Dec 29, 2019, 12:00 AM This article is ideological propaganda (which is common here) in favor of mathematical platonism that intentionally or not misrepresents the problem. This question of whether .999… = 1 is the canon example, and litmus test, of the conflict over the foundations of mathematics between the schools (a) demanding the scientific basis of mathematics (mathematical realism) by Hilbert and (b) the literary (pseudoscientific) basis of mathematics that was reintroduced by Cantor resulting in the catastrophe of mathematics, logic, and even mathematical physics in the twentieth century. So it is not a question of pedagogy but an unsettled conflict over the choice between mathematical realism under which no infinity is operationally impossible, limits always extant in any application, and therefore .999 != 1, versus mathematical platonism dependent upon the law of the excluded middle, under which deductively, one cannot construct a statement in the vocabulary and grammar of mathematics (the logic of positional names) where .999… does not equal 1. This is the battle between realism (science, operational mathematics), and idealism (philosophy, literary mathematics). For example, Descartes was important because he restored mathematics to geometry (operations) giving us the cartesian model, and the result was newton-liebnitz’s calculus on one end and the restoration of the realism on the other. Cantor, Bohr, and yes, even Einstein as well as the logicians tried to restore idealism. This led to the constructivist argument. That argument succeeded in physics and has slowly propagated through the sciences, even, oddly causing the reformation of psychology (although not sociology). Computer science has taken up constructivist mathematics leaving mathematical platonism to the discipline of math. Unfortunately, we are stuck with Einstein-Bohr-Cantor versus Hilbert-Poincare-Turing, and this is one of the profound failings ofthe 20th century. For example. Numbers exist as names of positions and nothing else. We use positional naming to generate unique names. Positions are ordered but scale independent. All of mathematics consist of functions producing names in the grammar and vocabulary of positional names. Cantor states that we can produce multiple infinities of different sizes. This is a fictionalism (parable). Instead, no infinity is constructible only predictable in imagination. So, in any sequence of operations, different sets will produce new positional names at different rates, such that at any given limit, the sets will differ in sizes. There are no different ‘sizes’ of infinities, only different rates of production of positional (unique) names. Math is full of such parables. In ethics for example, the litmus test is blackmail: it’s voluntary, it’s an exchange, but why do we react against it? Because it’s an unproductive transfer. In logic it’s whether logic is binary and a rule of inference (true vs false) or ternary and scientific (false, truth candidate, undecidable). In mathematics the litmus test is whether .999… = 1. Under realism, no it doesn’t. Under idealism (Platonism) it does. Science (meaning testimony) imposes a higher standard than idealism (platonism). Platonism remains justificationary and Realism falsificationary. So when you make the claim the question is pedagogical (error) and that people don’t understand – that’s patently false. It’s that operationalism (realism, science) has a higher standard than platonism (idealism, prose). And under realism .999… cannot possible ever equal 1 since no infinity is operationally possible. Whereas under idealism the standard is lower, because under scale independence, infinity substitutes for the unknown limit, which as a consequence is 1. The fact that people aren’t pedagogically informed that this debate exists, and persists, and that its origin is between western engineering and geometry, and middle eastern algebra and astrology, leading to western reason and science, versus eastern theology and mysticism – then you begin to understand how important this question is – and why our physicists have been lost in mathematical platonism – and why scientific woo woo is so common, when it’s increasingly likely that mathematics of positions names (points) has most likely reached its limits. And that we have failed to create the next generation of mathematics (shapes, geometries) that would allow us to solve protein foldings and the structure of the universe that results in our observed but unsolvable quantum distributions of probability.
Form: Critique
-
Confusing the Math with Reality
Dec 30, 2019, 4:12 PM (from elsewhere) The first four minutes of this video are nonsense. There is no conflict between the coordinate system (our means of description) and the change in the background (described by that coordinate system), and the motion of the particle (energy, change) through the background. He’s confusing the math with reality given that we don’t know the underlying geometry, so we have to resort to use of aggregates (the wave function). Math is a language (logic, grammar) of positional names ideal for the description of constant relations (patterns). If history is a judge of anything, we are stuck in a problem that Hilbert warned us about, and Einstein and Bohr trapped us into, by using probability (aggregates) instead of solving the problem of the underlying geometry. Whether that geometry is a circular (loops) creating a 3d space, or triangles and tetrahedrons creating 3d space, the resulting pattern of which is loops or strings, is something we don’t know and it’s why quantum mechanics and relativity are seemingly incompatible. They make use of two aggregates describing two different patterns. Both theories are correct. The same way that biology and chemistry are correct. But the geometry underneath quantum mechanics is something we just don’t know yet. Unfortunately mathematical platonism is as infectious a disease in physics as it is in mathematics – and lest not even get started on economics.
-
Confusing the Math with Reality
Dec 30, 2019, 4:12 PM (from elsewhere) The first four minutes of this video are nonsense. There is no conflict between the coordinate system (our means of description) and the change in the background (described by that coordinate system), and the motion of the particle (energy, change) through the background. He’s confusing the math with reality given that we don’t know the underlying geometry, so we have to resort to use of aggregates (the wave function). Math is a language (logic, grammar) of positional names ideal for the description of constant relations (patterns). If history is a judge of anything, we are stuck in a problem that Hilbert warned us about, and Einstein and Bohr trapped us into, by using probability (aggregates) instead of solving the problem of the underlying geometry. Whether that geometry is a circular (loops) creating a 3d space, or triangles and tetrahedrons creating 3d space, the resulting pattern of which is loops or strings, is something we don’t know and it’s why quantum mechanics and relativity are seemingly incompatible. They make use of two aggregates describing two different patterns. Both theories are correct. The same way that biology and chemistry are correct. But the geometry underneath quantum mechanics is something we just don’t know yet. Unfortunately mathematical platonism is as infectious a disease in physics as it is in mathematics – and lest not even get started on economics.
-
Understanding Is Overrated.
Dec 31, 2019, 9:13 AM
—“Curt Doolittle is a moron…. Because is talks nonsense, its just waffle which doesn’t link together. He compared himself to Aristotle in reply to a comment I made on one of his videos. He isn’t very smart and can’t make higher connections to the true. He is similar to Jordan B Peterson or Ben Shapiru…. Because he thinks he has done some genius work by converting political language and idea’s into scientific language, which just makes political stuff much more complex than it actually is. What he’s doing is looking at a cream wall and trying to find the flecks of white in it. Its utterly pointless.”—William Walker
lol…. Answer a question: by what system of rules are governments – the largest organizations in the world – operated? (law) What differs between those organization (the body of laws and the limits upon them). By what other means is it possible for them to be operated? (none). Law is the operating system for governments. And if you had sufficient worldly knowledge and experience, you would know that. Logistics in war, Law in State, Contract in Commerce, Protocols in Medicine, Norm in commons, Tradition in Family. It’s ok if you’re only fit for the soldiery. You don’t need to understand. You either need to fight for your people or stay out of the way. As for understanding the work, well, you know, stupidities such as “Calculus is hard so it mustn’t be useful or true” apply to Propertarianism. It’s hard. Its useful. And it’s true. You don’t understand the constitution or the law either. Yet you think you do and you live by the rules put in place by the vast body of the common law, the constitution, the amendements, the findings of the court, the federal code, the state codes, and the regulations that make them possible. You don’t understand quantum mechanics and you still can use a cell phone, a computer, the internet, and satellite GPS systems. Understanding is overrated. Soldiers do their duty. That’s why we win. Man up.
-
Silly People, Sophistry-Trix Are for Kids!
Silly People, Sophistry-Trix Are for Kids! https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/26/silly-people-sophistry-trix-are-for-kids/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-26 21:02:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265387921693081601
-
Nitwits from The Critique Gallery
Jan 19, 2020, 8:30 AM
—“Yet, you believe the pseudoscientific cherry picking by “experts” like Judith curry, Tim ball, Richard lindzen etc on the topic of climate change, so much for argument from authority. Just because you dont comprehend the math behind probablistic models used in quantum models, doesn’t mean they are invalid”—Rash Ak
(a) Curry is the best most neutral skeptic (I don’t recognize ball or linden) and I was directly involved with the movement deeply enough to criticize the people, their malincentives and the failure of its predictions. It’s this behavior and the failure of the predictions I criticize. My position has been, and remains: overpopulation by the underclass is the problem not energy use or consumption. I don’t know yet how much affect we’re having or if that effect is meaningful, and if it’s meaningful the I’m not confident it’s bad. And I”m not confident it’s bad, because this warm interglacial is preferable to the norm: glacial. And even if we determine it’s meaningful and bad then I don’t see any solution to the problem other than vast reduction in human population. (b) I comprehend the math just fine, which is why I clearly articulate the cause and consequence of ‘mathiness’ as use of probabilism because the underlying causal relations are still unknown. And the reason I do so is the parallel between the problems of physics, economics, and mathematics, because of the late 19th and early 20th reversion to pre-descartian math just as hilbert complained. (c) the quantum and the relativistic models are in conflict for the reasons I’ve described – we have no geometric (classical model) that explains the distribution of probability across the wave form. (d) Nit: validity is an unscientific term left over from justificationary philosophy., and imported from mathematics (test of internal consistency). Instead: Repeatable, demonstrable, explanatory, consistent, coherent. You will be very hard pressed to find other than one of the best professors of physics or mathematics who can or will debate me on this subject. You aren’t capable of this conversation or you would have made a different criticism. And you are clearly pulling sh-t out of your a– from a troll (fake) account to engage in female-jewish critique because you can’t construct an argument on equally articulate terms.
-
Nitwits from The Critique Gallery
Jan 19, 2020, 8:30 AM
—“Yet, you believe the pseudoscientific cherry picking by “experts” like Judith curry, Tim ball, Richard lindzen etc on the topic of climate change, so much for argument from authority. Just because you dont comprehend the math behind probablistic models used in quantum models, doesn’t mean they are invalid”—Rash Ak
(a) Curry is the best most neutral skeptic (I don’t recognize ball or linden) and I was directly involved with the movement deeply enough to criticize the people, their malincentives and the failure of its predictions. It’s this behavior and the failure of the predictions I criticize. My position has been, and remains: overpopulation by the underclass is the problem not energy use or consumption. I don’t know yet how much affect we’re having or if that effect is meaningful, and if it’s meaningful the I’m not confident it’s bad. And I”m not confident it’s bad, because this warm interglacial is preferable to the norm: glacial. And even if we determine it’s meaningful and bad then I don’t see any solution to the problem other than vast reduction in human population. (b) I comprehend the math just fine, which is why I clearly articulate the cause and consequence of ‘mathiness’ as use of probabilism because the underlying causal relations are still unknown. And the reason I do so is the parallel between the problems of physics, economics, and mathematics, because of the late 19th and early 20th reversion to pre-descartian math just as hilbert complained. (c) the quantum and the relativistic models are in conflict for the reasons I’ve described – we have no geometric (classical model) that explains the distribution of probability across the wave form. (d) Nit: validity is an unscientific term left over from justificationary philosophy., and imported from mathematics (test of internal consistency). Instead: Repeatable, demonstrable, explanatory, consistent, coherent. You will be very hard pressed to find other than one of the best professors of physics or mathematics who can or will debate me on this subject. You aren’t capable of this conversation or you would have made a different criticism. And you are clearly pulling sh-t out of your a– from a troll (fake) account to engage in female-jewish critique because you can’t construct an argument on equally articulate terms.
-
The Economic Policy of Elizabeth Warren
Jan 19, 2020, 1:04 PM by Tyler Cowen Jerry Taylor has made some positive noises about her on Twitter lately, as had Will Wilkinson in earlier times. I genuinely do not see the appeal here, not even for Democrats. Let’s do a quick survey of some of her core views:
- She wants to ban fracking through executive order. This would enrich Russia and Saudi Arabia, harm the American economy ($3.5 trillion stock market gains from fracking), make our energy supply less green, and make our foreign policy more dependent on bad regimes and the Middle East. It is perhaps the single worst policy idea I have heard this last year, and some of the worst possible politics for beating Trump in states such as Pennsylvania.
Her private equity plan. Making private equity managers personally responsible for the debts of the companies they acquire probably would crush the sector. The economic evidence on private equity is mostly quite positive. Maybe she would eliminate the worst features of her plan, but can you imagine her saying on open camera that private equity is mostly good for the American economy? I can’t.
Her farm plan. It seems to be more nationalistic and protectionist and also more permanent than Trump’s, read here.
Her tax plan I: Some of the wealthy would see marginal rates above 100 percent.
Her tax plan II: Her proposed wealth tax would over time lead to rates of taxation on capital gains of at least 60 to 70 percent, much higher than any wealthy country ever has succeeded with. And frankly no one has come close to rebutting the devastating critique from Larry Summers.
Student debt forgiveness: The data-driven people I know on the left all admit this is welfare for the relatively well-off, rather than a truly egalitarian approach to poverty and opportunity. Cost is estimated at $1.6 trillion, by the way (is trillion the new billion?). Furthermore, what are the long-run effects on the higher education sector? Do banks lend like crazy next time around, expecting to be bailed out by the government? Or do banks cut bank their lending, fearing a haircut on bailout number two? I am genuinely not sure, but thinking the question through does not reassure me.
College free for all: Would wreck the relatively high quality of America’s state-run colleges and universities, which cover about 78 percent of all U.S. students and are the envy of other countries worldwide and furthermore a major source of American soft power. Makes sense only if you are a Caplanian on higher ed., and furthermore like student debt forgiveness this plan isn’t that egalitarian, as many of the neediest don’t finish high school, do not wish to start college, cannot finish college, or already reject near-free local options for higher education, typically involving community colleges.
Health care policy: Her various takes on this, including the $52 trillion plan, are better thought of as (vacillating) political strategy than policy per se. In any case, no matter what your view on health care policy she has botched it, and several other Dem candidates have a better track record in this area. Even Paul Krugman insists that the Democrats should move away from single-payer purity. It is hard to give her net positive points on this one, again no matter what your policy views on health care, or even no matter what her views may happen to be on a particular day.
All of my analysis, I should note, can be derived internal to Democratic Party economics, and it does not require any dose of libertarianism.
- Breaking up the Big Tech companies: I am strongly opposed to this, and I view it as yet another attack/destruction on a leading and innovative American sector. I will say this, though: unlike the rest of the list above, I know smart economists (and tech experts) who favor some version of the policy. Still, I don’t see why Jerry and Will should like this promise so much.
Those are some pretty major sectors of the U.S. economy, it is not like making a few random mistakes with the regulation of toothpicks. In fact they are the major sectors of the U.S. economy, and each and every one of them would take a big hit. More generally, she seems to be a fan of instituting policies through executive order, a big minus in my view and probably for Jerry and Will as well? Villainization and polarization are consistent themes in her rhetoric, and at this point it doesn’t seem her chances for either the nomination, or beating Trump, are strong in fact her conditional chance of victory is well below that of the other major Dem candidates. So what really are you getting for all of these outbursts? When I add all that up, she seems to have the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders (whose views are often less detailed). I do readily admit this: Warren is a genius at exciting the egalitarian and anti-business mood affiliation of our coastal media and academic elites. If you would like to read defenses of Warren, here is Ezra Klein and here is Henry Farrell. I think they both plausibly point to parts of the Warren program that might be good (more good for them than for me I should add, but still I can grasp the other arguments on her behalf). They don’t much respond to the point that on #1-8, and possibly #1-9, she has the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime. For Jerry and Will, I just don’t see the attraction at all. That said, on her foreign policy, which I have not spent much time with, she might be better, so of course you should consider the whole picture. And quite possibly there are other candidates who, for other reasons, are worse yet, not hard to think of some. Or you might wish to see a woman president. Or you might think she would stir up “good discourse” on the issues you care about. And I fully understand that most of the Warren agenda would not pass. So I’m not trying to talk you out of supporting her! Still, I would like to design and put into the public domain a small emoji, one that you could add to the bottom of your columns and tweets. It would stand in for: “Yes I support her, but she has the worst proposed economic policies of any candidate in the adult lifetime of Tyler Cowen.”
-
Liber-Tardians … Useful Idiots of The Enemy
Jan 21, 2020, 4:11 PM
—“I’ll bet I used [Propertarianism] before you ever did. It is amusing that you think”–
Well if you’ll bet, then how much, and what evidence can you present to back your case?
—“2. You would suppress the imposition of costs by inventing counterfeit property, such as a property in things like social trust, average IQ, and feelings of safety.”—
- Demonstrated interest is existential: “demonstrated” – a truth. It’s not a choice, opinion, or preference. Any OTHER definition is a choice, preference or opinion. In other words any other choice is arbitrary.
You have to arbitrarily choose something other than demonstrated interest. (This is how Abrahamic Pilpul is used to create an internally consistent set of justificationary lies – and of course you fell for it.)
Humans can’t know scarcity, only demonstrated interest. Look up the origin of the concept of scarcity.
Humans only know objective demonstration of interest and subjective value. Humans could only have evolved identification of value, demonstrated interest, and subjective value. We can’t know scarcity only ignorance.
Any attempt to refute my position is an attempt to refute subjective value, and you would have a very hard time doing that. 😉
Humans can’t avoid conflict by simply being ignorant of the resources necessary to demonstrate an interest something, we can only avoid conflict by knoweldge that others have used resources to demonstrate an interest, and continue to demonstrate that interest.
What you are missing is (a) scarcity of a good is a circular reasoning. (b) that demonstrated interest is the scarcity, (b) that cooperation is the ultimate scarcity, (c) that reciprocity (non imposition against demonstrated interest) is the only means of preserving that cooperation. (d) that those who impose costs upon demonstrated intersets are the only source of conflict over the POTENTIAL to obtain returns on one’s demonstrated interests.
Your opinion on what imposition of costs upon their demonstrated interests does not matter to others or the headman, counsel, court that must resolve conflicts when demonstrated interest is always and everywhere the means of decidability. In other words, you can try to advocate for leaving open the possibility of parasitism upon and harm against others, but it doesn’t mean anything to others, it’s just a lie you and yours tell yourselves to try to justify parasitism upon others and harm against others intersets. Morality is what other people won’t harm or kill you for, and the only reason not to harm or kill you is the value of your cooperation versus non-cooperation, uncooperative-competition, free riding, parasitism, predation upon anything that the use whatsoever to create and preserve their returns on cooperation. In other words, it doesn’t matter what you think – it matters what others do and you can negotiate for survival with them. (This is why I use science not justificationary pilpul like jewish rothbard and jewish-trained Hoppe.
Hoppe is trying to restore free cities but to do so by free riding on on other’s states. Rothbard is trying to restore jewish separatism by free riding on the same states. They’re both trying to justify free riding. There is only one source of determining your rights: the use of organized violence at personal risk to deny others the alternative. The problem is that the only way to hold territory and population is with economic production hence the universal creation of increasingly suppressive laws against parasitism in every empire so that economic velocity is highest, and returns highest, and therefore military capacity highest. )I do science. Y’all do pilpul (sophistry). Jewish sophistry (pilpul and critique, GSRRM, false promise, baiting into hazard) is the most sophisticated form of deception yet invented by man, just as science is the most sophisticated form of truthful testimony invented by man. There are many means of lying by sophistry, including numerology, astrology, pseudoscience, theology, but the means of lying without appeal to anything external to language is Sophism. The reason it’s effective – weaving internal consistently out of self referentiality – is because it does not, like science, appeal to reality for closure (decidability). Instead the technique seeks to overwhelm (overload) reason (modeling) causing an appeal to moral intuition. Once you understand it’s just a technique of deception that like any other technique that can be mastered, it’s relatively easy to identify. The problem is untangling the self-referentiality rather than modeling the consequences in reality – which is what it seeks to undermine.
Anyway. I don’t err. We all make mistakes. I very rarely err. And since this is my primary line of research I certainly don’t err in this case. I can’t. The science says so.
-
Liber-Tardians … Useful Idiots of The Enemy
Jan 21, 2020, 4:11 PM
—“I’ll bet I used [Propertarianism] before you ever did. It is amusing that you think”–
Well if you’ll bet, then how much, and what evidence can you present to back your case?
—“2. You would suppress the imposition of costs by inventing counterfeit property, such as a property in things like social trust, average IQ, and feelings of safety.”—
- Demonstrated interest is existential: “demonstrated” – a truth. It’s not a choice, opinion, or preference. Any OTHER definition is a choice, preference or opinion. In other words any other choice is arbitrary.
You have to arbitrarily choose something other than demonstrated interest. (This is how Abrahamic Pilpul is used to create an internally consistent set of justificationary lies – and of course you fell for it.)
Humans can’t know scarcity, only demonstrated interest. Look up the origin of the concept of scarcity.
Humans only know objective demonstration of interest and subjective value. Humans could only have evolved identification of value, demonstrated interest, and subjective value. We can’t know scarcity only ignorance.
Any attempt to refute my position is an attempt to refute subjective value, and you would have a very hard time doing that. 😉
Humans can’t avoid conflict by simply being ignorant of the resources necessary to demonstrate an interest something, we can only avoid conflict by knoweldge that others have used resources to demonstrate an interest, and continue to demonstrate that interest.
What you are missing is (a) scarcity of a good is a circular reasoning. (b) that demonstrated interest is the scarcity, (b) that cooperation is the ultimate scarcity, (c) that reciprocity (non imposition against demonstrated interest) is the only means of preserving that cooperation. (d) that those who impose costs upon demonstrated intersets are the only source of conflict over the POTENTIAL to obtain returns on one’s demonstrated interests.
Your opinion on what imposition of costs upon their demonstrated interests does not matter to others or the headman, counsel, court that must resolve conflicts when demonstrated interest is always and everywhere the means of decidability. In other words, you can try to advocate for leaving open the possibility of parasitism upon and harm against others, but it doesn’t mean anything to others, it’s just a lie you and yours tell yourselves to try to justify parasitism upon others and harm against others intersets. Morality is what other people won’t harm or kill you for, and the only reason not to harm or kill you is the value of your cooperation versus non-cooperation, uncooperative-competition, free riding, parasitism, predation upon anything that the use whatsoever to create and preserve their returns on cooperation. In other words, it doesn’t matter what you think – it matters what others do and you can negotiate for survival with them. (This is why I use science not justificationary pilpul like jewish rothbard and jewish-trained Hoppe.
Hoppe is trying to restore free cities but to do so by free riding on on other’s states. Rothbard is trying to restore jewish separatism by free riding on the same states. They’re both trying to justify free riding. There is only one source of determining your rights: the use of organized violence at personal risk to deny others the alternative. The problem is that the only way to hold territory and population is with economic production hence the universal creation of increasingly suppressive laws against parasitism in every empire so that economic velocity is highest, and returns highest, and therefore military capacity highest. )I do science. Y’all do pilpul (sophistry). Jewish sophistry (pilpul and critique, GSRRM, false promise, baiting into hazard) is the most sophisticated form of deception yet invented by man, just as science is the most sophisticated form of truthful testimony invented by man. There are many means of lying by sophistry, including numerology, astrology, pseudoscience, theology, but the means of lying without appeal to anything external to language is Sophism. The reason it’s effective – weaving internal consistently out of self referentiality – is because it does not, like science, appeal to reality for closure (decidability). Instead the technique seeks to overwhelm (overload) reason (modeling) causing an appeal to moral intuition. Once you understand it’s just a technique of deception that like any other technique that can be mastered, it’s relatively easy to identify. The problem is untangling the self-referentiality rather than modeling the consequences in reality – which is what it seeks to undermine.
Anyway. I don’t err. We all make mistakes. I very rarely err. And since this is my primary line of research I certainly don’t err in this case. I can’t. The science says so.