Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

Jan 5, 2020, 10:38 AM

—“Brandon Hayes so in other words p has similar descriptive and predictive powers to things like astrology and Marxism. If you recite these dogmas enough I’m sure they come to seem like objective truths, but my suggestion would be that you read a few things that are not by other cult members, or books of quotations taken out of context”—John Tangney

Alright you overconfident idiot, let’s dance.

—“Lol, who writes your dialogue?”—John Tangney

1. Is science defined as the use of the scientific method or not? If not, then what is it defined as?
2. Is that scientific method justificationary or falsificationary?
3. Is mathematics the logic of constant positional relations, if not then what?
4. What are the limits of mathematics as we currently understand them? (I’ll tell you: quantum mechanics (probability at the low end), and economics (probability at the high end). Why? Informational availability and categorical consistency.
5. So is prediction in science limited? Or limited is it by current mathematical understanding? (I’ll tell you: it’s a limit of our current understanding of single-position mathematics, and we haven’t – see Wolfram – developed the geometric equivalent that we have in curves (calculus ), lines (geometry), points (arithmetic). It appears that it is not possible for humans without the help of computers. We can however use variation from intermediary symmetries (constants) in the meantime.
6. Is prediction or explanation by constant relations a test of falsification? It doesn’t matter.

P is a falsificationary, operational, explicatory, logic of limits. It is predictive given information (bounded rationality), and is predictive given symmetries (findings of general rules of economics). It cannot be as mathematics can be closed, because we can innovate and axioms can’t. Not only is P itself scientific, it defines science and the scientific method completely. Now watch john engage in GSRRM, Pilpul and Critique.

Jan 5, 2020, 10:38 AM

—“Brandon Hayes so in other words p has similar descriptive and predictive powers to things like astrology and Marxism. If you recite these dogmas enough I’m sure they come to seem like objective truths, but my suggestion would be that you read a few things that are not by other cult members, or books of quotations taken out of context”—John Tangney

Alright you overconfident idiot, let’s dance.

—“Lol, who writes your dialogue?”—John Tangney

1. Is science defined as the use of the scientific method or not? If not, then what is it defined as?
2. Is that scientific method justificationary or falsificationary?
3. Is mathematics the logic of constant positional relations, if not then what?
4. What are the limits of mathematics as we currently understand them? (I’ll tell you: quantum mechanics (probability at the low end), and economics (probability at the high end). Why? Informational availability and categorical consistency.
5. So is prediction in science limited? Or limited is it by current mathematical understanding? (I’ll tell you: it’s a limit of our current understanding of single-position mathematics, and we haven’t – see Wolfram – developed the geometric equivalent that we have in curves (calculus ), lines (geometry), points (arithmetic). It appears that it is not possible for humans without the help of computers. We can however use variation from intermediary symmetries (constants) in the meantime.
6. Is prediction or explanation by constant relations a test of falsification? It doesn’t matter.

P is a falsificationary, operational, explicatory, logic of limits. It is predictive given information (bounded rationality), and is predictive given symmetries (findings of general rules of economics). It cannot be as mathematics can be closed, because we can innovate and axioms can’t. Not only is P itself scientific, it defines science and the scientific method completely. Now watch john engage in GSRRM, Pilpul and Critique.