[ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat

spike spike66 at att.net
Wed Mar 3 18:39:20 UTC 2010


 

> ...On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc
> Subject: Re: [ExI] The entropy of Extropy-Chat
> 
> "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> 
> > I am quick to point out that you are a different Jeff Davis 
> from the well known and loved long time ExI poster here.
> 
> How do you know, Spike, /How do you know/?? <cue Twilight Zone music>...

In my misspent youth, I took theology training at the college level, a skill
I found really useful was in spotting when a different writer comes in.
There are a bunch of tricks in the toolkit for doing this.  I was an
innovator.  The college had just gotten a computer, the awesome VAX11-750!
Oy vey, I am such a geezer.  I converted the text into ASCII, then wrote a
script which noted whenever a word was introduced which had never been used
previously in the text.  Whenever a new writer comes in, there is a spike in
the number of new words right at that point.  In those days, anyone who
could write a script was automatically consigned to social hell, cut off
forever from the rest of normal humanity.  I enjoyed this.

A sudden jump in new word frequency isn't always a new writer, but just as a
new vocabulary signature comes in with a new writer, so also comes a new
memeset.  In that sense there is a meta version of the word frequency
algorithm.

If we managed to get a bunch of us to write a story in series as Lee and
Anders attempted a few months ago, we could remove all the notations of
where a new writer started, and I would challenge us: I could find them all,
with 90%-ish accuracy.  We could do it two ways: where we intentionally
tried to match the style of the previous writer to hide the breaks, and
where we didn't.  I think I could still find most of the discontinuities in
the former, for I have another trick I haven't told you about.

The original Jeff Davis has been a friend and admired writer here for so
many years, I was able to spot immediately a sudden alteration of style and
substance.

> ...thus I've lost most interest in religion...

I lost the sense that religion is discussing matters that are objectively
true.  There is still interesting stuff in Religion Inc.  They do make a
buttload of money.  I always admire that, if done honestly and openly.

> ...Never mind the 10 commandments (or is it 12? I never remember)...Ben
Zaiboc

Monte Python routine:  Moses descending from the mountain with three stone
tablets, addressing the people.  "I bring you fifteen commandmCRASH...  TEN!
I bring you TEN commandments!"

Did you ever actually count the commandments?  I get 11:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A1-17&version=KJV

The various religions have all insisted there are ten, and to make it so,
they have gone various paths with interesting consequences.  The Catholic
tradition generally combines the first two.  The protestant tradition
generally combines the last two.  Consider the result: in the Catholic
tradition, they combine 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me, and 2.
Thou shalt not make any graven image, etc.  If those are one commandment,
then it is OK to have and make graven images, so long as the proles do not
worship them as gods.  In the protestant tradition, images of the "Virgin"
Mary are discouraged or disallowed under the second commandment.

The protestant tradition on the other hand is just as determined that there
be ten commandments.  I like the number 11 better myself, being prime, but
they say it must be ten, so they are forced to choose two others to combine.
They choose commandments 10 and 11.  That too has its consequences.
Combining 10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife and 11) thou shalt
not covet thy neighbors ox, ass etc, equates thy neighbors ox and ass with
thy neighbor's wife!  She becomes equivalent to his other property and
servants.

This leaves us with two other intriguing possibilities if we really insist
there be exactly ten commandments.  We could combine both 1 and 2 as in the
Catholic tradition, and commandments 10 and 11 as the Protestants do.  Then
we have nine, and we are free to add another thou shalt not.  What do we
want to universally disallow?  Alternately we can divide both 1 and 2, and
divide 10 and 11.  Then to get back to ten, we must toss out one of the
others.  Which sin do we now wish to allow?

Well, lets see.  Both my mother and father can at times be assholes.  No
wait, let's not go there, they are decent folks.  Can we now take the lord's
name in vain?  I wouldn't want him taking my goddam name in vain, even if he
is imaginary.  

Perhaps we can combine two (preferably adjacent) commandments.  Which two,
and what would be the result?

spike








More information about the extropy-chat mailing list