REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

How to register at Cluesforum / General administrative topics / and things that every member must read
Surface
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:03 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Surface »

I am disillusioned. About what you ask? Everything.
After spending, or rather wasting, decades in eager study of sciences, I came to the conclusion that the foundations of our modern sciences are based on nothing more than science fiction. While this view sounds quite radical, absurd and unbelievable, it can simplify our modern scientific theories enormously!
There is very little, if any, of our world view that I hold as valid. Unfortunately the will for exploration and experimentation is replaced with a mastery of hoaxes and fakes in science. This situation seems to have developed into a self-sustaining toxic ecosystem.
Here I will try to make sense of the nonsense.
In addition there is a certain human element to all these. As a Middle-Eastern I have different mentality and generally my brain might have been wired differently. What's more, currently I hate complexity. There was a time when I was a big fan of complex issues and I liked to explore ever more complex topics. Those days are over, not because I got tired of it, but because of the above-mentioned disillusionment.
Complexity itself is the biggest of all hoaxes. If something looks complex then there is something wrong with it.
Complex topics are my least favorite topics.
I am from Iran. I speak Farsi, obviously, and I know some other languages too. I have chosen surface as username because that is all I can examine.... And...
I see the world, not the people inhabiting it.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by simonshack »

*
Welcome, dear Surface

I certainly share your plain-&-simple aversion for complexity ! :)

Hey, I really did enjoy the original "handshake intro" you mailed me on February 25, I really hope you dont' mind me sharing it with all forum readers. I take it that it was meant by you to be shared publicly anyway? Anyhow, here goes :
Surface wrote: Hi,
I am an Iranian guy. My first head-on clash with hard facts, as opposed to wishful fantasy, was the fake moon landing. While this didn't surprise me at first, the realization that NASA faked the moon landings sparked a certain degree of distrust about the mainstream scientific community.

Fake moon landings by themselves are not enough to create a crisis in the mind of an ordinary person. After all I didn't even needed a moment of research to convince myself that 9/11 was an inside job. How was moon landing different?

It is different in the sense that it fundamentally and officially transforms science into dogma. Studying astronomy or astrophysics is now nothing more than studying theology or a dogma. Scientific method is thrown out of the window. Fake moon landings were the beginning of the end of the pretension of scientific method. Even with this knowledge of fake moon landings, it took me years before I found out that not just moon landings were fake, all or the major of the subsequent space achievements were fake too! One by one the towers of lies collapsed. But the lies are still standing strong in textbooks. It is impossible to find a physics, astronomy, chemistry, or even mathematics textbook that don't incorporate these lies in their dogma. While it is liberating to realize how much of the body of textbook knowledge is totally false, still we are left with a vacuum of hard facts. This is not going to benefit anyone no matter what your origins, beliefs, or status. Ignorance about reality is still ignorance, regardless of whether we substitute in its place a system of dogma sold as science, or just the absence of the true knowledge.

However all is not lost. Starting with one set of proven lies, we can work our way among other ideas that cannot be proven as genuine or fake directly. An example is hubble space telescope. Based on my knowledge of fake space shuttles, fake ISS, and fake EVA, I am reasonably sure that hubble space telescope is a total fabrication. Hence, by extension, every discovery made using space telescope data is suspect too. Using this reasoning we can separate facts from fictions. What is needed here is an examination of larger and larger sets of official, textbook lies. This was the summary of my journey through lies, or maybe I should say, wallowing in lies!

I don't have a specialized knowledge about a specific field, and I am not sure what "specialized knowledge" even means, but I have broad interest in a range of issues, backed up by focused study. I have adequate knowledge of college science, various languages, especially German and some Italian. I am determined to examine and question the more obviously fake aspects of mainstream science, and would be happy to share anything that might be interesting to the readers of this website. I adhere to guidelines of logical deduction as best as I can.

My username, surface, is chosen to show what I am examining. The surface, in my opinion, is all we have to reliably examine. It is exposed to us and we cannot easily go beyond that. Curiously, a lot can be learned just by paying attention to the surface, that we all see clearly, rather than attempting to go deeper on a journey of pure speculation.
Cheers.
Again, welcome - and yes, a LOT can be learned by just paying attention to the surface ! What a wonderful way of putting it ! ^_^
Painterman
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Painterman »

Surface wrote:Complexity itself is the biggest of all hoaxes. If something looks complex then there is something wrong with it.
It's likely we agree on this point, because I've said similar things myself.

However, a point of clarification, if you don't mind. I'm not sure how you mean "complexity" here, so I wonder if you could specify the definition.

For example, wouldn't you agree that the inner workings of the computer-like device you're using to post here - including its operating system, the code of which can stretch into millions of lines - "looks complex"?

If so, does it follow there's "something wrong with it" (i.e. the computer-like device you're using)? What do you think that "something wrong" is?

Welcome to the forum.
fubarfuthark
Banned
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:20 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by fubarfuthark »

Painterman, whilst I pretty much agree with ICFreely with the notion that you have a tendency to derail threads through a strategy of 'agree and amplify into vague inanity and historicising vagueness', you DO raise a valid point here, or at least, half raise it. One I wanted to raise myself. What do we really know about computers? I say this as someone with professional and academic programming experience. There is SO much fakery and disinformation surrounding this topic that it is hard to know where to start. It is, however, in some ways, the essential element in much fakery. Let's just take one topic: the increasing development of computer processor power. How was this really achieved? at what point was the technology 'figured out', as it were? was it kept off the market in order that some clever clogs would not make a mobile phone before the time was right? Have any of you sitting reading this ever tried to figure out the the actual technology behind touchscreens or hologram projection? Touchscreens, in and of themselves are an entire Pandora's Box, being 'culturally' associated with Rare Earths and their extraction, the fact that lanthanides are heavily associated with the manhattan program, the geopolitical questions surrounding this whole thing...

Somewhere in human consciousness is anchored the idea that the civil war in Congo is/was fought about these things. And that china has the monopoly on them. (This reminds me of the anxiety concerning the Chinese building of Hinckley Point in Britain and our educated, broadsheet-reading and question-time watching british voter being concerned about Li Changchung getting mad and switching the off switch of the kettle. Go back to worrying about the 'diversity' of the oscars and let Jeremy Corbyn make his masonic-spetacles gestures in peace!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_eart ... ectroscopy

http://www.namibiarareearths.com/rare-e ... dustry.asp

http://www.compoundchem.com/2014/02/19/ ... martphone/

I am quite curious about Yttrium and Scandium. These are old elements, they also give me the opportunity to point the finger at a new country: Finland, home of Nokia (pointy pointy!). What was the University of Turku up to back then. Actually fakery and bullshit in the history of Finland is something that needs to be investigated. There is something quite fishy about the entire nation of Finland, at least in the twentieth century, it has me thinking of a voice droning 'kekkonen kekkonen kekkonen', a picture of Ville Vallo (and his accursed Heartagram) and satan's own sport: Formula One. The way Finland sort of played both sides of WW1, WW2 and the cold war is either extremely clever or totally unprincipled. There are a lot of finnish american particle/theoretical physicists kicking about the place and the country has managed to sell itself as a sort of enlightened knowledge-economy plus paper, goths and sibelius utopia. I think the heroic Finnish snipers are not quite what they seem. Also...this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_%28film%29

In any case, you mentioned millions of lines of computer code for operating systems: you are on point here. The whole realm of computer operating systems, Mac OS vs Windows vs Ubuntu/Linux has so many layers of psyops at work that it is hard to keep them all in one's head. Unfortunately, most of the people who have ever written a line of code either have jobs, have other concerns or cannot see the wider-world issues, similarly, many people who recognise a lot of the historical/scientific/media nonsense are not exactly like to be ninja coders or have any ideas about Sun and the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), the psyops of symbolic logic and its teaching in universities, how this connects to the deeply dishonest and dangerous aeronautical engineer Ludwig Wittgenstein (worüber man nicht reden kann, drüber muss man schweigen). Anyone who has ever tried to learn Assembly for some reason or indeed even understand it might be left with the impression that one had ventured into a sort of letters-and-numbers combinatorial ontology whereby all existing entities and thought-acts had sort of been subsumed into a kind of infinite name of God, like a sort of gigantic Torah (i am the alpha and omega, the first and the last, read your Book of Revelations kids and learn something.)

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

What does Turing-complete mean? Are human beings Turing complete? The main thing I know about Turing is his involvement in codebreaking (as if they had to ask) and his promotion as a homosexual martyr like Roger Casement.

Feel free to move this post somewhere else. I dont know where the hell it belongs.
Surface
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:03 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Surface »

Actually I typed that email rather hastily on my mobile device in one go, but not on-the-go, and then absent-mindedly deleted the email so I hadn't have its text to post here. Honestly I felt it might be perceived as having an unwelcome patronizing tone to it hence wasn't quite appropriate for a post. Hopefully it did lay out some aspects of reality, and I think reality as such doesn't have an owner, it has a life of its own as opposed to personalized, dogmatic theories.

I am not quite sure that I am allowed to add another post but here I have something to say for the sake of completeness, so bear with me.
I mentioned complexity, without qualifying or quantifying it in more detail, and without being certain of the popularity of this sentiment, I prepared myself for a very different kind of reaction. Now it's encouraging to realize I am on the right track and my hunch about this issue is right. I think I need to use the opportunity to move beyond the blanket categorical statement and attempt to rethink this concept in more detail.

Facing the multitude of lies and hoaxes in scientific fields, I felt there was an urgent need for a litmus test that enables us to reliably and efficiently identify the hoaxes for what they were. Even if the entire body of sciences must, ideally, be dismantled and reworked from the ground up, still the confidence we gain from such a subconscious certainty is definitely empowering.

A common element I noticed among the scientific hoaxes is this suspiciously intentional complexity. A deeper understanding of the world, as a rule, apparently needs mastery of ever more advanced mathematics. A more accurate description of the world always requires bigger mathematical equations, and mixing of advanced areas of several branches of mathematics. The more strange, counter-intuitive, and more convoluted the mathematical entity, the better the chance it stands in explaining our universe! I want to know why. Where is the logical connection between advanced abstract mathematics and the way our world is put together and functions. Most people are unaware of the fact that advanced mathematics is just as arbitrarily developed as any other dogma. The complexity is worked into it like baking powder is added to a cake. Starting with a few simple enough ingredients, these are worked into complex, bloated, and quite useless monstrosities. Stacking these monsters on top of each other is an excellent smokescreen that dishonest academic scientists use as a shield against easy and trivial scrutiny. Attempting to spot a chink in this armor is one thing, proving it conclusively is something else altogether. Few people are ready to devote their entire life to mastering just one branch of science in the vague hope of debunking it. And even if they do it is always easy to dismiss them on the grounds of their inevitable ignorance of the countless other supposedly advanced and convoluted branches of science and mathematics.

Even a superficial examination of elementary mathematics textbooks shows this trend in scientific pursuit. Thousands upon thousands of problems are crammed into textbooks or dedicated 'problem books.' The purpose of these is just to wear out and exhaust certain vulnerable people from early years. This pattern is repeated in every stage of the so-called higher education. Artificial problem-solving takes the place of genuine examination of the real world. And the key issue here requiring attention isn't 'problem-solving,' as I have dedicated my life to, but rather 'problem-design!' Again I missed the surface right in front of my eyes and instead presumed that there are some incredibly smart people out there who are tireless problem-solvers. Then I suddenly saw the surface. The tough math problems were not genuine problems. They were solutions worked backwards! Tough physics problems were not problems either. They were two formulas with output of one feeding into the input of the other. It is very hard or impossible to know which two combination of formulas work correctly even with a cheat sheet in front of you. This was not science, the real world doesn't work this way. This is a game for creating confusion. This is an excellent and accurate demonstrate of our fake science. The Guardian priests of our dogmatic sciences start with the solutions and then they work backwards towards a proposed problem. They will then go back to their own solution and call it a theory. This is how anyone can create a dogma at home.

I am quite ready to spend my time searching for a real needle in a real haystack, and I would see it as a very rewarding experience too, but I find no point in having to disentangle a web of intentionally tangled, scrambled and knotted unscientific dogmatic theories carefully cacooned into extra-strong mathematical shield. The former is what academic scientists should be doing, but they don't. The latter is what dedicated and smart students shouldn't be doing, but they do.
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

Painterman wrote:However, a point of clarification, if you don't mind. I'm not sure how you mean "complexity" here, so I wonder if you could specify the definition.
It looks like Surface is getting two things mixed up: complex and complicated.
Complexity refers to richness of meaning, to multiple layers of reality interacting harmoniously. It is appreciated "synthetically" by the intuitive intellect, not by the rational mind. Life in all its expressions is marvellously complex. Shakespeare´s plays are marvellously complex. Computers are not.
"Complicated" is more akin to "convoluted", "far-fetched", "labyrinthine" and "confusing", and as such is a negative thing.
Surface
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:03 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Surface »

I really enjoy direct or indirect dismissive replies hinting at my ignorance and I really don't see the need for appearing astute, but this point can potentially be helpful so here I explain why I couldn't possibly confuse complexity and potatoes.
"Simple is better than complex and complex is better than complicated."
This is one of the guidelines of Python programming language philosophy. I just typed this from memory, maybe my exact wording is not correct. And since this motto is written in Python programming textbooks, and since I was learning Python years ago because of its emerging application as a scripting language, replacing custom scripting languages, hence I should have been aware of this very misleading gem of wisdom before writing my post.
Oh, and since the world has not abandoned complicated C and C++ in favor of complex Python and its wisdom, then I might be right in lumping complicated and complex together as signs of fundamental problems with the process itself.
I do have other more relevant examples that give more weight to this line of thinking for anyone who is genuinely interested.
USPrincess
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 3:25 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by USPrincess »

Hey now, Everyone....


I am an American writer newly registered at Cluesforum dot info under USPrincess. My interest in knowing as much as I can about a lot of things makes me an excellent writer.

I have some web presence--a blog that I'm too busy to update, nearly 100 Global Financial Meltdown entries at History Commons dot org.

I'm currently marketing a novel while writing a sequel to it; I'm also reviewing notes and gathering information for a nonfiction piece with the working title Kool-Aid.

I'd like to join Cluesforum as I'm interested in sites providing insights into what's really going on right before our eyes, under our noses, as in Sir Francis Bacon/Shakespeare's quote "All the world's a stage, ..."

Climate engineering, biosphere and weather warfare, HAARP, strategic aerosol spraying, genetically modified foods, poisoned soil and water, and the impending fall of the dollar as the global reserve currency/petrodollar are currently on my agenda.
Painterman
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Painterman »

Thank you, Flabbergasted, for that distinction between "complex" and "complicated". It's a pleasure to read such a clearly and succinctly stated thought that communicates understanding (as opposed to the saboteur's avalanche of gish-gallop which we often see sending honest researchers every which way but the direction of truth).

I'm reminded of the following, from literature:
The mental features discoursed of as the analytical, are, in themselves, but little susceptible of analysis. We appreciate them only in their effects. We know of them, among other things, that they are always to their possessor, when inordinately possessed, a source of the liveliest enjoyment. As the strong man exults in his physical ability, delighting in such exercises as call his muscles into action, so glories the analyst in that moral activity which disentangles. He derives pleasure from even the most trivial occupations bringing his talent into play. He is fond of enigmas, of conundrums, of hieroglyphics; exhibiting in his solutions of each a degree of acumen which appears to the ordinary apprehension præternatural. His results, brought about by the very soul and essence of method, have, in truth, the whole air of intuition.

The faculty of re-solution is possibly much invigorated by mathematical study, and especially by that highest branch of it which, unjustly, and merely on account of its retrograde operations, has been called, as if par excellence, analysis. Yet to calculate is not in itself to analyse. A chess-player, for example, does the one without effort at the other. It follows that the game of chess, in its effects upon mental character, is greatly misunderstood. I am not now writing a treatise, but simply prefacing a somewhat peculiar narrative by observations very much at random; I will, therefore, take occasion to assert that the higher powers of the reflective intellect are more decidedly and more usefully tasked by the unostentatious game of draughts than by all the elaborate frivolity of chess. In this latter, where the pieces have different and bizarre motions, with various and variable values, what is only complex is mistaken (a not unusual error) for what is profound. The attention is here called powerfully into play. If it flag for an instant, an oversight is committed, resulting in injury or defeat. The possible moves being not only manifold but involute, the chances of such oversights are multiplied; and in nine cases out of ten it is the more concentrative rather than the more acute player who conquers. In draughts, on the contrary, where the moves are unique and have but little variation, the probabilities of inadvertence are diminished, and the mere attention being left comparatively unemployed, what advantages are obtained by either party are obtained by superior acumen. To be less abstract -- Let us suppose a game of draughts where the pieces are reduced to four kings, and where, of course, no oversight is to be expected. It is obvious that here the victory can be decided (the players being at all equal) only by some recherché movement, the result of some strong exertion of the intellect. Deprived of ordinary resources, the analyst throws himself into the spirit of his opponent, identifies himself therewith, and not unfrequently sees thus, at a glance, the sole methods (sometimes indeed absurdly simple ones) by which he may seduce into error or hurry into miscalculation.

-- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Murders in the Rue Morgue", 1841
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

Surface wrote:[...] A common element I noticed among the scientific hoaxes is this suspiciously intentional complexity. A deeper understanding of the world, as a rule, apparently needs mastery of ever more advanced mathematics. A more accurate description of the world always requires bigger mathematical equations, and mixing of advanced areas of several branches of mathematics. The more strange, counter-intuitive, and more convoluted the mathematical entity, the better the chance it stands in explaining our universe! I want to know why. Where is the logical connection between advanced abstract mathematics and the way our world is put together and functions [...]
A very relevant observation. In fact, I said something to the same effect in an earlier post regarding the use of complicated scientific jargon to impress laymen and obscure the fact that modern science cannot answer the simplest everyday child-like questions of existence. http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 0#p2388592

In your quest for simplicity, you may have noticed that the world´s orthodox religions actually offer a surprisingly simple approach to understanding and dealing with such questions based on our perception of "the surface of things", while being inexhaustibly complex in the sense of beautiful and intellectually rewarding.
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by fbenario »

fubarfuthark wrote:In any case, you mentioned millions of lines of computer code for operating systems: you are on point here. The whole realm of computer operating systems, Mac OS vs Windows vs Ubuntu/Linux has so many layers of psyops at work that it is hard to keep them all in one's head.
I don't think the forum has discussed this area before. Could you give some examples of the psyops built into operating systems, please?
Surface
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:03 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Surface »

Painterman wrote:
Surface wrote:Complexity itself is the biggest of all hoaxes. If something looks complex then there is something wrong with it.
It's likely we agree on this point, because I've said similar things myself.

However, a point of clarification, if you don't mind. I'm not sure how you mean "complexity" here, so I wonder if you could specify the definition.

For example, wouldn't you agree that the inner workings of the computer-like device you're using to post here - including its operating system, the code of which can stretch into millions of lines - "looks complex"?

If so, does it follow there's "something wrong with it" (i.e. the computer-like device you're using)? What do you think that "something wrong" is?

Welcome to the forum.
Thank you Painterman
Engineering systems are man-made. There are few mysteries about them. In order to make design and implementation of engineering systems viable and practical, a methodology was necessarily developed.

Every engineering, electromechanical system is made of hierarchies. These are placed in a logical hierarchy and the deeper you go, the more abstract the process becomes, but at the same time you will lose the view of the whole system. The higher you go in the layers, the more you need to know of the practical application of the system, but you will be clueless about the details.

An excellent example is our vehicle. As a driver you are at the top of the hierarchy. You could be clueless about the inner workings of the machine. Then we have the car repairman. He is not such a great driver as you are but he knows how to replace a part. Still he is clueless about how that part is put together. The next is the assembly shop that put that part together. Then next is the machine shop that manufactured individual components of that part. Then the design engineers who designed the part with those components. Then the steel and metal manufacture who supplied the materials. All these layers of abstraction and people working in them are more or less clueless about how the others are working. There is no conspiracy involved in keeping each other deliberately in the dark.
Here we have a complex system, right? Well I think not. Because each of the stages are quite simple. The skills necessary for each design manufacturing layer is developed by study and normal human exertion. So far so good.

Now let's talk about computers, or specifically software. Here is where we get a taste of serious complication. Computers being purely electronic systems, are also made with this design methodology in mind. Here the deepest is the software. But you might say that our software is getting better and better. Well, yes marginally and sometimes the perceived improvement is more from brute force of hardware, but that little improvement is the result of countless smart slaves pulling out their hair killing their eyes and wrists writing millions of lines of code to create frameworks and modules etc. Software development is an incredibly frustrating affair. This is complication and there is no way to avoid this. Not now and not in the future. Our software are based on codes written decades ago. There are some unsurmountable problems that keep popular software packages still unstable and buggy. But what about the hardware? Is that problem-free? No. We may not notice it or may not be aware of it, but I read reports of or experience first hand so many serious electronics design problems that I am not even impressed with the pace of hardware development. Sometimes these problems are exposed a couple of years later during software upgrades.

At this point I explained a bit of background about what I meant by questioning complexity in all its forms and manifestations. For seemingly complex electromechanical systems, I just see them as aggregate of simple layers of abstraction. And indeed this is what they are. For computers specifically, I see a mess of hardware developed mostly by trial and error, using very little, if any, actual science, combined with software which is ridiculously and hopelessly stuck at a very crude state still, call it complex or complicated, it makes little difference.
So far I examined broad engineering systems. What about our sciences? I dealt with that to some extent in my previous post. I am under the impression that our entire body of sciences are fundamentally flawed. And that includes mathematics itself. I have some examples for that too.
Surface
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:03 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Surface »

Flabbergasted wrote:
Surface wrote:[...] A common element I noticed among the scientific hoaxes is this suspiciously intentional complexity. A deeper understanding of the world, as a rule, apparently needs mastery of ever more advanced mathematics. A more accurate description of the world always requires bigger mathematical equations, and mixing of advanced areas of several branches of mathematics. The more strange, counter-intuitive, and more convoluted the mathematical entity, the better the chance it stands in explaining our universe! I want to know why. Where is the logical connection between advanced abstract mathematics and the way our world is put together and functions [...]
A very relevant observation. In fact, I said something to the same effect in an earlier post regarding the use of complicated scientific jargon to impress laymen and obscure the fact that modern science cannot answer the simplest everyday child-like questions of existence. http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 0#p2388592

In your quest for simplicity, you may have noticed that the world´s orthodox religions actually offer a surprisingly simple approach to understanding and dealing with such questions based on our perception of "the surface of things", while being inexhaustibly complex in the sense of beautiful and intellectually rewarding.
Now your post brought to my attention something that I have previously ignored, that is, biological systems. I did study a medical physiology textbook once and it seemed to me that it adopted a similar approach as in engineering, essentially attempting to reverse - engineer the body. It dealt with various systems as self-contained feedback systems all working towards maintaining a general homeostasis. Makes a lot of sense to me and honestly I again don't see anything complex here. Just aggregate of layers, but instead of working in absolute hierarchy, there are many parallel systems working in concert. The nervous system is like the software at the top of each super - system, and the molecular or rather chemical rhythm also sometimes acts as a software layer. Again nothing complicated or complex. It functions reasonably well, just like any genuine electromechanical system, and as such is ultimately simple. The key is in breaking the systems down into its individual parts or subsystems.

But our sciences, academic sciences, like physics, chemistry and the like, these are complex, complicated and useless. Your post dealt with a biological system, and it is dealing with academic science. Again it inevitably reaches the same conclusion: our body of sciences is fundamentally flawed, so they are wrapping it into technical jargon or formulas or whatever to make it harder to spot the deceit.

This is something that honest people can agree on, but of course you could call a cell a complex system, and call histology the study of beauty of this complexity, and that is perfectly fine. I just wanted to make it easier by avoiding the need for making a distinction between bad complexity and good complexity. Besides I am naturally not easily impressed with either good complexity or its beauty. I see nothing beautiful or praiseworthy in any complex natural, biological, or man-made systems and structures. All I care about is pure function, not form.
fubarfuthark
Banned
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:20 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by fubarfuthark »

Surface wrote:
Painterman wrote:
Surface wrote:Complexity itself is the biggest of all hoaxes. If something looks complex then there is something wrong with it.
It's likely we agree on this point, because I've said similar things myself.

However, a point of clarification, if you don't mind. I'm not sure how you mean "complexity" here, so I wonder if you could specify the definition.

For example, wouldn't you agree that the inner workings of the computer-like device you're using to post here - including its operating system, the code of which can stretch into millions of lines - "looks complex"?

If so, does it follow there's "something wrong with it" (i.e. the computer-like device you're using)? What do you think that "something wrong" is?

Welcome to the forum.
Thank you Painterman
Engineering systems are man-made. There are few mysteries about them. In order to make design and implementation of engineering systems viable and practical, a methodology was necessarily developed.

Every engineering, electromechanical system is made of hierarchies. These are placed in a logical hierarchy and the deeper you go, the more abstract the process becomes, but at the same time you will lose the view of the whole system. The higher you go in the layers, the more you need to know of the practical application of the system, but you will be clueless about the details.

An excellent example is our vehicle. As a driver you are at the top of the hierarchy. You could be clueless about the inner workings of the machine. Then we have the car repairman. He is not such a great driver as you are but he knows how to replace a part. Still he is clueless about how that part is put together. The next is the assembly shop that put that part together. Then next is the machine shop that manufactured individual components of that part. Then the design engineers who designed the part with those components. Then the steel and metal manufacture who supplied the materials. All these layers of abstraction and people working in them are more or less clueless about how the others are working. There is no conspiracy involved in keeping each other deliberately in the dark.
Here we have a complex system, right? Well I think not. Because each of the stages are quite simple. The skills necessary for each design manufacturing layer is developed by study and normal human exertion. So far so good.

Now let's talk about computers, or specifically software. Here is where we get a taste of serious complication. Computers being purely electronic systems, are also made with this design methodology in mind. Here the deepest is the software. But you might say that our software is getting better and better. Well, yes marginally and sometimes the perceived improvement is more from brute force of hardware, but that little improvement is the result of countless smart slaves pulling out their hair killing their eyes and wrists writing millions of lines of code to create frameworks and modules etc. Software development is an incredibly frustrating affair. This is complication and there is no way to avoid this. Not now and not in the future. Our software are based on codes written decades ago. There are some unsurmountable problems that keep popular software packages still unstable and buggy. But what about the hardware? Is that problem-free? No. We may not notice it or may not be aware of it, but I read reports of or experience first hand so many serious electronics design problems that I am not even impressed with the pace of hardware development. Sometimes these problems are exposed a couple of years later during software upgrades.

At this point I explained a bit of background about what I meant by questioning complexity in all its forms and manifestations. For seemingly complex electromechanical systems, I just see them as aggregate of simple layers of abstraction. And indeed this is what they are. For computers specifically, I see a mess of hardware developed mostly by trial and error, using very little, if any, actual science, combined with software which is ridiculously and hopelessly stuck at a very crude state still, call it complex or complicated, it makes little difference.
So far I examined broad engineering systems. What about our sciences? I dealt with that to some extent in my previous post. I am under the impression that our entire body of sciences are fundamentally flawed. And that includes mathematics itself. I have some examples for that too.
I think you are really onto something here. I really think it might even be worth starting a special thread dealing with the way in which computing is presented in the media, how the public are kept in the dark about, well practically everything, the manner in which innovation is presented, the way in which, say, new smartphones sort of materialise on the market with an operating system still built on top of Unix but are presented as entirely new, the way extremely technical work is elided out of the picture and of projected, in media portrayals onto personages like 'Bill Gates' or 'Steve Jobs'. Or indeed Sergey Brin. These people are most likely total sims. There are figures in computing history like John von Neumann (manhattan project) who are obviously deeply dodgy. On the other hand, there are people who clearly ACTUALLY did something, like George Boole, Harry Nyquist, Pafnuty Chebyshev and Homer Dudley (but even with this, we dont REALLY know, there are some who say that practically everything useful was already invented and squirreled away to be released gradually by sometime around 1870.) And people whose contribution is exaggerated for political reasons, like Ada Lovelace.

There is so much to look at and so little time. I remember when I was working often with patching based music languages, being deeply intrigued by figures like Miller Puckette and Max Matthews and wondering often about the military involvement in things like Bell Labs (and how the innovations were presented to political actors), what the ratio of truth to nonsense is with regards to what the public know and if Electro-Acoustic music experimentation would eventually wind up being applied in, say Guantanamo Bay (if this place indeed exists.) That was before I had even really figured out Media Fakery.

Quite apart from this, there is obviously so much meaningless guff in the field of mathematics, as you point out. But its quite hard to situate oneself in a position that allows one to call it out, especially if one is, to all intents and purposes a layman. Transfinite Numbers seem to me to be a psyop, possibly aimed at God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number#Aleph-null

I am generally uncomfortable with much that exists in the field of set theory and basically everything to do with Zermeno-Fraenkl set theory.

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

I am surprised that people have not raised the New Math in the context of the 'Sputnik crisis'. Imagine this, it is so psychotic that it is almost elegant; the American people are convinced that, during the fake Cold War, the Russians are pulling ahead with their fake rockets. Therefore in order to 'catch up', a whole load of insane abstraction is introduced into the school curriculum and suddenly, Americans no longer know their arse from their elbows. They are literally 'lost in space'.

And what was Set Theory eventually used for?
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/59765-badiou-s ... et-theory/

To give a 'logical foundation' for Maoism on behalf of French 68ers. Does anybody have a clue what the person who wrote this is on about?
Equivoque
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:04 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Equivoque »

Hello,

I'm a french 27 years old male.
The reason for my presence here is that my interest for the 911 subject has been raised again a few months ago by re-reading an article about 911 written by Laurent Guyénot. I had read his article like 2 years ago, and at that time I didn't try to dig further into the third step explanation of his article, aka "there was no planes" (the number 1 is "muslims did it" and the number 2 is "inside job"), for the sole reason that the inside job seemed reasonable to me, a much more reasonable one than "a bunch of muslims hijackers took over 4 planes with cutters". It seems like the few documentaries I had been watching on reopen and such "reinformation" websites played an important role at keeping me from more researches, aswell as Fahrenheit 9/11 (I watched this movie at cinema, when it was released), and furthermore, from the no planes theory.

So, to continue about this article and the no plane theory it was promoting in accordance with Ace Baker films, i decided, unlike the previous time, to look for more informations. No big surprise here, i watched all of Baker's production right after the reading. Since I was motivated about gathering any information I could, I ultimately found, after some hours of watchings/readings, this forum and september clues. I have to say, after reading what has been wrote in this place, especially about 911, that it's sometimes hard to keep a straight mind considering the whole thing. I am, from time to time, doublethinking, because we are living in a world where science is making progress every years, supposely improving mankind, and at the same time we are governed by psychos, lying so blatantly that it is hard to consider they would dare doing such things so openly, and yet, facts speak for themselves.

Hopefully, I would say, I am reading 1984 once gain, and the "doublethinking" thing is making much more sense than when I read it, ten years ago or so. I'm realising that, at that time, we, the students, were not given enough, or relevant facts to think about the genesis of such a book, other that it was written after WW2, as if it was written in order to prevent a similar "event" to happen again. Hence, we read it because the teacher asked us to do so, but we were not given a proper education/reflection to think about the real motivation beyond its writing, nor what was described/depicted could afflict us in everyday life. Now that I have experienced what the doublethinking is, my opinion is that the educational system is giving people "tools" they are not able to understand to their full extend, accordingly to the level of knowlegde this "system" is willing to share with them.

That's all I have to say, at the moment, to introduce myself.
Post Reply