(Important post) SCIENCE: Taking action in order to discover, through the process of elimination, operations with which we can, as a consequence, reason – where the principle problem is removing ignorance, error, bias and deceit from free association, we call hypothesizing. MATHEMATICS: the use of positional names to describe averages of operations that result in constant relations, themselves resulting in different symmetries at different scales.
Theme: Operationalism
-
Tying It All Together
Consequently we can use mathematics to discover patterns which we then seek to reduce to operations. And within the human world we can know these operations thorugh subjective testing (sympathy/empathy/self-experience) whether internal (above the intuitive) or external (physical world). Once we have discovered that set of operations, we can seek the set of operations beneath it – and so on, until we find the lowest possible set of operations from which the universe is constructed. The physical universe, at its lowest level, consists of a market, just like our own markets, wherein humans are just a very complex (high) scale, across multiple hierarchical markets, each of which consists of symmetries, produced by the limits of operations – just as man is limited by his physical, emotional, and intellectual operations that we call ‘actions’. When we operate by markets we operate in harmony with the physical universe – meaning the lowest possible friction – and we fulfill life’s purpose at the highest extant level of symmetry, wherein all life serves the purpose of defeating entropy. As such we defeat entropy by the incrementally fastest means possible. Western man was not first, but he was fastest. Because through truth and eugenics (domestication) he lived in the greatest harmony with the universe. The explanatory power of (number of philosophical problems this model solves) is profound. In metaphysics we often discuss levels of reality, but again that is another ideal, where operations are actions. There. I have done it. I have figured out how to say it in simple terms. -
Tying It All Together
(Important post) SCIENCE: Taking action in order to discover, through the process of elimination, operations with which we can, as a consequence, reason – where the principle problem is removing ignorance, error, bias and deceit from free association, we call hypothesizing. MATHEMATICS: the use of positional names to describe averages of operations that result in constant relations, themselves resulting in different symmetries at different scales.
Consequently we can use mathematics to discover patterns which we then seek to reduce to operations. And within the human world we can know these operations thorugh subjective testing (sympathy/empathy/self-experience) whether internal (above the intuitive) or external (physical world). Once we have discovered that set of operations, we can seek the set of operations beneath it – and so on, until we find the lowest possible set of operations from which the universe is constructed. The physical universe, at its lowest level, consists of a market, just like our own markets, wherein humans are just a very complex (high) scale, across multiple hierarchical markets, each of which consists of symmetries, produced by the limits of operations – just as man is limited by his physical, emotional, and intellectual operations that we call ‘actions’. When we operate by markets we operate in harmony with the physical universe – meaning the lowest possible friction – and we fulfill life’s purpose at the highest extant level of symmetry, wherein all life serves the purpose of defeating entropy. As such we defeat entropy by the incrementally fastest means possible. Western man was not first, but he was fastest. Because through truth and eugenics (domestication) he lived in the greatest harmony with the universe. The explanatory power of (number of philosophical problems this model solves) is profound. In metaphysics we often discuss levels of reality, but again that is another ideal, where operations are actions. There. I have done it. I have figured out how to say it in simple terms. -
The Route to Operational Grammar
I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided. SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law) Zoroaster -> Abraham -> …|-> Rabbinicals-> … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium) … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund. IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law) Plato -> Kant -> … … … … |->Marx(Soc.) … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon) … … … … |->Frege->Kripke … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law) Aristotle->Bacon/Newton … |->Locke/Smith/Hume … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek |->Poincare ->Hilbert |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick -> |->Maxwell -> (Many)
-
The Route to Operational Grammar
I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided. SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law) Zoroaster -> Abraham -> …|-> Rabbinicals-> … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium) … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund. IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law) Plato -> Kant -> … … … … |->Marx(Soc.) … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon) … … … … |->Frege->Kripke … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law) Aristotle->Bacon/Newton … |->Locke/Smith/Hume … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek |->Poincare ->Hilbert |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick -> |->Maxwell -> (Many)
-
I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verb
I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided. SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law) Zoroaster -> Abraham -> …|-> Rabbinicals-> … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium) … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund. IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law) Plato -> Kant -> … … … … |->Marx(Soc.) … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon) … … … … |->Frege->Kripke … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law) Aristotle->Bacon/Newton … |->Locke/Smith/Hume … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek |->Poincare ->Hilbert |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick -> |->Maxwell -> (Many) -
I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verb
I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided. SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law) Zoroaster -> Abraham -> …|-> Rabbinicals-> … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium) … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund. IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law) Plato -> Kant -> … … … … |->Marx(Soc.) … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon) … … … … |->Frege->Kripke … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law) Aristotle->Bacon/Newton … |->Locke/Smith/Hume … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek |->Poincare ->Hilbert |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick -> |->Maxwell -> (Many) -
I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verb
I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided.
SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law)
Zoroaster -> Abraham ->
…|-> Rabbinicals->
… … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium)
… … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund.
IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law)
Plato -> Kant ->
… … … … |->Marx(Soc.)
… … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe
… … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon)
… … … … |->Frege->Kripke
… … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes
REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law)
Aristotle->Bacon/Newton …
|->Locke/Smith/Hume
… … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek
|->Poincare ->Hilbert
|->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing
… … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky
|->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick ->
|->Maxwell -> (Many)
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-01 13:20:00 UTC
-
Here. I’ve combined Kashif’s experiential and my operational diagrams. Personall
Here. I’ve combined Kashif’s experiential and my operational diagrams. Personally I simply see one axis and three implementations: 1) reproductive strategy, 2) vocabulary, and 3) temporality. We all justify our reproductive strategies. Our reproductive strategy biases our temporal perception in the division of perception, cognition, negotiation, advocacy, and labor. Our Grammar expresses our negotiation in that division of perception that suits our reproductive strategy. We all need a portfolio of decidability. Our decidability is reducible to our reproductive strategy, compromised by our survival and operating strategy. I think the hard thing to imagine is the dream state (associating) action state (planning) spectrum. How action oriented or experience oriented we are. If you put that as a fourth criteria it would probably mirror the solipsistic autistic spectrum that mirrors the construction of female to male brains. Nature works with a very small number of rules that can be used to create compleity through vast permutation. As far as I know all human behavior consists of the prey drive, from which we evolved the mating drive, the cooperating drive is an extension of the mating drive, and the linguistic drive (order) is an outgrowth of the cooperating drive. From simple things emerge complexity. -
Here. I’ve combined Kashif’s experiential and my operational diagrams. Personall
Here. I’ve combined Kashif’s experiential and my operational diagrams. Personally I simply see one axis and three implementations: 1) reproductive strategy, 2) vocabulary, and 3) temporality. We all justify our reproductive strategies. Our reproductive strategy biases our temporal perception in the division of perception, cognition, negotiation, advocacy, and labor. Our Grammar expresses our negotiation in that division of perception that suits our reproductive strategy. We all need a portfolio of decidability. Our decidability is reducible to our reproductive strategy, compromised by our survival and operating strategy. I think the hard thing to imagine is the dream state (associating) action state (planning) spectrum. How action oriented or experience oriented we are. If you put that as a fourth criteria it would probably mirror the solipsistic autistic spectrum that mirrors the construction of female to male brains. Nature works with a very small number of rules that can be used to create compleity through vast permutation. As far as I know all human behavior consists of the prey drive, from which we evolved the mating drive, the cooperating drive is an extension of the mating drive, and the linguistic drive (order) is an outgrowth of the cooperating drive. From simple things emerge complexity. -

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/22382356_153984701865095_22341501171
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/22382356_153984701865095_2234150117167461519_o_153984701865095.jpg Here. I’ve combined Kashif’s experiential and my operational diagrams.
Personally I simply see one axis and three implementations: 1) reproductive strategy, 2) vocabulary, and 3) temporality.
We all justify our reproductive strategies. Our reproductive strategy biases our temporal perception in the division of perception, cognition, negotiation, advocacy, and labor. Our Grammar expresses our negotiation in that division of perception that suits our reproductive strategy.
We all need a portfolio of decidability. Our decidability is reducible to our reproductive strategy, compromised by our survival and operating strategy.
I think the hard thing to imagine is the dream state (associating) action state (planning) spectrum. How action oriented or experience oriented we are. If you put that as a fourth criteria it would probably mirror the solipsistic autistic spectrum that mirrors the construction of female to male brains.
Nature works with a very small number of rules that can be used to create compleity through vast permutation. As far as I know all human behavior consists of the prey drive, from which we evolved the mating drive, the cooperating drive is an extension of the mating drive, and the linguistic drive (order) is an outgrowth of the cooperating drive.
From simple things emerge complexity.Here. I’ve combined Kashif’s experiential and my operational diagrams.
Personally I simply see one axis and three implementations: 1) reproductive strategy, 2) vocabulary, and 3) temporality.
We all justify our reproductive strategies. Our reproductive strategy biases our temporal perception in the division of perception, cognition, negotiation, advocacy, and labor. Our Grammar expresses our negotiation in that division of perception that suits our reproductive strategy.
We all need a portfolio of decidability. Our decidability is reducible to our reproductive strategy, compromised by our survival and operating strategy.
I think the hard thing to imagine is the dream state (associating) action state (planning) spectrum. How action oriented or experience oriented we are. If you put that as a fourth criteria it would probably mirror the solipsistic autistic spectrum that mirrors the construction of female to male brains.
Nature works with a very small number of rules that can be used to create compleity through vast permutation. As far as I know all human behavior consists of the prey drive, from which we evolved the mating drive, the cooperating drive is an extension of the mating drive, and the linguistic drive (order) is an outgrowth of the cooperating drive.
From simple things emerge complexity.
Source date (UTC): 2017-10-07 12:48:00 UTC