No. Math Is Trivial. That’s Why Its Useful. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/no-math-is-trivial-thats-why-its-useful/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:37:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265502330230910981
No. Math Is Trivial. That’s Why Its Useful. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/no-math-is-trivial-thats-why-its-useful/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:37:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265502330230910981
Dec 1, 2019, 8:51 AM At present, aside from testimony and reciprocity I think I understand this problem (mathematical foundations) better than anyone else, for reasons I’m still … exasperated by. Math is a language. It consists of one dimension: positional names. Positional names consist of one constant relation: position (ordinality). Names are unique. Positional names are unique. Positions are scale independent. Positional names can be assigned to any referent in any dimension. We can assign names to any set of dimensions, just as we assign names to any set of referents within it, and as such we can used dimensional order or name, and position order or name, to describe ANY CONSTANT RELATIONS at any scale or combination of scales relative to the observer, and we can scale this technique of dimensional and positional names to any comprehensible scale. So it’s not that math is unreasonably useful, it’s that it’s fucking OBVIOUSLY useful in describing the natural world, because like the natural world mathematics is SIMPLE (consisting of constant relations). However, like anything else, we learn it’s constitution by it’s failure. And mathematics is terrible at inconstant relations (economics, sentience), and at that point of failure we must move from positional (linear) language (averages) to operations language (discrete operations). So for example, as far as I know, the reason that physics is frozen is Einstein published before Hilbert solved the underlying problem by Einstein NOT solving the problem of the underlying structure, by the presumption that the wave (calculus) was the primitive, rather than the operations that averaged into the wave – demonstrating that Einstein like many mathematicians understood the application of the language of mathematics without understanding it’s construction relative to ALL languages. In fact, if I had my druthers, I would have people learn the abacus, the gear, the computer, and the shape to learn mathematics, not just memorization by wrote repetition. Welcome to continue this but it’s not possible that I’m wrong. Foundations of language of which mathematics is the simplest because it consists of only one property, and our brains evolved to grasp the world as spaces first by very similar (geometric) means, an understanding of which usually awes the audience.
Dec 1, 2019, 8:51 AM At present, aside from testimony and reciprocity I think I understand this problem (mathematical foundations) better than anyone else, for reasons I’m still … exasperated by. Math is a language. It consists of one dimension: positional names. Positional names consist of one constant relation: position (ordinality). Names are unique. Positional names are unique. Positions are scale independent. Positional names can be assigned to any referent in any dimension. We can assign names to any set of dimensions, just as we assign names to any set of referents within it, and as such we can used dimensional order or name, and position order or name, to describe ANY CONSTANT RELATIONS at any scale or combination of scales relative to the observer, and we can scale this technique of dimensional and positional names to any comprehensible scale. So it’s not that math is unreasonably useful, it’s that it’s fucking OBVIOUSLY useful in describing the natural world, because like the natural world mathematics is SIMPLE (consisting of constant relations). However, like anything else, we learn it’s constitution by it’s failure. And mathematics is terrible at inconstant relations (economics, sentience), and at that point of failure we must move from positional (linear) language (averages) to operations language (discrete operations). So for example, as far as I know, the reason that physics is frozen is Einstein published before Hilbert solved the underlying problem by Einstein NOT solving the problem of the underlying structure, by the presumption that the wave (calculus) was the primitive, rather than the operations that averaged into the wave – demonstrating that Einstein like many mathematicians understood the application of the language of mathematics without understanding it’s construction relative to ALL languages. In fact, if I had my druthers, I would have people learn the abacus, the gear, the computer, and the shape to learn mathematics, not just memorization by wrote repetition. Welcome to continue this but it’s not possible that I’m wrong. Foundations of language of which mathematics is the simplest because it consists of only one property, and our brains evolved to grasp the world as spaces first by very similar (geometric) means, an understanding of which usually awes the audience.
Dec 19, 2019, 4:56 PM (from visual capitalist) 1900s After the Panic of 1907, the National Monetary Commission is established to propose legislation to regulate banking. U.S. Money Supply: $7 billion What $1 Could Buy: A pair of patent leather shoes. 1910s The Federal Reserve Act is signed in 1913 by President Woodrow Wilson. U.S. Money Supply: $13 billion What $1 Could Buy: A woman’s house dress. 1920s U.S. dollar bills were reduced in size by 25%, and standardized in terms of design. The Fed starts using open market operations as a tool for monetary policy. U.S. Money Supply: $35 billion What $1 Could Buy: Five pounds of sugar. 1930s To deal with deflation during the Great Depression, the United States suspends the gold standard. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs Executive Order 6102, which criminalizes the possession of gold. By no longer allowing gold to be legally redeemed, this removes a major constraint on the Fed, which can now control the money supply. U.S. Money Supply: $46 billion What $1 Could Buy: 16 cans of Campbell’s Soup 1940s The massive deficits of World War II are almost financed entirely by the creation of new money by the Federal Reserve. Interest rates are pegged low at the request of the Treasury. Under Bretton-Woods, the “gold-exchange standard” is adopted. U.S. Money Supply: $55 billion What $1 Could Buy: 20 bottles of Coca-Cola 1950s The Korean War starts in 1950, and inflation is at an annualized rate of 21%. The Fed can no longer manage such low interest rates, and tells the Treasury that it can “no longer maintain the existing situation”. U.S. Money Supply: $151 billion What $1 Could Buy: One Mr. Potato Head 1960s An agreement, called the Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord, is reached to establish the central bank’s independence. By this time, U.S. dollars in circulation around the world exceeded U.S. gold reserves. Unless the situation was rectified, the country would be vulnerable to the currency equivalent of a “bank run”. U.S. Money Supply: $211 billion What $1 Could Buy: Two movie tickets. 1970s In 1971, President Richard Nixon ends direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold. The period following the Nixon Shock is uncertain. The federal deficit doubles, stagflation hits, and the oil price skyrockets – all during the Vietnam War. Over the decade, the dollar loses 1/3 of its value. U.S. Money Supply: $401 billion What $1 Could Buy: Three Morton TV dinners. 1980s The stock market crashes in 1987 on Black Monday. The Federal Reserve, under newly-appointed Alan Greenspan, issues the following statement: “The Federal Reserve, consistent with its responsibilities as the nation’s central bank, affirmed today its readiness to serve as a source of liquidity to support the economic and financial system.” The Dow would recover by 1989, with no prolonged recession occurring. U.S. Money Supply: $1,560 billion What $1 Could Buy: One bottle of Heinz Ketchup. 1990s This decade is generally considered to be a time of declining inflation and the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. During this decade, many improvements are made to U.S. paper currency to prevent counterfeiting. Microprinting, security thread, and other features are used. U.S. Money Supply: $3,277 billion What $1 Could Buy: One gallon of milk. 2000s After the Dotcom crash, the Fed drops interest rates to near all-time lows. In 2008, the Financial Crisis hits and the Fed begins “quantitative easing”. Later, this would be known as QE1. U.S. Money Supply: $4,917 billion What $1 Could Buy: One Wendy’s hamburger. 2010- After QE1, the Fed holds $2.1 trillion of bank debt, mortgage-backed securities, and Treasury notes. Shortly after, QE2 starts. In 2012, it’s time for QE3. Purchases were halted in October 2014 after accumulating $4.5 trillion in assets. U.S. Money Supply: $13,291 billion What $1 Could Buy: One song from iTunes.
Dec 19, 2019, 4:56 PM (from visual capitalist) 1900s After the Panic of 1907, the National Monetary Commission is established to propose legislation to regulate banking. U.S. Money Supply: $7 billion What $1 Could Buy: A pair of patent leather shoes. 1910s The Federal Reserve Act is signed in 1913 by President Woodrow Wilson. U.S. Money Supply: $13 billion What $1 Could Buy: A woman’s house dress. 1920s U.S. dollar bills were reduced in size by 25%, and standardized in terms of design. The Fed starts using open market operations as a tool for monetary policy. U.S. Money Supply: $35 billion What $1 Could Buy: Five pounds of sugar. 1930s To deal with deflation during the Great Depression, the United States suspends the gold standard. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs Executive Order 6102, which criminalizes the possession of gold. By no longer allowing gold to be legally redeemed, this removes a major constraint on the Fed, which can now control the money supply. U.S. Money Supply: $46 billion What $1 Could Buy: 16 cans of Campbell’s Soup 1940s The massive deficits of World War II are almost financed entirely by the creation of new money by the Federal Reserve. Interest rates are pegged low at the request of the Treasury. Under Bretton-Woods, the “gold-exchange standard” is adopted. U.S. Money Supply: $55 billion What $1 Could Buy: 20 bottles of Coca-Cola 1950s The Korean War starts in 1950, and inflation is at an annualized rate of 21%. The Fed can no longer manage such low interest rates, and tells the Treasury that it can “no longer maintain the existing situation”. U.S. Money Supply: $151 billion What $1 Could Buy: One Mr. Potato Head 1960s An agreement, called the Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord, is reached to establish the central bank’s independence. By this time, U.S. dollars in circulation around the world exceeded U.S. gold reserves. Unless the situation was rectified, the country would be vulnerable to the currency equivalent of a “bank run”. U.S. Money Supply: $211 billion What $1 Could Buy: Two movie tickets. 1970s In 1971, President Richard Nixon ends direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold. The period following the Nixon Shock is uncertain. The federal deficit doubles, stagflation hits, and the oil price skyrockets – all during the Vietnam War. Over the decade, the dollar loses 1/3 of its value. U.S. Money Supply: $401 billion What $1 Could Buy: Three Morton TV dinners. 1980s The stock market crashes in 1987 on Black Monday. The Federal Reserve, under newly-appointed Alan Greenspan, issues the following statement: “The Federal Reserve, consistent with its responsibilities as the nation’s central bank, affirmed today its readiness to serve as a source of liquidity to support the economic and financial system.” The Dow would recover by 1989, with no prolonged recession occurring. U.S. Money Supply: $1,560 billion What $1 Could Buy: One bottle of Heinz Ketchup. 1990s This decade is generally considered to be a time of declining inflation and the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. During this decade, many improvements are made to U.S. paper currency to prevent counterfeiting. Microprinting, security thread, and other features are used. U.S. Money Supply: $3,277 billion What $1 Could Buy: One gallon of milk. 2000s After the Dotcom crash, the Fed drops interest rates to near all-time lows. In 2008, the Financial Crisis hits and the Fed begins “quantitative easing”. Later, this would be known as QE1. U.S. Money Supply: $4,917 billion What $1 Could Buy: One Wendy’s hamburger. 2010- After QE1, the Fed holds $2.1 trillion of bank debt, mortgage-backed securities, and Treasury notes. Shortly after, QE2 starts. In 2012, it’s time for QE3. Purchases were halted in October 2014 after accumulating $4.5 trillion in assets. U.S. Money Supply: $13,291 billion What $1 Could Buy: One song from iTunes.
Emotions Are Measures of Changes in State of Property. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/emotions-are-measures-of-changes-in-state-of-property/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:23:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265498793904164864
Dec 19, 2019, 7:25 PM Emotions are measures of changes in state of property. by Martin Štěpán ( Brandon Hayes)
Emotions are measures of changes in state of property. When they tell you hate or any other emotion is a crime, they’re trying to convince you your measurements are erroneous and to get you to stop measuring so that they can change the state of your property without obstacle.
Dec 19, 2019, 7:25 PM Emotions are measures of changes in state of property. by Martin Štěpán ( Brandon Hayes)
Emotions are measures of changes in state of property. When they tell you hate or any other emotion is a crime, they’re trying to convince you your measurements are erroneous and to get you to stop measuring so that they can change the state of your property without obstacle.
LETS USE MINIMUM DETAIL “Propertarianism is the completion of (the complete) scientific method.” That’s it. Period. But it’s a profound thing. Very. Now what do we do with that completed scientific method? This scientific method is value neutral, and commensurable regardless of discipline, and universal in application. We use that scientific method to produce a value neutral fully commensurable language across all disciplines. We use that logic and language to produce a universally commensurable value neutral system of law. We used that value neutral system of law to produce a constitution. That constitution’s principle innovation is to incrementally suppress the means by which western civlization in the ancient and modern world was undermined by crimes of plausible deniability (which I won’t explain right here), but that’s what you think of when you think of leftism. One can create an infinite number of constitutions of infinite variety using that law, as long as one constructs them truthfully and reciprocally – which is a problem for the left. The constitution we propose restores the american constitution to its original intent as military and treasury that allows for the concentration of military power sufficient for defense of the continent, devolves all other powers to the states, makes everyone liable for the truth and reciprocity of speech in public to the public about matters public (outlaws leftism), and reforms every single aspect of life so that we restore our civilization from the ((())) harms done to it this past century. That constitution is on line and in progress and is a lot to swallow, but then so are the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Federalist Papers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Amendements, History of Supreme Court Rulings, Federal Code, and Individual State constitutions and codes. Propertarianism is the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to the totality of human knowledge, creating a universally commensurable value neutral language; its embodiment in the natural common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of [all deceit] from the informational commons. See? LETS ADD A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. Propertarianism completes the scientific method. The culmination of the philosophical program of the 20th century was that there is no via positiva scientific method. Instead, The scientific method is a via negativa method: falsificationary. There are only so many dimensions humans can cognitively imagine and cognitively falsify by tests of consistency: categorical, logical, operational, empirical, rational, reciprocal, complete in scope with defined limits, and consistent and therefore coherent across those dimensions, where one warranties such due diligence, and is liable for the consequence of his displays words and deeds resulting from such statements. By using this method we can create a universally commensurable, value neutral, operational language and as such a universally commensurable logic, across all fields: a system of measurement for the truthfulness of speech. We can then use this language and this method to restate the constitution, and our law, in scientific, and operational language, closed to interpretation (legislation from the bench). Moreover we can use this law to outlaw the primary innovation in organized crime that was used to undermine western civilization: false promise; baiting into hazard, using pilpul (sophism) and critique(undermining, straw manning) under cover of plausible deniability to profit from the imposition of harms upon others by financialization (innumeracy), pseudoscience, sophism, supernaturalism, denialism, including the false promises, pseudo-mathematics, pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial of marx, boas, freud, Cantor, Adorno et al, Gramsci et al, Derrida et al, Friedan et al, rand/rothbard, and the neocons. And yes, we can even use it to reform and obtain insight into the failures of Bohr ad Einstein that hilbert predicted, and we can explain the 20th century of mysticism and deceit that hayek warned us of. In other words we can end the jewish-muslim, marxist-postmodernis-feminist program of lying by false promise, and explain why it’s a crime. So, hopefully you can understand why this brief passage here is not something I would stick on the front page for marketing purposes WHAT IS A SYSTEM OF THOUGHT? (A GRAMMAR) What’s the difference between aristotelianism, platonism, and abrahamism? What’s the difference between reason, logic, rationalism? What’s the difference between Aristotelian, enlightenment(empirical) and scientific, revolutions? Whats the difference between math, logic, programming, recipes, and protocols? So what is the difference between aristotelianism, empiricism, science, and testimonialism (propertarianism)? Well, the difference is from the rational to the empirical to the operational. What does operational mean? It means the difference between logic (Sets) and programming (operations). It means the difference between logic (language), empiricism (observation), and operations (actions). And if you can’t comprehend it – it doesn’t matter. You probably don’t know calculus, analysis, algebraic geometry, relativity, quantum mechanics, or the difference between hierarchical, relational, functional, object oriented, and bayesian programming, or the design patterns in each. Or the fundamental problems of mathematical economics, categories, use of symmetries as intermediary systems of economic measurement. Or even the problem of protein folding or why all of those questions are related by the problem a lack of an operational logic of geometries that replaces the operational logic of lines and curves using positional names that we call mathematics.
LETS USE MINIMUM DETAIL “Propertarianism is the completion of (the complete) scientific method.” That’s it. Period. But it’s a profound thing. Very. Now what do we do with that completed scientific method? This scientific method is value neutral, and commensurable regardless of discipline, and universal in application. We use that scientific method to produce a value neutral fully commensurable language across all disciplines. We use that logic and language to produce a universally commensurable value neutral system of law. We used that value neutral system of law to produce a constitution. That constitution’s principle innovation is to incrementally suppress the means by which western civlization in the ancient and modern world was undermined by crimes of plausible deniability (which I won’t explain right here), but that’s what you think of when you think of leftism. One can create an infinite number of constitutions of infinite variety using that law, as long as one constructs them truthfully and reciprocally – which is a problem for the left. The constitution we propose restores the american constitution to its original intent as military and treasury that allows for the concentration of military power sufficient for defense of the continent, devolves all other powers to the states, makes everyone liable for the truth and reciprocity of speech in public to the public about matters public (outlaws leftism), and reforms every single aspect of life so that we restore our civilization from the ((())) harms done to it this past century. That constitution is on line and in progress and is a lot to swallow, but then so are the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Federalist Papers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Amendements, History of Supreme Court Rulings, Federal Code, and Individual State constitutions and codes. Propertarianism is the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to the totality of human knowledge, creating a universally commensurable value neutral language; its embodiment in the natural common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of [all deceit] from the informational commons. See? LETS ADD A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. Propertarianism completes the scientific method. The culmination of the philosophical program of the 20th century was that there is no via positiva scientific method. Instead, The scientific method is a via negativa method: falsificationary. There are only so many dimensions humans can cognitively imagine and cognitively falsify by tests of consistency: categorical, logical, operational, empirical, rational, reciprocal, complete in scope with defined limits, and consistent and therefore coherent across those dimensions, where one warranties such due diligence, and is liable for the consequence of his displays words and deeds resulting from such statements. By using this method we can create a universally commensurable, value neutral, operational language and as such a universally commensurable logic, across all fields: a system of measurement for the truthfulness of speech. We can then use this language and this method to restate the constitution, and our law, in scientific, and operational language, closed to interpretation (legislation from the bench). Moreover we can use this law to outlaw the primary innovation in organized crime that was used to undermine western civilization: false promise; baiting into hazard, using pilpul (sophism) and critique(undermining, straw manning) under cover of plausible deniability to profit from the imposition of harms upon others by financialization (innumeracy), pseudoscience, sophism, supernaturalism, denialism, including the false promises, pseudo-mathematics, pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial of marx, boas, freud, Cantor, Adorno et al, Gramsci et al, Derrida et al, Friedan et al, rand/rothbard, and the neocons. And yes, we can even use it to reform and obtain insight into the failures of Bohr ad Einstein that hilbert predicted, and we can explain the 20th century of mysticism and deceit that hayek warned us of. In other words we can end the jewish-muslim, marxist-postmodernis-feminist program of lying by false promise, and explain why it’s a crime. So, hopefully you can understand why this brief passage here is not something I would stick on the front page for marketing purposes WHAT IS A SYSTEM OF THOUGHT? (A GRAMMAR) What’s the difference between aristotelianism, platonism, and abrahamism? What’s the difference between reason, logic, rationalism? What’s the difference between Aristotelian, enlightenment(empirical) and scientific, revolutions? Whats the difference between math, logic, programming, recipes, and protocols? So what is the difference between aristotelianism, empiricism, science, and testimonialism (propertarianism)? Well, the difference is from the rational to the empirical to the operational. What does operational mean? It means the difference between logic (Sets) and programming (operations). It means the difference between logic (language), empiricism (observation), and operations (actions). And if you can’t comprehend it – it doesn’t matter. You probably don’t know calculus, analysis, algebraic geometry, relativity, quantum mechanics, or the difference between hierarchical, relational, functional, object oriented, and bayesian programming, or the design patterns in each. Or the fundamental problems of mathematical economics, categories, use of symmetries as intermediary systems of economic measurement. Or even the problem of protein folding or why all of those questions are related by the problem a lack of an operational logic of geometries that replaces the operational logic of lines and curves using positional names that we call mathematics.