You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Geographical Cultural Ethos → science is dead (Part 2)

in #philosophy6 years ago (edited)

Europeans driven to cooperation (i.e. defeat of clans/tribes and adoption of manoralism) and technological innovation by continuing adversity of plagues and attempted invasions from the more populated East.

Note also the linked blog’s claim that Europeans originated from the original Steppe people who had domesticated horses for travel. This seems to correlate well with the European leap forward due to both manoralism and the use of arable land for work and travel horses instead of for feed and animals fed for edible consumption as I discussed in my blog being the great bifurcation of the West and East. With the East, going for higher population density and lower network effects.

But Western atheism can’t survive long-term because it’s negentropic (i.e. normal distributions should be bell curves not U-shaped):

Someone pointed out to me that I employed poor wording. Obviously from the context, I mean that normal distributions are never U-shaped. My point is obviously that a U-shaped distribution is negentropic. I also failed to note that another potential way that could become entropic is if the left tail perishes and then a normal distribution obviously exists within the right tail although that might not be stable.

That individual also reminded me that the discrete uniform distribution has the highest entropy of any distribution with finite support. I pointed out to him that the entropy of the discrete uniform distribution is the uniform level of uncertainty over which individual of the population will have the uniform trait. So it’s negentropic from the standpoint of uniform traits, although maximally entropic in terms of the uniform distribution of probability of having that uniform trait. The normal distribution is entropic from the standpoint of non-uniform traits, as well as each individual having an uncertain (but not maximally entropic, i.e. uniform) probability of having a specific trait. Yet clearly the normal distribution is more entropic because there’s a multi-dimensional partitioning of the possibilities, i.e. the uncertainty is greater and more distributed. IOW, the true entropy of the normal distribution when comparing it to the discrete uniform distribution must also be multiplied by the entropy due to the uncertainty of each individual in the population having each particular trait embodied in the normal distribution. Wikipedia doesn’t make this clear.

Also note that any increase in order must be increasing disorder overall (c.f. the bottom of the linked post).


Also I wrote:

Also the adversity that plausibly led to prioritization of cooperation via Hajnal line and manorialism to defeat clans, paternalism, and tribalism. And the use of arable land for work animals and horses for travel as the great bifurcation from the East which instead employed arable land for feed and raising animals for food supporting a larger population with human porters instead of the travel “Internet” road and horse driven network that supported the network efforts that enabled the agricultural and industrial revolutions in the West. Is this adversity, network effects, delayed childbirth, and greater competition perhaps is the reason for the higher variance in male IQ in the West? If the Western European ancestors are the original Steppe people who employed horses for work, they prospered by migrating West into defensible terrain.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.30
TRX 0.11
JST 0.033
BTC 64223.84
ETH 3158.34
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.29