Source: Facebook

  • COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM OF EPISTEMOLOGY AT SCALE

    http://feedly.com/k/1tInDdZTHE COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM OF EPISTEMOLOGY AT SCALE

    A profoundly good example of the problem philosophers face in reducing that which we cannot sense and perceive without instruments to analogies to experience which we can.

    As I struggle with the cultural conflation of truth with strategic good, assumed as metaphysical property of reality, and reconciling this with the requirement for ethical testimony, which can only be claimed by observation and measurement, I realize the problems facing those in quantum mechanics and those of ethics and politics of heterogeneous polities, are both products of vast increases in scale and complexity that our minds neither evolved for, nor have our language and epistemological traditions evolved to accommodate.

    We are still mystics at describing reality at scale, not because we are conservative or unwilling, as we were with religion in reaction to science, but because despite our willingness we do not yet know how.

    There are two solutions to this problem: to state scale concepts in perceivable terms as best we can, or to restate all concepts in new terms. Under both models language will eventually evolve, and with it the populace. I suppose the former is more pragmatic but less truthful, and the latter more truthful but less likely to succeed.

    In ethics I face this same problem. And its painful.we must use extant language despite that it is wrong, clarify its meaning by cleansing it of error, and restate relations formed in homogenous polities with the properties of heterogeneous polities.

    Universalism is an error in scale, measurement, and logic.

    Its yeoman’s labor.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 01:49:00 UTC

  • DEFINING AND MEASURING THE QUALITY OF ARTS High art contains moral judgments. Th

    DEFINING AND MEASURING THE QUALITY OF ARTS

    High art contains moral judgments. This is one of the reasons Marxists proposed ‘design’ (Rothko for example) replace ‘art’.

    For example, Monet’s Water Lillies are a technological innovation (which we understand today in scientific terms), and is due its place in history for that reason as good art.

    However, his subject matter lacks moral judgments. And therefore lacks the status of high art. Jackson Pollock again, produces design, not art. His design may quality as an innovation, but it is still design, not high art.

    Some of the driving force for design over art was the increase in the size of the population that desired to possess art, which meant that more had to be produced to fill demand, and that the price had to drop. The rest is attributable to the change in content which was a marxist initiative, and remains so. Value judgements are an impediment to universalism and socialism.

    But how can we objectively analyze art?

    LETS LOOK AT HOW TO MEASURE THE QUALITY OF ART.

    1) Craft (narrative, representation)

    2) Design (poetry, aesthetic pleasure)

    3) Innovation (novelty, innovation, )

    And finally:

    4) Content (Mythology, Human experience, ‘truth’, political, judgments)

    Let us set the center to 0, and the limit 255 on each axis.

    Then lets assign R, G, B to Craft, Design, and Innovation, then luminosity to Content.

    If we plot each work of any category of art using relative comparisons (point-testing) on that axis, and connect the four dots, we will be able to generate a sort of ‘surface area’ of the art that can be represented not only in the units covered, but also as an RGB color.

    Now the problem in this analysis is whether the content is ‘true’ (aristocratic) or ‘false’(socialist). There are multiple means of handling this such as using only the RGB/Craft,Design,Innovation axis and making axis 4 vertical “up” for aristocracy, and “down” for content.

    So, now we can create a sort of six sided diamond with white as the maximum socialist(feminist and equalitarian) or aristocratic(familialist and egalitarian) ethics.

    And yes, it is possible to do this pretty easily if you use enough samples of art.

    (I have, I know – as anyone who has used SCRUM will tell you, with enough samples relative indexing becomes very easy and accurate.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-24 12:24:00 UTC

  • I understand the problem better, but I still cant do better that ultimate truth(

    I understand the problem better, but I still cant do better that ultimate truth(perfect parsimony), current knowledge of truth(imperfect parsimony), and truthful testimony.

    I have to go back to the propertarian argument and warranty.

    That eliminates the problem of correcting the now conventional use of terms.

    Not sure why I didnt firure it out earlier, but its not necessary to correct it. Its only necessary to require warranty.

    Thanks for all the CR people who helped me yet again.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-24 11:34:00 UTC

  • not about the pursuit of truth? — one third of the participants admit to havin

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/07/23/scientific-misbehavior-in-economics/Its not about the pursuit of truth?

    — one third of the participants admit to having cherry-picked results —


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-24 11:21:00 UTC

  • PERFECTLY ON MESSAGE: INSTITUTIONS

    http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2014/07/how-bad-are-we-economists.htmlBOETTKE PERFECTLY ON MESSAGE: INSTITUTIONS


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-24 11:15:00 UTC

  • WE ARE COMPATIBLE 1 – MALE AND FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE COMPATIBILISM. 2 – PROGRESSIV

    WE ARE COMPATIBLE

    1 – MALE AND FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE COMPATIBILISM.

    2 – PROGRESSIVE, LIBERTARIAN, AND CONSERVATIVE MORAL COMPATIBILISM.

    3 – ARISTOCRATIC AND ASHKENAZI SOCIAL COMPATIBILISM.

    You know, that it’s democracy that makes us incompatible. Because under democracy, we have nothing but tyranny of the majority, because democracy merely justifies monopoly. The market allows us to cooperate even though we have different preferences and values. But the market can’t always help us with commons. Why isn’t the government like a market; a place for exchanges, rather than a means of justifying one group’s dominance of another?

    THE TRUTH MAKES US COMPATIBLE.

    But only if the law reflects the truth.

    There is only one moral principle.

    And every time we violate it, we lose an opportunity for mutually constructive exchange. We create conflict.

    We were the people who told the truth. They taught us to lie.

    ITS TIME FOR A RESTORATION


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-24 08:43:00 UTC

  • (Freaking too many people out. Maybe I should go offline while I work on the var

    (Freaking too many people out. Maybe I should go offline while I work on the various forms of truth as group evolutionary strategies. I mean, it’s so freaking obvious. But we think (erroneously) that we have a lock on it. And we’re wrong. We have a lock on platonic truth. We don’t have a lock on any form of extant truth. sigh.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-24 08:36:00 UTC

  • Its next time already

    Its next time already.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-24 05:17:00 UTC

  • IT’S NOT UTOPIANISM: IT’S MERELY DECEPTION, FRAUD, LYING The war of the liars ag

    IT’S NOT UTOPIANISM: IT’S MERELY DECEPTION, FRAUD, LYING

    The war of the liars against the people who tell the truth.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-24 04:21:00 UTC

  • A PROHIBITION ON TRUTH They are prohibiting truth. They made our ignorance somet

    A PROHIBITION ON TRUTH

    They are prohibiting truth.

    They made our ignorance something to celebrate.

    They made our passions something to surrender to.

    They made freedom of speech and virtue of opinion morally superior to speaking the truth and only the truth.

    They buried us in pseudoscience

    They have manufactured a moral prohibition on truth, and a mandatory license for lies.

    They say ‘what harm are these little lies?’.

    They declared war on the people who speak the truth. When our only cultural advantage is that we speak the truth.

    Is truth teh domain of warriors, and all else deception?

    The, truth, property, insurance, militia : aristocracy

    Devious


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-24 04:19:00 UTC