Theme: Measurement

  • 1) If you cannot produce an operational description, then you do not know of wha

    1) If you cannot produce an operational description, then you do not know of what you speak.

    2) Logic consists of tests of constant relations between two or more states by contrast (competition).

    3) The Logics consist of GRAMMARS: rules of continuous disambiguation that allow us to isolate and test constant relations between states.

    4) We have produced GRAMMARS that include positional names (math), perceivable dimensions of reality (modal logic), through ordinary language, through fictions (archetypes and plots), through the fictionalisms (theology, mythology, pseudo rationalism, and pseudoscience), and even deceit (really, it’s possible to articulate the grammar of deceit -the rules of conflation, inflation, suggestion, obscurantism, overloading ).

    5) The logical program is still unscientific (justificationary) since it is impossible to prove a truth only demonstrate (prove) a possibility. Ergo, the purpose of the logics is not to prove truths, which is impossible outside of reductio (trivial and meaningless), but to identify falsehoods.

    6) This is why (a) demands for proof rather than requests for explanation are all acts of fraud or fallacy, and (b) we do not seek to prove anything in science, only demonstrate we cannot falsify it and as such it remains a truth candidate.

    7) The only certainties are falsehoods, and all else is a truth candidate. (Critical rationalism), and furthermore, that other than cost, truth candidates are absent comparative probability.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-22 10:14:00 UTC

  • What Is The Deepest Philosophical Concept You Have Come By?

    There actually aren’t any that are also true. (Really)

    (No. Really. We produce “Wisdom Literature” in , mythological, theological, rational, historical, and scientific grammars: meaning rules of continuous disambiguation including disambiguation by permissible paradigms (vocabulary).)

    Science produces humiliatingly parsimonious knowledge – and all of the universe and our experience in it can be explained as one continuous set of consequences from a few very simple causes.

    In my study of history the number of truths is extremely small, all are knowable, and the number of falsehoods that we have invented to circumvent thought, emotion, and action that correspond with those truths is more numerous than the number of humans.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-deepest-philosophical-concept-you-have-come-by

  • What Is The Deepest Philosophical Concept You Have Come By?

    There actually aren’t any that are also true. (Really)

    (No. Really. We produce “Wisdom Literature” in , mythological, theological, rational, historical, and scientific grammars: meaning rules of continuous disambiguation including disambiguation by permissible paradigms (vocabulary).)

    Science produces humiliatingly parsimonious knowledge – and all of the universe and our experience in it can be explained as one continuous set of consequences from a few very simple causes.

    In my study of history the number of truths is extremely small, all are knowable, and the number of falsehoods that we have invented to circumvent thought, emotion, and action that correspond with those truths is more numerous than the number of humans.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-deepest-philosophical-concept-you-have-come-by

  • What Is The Epistemology Of Austrian Economics?

    The Correct Answer

    There are two branches of Austrian Economics, the first being Mengerian (Christian) and the second being Misesian (Jewish). The Mengerian revolution gave us marginalism, and marginalism has been fully integrated into economics.

    Mises discovered in economics, what Brouwer did in mathematics, and Bridgman did in physics, and others did later in grammar: Operationalism.

    Unfortunately he was a the opposite of a scientist, a poor mathematician, a worse philosopher, and he produce ‘praxeology’ as a positive pseudoscience, rather than identifying operationalism in economics as a means of falsification.

    I have written extensively on the Misesian Failure, and the Rothbardian exacerbation of that failure, and how Rothbardianism attempted to conflate eastern european anarchism with western european rule of law.

    There are only a few questions that separate the Jewish Austrians (Misesian-Rothbardians) from the Mainstream that has fully incorporated Austrian (Mengerian) economics.

    1. The moral question of whether investors have a right to appreciation of a currency or even right of defense against a currency. Mises/Rothbard’s whole program was yes, but the answer is no.
    2. Whether or not the good produced by the constant destruction of the value of a currency, as a means of increasing consumption in order to increase employment in order to increase overall economic velocity -outweighs the bad of consistent overextension of the boom bust cycle , and whether that over extension will eventually lead to (a) collapse, and (b) lost opportunity for innovation, adaptation, and productivity rather than booms and busts. As far as I know the answer is no.
    3. That does not mean that the answer ist o preserve savings – it means that the means of increasing employment is not credit but direct distribution of liquidity to consumers to do what they will, rather than trying to force that liquidity to consumers through the financial and business sectors.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-epistemology-of-Austrian-economics

  • PHILOSOPHY FOR GROWN UPS PART ONE AND PART TWO 1. The only truths we know for ce

    PHILOSOPHY FOR GROWN UPS PART ONE AND PART TWO

    1. The only truths we know for certain are falsehoods. Everything that is not false is a truth candidate. This is the inverse of the fallacy of justificationism and the central insight of the sciences: the means by which we invent or grasp an idea contribute nothing to whether or not it is true or false. Only exhaustive falsification and survival from criticism deliver confidence that actions produce anticipated outcomes due to our comprehension of cause, effect, and the operations that are possible. Otherwise we are forever justifying whatever it is we seek to justify by any set of excuses we can imagine. This is why astrology, numerology, theology, philosophy, and the pseudosciences are so common – justification means absolutely nothing.

    2. The only preference we know is the one we demonstrate. The only good we know is the one we mutually demonstrate by acting upon. People report very differently from what they demonstrate. The only morality we know that is we must avoid criminal(material), ethical(direct), and moral (indirect) imposition of costs upon one another. The only moral actions then are those that are not criminal, unethical, and immoral, and that means the only moral actions consiste of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. Ergo, all moral actions are those that are not immoral. There is no recipe for moral action other than that which is not immoral.

    3. People always and everywhere demonstrate that they are neither moral or immoral but amoral and rational, doing what they must in all circumstances that they exist in. it is just disproportionately advantageous to act morally for the simple reason that the returns of cooperation always and everywhere defeat the returns on individual action. This is why exhaustive forgiveness of ‘cheaters’ in all walks of life will generally reform them. Because it is in their self interest. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment also (high cost of punishing cheaters), because the returns on cooperation are so valuable that we evolved to pay the high cost of punishment in order to preserve the high value of cooperation.

    4. People notoriously think they are right and in the right, and acting morally, which is why we have courts of one kind or another among all peoples at all stages of development. And while rules of decidability in courts in matters of conflict vary from the poor and underdeveloped where interests in things, kin, and relationships are rare and collectively owned, to the wealthy and developed where things, interests, kin, relationships, and contracts are universally allocated to individuals and individually owned, the means of decidability in every single civilization is RECIPROCITY.

    5. There exist then only one negative moral rule and one universal test of morality: “Do not unto others as they would not have done unto them”. There is only one positive moral rule: the extension of trust to non kin that we extend to kin, until it is no longer empirically possible to trust. – this optimizes cooperation by continuously training malcontents that it is in their interest to cooperate, and ostracizes (punishes) those who do not.

    6. There are no conflicts that are not decidable by tests of reciprocity. None. This is why all international law is limited exclusively to the test of reciprocity. So logically(rational choice) and empirically (demonstrated action), and universally (all laws domestica and international at all scales) morality is anything that is not immoral unethical or criminal in that it imposes costs upon the efforts already expended to obtain a non-conflicting interest, in a good, relationship, or opportunity.

    As far as I know no argument can defeat this that is not in and of itself an attempt at reciprocity (theft, freeriding, parasitism, conspiracy).

    PHILOSOPHY FOR GROWNUPS PART TWO

    This is not so much a philosophy as the results of science that I can no longer deny, and so I live according to the science – in large part because it is advantageous.

    1. We are an expensive life form. Particularly our brains.

    2. We must acquire, and we acquire at cost to ourselves. we acquire experiences, things, kin, relations, interests, opportunities.

    3. All our emotions are nothing but reflections in state of that which we plan to, are in the process of, or have acquired an interest.

    4. Cooperation is logarithmically more productive than any action an individual can take, and therefore we must cooperate to survive -or at least not encourage retaliation against us. (Possibly as much as ten thousand times as productive.)

    5. People are purely rational, not moral or immoral but amoral: they cheat and try to acquire disproportionately from cooperation, they free ride, steal from, and prey upon others. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment of cheaters in all walks of life, even at high personal cost: to prevent defectors from cheating.

    6. The optimum algorithm (really) for developing cooperation is to exhaust every opportunity for cooperation even from cheaters. They almost always come around, because it is always an advantage to come around. This was the entire message of christianity which was lost in the dogma. But it’s just science.

    7. All our speech is merely a dance of negotiation so that we may create opportunities to acquire, do acquire, or preserve what we acquire. All of it is just signaling.

    8. We are entirely incognizant of these behaviors because it is evolutionarily disadvantageous for us to be intuitively honest, honest with ourselves, and honest with others. This is the same reason we have many cognitive, social, and probabilistic biases in our genes. To keep us going when evidence would overwhelm us.

    9. Most of the joy in life is playing this set of word games, cooperative games, and acquisition games with others so that we all acquire what we want as best we can without making others avoid us so that we can’t acquire what we want and need. This is why people commit suicide when they are lonely, and do not commit suicide when they are not.

    10. Therefor the only rule of cooperation, of morality, and of law, is reciprocity: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary cooperation with each other, and the only immoral actions are those that violate that moral rule by free riding, parasitism, theft, or predation. And that is why reciprocity is the basis of all traditional laws (and why it is not the basis of legislation).

    This little list is the answer to nearly all of metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, sociology, ethics, and politics.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-20 13:02:00 UTC

  • You Don”t Have To Agree With Me To Learn

    YOU DON”T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME TO LEARN You don’t have to agree with me. You just have to follow me for a year or two until you understand how to use the methodology. And the veil will drop from your eyes. I see it over and over and over again. Not only in the people who agree, but those who understand but disagree, and go on to use it in their own way. You will not be unaffected by Acquisitions, Testimonialism and Propertarianism. It will enable you to understand the human universe just as physics helps you understand the physical universe. MARKETS FOR VIA-POSTITIVA IN EVERYTHING. THE ONLY MONOPOLY IS VIA-NEGATIVA DECIDABILITY: TRUTH.
  • You Don”t Have To Agree With Me To Learn

    YOU DON”T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME TO LEARN You don’t have to agree with me. You just have to follow me for a year or two until you understand how to use the methodology. And the veil will drop from your eyes. I see it over and over and over again. Not only in the people who agree, but those who understand but disagree, and go on to use it in their own way. You will not be unaffected by Acquisitions, Testimonialism and Propertarianism. It will enable you to understand the human universe just as physics helps you understand the physical universe. MARKETS FOR VIA-POSTITIVA IN EVERYTHING. THE ONLY MONOPOLY IS VIA-NEGATIVA DECIDABILITY: TRUTH.
  • YOU DON”T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME TO LEARN You don’t have to agree with me. You ju

    YOU DON”T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME TO LEARN

    You don’t have to agree with me. You just have to follow me for a year or two until you understand how to use the methodology. And the veil will drop from your eyes. I see it over and over and over again. Not only in the people who agree, but those who understand but disagree, and go on to use it in their own way. You will not be unaffected by Acquisitions, Testimonialism and Propertarianism. It will enable you to understand the human universe just as physics helps you understand the physical universe.

    MARKETS FOR VIA-POSTITIVA IN EVERYTHING. THE ONLY MONOPOLY IS VIA-NEGATIVA DECIDABILITY: TRUTH.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-20 11:47:00 UTC

  • How Does Accounting Degree Differs From Economics Degree?

    —-”How does accounting degree differs from economics degree?”—

    (Note: economics in some countries means ‘business’ which means ‘gut course’. In Anglo countries, ‘economics’ refers to the measurement of behaviors, institutions, economies, policies, and investments using available data.)

    The difference between Accounting and Economics is the difference between Arithmetic(accounting), Algorithms (computer science) and Calculus(economics) which is only a bit less difficult than Algebraic Geometry (physics), which is only a bit less difficult than Lie Groups(Pure Mathematics).

    Economics requires the use of calculus and statistics largely for the purpose of ‘fitting’ data that doesn’t necessarily fit, because nothing you measure (no category) is causally consistent over time. This differs from Physics in which the categories we measure are constant we just don’t know what causes them (although we are slowly getting there).

    Accounting is a clerical degree that the average person can obtain, and earn a middle class income.

    Economics is one of the harder degrees because everything in economics is counter-intuitive, and it is math, data, (and logic) intensive.

    If you are in the upper 10% of graduates, Economics is probably the highest value lifetime degree.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-accounting-degree-differs-from-economics-degree

  • You have to be kidding? It will take the educated person less than three days to

    You have to be kidding? It will take the educated person less than three days to compile a set of data from any given year from the dawn of the web, to show that the most overrepresented and most prolific voices are Jewish – it’s the reason for Jewish success: opinion exposition.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 20:41:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975834625896599553

    Reply addressees: @tcjfs

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975603954452238338


    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/975603954452238338