Source date (UTC): 2020-11-12 23:58:16 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105200058166164892
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-12 23:58:16 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105200058166164892
On Predicting Using Cycles not TRENDS. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/11/12/on-predicting-using-cycles-not-trends/
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-12 18:39:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1326957786215948297
When predicting the future, much like multi-body problems with the extreme example being subatomic waves, you don’t try to distill it, but simply lay out a graph of every cycle you can find enough information to capture and search for convergences. Mostly, it’s demographic. I participated in the Reagan era ‘the state will go under like the soviets’ I understood the future pretty cleary around ’92. I got 2001 right but was surprised by it. By 04 a number of thinkers were seeing the same thing. Immigration was achieving what ideas didn’t:Demographics. —“Revolutions are always suspect in prospect, and deterministic in retrospect”— I haven’t been wrong about any substantial prediction except the Chinese timeline since the early 00’s. Demographics are destiny. We will either separate or war. and we will know who to blame.
When predicting the future, much like multi-body problems with the extreme example being subatomic waves, you don’t try to distill it, but simply lay out a graph of every cycle you can find enough information to capture and search for convergences. Mostly, it’s demographic. I participated in the Reagan era ‘the state will go under like the soviets’ I understood the future pretty cleary around ’92. I got 2001 right but was surprised by it. By 04 a number of thinkers were seeing the same thing. Immigration was achieving what ideas didn’t:Demographics. —“Revolutions are always suspect in prospect, and deterministic in retrospect”— I haven’t been wrong about any substantial prediction except the Chinese timeline since the early 00’s. Demographics are destiny. We will either separate or war. and we will know who to blame.
“P-” is a shorthand tag disambiguating our formal logic from the common usage. So P-logic (operational) vs Logic (sets), or P-Law (formal operational logic of natural law) vs Law (the kitchen sink). Law proper (tort) measures by property (interests). So Propertarian = P-prefix. https://twitter.com/SonOfJapheth/status/1326952202762641410
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-12 18:22:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1326953548345733120
It’s a tag to disambiguate our formal logic from the informal common sense usage. So P-logic (operational) vs Logic (sets), or P-Law (formal operational logic of natural law) vs Law (the kitchen sink). Law proper (tort) measures by property. Propertarian = P = P-prefix.
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-12 18:20:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1326952982311788549
Reply addressees: @SonOfJapheth @ConnorMarek
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1326952202762641410
It’s Rewarding. Understanding is rewarding. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/11/12/its-rewarding-understanding-is-rewarding/
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-12 17:59:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1326947851721707530
P-Law is the formal logic of the behavioral sciences: language, psychology, sociology, economics, ethics, law, politics, and group strategies. It’s NOT EASY. It’s behavioral economics and law at once. But it is the MOST relevant and rewarding intellectual investment you can make.
P-Law is the formal logic of the behavioral sciences: language, psychology, sociology, economics, ethics, law, politics, and group strategies. It’s NOT EASY. It’s behavioral economics and law at once. But it is the MOST relevant and rewarding intellectual investment you can make.
Mathiness Without A Mental Model = Sophistry. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/11/12/mathiness-without-a-mental-model-sophistry/
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-12 17:57:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1326947338859008000