Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

masque wrote (edited )

I don't exactly agree with the idea of technology as falling onto a linear scale from "primitive" to "advanced," but insofar as that view of technology makes sense, the Antikythera mechanism is a) not nearly as "advanced" as our own technology (it's basically a fancy astrological clock), and b) not evidence that ancient technology was "more advanced than we thought" or anything like that. We have a strong idea of the types of technologies available in ancient times based on existing textual sources, and the Antikythera mechanism does not in any way contradict those sources; in fact, similar mechanisms are described by multiple ancient authors, including (most famously) Cicero.

4

d4rk wrote (edited )

Which still makes the same points, Firstly, it's not technological advancement or regression as a cultural idea based on the civilization because that would be racist, My point essentially is Deleuzian.

There is an idea of a plane of immanence where an object is measured by it's temporal relativity and causal relationship. To say one is a "precursor of" or "the first" becomes a problem since Deleuze and I subscribe to the same notion that temporally the modern computer, is merely a multiplicity of the original idea, that being the antikythera mechanism or early reckoning machines. The machine in the end remains essentially the same, unless you take the other side of the Ship of Theseus problem.

Which brings me to point 2, Why are such inventions not yet subject to More's Law-Assemblage-Production. Under the context above, we should have mechanisms that are newer and better, especially something which we hinge every aspect of modern society to, yet somehow it is the same machine with the same problems. How hasn't a better system immanated? It comes into the problem as I mentioned before of are we actually lagging behind and thus destroying our world in the process.

0

masque wrote (edited )

To say one is a "precursor of" or "the first" becomes a problem since Deleuze and I subscribe to the same notion that temporally the modern computer, is merely a multiplicity of the original idea, that being the antikythera mechanism or early reckoning machines. The machine in the end remains essentially the same, unless you take the other side of the Ship of Theseus problem.

The modern computer is not very similar to the Antikythera mechanism in form, function, or purpose. Claiming that it's "essentially the same" because it's the result of a continuous series of small modifications is silly (and also ahistorical; the Antikythera mechanism is really not any more related to modern computers than it is to any other modern technology).

Under the context above, we should have mechanisms that are newer and better, especially something which we hinge every aspect of modern society to, yet somehow it is the same machine with the same problems. How hasn't a better system immanated?

This makes no sense. You can debate whether modern computers are a "better" tool for modeling celestial bodies than the Antikythera mechanism, given e.g. the massive environmental costs, but they are manifestly not the "same machine with the same problems." Both systems have massively different sets of problems.

3

d4rk wrote

We must be in two different societies if you define function & purpose of both machines differently. As I see it,

a computer is a machine that can be instructed to carry out sequences of arithmetic or logical operations automatically via programming. Modern computers have the ability to follow generalized sets of operations, called programs. These programs enable computers to perform an extremely wide range of tasks. A "complete" computer including the hardware, the operating system (main software), and peripheral equipment required and used for "full" operation can be referred to as a computer system. This term may as well be used for a group of computers that are connected and work together, in particular a computer network or computer cluster.-[1]

As I can tell both machines can perform arithmetic and logical operations(purpose). Both machines can perform tasks through it's programming(function). The only difference, I concede, being form, however it is an outlined ship of theseus semantic technicality. However even as analogue, the antikythera mechanism is a computer the same as an Automata and the difference engine.

Even though such things have advanced since the antikythera mechanism, the same problems exist, that being calculating errors, programmable biases & non-metricization. Plenty more can be told but as far as it seems the general computer system has the same mistakes due to having the same formatting.

0

masque wrote (edited )

As I can tell both machines can perform arithmetic and logical operations(purpose).

The purpose of the Antikythera mechanism is not to perform arithmetic and logical operations in generality. Its purpose is to model the position of celestial bodies, as well as the timing of eclipses and certain astronomically-calculated sporting events.

To use the language from your provided definition of computer, it does not "have the ability to follow generalized sets of operations, called programs" nor can it perform "an extremely wide range of tasks." All it does is model the specific astronomical phenomena that it was built to model.

Both machines can perform tasks through it's programming(function).

The Antikythera mechanism does not have "programming." It is constructed to perform a fixed set of tasks and is not capable of doing anything else. If this counts as "programming" then basically any mechanism can be referred to as "programming."

Even though such things have advanced since the antikythera mechanism, the same problems exist, that being calculating errors, programmable biases & non-metricization.

You can make any two things sound like they're similar if you use inappropriately abstract langauge. Consider the following quote from Wittgenstein:

Imagine someone's saying: "All tools serve to modify something. Thus the hammer modifies the position of the nail, the saw the shape of the board, and so on." -- And what is modified by the ruler, the glue-pot, the nails? "Our knowledge of a thing's length, the temperature of the glue, and the solidity of the box." -- Would anything be gained by this assimilation of expressions?

Obviously, anything that involves calculation is susceptible to "calculating errors" since that's just what we call any errors that occur during calculation. I've already stated that the Antikythera mechanism is not "programmable," but even if it were, "bias" is almost as general of a term as "error", so saying that both mechanisms are prone to "error" and "bias" is pointless. You might as well say that a computer and a hammer are similar since both are potentially prone to "user error" and "not being suited to the task at hand."

I want to say that metricization is not in any way relevant to either mechanism, but I'll be charitable and give you the opportunity to explain what the hell you mean by that.

4

d4rk wrote (edited )

Firstly,

model[ing] the position of celestial bodies, as well as the timing of eclipses and certain astronomically-calculated sporting events.

...is already a wide range of tasks requiring logical and arithmetic operations in itself. In its analogue input and basic architecture, one may think it would be different but it is in this case the same with every computer since time immemorial. Thus ruling out this reduction:

The Antikythera mechanism does not have "programming." It is constructed to perform a fixed set of tasks and is not capable of doing anything else

Second, The Wittgenstein deduction isn't exactly compatible with our argument since what I am describing is a Post-Structuralist deconstruction of the terminology, it isn't the rationality that I am trying anyone to focus on, rather it is the Network of previous structures that breed the same mechanism as if no meaningful variation has arisen enough to immanate a new reckoning machine.

Lastly, I have already covered the idea of Metricization in a previous article of which you are welcome to read. However the summary of it is the idea of how Capitalism has been programmed into Computers via Cybernetics thus the idea of Nick Land about "Capital AI", Metricization is the mathematical proof of the problem of allocation within Capitalism or as Capital and ultimately the way to true liberation and material equity for all people.

0

masque wrote (edited )

Firstly,

model[ing] the position of celestial bodies, as well as the timing of eclipses and certain astronomically-calculated sporting events.

...is already a wide range of tasks requiring logical and arithmetic operations in itself. In its analogue input and basic architecture, one may think it would be different but it is in this case the same with every computer since time immemorial. Thus ruling out this reduction:

The Antikythera mechanism does not have "programming." It is constructed to perform a fixed set of tasks and is not capable of doing anything else

  1. Less than 20 tasks is not a "wide range of tasks"
  2. There's a substantial difference between a device whose purpose is to perform arithmetic and logical operations in general, and a device whose purpose is to perform a particular task that happens to involve some particular arithmetic operations.
  3. The defining feature of something "programmable" is that you can easily alter the details of the specific task it performs without physically altering the core mechanism. The Antikythera mechanism does not have this property. It is not programmable.

Your linked "article" does not define metricization anywhere and only uses the word once during the conclusion. The phrase

Metricization is the mathematical proof of the problem of allocation within Capitalism or as Capital and ultimately the way to true liberation and material equity for all people.

is meaningless word salad, and your linked article is full of similarly nonsensical statements. I increasingly feel like the reason why you can't clearly communicate your ideas to anyone is because your ideas are actually incoherent.

3

d4rk wrote (edited )

  1. Wide enough a range of tasks for an analogue reckoning machine to handle, Of course there may not be a mouse to click what star sign you were under, but the mechanics were simpler.
  2. I'm pretty sure we don't use our modern day smartphones and computers primarily for arithmetic operations either, It is a computer because it runs a program that uses the mathematical operations, we already have a separate name and machine for mere reckoning of numbers, its called a calculator.
  3. As far as I can tell from the latest articles, it is programmable, It's astrolabial, It is meant to compare both Babylonian and Egyptian reckonings of the heavens. Thus, just like an Astrolabe, the frames can be switched depending on the location and time of year. It is possible that a version for other sites exists.

Lastly, I have made an honest mistake there because I have used an old term which has since been a mononym.

The solution is Mathematical rectification. Optimization to get back to the Mathematics of the underground. The 70s and Early 80s and develop further. Quantum Computing will soon rectify this as it is increasingly impossible to keep the Optimal Control systems without affecting the rest of the datasphere and it's systems.

I also apologize if this may seem like word salad to you, Reading the texts of deleuze and guattari has since slurried my ability to make coherent ideas. If it can be of any recompense, it can be understood, if a tautology is necessary, I would say Metricization is both solution and problem, it is a solution to create material equity and enact liberation as much as it is a problem because it proves the mathematically unfounded nature of Capitalism.

1

masque wrote

Wide enough a range of tasks for an analogue reckoning machine to handle, Of course there may not be a mouse to click what star sign you were under, but the mechanics were simpler.

I'm pretty sure we don't use our modern day smartphones and computers primarily for arithmetic operations either, It is a computer because it runs a program that uses the mathematical operations, we already have a separate name and machine for mere reckoning of numbers, its called a calculator.

You are severely missing the point here. A modern computer is designed to perform an arbitrary series of mathematical/logical operations, as specified by a program, which could include modeling celestial bodies, calculating taxes owed, playing chess, storing & searching a library of documents, or any number of other things. The same physical device is capable of performing all of these tasks, and it is precisely this general-purpose ability that makes modern computers useful.

The Antikythera mechanism is not a general purpose tool - it only performs a very specific function, namely modeling the specific astronomical phenomena that it was built to model.

As far as I can tell from the latest articles, it is programmable, It's astrolabial, It is meant to compare both Babylonian and Egyptian reckonings of the heavens. Thus, just like an Astrolabe, the frames can be switched depending on the location and time of year. It is possible that a version for other sites exists.

You set the mechanism to a particular year and date (by turning a crank), and it tells you where the planets are, the position and phase of the moon, whether there could be an eclipse, and so on. That isn't programming, that's just entering an input and then observing the output.

I also apologize if this may seem like word salad to you, Reading the texts of deleuze and guattari has since slurried my ability to make coherent ideas.

Don't say that like you think it's a good thing.

3