May 2, 2020, 9:35 AM
—“You’d probably benefit from learning some basic coding, because it is a very different way of thinking. You just can’t handwave stuff with a computer…”—Moritz Bierling
Exactly. Which is what operational prose prevents – our endemic ‘hand waving’.
You Won”t Be Able to Criticize or Falsify P-Logic and Law https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/09/you-wont-be-able-to-criticize-or-falsify-p-logic-and-law/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-09 15:31:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259144023283044353
May 3, 2020, 9:40 AM Every professional discipline uses a methodology. P creates a single professional discipline of the metaphysical, psychological, social, political, and group strategy. It is to sentient sciences what physics is to non-sentient physical sciences. P is a methodology that produces a formal grammar (or logic). As such it is what we refer to as a formal science (formal logic of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology). We use that science to explain western civlization. We use the explanation of western civilization to explain why it’s the optimum civilization. We explain and advocate our preference for that optimum civilization. We use that understanding and preference of optimum civilization to correct past and present errors in that civilization, and to restore, reform, and, innovate on that optimum civilization. It is impossible to criticize the methodology (science). It is very difficult to criticize what we do with it. At best one can argue for preference of different organizations of our or other civilizations given the tactical advantage of circumstances, within that strategic optimum. You must be able to criticize P on it’s foundations and it’s propositions. (You won’t be able to). The difference between counting, accounting, mathematics, programming, and P is simply the increasing number of causal dimensions in the domains they describe). You certainly can criticize the choice of continuing the strategy of western civlization or the policy implementations we suggest to do so. But you aren’t going to be able to criticize the logic or science whatsoever. It won’t happen. You don’t know that yet. But I do. Hostility to criticism of any of the sciences (logical facility, logic, mathematics, accounting, mathematics, programming, P (P-logic, P-Law) is simply hostility to laziness and ignorance rather than informed debate. P is not a theology, philosophy, ideology, or analogy. It’s a (the) formal grammar (logic, vocabulary, paradigm) of sentient life if not all life.
May 3, 2020, 9:40 AM Every professional discipline uses a methodology. P creates a single professional discipline of the metaphysical, psychological, social, political, and group strategy. It is to sentient sciences what physics is to non-sentient physical sciences. P is a methodology that produces a formal grammar (or logic). As such it is what we refer to as a formal science (formal logic of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology). We use that science to explain western civlization. We use the explanation of western civilization to explain why it’s the optimum civilization. We explain and advocate our preference for that optimum civilization. We use that understanding and preference of optimum civilization to correct past and present errors in that civilization, and to restore, reform, and, innovate on that optimum civilization. It is impossible to criticize the methodology (science). It is very difficult to criticize what we do with it. At best one can argue for preference of different organizations of our or other civilizations given the tactical advantage of circumstances, within that strategic optimum. You must be able to criticize P on it’s foundations and it’s propositions. (You won’t be able to). The difference between counting, accounting, mathematics, programming, and P is simply the increasing number of causal dimensions in the domains they describe). You certainly can criticize the choice of continuing the strategy of western civlization or the policy implementations we suggest to do so. But you aren’t going to be able to criticize the logic or science whatsoever. It won’t happen. You don’t know that yet. But I do. Hostility to criticism of any of the sciences (logical facility, logic, mathematics, accounting, mathematics, programming, P (P-logic, P-Law) is simply hostility to laziness and ignorance rather than informed debate. P is not a theology, philosophy, ideology, or analogy. It’s a (the) formal grammar (logic, vocabulary, paradigm) of sentient life if not all life.
May 3, 2020, 10:09 AM [T]he Four Color Problem is an example of the limits of mathematics. A proof is just a test of internal consistency within the limits of mathematics. The point of mandelbrot’s work, and now wolframs, is that we are past the point of linguistic mathematics (‘statistics and sets’) and we are in the domain of computable mathematics(‘operations’). Or put differently – we have finally discovered the foundations of mathematics, and are in the process of falsifying the flawed project of the set foundations of mathematics and restoring operational foundations of mathematics. Human logical facility > … Operations > … … Counting -> Arithmetic -> Accounting …………………..-> Computations -> Symmetries(equilibria) …………………..-> Sets -> Mathematics -> Symmetries Or in historical terms we have restored the aristotelian-achimedian basis of mathematics and science that was lost and overtaken by greek platonism and middle eastern verbalism and pseudoscience in mathematics, that was restored to geometry by Descartes and Empiricism by the British, and undermined by the Jewish logicians and mathematicians and german and jewish philosophers, but is in the process of being restored by the present generation which is jewish-german-british-american. I’m kind of … sad, wolfram beat me to it. Because I would have loved to work on the problem if I had another lifetime. But I’m happy to stick with the social sciences and explain why he’s right. And to provide perhaps a better explanation of why he’s right. We are seeing the end of the ‘jewish century of pseudoscience’ and my argument that we have paid the cost of jewish integration into aristotelianism like we have paid the french, german, russian ,and chinese costs. But that the problem is the jews were among us rather than in their own country, so their undermining was more successful than the french, german, russian, and chinese. The question is whether we can correct course in the social sciences before immigration destroys our civilization and it’s ability to restore course in aristotelian-archimedian european realism, naturalism, operationalism, consistency, correspondence, sovereignty, rational choice, reciprocity, and markets in everything as the spectrum of near perfect correspondence with the universe in its physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Edit
May 3, 2020, 10:09 AM [T]he Four Color Problem is an example of the limits of mathematics. A proof is just a test of internal consistency within the limits of mathematics. The point of mandelbrot’s work, and now wolframs, is that we are past the point of linguistic mathematics (‘statistics and sets’) and we are in the domain of computable mathematics(‘operations’). Or put differently – we have finally discovered the foundations of mathematics, and are in the process of falsifying the flawed project of the set foundations of mathematics and restoring operational foundations of mathematics. Human logical facility > … Operations > … … Counting -> Arithmetic -> Accounting …………………..-> Computations -> Symmetries(equilibria) …………………..-> Sets -> Mathematics -> Symmetries Or in historical terms we have restored the aristotelian-achimedian basis of mathematics and science that was lost and overtaken by greek platonism and middle eastern verbalism and pseudoscience in mathematics, that was restored to geometry by Descartes and Empiricism by the British, and undermined by the Jewish logicians and mathematicians and german and jewish philosophers, but is in the process of being restored by the present generation which is jewish-german-british-american. I’m kind of … sad, wolfram beat me to it. Because I would have loved to work on the problem if I had another lifetime. But I’m happy to stick with the social sciences and explain why he’s right. And to provide perhaps a better explanation of why he’s right. We are seeing the end of the ‘jewish century of pseudoscience’ and my argument that we have paid the cost of jewish integration into aristotelianism like we have paid the french, german, russian ,and chinese costs. But that the problem is the jews were among us rather than in their own country, so their undermining was more successful than the french, german, russian, and chinese. The question is whether we can correct course in the social sciences before immigration destroys our civilization and it’s ability to restore course in aristotelian-archimedian european realism, naturalism, operationalism, consistency, correspondence, sovereignty, rational choice, reciprocity, and markets in everything as the spectrum of near perfect correspondence with the universe in its physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Edit
THE CURRENT TRANSFORMATION OF FORMAL SCIENCES IN THE CONTEXT OF HISTORY
The Four Color Problem is an example of the limits of mathematics. A proof is just a test of internal consistency within the limits of mathematics. The point of mandelbrot’s work, and now wolframs, is that we are past the point of linguistic mathematics (‘statistics and sets’) and we are in the domain of computable mathematics(‘operations’).
Or put differently – we have finally discovered the foundations of mathematics, and are in the process of falsifying the flawed project of the set foundations of mathematics and restoring operational foundations of mathematics.
Human logical facility >
… Operations >
… … Counting -> Arithmetic -> Accounting
…………………..-> Computations -> Symmetries(equilibria)
…………………..-> Sets -> Mathematics -> Symmetries
Or in historical terms we have restored the aristotelian-achimedian basis of mathematics and science that was lost and overtaken by greek platonism and middle eastern verbalism and pseudoscience in mathematics, that was restored to geometry by Descartes and Empiricism by the British, and undermined by the Jewish logicians and mathematicians and german and jewish philosophers, but is in the process of being restored by the present generation which is jewish-german-british-american.
I’m kind of … sad, wolfram beat me to it. Because I would have loved to work on the problem if I had another lifetime. But I’m happy to stick with the social sciences and explain why he’s right. And to provide perhaps a better explanation of why he’s right.
We are seeing the end of the ‘jewish century of pseudoscience’ and my argument that we have paid the cost of jewish integration into aristotelianism like we have paid the french, german, russian ,and chinese costs. But that the problem is the jews were among us rather than in their own country, so their undermining was more successful than the french, german, russian, and chinese.
The question is whether we can correct course in the social sciences before immigration destroys our civilization and it’s ability to restore course in aristotelian-archimedian european realism, naturalism, operationalism, consistency, correspondence, sovereignty, rational choice, reciprocity, and markets in everything as the spectrum of near perfect correspondence with the universe in its physical, natural, and evolutionary laws.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 10:09:00 UTC
YOU WON”T BE ABLE TO CRITICIZE OR FALSIFY P-LOGIC AND LAW
Every professional discipline uses a methodology. P creates a single professional discipline of the metaphysical, psychological, social, political, and group strategy. It is to sentient sciences what physics is to non-sentient physical sciences. P is a methodology that produces a formal grammar (or logic). As such it is what we refer to as a formal science (formal logic of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology).
We use that science to explain western civlization. We use the explanation of western civilization to explain why it’s the optimum civilization. We explain and advocate our preference for that optimum civilization. We use that understanding and preference of optimum civilization to correct past and present errors in that civilization, and to restore, reform, and, innovate on that optimum civilization.
It is impossible to criticize the methodology (science). It is very difficult to criticize what we do with it. At best one can argue for preference of different organizations of our or other civilizations given the tactical advantage of circumstances, within that strategic optimum.
You must be able to criticize P on it’s foundations and it’s propositions. (You won’t be able to). The difference between counting, accounting, mathematics, programming, and P is simply the increasing number of causal dimensions in the domains they describe). You certainly can criticize the choice of continuing the strategy of western civlization or the policy implementations we suggest to do so. But you aren’t going to be able to criticize the logic or science whatsoever. It won’t happen. You don’t know that yet. But I do.
Hostility to criticism of any of the sciences (logical facility, logic, mathematics, accounting, mathematics, programming, P (P-logic, P-Law) is simply hostility to laziness and ignorance rather than informed debate.
P is not a theology, philosophy, ideology, or analogy. It’s a (the) formal grammar (logic, vocabulary, paradigm) of sentient life if not all life.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 09:40:00 UTC
1. If you can write a definition like you can demonstrate you know what you’re talking about.
2. If you CAN’T write a definition like this you CAN’T demonstrate you know what you’re talking about.
3. Trying to write a definition like this is how you learn what you don’t yet know.
4. So you discover what you don’t know, then learn, and then write definitions like this until you ‘complete the proof’ that you know what you’re talking about. 😉
The fact that you (Gary) don’t find it remotely hard to do is what I’m sorta awed by. But then learning by exposure probably helps. lolUpdated May 2, 2020, 8:25 AM
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-02 08:25:00 UTC
—“Markets = Decidability Engines.”– Gary Knight
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-02 07:57:00 UTC