(FYI: A square root only has meaning as an intermediary state in a multi-state operation – it requires humans. Nature cannot store an intermediary state. “Nature can compute but cannot calculate.” However, squares and fibonacci sequences as well as many other ‘primitive’ operations permit stateless continuous growth by a single, primitive, purely additive operation. We can then reverse engineer that operation to determine that the operation changes state whenever the charge is squared. But that is a DEDUCTION (calculation). Nature works in one direction: entropy.
Sometimes I feel that we should start all math courses with a verbal description of non-linear dynamics and multi-scale analysis and then work our way backward into mathematics, which we reconstruct as ratios of constant relations. Then people would understand that we’re trying to describe complex phenomenon, and to do that we have either know the underlying operations that cause the construction of different phenomenon, or we have to express the result (average) of those operations as geometries (lines).
We use lines (geometry) to simplify the work of identifying causal operations.
Given the way we teach math today (as fictionalism), it’s a miracle as many people make it to calculus as do so.
Form: Argument
-
(FYI: A square root only has meaning as an intermediary state in a multi-state o
(FYI: A square root only has meaning as an intermediary state in a multi-state operation – it requires humans. Nature cannot store an intermediary state. “Nature can compute but cannot calculate.” However, squares and fibonacci sequences as well as many other ‘primitive’ operations permit stateless continuous growth by a single, primitive, purely additive operation. We can then reverse engineer that operation to determine that the operation changes state whenever the charge is squared. But that is a DEDUCTION (calculation). Nature works in one direction: entropy.
Sometimes I feel that we should start all math courses with a verbal description of non-linear dynamics and multi-scale analysis and then work our way backward into mathematics, which we reconstruct as ratios of constant relations. Then people would understand that we’re trying to describe complex phenomenon, and to do that we have either know the underlying operations that cause the construction of different phenomenon, or we have to express the result (average) of those operations as geometries (lines).
We use lines (geometry) to simplify the work of identifying causal operations.
Given the way we teach math today (as fictionalism), it’s a miracle as many people make it to calculus as do so.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-21 13:23:00 UTC
-
(FYI: A square root only has meaning as an intermediary state in a multi-state o
(FYI: A square root only has meaning as an intermediary state in a multi-state operation – it requires humans. Nature cannot store an intermediary state. “Nature can compute but cannot calculate.” However, squares and fibonacci sequences as well as many other ‘primitive’ operations permit stateless continuous growth by a single, primitive, purely additive operation. We can then reverse engineer that operation to determine that the operation changes state whenever the charge is squared. But that is a DEDUCTION (calculation). Nature works in one direction: entropy. Sometimes I feel that we should start all math courses with a verbal description of non-linear dynamics and multi-scale analysis and then work our way backward into mathematics, which we reconstruct as ratios of constant relations. Then people would understand that we’re trying to describe complex phenomenon, and to do that we have either know the underlying operations that cause the construction of different phenomenon, or we have to express the result (average) of those operations as geometries (lines). We use lines (geometry) to simplify the work of identifying causal operations. Given the way we teach math today (as fictionalism), it’s a miracle as many people make it to calculus as do so. -
The Reciprocity Of Measurement (Infinities)
Operationally defined, no infinite sets can exist, and the idea of infinite sets of different sizes is also impossible. However, what is possible, is that in the generation of positional names, some sets of names must be produced faster and some slower, so that at any given moment the size of the sets will differ. A number is the name of a position. A position can be applied to any dimension, and any number of dimensions. We can create mathematics using triangulation (the greek model) beginning with sizes, and using ratios of sizes, or we can create mathematics of positions and apply them to lengths in any dimension. This property defines the reciprocity of measurement. So we can start with the mathematics of triangulation, then apply it to scale (just as we apply money to prices as a standard unit), and then we can scale the unit reciprocally. If we taught mathematics operationally then all this fictionalism that makes math nonsense to so many people would disappear. So for example, we can measure art by triangulation but we cannot measure it by numbers. We can measure distances by either triangulation or numbers. There are phenomenon we cannot measure by numbers other than probability (causal density is too high). -
THE RECIPROCITY OF MEASUREMENT (INFINITIES) Operationally defined, no infinite s
THE RECIPROCITY OF MEASUREMENT (INFINITIES)
Operationally defined, no infinite sets can exist, and the idea of infinite sets of different sizes is also impossible. However, what is possible, is that in the generation of positional names, some sets of names must be produced faster and some slower, so that at any given moment the size of the sets will differ. A number is the name of a position. A position can be applied to any dimension, and any number of dimensions. We can create mathematics using triangulation (the greek model) beginning with sizes, and using ratios of sizes, or we can create mathematics of positions and apply them to lengths in any dimension. This property defines the reciprocity of measurement. So we can start with the mathematics of triangulation, then apply it to scale (just as we apply money to prices as a standard unit), and then we can scale the unit reciprocally.
If we taught mathematics operationally then all this fictionalism that makes math nonsense to so many people would disappear.
So for example, we can measure art by triangulation but we cannot measure it by numbers. We can measure distances by either triangulation or numbers. There are phenomenon we cannot measure by numbers other than probability (causal density is too high).
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-21 11:42:00 UTC
-
The Reciprocity Of Measurement (Infinities)
Operationally defined, no infinite sets can exist, and the idea of infinite sets of different sizes is also impossible. However, what is possible, is that in the generation of positional names, some sets of names must be produced faster and some slower, so that at any given moment the size of the sets will differ. A number is the name of a position. A position can be applied to any dimension, and any number of dimensions. We can create mathematics using triangulation (the greek model) beginning with sizes, and using ratios of sizes, or we can create mathematics of positions and apply them to lengths in any dimension. This property defines the reciprocity of measurement. So we can start with the mathematics of triangulation, then apply it to scale (just as we apply money to prices as a standard unit), and then we can scale the unit reciprocally. If we taught mathematics operationally then all this fictionalism that makes math nonsense to so many people would disappear. So for example, we can measure art by triangulation but we cannot measure it by numbers. We can measure distances by either triangulation or numbers. There are phenomenon we cannot measure by numbers other than probability (causal density is too high). -
Q&a: “Should War Be Conducted Morally?”
Q&A: “SHOULD WAR BE CONDUCTED MORALLY?” Simon asks two questions, and offers his analysis. I offer mine, with a very different answer. Cooperation is only valuable if it advances ones line, kin, and people. —“1) Should warfare be conducted morally or is that an oxymoron? In my opinion, the answer is yes, it should – and no, it is not an oxymoron. Because morality exists only in reciprocity, and warfare is in fact the ultimate instrument of reciprocity. 2) Should we follow internationally agreed upon regulations of warfare? Yes, until we don’t, which is at a point when signaling adherence to convention in order to maintain a reputation for maximizing future cooperative exchange is more costly, or too great of a discount granted, than the infamy incurred from shoving the charter up the enemy’s rear entry while appropriating his wealth using any imaginable means. A well calibrated algorithm of foreign policy will not abuse that course of action, but it will make prudent use of it, and without mercy.”— Simon ———- Simon, Violence is a resource that can be put to good (reciprocity) or ill (irreciprocity). From the entire spectrum of creation of reciprocity, restoration of reciprocity, or exhaustion of reciprocity, or conquest, or extermination. Reciprocity purchases future cooperation which is, in general, the means of advancing your line, kin, and people. However there are many conditions under which the purchase of cooperation is against the interests of your line, kin, and people. a) When cooperation is impossible due to extreme differences in ability, intention, or interest. b) Or when when the effects of long term cooperation are detrimental. c) Or when the returns on conquest or extermination are higher than the returns on cooperation. Now, the central issue is that once beyond the value of agrarian slavery, returns on conquest and extermination are ALWAYS higher than the returns on cooperation, it is just that given marginal differences its often unaffordable to do so. And that is our current situation. If conquest and extermination are not possible, then cooperation is preferable. If cooperation is not possible, or too costly, then resistance and boycott, and threat are preferable. But war, conquest, extermination are always more profitable than cooperation. As long as one does not build institutions that require continuous profiting from conquest and extermination. Or as long as one retains enough free capital from one’s expansion to organize a productive rather than predatory economy once efforts are completed. Because eventually one does run out of prey. However, if one succeeds in predation, at sufficient scale, then the people have no need or interest in the predatory order of economy and polity. As such there are two forces at work: either the underclass (abrahamic) warfare or the upper class (aristocratic) warfare that seeks genetic peerages. We have seen what happens in the underclass models and seen what happens in the aristocratic models. And the underclass model is merely devolutionary, while the aristocratic model is evolutionary – in fact, that is precisely what defines feminine, underclass, communal, equalitarian, and masculine upperclass, kinship, egalitarian. Christianity has been a cancer. The Romans were (as are we today) too greedy for consumption, and were the victims of dilution, and conquest by islam. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Q&A: “SHOULD WAR BE CONDUCTED MORALLY?” Simon asks two questions, and offers his
Q&A: “SHOULD WAR BE CONDUCTED MORALLY?”
Simon asks two questions, and offers his analysis. I offer mine, with a very different answer. Cooperation is only valuable if it advances ones line, kin, and people.
—“1) Should warfare be conducted morally or is that an oxymoron?
In my opinion, the answer is yes, it should – and no, it is not an oxymoron. Because morality exists only in reciprocity, and warfare is in fact the ultimate instrument of reciprocity.
2) Should we follow internationally agreed upon regulations of warfare?
Yes, until we don’t, which is at a point when signaling adherence to convention in order to maintain a reputation for maximizing future cooperative exchange is more costly, or too great of a discount granted, than the infamy incurred from shoving the charter up the enemy’s rear entry while appropriating his wealth using any imaginable means.
A well calibrated algorithm of foreign policy will not abuse that course of action, but it will make prudent use of it, and without mercy.”— Simon
———-
Simon,
Violence is a resource that can be put to good (reciprocity) or ill (irreciprocity). From the entire spectrum of creation of reciprocity, restoration of reciprocity, or exhaustion of reciprocity, or conquest, or extermination.
Reciprocity purchases future cooperation which is, in general, the means of advancing your line, kin, and people.
However there are many conditions under which the purchase of cooperation is against the interests of your line, kin, and people.
a) When cooperation is impossible due to extreme differences in ability, intention, or interest.
b) Or when when the effects of long term cooperation are detrimental.
c) Or when the returns on conquest or extermination are higher than the returns on cooperation.
Now, the central issue is that once beyond the value of agrarian slavery, returns on conquest and extermination are ALWAYS higher than the returns on cooperation, it is just that given marginal differences its often unaffordable to do so. And that is our current situation.
If conquest and extermination are not possible, then cooperation is preferable. If cooperation is not possible, or too costly, then resistance and boycott, and threat are preferable.
But war, conquest, extermination are always more profitable than cooperation. As long as one does not build institutions that require continuous profiting from conquest and extermination. Or as long as one retains enough free capital from one’s expansion to organize a productive rather than predatory economy once efforts are completed. Because eventually one does run out of prey.
However, if one succeeds in predation, at sufficient scale, then the people have no need or interest in the predatory order of economy and polity.
As such there are two forces at work: either the underclass (abrahamic) warfare or the upper class (aristocratic) warfare that seeks genetic peerages.
We have seen what happens in the underclass models and seen what happens in the aristocratic models. And the underclass model is merely devolutionary, while the aristocratic model is evolutionary – in fact, that is precisely what defines feminine, underclass, communal, equalitarian, and masculine upperclass, kinship, egalitarian.
Christianity has been a cancer. The Romans were (as are we today) too greedy for consumption, and were the victims of dilution, and conquest by islam.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-17 11:29:00 UTC
-
Gravity and Expansion determine the rate of change of that trade. The idea that
Gravity and Expansion determine the rate of change of that trade. The idea that changes at different rates at different velocities consist of nothing other than experience, is nonsense, because all change in velocity produces uniform changes in everything at every level of reality. If we send a mechanical device, or a decaying radioactive element to space and back they do in fact change at different (miniscule) rates. So it’s not psychological phenomenon. I hate pseudoscientific nonsense. AFAIK its just as likely that the rate of change is exaggerated by the expansion and contraction of space time, but that the rate of change is a constant (time), as it is that time is fully dependent upon the rate of change of the universe, and that it ceases if expansion ceases. I mean, I would love it if someone would correct me if I err, but you know, I haven’t found anything in any discipline that is terribly complicated. In fact, most of the problems of complexity were manufactured by the development of symbols. If we had done mathematics like they did in the time of newton then every idiot in the world would understand it. To say time passes, is simply a statement of memory. To say that all changes in state occur in sequence and that such a sequence occurs independent of perception, regardless of whether space-time is expanding or contracting. I perceive a sequence of changes in state. We can increase our velocity and slow or decrease our velocity and speed changes, but we cannot reverse it, nor can we speed or slow it to extremes. Now, there is a vast difference between observing phenomenon and travelling phenomenon. Light is just a view into history. And that light-history may be created at different rates. that’s all. I am not sure why this leads philosophers and scientists to disagree – or to fail to articulate such differences. I suspect that it is the open question of whether time (change) exists (and universe exists) beyond the expansion of our universe. (or if we are even correct about our vision of a universe.) Public Physics has become all too much like magic. -
You Can’t Get Around Reciprocity. Politics Is Solved.
I mean, you can’t get around reciprocity as the measure of morality. You can’t get around property in toto as the test and limit of reciprocity. You can’t get around natural law of reciprocity as the means of dispute resolution. You can’t get around markets under natural law of reciprocity. You can’t get around the fact that goods services and information can be used to conduct thefts directly, indirectly, and by externality. You can’t get around the fact that you can only warranty what you can perform restitution for, and therefore what you can warranty limits the goods, services, and information that you can bring to market. You can’t get around the fact that even proposing an alternative to a market order is something you cannot warranty, and something that is de facto an attempted theft. You can’t get around the fact that no matter what order you want to produce can be produced through exchange. What you can’t get around and none of us can get around, is that the least able have behavior to trade – what they may not do, and the most able have talents to trade – what they may do. You can’t get around these things. Ever. As far as I know political science is solved. It will just require us to suppress parasitism in this world by political means the same way we have suppressed parasitism by violence, theft, fraud in goods and services. And the principle means of doing so is suppression of advocacy of parasitism by information. And to do that requires only that we publish the requirements for reciprocity in all speech. And it turns out, that is possible, and not all that difficult.