Category: Epistemology and Method

  • How to Study Any Subject

    Some idiot on Quora counter-signaling one of my posts on ethnicity, by demanding sources. You know, I don’t put sources for a lot of things because it requires a second copy-paste, and google image search or text search will always find it. (and maybe subconsciously i like to bait these assholes.) As usual, it’s a diagram and quotes from Nature. Which is pretty much the top of the scientific stack. and… Fuck. Do people think I make this shit up? Fucking read something other than stupid shit…. You know how easy getting a grasp of anything is? You find a subject. You search wiki and read the articles and copy the references. Now you search for those references. you read reviews of published papers that were published later, and you read reviews of books on amazon. You read the reviews of all related books suggested by amazon. You make a list of names, and terms, and key-phrases. You repeat this process until ‘I cant find anything that isn’t a duplicate of something someone else said’. Once you’ve done that pick the best book, and read it’s table of contents. Try figure out which chapter makes the argument rather than prepares for it or explains it. Scan that chapter. then read it. Then if you think there is more to learn read more until there isn’t. Check the back of the book’s glossary and bibliography. Just scan them for things you either don’t know or sound interesting. Pick another book. Do the same. Most of the time BOOKS CAN BE REDUCED TO A SET OF KEY PAPERS REFERENCED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY. If not, they can be reduced to a central thesis, and the rest of the book is just DEFENSE of it. My opinion on research is not to put a lot of stock in any defense, but to put stock tin the competition of books and papers that compete with one another on the topic. So I recommend using the cheapness of the internet to survey a subject and then get into the books. Most of the time I work by finding an author that has created a novel insight and then reading the papers in his bibliography. It may seem like a lot is published but the truth is very few books in any year are of substance at the level of group evolutionary strategy and politics. Once you are ‘current’ with the state of knowledge you just literally follow the top blogs, and read the relatively few papers that have any meaning. What you find is that all the discipilnes duplicate effort on what you would consider awfully obvious matters. By contrast, what most people do is the other way around: try to find one book and they get ‘hooked by the authors frame.’ and then they’re anchored. Start with an overview of the ‘market for ideas’. This isn’t the middle ages. Nearly every book more than a year old is available for free somewhere somehow. In fact, we have just about everything worth reading already in our library in digital form. (Rant off.)

  • How to Study Any Subject

    Some idiot on Quora counter-signaling one of my posts on ethnicity, by demanding sources. You know, I don’t put sources for a lot of things because it requires a second copy-paste, and google image search or text search will always find it. (and maybe subconsciously i like to bait these assholes.) As usual, it’s a diagram and quotes from Nature. Which is pretty much the top of the scientific stack. and… Fuck. Do people think I make this shit up? Fucking read something other than stupid shit…. You know how easy getting a grasp of anything is? You find a subject. You search wiki and read the articles and copy the references. Now you search for those references. you read reviews of published papers that were published later, and you read reviews of books on amazon. You read the reviews of all related books suggested by amazon. You make a list of names, and terms, and key-phrases. You repeat this process until ‘I cant find anything that isn’t a duplicate of something someone else said’. Once you’ve done that pick the best book, and read it’s table of contents. Try figure out which chapter makes the argument rather than prepares for it or explains it. Scan that chapter. then read it. Then if you think there is more to learn read more until there isn’t. Check the back of the book’s glossary and bibliography. Just scan them for things you either don’t know or sound interesting. Pick another book. Do the same. Most of the time BOOKS CAN BE REDUCED TO A SET OF KEY PAPERS REFERENCED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY. If not, they can be reduced to a central thesis, and the rest of the book is just DEFENSE of it. My opinion on research is not to put a lot of stock in any defense, but to put stock tin the competition of books and papers that compete with one another on the topic. So I recommend using the cheapness of the internet to survey a subject and then get into the books. Most of the time I work by finding an author that has created a novel insight and then reading the papers in his bibliography. It may seem like a lot is published but the truth is very few books in any year are of substance at the level of group evolutionary strategy and politics. Once you are ‘current’ with the state of knowledge you just literally follow the top blogs, and read the relatively few papers that have any meaning. What you find is that all the discipilnes duplicate effort on what you would consider awfully obvious matters. By contrast, what most people do is the other way around: try to find one book and they get ‘hooked by the authors frame.’ and then they’re anchored. Start with an overview of the ‘market for ideas’. This isn’t the middle ages. Nearly every book more than a year old is available for free somewhere somehow. In fact, we have just about everything worth reading already in our library in digital form. (Rant off.)

  • Overview

    We can sense Perceptions (physical world), intuitions (not open to introspection) and reason (open to introspection) 1 – Physical (Senses) 2 – Intuitionistic (Emotions and Intuitions) 3 – Intellectual (reason) Reality consists of the following actionable and conceivable dimensions: 1 – point, (identity, or correspondence) 2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points) 3 – area (defined by constant relations) 4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations) 5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations) 6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas)) 7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations) 7 – reality (or totality) (full causal density) We can speak in descriptions including (at least): 1 – operational (true) names 2 – mathematics (ratios) 3 – logic (sets) 4 – physics (operations) 5 – Law (reciprocity) 6 – History (memory) 7 – Literature (allegory (possible)) 8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible ) 8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory) 8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory) 8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature) 8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory) 8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory ) We can testify to the truth of our speech only when we have performed due diligence to remove: 1 – ignorance, 2 – error, 3 – bias, 4 – wishful thinking, 5 – suggestion, 6 – obscurantism, 7 – fictionalism, and 8 – deceit. So of the tests: 1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point) 2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line) 3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object) 4 – operational possibility (what you just described) (equivalent of change [operations]) 6 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof) Those operations existed or can exist. You can imagine a something with the properties of a unicorn, you can speak of the same, draw the same, sculpt the same … but until you can breed one (and even then we must question), and we can test it, the unicorn does not exist ***in any condition that we can test in all dimensions necessary for you to testify it exists*** This is just one of the differences between TRUTH (dimensional consistency (constant relations)), and some subset of the properties of reality (DIMENSIONAL CONSISTENCY). Mathematics allows us to describe constant relations between constant categories (correspondence) by means of self-reference we call ‘ratios’ to some constant unit (one). The more deterministic (constant) the relations the more descriptive mathematics, the higher causal density that influences changes in state, the more information and calculation is necessary for the description of candidate consequences, and eventually we must move from the description of end states to the description of intermediary states that because of causal density place limits on the ranges of possible end states. In other words, in oder to construct theories (descriptions) of general rules of constant relations, we SUBTRACT properties of reality from our descriptions until we include nothing but identity(category), quantity, and ratio, and constrain ourselves to operations that maintain the ratios between the subject (identity). Mathematics has evolved but retained (since the greeks at least) the ‘magical’ (fictional, supernormal fiction, we call platonism) as a means of obscuring a mathematician’s lack of understanding of just why ‘this magic works’. When in reality, mathematics is trivially simple, because it rests on nothing more than correspondence (identity), quantity, ratio, and operations that maintain those ratios, and incrementally adding or removing dimensions, to describe relations across the spectrum between points(identities, objects, categories) and pure relations at scales we do not yet possess the instrumentation or memory or ability to calculate at such vast scales – except through intermediary phenomenon. As such, operationally speaking, the discipline of mathematics consists (Truthfully) of the science (theories of), general rules of constant relations at scale independence, in arbitrarily selected dimensions. In other words. Mathematics consists of the study of measurement. it is understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of the universe – they are unobservable directly except at great cost. It is not understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of mathematics: because measurement is a very simple thing, and dimensions are very simple things. That mathematicians still speak in fictional language, just as do theists and just as do the majority of philosophers (pseudo science, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-mythology) Ergo, infinities are a fictionalism. Multiple infinities are a fictionalism. Both fictionalism describe conditions where time and actions (operations) have been removed as is common in the discipline of measurement (mathematics). Operationally, numbers (operationally constructed positional names, must be existentially produced as are changes in gears. And as such certain sets of numbers (outputs) are produced faster (like seconds or minutes vs hours) than other sets of numbers (outputs).

  • Overview

    We can sense Perceptions (physical world), intuitions (not open to introspection) and reason (open to introspection) 1 – Physical (Senses) 2 – Intuitionistic (Emotions and Intuitions) 3 – Intellectual (reason) Reality consists of the following actionable and conceivable dimensions: 1 – point, (identity, or correspondence) 2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points) 3 – area (defined by constant relations) 4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations) 5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations) 6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas)) 7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations) 7 – reality (or totality) (full causal density) We can speak in descriptions including (at least): 1 – operational (true) names 2 – mathematics (ratios) 3 – logic (sets) 4 – physics (operations) 5 – Law (reciprocity) 6 – History (memory) 7 – Literature (allegory (possible)) 8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible ) 8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory) 8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory) 8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature) 8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory) 8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory ) We can testify to the truth of our speech only when we have performed due diligence to remove: 1 – ignorance, 2 – error, 3 – bias, 4 – wishful thinking, 5 – suggestion, 6 – obscurantism, 7 – fictionalism, and 8 – deceit. So of the tests: 1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point) 2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line) 3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object) 4 – operational possibility (what you just described) (equivalent of change [operations]) 6 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof) Those operations existed or can exist. You can imagine a something with the properties of a unicorn, you can speak of the same, draw the same, sculpt the same … but until you can breed one (and even then we must question), and we can test it, the unicorn does not exist ***in any condition that we can test in all dimensions necessary for you to testify it exists*** This is just one of the differences between TRUTH (dimensional consistency (constant relations)), and some subset of the properties of reality (DIMENSIONAL CONSISTENCY). Mathematics allows us to describe constant relations between constant categories (correspondence) by means of self-reference we call ‘ratios’ to some constant unit (one). The more deterministic (constant) the relations the more descriptive mathematics, the higher causal density that influences changes in state, the more information and calculation is necessary for the description of candidate consequences, and eventually we must move from the description of end states to the description of intermediary states that because of causal density place limits on the ranges of possible end states. In other words, in oder to construct theories (descriptions) of general rules of constant relations, we SUBTRACT properties of reality from our descriptions until we include nothing but identity(category), quantity, and ratio, and constrain ourselves to operations that maintain the ratios between the subject (identity). Mathematics has evolved but retained (since the greeks at least) the ‘magical’ (fictional, supernormal fiction, we call platonism) as a means of obscuring a mathematician’s lack of understanding of just why ‘this magic works’. When in reality, mathematics is trivially simple, because it rests on nothing more than correspondence (identity), quantity, ratio, and operations that maintain those ratios, and incrementally adding or removing dimensions, to describe relations across the spectrum between points(identities, objects, categories) and pure relations at scales we do not yet possess the instrumentation or memory or ability to calculate at such vast scales – except through intermediary phenomenon. As such, operationally speaking, the discipline of mathematics consists (Truthfully) of the science (theories of), general rules of constant relations at scale independence, in arbitrarily selected dimensions. In other words. Mathematics consists of the study of measurement. it is understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of the universe – they are unobservable directly except at great cost. It is not understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of mathematics: because measurement is a very simple thing, and dimensions are very simple things. That mathematicians still speak in fictional language, just as do theists and just as do the majority of philosophers (pseudo science, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-mythology) Ergo, infinities are a fictionalism. Multiple infinities are a fictionalism. Both fictionalism describe conditions where time and actions (operations) have been removed as is common in the discipline of measurement (mathematics). Operationally, numbers (operationally constructed positional names, must be existentially produced as are changes in gears. And as such certain sets of numbers (outputs) are produced faster (like seconds or minutes vs hours) than other sets of numbers (outputs).

  • Statistical correlations like theories must be stated (a) in a series of subject

    Statistical correlations like theories must be stated (a) in a series of subjectively testable operations, and (b) using the most parsimonious sequence, (c) with the most rational incentives.

    Most of the time, a statistic is being used to lie or counter a lie. Like truth and falsehood there is no reason to state the truth other than to counter a falsehood. Nor any reason to state a falsehood other than to counter a truth.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-04 13:05:00 UTC

  • Reality consists of the following actionable and conceivable dimensions: 1 – poi

    Reality consists of the following actionable and conceivable dimensions:

    1 – point, (identity, or correspondence)

    2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points)

    3 – area (defined by constant relations)

    4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations)

    5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations)

    6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas))

    7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations)

    7 – reality (or totality) (full causal density)

    We can speak in descriptions including (at least):

    1 – operational (true) names

    2 – mathematics (ratios)

    3 – logic (sets)

    4 – physics (operations)

    5 – Law (reciprocity)

    6 – History (memory)

    7 – Literature (allegory (possible))

    8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible )

    8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory)

    8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory)

    8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature)

    8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory)

    8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory )

    We can testify to the truth of our speech only when we have performed due diligence to remove:

    1 – ignorance,

    2 – error,

    3 – bias,

    4 – wishful thinking,

    5 – suggestion,

    6 – obscurantism,

    7 – fictionalism, and

    8 – deceit.

    So of the tests:

    1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point)

    2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line)

    3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object)

    4 – operational possibility (what you just described) (equivalent of change [operations])

    6 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof)

    Those operations existed or can exist.

    You can imagine a something with the properties of a unicorn, you can speak of the same, draw the same, sculpt the same … but until you can breed one (and even then we must question), and we can test it, the unicorn does not exist ***in any condition that we can test in all dimensions necessary for you to testify it exists***

    This is just one of the differences between TRUTH (dimensional consistency (constant relations)), and some subset of the properties of reality (DIMENSIONAL CONSISTENCY).

    Mathematics allows us to describe constant relations between constant categories (correspondence) by means of self-reference we call ‘ratios’ to some constant unit (one). The more deterministic (constant) the relations the more descriptive mathematics, the higher causal density that influences changes in state, the more information and calculation is necessary for the description of candidate consequences, and eventually we must move from the description of end states to the description of intermediary states that because of causal density place limits on the ranges of possible end states.

    In other words, in oder to construct theories (descriptions) of general rules of constant relations, we SUBTRACT properties of reality from our descriptions until we include nothing but identity(category), quantity, and ratio, and constrain ourselves to operations that maintain the ratios between the subject (identity).

    Mathematics has evolved but retained (since the greeks at least) the ‘magical’ (fictional, supernormal fiction, we call platonism) as a means of obscuring a mathematician’s lack of understanding of just why ‘this magic works’. When in reality, mathematics is trivially simple, because it rests on nothing more than correspondence (identity), quantity, ratio, and operations that maintain those ratios, and incrementally adding or removing dimensions, to describe relations across the spectrum between points(identities, objects, categories) and pure relations at scales we do not yet possess the instrumentation or memory or ability to calculate at such vast scales – except through intermediary phenomenon.

    As such, operationally speaking, the discipline of mathematics consists (Truthfully) of the science (theories of), general rules of constant relations at scale independence, in arbitrarily selected dimensions. In other words. Mathematics consists of the study of measurement.

    it is understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of the universe – they are unobservable directly except at great cost. It is not understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of mathematics: because measurement is a very simple thing, and dimensions are very simple things.

    That mathematicians still speak in fictional language, just as do theists and just as do the majority of philosophers (pseudo science, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-mythology)

    Ergo, infinities are a fictionalism. Multiple infinities are a fictionalism. Both fictionalism describe conditions where time and actions (operations) have been removed as is common in the discipline of measurement (mathematics). Operationally, numbers (operationally constructed positional names, must be existentially produced as are changes in gears. And as such certain sets of numbers (outputs) are produced faster (like seconds or minutes vs hours) than other sets of numbers (outputs).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-04 07:38:00 UTC

  • Getting Deep Into Propertarianism’s Epistemology with Eric Orwall

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ipV6oq1is
    I learned from this two hour conversation that I can give a three hour lecture (with two long breaks) that would cover the epistemology thoroughly enough. Great stuff here. For the hard core guys here is pretty much the complete picture. And Eric did an amazing job of grilling me. ( @ Eric Orwoll )
  • Getting Deep Into Propertarianism’s Epistemology with Eric Orwall

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ipV6oq1is
    I learned from this two hour conversation that I can give a three hour lecture (with two long breaks) that would cover the epistemology thoroughly enough. Great stuff here. For the hard core guys here is pretty much the complete picture. And Eric did an amazing job of grilling me. ( @ Eric Orwoll )
  • DEEP INTO PROPERTARIANISM’S EPISTEMOLOGY WITH ERIC ORWALL I learned from this tw

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ipV6oq1ishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ipV6oq1isGETTING DEEP INTO PROPERTARIANISM’S EPISTEMOLOGY WITH ERIC ORWALL

    I learned from this two hour conversation that I can give a three hour lecture (with two long breaks) that would cover the epistemology thoroughly enough.

    Great stuff here. For the hard core guys here is pretty much the complete picture. And Eric did an amazing job of grilling me.

    ( @ Eric Orwoll )


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-03 08:12:00 UTC

  • DEEP INTO PROPERTARIANISM’S EPISTEMOLOGY WITH ERIC ORWALL I learned from this tw

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ipV6oq1isGETTING DEEP INTO PROPERTARIANISM’S EPISTEMOLOGY WITH ERIC ORWALL

    I learned from this two hour conversation that I can give a three hour lecture (with two long breaks) that would cover the epistemology thoroughly enough.

    Great stuff here. For the hard core guys here is pretty much the complete picture. And Eric did an amazing job of grilling me.

    ( @ @[602477171:2048:Eric Orwoll] )


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-03 08:12:00 UTC