Category: Epistemology and Method

  • DISAMBIGUATING MEANS OF COMMITMENT OF ASSURANCES OF A CLAIM: |Assurancess|: Warr

    DISAMBIGUATING MEANS OF COMMITMENT OF ASSURANCES OF A CLAIM:
    |Assurancess|: Warranty > Guarantee > Insurance > Ensurance

    1. Warranty: A written promise to repair or replace a product if defects occur within a specified period.
    Typically covers specific defects in materials and workmanship.
    Usually provided by the manufacturer and has a defined time frame.

    2. Guarantee: A broader promise of quality, performance, or satisfaction.
    Can cover various aspects beyond just defects.
    May be offered by manufacturers, retailers, or service providers.

    3. Insurance: A contract providing financial protection against specified future risks or losses.
    Involves regular premium payments to an insurance company.
    Highly regulated and legally binding.

    4. Ensurance (as a neologism):A commitment to ensure a specific outcome or state.
    Could involve ongoing actions or processes to maintain a certain condition.
    Might be used in contexts where “guarantee” is too broad and “warranty” too narrow.

    [ Definitions ]


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-02 22:49:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1819505872646905856

  • Michael (all); The point you’re making is illustrating the difference between ma

    Michael (all);
    The point you’re making is illustrating the difference between mathematics constructed as a language of sets (ideal) vs mathematics as a language of correspondence (real).
    And that the problems that have emerged in mathematics and by externality with physics have arisen because of that idealism and the externalization of its consequences – of instead of retention of the representation of mathematical relations as consistent and correspondent whether physical or verbal causal limits – it’s all just names relations comparisons and agreements.
    So again, by Cantor, Bohr, and Einstein (as well as others) reversing Descartes, and re-platonizing mathematics, we have seen consequences in all disciplines from physical to philosophy, and even (in my field) behavioral and macro economics.
    I am not sure just how much of the ‘decline’ in progress is due to this set of ignorance and error producing very profound metaphysical presumptions in all other fields – a general decline in the ability to think clearly.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @MichaelSurrago @Plinz


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 21:21:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818396572964864000

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818396324720488677

  • I can see. But what I see is practice. But the practice of mathematics is quite

    I can see. But what I see is practice. But the practice of mathematics is quite different from the foundations of it, and the meaning of those foundations in the context of all foundations of all knowledge.
    Again, mathematics is just another grammar (paradigm, vocabular, logic, syntax), but it is a reductive grammar limited to positional (unique) names (nouns), operations (verbs), and agreements (relations). By relying only on positional names (ratios), operations, and tests of equilibria, our ability both to generalize (references, abstractions) into context independence, scale independence, and time independence is achieved.

    Reply addressees: @matterasmachine @Plinz


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 20:10:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818378611268706304

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818302637923574094

  • Invert the question, if math is just another grammar, and all grammars adhere to

    Invert the question, if math is just another grammar, and all grammars adhere to the universal grammar (language), then the unification of the grammars is possible if we universalize that grammar by reforming each discipline into one universal logic of universal commensurability. If so, then why should the mathematicians any more than the scientists of philosophers base their foundations on that which is false and produces externalities? So in other words, what does math as it is practiced have to do with everything else?

    (And yes I realize that this is a subject that is difficult to grasp without rather exhaustive studying the consequences of ‘bad math’. I mean, Descartes restores the european tradition and Einstein and Bohr devolve it again? That’s only possible because the foundations are sets rather than grammars.)

    Reply addressees: @matterasmachine @Plinz


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 14:59:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818300298512760833

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818281708745363818

  • Yes, reforming philosophy, or more specifically, the unification of the sciences

    Yes, reforming philosophy, or more specifically, the unification of the sciences (disciplines) is what we’re working on. Given that the structure (first principle) of the universe and the structure (first principle) of language (Grammar), is the same, it’s possible to unify the sciences. At which point philosophy proper would remain as the study of preference and choice and be fully demarcated from science as the study of decidability.

    Reply addressees: @matterasmachine @Plinz


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 14:53:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818298959246319616

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818279818485448782


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH MATH?
    1) A great deal is wrong with math in the sense that the externalities produced by the framework of of its evolution are vast and negatively consequential.

    2) Yes. You are correct that matter is discrete (operational, computational) and physics is continuous (statistical, calculative), and the failure of this comprehension has led to founding mathematics on sets instead of operations.

    3) In economics we are painfully aware of the limits of mathematics and we account for those limits even if most economists use the wrong calculus in their calculations. In physics they are more likely to use the correct calculus but not understand the limits of mathematics. In mathematics all to often they use platonic forms and create and export nonsense ideas to justify what would be perfectly rational if explained operationally (for example the square of negative one).

    So the claim from mathematicians that ‘it works and we don’t want to reform’ is the same reason philosophy died by the 1970s.

    CD

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1818279818485448782

  • Joscha: Still thinking about this. (a) Yes it’s more intuitive to think in spati

    Joscha: Still thinking about this.
    (a) Yes it’s more intuitive to think in spatial terms, and (b) yes it’s more burdensome to think in verbal(algebraic) terms
    (c) But optimally, once a model is sufficiently complex, we would like to visualize in spatial terms and describe in algebraic terms.
    (d) Most of what’s wrong in physics we can blame on confusing einstein and bohr. Einstein worked from mental imagery the expressed in mathematical terms – even if he had to invent a nonsense-concept like space-time as a variable. Bohr on the other hand, just gave up on models altogether. So we have two founders of present physics who, making two different errors precisely because they pursued the verbal rather than spatial in some aspect of their work, created generations of chaos among well meaning fools who did not grasp the foundations of mathematics or understand itt derived from computation.

    Reply addressees: @Plinz


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 14:26:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818292086698917888

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818022862302925090

  • CC: @Plinz Simple example of our work on mathematics

    CC: @Plinz
    Simple example of our work on mathematics. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1818286569356173761

  • CORRECTING THE ARCHAIC IN MATHEMATICS: WHAT’S AN ALGEBRA? An Algebra consists of

    CORRECTING THE ARCHAIC IN MATHEMATICS: WHAT’S AN ALGEBRA?

    An Algebra consists of a grammar (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation), vocabulary (references) and logic (comparisons) of a paradigm (set of permissible dimensions) reducible to positional names, their relations, and operations on those positions and relations.

    In other words, mathematics is a reductive langauge reduced to positional names, relations, and operations that produces reduces ambiguity to near impossibility. It’s just Nouns(Names), Verbs(Names of Operations), and Agreements (Comparisons). Just like ordinary language.

    Explanation by ChatGPT
    This description captures the essence of an algebraic structure quite effectively, aligning it with the metaphorical language of grammar, vocabulary, and logic.

    Let’s refine and expand on this conceptualization:

    Components of an Algebra in Mathematical Terms

    1. Grammar (Rules of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation):
    – Operations: In an algebra, the operations define how elements of the set interact with each other. These operations follow specific rules or axioms that ensure consistency and allow for the recursive application of these operations. For example, in a group, the operation might be addition or multiplication, which must satisfy properties like associativity and the existence of an identity element.
    – Axioms: These are foundational rules that must hold for all elements and operations within the algebraic structure. They serve to disambiguate operations and ensure the internal consistency of the system.

    2. Vocabulary (References):
    – Elements of the Set: The set in an algebra contains elements that serve as the “vocabulary.” These are the basic units or objects on which operations are performed. In a vector space, for instance, these elements are vectors.
    – Scalars (in some algebras): In algebras like vector spaces, scalars from an associated field (like real numbers) are also part of the vocabulary, used in operations like scalar multiplication. (A scalar is just another positional name.)

    3. Logic (Comparisons):
    – Relational Structures: Logic in an algebra involves the comparison and relation of elements. This includes understanding equivalence relations, ordering, and other relational properties that define how elements compare with one another.
    – Identity and Inverses: Logic also encompasses the existence of identity elements and inverses, which are crucial for defining the structure and behavior of the algebraic system.

    4. Paradigm (Set of Permissible Dimensions):
    – Dimensionality: The paradigm refers to the set of permissible dimensions or the framework within which the algebra operates. In vector spaces, this refers to the dimensionality defined by the number of independent vectors. In more abstract algebras, it might refer to the number of independent operations or the nature of the elements themselves.
    – Positional Names and Relations: The elements can often be represented in terms of positions (such as coordinates in a vector space) and their relations to each other (such as linear dependence or orthogonality in vector spaces).

    Summary
    In summary, an algebra consists of:
    – Grammar: The rules (operations and axioms) that govern the system.
    – Vocabulary: The set of elements (and possibly scalars) involved.
    – Logic: The relational structures and logical properties, including identity elements and comparisons.
    – Paradigm: The set of permissible dimensions and the framework for positions and relations.

    This description emphasizes the structured nature of algebras and their capacity to systematically describe and manipulate elements according to specific rules and operations. This understanding applies across various types of algebras, from simple structures like groups and rings to more complex ones like vector spaces and fields.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 14:04:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818286569049964544

  • IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH MATH? 1) A great deal is wrong with math in the sense tha

    IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH MATH?
    1) A great deal is wrong with math in the sense that the externalities produced by the framework of of its evolution are vast and negatively consequential.

    2) Yes. You are correct that matter is discrete (operational, computational) and physics is continuous (statistical, calculative), and the failure of this comprehension has led to founding mathematics on sets instead of operations.

    3) In economics we are painfully aware of the limits of mathematics and we account for those limits even if most economists use the wrong calculus in their calculations. In physics they are more likely to use the correct calculus but not understand the limits of mathematics. In mathematics all to often they use platonic forms and create and export nonsense ideas to justify what would be perfectly rational if explained operationally (for example the square of negative one).

    So the claim from mathematicians that ‘it works and we don’t want to reform’ is the same reason philosophy died by the 1970s.

    CD

    Reply addressees: @matterasmachine @Plinz


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 13:37:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818279818372222976

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1817993361699098667

  • Aella. The truth isn’t reasonable, it’s just true

    Aella. The truth isn’t reasonable, it’s just true.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 11:58:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818254772647895396

    Reply addressees: @Aella_Girl

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1817647899737772265