ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

John Platko wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

I see, you prefer to ignore evidence.


The paper expresses some optimization (literally expressing the word optimizing) over systems in nature, including life: (from paper "...that living things achieve in driven self-assembly"

Thusly, my initial quote arose: "life's meaning probably occurs on the horizon of optimization".

Regardless of the instance that you choose to ignore evidence, the evidence persists.

So, no such "misrepresentation" took place, on my accord.

The only misrepresentation that took place, is the instance that your words express a misrepresentation of the paper you supposedly read.

Snark isn't going to help you out. You misrepresented the ideas of a brilliant physicist. Why? Who knows - who cares - I suspect nobody. But the only reasonable play I can see that you have left is to go back to all those places where you presented your misinterpretation and apologize. Use some of these: And next time you want to share one of Jeremey's brilliant ideas quote him - don't muck up his work with ideas that you want to express.

You are yet to explain how I misrepresented such work, and I predict that you shan't be able to explain how, as no such misrepresentation took place.

There's no need for me to explain it. It is obvious to anyone who reads the two sentences that you misrepresented what England said.

Anyway, how did I supposedly "muck up" Jeremy England's work, when I expressed that life's meaning probably entails optimization, when in factum, England's work expresses that life seeks to optimize some paradigm?

When you introduced the word: meaning. That changed the meaning of what England was saying.

Now if you had said something like: After reading Jeremey England's paper(s) on Dissipative Adaptation I infer: Life's meaning probably occurs on the horizon of optimization.

Then that would be fine. Interesting even. Although around here, probably only to me and you.

Yes well, when you find yourself having things in common with an obvious troll...

theropod wrote:Even if the simulations of universes were not crude they would still not be actual universes. Even if they were Star Trek holodeck realistic they would still not be real universes. Until billions of supermassive black holes can be created with physicality, and not just simulated, any such approximation falls immeasurably short and remains no more than a picture of a Lamborghini. We need not be lectured to about this as it a self evident fact no matter if the protestations to the contrary are slathered in pseudo-intellectual prose.

One wonders how much rope is going to be needed.

RS

He already hung himself four or five times in the other thread.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Yes well, when you find yourself having things in common with an obvious troll...

What exactly do you object to about: "Life's meaning probably occurs on the horizon of optimization?"

I would prefer "can be found" rather than "occurs." But that's quibbling.

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:Yes well, when you find yourself having things in common with an obvious troll...

What exactly do you object to about: "Life's meaning probably occurs on the horizon of optimization?"

It's the perfect combination of banal and meaningless. The development of life involving optimization is a statement so trivial it puts me to sleep every time I read it. Then there's the word "meaning", unceremoniously and ironically thrust in there. It is the sort of vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish that seems to tickle your fancy.

I would prefer "can be found" rather than "occurs." But that's quibbling.

Boy I'll say

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:Yes well, when you find yourself having things in common with an obvious troll...

What exactly do you object to about: "Life's meaning probably occurs on the horizon of optimization?"

It's the perfect combination of banal and meaningless. The development of life involving optimization is a statement so trivial it puts me to sleep every time I read it. Then there's the word "meaning", unceremoniously and ironically thrust in there. It is the sort of vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish that seems to tickle your fancy.

I would prefer "can be found" rather than "occurs." But that's quibbling.

Boy I'll say

Interesting. I tend to focus more on how it captures the meaning of life in such a condensed yet thorough way. And it's not just about "The development of life involving optimization" rather, the "horizon of optimization."

I'm not sure you're fully appreciating what ProgrammingGodJordan has brought to the table.

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:I am unable to parse the OP. Seems to me ur not interested in having a discussion and just wish to appear intelligent/esoteric so as to establish some kind of appeal to authority reputation. Pretty sad, really.

The section underlined above appears to be, irrelevant/invalid.
Albeit, it is probable that you need observe here, given your 'parsing inability'.

You use the word 'albeit' far too frequently. Did you recently discover it?

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
There's a much more simple explanation, you know.

What may such a simple explanation be?

l'll give you a hint: it begins with a 'T' and ends with 'rolling'.

Ah, but it appears the original thread's content is beyond your cognition.
So much so that it appears alien/troll bound.

I think KIR is right -your posts come across as attempts to appear clever. Unfortunately you're trying too hard and as a result they are a disjointed mess.

Albeit pub later if anyone fancies a pint.

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:Yes well, when you find yourself having things in common with an obvious troll...

What exactly do you object to about: "Life's meaning probably occurs on the horizon of optimization?"

It's the perfect combination of banal and meaningless. The development of life involving optimization is a statement so trivial it puts me to sleep every time I read it. Then there's the word "meaning", unceremoniously and ironically thrust in there. It is the sort of vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish that seems to tickle your fancy.

I would prefer "can be found" rather than "occurs." But that's quibbling.

Boy I'll say

Interesting. I tend to focus more on how it captures the meaning of life in such a condensed yet thorough way.

Yes, you do tend to focus on the vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish.

And it's not just about "The development of life involving optimization" rather, the "horizon of optimization."

Well shiver me timbers! A very specific iteration of vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish rather than a general one.

I'm not sure you're fully appreciating what ProgrammingGodJordan has brought to the table.

I do appreciate good trolling. What he's brought is sub-par at best, unfortunately.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

What exactly do you object to about: "Life's meaning probably occurs on the horizon of optimization?"

It's the perfect combination of banal and meaningless. The development of life involving optimization is a statement so trivial it puts me to sleep every time I read it. Then there's the word "meaning", unceremoniously and ironically thrust in there. It is the sort of vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish that seems to tickle your fancy.

I would prefer "can be found" rather than "occurs." But that's quibbling.

Boy I'll say

Interesting. I tend to focus more on how it captures the meaning of life in such a condensed yet thorough way.

Yes, you do tend to focus on the vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish.

There's nothing vapid, pseudo, or gibberish about it.

The physical transformations, i.e. tasks, that are possible or impossible set the horizon of a constructor. The purpose of the constructor is to construct within those bounds. In that sense the horizon defines the domain of constructor and gives the constructor it's meaning.

And it's not just about "The development of life involving optimization" rather, the "horizon of optimization."

Well shiver me timbers! A very specific iteration of vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish rather than a general one.

Well words matter. Perhaps you're not familiar enough with the technical details to appreciate the insight revealed by:
"Life's meaning probably occurs on the horizon of optimization?"

I'm not sure you're fully appreciating what ProgrammingGodJordan has brought to the table.

I do appreciate good trolling. What he's brought is sub-par at best, unfortunately.

Perhaps ProgrammingGodJordan hasn't sufficiently optimized near enough to his horizon to maximize his purpose. Such optimizations require time to unfold.

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
It's the perfect combination of banal and meaningless. The development of life involving optimization is a statement so trivial it puts me to sleep every time I read it. Then there's the word "meaning", unceremoniously and ironically thrust in there. It is the sort of vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish that seems to tickle your fancy.

Boy I'll say

Interesting. I tend to focus more on how it captures the meaning of life in such a condensed yet thorough way.

Yes, you do tend to focus on the vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish.

There's nothing vapid, pseudo, or gibberish about it.

The physical transformations, i.e. tasks, that are possible or impossible set the horizon of a constructor. The purpose of the constructor is to construct within those bounds. In that sense the horizon defines the domain of constructor and gives the constructor it's meaning.

Thanks for explaining how it's not vacuous gibberish using vacuous gibberish.

And it's not just about "The development of life involving optimization" rather, the "horizon of optimization."

Well shiver me timbers! A very specific iteration of vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish rather than a general one.

Well words matter. Perhaps you're not familiar enough with the technical details to appreciate the insight revealed by:
"Life's meaning probably occurs on the horizon of optimization?"

Indeed, vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish is not my specialty, I leave that field to you and Jordan.

I'm not sure you're fully appreciating what ProgrammingGodJordan has brought to the table.

I do appreciate good trolling. What he's brought is sub-par at best, unfortunately.

Perhaps ProgrammingGodJordan hasn't sufficiently optimized near enough to his horizon to maximize his purpose. Such optimizations require time to unfold.

Sadly, I think this is about as maximized as Jordan's purpose can get, which is disappointing to say the least. But again, I appreciate what you guys share in common.

Wow, that one was just lazy.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Interesting. I tend to focus more on how it captures the meaning of life in such a condensed yet thorough way.

Yes, you do tend to focus on the vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish.

There's nothing vapid, pseudo, or gibberish about it.

The physical transformations, i.e. tasks, that are possible or impossible set the horizon of a constructor. The purpose of the constructor is to construct within those bounds. In that sense the horizon defines the domain of constructor and gives the constructor it's meaning.

Thanks for explaining how it's not vacuous gibberish using vacuous gibberish.

There's nothing gibberish about what I said. Perhaps you're just not up to speed on the latest mode of physical explanation.
Here's your homework assignment.

And it's not just about "The development of life involving optimization" rather, the "horizon of optimization."

Well shiver me timbers! A very specific iteration of vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish rather than a general one.

Well words matter. Perhaps you're not familiar enough with the technical details to appreciate the insight revealed by:
"Life's meaning probably occurs on the horizon of optimization?"

Indeed, vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish is not my specialty, I leave that field to you and Jordan.

I'm not sure you're fully appreciating what ProgrammingGodJordan has brought to the table.

I do appreciate good trolling. What he's brought is sub-par at best, unfortunately.

Perhaps ProgrammingGodJordan hasn't sufficiently optimized near enough to his horizon to maximize his purpose. Such optimizations require time to unfold.

Sadly, I think this is about as maximized as Jordan's purpose can get, which is disappointing to say the least. But again, I appreciate what you guys share in common.

Really? I've been rather disturbed by it myself.

God reflects intricate space time events. Qualia arises and subsides in formless potentiality. Thus, the secret of the universe unfolds into the light of brains. Self power undertakes subtle brightness, but true faith projects onto an expression of human observation. The unpredictable is at the heart of humble external reality.

If John Platko doesn't appreciate the insight I've just revealed, he must not understand the technical details.

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Yes, you do tend to focus on the vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish.

There's nothing vapid, pseudo, or gibberish about it.

The physical transformations, i.e. tasks, that are possible or impossible set the horizon of a constructor. The purpose of the constructor is to construct within those bounds. In that sense the horizon defines the domain of constructor and gives the constructor it's meaning.

Thanks for explaining how it's not vacuous gibberish using vacuous gibberish.

There's nothing gibberish about what I said. Perhaps you're just not up to speed on the latest mode of physical explanation.
Here's your homework assignment.

I read a summary. It doesn't add any meaning to anything you've said.

Well shiver me timbers! A very specific iteration of vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish rather than a general one.

Well words matter. Perhaps you're not familiar enough with the technical details to appreciate the insight revealed by:
"Life's meaning probably occurs on the horizon of optimization?"

Indeed, vapid pseudo-intellectual gibberish is not my specialty, I leave that field to you and Jordan.

I do appreciate good trolling. What he's brought is sub-par at best, unfortunately.

Perhaps ProgrammingGodJordan hasn't sufficiently optimized near enough to his horizon to maximize his purpose. Such optimizations require time to unfold.

Sadly, I think this is about as maximized as Jordan's purpose can get, which is disappointing to say the least. But again, I appreciate what you guys share in common.

Really? I've been rather disturbed by it myself.

I think most folks here haven't found it terribly surprising.

SafeAsMilk wrote:God reflects intricate space time events. Qualia arises and subsides in formless potentiality. Thus, the secret of the universe unfolds into the light of brains. Self power undertakes subtle brightness, but true faith projects onto an expression of human observation. The unpredictable is at the heart of humble external reality.

If John Platko doesn't appreciate the insight I've just revealed, he must not understand the technical details.

I believe I took that Chopra class - but perhaps I'm just imagining that.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:There's nothing gibberish about what I said. Perhaps you're just not up to speed on the latest mode of physical explanation.
Here's your homework assignment.

I read a summary. It doesn't add any meaning to anything you've said.

It does help me add to my signature, however.

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:God reflects intricate space time events. Qualia arises and subsides in formless potentiality. Thus, the secret of the universe unfolds into the light of brains. Self power undertakes subtle brightness, but true faith projects onto an expression of human observation. The unpredictable is at the heart of humble external reality.

If John Platko doesn't appreciate the insight I've just revealed, he must not understand the technical details.

I believe I took that Chopra class - but perhaps I'm just imagining that.

No, I'm sure you have. Perhaps we can develop a John Platko phrase generator, misusing half-digested phrases from various theoretical physics papers and mashing them together into a pseudo-intellectual mess. Chopra would be proud.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

There's nothing vapid, pseudo, or gibberish about it.

The physical transformations, i.e. tasks, that are possible or impossible set the horizon of a constructor. The purpose of the constructor is to construct within those bounds. In that sense the horizon defines the domain of constructor and gives the constructor it's meaning.

Thanks for explaining how it's not vacuous gibberish using vacuous gibberish.

There's nothing gibberish about what I said. Perhaps you're just not up to speed on the latest mode of physical explanation.
Here's your homework assignment.

I read a summary. It doesn't add any meaning to anything you've said.

Close your books, surprise quiz -

1) What is a task?
2) What is knowledge?
3) Why would one seek to express all fundamental scientific theories in terms of a dichotomy between possible and impossible physical transformations ?