[O]perationalism asks us to demonstrate that we are conducting observations of extant entities not projecting imagination and subjectivity. As a general rule: *** We shall define all phenomenon which we choose to observe, in terms of the sequence of physical operations (actions) used, the instruments used, and the measurements taken with those instruments (whether cardinal or ordinal), rather than either the use of analogies of any form, interpretations of those observations, or subjective experiences of those observations, so that we guarantee to any audience that all entities that we refer to exist, and that no information is added to the observation but that which can be observed when reproduced by the repetition of those actions, instruments and measurements by others.***
Theme: Measurement
-
The Copenhagen Interpretation as an Example of the Problem of Epistemology at Scale
[A] profoundly good example of the problem philosophers face in reducing that which we cannot sense and perceive without instruments to analogies to experience which we can. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/ As I struggle with the cultural conflation of truth with strategic good, assumed as metaphysical property of reality, and reconciling this with the requirement for ethical testimony, which can only be claimed by observation and measurement, I realize the problems facing those in quantum mechanics and those of ethics and politics of heterogeneous polities, are both products of vast increases in scale and complexity that our minds neither evolved for, nor have our language and epistemological traditions evolved to accommodate. We are still mystics at describing reality at scale, not because we are conservative or unwilling, as we were with religion in reaction to science, but because despite our willingness we do not yet know how. There are two solutions to this problem: to state scale concepts in perceivable terms as best we can, or to restate all concepts in new terms. Under both models language will eventually evolve, and with it the populace. I suppose the former is more pragmatic but less truthful, and the latter more truthful but less likely to succeed. In ethics I face this same problem. And its painful.we must use extant language despite that it is wrong, clarify its meaning by cleansing it of error, and restate relations formed in homogenous polities with the properties of heterogeneous polities. Universalism is an error in scale, measurement, and logic. Its yeoman’s labor.
-
The Copenhagen Interpretation as an Example of the Problem of Epistemology at Scale
[A] profoundly good example of the problem philosophers face in reducing that which we cannot sense and perceive without instruments to analogies to experience which we can. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/ As I struggle with the cultural conflation of truth with strategic good, assumed as metaphysical property of reality, and reconciling this with the requirement for ethical testimony, which can only be claimed by observation and measurement, I realize the problems facing those in quantum mechanics and those of ethics and politics of heterogeneous polities, are both products of vast increases in scale and complexity that our minds neither evolved for, nor have our language and epistemological traditions evolved to accommodate. We are still mystics at describing reality at scale, not because we are conservative or unwilling, as we were with religion in reaction to science, but because despite our willingness we do not yet know how. There are two solutions to this problem: to state scale concepts in perceivable terms as best we can, or to restate all concepts in new terms. Under both models language will eventually evolve, and with it the populace. I suppose the former is more pragmatic but less truthful, and the latter more truthful but less likely to succeed. In ethics I face this same problem. And its painful.we must use extant language despite that it is wrong, clarify its meaning by cleansing it of error, and restate relations formed in homogenous polities with the properties of heterogeneous polities. Universalism is an error in scale, measurement, and logic. Its yeoman’s labor.
-
Operationalism as a General Rule
[O]perationalism asks us to demonstrate that we are conducting observations of extant entities not projecting imagination and subjectivity. As a general rule: *** We shall define all phenomenon which we choose to observe, in terms of the sequence of physical operations (actions) used, the instruments used, and the measurements taken with those instruments (whether cardinal or ordinal), rather than either the use of analogies of any form, interpretations of those observations, or subjective experiences of those observations, so that we guarantee to any audience that all entities that we refer to exist, and that no information is added to the observation but that which can be observed when reproduced by the repetition of those actions, instruments and measurements by others.***
-
Operationalism as a General Rule
[O]perationalism asks us to demonstrate that we are conducting observations of extant entities not projecting imagination and subjectivity. As a general rule: *** We shall define all phenomenon which we choose to observe, in terms of the sequence of physical operations (actions) used, the instruments used, and the measurements taken with those instruments (whether cardinal or ordinal), rather than either the use of analogies of any form, interpretations of those observations, or subjective experiences of those observations, so that we guarantee to any audience that all entities that we refer to exist, and that no information is added to the observation but that which can be observed when reproduced by the repetition of those actions, instruments and measurements by others.***
-
DEFINING AND MEASURING THE QUALITY OF ARTS High art contains moral judgments. Th
DEFINING AND MEASURING THE QUALITY OF ARTS
High art contains moral judgments. This is one of the reasons Marxists proposed ‘design’ (Rothko for example) replace ‘art’.
For example, Monet’s Water Lillies are a technological innovation (which we understand today in scientific terms), and is due its place in history for that reason as good art.
However, his subject matter lacks moral judgments. And therefore lacks the status of high art. Jackson Pollock again, produces design, not art. His design may quality as an innovation, but it is still design, not high art.
Some of the driving force for design over art was the increase in the size of the population that desired to possess art, which meant that more had to be produced to fill demand, and that the price had to drop. The rest is attributable to the change in content which was a marxist initiative, and remains so. Value judgements are an impediment to universalism and socialism.
But how can we objectively analyze art?
LETS LOOK AT HOW TO MEASURE THE QUALITY OF ART.
1) Craft (narrative, representation)
2) Design (poetry, aesthetic pleasure)
3) Innovation (novelty, innovation, )
And finally:
4) Content (Mythology, Human experience, ‘truth’, political, judgments)
Let us set the center to 0, and the limit 255 on each axis.
Then lets assign R, G, B to Craft, Design, and Innovation, then luminosity to Content.
If we plot each work of any category of art using relative comparisons (point-testing) on that axis, and connect the four dots, we will be able to generate a sort of ‘surface area’ of the art that can be represented not only in the units covered, but also as an RGB color.
Now the problem in this analysis is whether the content is ‘true’ (aristocratic) or ‘false’(socialist). There are multiple means of handling this such as using only the RGB/Craft,Design,Innovation axis and making axis 4 vertical “up” for aristocracy, and “down” for content.
So, now we can create a sort of six sided diamond with white as the maximum socialist(feminist and equalitarian) or aristocratic(familialist and egalitarian) ethics.
And yes, it is possible to do this pretty easily if you use enough samples of art.
(I have, I know – as anyone who has used SCRUM will tell you, with enough samples relative indexing becomes very easy and accurate.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-24 12:24:00 UTC
-
Owe Val a response (note: consistent sets vs correspondent sequences). Two categ
Owe Val a response (note: consistent sets vs correspondent sequences). Two categories of method.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-23 13:27:00 UTC
-
he he he. How do we create names for numbers? What does a name for a number tell
he he he. How do we create names for numbers? What does a name for a number tell us? What is the difference between a number and a function that we use as a number substitute? All numbers are computable, but not all functions are computable.
How do we create names for observations?
The same way we create names for numbers. 🙂
he he he he….
Done. Baked cake.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-21 03:06:00 UTC
-
(worth repeating) —“We have limited cognitive and perceptive abilities, and re
(worth repeating)
—“We have limited cognitive and perceptive abilities, and require this multitude of tools to testify that we in fact are conveying OBSERVATIONS rather than IMAGINATIONS. “—
The purpose of that method we call ‘the scientific method’ is ethical: to ensure that we are testifying to observation rather than imagination.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-17 20:11:00 UTC
-
USUALLY I AGREE WITH TALEB (But his suggestion that extreme wealth is analogous
USUALLY I AGREE WITH TALEB
(But his suggestion that extreme wealth is analogous to overdoes, well, doesn’t sit well with me.)
Small problem of measurement on the one hand and acting upon it on the other. Wealth sufficient to circumvent the market or to seek rents, then yes, but otherwise I see no measurement that has meaning. If an individual possessed 80% of the wealth of an economy, if it is employed in the market, not used as credit sufficient to create monopolies, and politically free of rents then it is for all intents and purposes in circulation, and his behavior manageable under the common law. I am pretty sure I can answer all objections. But not in a comment. Wealth is inly a problem if the government lags or impedes the evolution of tactics in an economy. The common law, unlike a government, is not impeded from evolution at the rate of the market.
As far as I know, representational, majority rule government is the problem blocking evolution under common law. I cant see much evidence of durable families in the economy that are not the product of economic rents on the distribution if liquidity through the financial markets instead of through consumers.
Government is and remains the problem, not wealth. That is the best answer I can manage, and as far as I know thats the state of knowledge if our art if political economy.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-14 16:25:00 UTC