00:00:12 ehird: really, I like it here. it's my country, after all. 00:00:19 ehird: not _everyone_ is a fat idiot 00:00:22 that sentence reeks of patriotism 00:00:27 ..and? 00:00:46 I have never understood the fetishization of an accident of geography... 00:00:53 it's not just geography, it's the culture too 00:01:07 I guess I find it very hard to comprehend the culture being good 00:01:17 have you ever been here for an extended period of time? 00:01:25 No. 00:01:33 well.. then obviously you won't understand the culture :) 00:01:48 I don't think that's true. I have a basic grasp on some other countries' culture. 00:01:56 watching Hollywood movies does not make one an expert on American culture, despite what 80% of Europeans seem to think 00:02:04 "80% of Europeans" 00:02:11 have you considered how hypocritical you just were there? 00:02:22 I haven't met a single person who would claim that 00:02:27 no. I've been to Europe for an extended time, interacted with many Europeans, and learned the culture 00:02:44 then you must have gone to bizarro europe 00:02:46 ok, fine, I was exaggerating for effect with the "80%" figure 00:02:50 "many" Europeans 00:03:23 is that linked to euopean...ity? I'd say it's more idiocy. 00:03:26 Many people, indeed, are idiots 00:03:35 well, many people are idiots everywhere, in any country 00:03:46 exactly 00:04:07 and European idiots tend to think that listening to a Nirvana album and seeing the entire "Die Hard" series makes them an expert on American culture 00:04:41 Are you a farmer? Because you sure do have a lot of strawmen 00:04:50 haha. 00:05:01 dayum that was good 00:05:38 good cultural point: Americans are generally much more egalitarian and less snotty than Europeans 00:05:51 (obviously making gross generalizations) 00:05:59 Wow, seriously? 00:06:05 pikhq: is this your impression? 00:06:08 I've never heard that before 00:06:13 ehird: No. 00:06:32 I mean, for chrissakes, the predominant culture in the US is "Yay freedom, guns, liberty, fuck everyone else, capitalism!" 00:06:41 My impression is that Americans are generally much more antiïntellectual than Europeans. 00:06:50 ehird: that is emphatically *not* the "predominant culture" in the US. come visit sometime. 00:06:57 (and you can dispute this, but unless there's some sort of global web filter distorting EVERYTHING coming from the US on the internet, you're wrong) 00:07:08 kwertii: Where did you live in the US? 00:07:24 Or, rather, do live. 00:07:27 pikhq: for extended times in Pennsylvania, Florida, and California, and I've visited many other places 00:07:36 pikhq: you? 00:07:49 i don't deny that a lot of american people are fine 00:07:54 that's true for every country 00:08:01 i mean for people that actually have opinions on it 00:08:03 Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, with some time in Massachussets. 00:08:20 ehird: I think the anti-intellectualism is a broad Anglo-Saxon thing. English people are also markedly anti-intellectual relative to others. 00:08:31 The English culture is self-loathing. 00:08:35 Simple as. 00:08:44 It sucks, but what can you do. 00:08:51 England doesn't really count as European, politically. 00:08:51 ehird: Exception, BNP. 00:08:54 or culturally 00:09:00 pikhq: That's self-loathing too. 00:09:05 ehird: the Engish perception of an average professor is (description quoted from an actual Englishman) "an awkward fellow with a stack of books and soup on his tie who can't carry on a normal conversation" 00:09:13 I am aware. 00:09:15 Seems more like general loathing. 00:09:25 ehird: so no fair calling out Americans as anti-intellectual :P 00:09:27 When I talk about European culture, I don't really include the UK 00:09:32 and I don't like this place 00:09:41 pikhq: Loathing is not a simple emotion of rage and hate, oh no. 00:10:19 win 25 00:10:29 The UK seems less crazy than the US. 00:10:46 ... In much the same way that Mormons seem less crazy than Scientologists. 00:10:47 The self-loathing is sort of like a seething, dripping putrid liquid from the crevices of our darkest points, gradually strangling and restricting the blood flow of our brain in its ignoramus hold, destroying our thoughts and gradually leading to complete hopelessness that can't face the impending total oblivion it faces. 00:10:55 It truly is an amazing thing. 00:11:16 (although, of course, you won't find it on the streets, etc; because there isn't really any general culture; but if we only include interpretations that lead there to be one, this would be it) 00:11:17 ehird: wow, you must love H. P. Lovecraft 00:11:34 kwertii: haha, i haven't read much of his stuff but i do like what i've read a lot 00:11:55 "Rush Limbaugh, I got billed $6,000 just to have a broken arm set." "Well, you shouldn't have broken your arm, should you?" 00:12:23 I would like to take this opportunity to point out that Rush Limbaugh is considered a far-right wing extremist by the vast majority of the population of the US. 00:12:48 This is some new definition of vast majority of which I was not previously aware. 00:12:53 Are you sure you aren't just living in a nice area? 00:13:01 kwertii: I would like to take this opportunity to point out that about 20% of the US population is far-right wing extremists. 00:13:57 ehird: I live in San Francisco, which is far-left by US standards (which brings its own set of problems, such as the nauseating fetishization of identity politics), but I lived in the deep south (Florida) and the industrial northeast (Pennsylvania) for long periods of time too 00:14:08 far right wing extremists... don't you guys call that the republican party :) 00:14:16 pikhq: 20% sounds about right. 80% counts as "vast majority". 00:14:28 seriously? 00:14:33 80% is a large majority 00:14:38 ehird: About 24% of Americans identify as "Republican", and 30% as "independent". 00:14:43 90%/10% is a vast majority 00:14:49 pikhq: Only 24%? 00:14:54 Yes. 00:15:11 This doesn't show up in *voting* because we have truly terrible voter turnout. 00:15:16 ehird: there are 2 broad factions in the Republican party, the "gun nut / religious right" and the "business elite Rudy Giuliani types". they don't like each other, but they worked together for a long time until recently. 00:15:21 Less than 50%, generally. 00:15:24 kwertii: yeah but they both suck :) 00:15:30 ehird: the business ones are not nearly as crazy 00:15:40 Right wing economics is scary. 00:15:46 It has far-reaching social implications. 00:15:56 ehird: for example, the business types couldn't care less if you're gay or whether you go to church 00:16:16 consider, though, health care 00:16:17 They just think Ayn Rand had the right idea. 00:16:24 a "free market" position has a LOT of effects 00:16:30 ehird: agree, I think both of them have a bad take on healthcare 00:16:35 Someone dying is irreversible 00:16:40 Two people not being able to marry can happen later 00:16:50 it's all a matter of perspective 00:17:27 ehird: the thing is.. most of them aren't bad people on a personal level. they just literally don't realize that not everyone is rich. they genuinely believe that if you go get a job and work hard, you'll wind up rich (because they did / their dad did / their grandfather did), so they assume that it will work out like that for everyone 00:17:53 I've always wondered how people class others, if not by their political positions: that which literally defines how they view the world. 00:18:03 Perhaps not bad, but stupid at least. 00:18:13 so people are only right-wing because they are stupid? 00:18:18 ehird: many are very intelligent, they were just raised in an insulated world and they lack perspective 00:18:24 oklokok: sounds about right 00:18:36 I've never heard a right-winger actually defend their position properly logically 00:18:48 kwertii: but a rational person would not generalise from such a small sample. 00:18:51 if you're rich and only care about yourself, it's the most sensible way to go 00:18:54 well 00:19:03 i guess that's the "bad people" minority 00:19:10 ehird: I have met ones that can logically defend their position. those are the genuinely scary ones. 00:19:10 oklokok: yes, and when the rest of society holding you up collapses, you fall to the curb 00:19:18 right-wing politics are in nobody's interests 00:19:29 kwertii: are you sure they didn't hypnotise you? :) 00:19:34 ehird: haha. yes, I'm sure 00:19:42 ehird: They're in plenty of people's interests. 00:19:50 pikhq: not ultimately 00:20:03 right-wing politics, at the end, lead to the collapse of the non-elite, and the elite RELIES on them to exist 00:20:07 ehird: if you had an eternal life, then probably not 00:20:11 long-term, it's in nobody's interest 00:20:19 ehird: Short-term interests, I should say. 00:20:24 but if you're say 50, right is the way to go 00:20:31 ...assuming you only care about yourself and are rich 00:20:32 The long-term result is, of course, the dark ages. 00:20:33 oklokok: unless you have any sort of sense of ethics, for instance 00:20:48 plus, look at the meltdown! 00:20:53 the people who caused this are still alive 00:20:57 ehird: right, i was assuming you don't 00:20:59 although it hasn't hit the elite yet 00:21:05 ehird: I think it clear that they have no ethics. 00:21:32 i wonder why nobody seems to like direct democracy 00:22:01 ehird: because most people are stupid. direct democracy is a HORRIBLE idea. just look at the state of California today for a case study. 00:22:16 kwertii: People being stupid is a problem with democracy in general. 00:22:28 ehird: yes, and it's somewhat mitigated through the representation process 00:22:31 But if most people want gay marriage to be illegal, the right thing to happen as far as the state is concerned is for it to be illegal. 00:22:39 ehird: I would support a benevolent dictatorship, if there were such a thing as a benevolent dictator. 00:22:48 indirect democracy is partly a dictatorship 00:22:52 ehird: most people in California voted for no gay marriage. the pro-gay marriage side won't accept that 00:22:55 the whole point of democracy is that the people decide what happens to them 00:23:12 kwertii: The Mormon church is to blame for that. 00:23:16 pikhq: agree 00:23:38 (why are churches tax-free?) 00:24:04 And it's currently getting opposed as being against the US constitution. 00:24:40 ehird: CA has an extensive direct referendum system. we get at *least* 15 direct referendums for laws every year, often more. so the left proposes massive govt spending and everyone says "Yes!!! subsidies for this and that!!!" and then the right proposes massive tax cuts and everyone says "yes!! I want to pay less taxes!! who doesn't??" (because most people are stupid and inconsistent), and as a result California is bankrupt. 00:25:05 kwertii: if you oppose the people being able to fuck themselves over, you oppose democracy 00:25:13 pikhq: I wish people would spend HALF as much time on Prop 13 as they are on Prop 8. 00:25:31 ehird: I oppose direct democracy. I am in favor of representative democracy. 00:25:42 representative democracy isn't democracy, though 00:25:51 ehird: eh, semantics. call it whatever you want. 00:26:10 am i insane for only wanting to call things democratic that are? 00:26:13 then I'm in favor of a republican (note small-r) system 00:26:24 Y'know what? All government sucks. 00:26:31 pikhq: I'm an anarchist in theory. :P 00:26:33 Bring on the singularity. 00:26:48 anarchy would be great ... for about a week, until someone beats your head in with a brick over a loaf of bread 00:26:49 You know, most singularity proponents favour the singularity being benevolent dictator of the universe. 00:26:50 the world is too complicated 00:26:59 kwertii: people can do that with laws, too 00:27:00 we should start over 00:27:13 ehird: but they stand a very good chance of being arrested and imprisoned, which deters it most of the time. 00:27:48 I think the bigger problem with anarchy is not individuals who would go out and do crazy shit, but with corporations doing so. 00:27:53 i'm uncomfortable with the idea that most people are evil and only don't murder 16:28:00 it's like religious people who say 00:28:10 "atheists can't have any morals, because they don't have a bible to tell them" 00:28:17 pikhq: exactly.. any anarchy would quickly develop street gangs and mafias that would take over.. until one eliminated all the others and renamed itself "the government" 00:28:27 Because corporations actually are evil and only don't murder people because there's the threat of huge fines. 00:28:32 ehird: maybe not most people, but at least some people 00:28:32 yeah, that's the thing; anarchy inevitably leads to government 00:28:33 in our world 00:28:45 since there's no such thing as a de jure govt 00:28:47 just a de facto one 00:29:09 a "government" is just a monopoly on the use of force 00:29:18 *the legitimate use of force 00:29:26 kwertii: That's a property, not a definition. 00:29:34 pikhq: that's my definition 00:29:50 A government is a *nomic* with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. 00:29:57 There's a definition. 00:30:04 pikhq: the nomic part isn't necessary 00:30:17 nomic implies that every participant has, or at least once had, a means to influence the system 00:30:25 No it doesn't. 00:30:36 Nomic implies that there is a means to influence the system. 00:30:48 there isn't necessarily such a means 00:30:52 You must not be familiar with emperor nomic. ;) 00:31:20 it is possible to characterize a government as a nomic, sure, but I'd say that's a property and not a definition ;) 00:31:26 (nomic by benevolent dictator) 00:32:09 that's a rather trivial sense of the word "nomic" then 00:32:18 imperial nomic looked fun 00:32:50 A nomic is a system of rules that have rules for their modification. 00:33:40 pikhq: yeah, I know what it is. A govt does not necessarily meet that definition. and if it did, that would be incidental to its own definition 00:33:46 kwertii: i hear california has a balanced budget requirement - what if that was extended to _each_ popular referendum... 00:34:11 oerjan: that would be a step in the right direction.. I'd support it 00:34:16 kwertii: Name to me a government that does not meet that definition. 00:34:28 so you couldn't make a subsidy without also raising taxes simultaneously, or something like that 00:34:46 oerjan: another problem is that (unlike most states) budgets must be passed by a 2/3rds majority in the legislature (rather than a simple majority), which allows extremists from either party to halt the process 00:35:11 kwertii: oh, not just those which increase taxes? 00:35:17 pikhq: any authoritarian govt where changes are made arbitrarily without rules 00:35:33 oerjan: every single year the yearly budget must be passed by a 2/3rds majority 00:35:43 But there's rules governing how they may make rules. Said rules are, of course, trivial. 00:35:49 "My word is law." 00:35:53 That is a very simple nomic. 00:35:54 pikhq: haha. that doesn't count as a rule 00:36:04 "The rule is: there are no rules" 00:36:05 Yes it does. 00:36:18 That's anarchy, not nomic. 00:36:25 pikhq: and in any case, that would be a *description* of a government rather than a definition of it 00:36:31 kwertii: oh well. either california solves the problem, or it collapses and _then_ solves the problem. 00:36:43 oerjan: :( maybe I'll move to New York 00:36:50 kwertii: It's a formalism for defining a government, actually. ;) 00:37:07 pikhq: formalisms are just that, formalisms. models. they are not identical to the thing itself. they're models of it. 00:37:25 oerjan: Care to take this one? 00:37:40 * pikhq tags out, lets the mathematician have fun 00:37:41 kwertii: Name to me a government that does not meet that definition. 00:37:41 politics is such a useless subject 00:37:53 pikhq: /me philosopher > mathematician ;) 00:38:14 i recall the vatican state is still absolutist monarchist, so no rules the pope cannot change at least 00:38:30 Well, technically 00:38:31 kwertii: Not greater. Philosophy and math just have a common subset. 00:38:39 pikhq: mathematics is just applied philosophy 00:39:00 pikhq: i think he meant he's more a philosopher than he's a mathematician 00:39:03 pikhq: that being why you get a.... PhD (philosophiae doctor) degree 00:39:06 maybe i guessed wrong 00:39:16 you should supply verbs 00:39:38 kwertii: Philosophy is just math with crappy axioms. :P 00:39:42 heh 00:39:56 � pikhq tags out, lets the mathematician have fun <<< ah i read mathematician*s*, thought pikhq thought kwertii was one, yeah nm me 00:40:06 pikhq: Math is a game with rules and no goal. Philosophy is a game with a goal and no rules. 00:40:31 Linguistics is a game with neither rules nor goal. 00:40:34 kwertii: Like I said, crappy axioms. 00:40:44 pikhq: axiomatic knowledge is by definition faith-based 00:40:58 pikhq: in other words... a religion! *zing* 00:41:02 kwertii: only the objects math handles are like that, i'd say the actual creative part of mathematics has neither rules nor a goal :) 00:41:29 No, no, no. Axioms are defined because they are useful. 00:41:35 oklokok: but the creative part just consists in inventing new rules.. 00:41:43 pikhq: so says any religion 00:41:59 kwertii: well right, that's what i meant 00:42:05 ... No, religions state their axioms just *are*. 00:42:30 Math defines axioms just because they can do something with it. That's it. 00:42:41 pikhq: that's what math states about its axioms. granted, it's somewhat more open to modifying them, and more internally consistent, than most religions, but in the end it's still all faith-based propositions with no means of testing them 00:43:06 so I'll readily concede that math is a "better" religion in some sense than most.. 00:43:13 ... No. 00:43:52 but I don't buy into mathematical Platonism in any sense 00:44:00 Math is not at all internally consistent. It has been proven impossible for any nontrivial axiomatic system to be consistent. ;) 00:44:06 (... IIRC. I may have botched that.) 00:44:16 (incompleteness theorem, right?) 00:44:25 pikhq: it's *mostly* internally consistent. Yes, Goedel's Incompleteness theorem 00:44:35 which actually only applies to first order predicate calculus IIRC 00:45:03 ... which just proves my point that it's not a certain body of knowledge but a religion :) 00:45:10 And anyways, we don't take faith that our axioms are correct. We don't even say our axioms are anything but scribblings on a piece of paper. 00:45:26 We say that from these axioms, we can say certain things are true. 00:45:56 what the incompleteness theorem says is that a body of knowledge is EITHER internally inconsistent OR based on external axioms which are not provable within the system (i.e. faith-based..) 00:46:27 "body of knowledge" being defined narrowly as something expressable in 1st order predicate calculus 00:46:32 ... You haven't even demonstrated your assertion that axioms = faith. 00:47:02 pikhq: by definition of "axiom", they're just assertions. they're not testable. therefore faith based by definition. you can either accept that they're true or not. there's no scientific test that can be done 00:47:11 kwertii: but math isn't about believing in those axioms, it just says that for a system where they are true would have certain properties 00:47:18 eh 00:47:25 kwertii: But faith implies belief. 00:47:26 *-for 00:47:38 (... IIRC. I may have botched that.) <-- you surely did 00:47:49 oklokok: sure, it's an interesting game.. I didn't say it was worthless to pursue math.. 00:47:56 math isn't about beliving this universe is such a system, for any set of axioms 00:48:05 that's physics, and the rest 00:48:09 No mathematician *believes in* their axioms. Thus, there can be no faith involved in the game. 00:48:13 consistent _and complete_ is what's impossible 00:48:21 oerjan: Ah, right. 00:48:31 oerjan : Lies 00:48:37 Consistent and complete is possible 00:48:40 oklokok: well.. the dominant theory of the philosophy of math in modern academia is the Platonic theory which says that mathematical truths are in some sense "real", reflections of inherent properties of the universe.. which is just magical thinking IMO 00:48:50 Propositional calculus is totally both 00:48:56 Anyways, we don't say "ZFC must be true!", we say "From ZFC, we can see that 1+1=2." 00:49:01 Slereah: this refers to pikhq's original statement, which included "non-trivial" 00:49:09 Zermelo Fried Chicken 00:49:20 Hey, propositional calculus is not trivial! 00:49:24 kwertii: yes, that sounds religious, i'm not saying mathematicianism isn't a religion, just that mathematics isn't :P 00:49:32 well indeed that seems a bit strong 00:49:33 if that makes any sense 00:49:57 oklokok: in the sense that most mathematicians aren't aware of and don't care about the philosophical basis of their field, sure :) 00:50:24 pikhq: point is we have absolutely no reason to believe that ZFC is correct 00:50:28 Slereah: well i was trying to interpret pikhq as close to right as possible there 00:50:28 There is a dude who did newtonian mechanics without any number or functions 00:50:32 kwertii: i mean for some mathematicians math might be a religion, but that's completely outside math as a field, imo 00:50:40 And he proposed methods to replace all such math 00:50:43 kwertii: And I know of no mathematicians that do. 00:50:47 i hate philosophy. 00:50:58 pikhq: check out any modern work on the philosophy of mathematics.. 00:50:59 brb. 00:51:01 Mathematicians just simply claim that ZFC is useful. 00:51:31 pikhq: as I said to oklokok .... yea, most practicing mathematicians don't know or care about the philosophical basis of their work, they're just playing a game 00:51:33 kwertii: Clearly, the philosophy of mathematics has flawed assertions. 00:51:39 pikhq: I agree 100% :) 00:52:05 When you start by saying that "mathematical truth is real", of course you start thinking math is a religion. 00:52:17 Of course, *that's not math*. 00:52:17 pikhq: that is the current mainstream view in phil of math 00:52:24 er 00:52:41 pikhq: point is we have absolutely no reason to believe that ZFC is correct 00:52:41 *Nothing in math is real*. (well, aside from the set of reals. :P) 00:52:42 pikhq: what you're describing is closer to physics.. physicists don't care about the equations except insofar as they model some real system 00:53:07 oerjan: insofar as it's based on axioms arrived at inductively , it is (by definition) without any basis except faith 00:53:31 kwertii: And mathematicians don't care about the equations except insofar as further interesting statements can be made. 00:53:44 pikhq: most mathematicians, yeah, but mathematical philosophers... 00:54:08 kwertii: we have reason to believer it is consistent, though, as good as for any other scientific theory, because it has kept on not being proven inconsistent 00:54:13 *-r 00:54:16 pikhq: It's an interesting game, sure, but it's not capital-T Truth in any sense. 00:54:27 Mathematical philosophers are not talking about math, but rather their own stupid thoughts on what math is. 00:54:31 kwertii: by "ZFC is correct", do you mean "ZFC is consistent" 00:54:43 or do you mean that it's correct 00:54:58 The very term "correct" does not even apply to axioms. ;) 00:55:01 oerjan: sure, it's a good working hypothesis insofar as it turns out useful results, but it's not metaphysical capital-T Truth. it's a set of asserted rules for a game 00:55:21 i mean is "correct" a mathematical philosophical term and what does it mean 00:55:31 oklokok: by "correct", I mean an accurate description of some aspect of reality 00:55:44 oklokok: everything is a philosophical term ;) 00:55:49 right, i have no idea what that means 00:56:05 kwertii: "ZFC is correct" has less meaning than "colorless green ideas dream furiously". 00:56:23 pikhq: my point exactly. 00:56:41 kwertii: its importance is because all other games we have so far invented can be imbedded into it in one way or another 00:56:42 ... But you've not been saying that at all. 00:56:52 oerjan: most.. but not all...... 00:57:06 pikhq: perhaps I haven't been explaining myself very well 00:57:17 oerjan: which is cool. no question about it 00:57:30 You've been saying that "mathematical truths are real" and "'ZFC is correct' is a belief". 00:57:50 pikhq: yes. faith based assertions which are not testable 00:58:07 not assertions 00:58:15 kwertii: No, they are contradictions in terms. 00:58:18 axioms are by definition assertions. they don't derive from anything 00:58:53 pikhq: please explain 00:58:55 Mathematical anything is not real. And ZFC is neither correct nor incorrect. 00:59:09 Mathematics is the very opposite of reality. 00:59:15 It's all in our heads! 00:59:21 pikhq: ah, good, we agree after all :) 00:59:26 kwertii: if you are liberal with what you consider an embedding, i'm not sure about "but not all" 00:59:41 oerjan: well, it can't model "random" processes, by definition 00:59:44 there are kripke models for alternative logics, for example 00:59:47 kwertii: Which is hugely different from religion. 01:00:01 Religion states "X is real". 01:00:04 kwertii: huh, sure it can. have you never heard of probability theory 01:00:09 ? 01:00:12 Math says "Shove reality, we're having fun!" 01:00:22 oerjan: "random" results are by definition those that do not follow any known probability distribution 01:00:37 kwertii: that's an unusual definition of random 01:00:38 huh. 01:00:53 oerjan: if you know a reliable way to model random phenomena, contact me and let's make a boatload of money in the stock market :) 01:01:10 kwertii: modeling does not imply being able to predict 01:01:43 oerjan: a theory that does not make testable predictions is (by definition) unscientific 01:01:50 the stock market problem is probably chaos 01:02:08 kwertii: Good thing math isn't science. 01:02:13 oerjan: or sunspots or earthquakes or weather phenomena or the emission of radiation from unstable elements or outer space radio noise, etc. 01:02:17 math has nothing to do with science 01:02:21 pikhq: haha 01:02:29 that's a ridiculous claim 01:02:39 science needs a universe 01:02:42 an unscientific theory is, by definition, magical thinking.. a religion 01:02:52 8| 01:02:54 superstition 01:02:58 numerology! 01:03:00 No. 01:03:12 cf. critical rationalism of Karl Popper in phil of science 01:03:27 kwertii: those are still things that model the real world, only they don't follow any scientific method. 01:03:31 they are closer to science than math. 01:03:36 *than math is 01:03:44 kwertii: being unable to predict exactly is not unscientific, and math _proves_ you cannot predict chaotic systems long-term other than statistically 01:04:04 oerjan: chaotic != truly random 01:04:04 I think that this conversation suffices as empirical evidence that philosophy has terrible axioms. 01:04:20 With that said, I'm going to go pack. 01:04:21 pikhq: we don't use axioms, they're just faith-based superstition ;) 01:04:26 kwertii: there is no proof any of those examples are more than chaotic 01:04:53 oerjan: that's part of the interesting part, "randomness" can only be defined negatively... as something like "the lack of any known ordering" 01:05:13 oerjan: many phenomena previously considered "random" were later found to simply have non-obvious order 01:05:22 -!- Sgeo has quit (Connection timed out). 01:05:42 so you define random as a sequence a tm can't produce? 01:06:10 oklokok: I don't know if I'd use that particular definition, but it could be 01:06:11 -!- Sneezle has quit ("good night, have fun o/"). 01:06:37 oklokok: you could just have a tm repeat some previously known "random" sequence, in which case that def reduces to "uncompressable information" or something like that 01:07:01 oklokok: but the problem is that any sufficiently long "random" sequence will eventually include some compressable data 01:07:08 what? 01:07:20 err, is that so 01:07:32 oklokok: if you have an infinitely long "random" string, it will contain the complete works of Shakespeare somewhere 01:07:50 with probability 1 01:07:55 yes 01:07:56 yes 01:08:03 kwertii: that doesn't make the whole sequence compressible though 01:08:42 oerjan: ok, I can accept more readily "the sequence as a whole is uncompressible" as a good definition.. but then you could compress it insofar as you could replace large chunks of it with algorithms and make it smaller 01:08:52 eh 01:08:55 I don't know exactly what "random" means. if I did, I'd be a billionaire. 01:09:25 kwertii: nope, doesn't work, the overhead to handle those "compressible" bits will make the _rest_ longer 01:09:26 we should have like a basic information theory exam for getting on this channel 01:10:00 oerjan: but you could have an overall "smaller" string still if your overhead is smaller than the sequence removed 01:10:26 kwertii: but if the whole string is incompressible, then you cannot achieve that, by definition 01:10:42 i'll follow ehird's lead and go to the shoppe, methinks -> 01:10:42 oerjan: ok, so "uncompressable" is not a good definition for "random" then :) 01:11:16 it's undecidable, for one thing... 01:12:15 but then so is stochastical randomness 01:13:12 ehird: Mmmm, home-made sparkling water! 01:15:28 -!- ehird has quit. 01:16:24 -!- oklokok has quit (wolfe.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 01:16:24 -!- oerjan has quit (wolfe.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 01:16:24 -!- dbc has quit (wolfe.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 01:16:24 -!- ineiros_ has quit (wolfe.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 01:16:25 -!- mycroftiv has quit (wolfe.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 01:16:25 -!- Deewiant has quit (wolfe.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 01:16:25 -!- fungot has quit (wolfe.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 01:17:33 -!- mycroftiv has joined. 01:17:33 -!- Deewiant has joined. 01:17:33 -!- fungot has joined. 01:22:38 -!- JoelyWoely has joined. 01:24:07 -!- oklopol has joined. 01:33:38 -!- CESSMASTER has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 01:36:34 -!- ehird has joined. 01:39:18 GregorR: what about water 01:39:27 It's sparkling :P 01:39:36 okay :P 01:39:37 [00:51] kwertii: pikhq: as I said to oklokok .... yea, most practicing mathematicians don't know or care about the philosophical basis of their work, they're just playing a game 01:39:38 fuuck you 01:39:41 way to trivialise mathematics 01:39:50 -!- ehird has quit (Remote closed the connection). 01:39:57 ?? 01:40:04 -!- ehird has joined. 01:40:10 ehird: ?? like it's *my* fault 01:40:23 >:| 01:40:36 gawd i hate philosophers 01:40:46