Math was made mysterious so that the people could treat it like a mystery cult, when it’s just another language. It’s just the simplest least ambiguous (most disambiguous) language that is possible that we know of. This lack of ambiguity decreases opportunity for free association. This is why it is costly for the brain.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-10 11:26:00 UTC
—“Sometimes I wonder about mathematics. Why is there deeper structure?”—
1 – The opposite. Mathematics is trivial. It consists entirely of positional names, and nothing else. Positional naming provides scale independence b/c positions are all ratios; arbitrary naming (correspondence), and invariable constant relations because of that single dimension.
2 – Just as the nautilus produce patterns because of ratios or previous ratios, all other ratios of ratios (mathematics) produce patterns. So mathematics consist of a language (grammar and semantics) of constant relation using positional names.
3 -The physical universe makes use of a more complex grammar we call the fundamental forces. Those fundamental forces consist of constant relations to one another, and are expressible in the language of constant relations using unique names by positional naming.
4 – So we see patterns in the universe (forces, particles, elements, molecules, biological molecules, proteins, cell walls etc because the available ratios of those fundamental forces are limited in permutation. However, the permutations of each level of permutation increase.
5 – So the fundamental patterns of the universe are simply the consequence of different ratios of the constant relations between different fundamental forces, which we can name with positional names, that we call numbers, and describe by changes in position in or across time.
6 – Math isn’t complicated, it’s trivial. More trivial than the foundations of the universe, which is why we can measure the foundations of the universe and all that results from it until we approach sentience at which point the purpose of memory is to outwit those constant relations …
… and to capture the difference to defeat entropy, in a process we call ‘life’.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-10 11:19:00 UTC
YES YOU ARE UNFIT FOR TRUTH REGARDLESS OF COST.
(reply to a hostile christian)
Gunther;
We are working on the development of a value free language of the human sciences, psychological, social, economic, political and strategic; articulating the western group evolutionary strategy in those terms; and producing a constitution in those terms, imposing that strategy, against the second abrahamic attack on civilization – the cause of the dark ages of ignorance in the past, and the cause of the coming dark ages in the present.
You are an Abrahamist, trained by Abrahamists, to avoid the truth, by employing the female system of competition by undermining demanding that others agree with you, demonstrating disapproval rather than truth or falsehood, using disapproval, ridicule, moralizing; threatening to gossip and rally others, in defense of a superstition. You are cognitively feminine in a masculine body and addicted to the sedation provided by falsehood.
You lack agency, and truth regardless of cost, and respect for our sovereignty, and are not a european male – and are rather unfit for this level of discourse for the same reason all but a few women are unfit for truthful masculine discourse.
You need someone to confirm your comforting lies.
To preserve your feeling of safety in the herd.
You need to find that person.
Others will provide you with that sedation.
There are psychological drug dealers everywhere.
You will eventually find some psychological drug dealer that proposes a possible solution for reformation of the country on terms you can tolerate because they don’t threaten the supply of sedation your addiction demands.
When you are a man, if it is still possible, then join the conversation of men.
Until then you are unfit.
Addicts have no place in the world because it exists to prevent reality. Fictional Religion, alcohol, drugs are all forms of escape and sedation.
We are men. We solve problems.
You can’t. Reality does not exist for you.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-08 15:04:00 UTC
No it’s a way of measuring any organization. For example what’s the difference in apple’s revenue, cost, and profit vs microsoft? Vs Walmart? Compare that to the total cost of soldiers and their means of production of violence. same thing. And that comparison is insightful.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-08 00:26:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181365245937356802
Reply addressees: @ocse01
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181349335671300096
IN REPLY TO:
@ocse01
@curtdoolittle from what i read its accounting manipulation. like dropping the moab for shits and giggles oh man that pilot really cost us a bunch of money.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181349335671300096
Google cost per soldier per year and go thru the listings. The cost of the salary nothing. the cost per soldier is insane.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-07 22:28:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181335607311847425
Reply addressees: @ocse01
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181335444941877248
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@ocse01 Publications put out every year by various agencies. Total cost of an operation divided by the number of men to carry it out. It’s sounds ridiculous to you because you aren’t in biz where we talk about revenue per employee, cost per employee as comparative profit or efficiency.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1181335444941877248
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@ocse01 Publications put out every year by various agencies. Total cost of an operation divided by the number of men to carry it out. It’s sounds ridiculous to you because you aren’t in biz where we talk about revenue per employee, cost per employee as comparative profit or efficiency.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1181335444941877248
Publications put out every year by various agencies. Total cost of an operation divided by the number of men to carry it out. It’s sounds ridiculous to you because you aren’t in biz where we talk about revenue per employee, cost per employee as comparative profit or efficiency.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-07 22:28:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181335444941877248
Reply addressees: @ocse01
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181332492487258112
IN REPLY TO:
@ocse01
@curtdoolittle no way
where is this figure from
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181332492487258112
I stated a general rule of arbitrary precision, which of necessity describes a distribution, and you are trying to create a tail (Outlier) claiming that the general rule is false??? Pick a territory. Try to obtain it. I’ve done it. I’ve done wargames. All else is fiction.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-07 21:16:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181317477692772353
Reply addressees: @LLaddon
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181279475666784256
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181279475666784256
AN EDUCATION IN THE TERMS PROOF AND TRUTH
Lets discuss the term ‘proof’.
A mathematician creates a PROOF, not a truth.
When we promise a proof is ‘true’ we mean we promise we have DEMONSTRATED a deduction is possible or necessary. The person makes the truth claim since only people can make truth claims: promises. A promise we don’t err. That’s what ‘true’ means because it’s all it can existentially mean.
We use the term ideal truth meaning ‘ that most parsimonious testimony we would give if we were omnipotent and omniscient and produced a vocabulary consisting entirely of operational names.” Because only then would we be possibly free of error.
But testimonial truth is only that most parsimonious description we can make in present language with present knowledge, having performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit.
In logic when we say a proposition ‘is true’ we mean that the constant relations stated or implied in the premise or premises are not inconstant. That we don’t err.
Now in law, we say proof but it means beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it must falsify all other possibilities. We cannot promise we don’t err. We can only promise we have performed due diligence.
There are no non-trivial logical proofs. Or as others have said all logic is just tautology. Or stated differently, there is no possibility of closure without appeal to information external to the set. Or stated more clearly, non-tautological logical statements are meaningless without appeal to context.
So there are no non-tautological, no-trivial proofs of anything other than the internal consistency of deductions from invariant constant relations (meaning mathematics of the single dimension of positional name).
Instead, all epistemology regardless of context consists of the sequence: perception, free association, hypotheses, theory, (and possibly law), with each step in that series consisting of falsification by a process of elimination, by the mind (hypothesis), by actions (theory), by market (‘law’ or ‘settled science’) until sufficient new knowledge evolves to improve it’s precision. And where that falsification is performed by tests of the consistency of identity, internal consistency (logic), external correspondence, operational possibility, and if involving choice, rational choice, and if involving human interaction reciprocity, warrantied or not by due diligence in scope and parsimony.
So grow the f–k up and leave your secular version of scriptural interpretation (pilpul) in the dark ages of semitic ignorance where they belong.
If you can understand this you know more about truth than the upper tenth of one percent.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-07 20:02:00 UTC
EVIDENCE OF THE PROMISE OF THE P-METHOD
Michael Churchill made me aware today, Luke yesterday, Alain and Martin over the past month, bill over the past few years, that y’all are taking P and increasing the precision of knowledge across the spectrum by reorganizing the descriptions of observed human behavior into the paradigm – a paradigm contiguous and continuous with the physical sciences -and creating new insights by doing so and it’s f—king exhilarating, because it’s evidence of my underlying theory that P will be as influential in our understanding of the psychological and social sciences as empiricism was for the physical sciences, and that we will, if work work hard, bring about a revolution in thought and mankind just as great -and possibly more influential – than the physical consequences of furthering the Aristotelian program that we call ‘science’.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 11:14:00 UTC
http://nautil.us/issue/76/language/why-red-means-red-in-almost-every-language-rp@[532827021:2048:Joel Davis]
This is an excellent example of marginal indifference in mental emotional and physical experiences.
That we create narratives (fantasy narratives) to increase our scope of decidability within groups, by internally consistent systems of measurement (paradigms), doesn’t mean that the archetypes, plots, and patterns of rise and fall make vary whatsoever. They don’t. Period.
All that matters is the competitive, <- cooperative, <- choice and < – sedative strategies embedded in the narrative.
Just as hollywood has run out of narratives, and must devolve like every culture into increasingly complex series of rise and fall sequences, by increasingly complex combination of archetypes ( biases), leading eventually to either the richness of the hindo, or dead to the calcification of the abrahamic, or to the abandonment of the buddhist or stoic, these processes are deterministic and dependent upon easily identifiable variables.
In other words forensic analysis (disambiguation, deflation, and operationalization) of every single mythology whether spiritual – occult -supernatural, magical-pseudoscientific, or allegorical-ideal-sophomoric, or simply (as we do in western literature) philosophy – essay – story – novel.
The fact than one does not want to abandon his emotional satisfaction from experiencing those different philosophical sophomoric, pseudoscientific magical, and supernatural occult narratives, is no different from any other addiction. It’s just an addiction. Which is what buddhism negatively and the stoic-epicurean method positively seek to produce in REALITY not in imagination.
Yes it is entirely possible to use narratives to create visions upon which people will coalesce because it presents a new set of paradigms, producing a new system of measurement, around which they can independently, without explicitly organization, coordinate their actions, toward a shared goal That is the purpose of all narratives whether at one or multiple points on the competitive< cooperative< choice and < sedative spectrum.
And yes we can create those narratives in any of the grammars whether the most scientific or the most complete and extended conflation of occult, magical, sophomoric.
But like there are only three weapons of influence (force-physical, ostracization-emotional, payment-intellectual), and only three sets of senses (physical, emotional, intellectual), there are only three means of circumventing reality: Magic (physical), occult (emotional) , sophomoric (intellectual), and there are only so many primary emotions (excitement-calm, reward-fear, dominance-submission), only three personality clusters (feminine-beta male, ascendent male (libertarian), and dominant male (conservative), and only so many personality traits derived from them (maybe 4-6), only so many archetypes that can be derived from them (maybe a dozen), and only one root narrative (rise -fall in some combination), and only so many plots (at most 30 or so).
In other words, there is no narrative that any human being can compose for the purposes of providing a paradigm for individual, group, or national action, that is not reducible to a very simple strategy of acquisition using those variables.
So when you say I have no theory, it’s simply not true. Its the most precise, fullly accounted theory ever developed and the reason is simply because the 20th gave us so man y political failures, but it gave us information as the unit of measurement for modeling all of the universe, it gave us programming(directed) and AI(self organizing), it gave us cognitive science, and it gave us biochemistry, and genetics.
And sorry but my work is built upon nothing but entropy upward competing with evidence top down.
And i know it is humiliating for sophists (verbalists) who concieve of the world verbally, as it is for occultists who concieve of the world emotionally, but this is the story of our evolution of knowledge: the incremental reduction of ignorance by the incremental increase in the precision of measurement of categories, by reducing them to sets of constant relations coherent, consistent, correspondent, and existentially possible, in the universe under those deterministic rules we call realism, naturalism, and operationalism
http://nautil.us/issue/76/language/why-red-means-red-in-almost-every-language-rpUpdated Oct 4, 2019, 11:44 AM
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 11:44:00 UTC