Numeric (ideal, verbal, aggregates), vs Spatial (real, measurements, components).This is a reference to the Foundations Course on the geometry of thought on one hand and a reminder that descartes restored greek thought in math (geometry) from it’s infection by semitic(astrology).
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 23:58:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265794566768209922
Reply addressees: @_Indirection
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265789282834436101
An Education in The Terms Proof and Truth https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/an-education-in-the-terms-proof-and-truth/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 18:02:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265704922466615296
Oct 7, 2019, 8:02 PM Lets discuss the term ‘proof’. A mathematician creates a PROOF, not a truth. When we promise a proof is ‘true’ we mean we promise we have DEMONSTRATED a deduction is possible or necessary. The person makes the truth claim since only people can make truth claims: promises. A promise we don’t err. That’s what ‘true’ means because it’s all it can existentially mean. We use the term ideal truth meaning ‘ that most parsimonious testimony we would give if we were omnipotent and omniscient and produced a vocabulary consisting entirely of operational names.” Because only then would we be possibly free of error. But testimonial truth is only that most parsimonious description we can make in present language with present knowledge, having performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit. In logic when we say a proposition ‘is true’ we mean that the constant relations stated or implied in the premise or premises are not inconstant. That we don’t err. Now in law, we say proof but it means beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it must falsify all other possibilities. We cannot promise we don’t err. We can only promise we have performed due diligence. There are no non-trivial logical proofs. Or as others have said all logic is just tautology. Or stated differently, there is no possibility of closure without appeal to information external to the set. Or stated more clearly, non-tautological logical statements are meaningless without appeal to context. So there are no non-tautological, no-trivial proofs of anything other than the internal consistency of deductions from invariant constant relations (meaning mathematics of the single dimension of positional name). Instead, all epistemology regardless of context consists of the sequence: perception, free association, hypotheses, theory, (and possibly law), with each step in that series consisting of falsification by a process of elimination, by the mind (hypothesis), by actions (theory), by market (‘law’ or ‘settled science’) until sufficient new knowledge evolves to improve it’s precision. And where that falsification is performed by tests of the consistency of identity, internal consistency (logic), external correspondence, operational possibility, and if involving choice, rational choice, and if involving human interaction reciprocity, warrantied or not by due diligence in scope and parsimony. So grow the f–k up and leave your secular version of scriptural interpretation (pilpul) in the dark ages of semitic ignorance where they belong. If you can understand this you know more about truth than the upper tenth of one percent.
Oct 7, 2019, 8:02 PM Lets discuss the term ‘proof’. A mathematician creates a PROOF, not a truth. When we promise a proof is ‘true’ we mean we promise we have DEMONSTRATED a deduction is possible or necessary. The person makes the truth claim since only people can make truth claims: promises. A promise we don’t err. That’s what ‘true’ means because it’s all it can existentially mean. We use the term ideal truth meaning ‘ that most parsimonious testimony we would give if we were omnipotent and omniscient and produced a vocabulary consisting entirely of operational names.” Because only then would we be possibly free of error. But testimonial truth is only that most parsimonious description we can make in present language with present knowledge, having performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit. In logic when we say a proposition ‘is true’ we mean that the constant relations stated or implied in the premise or premises are not inconstant. That we don’t err. Now in law, we say proof but it means beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it must falsify all other possibilities. We cannot promise we don’t err. We can only promise we have performed due diligence. There are no non-trivial logical proofs. Or as others have said all logic is just tautology. Or stated differently, there is no possibility of closure without appeal to information external to the set. Or stated more clearly, non-tautological logical statements are meaningless without appeal to context. So there are no non-tautological, no-trivial proofs of anything other than the internal consistency of deductions from invariant constant relations (meaning mathematics of the single dimension of positional name). Instead, all epistemology regardless of context consists of the sequence: perception, free association, hypotheses, theory, (and possibly law), with each step in that series consisting of falsification by a process of elimination, by the mind (hypothesis), by actions (theory), by market (‘law’ or ‘settled science’) until sufficient new knowledge evolves to improve it’s precision. And where that falsification is performed by tests of the consistency of identity, internal consistency (logic), external correspondence, operational possibility, and if involving choice, rational choice, and if involving human interaction reciprocity, warrantied or not by due diligence in scope and parsimony. So grow the f–k up and leave your secular version of scriptural interpretation (pilpul) in the dark ages of semitic ignorance where they belong. If you can understand this you know more about truth than the upper tenth of one percent.
Ending the Legacy of Pilpul and Sophism https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/ending-the-legacy-of-pilpul-and-sophism/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 18:02:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265704822524612610
Oct 7, 2019, 8:07 PM
—“Logic without evidence may very well leave you with uncogent/unsound arguments. It is quite possible to create uncogent/unsound arguments that are technically correct in their formulation. Logical arguments with premises that are unproven are no better than bad logical arguments.”—Clifton Knox
Lots of things may leave you with unsound arguments. That tells us nothing. In fact, i bet you can’t define a ‘sound argument’ just like you can’t define ’empirical’ vs ‘logical’ vs ‘operational’, vs ‘rational’. Here is a sound argument: one that survives falsification by tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility in operational language, and if involving humans rational choice, and if involving human interaction, requires tests of reciprocity (morality). If an argument survives such a series of criticisms it is a truth candidate. But other than the tautological and trivial any statement must survive every dimension of those criticisms in order to make a truth claim of it. There is no living philosopher of merit that will be able to defeat this other than by debate over the term ‘trivial’. Hoppe poses the false dichotomy between justificationism and empiricism (which he calls positivism) whereas we can test propositions (theories, promises) by every single dimension that is included in the statement. (identity, logic, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal). Now, You still havent’ answered how a logic requires evidence, and that no a priori exists, yet hoppe bases his edifice on the a priori. So how can you then advocate hoppe? You state that hoppe engages in evidence but he doesn’t, his entire work effort from argumentation upward relies on the a priori. And I’m not sure he knows (i think he doesn’t) undrestand how to convert the a priorism into scientific terms, or falsification, or that its’ the competition between the methods: logical, empirical, operational, rational that falsifies (testes the survival of) our theories. I mean, you are awfully far out of your league munchkin. You need at least mathematical philosophy, formal logic, and the philosophy of science before you can stop making so many sophomoric arguments. So you know, you haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about other than throwing around a few big words and phrases you think you understand but do not whatsoever understand.
Oct 7, 2019, 8:07 PM
—“Logic without evidence may very well leave you with uncogent/unsound arguments. It is quite possible to create uncogent/unsound arguments that are technically correct in their formulation. Logical arguments with premises that are unproven are no better than bad logical arguments.”—Clifton Knox
Lots of things may leave you with unsound arguments. That tells us nothing. In fact, i bet you can’t define a ‘sound argument’ just like you can’t define ’empirical’ vs ‘logical’ vs ‘operational’, vs ‘rational’. Here is a sound argument: one that survives falsification by tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility in operational language, and if involving humans rational choice, and if involving human interaction, requires tests of reciprocity (morality). If an argument survives such a series of criticisms it is a truth candidate. But other than the tautological and trivial any statement must survive every dimension of those criticisms in order to make a truth claim of it. There is no living philosopher of merit that will be able to defeat this other than by debate over the term ‘trivial’. Hoppe poses the false dichotomy between justificationism and empiricism (which he calls positivism) whereas we can test propositions (theories, promises) by every single dimension that is included in the statement. (identity, logic, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal). Now, You still havent’ answered how a logic requires evidence, and that no a priori exists, yet hoppe bases his edifice on the a priori. So how can you then advocate hoppe? You state that hoppe engages in evidence but he doesn’t, his entire work effort from argumentation upward relies on the a priori. And I’m not sure he knows (i think he doesn’t) undrestand how to convert the a priorism into scientific terms, or falsification, or that its’ the competition between the methods: logical, empirical, operational, rational that falsifies (testes the survival of) our theories. I mean, you are awfully far out of your league munchkin. You need at least mathematical philosophy, formal logic, and the philosophy of science before you can stop making so many sophomoric arguments. So you know, you haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about other than throwing around a few big words and phrases you think you understand but do not whatsoever understand.
Yes You Are Unfit for Truth Regardless of Cost. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/yes-you-are-unfit-for-truth-regardless-of-cost/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:59:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265704105927946241
Mathematics is trivial. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/mathematics-is-trivial/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:53:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265702661225099269
Oct 10, 2019, 11:19 AM
—“Sometimes I wonder about mathematics. Why is there deeper structure?”—
1 – The opposite. Mathematics is trivial. It consists entirely of positional names, and nothing else. Positional naming provides scale independence b/c positions are all ratios; arbitrary naming (correspondence), and invariable constant relations because of that single dimension. 2 – Just as the nautilus produce patterns because of ratios or previous ratios, all other ratios of ratios (mathematics) produce patterns. So mathematics consist of a language (grammar and semantics) of constant relation using positional names. 3 -The physical universe makes use of a more complex grammar we call the fundamental forces. Those fundamental forces consist of constant relations to one another, and are expressible in the language of constant relations using unique names by positional naming. 4 – So we see patterns in the universe (forces, particles, elements, molecules, biological molecules, proteins, cell walls etc because the available ratios of those fundamental forces are limited in permutation. However, the permutations of each level of permutation increase. 5 – So the fundamental patterns of the universe are simply the consequence of different ratios of the constant relations between different fundamental forces, which we can name with positional names, that we call numbers, and describe by changes in position in or across time. 6 – Math isn’t complicated, it’s trivial. More trivial than the foundations of the universe, which is why we can measure the foundations of the universe and all that results from it until we approach sentience at which point the purpose of memory is to outwit those constant relations … … and to capture the difference to defeat entropy, in a process we call ‘life’.