(FB 1550505170 Timestamp) That which we can observe through instrumental and logical means That which we can observe That which we can experience That which we can deduce from experience That which we cannot experience (lack of introspection)
Theme: Measurement
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550627670 Timestamp) —“Q: 5 +1 * 10 = ?”— This category of math ‘tests’, is not a test of intelligence but of a weakness in mathematical grammar that makes the reader fall back to the order of operations when the sentence is malformed. The correct form is (1×10)+5. or 5+(1×10), gracefully failing to 5 + 1 * 10 if malformed. Almost seemingly complex questions of philosophy are nothing more than a failure to fully expand idiomatic speech into well formed sentence beginning with “I promise that …”. The lower your patterning the more likely you are to see this trick. The higher your patterning (not discreetly seeing the individual glyphs of the text) the more likely you are to miss it. And that is all. Tricks don’t test intelligence. They insult it.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550594667 Timestamp) Propertarianism is calculable (possible by humans) but not computable (possible by machines) where calculation consist of transformation of inputs into outputs by means that are subjectively testable (unlimited), open to deduction, inference, and recursion, and computation is the transformation of inputs into outputs given the internal limits of comparison of the computational grammar.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550627670 Timestamp) —“Q: 5 +1 * 10 = ?”— This category of math ‘tests’, is not a test of intelligence but of a weakness in mathematical grammar that makes the reader fall back to the order of operations when the sentence is malformed. The correct form is (1×10)+5. or 5+(1×10), gracefully failing to 5 + 1 * 10 if malformed. Almost seemingly complex questions of philosophy are nothing more than a failure to fully expand idiomatic speech into well formed sentence beginning with “I promise that …”. The lower your patterning the more likely you are to see this trick. The higher your patterning (not discreetly seeing the individual glyphs of the text) the more likely you are to miss it. And that is all. Tricks don’t test intelligence. They insult it.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550594667 Timestamp) Propertarianism is calculable (possible by humans) but not computable (possible by machines) where calculation consist of transformation of inputs into outputs by means that are subjectively testable (unlimited), open to deduction, inference, and recursion, and computation is the transformation of inputs into outputs given the internal limits of comparison of the computational grammar.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550674797 Timestamp) TRICKS IN MATH, TEXT …. AND LAW by JWarren Prescott My wife and I have had this conversation several times. Being both electrical engineers we are used to not just regular college level maths, but engineering maths. The first thing we say when we see these internet âmath problemsâ is they are written either wrongly or purposefully to confuse. Many times there may be two answers due to this obfuscation and ideally, this is supposed to lead someone to say, âWait, what is really being asked here? What actual or physical problem is trying to be solved?â Because if all you have is a disembodied equation with no practical application and the parameters are ill defined, then there is no perceived difference between deception and incompetence. Think about this and how our current legal system is written.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550674797 Timestamp) TRICKS IN MATH, TEXT …. AND LAW by JWarren Prescott My wife and I have had this conversation several times. Being both electrical engineers we are used to not just regular college level maths, but engineering maths. The first thing we say when we see these internet âmath problemsâ is they are written either wrongly or purposefully to confuse. Many times there may be two answers due to this obfuscation and ideally, this is supposed to lead someone to say, âWait, what is really being asked here? What actual or physical problem is trying to be solved?â Because if all you have is a disembodied equation with no practical application and the parameters are ill defined, then there is no perceived difference between deception and incompetence. Think about this and how our current legal system is written.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551793063 Timestamp) THE PLACE OF AUSTRIAN (JEWISH) ECON, AND PRAXEOLOGY Well, Testimonialism tells us that if you can’t state an economic proposition in operational (praxeological) language then (a) either you don’t know what you’re speaking of, (b) that you are not engaging in a full accounting and are cherry picking, or (c) that you’re just engaging in fraud. That’s the net result of the austrian method: falsificationary operationalism. No more lies means no more ‘mathinesss’ that obscures the underlying operations.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551793063 Timestamp) THE PLACE OF AUSTRIAN (JEWISH) ECON, AND PRAXEOLOGY Well, Testimonialism tells us that if you can’t state an economic proposition in operational (praxeological) language then (a) either you don’t know what you’re speaking of, (b) that you are not engaging in a full accounting and are cherry picking, or (c) that you’re just engaging in fraud. That’s the net result of the austrian method: falsificationary operationalism. No more lies means no more ‘mathinesss’ that obscures the underlying operations.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551882156 Timestamp) Note to self: Epistemology Mathiness (‘proof’) b/c Scale Ind. It Works: Justification b/c human scale Science: falsification b/c beyond human scale It’s Philosophers were “Fooled by Mathiness”. Mathematics = scale independent measurement (Position) All else is scale dependent measurement, using measurement system available to man: human operations and analogy to operations we can experience.