A cross-section from Karl Marx’ Capital

This image is produced by REBUS 2.0

ea_capital_chosen_500-600

See also: words of capital, 1.0

Advertisements

~~~ Two sides of the same mirror ~~~

In the mode of enthusiasm:

An event can happen.
An event can turn real/impossible.
There is a possible impossibility.
x = 1

In the mode of anxiety:

An event cannot happen (under a condition).
An event would have turned unreal/impossible (under a condition).
An impossible possibility exists (under a condition).
x = 0

For the identity 1=1, one always needs a 0.

But the identity 0=0 is not questioned, it becomes the “condition”.

***

There is no Big Other.
Instead, there is a possible impossibility.

Woman does not exist.
Instead, an impossible possibility exists.

Entropy as a measure of relevance//irrelevance

Update: REBUS 2.0 is released!

Entropy Agglomeration (EA) is the most useful algorithm you can imagine. It’s not cited and used only because the established scientific paradigms cannot conceive its meaning.

In fact, the idea is very simple:

In EA, entropy is a measure of relevance//irrelevance.

— Subsets of elements that either appear together or disappear together in the blocks have low entropy: Those elements are “relevant” to each other: They literally “lift up again” each other.

— Subsets of elements that are partly appearing while partly disappearing in the blocks have large entropy: Those elements are “irrelevant” to each other: They literally “don’t lift up again” each other.

This is all visible in the results of the analysis of James Joyce’s Ulysses: https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.6830

In this setup, entropy becomes a measure of relevance//irrelevance, literally and by definition: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/relevant

References:

I. B. Fidaner & A. T. Cemgil (2013) “Summary Statistics for Partitionings and Feature Allocations.” In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) 26. Paper: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/5093-summary-statistics-for-partitionings-and-feature-allocations (the reviews are available on the website)

I. B. Fidaner & A. T. Cemgil (2014) “Clustering Words by Projection Entropy,” accepted to NIPS 2014 Modern ML+NLP Workshop. Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.6830 Software Webpage: https://fidaner.wordpress.com/science/rebus/

(Turkish)

The grid of all possible entropy values is a universal constant:

codtree_12

EA is a hierarchical clustering algorithm that outputs dendrograms. I have a few examples to show how the outputs look like:

Clustering of (I) plants (II) fungi according to their occurrences in studies on Mycorrhizal fungi.

Clustering of dinosaurs according to the occurrences of their recorded phenotypic characteristics.

Clustering of central wavelengths according to their occurrences in a known set of exoplanets.

Clustering of the well-known Iris dataset. 149/150 of the flowers were successfully clustered. (This last example employs an additional wrapper code that categorizes the numerical features given in the dataset)

Clustering of Last.fm tags. Part 1 and Part 2.

İhtimâl Kuramının Sözde “Üçüncü Aksiyomu” Foldur — Dr. Işık Barış Fidaner

YERSİZ ŞEYLER

14 Mart 2017, EN

1. Bir mümkün neticenin hem gerçellenmesine hem de gerçellenmemesine katkı yapan faktörler vardır.

Bir zarın atılmasında altı sayısının gelmesinin hem gerçellenmesine hem de gerçellenmemesine katkı yapan faktörlerden bazıları:

i) Gerçel atma işi. Atmanın kendisi olmadan altı sayısı ne gelebilir ne de gelmeyebilir.

ii) Attıktan sonra geçen süre. Attıktan sonra yeterli zaman geçmeden altı sayısı ne gelebilir ne de gelmeyebilir.

iii) Görüşün engellenmemesi. Atılan zarı netlikle görebilen bir gözlemci olmadan altı sayısı ne gelebilir ne de gelmeyebilir.

iv) Güvenilir bir gözlemci. Güvenebileceğimiz en azından bir gözlemci olmadan altı sayısı ne gelebilir ne de gelmeyebilir.

v) Düz bir zemin. Düz bir zemin olmadan altı sayısı ne gelebilir ne de gelmeyebilir.

vi) Dünya üzerinde yerçekimi. Dünya üzerinde yerçekimi olmadan altı sayısı ne gelebilir ne de gelmeyebilir.

vii) Sayılar için simgeleri de içeren ortak bir dil. Ortak bir dilde kaydını düşme yetisi olmadan…

View original post 179 more words

The so-called “Third Axiom of Probability” is false — Dr. Işık Barış Fidaner

1. There are factors that contribute both to the actualization & non-actualization of a possible outcome.

For the throw of a die, here are some of the factors that contribute both to the actualization and non-actualization of the number six turning up:

i) The actual throw. Without the throw itself, the number six may neither turn up nor non-turn up.

ii) The time passing after the throw. Without sufficient time passing after the throw, the number six may neither turn up nor non-turn up.

iii) The non-occlusion of view. Without a clear view of the die for an observer, the number six may neither turn up nor non-turn up.

iv) A trustworthy observer. Without at least one trustworthy observer (oneself or another) the number six may neither turn up nor non-turn up.

v) A flat ground. Without a flat ground, the number six may neither turn up nor non-turn up.

vi) Gravity on the Earth. Without the gravity on the Earth, the number six may neither turn up nor non-turn up.

vii) A common language that includes symbols for numbers. Without the ability to register it via a common language, the number six may neither turn up nor non-turn up.

I’ll call these factors, shared factors of a possible outcome.

2. To indicate such factors, there must be some common terms between the summation that computes the probability of the possible outcome being actualized, and the summation that computes the probability of the same possible outcome not being actualized.

The shared factors of a possible outcome are vital for that outcome and other outcomes related to it: The initial impulse, the time passing, the visibility, the trust, the ground, the gravity and the symbols to express the outcome. Any algorithm that computes outcomes related to that possible outcome must take these factors into account.

The actualization and non-actualization of the possible outcome must be articulated in a way to include the shared factors that occur on both sides of the possible outcome.

3. The set of terms that signal the actualization of a possibility cannot be mutually disjoint with the set of terms that signal the non-actualization of the same possibility.

If the terms that express the actualization and the non-actualization of an outcome satisfied mutual exclusivity, if any one of the terms that articulate an outcome appeared only on one side of the possibility in question, they would simply amount to a failure in articulation that ignores the vital shared factors that determine the outcome.

4. The so-called “Third Law of Probability” or “Third Axiom of Probability” is false.

Dr. Işık Barış Fidaner

 

Logarithmic greetings to my visitor numbers

YERSİZ ŞEYLER

selamlar

Sweden took in large numbers and had problems.

I don’t take in large numbers and I don’t have problems.

IBF

Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what’s happening in Brussels. You look at what’s happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris. — Donald Trump

View original post

Why Thursday? It’s the monomyth! #FolkloreThursday — Dr. Işık Barış Fidaner

Greetings to #FolkloreThursday!

In a news story about #FolkloreThursday last year, David Barnett raises the question: Why Thursday? [■]

He quotes Dee Dee Chainey’s reference to Norwegian traditions, which is presumably Thor’s day. Thor is a local explanation that I like and accept [*] but let me also give a further global answer to this same question.

Continue reading “Why Thursday? It’s the monomyth! #FolkloreThursday — Dr. Işık Barış Fidaner”

Introduction to Sociotechnical Cognition — compilation

Sociotechnic Activities at Planet Trappist-1e

I haven’t written the book. It’s just the seed.

cyoa-trappist1e

You are being sent to the human colony in TRAPPIST-1e to serve as a “sociotechical worker” which primarily involves the constant adjustment of the so-called action-signifiers that are being deployed in the space station for its variety of tasks.

(…)

There is a terrestrial legend, a myth about a life form, a neural leech that proliferates on TRAPPIST-1E. Earth folks sometimes associate inexplicable phenomena with this thing they call …?…

But your colleagues on the planet confidently deny its existence. There are adverse life forms but they are nothing like that, and the incidents on the Earth show neither correlation nor regularity, so it’s just that, a myth.

“The Earth folks have always been a bit too …?… anyways,” the professor explains. “Let’s go to the space farmer’s market and I’ll show you the actual life forms we have here.”

(Facebook)

What is a scientist? Who are “we” and who are “they”? — IBF

Thanks to the recent political developments, the present referent of the nomination “scientist” is no longer “a person that’s historically recognized as a scientist through his/her scientific contributions” but the actual concrete movement that’s organized around #ScienceMarch #BilimYürüyüşü who vocally demands that “Evidence Based Peer-Reviewed Information” (EBPRI) indisputably establishes facts by getting perceived as the self-evident state of affairs.

Continue reading “What is a scientist? Who are “we” and who are “they”? — IBF”