Jan 19, 2020, 7:56 AM Sorry all. Mathiness, and mathematical fiction in physics is definitely a problem, and attention whoring among mathematical physicists by selling those fictions is ridiculous. But this is because they have no classical model (geometric) to explain their probabilism at the subatomic level. Even the most mathy idea – string theory – is likely very close to the explanation of how change moves through the underlying geometry – whatever it is. Electric universe theory is simply a material theory and therefore easier to grasp without the mathiness. That said, it’s absolutely positively pseudoscientific nonsense. Same for plasma. The reason all of these problems exist, whether mainstream mathy or fringe material, is that we simply haven’t figured out the underlying (and in my expectation, classical, structure of the universe at the sub-particle (wave) level.) There is an elegance to P because it operationalizes the psychological, social, political world of thought. But human action is at human scale. That elegance isn’t available to use in physics at the sub-particle level because we can’t yet operationalize it. So please don’t associate woo woo with my work because you RIGHTLY PREFER and TRUST a classical, geometric, material, operational description of reality instead of a mathy-probabalistic one. Realize this about YOURSELF and YOUR thought. Just because P solves a problem and mathy-physics doesn’t, doesn’t mean mathy physics is wrong. It means it’s incomplete – but yes, when it is complete, I don’t doubt it will be expressible in operational and material terms. Woo woo pseudoscience is what I say it is: nonsense.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Mathiness
Jan 19, 2020, 7:56 AM Sorry all. Mathiness, and mathematical fiction in physics is definitely a problem, and attention whoring among mathematical physicists by selling those fictions is ridiculous. But this is because they have no classical model (geometric) to explain their probabilism at the subatomic level. Even the most mathy idea – string theory – is likely very close to the explanation of how change moves through the underlying geometry – whatever it is. Electric universe theory is simply a material theory and therefore easier to grasp without the mathiness. That said, it’s absolutely positively pseudoscientific nonsense. Same for plasma. The reason all of these problems exist, whether mainstream mathy or fringe material, is that we simply haven’t figured out the underlying (and in my expectation, classical, structure of the universe at the sub-particle (wave) level.) There is an elegance to P because it operationalizes the psychological, social, political world of thought. But human action is at human scale. That elegance isn’t available to use in physics at the sub-particle level because we can’t yet operationalize it. So please don’t associate woo woo with my work because you RIGHTLY PREFER and TRUST a classical, geometric, material, operational description of reality instead of a mathy-probabalistic one. Realize this about YOURSELF and YOUR thought. Just because P solves a problem and mathy-physics doesn’t, doesn’t mean mathy physics is wrong. It means it’s incomplete – but yes, when it is complete, I don’t doubt it will be expressible in operational and material terms. Woo woo pseudoscience is what I say it is: nonsense.
-
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.
-
Human Capital
Jan 19, 2020, 10:05 AM In that branch of economics called Political Economy, Human capital consists of the size of the population, their age distribution, their health, their fitness, their intellect and character, and the sum of training in behavior, skills, and knowledge: every physical emotional and intellectual asset a person can have. Human capital is beneficial not just for the individual in achieving his or her full potential but that the economy and the polity achieve their fullest potential together when there is more human capital. This is rather obvious, but it helps to tie the world together for people. The government relies on education as the primary means by which to ensure that everyone rather than just those who can afford it, can achieve their potential, and as a consequence the society achieves its greatest potential. The reason for mass education was just as much to prevent so many indolent useless criminal malcontents as it was to improve the lives of children. lol. We don’t often add that success is more dependent on the average intelligence and personality trait distribution of the group than it is on the education because that would be improper in the context.
-
Human Capital
Jan 19, 2020, 10:05 AM In that branch of economics called Political Economy, Human capital consists of the size of the population, their age distribution, their health, their fitness, their intellect and character, and the sum of training in behavior, skills, and knowledge: every physical emotional and intellectual asset a person can have. Human capital is beneficial not just for the individual in achieving his or her full potential but that the economy and the polity achieve their fullest potential together when there is more human capital. This is rather obvious, but it helps to tie the world together for people. The government relies on education as the primary means by which to ensure that everyone rather than just those who can afford it, can achieve their potential, and as a consequence the society achieves its greatest potential. The reason for mass education was just as much to prevent so many indolent useless criminal malcontents as it was to improve the lives of children. lol. We don’t often add that success is more dependent on the average intelligence and personality trait distribution of the group than it is on the education because that would be improper in the context.
-
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.”
-
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.”
-
Multiculturalism has failed.
A limited number of social orders are possible:
i) Genetically imperial (Han Chinese, Russian Empire),
ii) Large hierarchy of casts (india),
iii) Small homogenous and dynamic (europe, japan).
iv) Tyrannical hetero-tribal,
v) Failed peoples that cannot hold territory (diasporic unlanded people). Every experience with heterogeneity has failed. (Middle East, Brazil, and most obviously, India.) The most successful states are homogenous kin groups (China, Korea, Japan, the nordics, and until recently western europe.) The Chinese/Japanese/Korean civilization will very soon dominate the world economic and political sphere, and their racial exclusion will be copied by the rest of the world. The problem isn’t racism. The problem is that most unsuccessful races, subraces, tribes, and clans, consist of excessively large underclasses whose standards of living cannot be satisfied now that the advantages of western technology have been redistributed. Look at brazil. Look at the USA. The ‘whites’ are trying to separate. The jews remain separated. The diasporic chinese separate. It’s underclass peoples that commingle. The optimum social order is homogenous, for the simple reason that we redistribute to kin and resist redistribution to competitors. The optimum possible social and political order is kinship. (Do the research) Kin selection is an evolutionary advantage. (Do the research) The experiment with Democracy has largely failed. (Do the research)
- The Propertarian Institute *
-
Multiculturalism has failed.
A limited number of social orders are possible:
i) Genetically imperial (Han Chinese, Russian Empire),
ii) Large hierarchy of casts (india),
iii) Small homogenous and dynamic (europe, japan).
iv) Tyrannical hetero-tribal,
v) Failed peoples that cannot hold territory (diasporic unlanded people). Every experience with heterogeneity has failed. (Middle East, Brazil, and most obviously, India.) The most successful states are homogenous kin groups (China, Korea, Japan, the nordics, and until recently western europe.) The Chinese/Japanese/Korean civilization will very soon dominate the world economic and political sphere, and their racial exclusion will be copied by the rest of the world. The problem isn’t racism. The problem is that most unsuccessful races, subraces, tribes, and clans, consist of excessively large underclasses whose standards of living cannot be satisfied now that the advantages of western technology have been redistributed. Look at brazil. Look at the USA. The ‘whites’ are trying to separate. The jews remain separated. The diasporic chinese separate. It’s underclass peoples that commingle. The optimum social order is homogenous, for the simple reason that we redistribute to kin and resist redistribution to competitors. The optimum possible social and political order is kinship. (Do the research) Kin selection is an evolutionary advantage. (Do the research) The experiment with Democracy has largely failed. (Do the research)
- The Propertarian Institute *