Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Math can be pursued as a language (pure mathematics) or as measurements (mathema

    Math can be pursued as a language (pure mathematics) or as measurements (mathematical physics). And while we can write fantasy novels in a language, we cannot do so in measurements. Language like mathematical platonism is bounded only by imagination, while measurements must always describe the existential because all measurement requires correspondence, while language only requires meaning.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-21 09:13:00 UTC

  • More on English vs German

    Q: What would English look like if it followed the grammar of German? by Vlad Andreev (From Quora) Have you geheard, we should to the German Grammar overswitch? That have i already yesterday gemade. The German Grammar could, itself tofirst, strange sound, but you will perhaps discover that it not so difficult is. It is yes only a Matter of Wordorder… wait but. Have i “geheard” gesaid? I estimate once, that there also other Factors be could. Firstens, the Verbs. The Present Perfect in English is not the same as the Perfekt Timeform on German. On German, corresponds she to the Simple Past on English, in the last Years becomes but also increasingly employed in order all past Forms to indicate. The perfective Aspect, on German, is with the Gerundform geformed. So, now say we Things so like “gefound” and “geshopped” and “atgelooked”. Wait, “atgelooked”? Right. Whereas on the old Language, we Things “looked at”, now we Things “atlook”. This is a separable Verb, so the Gerundmarker becomes in the Word insidegeinserted. Secondens, the Nouns. Each has a grammatical Gender, and it must with the Pronouns match in anaphoric Situations (in this Answer, i want it to avoid, new Morphemes to withupcome, or from the Old English to borrow: so it’s called the Phrase, not þēos Phrase, is but still toreferred as she). If one with the Goal operates, new Words not towardstoadd, and the existing Inflections to reuse (“in the last Years”, not “in the lasts Years”, because the adjectival Plural unmarked in English is), then are we already more or less there. Some Littlehoods remain: Questionwordorder, Compoundnouns, certain Verbconjugationdetails and a few more, but in the Principle should you on Denglish communicate can. Much Luck! ANOTHER: English: Here is a little demonstration of what English would roughly feel like if it had essentially the same grammar as German. Word order would perhaps be the most difficult for modern English speakers trying to understand it, but word inflections would be particularly hard to produce correctly, especially because of noun genders. English with German grammar: Here is a little demonstration thereof, how English itself rough feelen would, if it in’t General thesame Grammar hadde, as German. That wordorder weré perhaps the biggest Understandingdifficulty for Speaker of’t modernen English, but Wordendings weren particular difficult correct to producen, before all because of thes’ gendern’s thes’ nounen’s. German with English grammar: Hier ist ein klein demonstration von wie Englisch ungefährlich würd fühl, wenn es hatte wesentlichlich de selb grammatik wie Deutsch. Wortfolge war vielleicht de meist schwierig für modern Englisch sprechers versuchend zu verstehen es, aber wort endungs würd sein besonders schwer zu reproduzier richtiglich, vor all wegen von substantiv geschlechts. German: Hier ist eine kleine Demonstration davon, wie sich Englisch ungefähr anfühlen würde, wenn es im Wesentlichen dieselbe Grammatik hätte, wie Deutsch. Die Wortstellung wäre vielleicht die größte Verständnisschwierigkeit für Sprecher des modernen Englisch, aber Wortendungen wären besonders schwer richtig zu reproduzieren, vor allem wegen der Geschlechter der Substantive. Apr 20, 2018 9:54am

  • More on English vs German

    Q: What would English look like if it followed the grammar of German? by Vlad Andreev (From Quora) Have you geheard, we should to the German Grammar overswitch? That have i already yesterday gemade. The German Grammar could, itself tofirst, strange sound, but you will perhaps discover that it not so difficult is. It is yes only a Matter of Wordorder… wait but. Have i “geheard” gesaid? I estimate once, that there also other Factors be could. Firstens, the Verbs. The Present Perfect in English is not the same as the Perfekt Timeform on German. On German, corresponds she to the Simple Past on English, in the last Years becomes but also increasingly employed in order all past Forms to indicate. The perfective Aspect, on German, is with the Gerundform geformed. So, now say we Things so like “gefound” and “geshopped” and “atgelooked”. Wait, “atgelooked”? Right. Whereas on the old Language, we Things “looked at”, now we Things “atlook”. This is a separable Verb, so the Gerundmarker becomes in the Word insidegeinserted. Secondens, the Nouns. Each has a grammatical Gender, and it must with the Pronouns match in anaphoric Situations (in this Answer, i want it to avoid, new Morphemes to withupcome, or from the Old English to borrow: so it’s called the Phrase, not þēos Phrase, is but still toreferred as she). If one with the Goal operates, new Words not towardstoadd, and the existing Inflections to reuse (“in the last Years”, not “in the lasts Years”, because the adjectival Plural unmarked in English is), then are we already more or less there. Some Littlehoods remain: Questionwordorder, Compoundnouns, certain Verbconjugationdetails and a few more, but in the Principle should you on Denglish communicate can. Much Luck! ANOTHER: English: Here is a little demonstration of what English would roughly feel like if it had essentially the same grammar as German. Word order would perhaps be the most difficult for modern English speakers trying to understand it, but word inflections would be particularly hard to produce correctly, especially because of noun genders. English with German grammar: Here is a little demonstration thereof, how English itself rough feelen would, if it in’t General thesame Grammar hadde, as German. That wordorder weré perhaps the biggest Understandingdifficulty for Speaker of’t modernen English, but Wordendings weren particular difficult correct to producen, before all because of thes’ gendern’s thes’ nounen’s. German with English grammar: Hier ist ein klein demonstration von wie Englisch ungefährlich würd fühl, wenn es hatte wesentlichlich de selb grammatik wie Deutsch. Wortfolge war vielleicht de meist schwierig für modern Englisch sprechers versuchend zu verstehen es, aber wort endungs würd sein besonders schwer zu reproduzier richtiglich, vor all wegen von substantiv geschlechts. German: Hier ist eine kleine Demonstration davon, wie sich Englisch ungefähr anfühlen würde, wenn es im Wesentlichen dieselbe Grammatik hätte, wie Deutsch. Die Wortstellung wäre vielleicht die größte Verständnisschwierigkeit für Sprecher des modernen Englisch, aber Wortendungen wären besonders schwer richtig zu reproduzieren, vor allem wegen der Geschlechter der Substantive. Apr 20, 2018 9:54am

  • Decidability Program in Basic 😉

    DECIDABILITY 10 Law, 20 History 30 Science 40 Philosophy 50 Mythology (Literature) 60 Religion 70 GOTO: 10

  • Decidability Program in Basic 😉

    DECIDABILITY 10 Law, 20 History 30 Science 40 Philosophy 50 Mythology (Literature) 60 Religion 70 GOTO: 10

  • —“Curt: Whats the most inspiring philosophical text you’ve read?”—

    (a) Inspiration is something I don’t really need, which is why I don’t see philosophy as self-help but decidability. (c) I don’t read philosophy except to understand how previous generations of thinkers have failed. (really). Instead, I read science and art history, both of which are *demonstrated*, not fantasized (as is philosophy). In fact, I still read philosophers and generally thing “OMG this is sh-t”. (b) The only books I can recall inspiring me were those of history, particularly military history, and within that group ‘Strategy” by Liddel-Hart, and the history of the Mongols. I consider my study of the mongols my first really independent research program outside of arts and sciences. (e) And whether you consider Sun Tsu, Alexander, Caesar, Machiavelli, Napoleon, Clausewitz, and Keegan philosophy or military strategy and history is a question of bias in categorization. (d) I can only remember being affected heavily by Hayek’s two papers on knowledge, less so his work on law, and more so Popper and Kuhn’s work on scientific epistemology. In my understanding of history I have combined nietzsche’s aryanism, hayek’s knowledge and law, weber/mises/simmel’s calculation problem, completed popper’s epistemology, and Hoppe’s reduction of all social science to statements of property (tort). (e) In aesthetics I was affected by rand’s romantic manifesto in no small part because my university’s art college was based upon it – and it stuck with me HARD. (f) You might call Simmel’s “The Philosophy of Money” a book on philosophy or work of social science. I deem it the latter. And I read Weber, Durkhiem, and Pareto to understand economics for the same reason. (g) You might call Nietzche’s Birth of Tragedy philosophy but I consider it social science. I respect nietzsche but I don’t read him for philosophy or inspiration (I find german literature ridiculous), but I did try to understand how he failed to produce a more scientific program for his insight into heroic ethics. SO WHAT I HEAR FROM PEOPLE WHEN THEY ASK ME ABOUT PHILOSOPHY: is there a literature in ordinary language that I can read as a shortcut to understanding? And the answer is I don’t think so. And I am pretty sure you will learn more from following me for two years than you will learn from any study of philosophy. Not because I”m particularly good, but because I’m actually a scientist, and most philosophers have been tragic. I started with history, then science, then artificial intelligence, and then economics. And so my ‘route’ to wisdom was scientific not literary. cheers Apr 20, 2018 11:40am

  • —“Curt: Whats the most inspiring philosophical text you’ve read?”—

    (a) Inspiration is something I don’t really need, which is why I don’t see philosophy as self-help but decidability. (c) I don’t read philosophy except to understand how previous generations of thinkers have failed. (really). Instead, I read science and art history, both of which are *demonstrated*, not fantasized (as is philosophy). In fact, I still read philosophers and generally thing “OMG this is sh-t”. (b) The only books I can recall inspiring me were those of history, particularly military history, and within that group ‘Strategy” by Liddel-Hart, and the history of the Mongols. I consider my study of the mongols my first really independent research program outside of arts and sciences. (e) And whether you consider Sun Tsu, Alexander, Caesar, Machiavelli, Napoleon, Clausewitz, and Keegan philosophy or military strategy and history is a question of bias in categorization. (d) I can only remember being affected heavily by Hayek’s two papers on knowledge, less so his work on law, and more so Popper and Kuhn’s work on scientific epistemology. In my understanding of history I have combined nietzsche’s aryanism, hayek’s knowledge and law, weber/mises/simmel’s calculation problem, completed popper’s epistemology, and Hoppe’s reduction of all social science to statements of property (tort). (e) In aesthetics I was affected by rand’s romantic manifesto in no small part because my university’s art college was based upon it – and it stuck with me HARD. (f) You might call Simmel’s “The Philosophy of Money” a book on philosophy or work of social science. I deem it the latter. And I read Weber, Durkhiem, and Pareto to understand economics for the same reason. (g) You might call Nietzche’s Birth of Tragedy philosophy but I consider it social science. I respect nietzsche but I don’t read him for philosophy or inspiration (I find german literature ridiculous), but I did try to understand how he failed to produce a more scientific program for his insight into heroic ethics. SO WHAT I HEAR FROM PEOPLE WHEN THEY ASK ME ABOUT PHILOSOPHY: is there a literature in ordinary language that I can read as a shortcut to understanding? And the answer is I don’t think so. And I am pretty sure you will learn more from following me for two years than you will learn from any study of philosophy. Not because I”m particularly good, but because I’m actually a scientist, and most philosophers have been tragic. I started with history, then science, then artificial intelligence, and then economics. And so my ‘route’ to wisdom was scientific not literary. cheers Apr 20, 2018 11:40am

  • “Curt: Whats the most inspiring philosophical text you’ve read?”— (a) Inspirat

    —“Curt: Whats the most inspiring philosophical text you’ve read?”—

    (a) Inspiration is something I don’t really need, which is why I don’t see philosophy as self-help but decidability.

    (c) I don’t read philosophy except to understand how previous generations of thinkers have failed. (really). Instead, I read science and art history, both of which are *demonstrated*, not fantasized (as is philosophy). In fact, I still read philosophers and generally thing “OMG this is sh-t”.

    (b) The only books I can recall inspiring me were those of history, particularly military history, and within that group ‘Strategy” by Liddel-Hart, and the history of the Mongols. I consider my study of the mongols my first really independent research program outside of arts and sciences.

    (e) And whether you consider Sun Tsu, Alexander, Caesar, Machiavelli, Napoleon, Clausewitz, and Keegan philosophy or military strategy and history is a question of bias in categorization.

    (d) I can only remember being affected heavily by Hayek’s two papers on knowledge, less so his work on law, and more so Popper and Kuhn’s work on scientific epistemology. In my understanding of history I have combined nietzsche’s aryanism, hayek’s knowledge and law, weber/mises/simmel’s calculation problem, completed popper’s epistemology, and Hoppe’s reduction of all social science to statements of property (tort).

    (e) In aesthetics I was affected by rand’s romantic manifesto in no small part because my university’s art college was based upon it – and it stuck with me HARD.

    (f) You might call Simmel’s “The Philosophy of Money” a book on philosophy or work of social science. I deem it the latter. And I read Weber, Durkhiem, and Pareto to understand economics for the same reason.

    (g) You might call Nietzche’s Birth of Tragedy philosophy but I consider it social science. I respect nietzsche but I don’t read him for philosophy or inspiration (I find german literature ridiculous), but I did try to understand how he failed to produce a more scientific program for his insight into heroic ethics.

    SO WHAT I HEAR FROM PEOPLE WHEN THEY ASK ME ABOUT PHILOSOPHY:

    is there a literature in ordinary language that I can read as a shortcut to understanding? And the answer is I don’t think so. And I am pretty sure you will learn more from following me for two years than you will learn from any study of philosophy. Not because I”m particularly good, but because I’m actually a scientist, and most philosophers have been tragic.

    I started with history, then science, then artificial intelligence, and then economics. And so my ‘route’ to wisdom was scientific not literary.

    cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-20 11:40:00 UTC

  • The difference between well meaning fools and scientists is the use of economics

    The difference between well meaning fools and scientists is the use of economics and demographics in intertemporal affairs. There are many well meaning fools, and they are well meaning because they have never had the responsibility for the organization of persisting populations in a market for survival with competing interests, whether at commercial, industrial, or political scale.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-20 10:28:00 UTC

  • DECIDABILITY 10 Law, 20 History 30 Science 40 Philosophy 50 Mythology (Literatur

    DECIDABILITY

    10 Law,

    20 History

    30 Science

    40 Philosophy

    50 Mythology (Literature)

    60 Religion

    70 GOTO: 10


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-20 10:18:00 UTC