I’d been looking for the problem solving method that looks like this. Every once in a while I look at maze solving algorithms because they’re a decent metaphor for problem solving – and visual. but I’m never satisfied with what I find. Last time I had an “a-ha!” moment was when I realized that I was more prone to depth-first over breadth-first – and that I was kind of parallel because I’d attack a thing from several different ways about 2-3 years ago. …but not at once. And I’d do other things that would seemingly accidentally help solve another problem. Took a stab today again, focusing on “which are the parallel maze solving algorithms again?” and I went through a few, only partially satisfied, until I saw that Kruskal’s Minimum Spanning Tree Algorithm and it felt accurate [video I made in 2013 describing always getting lost while researching, forgetting where I was, doing something else, then getting back to it later, etc. I made hand motions a lot like what that algorithm shows in that maze solving video thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL9gm_CrEus

I’d been looking for … [read full article]


the boy slowly smiled as he realized he would not be facing them alone. “Oh… they don’t know about you, Mr. Smith. You will be there with me and they will never know you even exist. No, they don’t know about you Mr. Smith. But I do.” Mr. Smith was the alien that could control people’s bodies without them realizing he was there. The boy had learned how to talk to Mr. Smith and how to listen sometimes, even if they didn’t always hear or understand one other, during all their earlier adventures. Just then, I woke up, my left hand bent by my right elbow at the wrist. I unpinned my left hand and the feeling began to slowly return to my left hand and arm. I slowly smiled as the realization came upon me: “I Know Who You Are, Mr Smith.” The boy began to fade away. I now faced Mr. Smith, alone. “You are the peripheral nervous system, aren’t you?” Mr. Smith signaled his presence by sending nerve impulses up my left hand and arm to my brain, indicating where it is in space as my hand and arm are now fully awakened. “You’ve been with me the entire time. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I will tell them about you now.” I began to write.

the boy slowly smiled … [read full article]


ah now this is getting some place. I got all of the folks in English Wikipedia who are both “influenced by” and “influence” somebody else, allowing for more potential for cross connections with fewer leaves hanging. I didn’t limit to only philosophers or scientists or whatever – but any person who is listed as being influential for a student or influenced by a mentor/inspiration. 1112 people with 3567 connections between them. I had it calculate what it considers “Natural Clusters” One fascinating grouping it did is putting Turing in a separate categories with mathematicians but Ilya_Prigogine with philosophers – EVEN THOUGH I gave it NO information about their philosophy or mathematics statuses.

ah now this is … [read full article]

100 People “Wikipedia-Mentioned” People are most influenced By ——– (I’m FINALLY learning how to use dbpedia’s Wikipedia query a little. Found a field “influencedBy”, I then did a count, so I made this) Ken 256 Immanuel Kant 250 Karl Marx 212 Aristotle 180 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 166 Plato 150 Martin Heidegger 148 Friedrich Nietzsche 98 Ludwig Wittgenstein 94 Sigmund Freud 86 John Maynard Keynes 86 Thomas Aquinas 80 Edmund Husserl 69 Charles Darwin 69 Baruch Spinoza 68 Michel Foucault 67 René Descartes 66 Augustine of Hippo 66 David Hume 64 Jean-Jacques Rousseau 60 John Locke 57 Søren Kierkegaard 57 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 56 Adam Smith 54 Friedrich Hayek 51 Jacques Derrida 48 Arthur Schopenhauer 47 Bertrand Russell 47 Gilles Deleuze 47 John Stuart Mill 46 William James 45 Henri Bergson 45 Max Weber 44 Jean-Paul Sartre 43 John Rawls 42 Ludwig von Mises 42 Socrates 42 John Dewey 40 Charles Sanders Peirce 36 Maurice Merleau-Ponty 35 Thomas Hobbes 34 Milton Friedman 33 Jacques Lacan 33 Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling 32 Johann Gottlieb Fichte 31 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe 31 Gottlob Frege 29 Alfred North Whitehead 28 Karl Popper 28 Friedrich Engels 27 Carl Jung 26 Isaac Newton 26 Willard Van Orman Quine 26 Joseph Schumpeter 25 Émile Durkheim 25 Theodor W. Adorno 24 Auguste Comte 24 Vladimir Lenin 24 Hannah Arendt 23 Emmanuel Levinas 23 Voltaire 22 Louis Althusser 22 Herbert Spencer 22 Plotinus 22 Niccolò Machiavelli 22 Heraclitus 22 Max Stirner 21 Avicenna 21 Leo Strauss 21 Murray Rothbard 21 Blaise Pascal 20 Antonio Gramsci 20 Ayn Rand 20 Albert Einstein 19 Edmund Burke 19 György Lukács 19 Hans-Georg Gadamer 19 Jean Piaget 19 Amartya Sen 18 Alexis de Tocqueville 18 Gaston Bachelard 18 Epicurus 18 Fyodor Dostoevsky 18 Franz Brentano 18 Jürgen Habermas 17 Donald Davidson (philosopher) 17 Walter Benjamin 17 Cicero 17 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon 17 Michel de Montaigne 17 Joseph de Maistre 17 G. E. Moore 17 Wilfrid Sellars 16 Michał Kalecki 16 Montesquieu 16 Noam Chomsky 16 Rudolf Carnap 16 Carl Menger 16 Georg Simmel

100 People “Wikipedia-Mentioned” People
[read full article]

Why do I rag on Elon Musk and bigger-than-biggies? Partly Hitchhiker’s Guide, Partly Carl Sagan and I could name others that taught me some skepticism, but a particularly shout out to: David Horowitz who made Fight Back!, a show that taught me as a kid how to be a “smart shopper”, skeptical of corporations and industrialists and public relations departments, how to look for flaws in products, scams hiding in ad copy and “what’s too good to be true probably is and how”. My default position is arms crossed, “prove it to me” when I feel as if someone is “selling me something”, to test and test and test again. I’m far far far less motivated by politics than I am as being “a consumer”. And who is on the opposites side of consumers? Sales. What they selling to me now?

Why do I rag
[read full article]

That’s a good question. I was raised to see Thomas Edison as a local hero. I see Musk as a “kind of” Thomas Edison. Now in 3rd Grade, I looked up to Thomas Edison because that was drilled into me. He was local hero, made the light bulb just like Christopher Columbus, an Italian, discovered America and other such US History tales. But cracks in the veneer around middle school and I started seeing Industrialists (and politicians) from a different light, part showmen, part conmen, and even though they may end up doing some good things, they’re more the Wizard of Oz than Whiz Kids.

That’s a good question.
[read full article]

111 pages; a very detailed mathematical look of the “Stochastic thermodynamics of computation”. nonequilibrium statistical mechanics is based on “Evan’s fluctuation theorem” (1993) but I suspect it’s somewhat related to “page + wootters’s” 1983 circuit and to Bergson, all who seems to make permanent the notion there will ALWAYS be some indeterminacy (via entropy), that there are no real numbers (because information is physical and there is a limitation of how much information can fit into an area of space) — Stochastic thermodynamics of computation David H. Wolpert One of the major resource requirements of computers – ranging from biological cells to human brains to high-performance (engineered) computers – is the energy used to run them. Those costs of performing a computation have long been a focus of research in physics, going back to the early work of Landauer. One of the most prominent aspects of computers is that they are inherently nonequilibrium systems. However, the early research was done when nonequilibrium statistical physics was in its infancy, which meant the work was formulated in terms of equilibrium statistical physics. Since then there have been major breakthroughs in nonequilibrium statistical physics, which are allowing us to investigate the myriad aspects of the relationship between statistical physics and computation, extending well beyond the issue of how much work is required to erase a bit. In this paper I review some of this recent work on the `stochastic thermodynamics of computation’. After reviewing the salient parts of information theory, computer science theory, and stochastic thermodynamics, I summarize what has been learned about the entropic costs of performing a broad range of computations, extending from bit erasure to loop-free circuits to logically reversible circuits to information ratchets to Turing machines. These results reveal new, challenging engineering problems for how to design computers to have minimal thermodynamic costs. They also allow us to start to combine computer science theory and stochastic thermodynamics at a foundational level, thereby expanding both. https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.05669

111 pages; a very
[read full article]

For my own reference mostly: every mention of Prigogine (duplicates removed hopefully) from _The Concept of Time in Early Twentieth-Century Philosophy_. After dups removed, ended up with 54. Hopefully this will give me a ‘gist’ index to then search further from.

For my own reference
[read full article]