Fun is a fleeing abusive
The Talking Dead: Mathematician John Forbes Nash
John, gametic deals with competition. What it is makes peoples and its people play same ol’ plots of rivalry by such a passion?
The ludic drive, poet Friedrich Schiller would say, the basic instinct to play — used to win some loss. To exemplify, a colony of bees. All members sample dust ’til the dawn. To get some juice, to enjoy the wealth of reign, to feel fine. Originally, we address zero-sum games. Prototypically, it smells like team spirit made of dreams like that. Nevertheless, to set loot and loss of one participant to the balance of its opponent, its loss and gain, it could be some malady as well. You win some, you loose some.
In the end, anyone is conned, sold down the river.
The main quality of being reconciled means joy, a state of serenity and sanity. To create things, to reflect on — to appreciate life by itself. Fun again is the fleeing abusive of. To hide, to deal sleazy to yourself, on the run to find it in someone or something else.
Bit grumpy, but a decisive difference it is.
Making fun, it means making folks laugh, about you, about your jokes, about all of these crazy things one does. I appreciate the wits, more soulful.
There are two different streams of gametic science: game studies on the one hand — game theory on the other.
Think of two brothers racing: Game studies mean the cultural study of games, all kinds of kind throughout history. The act of playing them, the identity of the players being part of, the cultural circles surrounding. Thus, it examines the tactics — made from the perspective of anthropology, sociology, and psychology. The game theory again, it lays out models of mathematical accuracy, made to predict what’s happening within the interaction of all of these gambling.
Broken down, math makes the participants of a game usable — done by using behavioral figures of traits and oddities.
It’s about two sides of the same gun, a give and take: In order to predict, plan, cover, and insure an usable game you utilize socio-scientific insights of human perception.
By algorithms made to control logical decision-making …
The whole weird wired world is math, any such a little thing around occupied — computers, humans, animals, beings, odds and ends of all kinds of kind. Any of, it’s easiest to predict, to assess, to fiddle. In the end, all of these decisions are misery-made, at least encoded binary: yes or no, one or zero, electricity in, juice off — a double-mill’s catch 22, idiomly Hobson’s choice.
Betimes checkmate, I guess. It’s sink or swim!
One feels like drowning, taken for granted. All along one agent gains his, her, or its accomplishments and assets. To the other it results in the loss of both, performance and money. In poker it’s some heads-up ‘bout the pot.
Its roots gametic’s got in war, business, and biology — creating prototypes of dualities and stereotypes, counterparts of pressure applied to unite, in recurrent flows, in everyday relations.
War is the pressure we need to unite — ever since the world’s begun. Same for people as for peoples, same for nodes of a map and cloud-computed, sensory designed beings, bits, and bots. An everlasting conflict it is. Mediating co-existence and co-operation between all of these, betimes rational decision-makers, in the end it’s same ol’ game of X and Y.
Plots of procreation?
A stream of sperms goes-ahead to the ovum, each of fitting some bit — one-track minded, on the run, on charge of one single aim: to be first in line. It’s a fight of chromosomes, sex-determinations, and poles of cellular desire.
Traditionally, men hope their offspring’s finally got both, X- and Y-chromosome. Maybe that’s the strife, the brokenness of mangend, caught-up within an everlong field of voltage.
Male, the ultimate sum, the crown of creature? (laughs) His median of North and South it finds in calmness and repose, the state me appreciates — called equlibirum. Granted, woman, often told it is, but still the nigger of the world? The distinction, assumed as seen, is evident, no doubt even to my knowledge. The answer again refers to the world of animals — birds first of all, some insects, many reptiles, a lot of others. In there it’s the other way ‘round. Males are the homogametic ones, ZZ-determined. Females again, they pull the heterogametic gender of ZW-chromosomes.
Drop a thesis X, get the cause of reason Y, process the cause of rhyme Z — that’s, what makes some sense.
Never say die. It’s not just another triage, it’s the matroyshka construct of app-wired entities. Every creature of this atmosphere means just another blend. A map, an areal of cells, a compound of chemicals, a field of atomic meltdown, of fission and attractivity scratched by electricity and magnetism. Put some wired XY-shape the ZW in, give XX its ZZ-organic innermost — from some perspective they are similar. Granted, a little bit simplified it is, but split or bi-polar? For sure, as to gender it’s anyone of us.
The Z-chromosome is larger and has more genoms than the X-determination. Guess, the ascendancy of man stays undefeated.
Indeed, I second that! (sneering) Given the little advance to male’s doubled Z, in quantity of elementaries it’s still mankind, literally — agreed. And as long as you focus to disunity, you’re totally right. But it’s just the economical and political force, made to poison the movements.
Tell me!
Broken down to ultimate ratio, there’s no human, no animal, no being one of its kind. The animal-like approach is chosen to overcome all of these distinctives and stereotypes, no more, no less — man/woman, human/animals, and even more. But back to the basics, the main problem: XY-shapes reject each other, in terms of outer as in inner strife, triggering power games of all kinds of kind, even the brokenness you’ve meant, some might say the playboy’s given drag. Balanced, forced into line, XY-shapes are by animalistic ZZ-sets. The result, same to women: inner, self-referential attraction — the on/on, off/off of XX-shape, its balance, its computed equilibrium.
Wouldn’t it be nice?
An inner balance doesn’t necessarily mean, there’s no bitchiness (laughs), therefore in companion. Same to same ol’ thing, the predictive preventive — ‘til one finds somebody new. But seriously, think of the turnaround, the ZW-procedures to female. It’s the breakaway tie, made to stir ’em up, in terms of behavioural features, in terms of any single action, according to virtual sextasy as well. In the end it’s one of the most influencing algorithms to fresh demand.
Evil to him used to think, it might be all ‘bout greeds and guilts.
All of these operations of games people play, mostly just for funsies, turn the economical and political world around. They’re meant to seduce all of these folks gambling, consuming things, playing games of ludic advance. In one term, the challenge’s called the recurrence of scaling — a two-edged sword of gambling habit and counterpoise. On the one hand it’s diversification, the circular adoption and adaption of products. On the other it’s made to put the value of global flows to balance. Might be some surprise, but first and foremost that’s our craft: To loose or win some pot, to spend lust for goods and chattels, to entrap in terms of power and all its recompenses. It’s both same in the end, on the large scale as to the small one. Computed gametic sells and moves the movements, perchance the other way ‘round.
LEAFLET: JOHN NASH
John Forbes Nash, Junior (1928–2015) is an American mathematician and economist. He’s popular for his game theory, differential geometry, and the study of partial differential equations. The game theory explains conflict, co-existence and co-operation between intelligent rational decision-makers. Differential geometry is the science of shapes in the room. Partial differential equations can be used to describe a wide variety of phenomena — such as sound, heat, electrostatics, electrodynamics, fluid flow, elasticity, or quantum mechanics.
Nash’s theories are used in economics, computing, evolutionary biology, artificial intelligence, accounting, computer science, games of skill, politics, and military spheres. Serving as a Senior Research Mathematician at Princeton University during the latter part of his life, he shares the 1994 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with his companions, the gametics Reinhard Selten (1939–2016) and John Harsanyi (1920–2000).
In 2015, he is awarded the Abel Prize for his work on nonlinear partial differential equations. It’s the 23rd of May. Nash and his wife, Alicia Nash (1933–2015), are on the way home from Norway, riding in a taxi from Newark Airport. On the New Jersey Turnpike their driver loses control of the cab, strucks a guard rail — and chauffeurs both passengers to death.
In history Nash’s already immortal. In 1959, the solitary scientist begins to show clear signs of mental illness, made him spend years at psychiatric hospitals, being treated for paranoid schizophrenia. As recently as 1970, his condition improves. To his academic work he returns in the 1980s. The struggle with illness and its recovery awakens public interest. It becomes the basis of the biopic “A Beautiful Mind” (1998/2001) — written by Sylvia Nasar (1947), made into film starring Russell Crowe (1964).
