|Trade| Trade > Market > City, > Contract > Credit > Accounts > Unit of commodity money, Coinage > Notes > Currency > Fiat Currency Babylonians used the Shekel or a single unit of barley as commodity money, including rules of debt in 3000 bc. Metals were used as proto-money in egypt and babylon by the same period. Europeans are familiar with arm-bands of metal as stores of wealth. Coinage was invented in the Aegean, India, and China around the same time – the end of the bronze age dark age – in the 700-600s bc. The oldest coin I know of is from the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. It is most likely that coinage was NOT developed in the fertile crescent because commodity money was sufficient for the density of land trade. It is most likely that it developed in the aegean because of the heterogeneity of production and sea trade. It is most likely that it developed in china because of the political, regulatory and tax structure, and the long distance of trade. There certainly is universal incentive to create coinage to pay for military service although plunder was enough of an incentive. I do not know enough about trade patterns in ancient india to speculate on the generation of demand for coinage – or why india was less successful than china in consolidation – I assume it is distance, geography and demographic distances.
Theme: Measurement
-
RT @DrEricDing: All hail South Korea 🇰🇷 badass lab 🧪 testing: 32,756 tests (up +
RT @DrEricDing: All hail South Korea 🇰🇷 badass lab 🧪 testing: 32,756 tests (up +4000 tests since just 7 hours prior!)… to find 70 more co…
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 00:10:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232095585253150721
-
Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by op
Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification). These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements.
Here is what we do in P:
Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations.
We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization.
Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law.
Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions.
This is the propertarian methodology.
And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 11:47:00 UTC
-

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/84080681_215140659884095_21178531110
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/84080681_215140659884095_2117853111006527488_o_215140656550762.jpg SEE IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THIS IMAGE
It’s the first two columns of the grammarsSEE IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THIS IMAGE
It’s the first two columns of the grammars
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-23 22:08:00 UTC
-
FULL-ACCOUNTING FIXES THE “ISMS” by Luke Weinhagen . Full-Accounting Fixes “isms
FULL-ACCOUNTING FIXES THE “ISMS”
by Luke Weinhagen .
Full-Accounting Fixes “isms”
Communism, as it has been practiced, has functioned to keep full-accounting out of community interactions.
Capitalism, as it has been practiced, has functioned to keep full-accounting our of capital interactions.
Parasites use both to extract value from our common interests at the discount available due to suppressing full-accounting.
The solution… full-accounting.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-23 10:57:00 UTC
-
Input tells you nothing about output
Input tells you nothing about output.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 22:05:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1231339223325847552
Reply addressees: @WillReturns1066 @stack_dalton @razibkhan
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1231339157630390273
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@WillReturns1066 @stack_dalton @razibkhan I don’t read or listen to what people say. I measure results.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1231339157630390273
-
I don’t read or listen to what people say. I measure results
I don’t read or listen to what people say. I measure results.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 22:05:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1231339157630390273
Reply addressees: @WillReturns1066 @stack_dalton @razibkhan
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1231337547860570112
-
“P’s Operationalism is a lot harder than math. Math is so clear because it’s tri
—“P’s Operationalism is a lot harder than math. Math is so clear because it’s trivial. P requires much more.”— Adam
Well you’re the first person to fully understand that. This is why I’m getting sort of awed lately – something is happening because people are progressive much faster now.
Well as for your observation, math can construct a degree of precision outside of human scales of perception at the very large and very small. But as we have seen in testimony, law, and economics, in human action, the operations available and the grammar to create fully formed, grammatically complete, fully disambiguated statements in P is a lot harder than it is in math.
So I see: first-order-logic (categorical logic) > math( positional logic)) > computable logic (programming) > operational logic( p-testimony), as the hierarchy of logics today. And in retrospect all the logics make so much more sense now.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 11:14:00 UTC
-
OBJECTIVE MEASURES OF GOOD AND EVIL? by Brandon Hayes —“Do you believe there a
OBJECTIVE MEASURES OF GOOD AND EVIL?
by Brandon Hayes
—“Do you believe there are any objective measures of good and evil?”—Tim Allen Musse
I would use the term Righteous and Evil.
Evil < Bad < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good > Righteous
Measures for a given action are put up against a test of reciprocity.
Evil is harm done for harms sake.
Good = Productive
Bad = Unproductive
Righteous is the extinguishing of Evil.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 08:22:00 UTC
-
A GOD IS A SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT Man is the measure of all things to man, becaus
A GOD IS A SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT
Man is the measure of all things to man, because man is the only system of measurement available to man. God is a system of measurement in the group’s ideal of man to imitate (as in Jesus, or Achilles) a demigod to aspire to (Odin, Hercules), a god to negotiate with (zeus, thor, tyr), one to obey (jehova, allah), or one to simply understand (deism, the physical and natural laws). Any creature inventing a god would invent one in his image just as we have – and just as the hundreds of gods have been invented abandoned or lost before the present gods.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-21 13:24:00 UTC