I would need a little context for the question.
I assume you mean for people and goods?
I would say it depends on who detects the information, for what purpose, who holds the information and who provides authentication, and how would we prevent their use and abuse of it all?
Source date (UTC): 2024-09-14 20:15:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1835049705933303950
Reply addressees: @RussellJohnston
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1835045133315981488
–“Q: CURT: “RE: aihinger’s Philosophy of “As If” – How do fictions and fictionalisms relate to your work, and what do they imply?”— Kevin Mackay
I wish I received more interesting questions like this one. lol.
Well, you know, this is one of those cases where an author writes a book for what really amounts to a paper. ;). But he was a man of his time, and he probably should have more substantially limited his theory to that of philosophy (choice) and religion (wisdom).
Now what he was defending, by criticizing the limits of the sciences at the time, was the use of wisdom, tradition, philosophy, and religion to solve questions.
His point is that epistemically speaking, all presumptions, myths, narratives, histories, rules, theories, and even to lesser degree, scientific laws, carry at least the following information and consequence:
1) an objective (a question that satisfies a purpose).
2) a paradigm of decision making ( commensurability) for that purpose.
3) a level of precision (error).
4) a dense network of meaning (dimensions) within that paradigm that has, by the process of evolution of that paradigm, been useful for solving some set of problems within a set of presumptions, premises, and wants.
6) Where the question being asked requires only the level of precision provided by the paradigm, where a paradigm like all applications of language consists and must consist of a system of measurement for the satisfaction of understanding, choice or decidabilty for some purpose.
7) And where anything more ‘true’, meaning a much more precise paradigm of decision making, may remove the subjective content, bias, want, and preference that carries weight in many human understandings, decisions, and wants. Or worse would be incomprehensible and unusable by the individual because he or she lacks the requisite knowledge to employ it, or even interpret it’s outputs.
So as in all things, the question is, are we seeking wisdom (religion-theology), choice (philosophy), truth (testifiable testimony), or decidability (science as I use the term: surviving both evidence and first principles) – which is merely a difference in a degree of precision as questions evolve from the general to the particular.
Affections
CD
Reply addressees: @KevinDMackay
Source date (UTC): 2024-09-14 20:13:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1835049186137718784
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1835009606617088100
its falsification of data and by how much
Source date (UTC): 2024-09-08 13:59:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1832780790914044385
Reply addressees: @DrBRAVOism @bbkhb332498 @jonatanpallesen @lporiginalg
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1832647405285576743
Q: “A trivial question if I may, your examples of paradigms are Arithmetic, Mathematics, Algebra, Calculus…etc. What’s Mathematics here? If Arithmetic is just operations on numbers and algebra is just operations on variables, what’s the intermediate paradigm between them?”
A: Great question.
There isn’t a universally recognized, distinct mathematical subdiscipline that fits precisely between arithmetic and algebra, despite it’s the phase of education where we teach mathematical reasoning.
There are some concepts and areas of study that serve that objective:
– *Pre-algebra*: This is often considered the transition between arithmetic and algebra. It introduces concepts that prepare students for algebraic thinking.
– *Number theory*: While this is a vast field that extends far beyond the arithmetic-algebra bridge, its elementary concepts often serve as a stepping stone between these areas.
– *Mathematical reasoning and problem-solving*: These skills, while not a distinct branch of mathematics, are often developed in the transition from arithmetic to algebra.
More importantly in my work I disambiguate and demarcate arithmetic and mathematics for important reasons: I base it on the cognitive processes involved and it is both practical and profound:
*Computation vs. Calculation:*
Computation: Relies primarily on rote memorization and application of learned procedures.
Calculation: Involves mathematical reasoning and deeper understanding of concepts.
*Demarcation between Arithmetic and Mathematics:*
Arithmetic: Aligns more with computation, involving memorized facts and procedures.
Mathematics: Extends into calculation, requiring reasoning and conceptual understanding.
*Implications for Machine vs. Human Capabilities:*
Computational reducibility: Tasks that can be efficiently performed by computers, often arithmetic in nature.
Mathematical reducibility: Problems that benefit from human intuition, creativity, and reasoning.
*This distinction is profound and has significant consequences:*
*Educational Approach:*
Our method likely encourages students to move beyond mere memorization and into deeper mathematical thinking, fostering problem-solving skills and conceptual understanding.
*Cognitive Development:*
By emphasizing the difference between computation and calculation, you’re helping students develop higher-order thinking skills essential for advanced mathematics and many other fields.
*Technological Context:*
This approach acknowledges the reality of widespread computing power while highlighting the continuing importance of human mathematical reasoning.
*Future-Proofing Skills:*
As AI and computing continue to advance, the skills that distinguish human mathematical ability from machine computation become increasingly valuable.
*Interdisciplinary Applications:*
The reasoning skills developed through this approach to mathematics are transferable to many other domains that require critical thinking and problem-solving.
This teaching method offers a nuanced and valuable perspective on the transition from arithmetic to broader mathematics. It provides a clear rationale for why students should move beyond basic computation and develop deeper mathematical reasoning skills.
This approach aligns well with modern educational philosophies that emphasize understanding over rote learning, and it prepares students for a world where computers can handle most routine calculations, but human insight and reasoning remain crucial for solving complex, novel problems.
*Therefore:*
In discussing the educational sequence in Mathematics, I use:
|Mathematics|: Arithmetic > Mathematics > Algebra > Geometry > Trigonometry > Pre-calculus > Calculus > Statistics > Analysis … etc
Technically we could use “Mathematical Reasoning”:
|Mathematics|: Arithmetic > Mathematical Reasoning > Algebra > Geometry > Trigonometry > Pre-calculus > Calculus > Statistics > Analysis … etc
Or we could use “Pre-Algebra”:
|Mathematics|: Arithmetic > Pre-algebra > Algebra > Geometry > Trigonometry > Pre-calculus > Calculus > Statistics > Analysis … etc
I just use the simplest sequence possible. 😉
Cheers
CD
Source date (UTC): 2024-09-07 19:42:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1832504786023075840
Will. The data exists. And yes, they buy the same things all the time with marginal use of substitution, and minor variation in season.
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-27 20:26:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1828529598067548317
Reply addressees: @whstancil
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1828480713823285474
RT @bierlingm: @Archaic3one @curtdoolittle The “>” or “<“ is just meant to indicate greater or lesser than, along the spectrum of measures…
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-23 11:50:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1826950173580308886
Technically speaking:
– “>” refers to a spectrum of states that are not quantitatively reducible, but are qualitatively.
– “->” refers to “leads to”
Though I have been known to screw it up now and then. lol 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-23 02:19:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1826806531846992152
Reply addressees: @Archaic3one
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1826804486662488341
RT @LukeWeinhagen: “A full-accounting is the measure of a true understanding. There’s a calm in it.”
Rapid determination of the accurate b…
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-14 20:11:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1823814704986513637
Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science.
(And of course, I work on group and sex differences in lying for a living.)
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-13 00:47:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1823159497692463611
Reply addressees: @SilvermanJacob
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1823158410050724033
Michael (all);
The point you’re making is illustrating the difference between mathematics constructed as a language of sets (ideal) vs mathematics as a language of correspondence (real).
And that the problems that have emerged in mathematics and by externality with physics have arisen because of that idealism and the externalization of its consequences – of instead of retention of the representation of mathematical relations as consistent and correspondent whether physical or verbal causal limits – it’s all just names relations comparisons and agreements.
So again, by Cantor, Bohr, and Einstein (as well as others) reversing Descartes, and re-platonizing mathematics, we have seen consequences in all disciplines from physical to philosophy, and even (in my field) behavioral and macro economics.
I am not sure just how much of the ‘decline’ in progress is due to this set of ignorance and error producing very profound metaphysical presumptions in all other fields – a general decline in the ability to think clearly.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @MichaelSurrago @Plinz
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 21:21:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818396572964864000
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818396324720488677