Theme: Measurement

  • THE GEOMETRY OF MEANING : THE DEMAND FOR NARRATIVE From the series: math/logic >

    THE GEOMETRY OF MEANING : THE DEMAND FOR NARRATIVE

    From the series:

    math/logic > science > philosophy > religion

    we can construct the series:

    physical > mental > emotional,

    and the series:

    logic > description > fiction,

    and the series:

    associable > reasonable > calculable > computable.

    and we can use them to calculate the series:

    lack of agency > potential agency > demonstrated agency

    The weak of will want religion, to defend against others’ wills;

    The able of will want philosophy, to advocate their will and;

    The strong of will want science, to put their will to work;

    And those who are strongest will want Law:

    Because law is the means by which the strong impose their will.

    Because we want what our Agency demands.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-23 10:29:00 UTC

  • 1 – EXISTENCE Math (Measurement) Science (Deflation) 2 – COOPERATION Testimony (

    1 – EXISTENCE

    Math (Measurement)

    Science (Deflation)

    2 – COOPERATION

    Testimony (Truth )

    Law (Cooperation )

    3 – CHOICE

    History (Description )

    Philosophy (Choice and Good )

    4 – STRATEGY

    Group Strategy ( Competition )

    Religion ( Indoctrination ) (Myth, Ritual, Oath, Festival)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-23 07:25:00 UTC

  • We Are Irrelevant Under the Law, Not Equal

    AFAIK, humans cannot be compared as equal by any measure. The law does not consider equality but reciprocity (“exchange of consideration”). We use the term ‘equal under the law’ as a proxy for reciprocity, simply because in the past, different classes could seek privileges of rank (largely differences in restitution). We are in fact always and everywhere unequal, which is why reciprocity solves the problem of our inequality. Better said we are not considered whatsoever by the law, only our property. We have no part in it. As such the law does not treat us equally, it ignores us entirely and considers only the property transferred.

  • We Are Irrelevant Under the Law, Not Equal

    AFAIK, humans cannot be compared as equal by any measure. The law does not consider equality but reciprocity (“exchange of consideration”). We use the term ‘equal under the law’ as a proxy for reciprocity, simply because in the past, different classes could seek privileges of rank (largely differences in restitution). We are in fact always and everywhere unequal, which is why reciprocity solves the problem of our inequality. Better said we are not considered whatsoever by the law, only our property. We have no part in it. As such the law does not treat us equally, it ignores us entirely and considers only the property transferred.

  • Can We Think without Language?

    Thought and Language. It’s entirely possible to think without language. But when we use language in our thinking we can calculate with much greater commensurability, much greater greater precision, much greater density, than we can when just imagining – just as when we use writing and symbols we can calculate with greater commensurability, greater precision, and greater density. language produces symbols in the mind that allow greater computational efficiency, just as symbols we compose in the real world produce greater computational efficiency, just as formulae and databases produce greater computational efficiency. The question is why our brains can use ‘names’ to create a stack of concepts (although very limited) that we can compare relatively accurately, the way our use of written marks (symbols) lets us reference whole stories accurately. Chomsky isn’t quite right that we can’t say anything abut thought without language. It’s that some of us can preserve greater short term state (memory) they way some of us can compose music, memorize long sets of number, practice doing mathematical calculations, memorize lines of a script or poem, than can others. Just as some of us can compose only phrases, some sentences, some arguments, and others long explanatory narratives. Thought consists, as does language, (and all grammars) of continuous recursive disambiguation, and symbols (names) allow us to compare, and language (streams of words) allow us to continuously manufacture different lengths of memory, to produce different lengths of forecasts (imagination). In computers we think of buffers. In electronics, capacitors and ballasts. In hydraulics, reservoirs. But for thoughts we use short term memory: the current context, currently revised, as new information is added, new forecasts made, in an ongoing process of continuous recursive disambiguation. What we have seen since the 1990’s is the slow replacement of the idea of computational efficiency with the introduction (thankfully, and finally) of economics – which accounts for time and effort necessary to produce a continuous stream speech in real time. We have also seen the increasing use of of ‘neural economy’, which also brings demand, supply, and time into the discourse as the (correct) replacement for efficiency.

  • Can We Think without Language?

    Thought and Language. It’s entirely possible to think without language. But when we use language in our thinking we can calculate with much greater commensurability, much greater greater precision, much greater density, than we can when just imagining – just as when we use writing and symbols we can calculate with greater commensurability, greater precision, and greater density. language produces symbols in the mind that allow greater computational efficiency, just as symbols we compose in the real world produce greater computational efficiency, just as formulae and databases produce greater computational efficiency. The question is why our brains can use ‘names’ to create a stack of concepts (although very limited) that we can compare relatively accurately, the way our use of written marks (symbols) lets us reference whole stories accurately. Chomsky isn’t quite right that we can’t say anything abut thought without language. It’s that some of us can preserve greater short term state (memory) they way some of us can compose music, memorize long sets of number, practice doing mathematical calculations, memorize lines of a script or poem, than can others. Just as some of us can compose only phrases, some sentences, some arguments, and others long explanatory narratives. Thought consists, as does language, (and all grammars) of continuous recursive disambiguation, and symbols (names) allow us to compare, and language (streams of words) allow us to continuously manufacture different lengths of memory, to produce different lengths of forecasts (imagination). In computers we think of buffers. In electronics, capacitors and ballasts. In hydraulics, reservoirs. But for thoughts we use short term memory: the current context, currently revised, as new information is added, new forecasts made, in an ongoing process of continuous recursive disambiguation. What we have seen since the 1990’s is the slow replacement of the idea of computational efficiency with the introduction (thankfully, and finally) of economics – which accounts for time and effort necessary to produce a continuous stream speech in real time. We have also seen the increasing use of of ‘neural economy’, which also brings demand, supply, and time into the discourse as the (correct) replacement for efficiency.

  • Finishing up The Single Motherhood Topic

    I wanted to use the single motherhood subject to test how many people rely on how little data, vs how few people went out and did more than cursory data collection. As a sensitive (controversial) topic with high causal density it’s an example of a ‘hard problem’. 1 – The data that fathers make better single parents is because single fathers are more likely to cohabitate with a woman and provide a full family. 2 – The casual problem driving externalities from single mother households is poverty, and the disproportionate number of them in the non-white underclasses which means poverty is continuous for genetic reasons. 3 – The social problem is CULTURE, in that mothers from GOOD backgrounds (Cultures, Traditions, Classes) seem to produce (largely) healthy offspring free of externalities Now, it took quite a bit of discussion for the arguments to come out. As I understand it, this is the set of incentives; 0 – In general, people are unprepared for marriage, in large part because they begin working too late, are poorly socialized, are terribly selfish because of it, have been too frustrated and made physically unfit by the education process, and are too desirous of spending money – essentially developmentally delayed and frustrated for it. Worse, they have no institutional incentives to produce a family that will somehow care for them in later life, too much taxation and interest to afford children and must pay ridiculous prices for housing for the simple reason that they cannot segregate their neighborhoods by other than housing price. In other words, you cannot live cheaply with good people, if we cannot separate by character, culture, and tribe. 1 – Divorce provides too many incentives for the woman, and too many harms to the man. This creates a dysfunctional marriage. 2 – In general, the work of a woman’s adapting to a male in the household (nest), and providing him with sufficient attention while children are young, that he will remain engaged, is greater than most women will spare, unless the male provides so much income that she doesn’t need to work. 3 – Over-control, Overprotection and Guilt – sense of being out of control. The Physical, Mental and Emotional exhaustion that exacerbates the feeling of being out of control. 4 – Tendency to replace children, especially male children, with the friendship one gets from a mate. This puts extraordinary burden on the child that manifests later in life. There is a reason for Alexander, Napoleon, and Hitler: mothers under duress. As such, again, the problem is cultural. We extend adolescence (infantilize) instead of prepare for adulthood. Families wouldn’t break if there were (a) lower or zero home interest (b) far greater tax reduction per child, (c) we brought capital to people, rather than people to capital, so that intergenerational families could provide support, thereby reducing the cost of childrearing (family production) (d) we didn’t provide incentives to divorce. Cheers

  • Finishing up The Single Motherhood Topic

    I wanted to use the single motherhood subject to test how many people rely on how little data, vs how few people went out and did more than cursory data collection. As a sensitive (controversial) topic with high causal density it’s an example of a ‘hard problem’. 1 – The data that fathers make better single parents is because single fathers are more likely to cohabitate with a woman and provide a full family. 2 – The casual problem driving externalities from single mother households is poverty, and the disproportionate number of them in the non-white underclasses which means poverty is continuous for genetic reasons. 3 – The social problem is CULTURE, in that mothers from GOOD backgrounds (Cultures, Traditions, Classes) seem to produce (largely) healthy offspring free of externalities Now, it took quite a bit of discussion for the arguments to come out. As I understand it, this is the set of incentives; 0 – In general, people are unprepared for marriage, in large part because they begin working too late, are poorly socialized, are terribly selfish because of it, have been too frustrated and made physically unfit by the education process, and are too desirous of spending money – essentially developmentally delayed and frustrated for it. Worse, they have no institutional incentives to produce a family that will somehow care for them in later life, too much taxation and interest to afford children and must pay ridiculous prices for housing for the simple reason that they cannot segregate their neighborhoods by other than housing price. In other words, you cannot live cheaply with good people, if we cannot separate by character, culture, and tribe. 1 – Divorce provides too many incentives for the woman, and too many harms to the man. This creates a dysfunctional marriage. 2 – In general, the work of a woman’s adapting to a male in the household (nest), and providing him with sufficient attention while children are young, that he will remain engaged, is greater than most women will spare, unless the male provides so much income that she doesn’t need to work. 3 – Over-control, Overprotection and Guilt – sense of being out of control. The Physical, Mental and Emotional exhaustion that exacerbates the feeling of being out of control. 4 – Tendency to replace children, especially male children, with the friendship one gets from a mate. This puts extraordinary burden on the child that manifests later in life. There is a reason for Alexander, Napoleon, and Hitler: mothers under duress. As such, again, the problem is cultural. We extend adolescence (infantilize) instead of prepare for adulthood. Families wouldn’t break if there were (a) lower or zero home interest (b) far greater tax reduction per child, (c) we brought capital to people, rather than people to capital, so that intergenerational families could provide support, thereby reducing the cost of childrearing (family production) (d) we didn’t provide incentives to divorce. Cheers

  • FINISHING UP THE SINGLE MOTHERHOOD TOPIC I wanted to use the single motherhood s

    FINISHING UP THE SINGLE MOTHERHOOD TOPIC

    I wanted to use the single motherhood subject to test how many people rely on how little data, vs how few people went out and did more than cursory data collection.

    As a sensitive (controversial) topic with high causal density it’s an example of a ‘hard problem’.

    1 – The data that fathers make better single parents is because single fathers are more likely to cohabitate with a woman and provide a full family.

    2 – The casual problem driving externalities from single mother households is poverty, and the disproportionate number of them in the non-white underclasses which means poverty is continuous for genetic reasons.

    3 – The social problem is CULTURE, in that mothers from GOOD backgrounds (Cultures, Traditions, Classes) seem to produce (largely) healthy offspring free of externalities

    Now, it took quite a bit of discussion for the arguments to come out.

    As I understand it, this is the set of incentives;

    0 – In general, people are unprepared for marriage, in large part because they begin working too late, are poorly socialized, are terribly selfish because of it, have been too frustrated and made physically unfit by the education process, and are too desirous of spending money – essentially developmentally delayed and frustrated for it. Worse, they have no institutional incentives to produce a family that will somehow care for them in later life, too much taxation and interest to afford children and must pay ridiculous prices for housing for the simple reason that they cannot segregate their neighborhoods by other than housing price. In other words, you cannot live cheaply with good people, if we cannot separate by character, culture, and tribe.

    1 – Divorce provides too many incentives for the woman, and too many harms to the man. This creates a dysfunctional marriage.

    2 – In general, the work of a woman’s adapting to a male in the household (nest), and providing him with sufficient attention while children are young, that he will remain engaged, is greater than most women will spare, unless the male provides so much income that she doesn’t need to work.

    3 – Over-control, Overprotection and Guilt – sense of being out of control. The Physical, Mental and Emotional exhaustion that exacerbates the feeling of being out of control.

    4 – Tendency to replace children, especially male children, with the friendship one gets from a mate. This puts extraordinary burden on the child that manifests later in life. There is a reason for Alexander, Napoleon, and Hitler: mothers under duress.

    As such, again, the problem is cultural. We extend adolescence (infantilize) instead of prepare for adulthood. Families wouldn’t break if there were (a) lower or zero home interest (b) far greater tax reduction per child, (c) we brought capital to people, rather than people to capital, so that intergenerational families could provide support, thereby reducing the cost of childrearing (family production) (d) we didn’t provide incentives to divorce.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-21 15:39:00 UTC

  • Understanding Deflationary Grammar (and Dimensions)

    (Core Concepts) (attn: SG Simmons ) |Grammars| Deflationary <– Ordinary –> Conflationary -> Inflationary INFLATIONARY: To Inflate = “To Add To” Narrative: ‘filling in’ with assumptions so that snippets of what was actually observed can be told as a story. Loading, Framing, Overloading: Loading and Framing: To add emotional weight (opinion or value) that is subject or false, as a means of appealing to intuition rather than truth. To selectively include or organize information to create a suggestion. To selectively exclude information to remove it from consideration. To overload with information in order to produce confusion or undecidability. Fiction: creating a narrative arc that answers change in state (some combination of rise and fall), typically to convey a lesson, or accountability. Fictionalism: creating a fictional account using ideal, imaginary references. CONFLATIONARY: Conflate = “To Confuse” To equate or cast as similar that which shares no, few, or insufficient equality of properties. ORDINARY Common speech in all its forms. DEFLATIONARY: To selectively remove semantic dimensions (ranges of information) such that only information related to the decidability in question remains. Math, logic, software algorithms, recipes-formulae-protocols, operational language, and legal testimony are examples of deflationary grammars. DIMENSIONS For example Temporal Logic tests the constant relation of time between two statements. However, any relationship between constant relations can be tested by tests of constant relations. As such deflationary grammars have been developed to assist us in producing well formed sentences (transactions) with which we can test one, more or many dimensions (sets of relations).