Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[Eodnhoj7]

So these estimates, because they are grounded in an asymmetric reality (computers, as the computer is part of reality and all reality is asymmetric), are also asymmetric?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval

The models I work with have a 4 to 6 Sigma precision.

So "reality" does have symmetry (through the computer)?

[Logik]

So "reality" does have symmetry (through the computer)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_Game_(book)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_t ... incentives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal ... nt_problem

The problem arises where the two parties have different interests and asymmetric information (the agent having more information), such that the principal cannot directly ensure that the agent is always acting in their (the principal's) best interest

[Eodnhoj7]

So "reality" does have symmetry (through the computer)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_Game_(book)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_t ... incentives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal ... nt_problem

The problem arises where the two parties have different interests and asymmetric information (the agent having more information), such that the principal cannot directly ensure that the agent is always acting in their (the principal's) best interest

Don't get off the question:

1) If all reality is assymetric.
2) And computers are extensions of reality (ie "real")
3) Computers are assymetric.

[Logik]

Don't get off the question:

1) If all reality is assymetric.
2) And computers are extensions of reality (ie "real")
3) Computers are assymetric.

You are going to have to define your conception of "real". As a model-dependent realist that's not exactly a word I care to use that word.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

"All models are wrong" is a common aphorism in statistics; it is often expanded as "All models are wrong, but some are useful". It is usually considered to be applicable to not only statistical models, but to scientific models generally.

[Logik]

Don't get off the question:

1) If all reality is assymetric.
2) And computers are extensions of reality (ie "real")
3) Computers are assymetric.

You are also going to have to define your conception of "symmetry".

A 1 in 20 chance of my coffee machine breaking is NOT symmetrical to 1 in 20 chance of my parachute failing.

[Eodnhoj7]

Don't get off the question:

1) If all reality is assymetric.
2) And computers are extensions of reality (ie "real")
3) Computers are assymetric.

You are also going to have to define your conception of "symmetry".

A 1 in 20 chance of my coffee machine breaking is NOT symmetrical to 1 in 20 chance of my parachute failing.

Actually I don't, you claim all is asymmetry hence to negate a definition it must first exist as defined. You can keep redefining "symmetry" in a continual recursive form of axioms, but this in itself results in a linear definition composed of further linear definitions hence a replication of the same phenomenon.

[Logik]

Actually I don't, you claim all is asymmetry hence to negate a definition it must first exist as defined. You can keep redefining "symmetry" in a continual recursive form of axioms, but this in itself results in a linear definition composed of further linear definitions hence a replication of the same phenomenon.

OK. Then you don't know what symmetry means? Cool

So what windmill are you fighting this time?

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually I don't, you claim all is asymmetry hence to negate a definition it must first exist as defined. You can keep redefining "symmetry" in a continual recursive form of axioms, but this in itself results in a linear definition composed of further linear definitions hence a replication of the same phenomenon.

OK. Then you don't know what symmetry means? Cool

So what windmill are you fighting this time?

I am simply asking if computer are symmetric or not.

[Logik]

I am simply asking if computer are symmetric or not.

Can you not determine the answer for yourself? You know better than I do what you mean by "symmetric" and "asymmetric".

[Eodnhoj7]

I am simply asking if computer are symmetric or not.

Can you not determine the answer for yourself? You know better than I do what you mean by "symmetric" and "asymmetric".

I don't have to determine anything. I can just observe an abstract or empirical point directed itself to another an observe symmetric through the recurssion of point space.

A point is a point is a point.

[Logik]

A point is a point is a point.

The real number line disagrees. 0.99999999999999999......................... is not a point

[Eodnhoj7]

A point is a point is a point.

The real number line disagrees. 0.99999999999999999......................... is not a point

ROFL!!!! Actually it is:

.999999 observes the number line as dynamic, where 1=.9999, 1 is equivalent to change where the number 1 is infinitely approaching 0.

A number line where 1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → ∞ is still "1" line but because it is "dynamic" it is always a fraction of 1 as .9999 where 1 exists as a dynamic state of continuing multiplicity.

In simpler terms: (1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → ∞ ) = .999999 = 1∆

Second

All lines are points relative to lines of different sizes. 1 line of 1/n→∞ relative to another line is a point.

All points/lines/Circles are variations of the same thing...space.

[Age]

For a person who professes to putting me on the ignore list, at least three times already, you really do appear to enjoy wanting to keep returning and talking to, or about, me. It is a shame, though, you only feel like responding to me some times and NOT when I pose questions to you nor when HIGHLIGHT and SHOW the errors in your so called "logic" and "reasoning".

By the way if there was any thought at all that saying "i am a hole on an animal's body" was going to affect me in any detrimental way whatsoever, then so be it. The maturity, or lack there of, in saying the above speaks entirely for itself.

So? I am immature. And you are an asshole.

If that is YOUR conclusion, then so be it.

I NEVER said such thing. But people will make their own conclusions.

I guess we both have work to do, eh?

On WHAT exactly?

[Age]

blah, blah, blah

So much noise. Not worth wading through or taking seriously. Good luck to you.

If what I write is to hard, to complex, and to illogical for you to comprehend and understand, for you to be able to point out the flaws in it, even just one, and then challenge and question any of those flaws, then so be it.

[Lacewing]

So much noise. Not worth wading through or taking seriously. Good luck to you.

If what I write is to hard, to complex, and to illogical for you to comprehend and understand...

You may be intoxicated with your own spin, but other people may not find as much value in it. There are surely countless worthwhile perspectives and approaches to choose from, and they don't all have to be convoluted and spun-up in themselves -- although it's a common human/ego tendency to do so. The more noise, the more spin... is a common pattern I've noticed.