—-”there exists a triangular equivalence in theory of computation between fields. We have philosophy that gives us intuitionistic logic. We have mathematics that gives us category theory. Then in computer science we have type theory”—- The scope of content in those few sentences is priceless. I’m trying to think of how I can deflate it into operational (scientific) language. (ie: Whenever you use the word ‘is’ – the verb-to-be in any of its forms – you don’t understand the causal relations.) a) constant relations (intuition) b) positional relations. (categories) c) dimensional relations. (types) d) symmetric relations (symmetries, externalities, consequences) (models) e) and then repeat at the next level of hierarchy. All we are ever discussing is constant relations in some number of dimensions until we produce new identities (a) that we can define relations between (b) so that we can construct descriptions (c) so that we can model outcomes (d). “Constant relations all the way down’. Apr 15, 2018 6:21pm
Theme: Operationalism
-
Intuitionistic (Logical), Categorical (Mathematical), and Type (Operational)
—-”there exists a triangular equivalence in theory of computation between fields. We have philosophy that gives us intuitionistic logic. We have mathematics that gives us category theory. Then in computer science we have type theory”—- The scope of content in those few sentences is priceless. I’m trying to think of how I can deflate it into operational (scientific) language. (ie: Whenever you use the word ‘is’ – the verb-to-be in any of its forms – you don’t understand the causal relations.) a) constant relations (intuition) b) positional relations. (categories) c) dimensional relations. (types) d) symmetric relations (symmetries, externalities, consequences) (models) e) and then repeat at the next level of hierarchy. All we are ever discussing is constant relations in some number of dimensions until we produce new identities (a) that we can define relations between (b) so that we can construct descriptions (c) so that we can model outcomes (d). “Constant relations all the way down’. Apr 15, 2018 6:21pm
-
—-”there exists a triangular equivalence in theory of computation between fields
—-”there exists a triangular equivalence in theory of computation between fields. We have philosophy that gives us intuitionistic logic. We have mathematics that gives us category theory. Then in computer science we have type theory”—-
The scope of content in those few sentences is priceless. I’m trying to think of how I can deflate it into operational (scientific) language. (ie: Whenever you use the word ‘is’ – the verb-to-be in any of its forms – you don’t understand the causal relations.)
a) constant relations (intuition)
b) positional relations. (categories)
c) dimensional relations. (types)
d) symmetric relations (symmetries, externalities, consequences) (models)
e) and then repeat at the next level of hierarchy.
All we are ever discussing is constant relations in some number of dimensions until we produce new identities (a) that we can define relations between (b) so that we can construct descriptions (c) so that we can model outcomes (d).
“Constant relations all the way down’.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 18:21:00 UTC
-
OMFG. The Libertarians and Right are dominated by coders. Why? Programming opera
OMFG. The Libertarians and Right are dominated by coders. Why? Programming operationalizes logic – which is too reductio for real world use – to real world phenomenon and rapidly convinces you of the universal overestimation of undrestanding of human minds. It is very hard to be an idealistic programmer. That’s why there aren’t any. Programming is unforgiving. It has zero tolerance for ‘good enough’.
Evolution needed us to be confident despite our ignorance or die of starvation. That said, we are still confident of despite our ignorance while we die of obesity.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 15:56:00 UTC
-
2 – As a consequence, parables, analogies, fictionalisms and ‘ways of thinking’
2 – As a consequence, parables, analogies, fictionalisms and ‘ways of thinking’ not yet operationalized, and therefore not yet scientific, must bear the cost of more disciplined efforts. Else the functionalists who created the last dark age and threaten another will continue.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-08 16:10:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/983014131992231937
Reply addressees: @PeterBoettke @pavelkuchar @FerlitoCarmelo
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/983005370657501184
IN REPLY TO:
@PeterBoettke
@curtdoolittle @pavelkuchar @FerlitoCarmelo Austrian economics is much more vibrant and varied within the scientific community that you are recognizing Curt. I believe this is because you are looking at it through a certain window, a window I would argue is the least productive of plausible readings of a tradition.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/983005370657501184
-
Given my current understanding, Mises failed to develop operationalism in econom
Given my current understanding, Mises failed to develop operationalism in economics – which is unfortunately the one discipline outside of Law where it is most necessary. The remaining questions in economics are moral, institutional, and empirical. As far as I know AE is done.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-08 14:11:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/982984321039560704
Reply addressees: @pavelkuchar @PeterBoettke @FerlitoCarmelo
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/982978716069441536
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/982978716069441536
-
–“Curt: How Would You Explain Your Beliefs?”—
https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/Well, I .. I don’t use the word ‘belief’, because I don’t use the concept of ‘faith’, or the concept of ‘justification’. So I would instead, say “this is my understanding, or this is history as I understand it, or these are my understandings.” (I will explain some other time why resource and opportunity scarcity and lack of agency attract ‘beliefs’ and why resource and opportunity plenty and possession of agency attract ‘understandings’. Or you can ponder that on your own.) Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that: 1. my work consists of completing that thing we call the scientific method, and systematically applying it to the entire scope of human knowledge. 2. My ambition is to eliminate the propagation of falsehoods in the commons – particularly given that we’ve industrialized lying during the past century, and that this means of lying has been designed to undermine our civilization just as were judaism, christianity, and islam in the ancient world, and marxism, boazianism, freudianism, and Frankfurt and postmodern schools in the modern world. 3. my understanding of history is that western civilization evolved not first but fastest because we required a militia in our territory, and as a byproduct of organizing a militia, discovered what we think of today as scientific (or I call ‘testimonial’) truth – and as a consequence, markets in every aspect of life. 4. The rest of my work explains how to evolve our traditional system away from a second dark age, and continue the process of dragging humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, disease, and lack of agency. In historical context, let’s just say that almost all of the world is only partly through the scientific revolution, and that this will help humanity with understanding the ‘rest of the way’. ITS ALL AVAILABLE If you want an understanding of propertarianism, believe it or not, ‘its all there for the taking’. See … https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/ And if you read …. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/ … which includes a description of history and western civilization’s unique place in it. Then you will have a basic understanding. But this is like learning any other discipline – and is very close to learning a mixture of programming and law. The technical part is quite difficult. But you don’t need to understand it. All you need to understand is that small homogenous nationalist polities operating under what I call ‘perfect government’ will produce the desires of socialists, libertarians, and aristocrats, without providing any of the m with a monopoly that allows them to live parasitically upon the others.Mar 30, 2018 12:16pm -
–“Curt: How Would You Explain Your Beliefs?”—
https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/Well, I .. I don’t use the word ‘belief’, because I don’t use the concept of ‘faith’, or the concept of ‘justification’. So I would instead, say “this is my understanding, or this is history as I understand it, or these are my understandings.” (I will explain some other time why resource and opportunity scarcity and lack of agency attract ‘beliefs’ and why resource and opportunity plenty and possession of agency attract ‘understandings’. Or you can ponder that on your own.) Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that: 1. my work consists of completing that thing we call the scientific method, and systematically applying it to the entire scope of human knowledge. 2. My ambition is to eliminate the propagation of falsehoods in the commons – particularly given that we’ve industrialized lying during the past century, and that this means of lying has been designed to undermine our civilization just as were judaism, christianity, and islam in the ancient world, and marxism, boazianism, freudianism, and Frankfurt and postmodern schools in the modern world. 3. my understanding of history is that western civilization evolved not first but fastest because we required a militia in our territory, and as a byproduct of organizing a militia, discovered what we think of today as scientific (or I call ‘testimonial’) truth – and as a consequence, markets in every aspect of life. 4. The rest of my work explains how to evolve our traditional system away from a second dark age, and continue the process of dragging humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, disease, and lack of agency. In historical context, let’s just say that almost all of the world is only partly through the scientific revolution, and that this will help humanity with understanding the ‘rest of the way’. ITS ALL AVAILABLE If you want an understanding of propertarianism, believe it or not, ‘its all there for the taking’. See … https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/ And if you read …. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/ … which includes a description of history and western civilization’s unique place in it. Then you will have a basic understanding. But this is like learning any other discipline – and is very close to learning a mixture of programming and law. The technical part is quite difficult. But you don’t need to understand it. All you need to understand is that small homogenous nationalist polities operating under what I call ‘perfect government’ will produce the desires of socialists, libertarians, and aristocrats, without providing any of the m with a monopoly that allows them to live parasitically upon the others.Mar 30, 2018 12:16pm -
“YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND [INSERT DRUG OF CHOICE HERE]”— My answer is more parsimo
–“YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND [INSERT DRUG OF CHOICE HERE]”—
My answer is more parsimonious (simple).
Anthropomorphism provides an intuitive means of measurement.
Intuition provides a discount on costly reason, and more costly calculation.
Intuition that is not false is not only cheaper but often more accurate than reason, as one’s ability to reason declines.
Anthropomorphism, intuition, avoidance or reason and solution, and suspension of disbelief during the process (what we call ‘daydreaming on one end and occult on the other’, evoke the feeling of surrendering our will (reason) to the pack, and the burden of reason (being human).
This spectrum describes the beast(child), to the human(Adult) to the post-human(Wisened).
And access to the abiity to incurr such costs, is in itself a measure.
So, while I understand fire gazing, day dreaming,pondering, listening to the oral story (myth), story, novel, fantasy novel, I no longer enjoy the conflation of the fantasy novel with the pretense that such things exist, or that the dependence upon such things has literally served as a drug to manufacture inaction, incomprehension, denial of reality, and worst, the desruction of the ancient civilizations by that drug, and the dark agees of suffering that followed.
So while we can produce highs from excercise, from socialization, from study, and from success, we can also produce highs from the disciplined training of our minds and bodies to produce altered states that no other creature can produce. And further we can do so by chemical means, and now advanced chemical means, and more recently, direct neural stimulation (video games).
So, many things ‘feel good’ but the fact that they feel good physically, emotionally, or intellectually does not tell us whether or not that they are personally suicidal, interpersoanly, socially, politically, civilizationally or dysgenically.
Every drug user of every kind justifies his addiction and attempts to do so only confirm that addiction.
SOme humans require those drugs because they cannot obtain them by the means evolution provided us, or they are too lazy to do so: working with others to achieve existential transcendence rather than the illusory or experiential, that in fact harm the individual, lose his potential, denigrate his lineage, his people, and mankind.
It’s not that I don’t understand you see. It’s that I understand all too well, that we seek means of avoiding action by which we transform the universe into a garden for man.
Some of us transcend ourselves, our people, our civilization, and man into gods. Most of us resist it kicking and screaming all the while, physically, emotionally, intellectually.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-25 20:41:00 UTC
-
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