Z-Day 2010 - "Be the change we want to see in the world

Post Reply New Topic

A 2 hour video? I don't think most of us would waste the time.

Additionally, which economy's stability? We all know that you haven't studied the claims of mainstream economics(or even major heterodox movements), and what they argue in regard to the current system, so if this is a criticism of the economy, a subject that you know nothing about, I don't see the real point of listening.

If this is such a waste of time, then how come you have been in this discussion on both of the threads? I am not even gonna bother to calculate how much time you have already spent on debating this. For you to say a 2 hour video is a waste of your time is extremely silly now that you have spent countless hours on the subject with me.

No, I really will not. Quit waffling. Go through those seven statements. Tell me where a premise is false, or where a logical implication is unsound. I know you cannot do so, because all my premises are true and the structure of my proof is valid.

What I am doing here is actually establishing another proposition:

1) I have refuted the Venus Project beyond any reasonable disagreement (see the proof in my last post)
2) You continue to disagree (evidenced this post of yours, and likely any subsequent ones)
3) Therefore you are not reasonable. (by 1 and 2)

Since I have demonstrated that you are not reasonable, there is no longer any purpose in attempting to reason with you.

I did ask you to tell me exactly where you got your sources from. Could you tell me exactly where please? Coz from what I can tell, these are nothing but your own projections.

In fact, reading them again, they ARE your own projections. And I have been responding to them for the past 13 pages, not to mention the previous thread.

I asked you to provide an OFFICIAL source along with exact details where you got it from that you wished answering or elaborating on, and I would respond as best I could. You inability to do this concerns me.

You provided premise 1.
Premise 2 is a basic statement of computer science. It is self-evident.
Premise 3 is a statement of chaos theory, which is a valid mathematical theory.
Premise 4 is a statement that the workings of an economy are a matter of chaos theory.

The most questionable premise is 4, and even then it is a pretty acceptable premise. I mean, there are a lot of reasons to think premise 4 is correct given the very dynamic nature of human societies and a lot of patterns that can emerge from human behavior.

Are you referring to my original proof? Dispute any of the premises if you like, but I'll go through them to make it easier for you. "Nothing but my own projections," indeed. I can demonstrate that all my premises are objectively true.

1) The Venus Project entails a computer being in charge of resource management (premise)
This premise is true. You have upheld this idea throughout the thread, and Master_Pedant just posted a video in which Fresco also said a computer would make the decisions.

2) A computer can't do anything if it doesn't have an algorithm for doing it (premise)
This is basically the definition of a computer- a computer stores and executes lists of instructions called programs. A list of instructions is an algorithm. You can check on Wikipedia if you need more information.

3) There is no algorithm for solving a high-order nonlinear dynamical system (premise)
This is a well-established mathematical result going back to the nineteenth century. (Source: Strogatz, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos

4) The economy is a high-order nonlinear dynamical system (premise)
By definition of a nonlinear system. Anytime you have parts of a system that cooperate, compete, or interfere, you have nonlinear interactions. (Source: Strogatz, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos)

5) Therefore, there is no algorithm for allocating resources (by 3 and 4)
"p implies not q"
"p"
"therefore not q"
This is a correct conclusion from the premises I have.

6) Therefore, a computer cannot perform this task (by 5 and 2)
"p requires q" (or, more precisely, "p implies q")
"not q"
"therefore not p"
This is also correct.

7) Therefore, the Venus Project cannot succeed (by 6 and 1)
The same as above. p implies q, not q, therefore not p.


Thus, I have proven conclusively that the Venus Project cannot possibly succeed. If you continue to disagree, as I expect you will, I also have a definitive proof that you are not reasonable.

That is a pretty strong statement on my part. Even ideas which I consider ridiculous and with which I disagree very strongly do not usually get such unequivocal condemnation. I don't consider communism or anarchism logically refuted, for instance—I consider them impractical or infeasible beyond being salvageable, but I don't say that they are actually refuted. I also accept that intelligent, reasonable people are sometimes communists and anarchists, and also follow a variety of religious beliefs that seem absurd to me. It is quite rare to reach a point where reasonable disagreement is impossible, but we have reached that point here.

Last edited by Orwell on 21 Feb 2010, 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What does this have to do with quoting official sources from the project and the movement and asking me to answer and/or elaborate? I've had enough of responding to projections, which is why I posed the decision to provide me with points that you two want answering. Now yopu can either do that, or you can ceise wasting your time.

Did I ask you for sources outside of the official sources of The Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement? No, I did not. Why aren't you grasping this?

Projections? Look, the only piece of information about the Venus Project that I needed was Premise 1. You and Fresco have provided Premise 1. Are you going to backpedal on that and state that the Venus Project does not involve a computer making decisions of resource management? The rest of the premises in the proof are pieces of relevant outside knowledge.

I don't need to use much energy attacking you though as I need to watch a video.

So I am only allowed to use information from within the Venus Project's propaganda? You're being absurd. What I am saying is, "A central idea of the Venus Project is inconsistent with known facts." Why aren't you grasping this?

Orwell thinks he is wasting time on you. He wants to prove outright that your idea is unreasonable, and this is his argument to do so. Once an idea is unreasonable, what more elaboration is needed?

You see it was time you were concered about wasting. Not energy. And you have definately wasted a LOT of time on this.



And you finally admit to attacking me. Isn't it the IDEAS you are supposed to attack and not the person posting them?

You agreed to provide sources from official sources from the movement and the project which caused you confusion or disagreement and to provide exact information as to where they came from so I could tell whether you were lying or not and so I could provide you with the answers that you seek. Did you not understand what I was asking? Coz you did agree. Coz I said:

And you said:




Are you telling me you did not pay enough attention to what I asked, and thought you could pull whatever stuff from wherever you wanted? Tisk, tisk.

Energy, time, it really doesn't matter. I'll lump them together. When I am responding to someone, I can do other things in the middle. Not so much with a video. Time is energy in some sense.


Umm.... honestly, you are drawing too many conclusions from too little data.