Re: virus: Hope

Chitren Nursinghdass (
Sat, 07 Jun 1997 14:47:12 +0200

>I would say that a "pattern" so produced would not really be a pattern
>at all. Just choas. The only way it might come out meaningful is if the
>actual differnet patterns used by different people were themselves part
>of a larger pattern. For instance, this:

Exactly, chaotic or ordered are just qualifications that are relative
to each other (sounds self-defining).

>1 2 9 64 3125 ...
>> If the experiment is repeated with everybody remembering his series, then
>> the same number will come forth.
>My question: if the order of speakers was changed around, but each of
>their patters remained the same, would the resultant pattern have _any_
>similarity to the previous one? I would say no... chaos.

But then if you noted the numbers in the order in which each person was
previously seatedn then youget the original number order as well.

If the new order of seats has geometrical symmetries, like say only
a roation around the center (one seat displacement of everybody),
then you'll find the ordered number easier. It's just a matter of knowing
the meta-rule which say "change the order of the persons this way" and
then applying it in reverse.

>(although if
>repeated often enough, the volume of information available about each
>seperate series would grow big enough to figure it out... then any
>combination of the series's could be predicted, and the choas fades into
>merely a highly complex system)

Yep, sounds like going META to me, find the higher order in the seeming
chaos, like in CRYPTOLOGY : cryptography+cryptanalysis.

The cryptanalysis part enables you to have statistical data on the frequency
of apparition of letters in a certain language. Now, if the code is just
a simple symbolic substitution, then with a sufficiently large text,
you can spot out the most occurring symbol and say with some
probability : this is "E".

Tha cryptanalysis part is just a meta-rule of the language, enabling you
to calculate the rules of substitution.

>> Several minds produce chaotic series as perceived by any one mind.
>This is an interesting statement. It seems to me that all of stats is
>founded on the principle that as the number of minds goes _up_, the
>complexety of modeling the situation goes _down_. People in masses are
>easier to predict than a single individual.

Nicely put, you have given me a nice meme here. Thanks.
That is, your prediction calculations are more accurate the more samples
you take.

>> The order is hidden for whom is not looking ?
>Now this looks suspiciously like the Christian justification for evil in
>the world... hmmm...

They could probably justify, but when the same "christian" who says such
is acting "evil", i.e. "antichristian", they he/she is autocontradicting.

The only way you can autojustify is by having a certain correspondence
between your thoughts and actions. Like in the meme "practise what you
preach". Then you have that phenomenon known as autocatalysis, I think.

There are good christians, aren't there ? Anybody ? Hello ?
Where are you gone, guys and gals ?