Preparing the microscope

For a new experiment.

ezgif-com-optimize2

If you want to discuss then here are some possibilities: xila@tuta.io drona@keemail.me which supposes that you make first a mail account at tutanova or open an issue at my chemlambda repository and propose me your way. Mind that if I don’t respond you then it means that either I did not got the message or I ignore your message because what you want can be deduced by using the already available public information.

 

Google segregation should take blame

Continuing from the last post, here is a concrete example of segregation performed by the corporate social media. The result of the US election is a consequence of this phenomenon.

Yesterday I posted on Google+ the article Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there | Thomas Frank | Opinion | The Guardian    and I received an anti-Trump comment (reproduced at the end of this post). I was OK with the comment and did nothing to suppress it.

Today, after receiving some more comments, this time bent towards Trump, I noticed that the first one disappeared. It was marked as spam by a Google algorithm.

I restored the comment classified as spam.

The problem is, you see, that Google and Facebook and Twitter, etc, all corporate media are playing a segregation game with us. They don’t let us form opinions based on facts which we can freely access. They filter our worldview.  They don’t provide us means for validation of their content. (They don’t have to, legally.)

The idiots from Google who wrote that piece of algorithm should be near the top list of people who decided the result of these US elections.

______________________

UPDATE: Bella Nash, the identity who posted that comment, now replies the following:

“It says the same thing on yours [i.e. that my posts are seen as spam in her worldview] and I couldn’t reply to it. I see comments all over that  google is deleting posts, some guy lost 28 new and old replies in an hour. How the hell can comments be spam? I’m active on other boards so I don’t care what google does, it’s their site and their ambiguous rules.”

Screen Shot 2016-11-11 at 10.47.16.png

Theory of spam relativity🙂

______________________

To be clear, I’m rather pleased about the results, mainly because I’m pissed beyond limits by these tactics. This should not limit the right to be heard of other people, at least not in my worldview. Let me decide if this comment is spam or not:

“In Chicago roughly a thousand headed for the Trump International Hotel while chanting against racism and white nationalism. Within hours of the election result being announced the hashtag #NotMyPresident spread among half a million Twitter users.

UPDATE 2: Some people are so desperate that I’m censored even on 4.chan🙂 I tried to share there this post, several times, I had a timeout. I tried to share this ironical Disclaimer

screen-shot-2016-11-11-at-13-13-14

which should be useful on any corporate media site, and it disappeared.

The truth is that the algorithmic idiocy started with walled garden techniques. If you’re on one social media site, then it should be hard to follow a link to another place. After that, it became hard to know about people with different views. Discussions became almost impossible. This destroys the Internet.

Why I’m sympathetic with the US election results

There were two moments which make me sympathetic with the result of the elections in the US. My understanding is that those who tipped the balance in favor of Trump over Clinton are people who gave a negative vote. Here are the two moments I mentioned.

1. Year is 2014 and in a country in Eastern Europe there are elections for a new president. There are two candidates, coming after a powerful albeit controversial president. One of the candidates has behind him all the supporters and actors of the secret police which destroyed my country for decades. The other candidate is a bland, unremarkable one, with not as clear support. Every google news was about the first candidate. Every facebook feed was about the first candidate. In the election day I felt I need to breath and went on the streets, knowing that all is a big lie, that somebody important made a deal with the local secret police and we are the victims. The other candidate won, despite the media bias. It was a negative vote cast by the people. Those people in power in US had some local interest in this part of the world and despite their public principled stance, they had absolutely no problem to ally with the scum of the earth. Sounds familiar? (Well if you want to know what happened after, the answer is: not that much. There are limits to the negative votes, you’ll see.)

2. Recall the SJW fighting against machoism in the games industry? Very well, they did it and it’s a cause worth pursuing. But… But when Alexandra Elbakyan, who’s a woman, created Scihub, what happened was that almost nobody among the US women supporters was impressed. Nah, let’s talk about copyright. Nah, it’s happening someplace far far away, even if Scihub was accessible to anybody, like for example to US research institutions who did not hesitated to make massive downloads from that site. So, if it’s a woman, but not a californian, or a women from US, forget about social justice.

All is a huge wrap of hypocrisy, bundled in merciless propaganda.

The result of the vote shows that US people deserve to be congratulated because they have not yet lost their stamina.

And don’t let me start talking about intellectuals yet idiots. To be clear: and IYI is not an intellectual, is a hypocrite propagandist, which happens to occupy, mainly by byzantine techniques, an intellectual position. Do not confound intellectuals with them.

Do you recognize that blend?

The real intellectual annoys you by having opinions which are ahead of their time. Not mainstream, not promoted by corporate media.

What will happen next?

There are a lot of ideas circulating in, or around the chemlambda universe. So, what will happen with them?

First of all there is a way to turn this highly hallucinatory content (as witnessed by many discussions and participants) into a solid and user friendly experience of exploration. Indeed to the point of convergence with the real world applications.

One thing I learned the hard way is that there are moments when it is not good for a project to be too open too soon. One of the features of the chemlambda universe I’m proud about is that for the intelligent and creative people there is a sort of transparency available into the approx 50GB of material available. For the rest, though, things are not clear. This is done on purpose, but it does not scale with the growth of the project. A solution is needed.

Secondly, there is a solution into the frame of Open Science. I need to make some preliminary experiments and I hope to not make too many mistakes in the process.

Thirdly, as concerns the funding problem, there is a solution to that as well. It is a mistake to see this problem as the main and the most important to solve, though. I would be very much relieved if by some miracle this problem is solved instantly, sure, but my experience and gut feeling are telling me that’s not the main concern here.

OK, the TLDR is that I’m not yet in the position to disclose much, although I could go again and again into uncharted territory. I really want to communicate with you, but it is simply not yet the right moment.

That is why  I shall leave this post as it is, with the unnecessary parts “edited“.

Announcement: chemlambda can be done with RNA (final update)

There exists an encoding of chemlambda molecules with RNA, in such a way that the chemlambda model can be realized via real RNA computing. 
I shall update this post with details concerning my motivations and about how the second part of the announcement fits with my activities.
I open a bidding session concerning a contract based collaboration which could convince me that you’re an expert and you can provide me with the means to do this together. As concerns the collaboration, I shall give you an edge into being the first who does it. Letters of interest may be addressed to Marius.Buliga@gmail.com, Marius.Buliga@imar.ro or via the chemlambda repository (gh-pages branch) .
Follow this post for updates.
UPDATE: the bidding session ends on OCT 30 2016. As a funny simulation enjoy
which however does not disclose almost anything about the main subject of this post. Compare it with the simulation (needing js enabled in your browser) from the article Molecular computers (which is the ancestor of the ideas relevant here).

UPDATE 2:  Bidding ends today  OCT 30 2016 at 12 PM UTC time, measured from the timestamp of messages reaching me.  You may say that this is a random boundary and I agree, that is why I propose the following use of words  in future public references to this boundary  distinction. Anybody who meaningfully contacted and contributed to this project before the time boundary will be publicly called a supporter. This will be only a small expression of my gratitude, dear supporters please expect much more.

I thought about using the word legacy in relation to the others. This would be true per the use of the word in computing (or open science). Nah, is enough that I’ll know and you’ll know🙂

UPDATE 3: Bidding closed.

__________________

More about chemical transactions

There is much more about these chemical transactions and their proofs. First is that transactions are partially independent on the molecules. The blockchain may be useful only for having a distributed database of transactions and proofs, available for further use. But there’s more.

Think about this database as one of valid computations, which can then be reused in any combination or degree of parallelism. Then, that’s the field of several competitions.

The same transaction can have several proofs, shorter or longer. It can have big left pattern therefore costly to use it in another computation. Maybe a transaction goes too long and therefore it is not useful to use in combination with others.

When there is a molecule to reduce, the application of a transaction means:
– identify a subgraph isomorphic with the left pattern and pick one such subgraph
– apply the transaction to this particular subgraph (which is equivalent with: reduce only that subgraph of the molecule, and freeze the rest of the molecule, but do it in one step because the sequence of reductions is already pre-computed)

Now, which is more convenient, to reduce the molecule by using the random algorithm and the available graph rewrites, or to use some transactions which fit, which is fast (as concerns step 2) but costly (as concerns step 1), moreover it may be that there is a transaction with shorter proof for that particular molecule, which mixes parts of several available precomputed transactions.

Therefore the addition of transactions and their proofs (needed to be able to validate them) into the database should be made in such a way which profit from this competition.

If I see the reduction of a molecule (which may be itself distributed) as a service then besides the competition for making available the most useful transactions with the shortest proofs, there is another competition between brute force reducing it and using the available transactions, with all the time costs they need.

If well designed, these competitions should lead to the emergence of clusters of useful transactions (call such a cluster a “chemlisp”) and also to the emergence of better strategies for reducing molecules.

This will lead to more and more complex computations which are feasible with this system and probably fast enough they will become very hard to understand by a human mind, or even by using IT tools on a limited part of the users of the system.

computing with space | open notebook

Vacuum Flowers

computing with space | open notebook

Scientia Plus Conscientia

Thoughts on Science and Nature

riemannian hunger

A rambling narrative of one man's journey through mathematics

MolView

computing with space | open notebook

Research Practices and Tools

computing with space | open notebook

SciTechSociety

computing with space | open notebook

coreboot

News from coreboot world

Chemoton § Vitorino Ramos' research notebook

Random thoughts and works around Artificial Life & Intelligence, Bio-inspired Computation, Complex Sciences, their Applications, Technology, Science, Culture and Society

Steve Grand's Blog

Artificial Life in real life

Syntopia

computing with space | open notebook

Random thoughts and fancy math

computing with space | open notebook

MaidSafe

The Decentralised Internet is Here

The future of scientific publishing

ideas for an open, transparent, independent system

Metaquestions

Lets live and learn

An Exercise in Irrelevance

Knowledge, Biology and Ontologies

dpr

computing with space | open notebook

Low Dimensional Topology

Recent Progress and Open Problems

Voxel-Engine

An experimental 3d voxel rendering algorithm

isomorphismes

computing with space | open notebook

DIANABUJA'S BLOG: Africa, The Middle East, Agriculture, History and Culture

Ambling through the present and past with thoughts about the future

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Gödel's Lost Letter and P=NP

a personal view of the theory of computation

The "Putnam Program"

Language & Brains, Machines & Minds

%d bloggers like this: