Category: Epistemology and Method

Mar 22, 2017 11:08am I THINK THIS MIGHT BE HARD FOR YOU BUT …. (mathematics and truth) (very important) (hot gates pls read) The answer is quite simple: you just demonstrated proof of operational construction and named that series of actions. 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) 8 – 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) You have demonstrated test number 4. Only. Those operations existed or can exist. That you engaged in conflation (or deception) because you have given allegorical (fictional) names to a sequence of operations does not. Because you reintroduced falsehood by analogy. 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) is merely evidence of retention of ancient fictionalism (platonism). And the fact that we must have these discussions demonstrates the equivalent of faith in platonic models, is equal to faith in theological models – merely lacking the anthropomorphism. 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 movements of gears attached in ratio. And as such certain sets of numbers (outputs) are produced faster (like seconds or minutes vs hours) than other sets of numbers (outputs), and the reverse: some slower. But we simply ignore this fact and instead of saying no matter what limits we apply, the size of the current set of x will always be larger than the current set of y, we say the infinities are of different sizes? No. the intermediary sets produce members at different rates, and the term ‘infinity’ merely refers to ‘unknown limit’ or ‘limit that must be supplies by correspondence with reality upon application. Practice math as science, or practice it as supernatural religion. I can make correspondent statements referring to god, I can make correspondent statements referring to ‘infinities’ or any other form of mathematical platonism, but in the end, when I do that, I merely make excuses for my inability to testify to causality: TRUTH. Ergo, like I said, I am pretty well versed in the philosophy of mathematics, and I am perhaps most versed in the philosophy of science of anyone living. And I am pretty confident that mathematicians are no different from scripturalists and platonists: using arcane language and internal consistency to justify a failure to grasp causality: that the only reason internal consistency correspondence to reality is because at least in the physics of the universe if not the actions of man, determinism reigns. In other words, mathematicians in most senses have no idea why what they do, allows them to do what they do. And at least physicists admit it. And lawyers before juries have no choice. Our “Objectives” (intentions) are irrelevant in court. You do not have any right, permission, or ability to determine harm to others. Others determine if you have caused harm to them. And the jury, the judge, and the law are used to determine if in fact your words and deeds cause harm to others. As a prosecutor in court, trying you on whether you speak truthfully, you are guilty of making excuses for the harm you have done by false representation of the discipline of measurement. 😉 you might claim no harm, but then the opposition would say that your retention of fictionalism imposes a cost on every student which is multiplied by every possible action that they could have taken involving any judgement requiring measurement. If we can prevent other kinds of fraud in the market for goods, services, and testimony, why cannot we fill the gap, and prevent fraud in the market for information? 😉 In other words, in crime, neither your intentions nor your opinion matter. Defacto, you’re imposing costs on the commons. The question is only whether the outcome of your actions imposes costs. Once that question is settled, you are liable for restitution regardless of intent. Now, since the cost of the practice of supernaturalism, super-normalism (platonism), pseudo-rationalism, and pseudoscience, are only substantial when in the commons, whatever you think in your head is your choice. However once yo speak it in public you are just as liable for that damage as you are liable for yelling fire in the theater. There is no fire in the theatre, and there is no imaginary existence. Infinity is the name we give to unknown limits that must be provided by context.

Mar 22, 2017 11:08am I THINK THIS MIGHT BE HARD FOR YOU BUT …. (mathematics and truth) (very important) (hot gates pls read) The answer is quite simple: you just demonstrated proof of operational construction and named that series of actions. 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) 8 – 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) You have demonstrated test number 4. Only. Those operations existed or can exist. That you engaged in conflation (or deception) because you have given allegorical (fictional) names to a sequence of operations does not. Because you reintroduced falsehood by analogy. 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) is merely evidence of retention of ancient fictionalism (platonism). And the fact that we must have these discussions demonstrates the equivalent of faith in platonic models, is equal to faith in theological models – merely lacking the anthropomorphism. 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 movements of gears attached in ratio. And as such certain sets of numbers (outputs) are produced faster (like seconds or minutes vs hours) than other sets of numbers (outputs), and the reverse: some slower. But we simply ignore this fact and instead of saying no matter what limits we apply, the size of the current set of x will always be larger than the current set of y, we say the infinities are of different sizes? No. the intermediary sets produce members at different rates, and the term ‘infinity’ merely refers to ‘unknown limit’ or ‘limit that must be supplies by correspondence with reality upon application. Practice math as science, or practice it as supernatural religion. I can make correspondent statements referring to god, I can make correspondent statements referring to ‘infinities’ or any other form of mathematical platonism, but in the end, when I do that, I merely make excuses for my inability to testify to causality: TRUTH. Ergo, like I said, I am pretty well versed in the philosophy of mathematics, and I am perhaps most versed in the philosophy of science of anyone living. And I am pretty confident that mathematicians are no different from scripturalists and platonists: using arcane language and internal consistency to justify a failure to grasp causality: that the only reason internal consistency correspondence to reality is because at least in the physics of the universe if not the actions of man, determinism reigns. In other words, mathematicians in most senses have no idea why what they do, allows them to do what they do. And at least physicists admit it. And lawyers before juries have no choice. Our “Objectives” (intentions) are irrelevant in court. You do not have any right, permission, or ability to determine harm to others. Others determine if you have caused harm to them. And the jury, the judge, and the law are used to determine if in fact your words and deeds cause harm to others. As a prosecutor in court, trying you on whether you speak truthfully, you are guilty of making excuses for the harm you have done by false representation of the discipline of measurement. 😉 you might claim no harm, but then the opposition would say that your retention of fictionalism imposes a cost on every student which is multiplied by every possible action that they could have taken involving any judgement requiring measurement. If we can prevent other kinds of fraud in the market for goods, services, and testimony, why cannot we fill the gap, and prevent fraud in the market for information? 😉 In other words, in crime, neither your intentions nor your opinion matter. Defacto, you’re imposing costs on the commons. The question is only whether the outcome of your actions imposes costs. Once that question is settled, you are liable for restitution regardless of intent. Now, since the cost of the practice of supernaturalism, super-normalism (platonism), pseudo-rationalism, and pseudoscience, are only substantial when in the commons, whatever you think in your head is your choice. However once yo speak it in public you are just as liable for that damage as you are liable for yelling fire in the theater. There is no fire in the theatre, and there is no imaginary existence. Infinity is the name we give to unknown limits that must be provided by context.