use Christianity for their own power (i.e. televangelist types), but there are also people who actually believe the great teachings like forgiveness and love one another. They are the ones who will pick you up when someone else has beaten you into the mud.
But for Angular 2, I can't do anything without looking up the documentation (at least they did an excellent job writing it).
So I would say you are right that StackOverflow is a better indicator of complexity than popularity.
I think HN plays a vital role and these opinions by very intelligent people are very helpful to me.
Your comment also made me wonder about a sentiment analysis of HN comments. Something like:
"What does HN Think about It?" App
I never thought a legal definition would be clearer than every "common" definition I have read. It's like the author of every blog post I've seen titled "What is Ethereum?" has no idea what title they used.
I guess that just shows how hype makes it hard to get to the truth.
The only place I have encountered something like this was on an Arduino board where the use of a buzzer was causing a voltage drop that affected the logic of the code. (It appeared that a delay function returned immediately instead of taking 250ms, which sped up the loop.)
Question:
How do you actually implement Byzantine Fault Tolerance?
I found this in Wikipedia:
Byzantine fault tolerance mechanisms use components that repeat an incoming message (or just its signature) to other recipients of that incoming message. All these mechanisms make the assumption that the act of repeating a message blocks the propagation of Byzantine symptoms.
Is verifying the interpreted input value the primary way to design for Byzantine Fault Tolerance?
- The Reinforcement function is a human programmer (organic evaluation function) that transforms human needs (requirements) into an executable language (code).
- The organic evaluation function is made more efficient by shared knowledge where the evaluation functions can learn from each other (Stack Overflow, HN, etc.).
- The organic evaluation function is also made more efficient by improved organic processes (sleep, food, exercise, etc.).
- In addition, improved variety of executable languages can allow the organic evaluation functions to decrease input-speed and increase accuracy of translated requirements.
So, the level of automation is simply: To what extent are humans required to explain their own needs to machines.
Pure automation would seem to indicate that machines could interpret all human needs. But in reality, that would mean the machines are simply no longer listening or care about what a human thinks it should do.
It seems like it would be easy enough and cheap enough to build a honeypot to identify accounts used for the purchased Reddit upvotes.
For example, Reddit could set up some honeypot posts to track paid upvote accounts.
They then go and pay these upvoters to upvote the honeypot post and identify the accounts used. (It would be helpful if the post was hidden so other people don't find it accidentally. In fact, it is possible to just use a tracking redirect page given only to the paid upvoters and use any post as the upvote "job" so it would be hard to identify by the upvoters.)
Then Reddit could ghost those identified accounts. Simply ignore their votes in the system, but don't tell the account owners, so the owners continue using the accounts without realizing the problem.
This would make it very difficult for the account owners to know which of their accounts were compromised.
Then on any new posts where these upvoter accounts are being used in majority, other accounts can be found. The other accounts that also similarly upvoted on this article could represent other paid upvote accounts.
Track those other accounts and how often they appear beside the ghosted paid accounts, and voila, you have found more paid upvoters.
Keep doing this and it makes the paid upvoters ineffective because although they can work the system, their work is only being used to find other paid upvote accounts and also clients who are paying for paid upvotes.
After a time period, the clients could be sent a warning:
It has been detected that you are using paid upvote services which are against Reddit TOS. Please contact customer service so we can work together to remedy the problem. Failure to do so may cause your account to be banned and all your posts removed from Reddit. Have a good day.
Of course Reddit doesn't have to do this, and really anyone could do the same process to build a list of paid upvoter accounts and a list of articles and clients that use those services...
So what do you think, would this put a dent in the upvoters effectiveness?
So this would only apply when a specific sequence is required.
In analogy, if making a puzzle the first piece could be cut randomly. However, the following pieces would have to fit with the proceeding pieces. And each additional piece would grow in specification.
So for a cell, it is true that there could potentially be a large number of proteins that could prove useful. However when that one protein requires 99 other protein types that "fit" with it in the puzzle of a single cell, then you have a specific sequence required which would be more and more precise for each additional protein.
In addition, since there is a need for 1,000s of copies of each protein type, there is also a need for factory proteins of even greater complexity.
In the case of every life form on earth, they all have these protein factories built-in which read the rna to create specific proteins.
Although, there might potentially exist other possible protein combinations that could create an alternative functional protein factory, any protein factory would have many interacting parts that each require increased specification as each part is included in the design.
In addition, it would be hard for a protein factory to function without a healthy cell holding all the necessary parts close together.
---
Another analogy would be like sodoku.
With a blank board, it Is possible to put any number anywhere.
However, as the game gets closer to completion, it requires a specific answer for each square.
If randomly putting a single digit in each square, the likelihood of getting a correct solution would be:
- 9^27 ~ 6e25 (possible random configurations of 1-9 in each square)
Divided by
- ~ 6e21 Number of correct solutions
So it would be like this for a random single cell:
- Number of possible amino acid combinations for ~100,000 proteins of average length ~50.
Divided by
- Number of protein combinations that would function as a living cell
It is similar to a function based approach, but has many advantages that reduce code and increase productivity.
Here is a page of examples from me React typescript setup repo:
https://github.com/toldsoftware/boilerplate-react-typescript...
Both systems are logically consistent so there would need to be other reasons to choose one or the other.
If there is an (E) the only possible way we would have of knowing - would be if (E) communicated somehow and provided evidence.
Even if one considered complexity as evidence it would not be sufficient or specific about (E).
In my case, the evidence that leads me to conclude that (E) does exist has little to do with the complexity of life.
Anyway, thanks for your time and thoughts. I especially appreciate your insight about the requirement of eternal complexity in my point of view. That will give me something to think about for quite a while to ponder it's implications.
So that definition of "meaning" would be purely subjective meaning. It's meaning that is self-determined.
In your example, maybe an extra-universal future being might be able to read an echo of our impression on the timeline.
That's dreaming of an idea that might make a hint at a sense of purpose.
But that is what I don't find that fulfilling at all.
What I deeply desire is evidence-based objective meaning, and knowing that you and I and everyone else is truly important and valuable and that the choices we make shape eternal reality.
So that is what I see as the qualititative difference between subjective meaning (meaning purely determined by the subject) and existential meaning (one's existence having an eternal value).
Also, yes the dog would have existential value because it would contribute to the eternal effect. In fact, if there is an Eternal One then love and respect for everything he has designed becomes very important and things made from atoms would carry existential value beyond the physics alone.
As a side note, if there is an Eternal One who cares to be known, then he would have to communicate himself and provide evidence for his existence. (And Yes, I do believe that evidence actually exists and I believe it is very good: it fills my heart with hope and deep meaning as I face the problems of this temporary life.)
Anyway, I appreciate the dialog and I hope it is somehow useful for you.
Thank you for taking the time to think through it with me.
If, no matter what I do, every atom I have ever encountered is doomed to be scattered across empty space, then any effort of my part is without long-term effect.
For example after the sun goes supernova and burns out as the universe accelerates its expansion to nothingness. In that picture, we are nothing but a dot on a quickly passing timeline. (In this case, all meaning is an illusion and purely subjective. Objective meaning doesn't exist.)
On the other hand, if what I do does affect eternity, then my actions matter whether I live forever or not.
(Of course, if living forever is an option, that's even better.)
If one argues that the level of observed complexity cannot come from randomness alone and therefore must have been created by an external actor, then how does the external actor have sufficient complexity to create the complex universe.
So going back to my notation of (U - things made) and (E - things not made).
If (E) made (U) then where did (E) get enough complexity?
The only conclusion is the complexity in (E) is eternal also.
In plain words, that would imply that if God exists, then He would be eternally complex of complexity >= universal complexity.
Thank you for pointing that out, that's cool to think about.
I've always heard people just assume it would happen given enough time, but I haven't seen anybody actually calculate the probabilities and deal with the real numbers.
Also, beyond the video, the simplest bacteria we have been able to discover/modify requires around 200 different types of proteins to function (numbering in the 100,000s all together in their specific arrangement inside a cell membrane.)
This is the minimal viable life form we know, yet just to randomly construct a single protein from amino acids would take a practically infinite amount of time given all the resources of the known universe.
Then 100,000s of those proteins have to randomly find themselves inside a cell membrane...
People are quick to dismiss complexity philosophically, but it just avoids the reality of it.
The numbers are so far beyond astronomical they make astronomical numbers look like basic arithmetic.
Anyway, I was hoping you could provide some feedback on whether you think the math is accurate and why it should or should not be considered.
- Nothing can exist that wasn't made - Except the universe: it wasn't made
---
If one says "the universe just is" one cannot claim logical superiority to the statement "(E) just is".
I agree that specific beliefs about the Eternal=God would require much faith since (E) is by definition outside the box (U), and therefore beyond our reach of scientific experimentation.
There might be avenues where (E) could communicate with members of (U), but that is a different discussion. I would recommend as much evidence as possible should be pursued in verifying any specific claims about (E).
---
Going back to your first point, I understand that you are saying that there could exist a set (U+O) = all things that are made and all things that preceded it (Occam's Razor).
So that would make it equivalent to the (U=E) set which I mentioned.
Another words, if something exists in the set of things that are made, it was also made, which was made, recursively.
However, when we consider the Big Bang, then something spontaneously prompted the singleton to transform into an infinite expansion.
From this observation, the only possibilities I see are that either the universe was affected by an external actor (E) or the universe itself is eternal and cyclical and the singleton was a temporary state (Bang-Bang theory).
Logically, I don't see a contradiction in either possibility.
However, I do see an extreme difference in quality:
If (E):
Things in (U) have the possibility of eternal significance and stuff actually matters:
- Love - Relationships - Death - Work - Exploration - Joy - Suffering - Eternal Life is a Possibility
If no (E):
On the other hand, if we are simply existing in a cyclically eternal universe, then absolutely nothing matters. We are simply a dot on an infinite timeline. Our atoms will be scattered across empty dark space in an infinitely expanding universe. All is entropy and darkness. Meaning is an illusion.
If the second is true, we don't act like it and we lock away the people who do.