Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

CLOSURE WITH ERIC ORWOLL AND IVANTHEHEATEN

You don’t really understand the debate of the war period, postwar period, any more than our debate in the present do you? lol..

I realize you are desperately trying to frame this discourse to suit your present knowledge but let’s point out a few things you’re doing besides that framing, the perpetuation of the error of the era (induction), reliance upon antique thought (set operations, idealisms), using conflation (‘meaning/justification’ vs ‘truth/testimony’) all of which are archaic (and false) methods of investigation of anything other than scripture.

1) When the positivists used the term “meaningful”, (giving us an exceptional demonstration of a failure of grammar), they meant meaningful *for what purpose*? (Induction).

2) What was the difference between Carnap and company’s position and Popper’s position? (Trying to solve the problem of induction vs Popper’s “Induction does not exist”.) (Not that Taleb isn’t beating this dead horse daily.)

3) What was Popper’s alternative to induction? (Verisimilitude, or more correctly: “market competition”).

4) What has the scientific field adopted as their method of exploration? (market competition).

5) What does a Bayesian network accomplish (accounting of marginal measurements producing market competition between successes and failures – the same as our brains do)

6) Why can’t a formal grammar of science be produced and why has the formal grammar of logic been a dead end except for training people to detect error? (because there is no closure, and because induction does not exist, and because the only unclosed vocabulary and grammar is operational language.)

7) What does an hypothesis, theory, law consist of? (A rule of arbitrary precision used as a search algorithm for opportunities to apply recipes – sequences of operations. Forming a market competition between general rule of opportunity discovery and application-recipe) (this is all the mind is capable of so it is what we do).

8) What is the principle innovation of the post darwinian era: the abandonment of ‘mathiness’ and justification and the universal application of market competition between positive language and demonstrated action. (we call this, dynamic stochastic equilibrium in economics, and various names not limited to fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics in physics.)

9) What do we do in court to determine who is at greater fault? (conduct a market competition between the offense and the defense by reduction of arguments to the sequence of incentives and operations).

In a wonderful case of PAINFUL IRONY you are able to ‘get away’ with your error because you failed to define the term ‘meaning’ in a complete sentence in operational language. “I have a question: are untestable statements meaningful meaningful for the purpose of induction?”

Well of course, no, because induction (guessing) only assists us in free association for the purpose of discovering opportunities which must later be subject to falsification (attempts to falsify), and through this continuous competition we discover more information (recipes for action, and opportunities for discovery), and with that information more competitions to run between language (search) and operation (action).

So I continue the Poppertian program of “critical rationalism” (under which popper had no empirical evidence, or he would have discovered that decidability in scientific investigation is and can be, and is, determined by cost benefit) by expanding where he failed to ,from physical to social to cognitive sciences as “Critical Naturalism”. And I apply this critical naturalism to the field with the greatest scope of testing claims: law. Because law only comes into account under material disputes, and only admits that which is testifiable, and searches for incentives whether testifiable or not.

The positivist debate was not merely ideal or technical but was an attempt to ether further (frankfurt) or constrain (vienna) marxism (theft), and the incentives tell us what the undecidability of their argument failed to: fraud. And this is the purpose of the law: Can we find criteria under which the untestifiable yet asserted to be testifiable is not a cover for a falsehood, fraud, theft or harm? ( Where ‘true’ = testimony(speech) that correspondent with reality(existence) or a possibly-shared experience of existence.) The positivist debate was a ‘victorian’ if not ‘priestly’ discourse in which the means motive and opportunity were unstated. Because we had no evidence of yet what would occur under marxism/socialism (or today’s postmodernism) to counter the rationalizations of the marxists (frankfurt school) who were, in all things, attempting to use the ancient tools of greek platonism/socratic skepticism, and jewish pilpul/critique, as had many previous generations of theologians and philosophers (textualists), to conduct a fraud, when there words were promissory (rational) not testifiable (scientific and warrantable).

It is far harder to think in equilibrial terms in all walks of life, and all disciplines in thought, but this is the current model of all phenomenon from math (see Wolfram’s new math of complex operations), computer science (operational logic), sentience (cognition to defeat entropy), to discourse (language to defeat entropy) to economics(cooperation to defeat entropy), to biology (life defeating entropy), to chemistry (limited to entropy) to subatomic through macro physics(producing entropy). And this is why the discipline of philosophy is being unfunded and combined with theological departments, because other than the use of basic logic to train people to detect errors, the program of the 19th-20th by which philosophers sought to convert their discipline into a science, has been replaced by computer science and what used to be called ‘cognitive science’, in order to end the previous generation’s failure to adapt to computer science, and now failure to adapt to the study of the brain. The purpose of the study of philosophy is largely the study of middle class rebellion against the ruling class’s application of law or theology, and aside from the “scientists” aristotle, machiavelli, locke, smith, hume, darwin, maxwell, menger, pareto etc, they are little more than a catalog of human error and deceit, with The Rabbinical Jews, Plato/Socrates, Saul of Tarsus, Augustine, Mohammed, Kant, Marx, and now Derrida et all the most

Metaphysics is nothing other than the study of cognitive processes. It is an ancient pseudoscience for the simple reason that Aristotle did the best he could, but knew too little and had no model, by which to discuss the operational construction of cognitive phenomenon from the stimulation of the nervous system, and the continuous recursive interaction between those stimuli and memory, producing a continuous stream of prediction, over which we have some modicum of control – and in particular, given our ability to use language, can calculate using language (names of categories) to perform comparisons that other life forms we are aware of are unable to do. However, in all our language, every bit of it, every name of every category of name (noun, verb, adjective, adverb…) consists of nothing more than an n-dimensional network of constant and contingent and inconstant relations between our senses, in a fascinating and beautiful complexity the scale of which is only matched by the stars themselves.

The most parsimonious terms we have to describe these networks are Models (descriptive operational simulations), Networks of largely Compatible Paradigms (current information products), Competing incompatible Paradigms (new market entries), Theories and Hypotheses (new market features), Norms, Presumptions, and intuitions (established markets), and a field of ‘Grammars’ of deflationary to descriptive to inflationary to fictionalisms – and there is every bit of evidence to suggest that we can produce one most parsimonious paradigm in the grammar of constant relations we call operations, and their constant relations to existential reality.

So when you say “an alternative metaphysics” this means an alternative physical cognitive ability. When you say “an alternative ontology” the question is one of competitive parsimony, correspondence, consequence, and incentive.

No more sophisms. Science is the universal language of truth, even if there are a host of allegorical grammars for the communication of meaning. The question is what is the difference in meaning (information, consequence, and incentive) between the more testifiable, and every other alternative.

And for any alternative, what is one’s incentive to produce that alternative? Is it the cost of reformation of one’s networks? Or is it the benefits one obtains through the use of those networks to create fraud?