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.
Theme: Science
-
Confusing the Math with Reality
Confusing the Math with Reality https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/confusing-the-math-with-reality/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:02:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265493455813447680
-
Confusing the Math with Reality
Dec 30, 2019, 4:12 PM (from elsewhere) The first four minutes of this video are nonsense. There is no conflict between the coordinate system (our means of description) and the change in the background (described by that coordinate system), and the motion of the particle (energy, change) through the background. He’s confusing the math with reality given that we don’t know the underlying geometry, so we have to resort to use of aggregates (the wave function). Math is a language (logic, grammar) of positional names ideal for the description of constant relations (patterns). If history is a judge of anything, we are stuck in a problem that Hilbert warned us about, and Einstein and Bohr trapped us into, by using probability (aggregates) instead of solving the problem of the underlying geometry. Whether that geometry is a circular (loops) creating a 3d space, or triangles and tetrahedrons creating 3d space, the resulting pattern of which is loops or strings, is something we don’t know and it’s why quantum mechanics and relativity are seemingly incompatible. They make use of two aggregates describing two different patterns. Both theories are correct. The same way that biology and chemistry are correct. But the geometry underneath quantum mechanics is something we just don’t know yet. Unfortunately mathematical platonism is as infectious a disease in physics as it is in mathematics – and lest not even get started on economics.
-
Confusing the Math with Reality
Dec 30, 2019, 4:12 PM (from elsewhere) The first four minutes of this video are nonsense. There is no conflict between the coordinate system (our means of description) and the change in the background (described by that coordinate system), and the motion of the particle (energy, change) through the background. He’s confusing the math with reality given that we don’t know the underlying geometry, so we have to resort to use of aggregates (the wave function). Math is a language (logic, grammar) of positional names ideal for the description of constant relations (patterns). If history is a judge of anything, we are stuck in a problem that Hilbert warned us about, and Einstein and Bohr trapped us into, by using probability (aggregates) instead of solving the problem of the underlying geometry. Whether that geometry is a circular (loops) creating a 3d space, or triangles and tetrahedrons creating 3d space, the resulting pattern of which is loops or strings, is something we don’t know and it’s why quantum mechanics and relativity are seemingly incompatible. They make use of two aggregates describing two different patterns. Both theories are correct. The same way that biology and chemistry are correct. But the geometry underneath quantum mechanics is something we just don’t know yet. Unfortunately mathematical platonism is as infectious a disease in physics as it is in mathematics – and lest not even get started on economics.
-
DEFINITIONS: Red Queen, The Red Queen, Defeating the Red Queen
DEFINITIONS: Red Queen, The Red Queen, Defeating the Red Queen https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/definitions-red-queen-the-red-queen-defeating-the-red-queen/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 01:05:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265449043020460032
-
DEFINITIONS: Red Queen, The Red Queen, Defeating the Red Queen
Human beings seek to minimize neural costs by seeking stability, stasis, constancy and harmony – but this is suicidal – stability means ne is falling behind others who are not static. This ‘cognitive error’ is a remnant of our hunter-gatherer instincts and only europeans appear to have systematically overcome it – and even then, only a minority. And this is the source of our ‘european creativity’.
From Wikipedia:
The Red Queen hypothesis (also referred to as Red Queen’s, the Red Queen effect, Red Queen’s race, Red Queen dynamics) is an evolutionary hypothesis which proposes that organisms must constantly adapt, evolve, and proliferate in order to survive while pitted against ever-evolving opposing organisms in a constantly changing environment, as well as to gain reproductive advantage.
The hypothesis intends to explain two different phenomena: the constant extinction rates as observed in the paleontological record caused by co-evolution between competing species,“ and the advantage of sexual reproduction (as opposed to asexual reproduction) at the level of individuals.The phenomenon’s name is derived from a statement that the Red Queen made to Alice in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass in her explanation of the nature of Looking-Glass Land:
“Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.”
Van Valen coined the hypothesis “Red Queen” because under this interpretation, populations have to “run” or evolve in order to stay in the same place – or else go extinct.
-
DEFINITIONS: Red Queen, The Red Queen, Defeating the Red Queen
Human beings seek to minimize neural costs by seeking stability, stasis, constancy and harmony – but this is suicidal – stability means ne is falling behind others who are not static. This ‘cognitive error’ is a remnant of our hunter-gatherer instincts and only europeans appear to have systematically overcome it – and even then, only a minority. And this is the source of our ‘european creativity’.
From Wikipedia:
The Red Queen hypothesis (also referred to as Red Queen’s, the Red Queen effect, Red Queen’s race, Red Queen dynamics) is an evolutionary hypothesis which proposes that organisms must constantly adapt, evolve, and proliferate in order to survive while pitted against ever-evolving opposing organisms in a constantly changing environment, as well as to gain reproductive advantage.
The hypothesis intends to explain two different phenomena: the constant extinction rates as observed in the paleontological record caused by co-evolution between competing species,“ and the advantage of sexual reproduction (as opposed to asexual reproduction) at the level of individuals.The phenomenon’s name is derived from a statement that the Red Queen made to Alice in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass in her explanation of the nature of Looking-Glass Land:
“Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.”
Van Valen coined the hypothesis “Red Queen” because under this interpretation, populations have to “run” or evolve in order to stay in the same place – or else go extinct.
-
The “Will of The Gods” Was a Convenient Escape of The Responsibility of Liability.
Jan 2, 2020, 1:18 PM by JWarren Prescott The concept of the supernatural, ie. beyond nature, outside our reality, magical, being independent of logic and inexplicable by science because it defies the laws of physics, is from the infancy of human civilization where we had no idea what the natural world was. It was our attempt to fill the gaps of understanding. The unintended consequences of the lack of understanding was the rise of the huckster class – the priests, those apex parasitical manipulators of mankind’s fears of the unknown. They leveraged their verbal skills to political power as rulers were the only ones capable of protecting them from scrutiny of their failed predictions and the liability of malpractice. The hucksters always knew that the warlords, kings and rulers were generally far more gullible to the supernatural as it was a legitimation of, and a securing of their right to rule and a comfort to their insecurities of bad decisions. The “will of the gods” was a convenient escape of the responsibility of liability.
-
The “Will of The Gods” Was a Convenient Escape of The Responsibility of Liability.
Jan 2, 2020, 1:18 PM by JWarren Prescott The concept of the supernatural, ie. beyond nature, outside our reality, magical, being independent of logic and inexplicable by science because it defies the laws of physics, is from the infancy of human civilization where we had no idea what the natural world was. It was our attempt to fill the gaps of understanding. The unintended consequences of the lack of understanding was the rise of the huckster class – the priests, those apex parasitical manipulators of mankind’s fears of the unknown. They leveraged their verbal skills to political power as rulers were the only ones capable of protecting them from scrutiny of their failed predictions and the liability of malpractice. The hucksters always knew that the warlords, kings and rulers were generally far more gullible to the supernatural as it was a legitimation of, and a securing of their right to rule and a comfort to their insecurities of bad decisions. The “will of the gods” was a convenient escape of the responsibility of liability.
-
Explaining (defining) Propertarianism – for Newbs:
Jan 2, 2020, 6:35 PM 1 – The completion of the scientific method and all that it entails – which is a lot and why P is such a big program: it touches everything and it converts almost all psychological, social, and political speech to economic expressions – which is counter-intuitive because it’s scientific where our current psychological social, moral, and political speech is only normative or in the case of psychology sociology and politics, both pseudoscientific and sophomoric. 2 – The explanation for western success in ancient and modern worlds (adaptive velocity because of our individual sovereignty and resulting traditional law of property/tort.) 3 – The explanation of the different systems of argument used in the different civilizations, and in particular the abrahamic means of deceit used in the ancient world (judaism, Christianity, islam) and in the modern world (marxism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism/political correctness). EXPLANATION Do you know what a formal logic is? It’s grammar of the logic of inference using sets and binary truth or falsehood. Do you know what programming is? It’s a grammar of operational logic using binary truth or falsehood. Do you know what law is? It’s a formal operational rational grammar of conflict resolution, using ternary falsehood, truth candidacy, and undecidability. Do you know what tort law is? it’s a formal rational operational grammar of conflict resolution over demonstrated interests that we enumerate as property, using ternary logic of falsehood, truth candidacy, undecidability. Propertarianism is a formal (strict), operational(sequential action), grammar (vocabulary, grammar, syntax, logic), of Tort (demonstrated interests), and as a consequence a value neutral universal language (vocabulary, grammar, syntax, logic) across all disciplines (physical science, language-metaphysics, psychology, sociology, politics, ethics, law, group strategy), that allows us to falsify (test) every possible dimension of human action, intuition, cognition, and speech, for both testimonial possibility (truth) and reciprocity(ethics, morality, trespass, tort), and as a consequence allows us to create uninterpretable constitutions, and their enumerated rights and responsibilities, the most influential of which is the conversion of free speech to free truthful and reciprocal speech, in public, to the public, on matters public (commerce, economics, commons, politics, group strategy) by extending the involuntary warranty of due diligence and involuntary liability for the truthfulness and reciprocity of commercial speech to that of political speech. As such it allows us to outlaw hostile religions, and pseudo-religions especially the pseudoscientific and sophomoric restatements of supernatural judaism , christianity, and islam, in pseudoscientific and sophomoric and ir-reciprocal marxism, socialism, feminism, and postmodernism. Propertarianism is equivalent in scope to the revolutions of Aristotelian reason (Realism, Naturalism, Reason), the Empirical Revolution(Realism, Naturalism, Empiricism), in that it completes the scientific method by extending it from the physical to the psychological and social sciences, including that of law, politics, and group strategy. In other words, “Propertarianism consists of the completion of the Scientific Method; its application to the totality of human knowledge; producing a universally commensurable language of all thought; its embodiment in the common law of tort; resulting in a logical and scientific constitution; permitting the criminalization of ir-reciprocal and un-testifiable speech, and as a consequence the eradication of superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons.” When we explain the reason for western success we discover: “Heroism and Excellence; Truth and Duty; Oath and Warranty; Sovereignty and Reciprocity; Law and Jury; And Voluntary Markets in Every Aspect of Life: Association, Cooperation, Production, Reproduction, Commons, Polities and War; The direction of surpluses to the production of commons and the returns therefrom; at the cost of suppression of the reproduction of the unproductive underclasses; and the Direction of Dominance Expression to the Production of Commons by a Distributed Dictatorship of Individually Sovereign People and the Reciprocal Warranty of Denial of Power To Any and All.” Propertarianism is (a) the completion of the Aristotelian program (b) the completion of the scientific method (c ) the logic and science of the social sciences, and (d) the Natural Law of Reciprocity under which all display word and deed is expressible and commensurable. (e) and the means of institutionalizing in a “Market for the Suppression of Fraud” the suppression of the greatest crime against humanity: the big lies that are responsible for the last dark age and the new one that the enemy has sought to bring about.