(November 8, 2016 at 3:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Said statistics are of your selection, and in that selection you have expressed a fundamental bias which calls your conclusions into question without any need for consideration of the means of inference, which are, themselves..ofc...flawed.

Unfortunately, it's not -simply- that you're wrong, it's that you couldn't -be- right doing it the way you're doing it, even if you managed to happen upon the correct answer by accident.  L2Logic.

(November 8, 2016 at 3:07 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:

---

(November 8, 2016 at 6:32 am)chimp3 Wrote: So, I think we can conclude that computer programmers do not become gods. No matter how big they make their letters or their pectorals.

The original post maintains, regardless of my notation of such.

Albeit, we may all program...

(November 8, 2016 at 3:20 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: Invalid. 



Particularly, said statistics , (primarily of the exponential technological tranche) are existence's (earth's) most accurate description, par technological transition.

(November 8, 2016 at 3:07 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:

---

(November 8, 2016 at 10:19 am)mh.brewer Wrote: So PGJ, other than programming, text fetish's and poor focus photography, do you have any other interests?

I have not any interest, in any event, amidst this cosmos...

(November 8, 2016 at 7:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(November 8, 2016 at 3:20 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: Invalid. 



Particularly, said statistics , (primarily of the exponential technological tranche) are existence's (earth's) most accurate description, par technological transition.

Said statistics, particularly in reference to the point of contention, the very redefinition you choose to employ for the term "god", are invalid, and exist solely as a point of selection bias for you, the arguer.  It's clearly your opinion that they are valid and representative, and your opinion is demonstrably wrong.  

Still fucking the pooch at step 0.  You're going to have to start from scratch.

(November 8, 2016 at 10:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Argument ad naus.  Fail.

Perhaps you should complete the facing exercise.

Manufacture a rational argument that leverages sound propositions within the framework of a valid means of inference.

(November 9, 2016 at 12:09 am)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:

(November 8, 2016 at 10:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Argument ad naus.  Fail.

Perhaps you should complete the facing exercise.

Manufacture a rational argument that leverages sound propositions within the framework of a valid means of inference.

[*A*]

Nonsense.

Mot juste, the original post, of mine, had long compounded on internationally, scientifically observable statistics.

Perhaps it is exigent that you fulfill the facing exercise:
Stipulate one error amidst said original post. [rather than stipulating of errors' existence, absent specific notation of said errors]




[*B*]

The absence of research amidst critical topics, amidst thine, [ie machine learning, physics] shall likely fashion errors amidst observational abilities of thine.

Observe areas of focus, of mine:


(0) NEWTONIAN PERTURBATION en Calculus II integration, via Trigonometry. See 'Trigonometric Rule Collapser Set'. [An ENHANCEMENT of mine, of Newtonian Calculus, particular abound Trigonometric Integration]


(1) I have composed non trivial models, SAMPLE: (utilizing residual neural network) for heart irregularity detection. (Deriving 76/500+ via international kaggle scale) {{See '

EJECTION-FRACTION-IRREGULARITY-DETECTION-MODEL.'}}



(2) A.... n fold orthographic quasicrystal-structured neural network scan behaviour pattern routine that manifests as a new type of tri dimensional artificial intelligence scan behaviour algorithm. {{See 'MORPHING-SOMATIC-QUASICRYSTAL-NEURAL-NETWORK'}}


(3) Hypothesis/Initial Implementation of non trivial general neural fabric, {{on the horizon of deep reinforcement learning, mathematics qua quantum computing, and causal learning (uetorch tower blocks)}} See 'THOUGHT CURVATURE'.


[*C*]
Therein, what is your profession's nature?
Have you fulfilled at minimum, secondary education?

(November 7, 2016 at 6:21 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:

(November 7, 2016 at 6:06 pm)Mathilda Wrote: Time diverges from what? You're sort of saying the right words but putting them all in the wrong order. For example, life like properties emerge from self organisation, not the other way round.

Dissipative structures are thought to be responsible for the increase in complexity over time. This is because self organisation works by minimising free work, that is energy that can do work, and one way that the energy can be minimised is by being dissipated. My own personal findings which I really need to publish sometime are that dissipative structures per se are not enough for both complex and dynamic systems to be created.

[*A*]
Your comprehension of English, is rather sub par.

I shall bi-stipulate said sentence [en variation], such that you may trivially observe of the non difference in meaning:

(0) Initial sentence:
Albeit, in the attribution of like like properties, self-organization is quintessentially OBSERVED...

(1) Alternate sentence (of precise non difference):
Albeit, self-organization is quintessentially OBSERVED in the attribution of like like properties.

Thereafter, order is irrelevant.

[*B*]

NOTE:
Neural models SELF ORGANIZE on the horizon of GRADIENT DESCENT bound calculations, as some cost sequence minimizes error on input signals.

Neural models' neuronal/synaptic values are NATURALLY updated (self computed), absent human intervention at said particular juncture; p(x|y).

[*C*]
Diverge definition:

(of a series) increase indefinitely as more of its terms are added.

(November 9, 2016 at 2:15 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: This reads like it's written by a copy-paste program with veiled chatbot insults.