Karl Popper’s Demarcation Problem Is Solved. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/karl-poppers-demarcation-problem-is-solved/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:27:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265499791980670976
Karl Popper’s Demarcation Problem Is Solved. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/karl-poppers-demarcation-problem-is-solved/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:27:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265499791980670976
Dec 11, 2019, 9:58 AM As far as I know (and this is my area of specialization), western success in science, technology, medicine, and economics was due to the transfer of our legal tradition (by Aristotle to Bacon to Hume to Hayek), and the failure of our philosophers to understand that transfer. So, the demarcation in law between testifiability and fiction, is legal due diligence (falsification). Man can perform due diligence against every dimension perceivable by man: categorical consistency (identity), internal consistency (logical), operational consistency (existential possibility), external consistency (empirical), rational consistency (rational choice), reciprocal consistency (rational choice between parties in cooperation), completeness (full accounting within stated limits), warrantied by possibility of restitution. In other words, the demarcation between science and non-science is falsificationary, and not only the test of falsifiability, but due diligence against falsehood in all dimensions perceivable by man. And this brings us to where else Popper failed: cost. Philosophers generally work in sets, and the law, engineering in operations, and while sets are largely verbal constructs free of cost, action, operations, engineering, science, law and economics include costs. This is why there is a high correlation between moralizing and philosophy, and a high correlation between science and law. Because moralizing does seeks general rules regardless of cost, and sciences and law seek general rules including costs. Why does this matter? Popper never performed a study of scientific research, he just used reason to state that choices in scientific investigation was undecidable. But it’s demonstrably false. the problem in scientific exploration like any form of action (engineering), is that as distance from human scale increases either smaller or larger, the costs of investigation increases, and as such we pursue the information we can afford to. And this turns out to be the optimum means of investigation. And this corresponds to the physical and human world’s behavior: nature must take the least cost action possible, and humans do as well – as long as we make a full accounting of causes (incentives). Cheers
Dec 11, 2019, 9:58 AM As far as I know (and this is my area of specialization), western success in science, technology, medicine, and economics was due to the transfer of our legal tradition (by Aristotle to Bacon to Hume to Hayek), and the failure of our philosophers to understand that transfer. So, the demarcation in law between testifiability and fiction, is legal due diligence (falsification). Man can perform due diligence against every dimension perceivable by man: categorical consistency (identity), internal consistency (logical), operational consistency (existential possibility), external consistency (empirical), rational consistency (rational choice), reciprocal consistency (rational choice between parties in cooperation), completeness (full accounting within stated limits), warrantied by possibility of restitution. In other words, the demarcation between science and non-science is falsificationary, and not only the test of falsifiability, but due diligence against falsehood in all dimensions perceivable by man. And this brings us to where else Popper failed: cost. Philosophers generally work in sets, and the law, engineering in operations, and while sets are largely verbal constructs free of cost, action, operations, engineering, science, law and economics include costs. This is why there is a high correlation between moralizing and philosophy, and a high correlation between science and law. Because moralizing does seeks general rules regardless of cost, and sciences and law seek general rules including costs. Why does this matter? Popper never performed a study of scientific research, he just used reason to state that choices in scientific investigation was undecidable. But it’s demonstrably false. the problem in scientific exploration like any form of action (engineering), is that as distance from human scale increases either smaller or larger, the costs of investigation increases, and as such we pursue the information we can afford to. And this turns out to be the optimum means of investigation. And this corresponds to the physical and human world’s behavior: nature must take the least cost action possible, and humans do as well – as long as we make a full accounting of causes (incentives). Cheers
Expanding the Bullet List: What Is Propertarianism? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/expanding-the-bullet-list-what-is-propertarianism/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:21:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265498434057969664
LETS USE MINIMUM DETAIL “Propertarianism is the completion of (the complete) scientific method.” That’s it. Period. But it’s a profound thing. Very. Now what do we do with that completed scientific method? This scientific method is value neutral, and commensurable regardless of discipline, and universal in application. We use that scientific method to produce a value neutral fully commensurable language across all disciplines. We use that logic and language to produce a universally commensurable value neutral system of law. We used that value neutral system of law to produce a constitution. That constitution’s principle innovation is to incrementally suppress the means by which western civlization in the ancient and modern world was undermined by crimes of plausible deniability (which I won’t explain right here), but that’s what you think of when you think of leftism. One can create an infinite number of constitutions of infinite variety using that law, as long as one constructs them truthfully and reciprocally – which is a problem for the left. The constitution we propose restores the american constitution to its original intent as military and treasury that allows for the concentration of military power sufficient for defense of the continent, devolves all other powers to the states, makes everyone liable for the truth and reciprocity of speech in public to the public about matters public (outlaws leftism), and reforms every single aspect of life so that we restore our civilization from the ((())) harms done to it this past century. That constitution is on line and in progress and is a lot to swallow, but then so are the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Federalist Papers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Amendements, History of Supreme Court Rulings, Federal Code, and Individual State constitutions and codes. Propertarianism is the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to the totality of human knowledge, creating a universally commensurable value neutral language; its embodiment in the natural common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of [all deceit] from the informational commons. See? LETS ADD A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. Propertarianism completes the scientific method. The culmination of the philosophical program of the 20th century was that there is no via positiva scientific method. Instead, The scientific method is a via negativa method: falsificationary. There are only so many dimensions humans can cognitively imagine and cognitively falsify by tests of consistency: categorical, logical, operational, empirical, rational, reciprocal, complete in scope with defined limits, and consistent and therefore coherent across those dimensions, where one warranties such due diligence, and is liable for the consequence of his displays words and deeds resulting from such statements. By using this method we can create a universally commensurable, value neutral, operational language and as such a universally commensurable logic, across all fields: a system of measurement for the truthfulness of speech. We can then use this language and this method to restate the constitution, and our law, in scientific, and operational language, closed to interpretation (legislation from the bench). Moreover we can use this law to outlaw the primary innovation in organized crime that was used to undermine western civilization: false promise; baiting into hazard, using pilpul (sophism) and critique(undermining, straw manning) under cover of plausible deniability to profit from the imposition of harms upon others by financialization (innumeracy), pseudoscience, sophism, supernaturalism, denialism, including the false promises, pseudo-mathematics, pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial of marx, boas, freud, Cantor, Adorno et al, Gramsci et al, Derrida et al, Friedan et al, rand/rothbard, and the neocons. And yes, we can even use it to reform and obtain insight into the failures of Bohr ad Einstein that hilbert predicted, and we can explain the 20th century of mysticism and deceit that hayek warned us of. In other words we can end the jewish-muslim, marxist-postmodernis-feminist program of lying by false promise, and explain why it’s a crime. So, hopefully you can understand why this brief passage here is not something I would stick on the front page for marketing purposes WHAT IS A SYSTEM OF THOUGHT? (A GRAMMAR) What’s the difference between aristotelianism, platonism, and abrahamism? What’s the difference between reason, logic, rationalism? What’s the difference between Aristotelian, enlightenment(empirical) and scientific, revolutions? Whats the difference between math, logic, programming, recipes, and protocols? So what is the difference between aristotelianism, empiricism, science, and testimonialism (propertarianism)? Well, the difference is from the rational to the empirical to the operational. What does operational mean? It means the difference between logic (Sets) and programming (operations). It means the difference between logic (language), empiricism (observation), and operations (actions). And if you can’t comprehend it – it doesn’t matter. You probably don’t know calculus, analysis, algebraic geometry, relativity, quantum mechanics, or the difference between hierarchical, relational, functional, object oriented, and bayesian programming, or the design patterns in each. Or the fundamental problems of mathematical economics, categories, use of symmetries as intermediary systems of economic measurement. Or even the problem of protein folding or why all of those questions are related by the problem a lack of an operational logic of geometries that replaces the operational logic of lines and curves using positional names that we call mathematics.
LETS USE MINIMUM DETAIL “Propertarianism is the completion of (the complete) scientific method.” That’s it. Period. But it’s a profound thing. Very. Now what do we do with that completed scientific method? This scientific method is value neutral, and commensurable regardless of discipline, and universal in application. We use that scientific method to produce a value neutral fully commensurable language across all disciplines. We use that logic and language to produce a universally commensurable value neutral system of law. We used that value neutral system of law to produce a constitution. That constitution’s principle innovation is to incrementally suppress the means by which western civlization in the ancient and modern world was undermined by crimes of plausible deniability (which I won’t explain right here), but that’s what you think of when you think of leftism. One can create an infinite number of constitutions of infinite variety using that law, as long as one constructs them truthfully and reciprocally – which is a problem for the left. The constitution we propose restores the american constitution to its original intent as military and treasury that allows for the concentration of military power sufficient for defense of the continent, devolves all other powers to the states, makes everyone liable for the truth and reciprocity of speech in public to the public about matters public (outlaws leftism), and reforms every single aspect of life so that we restore our civilization from the ((())) harms done to it this past century. That constitution is on line and in progress and is a lot to swallow, but then so are the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Federalist Papers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Amendements, History of Supreme Court Rulings, Federal Code, and Individual State constitutions and codes. Propertarianism is the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to the totality of human knowledge, creating a universally commensurable value neutral language; its embodiment in the natural common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of [all deceit] from the informational commons. See? LETS ADD A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. Propertarianism completes the scientific method. The culmination of the philosophical program of the 20th century was that there is no via positiva scientific method. Instead, The scientific method is a via negativa method: falsificationary. There are only so many dimensions humans can cognitively imagine and cognitively falsify by tests of consistency: categorical, logical, operational, empirical, rational, reciprocal, complete in scope with defined limits, and consistent and therefore coherent across those dimensions, where one warranties such due diligence, and is liable for the consequence of his displays words and deeds resulting from such statements. By using this method we can create a universally commensurable, value neutral, operational language and as such a universally commensurable logic, across all fields: a system of measurement for the truthfulness of speech. We can then use this language and this method to restate the constitution, and our law, in scientific, and operational language, closed to interpretation (legislation from the bench). Moreover we can use this law to outlaw the primary innovation in organized crime that was used to undermine western civilization: false promise; baiting into hazard, using pilpul (sophism) and critique(undermining, straw manning) under cover of plausible deniability to profit from the imposition of harms upon others by financialization (innumeracy), pseudoscience, sophism, supernaturalism, denialism, including the false promises, pseudo-mathematics, pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial of marx, boas, freud, Cantor, Adorno et al, Gramsci et al, Derrida et al, Friedan et al, rand/rothbard, and the neocons. And yes, we can even use it to reform and obtain insight into the failures of Bohr ad Einstein that hilbert predicted, and we can explain the 20th century of mysticism and deceit that hayek warned us of. In other words we can end the jewish-muslim, marxist-postmodernis-feminist program of lying by false promise, and explain why it’s a crime. So, hopefully you can understand why this brief passage here is not something I would stick on the front page for marketing purposes WHAT IS A SYSTEM OF THOUGHT? (A GRAMMAR) What’s the difference between aristotelianism, platonism, and abrahamism? What’s the difference between reason, logic, rationalism? What’s the difference between Aristotelian, enlightenment(empirical) and scientific, revolutions? Whats the difference between math, logic, programming, recipes, and protocols? So what is the difference between aristotelianism, empiricism, science, and testimonialism (propertarianism)? Well, the difference is from the rational to the empirical to the operational. What does operational mean? It means the difference between logic (Sets) and programming (operations). It means the difference between logic (language), empiricism (observation), and operations (actions). And if you can’t comprehend it – it doesn’t matter. You probably don’t know calculus, analysis, algebraic geometry, relativity, quantum mechanics, or the difference between hierarchical, relational, functional, object oriented, and bayesian programming, or the design patterns in each. Or the fundamental problems of mathematical economics, categories, use of symmetries as intermediary systems of economic measurement. Or even the problem of protein folding or why all of those questions are related by the problem a lack of an operational logic of geometries that replaces the operational logic of lines and curves using positional names that we call mathematics.
Dec 28, 2019, 2:57 PM
—“Propertarianism is the completion of (the complete) scientific method.”—
That’s it. Period. But it’s a profound thing. Very. It means not only the physical sciences but logics, psychological, social, political, legal, economic sciences. Now what do we do with that completed scientific method? The scientific method is value neutral, and commensurable regardless of discipline, and universal in application. We use that scientific method to produce a value neutral fully commensurable language across all disciplines. We use that logic and language to produce a universally commensurable value neutral system of law. We used that value neutral system of law to produce a constitution. That constitution’s principle innovation is to incrementally suppress the means by which western civlization in the ancient and modern world was undermined by crimes of plausible deniability (which I won’t explain right here), but that’s what you think of when you think of leftism. One can create an infinite number of constitutions of infinite variety using that law, as long as one constructs them truthfully and reciprocally (which is a problem for the left). The constitution we propose restores the american constitution to its original intent as military and treasury that allows for the concentration of military power sufficient for defense of the continent, devolves all other powers to the states, makes everyone liable for the truth and reciprocity of speech in public to the public about matters public (outlaws leftism), and reforms every single aspect of life so that we restore our civilization from the ((())) harms done to it this past century. That constitution is on line and in progress and is a lot to swallow, but then so are the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Federalist Papers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Amendements, History of Supreme Court Rulings, Federal Code, and Individual State constitutions and codes. Propertarianism is the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to the totality of human knowledge, creating a universally commensurable value neutral language; its embodiment in the natural common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of [all deceit] from the informational commons. See?
Dec 28, 2019, 2:57 PM
—“Propertarianism is the completion of (the complete) scientific method.”—
That’s it. Period. But it’s a profound thing. Very. It means not only the physical sciences but logics, psychological, social, political, legal, economic sciences. Now what do we do with that completed scientific method? The scientific method is value neutral, and commensurable regardless of discipline, and universal in application. We use that scientific method to produce a value neutral fully commensurable language across all disciplines. We use that logic and language to produce a universally commensurable value neutral system of law. We used that value neutral system of law to produce a constitution. That constitution’s principle innovation is to incrementally suppress the means by which western civlization in the ancient and modern world was undermined by crimes of plausible deniability (which I won’t explain right here), but that’s what you think of when you think of leftism. One can create an infinite number of constitutions of infinite variety using that law, as long as one constructs them truthfully and reciprocally (which is a problem for the left). The constitution we propose restores the american constitution to its original intent as military and treasury that allows for the concentration of military power sufficient for defense of the continent, devolves all other powers to the states, makes everyone liable for the truth and reciprocity of speech in public to the public about matters public (outlaws leftism), and reforms every single aspect of life so that we restore our civilization from the ((())) harms done to it this past century. That constitution is on line and in progress and is a lot to swallow, but then so are the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Federalist Papers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Amendements, History of Supreme Court Rulings, Federal Code, and Individual State constitutions and codes. Propertarianism is the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to the totality of human knowledge, creating a universally commensurable value neutral language; its embodiment in the natural common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of [all deceit] from the informational commons. See?
Regarding Mathematical Platonism and The Test of .999.. = 1. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/regarding-mathematical-platonism-and-the-test-of-999-1/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:07:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265494867762917377
Dec 29, 2019, 12:00 AM This article is ideological propaganda (which is common here) in favor of mathematical platonism that intentionally or not misrepresents the problem. This question of whether .999… = 1 is the canon example, and litmus test, of the conflict over the foundations of mathematics between the schools (a) demanding the scientific basis of mathematics (mathematical realism) by Hilbert and (b) the literary (pseudoscientific) basis of mathematics that was reintroduced by Cantor resulting in the catastrophe of mathematics, logic, and even mathematical physics in the twentieth century. So it is not a question of pedagogy but an unsettled conflict over the choice between mathematical realism under which no infinity is operationally impossible, limits always extant in any application, and therefore .999 != 1, versus mathematical platonism dependent upon the law of the excluded middle, under which deductively, one cannot construct a statement in the vocabulary and grammar of mathematics (the logic of positional names) where .999… does not equal 1. This is the battle between realism (science, operational mathematics), and idealism (philosophy, literary mathematics). For example, Descartes was important because he restored mathematics to geometry (operations) giving us the cartesian model, and the result was newton-liebnitz’s calculus on one end and the restoration of the realism on the other. Cantor, Bohr, and yes, even Einstein as well as the logicians tried to restore idealism. This led to the constructivist argument. That argument succeeded in physics and has slowly propagated through the sciences, even, oddly causing the reformation of psychology (although not sociology). Computer science has taken up constructivist mathematics leaving mathematical platonism to the discipline of math. Unfortunately, we are stuck with Einstein-Bohr-Cantor versus Hilbert-Poincare-Turing, and this is one of the profound failings ofthe 20th century. For example. Numbers exist as names of positions and nothing else. We use positional naming to generate unique names. Positions are ordered but scale independent. All of mathematics consist of functions producing names in the grammar and vocabulary of positional names. Cantor states that we can produce multiple infinities of different sizes. This is a fictionalism (parable). Instead, no infinity is constructible only predictable in imagination. So, in any sequence of operations, different sets will produce new positional names at different rates, such that at any given limit, the sets will differ in sizes. There are no different ‘sizes’ of infinities, only different rates of production of positional (unique) names. Math is full of such parables. In ethics for example, the litmus test is blackmail: it’s voluntary, it’s an exchange, but why do we react against it? Because it’s an unproductive transfer. In logic it’s whether logic is binary and a rule of inference (true vs false) or ternary and scientific (false, truth candidate, undecidable). In mathematics the litmus test is whether .999… = 1. Under realism, no it doesn’t. Under idealism (Platonism) it does. Science (meaning testimony) imposes a higher standard than idealism (platonism). Platonism remains justificationary and Realism falsificationary. So when you make the claim the question is pedagogical (error) and that people don’t understand – that’s patently false. It’s that operationalism (realism, science) has a higher standard than platonism (idealism, prose). And under realism .999… cannot possible ever equal 1 since no infinity is operationally possible. Whereas under idealism the standard is lower, because under scale independence, infinity substitutes for the unknown limit, which as a consequence is 1. The fact that people aren’t pedagogically informed that this debate exists, and persists, and that its origin is between western engineering and geometry, and middle eastern algebra and astrology, leading to western reason and science, versus eastern theology and mysticism – then you begin to understand how important this question is – and why our physicists have been lost in mathematical platonism – and why scientific woo woo is so common, when it’s increasingly likely that mathematics of positions names (points) has most likely reached its limits. And that we have failed to create the next generation of mathematics (shapes, geometries) that would allow us to solve protein foldings and the structure of the universe that results in our observed but unsolvable quantum distributions of probability.