Jan 5, 2020, 3:52 PM (In my university, because I majored in Fine Art, you could take creative writing for credit every semester. I did. But, i’m too disagreeable and appreciative of the finer things to write works of fiction in poverty for two to four years at a time just so I can play lottery games with publishers. I won a scholarship voted by the professors two years in a row for the most likely to become a practicing artist. But I’m unsuited for poverty. I prefer technology, business, law, philosophy, politics and war. Literature is just writing philosophy but in slow motion for peanuts. )
Source: Original Site Post
-
i’m too disagreeable and appreciative of the finer things
Jan 5, 2020, 3:52 PM (In my university, because I majored in Fine Art, you could take creative writing for credit every semester. I did. But, i’m too disagreeable and appreciative of the finer things to write works of fiction in poverty for two to four years at a time just so I can play lottery games with publishers. I won a scholarship voted by the professors two years in a row for the most likely to become a practicing artist. But I’m unsuited for poverty. I prefer technology, business, law, philosophy, politics and war. Literature is just writing philosophy but in slow motion for peanuts. )
-
On the Limits of Mathematics
Jan 5, 2020, 3:52 PM Mathematics is the measurement of averages with limited variance in category, and economics is the measurement of averages in wide variance in category. The universe changes state by operations. We use mathematics to describe point changes. Calculus breaks down at the subatomic level. Calculus breaks down at the economic level. The problem is we don’t have a calculus of geometries (yet) and we may not have one until we solve either the subatomic problem, or the protein folding problem or the economic problem. I’m betting on the second mostly because both math and physics are lost in nonsense land.
-
On the Limits of Mathematics
Jan 5, 2020, 3:52 PM Mathematics is the measurement of averages with limited variance in category, and economics is the measurement of averages in wide variance in category. The universe changes state by operations. We use mathematics to describe point changes. Calculus breaks down at the subatomic level. Calculus breaks down at the economic level. The problem is we don’t have a calculus of geometries (yet) and we may not have one until we solve either the subatomic problem, or the protein folding problem or the economic problem. I’m betting on the second mostly because both math and physics are lost in nonsense land.
-
Economics Is Just an Extension of Physics
Jan 5, 2020, 3:53 PM We can quantify all sorts of metrics of human behavior, but you’re confusing mathematics with physics, the same way most people confuse averages with instances or distributions. In other words, mathematics describes averages of points in time, it doesn’t not describe operations.Mathematics consist of operations that describe states and changes in states and averages. But not the underlying operations. Physics studies both the quantitative and the operational. Mathematics just the quantitative (positional). So while mathematics describes ‘sums’ operations describe changes in state. Here: At every “level’ of reality we discover an underlying limited number of operations (Grammar) producing some set of symmetries (outcomes, equilibria), and above that a new limited number of operations (Grammar, outcomes, equilibria)) that produce another set of symmetries, and above that and so on. So, we don’t yet know what causes the quantum level We have a fairly good idea what causes the subatomic level. we have a very good idea what causes the atomic level. We have such a good understanding of chemistry that it’s boring. We are getting a fair understanding of biochemistry (and that it’s mechanical). We are getting a beginning understanding of proteins (and that it’s mechanical(operational) ) We are getting a beginning understanding of genetic reproduction (and that it’s mechanical- operational) . We are getting a fairly good understanding of cells. We have a more than fairly good understanding of multi-cellular (complex) organisms. I’ll stop there since I think you can see the pattern of some set of physically possible operations producing a finite set of physically possible states, followed by another set of physically possible operations producing a finite set of physically possible states, and that this process continues indefinitely, all the way to what we call consciousness. Now life buys us conservation of energy (defeat of entropy), but it’s still bound by the laws of physics (the underlying grammars). Memory buys us prediction. And prediction provides our ability to perform operations (actions) that improve our defeat of entropy. Increase in neural( brain) volume provides Competition between predictions, which provides us choices of options for defeating entropy. Increase in Brain volume provides iterations on predictions for increasing choices of defeating entropy the sequence of actions (or inactions for that matter). Increase in brain volume provides prediction of others predictions and predicting opportunities for cooperation that further improve our ability to capture and use energy by defeating entropy. Human ability to capture energy is limited by the grammar of human action (possible actions and sequences of actions and parallel combinations of other’s actions). So the grammar of human action consists in the physical, emotional-intuitionistic, and cognitive operations. Those operations are bounded by physical limitations of the grammars upon which they are constructed. Both Physics and Economics are bound by the same underlying grammars (laws) but because humans have memories, prediction, sentience, and consciousness, reason, calculation, symbolism, and computation, we can use debts and credits with each other to temporarily lend to each other, in presumption of future returns on that investment or debt. We don’t violate that physical law. Because humans observe reciprocity (equilibrium) just as the physical world obeys equilibrium (entropy). If we didn’t we wouldn’t be here. And so some people specialize in capitalization (productivity) and some people specialize in consumption, and others in parasitism or predation. But in the end, over time, we are limited by the physical laws of the universe. We can create productivity (as does life), or we can parasite upon other lives (as do bacteria and viruses). We cannot run the clock on parasitism (Socialism or gypsies) or conquest (islamism) forever because we will run out of hosts to prey upon. So economics is just physics with debits and credits (ability t steal, to borrow, to exchange,to produce, or to save) made possible by consciousness, by test of reciprocity (account balances), within the limit of proportionality (exit). TRIANGLE: What limits to human operations? ………………What Limits?………………. ………………………|………………………… …………….Human Actions…………….. ……………..Consciousness……………. …………………Sentience……………….. …………………….Life……………………… …………………./…………………………… ……….subatomic..macro-atomic….. ………………./…………………………….. ……….?Limits………….Limits?………… Human limits are reciprocity (positive) with the limits of proportionality (negaitve). The subatomic level appears to run out of energy by maximum dissipation. The macro atomic level appears to run out of ability to compress energy. Sorry but it’s just Physics with the ability to use each other for debt and credit that we call ‘cooperation”.
-
Economics Is Just an Extension of Physics
Jan 5, 2020, 3:53 PM We can quantify all sorts of metrics of human behavior, but you’re confusing mathematics with physics, the same way most people confuse averages with instances or distributions. In other words, mathematics describes averages of points in time, it doesn’t not describe operations.Mathematics consist of operations that describe states and changes in states and averages. But not the underlying operations. Physics studies both the quantitative and the operational. Mathematics just the quantitative (positional). So while mathematics describes ‘sums’ operations describe changes in state. Here: At every “level’ of reality we discover an underlying limited number of operations (Grammar) producing some set of symmetries (outcomes, equilibria), and above that a new limited number of operations (Grammar, outcomes, equilibria)) that produce another set of symmetries, and above that and so on. So, we don’t yet know what causes the quantum level We have a fairly good idea what causes the subatomic level. we have a very good idea what causes the atomic level. We have such a good understanding of chemistry that it’s boring. We are getting a fair understanding of biochemistry (and that it’s mechanical). We are getting a beginning understanding of proteins (and that it’s mechanical(operational) ) We are getting a beginning understanding of genetic reproduction (and that it’s mechanical- operational) . We are getting a fairly good understanding of cells. We have a more than fairly good understanding of multi-cellular (complex) organisms. I’ll stop there since I think you can see the pattern of some set of physically possible operations producing a finite set of physically possible states, followed by another set of physically possible operations producing a finite set of physically possible states, and that this process continues indefinitely, all the way to what we call consciousness. Now life buys us conservation of energy (defeat of entropy), but it’s still bound by the laws of physics (the underlying grammars). Memory buys us prediction. And prediction provides our ability to perform operations (actions) that improve our defeat of entropy. Increase in neural( brain) volume provides Competition between predictions, which provides us choices of options for defeating entropy. Increase in Brain volume provides iterations on predictions for increasing choices of defeating entropy the sequence of actions (or inactions for that matter). Increase in brain volume provides prediction of others predictions and predicting opportunities for cooperation that further improve our ability to capture and use energy by defeating entropy. Human ability to capture energy is limited by the grammar of human action (possible actions and sequences of actions and parallel combinations of other’s actions). So the grammar of human action consists in the physical, emotional-intuitionistic, and cognitive operations. Those operations are bounded by physical limitations of the grammars upon which they are constructed. Both Physics and Economics are bound by the same underlying grammars (laws) but because humans have memories, prediction, sentience, and consciousness, reason, calculation, symbolism, and computation, we can use debts and credits with each other to temporarily lend to each other, in presumption of future returns on that investment or debt. We don’t violate that physical law. Because humans observe reciprocity (equilibrium) just as the physical world obeys equilibrium (entropy). If we didn’t we wouldn’t be here. And so some people specialize in capitalization (productivity) and some people specialize in consumption, and others in parasitism or predation. But in the end, over time, we are limited by the physical laws of the universe. We can create productivity (as does life), or we can parasite upon other lives (as do bacteria and viruses). We cannot run the clock on parasitism (Socialism or gypsies) or conquest (islamism) forever because we will run out of hosts to prey upon. So economics is just physics with debits and credits (ability t steal, to borrow, to exchange,to produce, or to save) made possible by consciousness, by test of reciprocity (account balances), within the limit of proportionality (exit). TRIANGLE: What limits to human operations? ………………What Limits?………………. ………………………|………………………… …………….Human Actions…………….. ……………..Consciousness……………. …………………Sentience……………….. …………………….Life……………………… …………………./…………………………… ……….subatomic..macro-atomic….. ………………./…………………………….. ……….?Limits………….Limits?………… Human limits are reciprocity (positive) with the limits of proportionality (negaitve). The subatomic level appears to run out of energy by maximum dissipation. The macro atomic level appears to run out of ability to compress energy. Sorry but it’s just Physics with the ability to use each other for debt and credit that we call ‘cooperation”.
-
The Grammars of Civilizations
Jan 5, 2020, 4:52 PM Europeans Develop Competition-law, Reason, Realism, Naturalism, Empiricism, Technology-Science, Geometry. CALCULATION Chinese Develop Bureaucracy-rule, Reason-lite-Wisdom Literature, Realism, Naturalism, Technology but not science, and Arithmetic. They settle on Reason and Bureaucracy. ~REASON Indians Develop Class Roles, Political Reason, Supernaturalism, Mythicism, Pragmatism, limited technology, arithmetic and positional names. That this is the remnant of a military order is lost in time. The indians settle on “the Way” – wisdom literature. REASONABLENESS Iranians-Persians Develop the optimum human, Hierarchy instead of Castes and Roles. But are seduced by babylon and their own aryan religion. The are ruined by the muslims and despite, like the Germans, rising out of it, descend once again and they can’t get out of it now (similar to how the west is being brought down again by Judaism and islam). IDEALS The Egyptians Run with Animism and Archtetypes and Myth and it’s beautiful. They try a single dominant god but the priests wisely reverse it. MYTHS The Jews Invent the abrahamic method of deceit by combining DICTATORSHIP LAW OF PARASITISM The Arabs DICTATORSHIP WISDOM LIT OF PREDATION
-
The Grammars of Civilizations
Jan 5, 2020, 4:52 PM Europeans Develop Competition-law, Reason, Realism, Naturalism, Empiricism, Technology-Science, Geometry. CALCULATION Chinese Develop Bureaucracy-rule, Reason-lite-Wisdom Literature, Realism, Naturalism, Technology but not science, and Arithmetic. They settle on Reason and Bureaucracy. ~REASON Indians Develop Class Roles, Political Reason, Supernaturalism, Mythicism, Pragmatism, limited technology, arithmetic and positional names. That this is the remnant of a military order is lost in time. The indians settle on “the Way” – wisdom literature. REASONABLENESS Iranians-Persians Develop the optimum human, Hierarchy instead of Castes and Roles. But are seduced by babylon and their own aryan religion. The are ruined by the muslims and despite, like the Germans, rising out of it, descend once again and they can’t get out of it now (similar to how the west is being brought down again by Judaism and islam). IDEALS The Egyptians Run with Animism and Archtetypes and Myth and it’s beautiful. They try a single dominant god but the priests wisely reverse it. MYTHS The Jews Invent the abrahamic method of deceit by combining DICTATORSHIP LAW OF PARASITISM The Arabs DICTATORSHIP WISDOM LIT OF PREDATION
-
Why Are Contracts a Mess?
Jan 5, 2020, 5:23 PM 0) Reality: all contracts are just form letters with names and dates in them. All that changes is the list of assets, and the rights and obligations of both parties – and mostly, it’s the obligations for both parties, ’cause rights only exist if the contract fails. The courts have spent decades since the rise of text databases in the 80’s making sure that there is settled law for almost everything you can bring before it – so much so that the only job left in court is who either (a) lied, or (b) failed due diligence (c ) sought an unearned premium at the other’s expense. 1) Surprisingly lawyers are taught contract law, not how to write contracts. And they will write for other lawyers most of the time, sometimes for in-house counsel, other times for skilled people, and otherwise for ordinary citizens. So absent this they learn to write contracts by the cut-and-paste method of contract development. So contracts accumulate ‘waste’ so to speak in most offices. They don’t accumulate solutions to problems. The courts (federal, state, local) do not put out standard contract formats that force what’s called “transactional” work into standard form. When in reality, the law does not grant much flexibility in these matters. Terms of art are largely bullshit claims. Judges are not stupid. Jurors are not stupid. The reality is that contracts are not complicated. My particular ‘thing’ is shareholder agreements. They don’t have to be complicated. They have to hit al the points in simple language. All contracts are like this, if (a) definitions are put on a separate page, (b) the before-and-after diagrams are displayed in visual form, ( c) a project-plan for signing the agreements in the appropriate sequence and the purpose of each one is stated in that plan (document), that states the title or interest change it enacts. (think of it as an accounting transaction with ledger entries). (d) each section includes a whereas “this is what we seek to accomplish” and therefore the terms of the contract in legal prose. (lawyers will resist this because it prevents people from pulling shit out of thin air, but that’s exactly why to do it. And this is the most simple – just capture the bullet list of concerns from everyone involved and make sure you’ve resolved them satisfactorily for all parties. And this is the most uncomfortable: Those engaging the contract do not inform the lawyers of the full suite of advantages that may arise from the deal, and the lawyers do not list all the reasons that they think the contract (arrangement) will fail. Truth: I generally have to tell lawyers to let me manage risk (that’s my job as a business person) and you create the level of contract suitable to my target risk. This is how you ‘Price’ a contract so to speak. By risk reward and resource expenditure your time. 2) Current legal training is antithetical to business, because it begins as teaching the adversarial method – it does not teach means of reaching compromise, settlement, or methods of cooperation that must adapt to changing circumstances. This leads people in defense to ‘double down’ on conflict rather than double down on compromise. This is not how business people resolve conflicts. So really there are two stages. the ones exterior to the contract, and the terms that will fight before the court if the contract fails. My understanding is that this is a problem of failing to require via positiva statements of intent for every via-negativa bit of blame. In other words contracts do not spend time on the via positiva means of settling error, failure of due diligence, change in circumstance. 3) The legal teams try to add unnecessary value to justify jobs (this is endemic). I see this all over the place. The problem is malincentives in legal fees: especially hourly. The problem is revenue constraints. In other words we have too many lawyers, working too hard, to drive up fees, and a court that doesn’t stop it, and a population that has no choice. 4) Courts work too often by win/lose instead of proportional settlements. This is partly by design to force settlement prior to court, and then turning the courtroom into a lottery of uncertainty, where the outcome is worse than settlement – it is not what the framers or common law judges in history intended. 5) Irreciprocal competency and scale of legal teams means they compete for providing opportunities for advantage rather than due diligence in preventing advantage. 6) systemic abandonment of moral norms has led to the need to articulate what was normative in law. 7) the law is lagging behind the rate of evolution of the complexity of contracts. 8) The law does not prevent entrapments as it used to, because it defers to the wisdom of business people (good) but not to baiting into hazard. 9) Law does not punish (as it used to) abuses of the court, the law, the contract so it is worthwhile for full time legal teams or lawyers to bill by the hour to use the economics to drive a settlement or court decision. That’s just the surface.
-
Why Are Contracts a Mess?
Jan 5, 2020, 5:23 PM 0) Reality: all contracts are just form letters with names and dates in them. All that changes is the list of assets, and the rights and obligations of both parties – and mostly, it’s the obligations for both parties, ’cause rights only exist if the contract fails. The courts have spent decades since the rise of text databases in the 80’s making sure that there is settled law for almost everything you can bring before it – so much so that the only job left in court is who either (a) lied, or (b) failed due diligence (c ) sought an unearned premium at the other’s expense. 1) Surprisingly lawyers are taught contract law, not how to write contracts. And they will write for other lawyers most of the time, sometimes for in-house counsel, other times for skilled people, and otherwise for ordinary citizens. So absent this they learn to write contracts by the cut-and-paste method of contract development. So contracts accumulate ‘waste’ so to speak in most offices. They don’t accumulate solutions to problems. The courts (federal, state, local) do not put out standard contract formats that force what’s called “transactional” work into standard form. When in reality, the law does not grant much flexibility in these matters. Terms of art are largely bullshit claims. Judges are not stupid. Jurors are not stupid. The reality is that contracts are not complicated. My particular ‘thing’ is shareholder agreements. They don’t have to be complicated. They have to hit al the points in simple language. All contracts are like this, if (a) definitions are put on a separate page, (b) the before-and-after diagrams are displayed in visual form, ( c) a project-plan for signing the agreements in the appropriate sequence and the purpose of each one is stated in that plan (document), that states the title or interest change it enacts. (think of it as an accounting transaction with ledger entries). (d) each section includes a whereas “this is what we seek to accomplish” and therefore the terms of the contract in legal prose. (lawyers will resist this because it prevents people from pulling shit out of thin air, but that’s exactly why to do it. And this is the most simple – just capture the bullet list of concerns from everyone involved and make sure you’ve resolved them satisfactorily for all parties. And this is the most uncomfortable: Those engaging the contract do not inform the lawyers of the full suite of advantages that may arise from the deal, and the lawyers do not list all the reasons that they think the contract (arrangement) will fail. Truth: I generally have to tell lawyers to let me manage risk (that’s my job as a business person) and you create the level of contract suitable to my target risk. This is how you ‘Price’ a contract so to speak. By risk reward and resource expenditure your time. 2) Current legal training is antithetical to business, because it begins as teaching the adversarial method – it does not teach means of reaching compromise, settlement, or methods of cooperation that must adapt to changing circumstances. This leads people in defense to ‘double down’ on conflict rather than double down on compromise. This is not how business people resolve conflicts. So really there are two stages. the ones exterior to the contract, and the terms that will fight before the court if the contract fails. My understanding is that this is a problem of failing to require via positiva statements of intent for every via-negativa bit of blame. In other words contracts do not spend time on the via positiva means of settling error, failure of due diligence, change in circumstance. 3) The legal teams try to add unnecessary value to justify jobs (this is endemic). I see this all over the place. The problem is malincentives in legal fees: especially hourly. The problem is revenue constraints. In other words we have too many lawyers, working too hard, to drive up fees, and a court that doesn’t stop it, and a population that has no choice. 4) Courts work too often by win/lose instead of proportional settlements. This is partly by design to force settlement prior to court, and then turning the courtroom into a lottery of uncertainty, where the outcome is worse than settlement – it is not what the framers or common law judges in history intended. 5) Irreciprocal competency and scale of legal teams means they compete for providing opportunities for advantage rather than due diligence in preventing advantage. 6) systemic abandonment of moral norms has led to the need to articulate what was normative in law. 7) the law is lagging behind the rate of evolution of the complexity of contracts. 8) The law does not prevent entrapments as it used to, because it defers to the wisdom of business people (good) but not to baiting into hazard. 9) Law does not punish (as it used to) abuses of the court, the law, the contract so it is worthwhile for full time legal teams or lawyers to bill by the hour to use the economics to drive a settlement or court decision. That’s just the surface.