Theme: Measurement

  • No. “dogs are harmless” isn’t a stereotype. “People with observable properties X

    No. “dogs are harmless” isn’t a stereotype.

    “People with observable properties X usually demonstrate observable properties Y is a stereotype.”

    Don’t believe me. Find the research. “Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science.” Hence postmodern HBD/Darwin denial.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 17:21:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256997241753153536

    Reply addressees: @TheYoungGlow @TribulationT @kennethmejiaLA

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256893600027291650

  • P: THE ACCOUNTANCY OF HUMAN ACTIONS Again, most of what the P-method consists of

    P: THE ACCOUNTANCY OF HUMAN ACTIONS

    Again, most of what the P-method consists of learning is

    … a) disambiguation of concepts into terms by serialization (competition)

    … b) in operational terms (actions from single point of view)

    … c) in complete, promissory sentences

    … d) composing fully accounted transactions.

    … e) within limits, with parsimony, with warranty.

    If you understand basic geometry, it’s the same thing.

    If you understand database normalization its the same thing.

    If you understand object oriented analysis and design it’s the same thing.

    if you understand sophomoric philosophy, platonism, idealism, pilpul and critique, is the OPPOSITE thing. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 13:13:00 UTC

  • METAPHYSICS VS PARADIGMS: THE LESSON. 1. Language consists of measurements organ

    METAPHYSICS VS PARADIGMS: THE LESSON.

    1. Language consists of measurements organized into transactions and sets of transactions. We cannot speak in anything other than measurements of sense-perception-auto-association.

    2. We refer to each internally consistent system of measurement as “metaphysics” if we are using platonic (imaginary) vocabulary, and “paradigm” if we are using the descriptive (existential) language paradigm.

    3. Metaphysics = Language Paradigm = Internal Constant relations independent of external correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity, limits, scope, accounting, warrantability, competitive surval.

    4. Description = Language Paradigm consisting of Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity, limits, scope, accounting, warrantability, competitive surval.

    5. Narratives create imaginary world models that assist us in calculating by the most primitive means available to us: empathy, sympathy, and imitation. Archetypes personify instincts. Plots are formulae which teach us the consequences of following our instincts in in different conditions in the pursuit of ends – and most parables teach us the crime of either hubris or cowardice or laziness.

    6. We learn in generations of cognitive development from fairy tales to myths and legends, to heroic histories, to norms, manners, ethics morals, and traditions, to the dance of mating an family, to the various sciences, to the multitude of skills we use to apply them. Each of these generations requires greater agency and agency greater ability. Likewise we have theology, philosophy and the sciences. Likewise we have imitative, rule based, and outcome based ethics. Likewise we have an age of choice, age of consent, age of maturity, and age of political influence.

    7. There is only one most parsimonious system of measurement of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws of action. That language is what we call the formal(logical), physical(non-sentient), and social (sentient, action) sciences.

    8. That most parsimonious system of measurement of physical, natural and evolutionary laws of action, cannot capture the sense, perception, and associative experience. It can only EXPLAIN the experiential and associative to prevent ERROR and DECEIT by the experiential and associative.

    9. All other systems of measurement vary from that most parsimonious paradigm. Each variation from that most parsimonious paradigm produces costly consequences for the individual, those who associate with the individual, the society that is affected by them, and the polity that includes them, and under some conditions the world.

    10. People have explicable incentives for a) varying from that most parsimonious paradigm. b) choosing a fictional narrative (parables, stories, networks of parables and stories (mythologies), as means of decision (choice) making. c) habituating the degree of separation of conflation the parsimonious paradigm (real unknown), experienced (real known) from the fictional paradigm (imagined).

    11. Our brains develop our minds in a predictable hierarchy from the sensory to the physical to the interpersonal to the rational, and the impulsive, normative, and considered, at varying rates. The degree of ‘friction’ due to developmental failures in our ability to learn each step in that hierarchy determines the degree of complexity we use for our ‘resting state’. Some of us more sensory, some more physical, some more imaginary, some more social, and some more rational resting states (our normal). And we are more or less able to express agency, or vulnerable to sedation givne our lack of agency dependent upon that resting state.

    12. We are all subject to involuntary defect (psychosis, schizophrenia), voluntary defect (sedatives, psychedelics stimulants) invent and construct addiction to because cognitive agency is costly in the face of uncertainty, amplified by one’s failures to reduce costs of calculating successful actions, amplified by one’s failures of prediction of outcomes, amplified by one’s competitive failures in the familial, social, economic and political marketplaces, and by amplified others rejection and low status in those marketplaces. The solution of course is to lower one’s demands to suit one’s market value (epicureanism), and to learn to insulate one’s self from market pressures (stoicism, buddhism, christianity). The problem being that most of us maintain biological demand for social interaction and membership so that we seek means of sedation by escape, psychological construction, social construction, or changing our social circumstance, or improving our agency and market value so that we are more competitive.

    13. We differ in cognitive ability, meaning we differ in the dependence upon a) physical sense-perception and auto association b) intuitionistic auto-associative valuation and subsequent emotional response c) prediction of social (empathic/short/interpersonal) and physical (physical/long/political) permutations, d) regulation of those predictions by direction of attention to differing predicted experiences and states, e) agency in selecting which of those regulated predictions we will permute upon in order to produce a desired outcome, f) skill in calculating (imputing, calculating and computing) the means of achieving those ends. Ergo we differ in demand for mindfulness (relief from competitive pressures), and our means of obtaining mindfulness.

    14. The difference in individual family, class, and group ability is not superiority but accumulated defects due to genetic load due to survival of defects under monogamy, familism, pastoralism, agrarianism, industrialism, and lack of selection pressures, combined competing with those who continuously suppress genetic load by continuous selection pressure, which produces evolution of neotonic maturity, rational agency, and calculative ability as a consequence.

    15. We have however discovered the genes for improving heart, muscle, lungs, and remove defects from liver, kidney, and stomach. So it is possible in the future to both add innovations and remove defects. Even if man’s continues dysgenic reproduction means we cannot control negative selection pressures (increasing genetic load) we can still speciate with elites by selective breeding (classes) and by selective genetic manipulation (positive eugenics).

    16. There is no false equivalency. There is the most parsimonous science(calculation)(action) and fiction (theorizing) (imagination) and metaphysical (conflation and deceit).There is no extant metaphysical – only the imaginary. There is but most parsimonious – the truth – the rest is different degree of error, bias, wishfulthinking and deceit.

    17 If that experience is unorganized the psychotic (rational ), schizophrenic(social), or psychedelic (experiential). If organized the fictional(fictions). if locally ritualized the cult. If socially constructed the religion. if chemically induced: the drug addiction. These are all imaginary. These are all addictions. They are all falsehoods. They are all admissions of failure. Instead there is the fictional, the historical, the wisdom literature of the centuries, and the sciences whether formal, physical(physics, chemistry, biology), or sentient (language, psychology, sociology).

    18. Metaphysics = Addicts. Just addicts. Nothing more. We need only determine the reason for the addiction, and the method of addiction, but these are addictions, and addicts ‘disposable’ at best, and ‘cancer’ at worst.

    19. There is every good reason to either remove addicts from public discourse and influence, on one hand, and to follow Duerte if they get out of hand on the other. This is what houses of government by demonstrated achievement accomplish, and what prohibition on addictions prevents from influencing those houses.

    20. Addicts will stop at nothing to justify their addiction. They will export the costs of their addiction. To the limit of the adult tolerance for bearing the costs of it.

    At present we need to imitate duterte and clean house.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 12:47:00 UTC

  • THE CURRENT TRANSFORMATION OF FORMAL SCIENCES IN THE CONTEXT OF HISTORY The Four

    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

  • WHEN WE PERCEIVE SOMETHING WRONG – WE’RE RIGHT (The Economics of Communication)

    WHEN WE PERCEIVE SOMETHING WRONG – WE’RE RIGHT

    (The Economics of Communication)

    To profit we must exchange.

    To trade (communication) requires we discover a medium of exchange.

    To exchange we must discover coincidences of wants using the available medium of exchange.

    All language consists of measurements. Measurements within paradigms. Paradigms that serve interests. Interests that are achievable with abilities. And values that measure the degree of interests.

    So we are trying to achieve commensurability so that we can measure the value of the exchange.

    When we are frustrated it means we are seeking cooperation (exchange, trade, returns) where the transaction costs are higher than the rewards.

    When we are not frustrated it means we have divided the labor of discovering coincidences of wants, commensurable mediums of exchanges, given abilities, values, and paradigms.

    Are we frustrated that they don’t think like us or that the cost of thinking like them, or reducing our thoughts to their level of precision is too costly?

    Are we frustrated by those cost or are we frustrated that that we no longer function in an aristocratic hierarchy because under democracy our words despite our differences in ability are mispriced?

    If we were still ruled by Nindsors, Nevilles, Fitzroys, Marlboroughs, Curzons rather than the parliament of fools would we have this problem? If the anglo-dutch aristocracy and the german labor majority were not undermined by underclass immigration? If our society was organized multi dimensionally so that the martial hierarchy, the commercial hierarchy, and the informational hierarchy were mediated by the law preventing ‘putting fingers on the scale’, would this be the case?

    So my view is the over-commercialization of society, and the over-politicization of society that were the result of the windfalls of the industrial revolution, and the (((world wars))) we tolerated by not nationalizing banking, and redistributing the windfalls of interests on state credit, as we all sought to seek commercial success where the balance of military-aristocratic, comercial-noble, and intellectual-arts and knowledge, and priestly-service could compete on their own terms rather than unviersal commercialization (privatization).

    We are at the end of the windfall. And we must learn, that like the athenian discovery of the silver mine, the roman conquest of the celts, the spanish conquest of the mezzo americas, that the industrial revolution created the ability to devote our energies increasingly away from food production to innovation. And that we followed the folly of the athenians, romans, the spanish, into the false promise of endless growth and the abandonment of aristocratic martial discipline, in favor of commercial overconsumption.

    If something is’t computing without substantial friction than the computation system is ‘programmed’ with the incorrect incentives and resulting division of labor.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-02 11:07:00 UTC

  • THE TRANSFORMATION OF MATHEMATICS I’ve come to understand that my long standing

    THE TRANSFORMATION OF MATHEMATICS

    I’ve come to understand that my long standing frustration with mathematics and the failure of mathematics in the 20th is that mathematics is fundamentally statistical and that the sequence counting-accounting(operational measurement), programming (operational change), and mathematics (commensurability by scale independence) reverses our understanding of mathematics as the primary logic.

    As human knowledge and the scale of our inquiry increased, the ‘hand calculation’ of statistical measures (math) failed.

    The evidence that computers provided with computation was predictable, but the insights we had from mandelbrot’s fractals, conway’s ‘life’, 3d cellular automata (advanced ‘life’), and wolfram’s current physics project, is that the statistical-probabilistic revolution, and the subsequent wave-form revolution together resulting in the half-truth, half-catastrophes of keynes’ pseudo-economics and bohr’s pseudo-probability of wave forms, and the loss of a century in economics and physics for having failed to invest in the ‘right’ mathematics and apply operational on the fundamental, and limit statistics to the expression and measurement of aggregates. When the underlying problem was that these questions cannot be solved by the use of statistics (aggregates) and only by discovery of their underlying operations.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-02 09:51:00 UTC

  • I don’t believe anything. The data either forces me to consent to it or not. And

    I don’t believe anything. The data either forces me to consent to it or not. And it does.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 02:01:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256040916651069440

    Reply addressees: @cubancafecito @kennethmejiaLA

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256037150468067328

  • Why is evidence privilege? Stereotypes are the most accurate measurement in soci

    Why is evidence privilege?
    Stereotypes are the most accurate measurement in social science for good reason: they are subject to continuous confirmation and falsification. And they survive that market competition.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 01:11:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256028454602113026

    Reply addressees: @kennethmejiaLA

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255983937844678656

  • These are small numbers. We need to see T’s not B’s

    These are small numbers. We need to see T’s not B’s.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-26 22:59:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1254545781677264898

    Reply addressees: @RickyBobby_USA @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1254532660229267460

  • HAYEK’S WARNING via John John Stephens —“The curious task of economics is to d

    HAYEK’S WARNING

    via John John Stephens

    —“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”— Friedrich August von Hayek, The Fatal Conceit

    CD: That’s really the lesson of the 20th. Hubris via pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-26 21:37:00 UTC