Mathematics by the virtue of consisting of nothing other than positional names, preserves constant relations, since only constant relations are expressible in the grammar of mathematics: the grammar of positional names.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Women are disloyal which is why they have only a few close friends, but many acq
Women are disloyal which is why they have only a few close friends, but many acquaintances. Men form loyalty networks instead, of less deep but more flexible relations. Aside from differences in bias between experiential and algorithmic, this difference in loyalty vs harmony causes the various differences in occupational achievement. As risk increases so does the risk of defection, and men do not defect under disharmony where women will defect at the first sign of it. -
Women are disloyal which is why they have only a few close friends, but many acq
Women are disloyal which is why they have only a few close friends, but many acquaintances. Men form loyalty networks instead, of less deep but more flexible relations. Aside from differences in bias between experiential and algorithmic, this difference in loyalty vs harmony causes the various differences in occupational achievement. As risk increases so does the risk of defection, and men do not defect under disharmony where women will defect at the first sign of it. -
“Is modern art masculine or feminine?”—Erik Lukovsky It is not so much masculi
—“Is modern art masculine or feminine?”—Erik Lukovsky It is not so much masculine versus feminine, but decoration, criticism and ridicule versus art, heroism, and sacredness. In the sense that modern art is gossip, and traditional art is sacred then yes, modern art is feminine and traditional art is masculine. Furthermore, modern art is, like gossip and criticism, cheap, whereas traditional heroic art is expensive, like truth and sacredness. So one of the factors driving modern art is the same as that driving all other forms of fashion: producing consumable status signals for ever lower classes. And while aristocracy of necessity shall demonstrate masculine values, peasantry of necessity shall demonstrate feminine values. DIfferences in all forms of capital concentration: individual male, collective female. -
“Is modern art masculine or feminine?”—Erik Lukovsky It is not so much masculi
—“Is modern art masculine or feminine?”—Erik Lukovsky It is not so much masculine versus feminine, but decoration, criticism and ridicule versus art, heroism, and sacredness. In the sense that modern art is gossip, and traditional art is sacred then yes, modern art is feminine and traditional art is masculine. Furthermore, modern art is, like gossip and criticism, cheap, whereas traditional heroic art is expensive, like truth and sacredness. So one of the factors driving modern art is the same as that driving all other forms of fashion: producing consumable status signals for ever lower classes. And while aristocracy of necessity shall demonstrate masculine values, peasantry of necessity shall demonstrate feminine values. DIfferences in all forms of capital concentration: individual male, collective female. -
Well, I would say that the difference between epistemology and ontology as it is
Well, I would say that the difference between epistemology and ontology as it is used, is the difference between truth and meaning. Ontologies are arbitrary, but epistemology is a product of the hierarchy of constant relations of the universe. To state it prosecutorially, I would say that epistemology produces a testimonial ontology, and that all other ontologies are merely fictionalisms. -
Well, I would say that the difference between epistemology and ontology as it is
Well, I would say that the difference between epistemology and ontology as it is used, is the difference between truth and meaning. Ontologies are arbitrary, but epistemology is a product of the hierarchy of constant relations of the universe. To state it prosecutorially, I would say that epistemology produces a testimonial ontology, and that all other ontologies are merely fictionalisms. -
“How much use would propertarianism be to a futurist?”– A Friend Well, I would
—“How much use would propertarianism be to a futurist?”– A Friend Well, I would say it explains the cause of emergent technologies and each of the layers of artificial intelligence. I would say that (as Wolfram’s been harping) that he next science is one of emergent operations. And that we have been all to interested in mathematics (averages of operations) rather than the operations themselves. -
“How much use would propertarianism be to a futurist?”– A Friend Well, I would
—“How much use would propertarianism be to a futurist?”– A Friend Well, I would say it explains the cause of emergent technologies and each of the layers of artificial intelligence. I would say that (as Wolfram’s been harping) that he next science is one of emergent operations. And that we have been all to interested in mathematics (averages of operations) rather than the operations themselves. -
So Mises was wrong in stating that there are no constant relations in economics.
So Mises was wrong in stating that there are no constant relations in economics. Instead, the constant relations are limited to those harmonics (intermediary, or externalities) that limit the consequences of causal relations.