Theme: Science

  • RT @DegenRolf: Meta-analysis: Contrary to widespread belief in psychology, fear

    RT @DegenRolf: Meta-analysis: Contrary to widespread belief in psychology, fear responses cannot be conditioned without awareness. https://…


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-18 15:40:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1196453032688533505

  • ARE MORE IMMORAL THAN NON-BELIEVERS. I have known this is the case, but I’ve bee

    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-06349-001BELIEVERS ARE MORE IMMORAL THAN NON-BELIEVERS.

    I have known this is the case, but I’ve been looking for research to demonstrate it. I’m going to work with this for a bit.

    Why do people need faith? To hate others. To compensate for their inferiority. That’s why people need faith. Constant rejection offset by self-righteousness: TO AVOID RECIPROCITY.

    My mother used to say that christians are only christian in church. I’ve added that the middle class is always christian in business, becuase it’s good business.

    —–

    “Believers are more likely to commit everyday acts of passive immorality such as parking across multiple spaces and keeping overdue library books.” https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-06349-001Updated Nov 18, 2019, 10:48 AM


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-18 10:48:00 UTC

  • Nov 18, 2019, 7:54 AM

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/11/is-the-rate-of-scientific-progress-slowing-down.htmlhttp://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/11/is-the-rate-of-scientific-progress-slowing-down.htmlUpdated Nov 18, 2019, 7:54 AM


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-18 07:54:00 UTC

  • Every time some conservative asserts something in confidence despite his relativ

    Every time some conservative asserts something in confidence despite his relative ignorance, he is no different from his consumptive (liberal) counterpart. The only ‘truthful’ empirical, and therefore ‘conservative’ answer is: “i don’t know yet” But ‘i know…’ is merely a statement of being lazy or incompetent.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-17 19:55:00 UTC

  • The postwar science fiction movement consisted largely of rewriting the great he

    The postwar science fiction movement consisted largely of rewriting the great heroic mythos in the new technological context.

    Unfortunately no one wrote down the underlying social science behind the great heroic mythos.

    I got stuck with the job. God suckered me. lol


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-17 16:50:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1196108337882050561

    Reply addressees: @EricLiford

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1196105157232119808


    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/1196105157232119808

  • Mathematics

    REFORMING MATHEMATICS

    “Mathematics, by the virtue of consisting of nothing other than positional names, preserves constant relations, since only constant relations are expressible in the grammar of mathematics: the grammar of positional names.”

    The discipline we call computer science is more generally the logic of operations, and is superior in informational density to mathematics in that it is causal and mathematics is merely descriptive.”

    THE FOUNDATIONS OF EVERYTHING: DIFFERENCES

    differences( logic ) > speech > sets > agorithms > mathematics

    MATH CONFUSED US.

    In mathematics, at least, for the most part, the means of conducting operations to solve a problem is nearly identical to the means of demonstrating the construction of a solution using existentially possible operations. We sought to copy mathematics – starting with the Greeks.  But we lacked the understanding of why math was so effective at the ascertaining truth of relations: because there is very little difference between the process of theorizing and the process of construction.

    FOUNDATIONS OF LOGIC

    The foundations of logic like those of mathematics are terribly simple as subsets of reality. But by doubling down in the 19th and 20th centuries all we have found is that we say rather nonsensical terms like ‘the axiom of choice’ or ‘limits’ rather than ‘undecidable without appeal to information provided by existential context’. After all, math is just the discipline of scale-independent measurement, and the deduction that is possible given the precision of constant relations using identical unitary measures. Logic is nothing more than than set operations. Algorithms are nothing more than sequential operations restoring time. Operations are nothing more than algorithms restoring physical transformation, time and cost. etc. As a consequence, I find most of this kind of terminological discourse … silly hermeneutics. As Poincare stated ‘that isn’t math its philosophy’. Or as I would say, ‘with platonism we depart science and join theology. It may be secular theology in that it is ideal rather than supernatural, but it is theology none the less’. it is one thing to say ‘by convention in math (or logic or whatever dimension we speak of) we use this colloquialism (half-truth) as a matter of convenience. It is not ‘true’. It is just the best approximation given the brevity we exercise in simplifying our work. There exists only one possible ‘True’: the most parsimonious and correspondent testimony one can speak in the available language in the given context. Everything else is a convention. Ergo, if you do not know the operational construction of the terms that you use, you do not know of what you speak. That does not mean you cannot speak truth any more than monkey cannot accidentally type one of the Sonnets. This is why the operationalist movement in math we call Intuitionism failed. Anyway. Well-formed (grammatically correct) statements in math may or may not be decidable but our intention is to produce decidable statements. In symbolic logic, well formed (grammatically correct) statements may or may not be decidable. in logic (language), well-formed (grammatically correct) statements are difficult to construct because of the categorical difference between constant relations (ideals in math), constant categories (ideals in formal logic), and inconstant categories (ordinary language). Furthermore, the process of DEDUCTION using premises (or logical summation) limits us to the utility of true statements. Ergo for that purpose statements can only evaluate to true or not-true (including false and undecidable). While for the purpose of INDUCTION (transfer of meaning by seeding free association, or the construction of possibility by the same means) seeks only possibility or impossibility not truth or falsehood. How can you claim to make a truth proposition and demand precise language when your premises are mere demonstrably falsehoods used by convention?

    NUMBERS

    Nouns are names. Numbers are nouns. Numbers evolved as positional names. Numbers are positional names of constant relations. As positional names, they are extensions of ordinary language. Math: the science of measurement by the use of constant relations.” We use many positional names: none, one, and some, short medium and tall; small, medium, and large; front, middle, and back; right center and left; port and starboard; daughter, mother, and grandmother; Numbers differ from ordinary nouns only in that we produce them by positional naming. Whereas early positional names varied from one two and many, to base ten, or base twelve, or in the twenties, or sixties, each which increases the demand on the human mind; the decimal system of positional naming Positional names are produced by a series of consistent operations. We call those series of consistent operations ‘functions’. By analogy we (unfortunately) called all such functions numbers: a convenient fiction. Because of positional naming all positional names (numbers) are context independent, scale independent, constant relations, descriptively parsimonious and closed to interpretation. So unlike other nouns (names), they are almost impossible to misinterpret by processes of conflation (adding information), and are impossible to further deflate (removing information). Any other information we desire to add to the noun,( by which we mean name, positional name, number) must be provided by analogy to a context: application. Numbers exist as positional names of constant relations. Those constant relations are scale-independent, context-dependent, informationally parsimonious, and nearly impossible to conflate with information that will allow for misinterpretation or deception. As such, numbers allow us to perform DEDUCTIONS that other names, that lack constant relations, scale independence, context dependence, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility do not. Because deduction is possible wherever constant relations, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility are present. As such, numbers serve as a method of verbal reasoning within and beyond the limits of human imagination (cognition), short term memory, and ordinary reason. Numbers then are simply a very clean set of nouns(positional names), verbs (operations and functions), including tests of positional relations (comparison operators) that allow us to describe, reason and discourse about that which is otherwise beyond our ordinary language, and mental capacity. As such we distinguish language, reason, and logic from numbers and measurement, and deduction both artificially and practically. Since while they consist of the same processes, the language of numbers, measurements, and deductions is simply more precise than the language of ordinary language, reason, and logic, if for no other reason than it is nearly closed to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, deceit, and the fictionalism of superstition, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience. Unfortunately, since to humans, that which allows them to perform such ‘seeming miracles’ that are otherwise beyond comprehension, must be justified, we invented various fictionalisms – primarily idealisms, or what philosophers refer to as platonisms – (mythologies) to explain our actions. To attribute comprehension to that which we did not comprehend. To provide authority by general rule to that which we could only demonstrate through repeated application. So mathematics maintains much of it’s ‘magical language’ and philosophers persist this magical language under the pseudo-rational label of ‘idealism’ or ‘abstraction’. Which roughly translates to “I don’t understand”. Perhaps more unfortunately, in the 19th century, with the addition of statistics and the application of mathematics to the inconstant relations of heuristic systems: particularly probability, fiat money, economics, finance, banking and commercial and tax accounting, this language no longer retains informational parsimony, and deducibility, and has instead evolved into a pseudoscience under which ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit are pervasive. Math is a very simple thing. It’s just ordinary language with positional names that allow us to give names and describe transformations to, that which is otherwise beyond our ability to imagine and recall, and therefore describe or reason with. Like everything else, if you make up stories of gods, demons, ghosts and monsters, or ‘abstractions’ or ‘ideals’ you can obscure the very simple causality that we seek to discover through science: the systematic attempt to remove error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our language of testimony about the world we perceive, cognate, remember, hypothesize within, act, advocate, negotiate, and cooperate within. Numbers are positional names of context-independent, scale-independent, informationally parsimonious, constant relations and mathematics consists of the grammar of that language. In other words, Math is an extension of ordinary language, ordinary reason, and ordinary science: the attempt by which we attempt to obtain information about our world within, above, and below human scale, by the use of rational and physical instrumentation, to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit from our descriptions, and as a consequence our language, and as a consequence our collective knowledge.

    MATH IS SIMPLE

    The foundations of mathematics are simple. The fact that they even phrase the question as such is hysterical. The reason mathematics is so powerful a tool is precisely because its foundations are so trivial. Like discourse on property in ethics and law, it is a word game because no one establishes sufficient limits under which the general term obscures a change in state. Math is very simple. Correspondence (what remains and what does not), Types, operations, grammar, syntax. Generally we use mathematics for the purpose of scale independence. in other words, we remove the property of scale from the set of correspondences. But we might also pass from physical dimensions to logical dimensions (there are only so many possible physical dimensions). So now we leave dimensional correspondence. In mathematics we remove time correspondence by default, and only add it in when we specifically want to make use of it. In sets we remove temporal and causal correspondence … at least in most cases. So we can add and remove many different correspondences, and work only with reciprocal (self referencing) correspondence (constant relations). But there is nothing magic here at all except for the fields (results) that can be produced by these different definitions as we use them to describe the consequences of using different values in different orders. But if you say “I want to study the parsimony, limits, and full accounting, of this set of types using this set of operations, with the common grammar and syntax” that is pretty much what someone means when they say ‘foundations’. Most of the time. Sometimes they have no clue. There is nothing much more difficult here in the ‘foundations’ so to speak. What’s hard in mathematics is holding operations, grammar and syntax constant, what happens as we use different correspondences (dimensions), types, and values in combination with others and yet others, to produce these various kinds of patterns that represent phenomenon that we want to describe. And what mathematicians find beautiful is that there is a bizarre set of regularities (that they call symmetries or some variation thereof), that emerge once you becomes skilled in these models, just like some games become predictable if you see a certain pattern. But really, math is interesting because by describing regular patterns that produce complex phenomenon, we are able to describe things very accurately that we cannot ‘see’ without math to help us find it. Its seems mystical. It isn’t. Its just the adult version of mommy saying ‘boo’ to the toddler and the joy he gets from the stimulation. There is nothing magical here. it’s creative, and interesting, but it’s just engineering with cheaper tools at lower risk: paper, pencil, and time. Simplicity is necessary in mathematics since mathematical symbols and operations itself (state and operators) are necessary to allow us to remember state with sufficient precision that we can conduct comparisons between states. However, if we restated the foundations of mathematics operationally (constructively – analogous to gears), and we stated the foundations of mathematical deduction negatively, as geometry, we would be able to show that it is convergence between the via-positiva construction, and the via-negative deduction that leads us to truth. Unfortunately, man discovered (logically so) geometry prior to gears, and as such, we retain the ‘superstitious’ language of geometry (and algebra) of the superstitious era in which both were invented. Reality has only so many dimensions. By adding and removing dimensions from consideration we simplify the problem of describing the constant relations within it. Mathematics specializes in the removal of (a) scale, and (b) time, and (c) operations (and arguable (d) morality) from consideration, leaving only identity, quantity, and ratio, to which we add positional naming (numbers). We then construct general rules of arbitrary precision (scale independence) and apply those to reality wherein we must ‘hydrate’ (reconstitute) scale, time, and operations(actions). So just as philosophy is ‘stuck’ in non contradiction instead of increasing dimensions in order to test theories, mathematics is ‘stuck’ in non-contradiction instead of re-hydrating (restoring dimensions) to justify propositions. In other words, fancy words like ‘limits’ or ‘non-contradictory’ or ‘axiom of choice’ and various other terms in the field are just nonsense words that prevent the conversion of mathematics from a fictionalism into a science.

    UNREASONABLE EFFECTIVENESS? NONSENSE.

    The “Unreasonable effectiveness” trope annoys the hell out of me. The only reason this ‘magical mathematics’ nonsense perpetuates, and the average person is still afraid of mathematics, is because it’s taught as a superstition. Math is trivial. 1 = any unitary measure. By the combination of some number of symbols – in the current case 0123456789, we can create positional names. By adding, subtracting units, and by adding and subtracting sets of units (multiplication and division), we can create positional names (numbers) for an unlimited set of positions. we can create names of positions in an unlimited number of directions (dimensions). We can create positions relative to any other position (relative positions). We can create changes in positions of relative positions.   producing numbers, sets, and fields, and topographies (many different fields. So the fact that math is ‘unreasonable’ is rather ridiculous. It’s people who are unreasonable. Math is TRIVIAL. Deduction in multiple dimensions is hard because we are not well suited to it. I mean, we have 26 letters, and 44 phonemes in the english language. If we were ‘elegant’ we might increase the 26 to 44 letters, so that english was easier to read. but look at what we can say with those 44 phonemes, 26 characters, and 250K words in some including terms, and maybe 200K words that are not archaic. There are roughly 100,000 word-families in the English language. A native English speaking person knows between 10,000 (uneducated) to 20,000 (educated) word families. A person needs to know 8,000-9,000 word families to enjoy reading a book. A person with a vocabulary size of 2,500 passive word-families and 2,000 active word-families can speak a language fluently. Of those we can pretty much COMMUNICATE anything, although in wordy prose, with only 300 words. Now think of how much MORE you can say in language than you can say in mathematics. Why should it surprise you that running around with a perfectly scalable yardstick that can measure any distance, allows you to measure and compare anything? It shouldn’t. It’s freaking obvious.

    REMOVING MATHEMATICS FROM PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY AND RETURNING IT TO THE SCIENCE OF MEASUREMENT.

    In mathematics, construction must be operationally possible (computable), even if the descriptions (proofs) are only deducible. Others only provide an IDEAL (logical) justification of why cantor is wrong, and not a REAL (scientific and operational) explanation of why he was wrong: that the technique (like gears) demonstrated something valuable: that the rate of production of positional names produces different sized sets regardless of the point of termination (scale or limit). Cantor is one step removed from theology(ideal by design), and speaking in philosophy (ideals), instead of speaking in mathematics (measurement) and science (operations). The depth of this statement allows us to repair mathematics and return it to a science of measurement, rather than this nonsensical platonism used today – a remnant of the ancient greeks.

    —“You’re saying all mathematical statements are true or false but the liar paradox is one example of an ordinary language sentence which hasn’t got a truth-value, right? Well, stated that way, I’d say you’re right about all of that, but are you also saying that the liar sentence expresses a proposition? That might be the part where it starts to get problematic.”—

    Good question. In short, we can ask a question, or we can assert an opinion, conflate the two, or we can speak nonsense. And only humans (so far) can ask, assert, conflate, and fail at all of them. But out of convenience, we subtract from the real to produce the ideal, and speak of the speech as if it can act on its own. Just to illustrate that the test we are performing (context) limits both what we are saying and what we can say. From the most decidable to the least:

    1 – The mathematical category of statements, (tautological) single category. (relative measure)

    2 – The ideal category of statements, (logical) multiple categories. (relative meaning)

    3 – The operational category of statements (existential possibility)

    (sequential possibility )

    4 – The correspondent (empirical) category of statements. all categories. ( full correspondence )

    5 – The rational category of statements ( an actor making rational choices) (‘praxeological’)

    6 – The ‘moral’ category of statements ( test of reciprocity)

    7 – The fully accounted category of statements (tests of scope)

    8 – The valued (loaded) category of statements. (full correspondence and loaded with subjective value)

    9 – The deceptive category of statements (suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and outright lying. We can speak a statement in any one or more of these (cumulative) contexts. So for example, statements are not true or false or unknowable, but the people who speak them speak truthfully, falsely, or undecidedly. So performatively (as you have mentioned) only people can make statements. However, to make our lives easier, we eliminate unnecessary dimensions of existence unused in our scope of inquiry, and we conflate terms across those dimensions of existence, and we very often don’t even understand ourselves what we are saying. (ie; a number consists of a function for producing a positional name, from an ordered series of symbols in some set of dimensions. Or, only people can act and therefore only people can assert, and therefore no assertions are true or false, the person speaking speaks truth or falsehood. etc.) This matters primarily because no dimensional subset in logic closed without appeal to the consequence dimensional subset. In other words, only reality provides full means of decidability. Or translated differently, there just as there is little action value in game theory and little action value in more than single regression analysis, there is little value after first-order logic, since decidability is provided by appeal to additional information in additional dimensions rather than its own. Which is, as far as I know, the principal lesson of analytic philosophy and the study of logic, of the 20th century. Or as I might restate it, we regress into deeper idealism through methodological specialization than is empirically demonstrable in the value returned. Then we export these ‘ideals’ as pseudosciences to the rest of the population. This leading to wonderful consequences like the Copenhagen consensus. Or the many-worlds hypothesis, or String Theory. Or Keynesian economics. Or the (exceedingly frustrating) nonsense the public seems to fascinate over as a substitute for numerology, astrology, magic, and the rigorous hard work required

    THE STATE OF MATHEMATICAL ECONOMICS

    Understanding advanced mathematics of economics and physics for ordinary people. The Mengerian revolution, which we call the Marginalist revolution, occurred when the people of the period applied calculus ( the mathematics of “relative motion”) to what had been largely a combination of accounting and algebra. 20th century economics can be seen largely as an attempt to apply the mathematics of relative motion (constant change) from mathematics of constant categories that we use in perfectly constant axiomatic systems, and the relatively constant mathematics of physical systems, to the mathematics of inconstant categories that we find in economics – because things on the market have a multitude of subsequent yet interdependent uses that are determined by ever-changing preferences, demands, availability, and shocks. Physics is a much harder problem than axiomatic mathematics. Economics is a much harder problem than mathematical physics, and before we head down this road (which I have been thinking about a long time) Sentience (the next dimension of complexity) is a much harder problem than economics. And there have been questions in the 20th century whether mathematics, as we understand it, can solve the hard problem of economics. But this is, as usual, a problem of misunderstanding the very simple nature of mathematics as the study of constant relations. Most human use of mathematics consists of the study of trivial constant relations such as quantities of objects, physical measurements. Or changes in state over time. Or relative motion in time. And this constitutes the four dimensions we can conceive of when discussing real-world physical phenomenon. So in our simplistic view of mathematics, we think in terms of small numbers of causal relations. But, it does not reflect the number of POSSIBLE causal relations. In other words, we change from the position of observing a change in state by things humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density higher than humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density such that every act of measurement distorts what humans can observe and act upon, by distorting the causality. One of our discoveries in mathematical physics, is that as things move along a trajectory, they are affected by high causal density, and change through many different states during that time period. Such that causal density is so high that it is very hard to reduce change in state of many dimensions of constant relations to a trivial value: meaning a measurement or state that we can predict. Instead we fine a range of output constant relations, which we call probabilistic. So that instead of a say, a point as a measurement, we fined a line, or a triangle, or a multi dimensional geometry that the resulting state will fit within. However, we can, with some work identify what we might call sums or aggregates (which are simple sets of relationships) but what higher mathematicians refer to as patterns, ‘symmetries’ or ‘geometries’. And these patterns refer to a set of constant relations in ‘space’ (on a coordinate system of sorts) that seem to emerge regardless of differences in the causes that produce them. These patterns, symmetries, or geometries reflect a set of constant relationships that are the product of inconstant causal operations. And when you refer to a ‘number’, a pattern, a symmetry, or a geometry, or what is called a non-euclidian geometry, we are merely talking about the number of dimensions of constant relations we are talking about, and using ‘space’ as the analogy that the human mind is able to grasp. Unfortunately, mathematics has not ‘reformed’ itself into operational language as have the physical sciences – and remains like the social sciences and philosophy a bastion of archaic language. But we can reduce this archaic language into meaningful operational terms as nothing more than sets of constant relations between measurements, consisting of a dimension per measurement, which we represent as a field (flat), euclidian geometry (possible geometry), or post Euclidian geometry (physically impossible but logically useful) geometry of constant relations. And more importantly, once we can identify these patterns, symmetries, or geometries that arise from complex causal density consisting of seemingly unrelated causal operations, we have found a constant by which to measure that which is causally dense but consequentially constant. So think of the current need for reform in economics to refer to and require a transition from the measurement of numeric (trivial) values, to the analysis of (non-trivial) consequent geometries. These constant states (geometries) constitute the aggregate operations in economies. The unintended but constant consequences of causally dense actions. Think of it like using fingers to make a shadow puppet. If you put a lot of people together between the light and the shadow, you can form the same pattern in the shadow despite very different combinations of fingers, hands, and arms. But because of the limits of the human anatomy, there are certain patterns more likely to emerge than others. Now imagine we do that in three dimensions. Now (if you can) four, and so on. At some point we can’t imagine these things. Because we have moved beyond what is possible to that which is only analogous to the possible: a set of constant relations in multiple dimensions. So economics then can evolve from the study of inputs and outputs without intermediary state which allows prediction, to the study of the consequence of inputs and the range of possible outputs that will likely produce predictability. in other words, it is possible to define constant relations in economics. And of course it is possible to define constant relations in sentience. The same is true for the operations possible by mankind. There are many possible, but there are only so many that produce a condition of natural law: reciprocity. Like I’ve said. Math isn’t complicated if you understand that it’s nothing more than saying “this stone represents one of our sheep”. And in doing so produce a constant relation. all we do is increase the quantity of constant relations we must measure. And from them deduce what we do not know, but is necessary because of those constant relations. Math is simple. That’s why it works for just about everything: we can define a correspondence with anything. As far as I know, all truth refers to testimony and we use the term ‘True’ ‘loosely’ for many purposes – largely ‘consent’. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0). We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations). We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false. As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify. In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass). Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination. Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality. This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics). GAIN: OPERATIONS (REAL) VS SETS (IDEAL) – CANTOR AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM IN MATHEMATICS AND BY EXTENSION EVERYTHING.

    —”Ok but Cantor’s work is specifically set-theoretic, not analytical. Also, an infinite sum is by definition a sum over a countable set. So cantor’s notions are in fact relevant for this.”—Alex Pareto Yes it is a sacred cow because people who are (knowingly or unknowingly) mathematical platonists are just as indoctrinated into superstitious nonsense as people who are indoctrinated into platonism proper, and people indoctrinated into theology. They know how to DO what they do (meaning make arguments with the objects, relations, and values of their vocabulary and grammar) but they don’t know how and why what they do functions. Frequencies are the scientific description and infinities (sizes) the fictional (imaginary) description. The difference is that those of us who work in the sciences, where we CANNOT engage in Platonism, because that is the purpose of science: to prevent such ‘magical’ speech, and instead force us to undrestand the causal relations between reality and our speech. So in this case a number consists of nothing more than the name of a position. That’s it. Mathematics consists of the vocabulary and grammar of positional names. Nothing more. Period. We generate positional names by the process of positional naming. We can scientifically describe that process as did Babbage, Turing, and Computer Science (consisting of nothing but addition), with gears, or the positional equivalent of gears (positional names), or the electronic-switch(memory) of positional names, and use these gears to produce positional names and operations on positional names at varying speeds. We can also tell a ‘story’ about those things (a fiction) which is what we do with literary, symbolic, and set mathematics. And then we can tell a fairy tale about sets, as if they are an equivalent to red riding hood. But no matter what we do, operationally, (scientifically) all we can do is produce a series of positional names faster or slower than another series of positional names. Ergo, there exists only one name “infinity” for “unknown limit of operations” and different rates (frequencies) by which we generate positional names, using any set of operations with which we produce positional names. This is why mathematics ‘went off the rails’ into fictionalism despite Poincare’s and others efforts at the beginning of the 20th century. Math is just the use of positional names which have only one property: position, and therefore only ONE constant relation: position. All logic consists of the study of constant relations, and as such mathematics provides the most commensurable language of constant relations, since it has only ONE constant relation: position.

  • Mathematics

    REFORMING MATHEMATICS

    “Mathematics, by the virtue of consisting of nothing other than positional names, preserves constant relations, since only constant relations are expressible in the grammar of mathematics: the grammar of positional names.”

    The discipline we call computer science is more generally the logic of operations, and is superior in informational density to mathematics in that it is causal and mathematics is merely descriptive.”

    THE FOUNDATIONS OF EVERYTHING: DIFFERENCES

    differences( logic ) > speech > sets > agorithms > mathematics

    MATH CONFUSED US.

    In mathematics, at least, for the most part, the means of conducting operations to solve a problem is nearly identical to the means of demonstrating the construction of a solution using existentially possible operations. We sought to copy mathematics – starting with the Greeks.  But we lacked the understanding of why math was so effective at the ascertaining truth of relations: because there is very little difference between the process of theorizing and the process of construction.

    FOUNDATIONS OF LOGIC

    The foundations of logic like those of mathematics are terribly simple as subsets of reality. But by doubling down in the 19th and 20th centuries all we have found is that we say rather nonsensical terms like ‘the axiom of choice’ or ‘limits’ rather than ‘undecidable without appeal to information provided by existential context’. After all, math is just the discipline of scale-independent measurement, and the deduction that is possible given the precision of constant relations using identical unitary measures. Logic is nothing more than than set operations. Algorithms are nothing more than sequential operations restoring time. Operations are nothing more than algorithms restoring physical transformation, time and cost. etc. As a consequence, I find most of this kind of terminological discourse … silly hermeneutics. As Poincare stated ‘that isn’t math its philosophy’. Or as I would say, ‘with platonism we depart science and join theology. It may be secular theology in that it is ideal rather than supernatural, but it is theology none the less’. it is one thing to say ‘by convention in math (or logic or whatever dimension we speak of) we use this colloquialism (half-truth) as a matter of convenience. It is not ‘true’. It is just the best approximation given the brevity we exercise in simplifying our work. There exists only one possible ‘True’: the most parsimonious and correspondent testimony one can speak in the available language in the given context. Everything else is a convention. Ergo, if you do not know the operational construction of the terms that you use, you do not know of what you speak. That does not mean you cannot speak truth any more than monkey cannot accidentally type one of the Sonnets. This is why the operationalist movement in math we call Intuitionism failed. Anyway. Well-formed (grammatically correct) statements in math may or may not be decidable but our intention is to produce decidable statements. In symbolic logic, well formed (grammatically correct) statements may or may not be decidable. in logic (language), well-formed (grammatically correct) statements are difficult to construct because of the categorical difference between constant relations (ideals in math), constant categories (ideals in formal logic), and inconstant categories (ordinary language). Furthermore, the process of DEDUCTION using premises (or logical summation) limits us to the utility of true statements. Ergo for that purpose statements can only evaluate to true or not-true (including false and undecidable). While for the purpose of INDUCTION (transfer of meaning by seeding free association, or the construction of possibility by the same means) seeks only possibility or impossibility not truth or falsehood. How can you claim to make a truth proposition and demand precise language when your premises are mere demonstrably falsehoods used by convention?

    NUMBERS

    Nouns are names. Numbers are nouns. Numbers evolved as positional names. Numbers are positional names of constant relations. As positional names, they are extensions of ordinary language. Math: the science of measurement by the use of constant relations.” We use many positional names: none, one, and some, short medium and tall; small, medium, and large; front, middle, and back; right center and left; port and starboard; daughter, mother, and grandmother; Numbers differ from ordinary nouns only in that we produce them by positional naming. Whereas early positional names varied from one two and many, to base ten, or base twelve, or in the twenties, or sixties, each which increases the demand on the human mind; the decimal system of positional naming Positional names are produced by a series of consistent operations. We call those series of consistent operations ‘functions’. By analogy we (unfortunately) called all such functions numbers: a convenient fiction. Because of positional naming all positional names (numbers) are context independent, scale independent, constant relations, descriptively parsimonious and closed to interpretation. So unlike other nouns (names), they are almost impossible to misinterpret by processes of conflation (adding information), and are impossible to further deflate (removing information). Any other information we desire to add to the noun,( by which we mean name, positional name, number) must be provided by analogy to a context: application. Numbers exist as positional names of constant relations. Those constant relations are scale-independent, context-dependent, informationally parsimonious, and nearly impossible to conflate with information that will allow for misinterpretation or deception. As such, numbers allow us to perform DEDUCTIONS that other names, that lack constant relations, scale independence, context dependence, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility do not. Because deduction is possible wherever constant relations, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility are present. As such, numbers serve as a method of verbal reasoning within and beyond the limits of human imagination (cognition), short term memory, and ordinary reason. Numbers then are simply a very clean set of nouns(positional names), verbs (operations and functions), including tests of positional relations (comparison operators) that allow us to describe, reason and discourse about that which is otherwise beyond our ordinary language, and mental capacity. As such we distinguish language, reason, and logic from numbers and measurement, and deduction both artificially and practically. Since while they consist of the same processes, the language of numbers, measurements, and deductions is simply more precise than the language of ordinary language, reason, and logic, if for no other reason than it is nearly closed to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, deceit, and the fictionalism of superstition, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience. Unfortunately, since to humans, that which allows them to perform such ‘seeming miracles’ that are otherwise beyond comprehension, must be justified, we invented various fictionalisms – primarily idealisms, or what philosophers refer to as platonisms – (mythologies) to explain our actions. To attribute comprehension to that which we did not comprehend. To provide authority by general rule to that which we could only demonstrate through repeated application. So mathematics maintains much of it’s ‘magical language’ and philosophers persist this magical language under the pseudo-rational label of ‘idealism’ or ‘abstraction’. Which roughly translates to “I don’t understand”. Perhaps more unfortunately, in the 19th century, with the addition of statistics and the application of mathematics to the inconstant relations of heuristic systems: particularly probability, fiat money, economics, finance, banking and commercial and tax accounting, this language no longer retains informational parsimony, and deducibility, and has instead evolved into a pseudoscience under which ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit are pervasive. Math is a very simple thing. It’s just ordinary language with positional names that allow us to give names and describe transformations to, that which is otherwise beyond our ability to imagine and recall, and therefore describe or reason with. Like everything else, if you make up stories of gods, demons, ghosts and monsters, or ‘abstractions’ or ‘ideals’ you can obscure the very simple causality that we seek to discover through science: the systematic attempt to remove error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our language of testimony about the world we perceive, cognate, remember, hypothesize within, act, advocate, negotiate, and cooperate within. Numbers are positional names of context-independent, scale-independent, informationally parsimonious, constant relations and mathematics consists of the grammar of that language. In other words, Math is an extension of ordinary language, ordinary reason, and ordinary science: the attempt by which we attempt to obtain information about our world within, above, and below human scale, by the use of rational and physical instrumentation, to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit from our descriptions, and as a consequence our language, and as a consequence our collective knowledge.

    MATH IS SIMPLE

    The foundations of mathematics are simple. The fact that they even phrase the question as such is hysterical. The reason mathematics is so powerful a tool is precisely because its foundations are so trivial. Like discourse on property in ethics and law, it is a word game because no one establishes sufficient limits under which the general term obscures a change in state. Math is very simple. Correspondence (what remains and what does not), Types, operations, grammar, syntax. Generally we use mathematics for the purpose of scale independence. in other words, we remove the property of scale from the set of correspondences. But we might also pass from physical dimensions to logical dimensions (there are only so many possible physical dimensions). So now we leave dimensional correspondence. In mathematics we remove time correspondence by default, and only add it in when we specifically want to make use of it. In sets we remove temporal and causal correspondence … at least in most cases. So we can add and remove many different correspondences, and work only with reciprocal (self referencing) correspondence (constant relations). But there is nothing magic here at all except for the fields (results) that can be produced by these different definitions as we use them to describe the consequences of using different values in different orders. But if you say “I want to study the parsimony, limits, and full accounting, of this set of types using this set of operations, with the common grammar and syntax” that is pretty much what someone means when they say ‘foundations’. Most of the time. Sometimes they have no clue. There is nothing much more difficult here in the ‘foundations’ so to speak. What’s hard in mathematics is holding operations, grammar and syntax constant, what happens as we use different correspondences (dimensions), types, and values in combination with others and yet others, to produce these various kinds of patterns that represent phenomenon that we want to describe. And what mathematicians find beautiful is that there is a bizarre set of regularities (that they call symmetries or some variation thereof), that emerge once you becomes skilled in these models, just like some games become predictable if you see a certain pattern. But really, math is interesting because by describing regular patterns that produce complex phenomenon, we are able to describe things very accurately that we cannot ‘see’ without math to help us find it. Its seems mystical. It isn’t. Its just the adult version of mommy saying ‘boo’ to the toddler and the joy he gets from the stimulation. There is nothing magical here. it’s creative, and interesting, but it’s just engineering with cheaper tools at lower risk: paper, pencil, and time. Simplicity is necessary in mathematics since mathematical symbols and operations itself (state and operators) are necessary to allow us to remember state with sufficient precision that we can conduct comparisons between states. However, if we restated the foundations of mathematics operationally (constructively – analogous to gears), and we stated the foundations of mathematical deduction negatively, as geometry, we would be able to show that it is convergence between the via-positiva construction, and the via-negative deduction that leads us to truth. Unfortunately, man discovered (logically so) geometry prior to gears, and as such, we retain the ‘superstitious’ language of geometry (and algebra) of the superstitious era in which both were invented. Reality has only so many dimensions. By adding and removing dimensions from consideration we simplify the problem of describing the constant relations within it. Mathematics specializes in the removal of (a) scale, and (b) time, and (c) operations (and arguable (d) morality) from consideration, leaving only identity, quantity, and ratio, to which we add positional naming (numbers). We then construct general rules of arbitrary precision (scale independence) and apply those to reality wherein we must ‘hydrate’ (reconstitute) scale, time, and operations(actions). So just as philosophy is ‘stuck’ in non contradiction instead of increasing dimensions in order to test theories, mathematics is ‘stuck’ in non-contradiction instead of re-hydrating (restoring dimensions) to justify propositions. In other words, fancy words like ‘limits’ or ‘non-contradictory’ or ‘axiom of choice’ and various other terms in the field are just nonsense words that prevent the conversion of mathematics from a fictionalism into a science.

    UNREASONABLE EFFECTIVENESS? NONSENSE.

    The “Unreasonable effectiveness” trope annoys the hell out of me. The only reason this ‘magical mathematics’ nonsense perpetuates, and the average person is still afraid of mathematics, is because it’s taught as a superstition. Math is trivial. 1 = any unitary measure. By the combination of some number of symbols – in the current case 0123456789, we can create positional names. By adding, subtracting units, and by adding and subtracting sets of units (multiplication and division), we can create positional names (numbers) for an unlimited set of positions. we can create names of positions in an unlimited number of directions (dimensions). We can create positions relative to any other position (relative positions). We can create changes in positions of relative positions.   producing numbers, sets, and fields, and topographies (many different fields. So the fact that math is ‘unreasonable’ is rather ridiculous. It’s people who are unreasonable. Math is TRIVIAL. Deduction in multiple dimensions is hard because we are not well suited to it. I mean, we have 26 letters, and 44 phonemes in the english language. If we were ‘elegant’ we might increase the 26 to 44 letters, so that english was easier to read. but look at what we can say with those 44 phonemes, 26 characters, and 250K words in some including terms, and maybe 200K words that are not archaic. There are roughly 100,000 word-families in the English language. A native English speaking person knows between 10,000 (uneducated) to 20,000 (educated) word families. A person needs to know 8,000-9,000 word families to enjoy reading a book. A person with a vocabulary size of 2,500 passive word-families and 2,000 active word-families can speak a language fluently. Of those we can pretty much COMMUNICATE anything, although in wordy prose, with only 300 words. Now think of how much MORE you can say in language than you can say in mathematics. Why should it surprise you that running around with a perfectly scalable yardstick that can measure any distance, allows you to measure and compare anything? It shouldn’t. It’s freaking obvious.

    REMOVING MATHEMATICS FROM PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY AND RETURNING IT TO THE SCIENCE OF MEASUREMENT.

    In mathematics, construction must be operationally possible (computable), even if the descriptions (proofs) are only deducible. Others only provide an IDEAL (logical) justification of why cantor is wrong, and not a REAL (scientific and operational) explanation of why he was wrong: that the technique (like gears) demonstrated something valuable: that the rate of production of positional names produces different sized sets regardless of the point of termination (scale or limit). Cantor is one step removed from theology(ideal by design), and speaking in philosophy (ideals), instead of speaking in mathematics (measurement) and science (operations). The depth of this statement allows us to repair mathematics and return it to a science of measurement, rather than this nonsensical platonism used today – a remnant of the ancient greeks.

    —“You’re saying all mathematical statements are true or false but the liar paradox is one example of an ordinary language sentence which hasn’t got a truth-value, right? Well, stated that way, I’d say you’re right about all of that, but are you also saying that the liar sentence expresses a proposition? That might be the part where it starts to get problematic.”—

    Good question. In short, we can ask a question, or we can assert an opinion, conflate the two, or we can speak nonsense. And only humans (so far) can ask, assert, conflate, and fail at all of them. But out of convenience, we subtract from the real to produce the ideal, and speak of the speech as if it can act on its own. Just to illustrate that the test we are performing (context) limits both what we are saying and what we can say. From the most decidable to the least:

    1 – The mathematical category of statements, (tautological) single category. (relative measure)

    2 – The ideal category of statements, (logical) multiple categories. (relative meaning)

    3 – The operational category of statements (existential possibility)

    (sequential possibility )

    4 – The correspondent (empirical) category of statements. all categories. ( full correspondence )

    5 – The rational category of statements ( an actor making rational choices) (‘praxeological’)

    6 – The ‘moral’ category of statements ( test of reciprocity)

    7 – The fully accounted category of statements (tests of scope)

    8 – The valued (loaded) category of statements. (full correspondence and loaded with subjective value)

    9 – The deceptive category of statements (suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and outright lying. We can speak a statement in any one or more of these (cumulative) contexts. So for example, statements are not true or false or unknowable, but the people who speak them speak truthfully, falsely, or undecidedly. So performatively (as you have mentioned) only people can make statements. However, to make our lives easier, we eliminate unnecessary dimensions of existence unused in our scope of inquiry, and we conflate terms across those dimensions of existence, and we very often don’t even understand ourselves what we are saying. (ie; a number consists of a function for producing a positional name, from an ordered series of symbols in some set of dimensions. Or, only people can act and therefore only people can assert, and therefore no assertions are true or false, the person speaking speaks truth or falsehood. etc.) This matters primarily because no dimensional subset in logic closed without appeal to the consequence dimensional subset. In other words, only reality provides full means of decidability. Or translated differently, there just as there is little action value in game theory and little action value in more than single regression analysis, there is little value after first-order logic, since decidability is provided by appeal to additional information in additional dimensions rather than its own. Which is, as far as I know, the principal lesson of analytic philosophy and the study of logic, of the 20th century. Or as I might restate it, we regress into deeper idealism through methodological specialization than is empirically demonstrable in the value returned. Then we export these ‘ideals’ as pseudosciences to the rest of the population. This leading to wonderful consequences like the Copenhagen consensus. Or the many-worlds hypothesis, or String Theory. Or Keynesian economics. Or the (exceedingly frustrating) nonsense the public seems to fascinate over as a substitute for numerology, astrology, magic, and the rigorous hard work required

    THE STATE OF MATHEMATICAL ECONOMICS

    Understanding advanced mathematics of economics and physics for ordinary people. The Mengerian revolution, which we call the Marginalist revolution, occurred when the people of the period applied calculus ( the mathematics of “relative motion”) to what had been largely a combination of accounting and algebra. 20th century economics can be seen largely as an attempt to apply the mathematics of relative motion (constant change) from mathematics of constant categories that we use in perfectly constant axiomatic systems, and the relatively constant mathematics of physical systems, to the mathematics of inconstant categories that we find in economics – because things on the market have a multitude of subsequent yet interdependent uses that are determined by ever-changing preferences, demands, availability, and shocks. Physics is a much harder problem than axiomatic mathematics. Economics is a much harder problem than mathematical physics, and before we head down this road (which I have been thinking about a long time) Sentience (the next dimension of complexity) is a much harder problem than economics. And there have been questions in the 20th century whether mathematics, as we understand it, can solve the hard problem of economics. But this is, as usual, a problem of misunderstanding the very simple nature of mathematics as the study of constant relations. Most human use of mathematics consists of the study of trivial constant relations such as quantities of objects, physical measurements. Or changes in state over time. Or relative motion in time. And this constitutes the four dimensions we can conceive of when discussing real-world physical phenomenon. So in our simplistic view of mathematics, we think in terms of small numbers of causal relations. But, it does not reflect the number of POSSIBLE causal relations. In other words, we change from the position of observing a change in state by things humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density higher than humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density such that every act of measurement distorts what humans can observe and act upon, by distorting the causality. One of our discoveries in mathematical physics, is that as things move along a trajectory, they are affected by high causal density, and change through many different states during that time period. Such that causal density is so high that it is very hard to reduce change in state of many dimensions of constant relations to a trivial value: meaning a measurement or state that we can predict. Instead we fine a range of output constant relations, which we call probabilistic. So that instead of a say, a point as a measurement, we fined a line, or a triangle, or a multi dimensional geometry that the resulting state will fit within. However, we can, with some work identify what we might call sums or aggregates (which are simple sets of relationships) but what higher mathematicians refer to as patterns, ‘symmetries’ or ‘geometries’. And these patterns refer to a set of constant relations in ‘space’ (on a coordinate system of sorts) that seem to emerge regardless of differences in the causes that produce them. These patterns, symmetries, or geometries reflect a set of constant relationships that are the product of inconstant causal operations. And when you refer to a ‘number’, a pattern, a symmetry, or a geometry, or what is called a non-euclidian geometry, we are merely talking about the number of dimensions of constant relations we are talking about, and using ‘space’ as the analogy that the human mind is able to grasp. Unfortunately, mathematics has not ‘reformed’ itself into operational language as have the physical sciences – and remains like the social sciences and philosophy a bastion of archaic language. But we can reduce this archaic language into meaningful operational terms as nothing more than sets of constant relations between measurements, consisting of a dimension per measurement, which we represent as a field (flat), euclidian geometry (possible geometry), or post Euclidian geometry (physically impossible but logically useful) geometry of constant relations. And more importantly, once we can identify these patterns, symmetries, or geometries that arise from complex causal density consisting of seemingly unrelated causal operations, we have found a constant by which to measure that which is causally dense but consequentially constant. So think of the current need for reform in economics to refer to and require a transition from the measurement of numeric (trivial) values, to the analysis of (non-trivial) consequent geometries. These constant states (geometries) constitute the aggregate operations in economies. The unintended but constant consequences of causally dense actions. Think of it like using fingers to make a shadow puppet. If you put a lot of people together between the light and the shadow, you can form the same pattern in the shadow despite very different combinations of fingers, hands, and arms. But because of the limits of the human anatomy, there are certain patterns more likely to emerge than others. Now imagine we do that in three dimensions. Now (if you can) four, and so on. At some point we can’t imagine these things. Because we have moved beyond what is possible to that which is only analogous to the possible: a set of constant relations in multiple dimensions. So economics then can evolve from the study of inputs and outputs without intermediary state which allows prediction, to the study of the consequence of inputs and the range of possible outputs that will likely produce predictability. in other words, it is possible to define constant relations in economics. And of course it is possible to define constant relations in sentience. The same is true for the operations possible by mankind. There are many possible, but there are only so many that produce a condition of natural law: reciprocity. Like I’ve said. Math isn’t complicated if you understand that it’s nothing more than saying “this stone represents one of our sheep”. And in doing so produce a constant relation. all we do is increase the quantity of constant relations we must measure. And from them deduce what we do not know, but is necessary because of those constant relations. Math is simple. That’s why it works for just about everything: we can define a correspondence with anything. As far as I know, all truth refers to testimony and we use the term ‘True’ ‘loosely’ for many purposes – largely ‘consent’. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0). We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations). We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false. As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify. In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass). Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination. Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality. This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics). GAIN: OPERATIONS (REAL) VS SETS (IDEAL) – CANTOR AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM IN MATHEMATICS AND BY EXTENSION EVERYTHING.

    —”Ok but Cantor’s work is specifically set-theoretic, not analytical. Also, an infinite sum is by definition a sum over a countable set. So cantor’s notions are in fact relevant for this.”—Alex Pareto Yes it is a sacred cow because people who are (knowingly or unknowingly) mathematical platonists are just as indoctrinated into superstitious nonsense as people who are indoctrinated into platonism proper, and people indoctrinated into theology. They know how to DO what they do (meaning make arguments with the objects, relations, and values of their vocabulary and grammar) but they don’t know how and why what they do functions. Frequencies are the scientific description and infinities (sizes) the fictional (imaginary) description. The difference is that those of us who work in the sciences, where we CANNOT engage in Platonism, because that is the purpose of science: to prevent such ‘magical’ speech, and instead force us to undrestand the causal relations between reality and our speech. So in this case a number consists of nothing more than the name of a position. That’s it. Mathematics consists of the vocabulary and grammar of positional names. Nothing more. Period. We generate positional names by the process of positional naming. We can scientifically describe that process as did Babbage, Turing, and Computer Science (consisting of nothing but addition), with gears, or the positional equivalent of gears (positional names), or the electronic-switch(memory) of positional names, and use these gears to produce positional names and operations on positional names at varying speeds. We can also tell a ‘story’ about those things (a fiction) which is what we do with literary, symbolic, and set mathematics. And then we can tell a fairy tale about sets, as if they are an equivalent to red riding hood. But no matter what we do, operationally, (scientifically) all we can do is produce a series of positional names faster or slower than another series of positional names. Ergo, there exists only one name “infinity” for “unknown limit of operations” and different rates (frequencies) by which we generate positional names, using any set of operations with which we produce positional names. This is why mathematics ‘went off the rails’ into fictionalism despite Poincare’s and others efforts at the beginning of the 20th century. Math is just the use of positional names which have only one property: position, and therefore only ONE constant relation: position. All logic consists of the study of constant relations, and as such mathematics provides the most commensurable language of constant relations, since it has only ONE constant relation: position.

  • Philosophy

    The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”

    Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics

    Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology

    Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD Ethics, morality, law, economics

    Law of Testimony – THE TRUE Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric

    Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness

    Mapping Natural Law to Philosophy and The Sciences

    Metaphysics:…………….Vitruvianism: Man is the measure of all things man (cog. sci.) Psychology: ……………..Acquisitionism: Man acquires and defends. Sociology: ………………..Compatibilism: Intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy wherein we combine information and calculate compatible means to the achievement of different ends through voluntary conflict, competition, cooperation, and boycott. Ethics and Morality:..Propertarianism. (Reciprocity) The Ethics of Non Imposition, production, and investment. Epistemology: …………Testimonialism. The competition between imaginary associations and existential measurements in all dimensions of actionable reality. Law: …………………………Algorithmic Natural Law. The Natural Law of Reciprocity. Strictly constructed from the test of reciprocity. Politics: ……………………Markets in Everything. (Which I call “Market Fascism” with tongue in cheek.) Strategy:………………….. Agency: Maximization of agency through Transcendence, Sovereignty, and Heroism Spirituality:………………Transcendence: Masculine Stoicism, Feminine Epicureanism, Ritual Familialism, Feast Naturalism,…….Festival Nationalism Aesthetics:……………….,Truth(Testimonial), Excellence(Density), Goodness(Morality[‘the commons’]) and Beauty(Bounty).

    There Is Only One ‘Philosophy’ If We Speak The Truth. The Rest Is Ignorance, Error, Bias, And Lies

    One can teach philosophy as historical LITERATURE(Errors, Lies and Failures). Or one can teach philosophy as the evolution of TRUTH TELLING (science). If you want to teach the history of TRUTH then you teach western philosophy – at least you teach a small subset of it. (A very small one). If you do teach truth then philosophy is equivalent to a STEM course SEQUENCE: 1 – Philosophy (science of truthful speech) 2 – Law (social/cooperative science) 3 – Economics (organizational science) 4 – Mathematics ( science of measurement ) 5 – Physical Science (physical sciences of the universe) 6 – Technology (physical sciences in materials) 7 – Engineering, (physical sciences in construction) If you want to teach literature, then teach moral literature. SEQUENCE: 1 – Mythology, (Non-Conflationary Analogy) 2 – Theology, (Authoritarian/Conflationary Analogy) — 3 – Moral Literature, <<—- Almost All ‘Philosophy’ 4 – The Novel and Short Story, <<— Incl., Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Mystery, Etc. — 5 – History, (description) 6 – Biography,(description) — 7 – Argument (coercion) 7 – Essay (opinion) 8 – Poetry and Verse. (expression) WE MAY DIVERSIFY LITERATURE BY CULTURE LIKE DIET, AND FESTIVALS. But truth bears no competition. Polylogism cannot exist. All such attempts are merely ignorance, error, bias, and lies. THE WEST EXCEEDED THE REST THREE TIMES. In the Steppe.(horse, wheel, bronze, heroism (and technology)) In the Ancient World (heroism, truth, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, and technology) In the Modern World. (heroism, truth, trust, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, accounting, common law, and technology ) For these simple reasons: Truth not compromise, Analytic(non-conflationary), not conflationary, Competition(sovereignty), not Decision(rule). OTHERS MUST LEARN TRUTH. WE DO NOT NEED TO STUDY ERROR. LIMITS: SPEAKING IN SEQUENCES (SPECTRA) I follow a general rule that if I speak in ideal types (concepts) and I cannot position an argument or idea on a spectrum (define its limits) then I do not know what I am talking about, and will unknowingly engage in conflation and imprecision from which no deduction is possible, since each attempt merely amplifies errors of conflation. Yet this is precisely what men do, because most men do not seek to discover uncomfortable (expensive) truth (requiring adaptation) but to justify a utilitarian falsehood (limit costs of adaptation). PHILOSOPHY = CHOICE/PREFERENCE + DECIDABILITY/NECESSITY Any Philosophical Framework, no matter which argumentative method is used to construct it (myth, parable, rationalism, pseudoscience, law, or science) must supply the following in order to produce a change in state of the human mind: 1 – Metaphysical value judgment as to man’s relation with reality (usually if not always unstated). 2 – A set of Concepts, Properties, and Relations, 3 – Values for those Concepts and Relations, 4 – Decidability from those concepts, properties, relations, and values. And in that metaphysical value judgment, and by the means of arguing in favor of it, do we find the differences between civilizations, religions, and philosophies. METAPHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS – The world is uncontrollable(or evil) and I must escape from it. (Mysticism/Judaism/Christianity/Islam = ‘Critique/gossip’ or ‘fantasy worlds’ or ‘utopias’) – The world is hostile and I can only control how I respond to it (Buddhism = Disengagement) – The world of man is chaos but we can create harmony, and I must learn to live in harmony with it (Confucianism = Historicism) – The world is vast and I can only control and be responsible for what I have the ability to control and be responsible for. (Stoicism = Natural Law) – The purpose of my existence is to alter the world for the better having existed in it. (Heroism = Technology) ASSUMPTIONS ARE EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES We are (genetically, behaviorally, materially) more or less desirable to others in our capacity as children, kin, mates, friends, allies, leaders, rulers. We call this our ‘class’: Genetic, Occupational, Economic, Social. All of which overlap except for the outliers. . STRATEGIES ARE GOOD(LIBERATING) AND BAD(IMPRISONING), NOT MERELY DIFFERENCES IN PREFERENCES So some strategies will lead you into dysgenia, ignorance, decline, poverty and illness (ISLAM). And some strategies will lead you into slow evolution (Confucius), and some strategies will provide you with eugenics and rapid evolution (Western Aristocratic Egalitarianism “Aryanism”, Middle-Class Rule of Law, Working Class Stoicism, Underclass Christianity.) WESTERN PHILOSOPHY (HEROISM, LAW[natural empirical], TECHNOLOGY[science], REFLECTS CLASSES (just as Confucius vs Lao Tzu, just as Brahmins vs the Underclasses) Westerners do not engage in institutional conflation. We separate mythic literature(heroism), religion(sanctity), festival/celebration/sport, education, law, science. And we either produce a subset of each for each class, or we emphasize one or another in each class. In other words, we produce conceptual products for various markets (upper, professional, middle, working, lower, under). And because none has any real power via conflation of argument or institution, this market remains: a competition between philosophies (methods of decidability). WESTERNERS USE DECONFLATED INSTITUTIONS AND ARGUMENTS: SPECIALIZATION NOT UNIFORMITY This ‘deconflated market’ model is profoundly important when comparing the west to other ‘conflationary monopoly’ civilizations and cultures. THIS PROVIDES SPECIALIZATION IN EACH TYPE OF ARGUMENT, INSTITUTION It allows us to specialize in each without sacrificing each out of pragmatic necessity given the diverse abilities of each class (or rather lack of abilities of each class). THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE NOT (UNTIL NOW) HAD A UNIVERSAL COMMENSURABLE LANGUAGE ACROSS INSTITUTIONS AND ARGUMENT TYPES. While we have had MONEY to make commensurable good and services across all specializations While we have had NATURAL LAW to make conflict commensurable across all specializations. While we have had MATHEMATICS to make everything we measure commensurable across all specializations. While we have had NATURAL SCIENCE to We have NOT had a MORAL LANGUAGE OF COOPERATION across all those specializations. PHILOSOPHY IS LARGELY PRACTICED AS A MIDDLE CLASS AND UPPER MIDDLE-CLASS METHOD OF INFLUENCING THE RULING CLASS (STATUS QUO). Religion is largely practiced as a lower class means of resisting the ruling class (status quo). Religion coerces man by resistance. Credit and Trade are practiced as a means of rule by the economic class within the limits fo the religious and legal classes. Finance, Industry, Entrepreneurship, Calculative, Managerial, administrative specialize in organization of production Law is largely practiced as a means of administrative rule by the ruling class, by employing the professional class, just as war is practiced as a means of territorial rule by the ruling class by employing the working, and underclasses. Law coerces man by force. Science, technology, engineering, craftsmanship, and labor specialize in transformation (coercing the universe rather than coercing man). Women specialize in the organization of reproduction, care, and caretaking. They need no ‘religion’ except to confirm the intuitions that they are born with. Festivals, Philosophy, Soldiery are for men. And Religion, Feasts, and caretaking are for women. Not that we cannot preclude one or the other. But this explains the kind of information system (philosophy) we are attracted to: one that justifies our genetic predispositions. SO PHILOSOPHERS FAILED IN THE 20TH CENTURY 1 – Philosophers tried to make the discipline a SPECIALTY rather than a language of commensurability. (The continued investigation into Truth, since all the other specializations had broken off into sciences,) 2 – Philosophers tried to create a second set of lies, this time with pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience (the cosmopolitans:Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Adorno; Rand/Rothbard; and the Puritans: French, and American literary Postmodernists; And the secular Christians Rawls-and-too-many-others-to-list. ) 3 – Philosophers failed to solve the problem of the social sciences (cooperation) and instead used a multitude of deceptions and obscurantisms in order to justify authoritarianism(non-cooperation). This exposes most philosophers as theologians in secular rhetorical garb. PHILOSOPHERS EITHER ENGAGE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF TRUTH, THE ARTICULATION OF POSSIBILITY, OR THE CREATION OF A FICTION, OR THE CREATION OF DECEIT. Philosophers have a very poor record in history. Despite so many, it is largely those who struggle to discover empiricism and its offspring ‘testimony’ that have contributed to man. The rationalists are almost universally reducible to excuse makers, and those who attempt to create a rational literature with which to replace biblical literature of mysticism. Many people who enjoy philosophy are far closer to recreational readers of science fiction and fantasy with which to escape the effort of truth seeking in reality, than inquisitors into truth from which we may construct solutions. We can discover which of these a person is: recreational literature, seeker of a particular solution, or investigator of truth with very few questions and very little difficulty. Whenever we do not argue in favor of truth we merely deprive Man of the knowledge he needs to invent institutions of cooperation that assist us in cooperating in the real world. We can use the truth to identify possibilities, or we can deny the truth and create possibilities that require lies (religions) incompatible with reality. We can create deceptions with which to destroy truth or obscure it. It is quite easy in retrospect to determine which philosophers have done so. PHILOSOPHERS AS PROFITEERS ON THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION In other words, philosophers sought a market into which to sell their ideas for profit or coercion, not truth, regardless of profit or coercion. ROLE OF PHILOSOPHY? 1) Investigate and Prosecute Falsehoods And Their Advocates 2) Incorporate the findings of the sciences such that discover superior truths to those we use today. 3) Discover new possibilities having incorporated the findings of the sciences. 4) Articulate metaphysical representations, Reorganize Concepts, Properties, and Relations, Re-weight Values, and provide new criteria of Decidability. IS THERE A SPACE FOR LIARS? No. There is a space for parables. But liars, particularly philosophical liars, should be prosecuted like any other liar that creates a hazard in the commons. Most philosophers function akin to tiger traps baited with words and are completely unaccountable for the tragedy and death that they have caused. I am a philosopher. As such, a prosecutor. Anything that survives prosecution, and which I am willing to warranty with my life, is worthy of publication into the commons. If either of those conditions fails, then I should be punished for it. Why should philosophers have greater permissiveness than the manufacturers of ladders, and the brewers of coffee, or the makers of drugs? They shouldn’t. Because arguably, philosophers and theologians ship the worst product that causes the most harm of any product man has made. (I know. Everyone wants to play philosopher at everyone else’s expense just like they want to free-ride on everyone else in every other capacity in life. But speech produces consequences. And while we may always say truthful speech produces consequences that we must bear the cost of, there is no reason we must bear the cost of false speech. Especially given how much of it there is, and how expensive it has been for western civilization.) THE MOST IMPORTANT SEQUENCE – Testimony(what can I see not infer) – Vocabulary – Grammar – Logic(reason) and Measurement(math) – Natural Law – Micro Economics (incentives) – Strict Construction – Rhetoric (argument) Demarcation I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete. Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice. The top of the pyramid is not philosophy but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice. In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.

  • Philosophy

    The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”

    Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics

    Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology

    Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD Ethics, morality, law, economics

    Law of Testimony – THE TRUE Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric

    Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness

    Mapping Natural Law to Philosophy and The Sciences

    Metaphysics:…………….Vitruvianism: Man is the measure of all things man (cog. sci.) Psychology: ……………..Acquisitionism: Man acquires and defends. Sociology: ………………..Compatibilism: Intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy wherein we combine information and calculate compatible means to the achievement of different ends through voluntary conflict, competition, cooperation, and boycott. Ethics and Morality:..Propertarianism. (Reciprocity) The Ethics of Non Imposition, production, and investment. Epistemology: …………Testimonialism. The competition between imaginary associations and existential measurements in all dimensions of actionable reality. Law: …………………………Algorithmic Natural Law. The Natural Law of Reciprocity. Strictly constructed from the test of reciprocity. Politics: ……………………Markets in Everything. (Which I call “Market Fascism” with tongue in cheek.) Strategy:………………….. Agency: Maximization of agency through Transcendence, Sovereignty, and Heroism Spirituality:………………Transcendence: Masculine Stoicism, Feminine Epicureanism, Ritual Familialism, Feast Naturalism,…….Festival Nationalism Aesthetics:……………….,Truth(Testimonial), Excellence(Density), Goodness(Morality[‘the commons’]) and Beauty(Bounty).

    There Is Only One ‘Philosophy’ If We Speak The Truth. The Rest Is Ignorance, Error, Bias, And Lies

    One can teach philosophy as historical LITERATURE(Errors, Lies and Failures). Or one can teach philosophy as the evolution of TRUTH TELLING (science). If you want to teach the history of TRUTH then you teach western philosophy – at least you teach a small subset of it. (A very small one). If you do teach truth then philosophy is equivalent to a STEM course SEQUENCE: 1 – Philosophy (science of truthful speech) 2 – Law (social/cooperative science) 3 – Economics (organizational science) 4 – Mathematics ( science of measurement ) 5 – Physical Science (physical sciences of the universe) 6 – Technology (physical sciences in materials) 7 – Engineering, (physical sciences in construction) If you want to teach literature, then teach moral literature. SEQUENCE: 1 – Mythology, (Non-Conflationary Analogy) 2 – Theology, (Authoritarian/Conflationary Analogy) — 3 – Moral Literature, <<—- Almost All ‘Philosophy’ 4 – The Novel and Short Story, <<— Incl., Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Mystery, Etc. — 5 – History, (description) 6 – Biography,(description) — 7 – Argument (coercion) 7 – Essay (opinion) 8 – Poetry and Verse. (expression) WE MAY DIVERSIFY LITERATURE BY CULTURE LIKE DIET, AND FESTIVALS. But truth bears no competition. Polylogism cannot exist. All such attempts are merely ignorance, error, bias, and lies. THE WEST EXCEEDED THE REST THREE TIMES. In the Steppe.(horse, wheel, bronze, heroism (and technology)) In the Ancient World (heroism, truth, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, and technology) In the Modern World. (heroism, truth, trust, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, accounting, common law, and technology ) For these simple reasons: Truth not compromise, Analytic(non-conflationary), not conflationary, Competition(sovereignty), not Decision(rule). OTHERS MUST LEARN TRUTH. WE DO NOT NEED TO STUDY ERROR. LIMITS: SPEAKING IN SEQUENCES (SPECTRA) I follow a general rule that if I speak in ideal types (concepts) and I cannot position an argument or idea on a spectrum (define its limits) then I do not know what I am talking about, and will unknowingly engage in conflation and imprecision from which no deduction is possible, since each attempt merely amplifies errors of conflation. Yet this is precisely what men do, because most men do not seek to discover uncomfortable (expensive) truth (requiring adaptation) but to justify a utilitarian falsehood (limit costs of adaptation). PHILOSOPHY = CHOICE/PREFERENCE + DECIDABILITY/NECESSITY Any Philosophical Framework, no matter which argumentative method is used to construct it (myth, parable, rationalism, pseudoscience, law, or science) must supply the following in order to produce a change in state of the human mind: 1 – Metaphysical value judgment as to man’s relation with reality (usually if not always unstated). 2 – A set of Concepts, Properties, and Relations, 3 – Values for those Concepts and Relations, 4 – Decidability from those concepts, properties, relations, and values. And in that metaphysical value judgment, and by the means of arguing in favor of it, do we find the differences between civilizations, religions, and philosophies. METAPHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS – The world is uncontrollable(or evil) and I must escape from it. (Mysticism/Judaism/Christianity/Islam = ‘Critique/gossip’ or ‘fantasy worlds’ or ‘utopias’) – The world is hostile and I can only control how I respond to it (Buddhism = Disengagement) – The world of man is chaos but we can create harmony, and I must learn to live in harmony with it (Confucianism = Historicism) – The world is vast and I can only control and be responsible for what I have the ability to control and be responsible for. (Stoicism = Natural Law) – The purpose of my existence is to alter the world for the better having existed in it. (Heroism = Technology) ASSUMPTIONS ARE EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES We are (genetically, behaviorally, materially) more or less desirable to others in our capacity as children, kin, mates, friends, allies, leaders, rulers. We call this our ‘class’: Genetic, Occupational, Economic, Social. All of which overlap except for the outliers. . STRATEGIES ARE GOOD(LIBERATING) AND BAD(IMPRISONING), NOT MERELY DIFFERENCES IN PREFERENCES So some strategies will lead you into dysgenia, ignorance, decline, poverty and illness (ISLAM). And some strategies will lead you into slow evolution (Confucius), and some strategies will provide you with eugenics and rapid evolution (Western Aristocratic Egalitarianism “Aryanism”, Middle-Class Rule of Law, Working Class Stoicism, Underclass Christianity.) WESTERN PHILOSOPHY (HEROISM, LAW[natural empirical], TECHNOLOGY[science], REFLECTS CLASSES (just as Confucius vs Lao Tzu, just as Brahmins vs the Underclasses) Westerners do not engage in institutional conflation. We separate mythic literature(heroism), religion(sanctity), festival/celebration/sport, education, law, science. And we either produce a subset of each for each class, or we emphasize one or another in each class. In other words, we produce conceptual products for various markets (upper, professional, middle, working, lower, under). And because none has any real power via conflation of argument or institution, this market remains: a competition between philosophies (methods of decidability). WESTERNERS USE DECONFLATED INSTITUTIONS AND ARGUMENTS: SPECIALIZATION NOT UNIFORMITY This ‘deconflated market’ model is profoundly important when comparing the west to other ‘conflationary monopoly’ civilizations and cultures. THIS PROVIDES SPECIALIZATION IN EACH TYPE OF ARGUMENT, INSTITUTION It allows us to specialize in each without sacrificing each out of pragmatic necessity given the diverse abilities of each class (or rather lack of abilities of each class). THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE NOT (UNTIL NOW) HAD A UNIVERSAL COMMENSURABLE LANGUAGE ACROSS INSTITUTIONS AND ARGUMENT TYPES. While we have had MONEY to make commensurable good and services across all specializations While we have had NATURAL LAW to make conflict commensurable across all specializations. While we have had MATHEMATICS to make everything we measure commensurable across all specializations. While we have had NATURAL SCIENCE to We have NOT had a MORAL LANGUAGE OF COOPERATION across all those specializations. PHILOSOPHY IS LARGELY PRACTICED AS A MIDDLE CLASS AND UPPER MIDDLE-CLASS METHOD OF INFLUENCING THE RULING CLASS (STATUS QUO). Religion is largely practiced as a lower class means of resisting the ruling class (status quo). Religion coerces man by resistance. Credit and Trade are practiced as a means of rule by the economic class within the limits fo the religious and legal classes. Finance, Industry, Entrepreneurship, Calculative, Managerial, administrative specialize in organization of production Law is largely practiced as a means of administrative rule by the ruling class, by employing the professional class, just as war is practiced as a means of territorial rule by the ruling class by employing the working, and underclasses. Law coerces man by force. Science, technology, engineering, craftsmanship, and labor specialize in transformation (coercing the universe rather than coercing man). Women specialize in the organization of reproduction, care, and caretaking. They need no ‘religion’ except to confirm the intuitions that they are born with. Festivals, Philosophy, Soldiery are for men. And Religion, Feasts, and caretaking are for women. Not that we cannot preclude one or the other. But this explains the kind of information system (philosophy) we are attracted to: one that justifies our genetic predispositions. SO PHILOSOPHERS FAILED IN THE 20TH CENTURY 1 – Philosophers tried to make the discipline a SPECIALTY rather than a language of commensurability. (The continued investigation into Truth, since all the other specializations had broken off into sciences,) 2 – Philosophers tried to create a second set of lies, this time with pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience (the cosmopolitans:Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Adorno; Rand/Rothbard; and the Puritans: French, and American literary Postmodernists; And the secular Christians Rawls-and-too-many-others-to-list. ) 3 – Philosophers failed to solve the problem of the social sciences (cooperation) and instead used a multitude of deceptions and obscurantisms in order to justify authoritarianism(non-cooperation). This exposes most philosophers as theologians in secular rhetorical garb. PHILOSOPHERS EITHER ENGAGE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF TRUTH, THE ARTICULATION OF POSSIBILITY, OR THE CREATION OF A FICTION, OR THE CREATION OF DECEIT. Philosophers have a very poor record in history. Despite so many, it is largely those who struggle to discover empiricism and its offspring ‘testimony’ that have contributed to man. The rationalists are almost universally reducible to excuse makers, and those who attempt to create a rational literature with which to replace biblical literature of mysticism. Many people who enjoy philosophy are far closer to recreational readers of science fiction and fantasy with which to escape the effort of truth seeking in reality, than inquisitors into truth from which we may construct solutions. We can discover which of these a person is: recreational literature, seeker of a particular solution, or investigator of truth with very few questions and very little difficulty. Whenever we do not argue in favor of truth we merely deprive Man of the knowledge he needs to invent institutions of cooperation that assist us in cooperating in the real world. We can use the truth to identify possibilities, or we can deny the truth and create possibilities that require lies (religions) incompatible with reality. We can create deceptions with which to destroy truth or obscure it. It is quite easy in retrospect to determine which philosophers have done so. PHILOSOPHERS AS PROFITEERS ON THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION In other words, philosophers sought a market into which to sell their ideas for profit or coercion, not truth, regardless of profit or coercion. ROLE OF PHILOSOPHY? 1) Investigate and Prosecute Falsehoods And Their Advocates 2) Incorporate the findings of the sciences such that discover superior truths to those we use today. 3) Discover new possibilities having incorporated the findings of the sciences. 4) Articulate metaphysical representations, Reorganize Concepts, Properties, and Relations, Re-weight Values, and provide new criteria of Decidability. IS THERE A SPACE FOR LIARS? No. There is a space for parables. But liars, particularly philosophical liars, should be prosecuted like any other liar that creates a hazard in the commons. Most philosophers function akin to tiger traps baited with words and are completely unaccountable for the tragedy and death that they have caused. I am a philosopher. As such, a prosecutor. Anything that survives prosecution, and which I am willing to warranty with my life, is worthy of publication into the commons. If either of those conditions fails, then I should be punished for it. Why should philosophers have greater permissiveness than the manufacturers of ladders, and the brewers of coffee, or the makers of drugs? They shouldn’t. Because arguably, philosophers and theologians ship the worst product that causes the most harm of any product man has made. (I know. Everyone wants to play philosopher at everyone else’s expense just like they want to free-ride on everyone else in every other capacity in life. But speech produces consequences. And while we may always say truthful speech produces consequences that we must bear the cost of, there is no reason we must bear the cost of false speech. Especially given how much of it there is, and how expensive it has been for western civilization.) THE MOST IMPORTANT SEQUENCE – Testimony(what can I see not infer) – Vocabulary – Grammar – Logic(reason) and Measurement(math) – Natural Law – Micro Economics (incentives) – Strict Construction – Rhetoric (argument) Demarcation I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete. Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice. The top of the pyramid is not philosophy but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice. In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.

  • An Indictment: 4 – The Lies: Pseudoscience, Sophism, and Denial

    Catalog of Lies

    Foundation of the Lies

    ( … Darwin, Female Strategy. Undermining. Inability to produce a polity. )

    The Oppression Myth

    Nature Nurture – Settled

    Gender Differences – Settled

    Agency  – Settled

    EMOTIONS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON BIASES AND AGENCY

    1 – Emotions reflect changes in the states of property-in-toto. 2 – We use reason (a skill we can improve through practice in deflationary comparisons ) to compare properties, relations, consequences, and valuations. 3 – We use free association to define properties, relations, consequences, and valuations. 4 – Our efforts at free association are impossible not to bias, because our experience accumulates in both interest and intensity in response to our biases. 5 – So it is more correct to say that it is very difficult to learn to think sufficiently deflationarily that our emotions do not influence our reasoning. 6 – to say that many of our emotions – those that I understand – occur in the reptilian and mamalian brains, and that our cognitive biases occur most often in the human parts of the brain and that the more primitive they are the more difficult they are (often) to circumvent, but the easier they are to understand. Many cognitive biases are difficult to be aware of in the first place, and are more subtle. Therefore, in broad terms, the less skill you have, the less will you have, the more solipsistic you are the harder it is to escape the emotions that result from your biases. The more skill you have the more will you have the more autistic you are the easier it is to escape the emotions that result from your biases. AGENCY AND AESTHETICS

    —“Enlighten the intellect, volition will follow. Aesthetics seem to be the means of aligning one’s passions and emotions to reason.”—Rafael LaVerde

    Remove sources of lack of fitness, lack of character (virtue), lack of resources, sources of normative and institutional resistance, sources of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit – all the impediments to Agency – and Agency will result. Then selecting a philosophy – a means of decidability – by which one can obtain one’s ends, and an aesthetic that values one’s passions in accordance with that philosophy. AGENCY AND GRAMMAR From the series:

    math/logic > science > philosophy > religion

    We can construct the series:

    physical > mental > emotional,

    And the series:

    logic > description > fiction,

    And the series:

    associable > reasonable > calculable > computable.

    And we can use them to calculate the series:

    lack of agency > potential agency > demonstrated agency

    Therefore;

    The weak-of-will want religion, to defend against others’ wills; The able-of-will want philosophy, to advocate their will and; The strong-of-will want science, to put their will to work; And The strongest-of-will want Law: because Law is the means by which the strong impose their will. The only question is whether their will advances the sovereign and reciprocal, producing transcendence – or not. Because we all want what our Agency demands.

    Responsibility – Settled

    People ARE 100% responsible for their success and failures TO REACH THEIR FULL POTENTIAL in the market for competency. 1) Any attempt to reach more than their relative ability to reach their full potential must be obtained by stealing from others who are more competent, and causing harm to the polity because of it. 2) pareto rule MUST exist: 10% do 50% of the value, 10% of that 10% do 50% of the value, and 10% of that 10% do 50% of the value and so on. Meaning that most people below a certain threshold, are a relative dead weight on society and mankind. 3) The difference is that conservatives desire and enjoy hierarchy and are not troubled by ‘fulfilling their duty of their position” while liberals think of almost nothing else than that others are superior to them in position, and are so because of competency. 4) Where competency means genes, ability, personality, morals, ethics, values, manners, habits, speech, appearance. 5) Classes exist. At every seven points we vary in vocational ability, and at every 15 points social ability, and at ever4 30 points we are nearly different species, with the commonality of language producing the illusion of compatibility. 6) We are, all of us, and must be, rewarded for the returns we provide to others when they cooperate with us. 7) And the results of that competition is a lottery with only so many pareto-efficient winners. Who, if they make good choices, can create an intergenerational family that persists their status – something that requires selective mating to prevent regression to the collective mean.  

    Equality – Settled

    The Last Word on Equality We are no different from any other domesticated animal. We control domesticated animal’s reproduction and evolve them for cooperation with us (use by us). We control human animal’s reproduction and evolve them for cooperation or not. The difference between groups is mostly sexual dimorphism, sexual maturity, and size of the underclass in relation to the upper middle class. In other words, our upper middle and upper classes do not differ because they converge on neoteny, dimorphism, intelligence and temperament and are less dependent upon peers for knowledge and decisions. Our working and lower classes diverge in lower neoteny, biased dimorphism, lower intelligence and less civil temperament. Like anna karinnena’s families, and like the range of domesticated animals, to produce a ‘human’ requires many genetic things to go right, and if any one of them goes wrong then we are less human and more animal. As such we have domesticated one another and ourselves over millennia of demand for increasingly complex forms of cooperation. We consider humans to be defined by communication using language, but this is just a complex form of signaling. instead, the definition of human vs animal is AGENCY. Equality does not exist. Even when we claim it’s a necessity under dispute resolution in the law of torts, it is our property that is treated equally – not us. As such it is the equality of our property that exists under rule of law. Everything else is both dishonest, pseudoscientific, and dysgenic. And advocacy of dysgenia is just a means of warfare and conquest on a longer time line. We are either producing agency (humans) or reducing agency (animals).  

    Superiority And Inferiority Are Purely Empirical Measures

    Inferiority and superiority are simply a measurement of Agency. They’re purely empirical assessments. Either one possesses agency of the self, the group, the environment, the universe, or one does not. The inferior cannot compete. The superior can. This competition whether internal interpersonal political environmental or physical is the only empirical test of superiority and inferiority. Evolution and entropy never stop. They are ceaseless. The superior evolves, adapts, increases its agency, and the inferior does not, and dies, and evolution and entropy continue their battle. This is not an opinion or a value statement, it is a description of every single process in the universe.

    Economic Oppression – Settled

    —“Elites developed the industrial revolution, not peasants in the field or sitting around the table at dinner time. Like always elites create innovations and the masses follow along. They weren’t tricked into it, anymore than the elites were tricked into inventing things. It’s natural. The idea that there is some kind of intrinsic abuse of workers by the elites assumes “generational agency” on both parts to get to where we are that doesn’t exist….off the top of my head.”—Mike Harvey

    Poverty – Settled

    YOUR POVERTY AND YOUR LACK OF AGENCY You’re poor because you lack Agency sure. But you know, even if we remove obstructive institutions, and even if we create institutions to invest in overcoming your initial circumstance, we are still stuck with the fact that we cannot change YOU, and that YOU can lack Agency for your own informational, intellectual, emotional, or physical reasons. We know for certain that you cannot tell if you are able or not. We don’t like to choose whether you are able or not – we can err. All we can do is invest in eliminating impediments so that you can DEMONSTRATE whether you possess agency and ability – or not. Anyone who tells you more money will matter is simply lying to you. You’re poor because you lack Agency, because you or your parents or your ancestors have lacked intellectual, emotional, or physical ABILITY as well as informational (ignorance) or institutional impediment.

    Suffering – Settled

    Life is only suffering for those with no (low and developing) agency. It’s the only frame that motivates them to face it (life; the suffering). One must have (develop) the capacity for heroism to withstand tragedy as a plausible noble outcome. The world “just happens” to those that lack real consciousness. Thus they can’t perceive the responsibility they must bear.

    Dysgenic Reproduction – Settled

    1 – Dysgenic reproduction (regression to mean) is almost impossible to reverse in modernity. 2 – Current rates of IQ decline even in china on the order of .5 per decade. Loss of total demographic advantage in 100 years. Western rates higher. 3 – The optimum human median IQ appears to be 105+15=120, meaning 2/3 of the population between 105 and 135. This produces near-zero resistance to education, training, and re-adaptation – while preserving some clerical and craftsmen labor. And it produces very low visible crime. 4 – We can roughly measure the value of one point of IQ by GDP.

    Integration Settled – Failed

    ( … )

    Heterogeneity Settled – Diversity is a Bad.

    Homogenous cultures use people for entertainment and are pro-social. Heterogeneous cultures become insular and rely on family career, and now consumption for entertainment. People are slowly going mad by living in well-decorated boxes, with fake television and social media friends, with fake careers, and are entirely alone. Consumption is not a substitute for family, friends, and civil society.

    Ethnocentrism Settled – Ethnocentrism is the Optimum.

    1 – Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy if for no other reason than trust and reciprocal investment and insurance without sacrifice to kin selection. There is no competitor to it, whatsoever. People are more gregarious to their own, and more redistributive, with less fear of political competition, because all competition is internal and by class or faction rather than tribe. The problem has traditionally been that many ethic groups were not able to concentrate sufficient capital to create self-governance, or had to be captured to prevent capture by others, or were of sufficient hazard to neighbors they were ruled. (The exception is people lower on the ladder who look for allies against their betters, and to have ‘someone below them’ which appears very important to humans.) 2 – Ethnocentrism eliminates race and tribe conflict in the suppression of expansion of underclasses through soft eugenics (paying the unproductive not to have children). There is no value in internal competitors. none.

    Compatibility – Settled: Separation

    We were speciating into regional human groups when we discovered farming. We were forced to compromise with each other during farming. Farming is over and we are now wealthy enough to pursue our genetic biases (interests, strategies) and so we must separate between masculine (suburban and rural hunters) and feminine (urban gatherers) and there is no reason not to. We are simply able to afford specialization. It’s time to return to speciation and stop fighting our instincts as different animals returning to speciation now that the agrarian era is over.


    Uniqueness of Europeans

    “Europeans must stop making this mistake: we must stop thinking, wishing, or hoping that other groups (including our own women) are like us – they are not. We are outliers.”This mistake has plunged us into long dark ages before. Let’s not do it again. Let’s learn this lesson once and for all. We Are Unique. WE ARE THE CONTINUATION OF THE EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONAL ARC

    1. The Western Indo Europeans were fighting submission to nature in every aspect of the social order: nature(technology), family, polity, and religion. They invented the Agency of Man. The application of mastery of metallurgy, the horse, the wheel and war to all aspects of human experience.
    2. Aristotle was fighting ignorance in all the disciplines – including religion, custom, and politics. He invented Empiricism: the transfer of testimony in a court of peers to all aspects of human experience.
    3. Galileo was fighting supernaturalism and denial in the physical sciences: physics, chemistry, biology. He was the principal advocate of Science: The restoration of testimony using mathematics in court a court of peers to all aspects of life.
    4. Darwin was fighting supernaturalism in the biological sciences. He was the principal advocate of realism and naturalism in biology: the restoration of naturalism in biological and social sciences.
    5. Proletarians are fighting pseudoscience and sophism and denial in the human sciences: language, psychology, sociology, politics, and group strategy: The completion of social science: The application of testimony using the measurement of reciprocity.

    What’s Next? We will only save ourselves, and mankind from another dark age if we do not make the mistakes of the Greeks and the Romans, and the monarchists – optimism that other men, are equal in ability and interest to european men.  


    Race – Settled

    My position on the friction between the races is that democracy and multiculturalism cause conflict between them. And that nationalism, aristocracy, paternalism, and local separatism improve everyone. My position on the cause of the meaningful differences between the races is the degree of suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses over long periods of time. My means of criticizing other groups is whether their group evolutionary strategy is objectively more or less moral than some others. My demand for changes is not to place it upon others, but to change our weaknesses so that we are no longer subject to the damage of the less moral, yet can reap the benefits of the more moral. I am very fond of my non-kin friends. I want to help them raise themselves and their families, as all aristocracy should assist other aristocracies in raising themselves and their families. So I don’t really want to lose those friends because you choose to criticize other successful reproductive strategies, rather than to criticize and repair your (our) own failed reproductive strategies. I don’t do racism. I might agree or disagree with you on some criticism or other. But my goal is the evolution of man. I prefer every tribe evolve together, not that any tribe be subsumed by another. I want to see a world of many tribes – of many extended aristocratic families, raising their extended families. I do not seek to dominate others, only to preserve my tribe and to advance it and mankind’s tribes in the long journey to becoming gods

    Racism, Racist

    Racism, as I understand it, refers to four behaviors:

    1) the process of treating an individual by the properties of his class (race) rather than waiting to ascertain the properties that he himself demonstrates. In other words, stereotyping. Unfortunately, stereotypes are the most accurate measurement in the social sciences. So this is difficult to counteract outside of commercial interactions.

    2) the process of criticizing a class (race) for the costs that they impose on your class (race) rather than taking actions that prevent a class (race) from imposing costs upon your class (race).

    3) the process of denying that there are differences in aggregate class (race) abilities, biases, preferences, and behaviors.

    4) the process of conducting genocidal, political, economic, and kinship warfare by denying that there are differences in aggregate class (race) abilities, biases, preferences, and behaviors.

    Racism cannot refer to any of these four behaviors:

    1) Observing, deciding, speaking, and promoting, that there are differences in aggregate class (race) abilities, biases, preferences, and behaviors.

    2) Observing, deciding, speaking, and promoting, that people (like all creatures) favor their class (kin, tribe, race) group for the simple reason that except as outliers, it is in their status, social, reproductive, economic, and political interests to do so.

    3) Observing, deciding, speaking, and promoting, that people vote in democracies heavily by race, gender, and class, thereby competing by EQUAL political vote rather than by unequal economic, intellectual, or military means.

    4) Observing, deciding, speaking, and promoting, that people conduct informational and political warfare instead of economic and violent warfare, by the denial of differences in abilities, biases, preferences, behaviors, intentions, and goals.That’s simply empirical science. And arguing against it is simply lying.

    Why Race?

    The Correct Answer:

    1. The evolutionary necessity of the social dominance hierarchy.
    2. The primacy of status in that dominance hierarchy above all other values. Our loss aversion to status is our highest sensitivity to the loss of access to mates. Any creature that cannot compete in its dominance hierarchy will see its pool driven to extinction.
    3. The primacy and necessity of kin selection (any kin group that does not will be driven to extinction.)

    Because race, subrace, tribe, and class are meaningful and successful means of identifying kin, and the vast majority of us associate with, work with, vote with, reproduce with, kin, and the outliers (15%) are at the extremes where their sexual market value is vastly lower, or vastly higher than the mean of their kin group. And it’s good for each to do so. Diversity (Miscegenation) is extremely bad for genes except on the margins (low sexual and social market value). Because they cannot easily be corrected through ingroup selection. All accusations of racism are just forms of gossip and shaming in order to obscure the pursuit of political power without earning it through market means. Disapproval, shaming, gossiping, rallying, protesting, and propagandism are means by which the inadequate attempt to reduce the superior sexual, social, economic, and political market value of their superiors. It’s the industrialization through media of politics of pubescent girls, employed by infantile minds unable to ascend into the responsibilities of adulthood. Give up on equality. It’s an evolutionary dead end. Make the best of what you have to work with. We are wealthier than at any point in history, but each of us is less important than we ever have been in history. This lowers our risk but provides us near-zero status rewards that are under our control other than consumption signals. Which is why people are driven to consumption. And it is why the poorer you are the more driven to consumption you are. Which is why the Buddha and the Stoics taught what they did. That all human groups act in the interests of their kin.  That people vote racially.  They work in racial groups. They live in racial groups. They mate and marry in racial groups.  They speak in racial groups. All racial groups convey status because some groups are more desirable than others.  That all those capable of escaping the lower classes of their racial groups rationally want to join in the white culture so that they can have a better life, and that as such they want to limit racial discrimination.  And that white middle and lower classes want to preserve their privileges by preserving the status of their elites from competition. That race, religion, culture, tribe, gender are a part of life because they are meaningful differences because people act to their advantage at all times, and race, religion, culture, tribe, and gender convey different advantages.

    Causes of Racial Conflict

    Proximity. That’s the answer. That’s the only answer that matters.  That said, let’s work through the issue. All that happens in mixed-race cultures, is that castes replace races. I can’t find anywhere any attempt has worked and hasn’t resulted in the total collapse of civilization. When you increase the size of the polity you get classes. Sorry. That’s how it is for the simple reason that some people are more genetically desirable in every way than other peoples, and that’s what social class means: reproductive, associative, cooperative, economically cooperative, politically cooperative, militarily cooperative desirability. Each of us has a social market value and that social market value is what we call our class. We have higher sexual and social market value within-group than across groups except at the extremes. The desirability of different subraces is well documented and is determined by ratio-proportionality and degree of neoteny. The only way to avoid the problem is to** segregate within states, or separate into separate states.** The science is quite simple: 1 – Races and Subraces havedifferent sized underclasses and different distributions around the mean in the personality traits that are genetically determined and largely immutable: a) intelligence, b) industriousness, and in rates of sexual development and depths of sexual development, and the retention of those features that illustrate retention of childhood features. (we have been domesticated just like other animals. We are no different. Some groups are more domesticated (lower testosterone, lower impulsivity, lower and slower sexual development, and therefore greater agency (self-discipline of our emotions and impulses). 2 – Because of these differences, we need to produce VERY different commons (manners, ethics, morals, norms, traditions, laws, institutions, education and training in the intuitionistic [what we call religion], in physical training, and in skills training, and in occupational training.) The median (average) (66% majority) determines the demand for formal and informal institutions (listed below). 3 – Proximity Creates Animosity because of the different status signals in and across groups, and the different rates of development both genetically, informatively, and culturally. Groups that are happy with their condition separately become hostile in proximity, and more hostile in cohabitation, and more hostile in political competition. People think and speak with an awareness of race because people act aware of race.

    1. People vote as racial blocks. And therefore firm political competition for status and rent-seeking.
    2. People associate in racial blocks.
    3. People work in racial blocks.
    4. People reside in racial blocks.
    5. Vast differences in reproductive desirability between races.  And people mate in racial blocks except at the margins.
    6. Vast differences in the eugenic elimination of the evil 80s underclasses between racial blocks.
    7. Vast differences in criminality between the racial blocks.
    8. Significant differences in the abilities of racial groups because of the failure to suppress reproduction in the lower classes.

    We are different. People are rational. They act rationally. Humans practice kin selection.  They must.  Or those that do practice kin selection will replace them. Cooperation between families and tribes is only beneficial if each perceives a benefit. Otherwise, instead of arguing against racism one is merely practicing war by a substitute of religion, rather than war by religion or war by violence. This is true everywhere on earth. 4 – Because of these differences, we need very different political orders – from the very liberal northern European high trust, to the very disciplined as we see in religious regions, to the nearly military needed in others. Trying to eliminate races always and everywhere produces a race to the bottom. Creating many small nation-states that are little more than corporations that serve the needs of their kin group and that kin group’s distribution will produce a** race to the top**. There is a very good reason why Europe evolved faster than the rest of the world combined in both the ancient and modern worlds: small homogeneous states. Monopolies are always bad. They are even worse in federations and empires. For a set of reasons: 1) Mating selection is determined by both genetic markers (physical properties) and status signals (social properties). 2) There are differences in desirability between the races due to different morphological attributes, despite the near-universal human preference for a set of attributes. 3) There are different DISTRIBUTIONS of certain talents across the races. (linguistic intelligence, and spatial intelligence in particular.) This difference in distributions causes the development of different norms and preferences within groups, which in turn alters the complex signals we both observe and send. 4) Because of this economy of signaling, Status Signals ‘within group’ are lower cost than status signals ‘across groups’. (Partly because we have just have higher familiarity within the group). Each of us is more likely to get more positive, and fewer negative status signals within-group than across groups. And those signals are richer and more complex. 5) These signals affect our relationships and the trust that can develop in them.  Where that trust is necessary for relaxed interaction, goal determination, task coordination, and risk-taking. 6) In the working and lower classes, external racial groups usually will work for less money or will displace them in their earning capacity and therefore also deprive them of status signals.  Racism is a means of forming political solidarity themselves, as well as with their elites, for the purpose of preserving their advantage – or gaining their advantage. 7) In the middle and upper-middle classes, racism is a vehicle for maintaining political power (law) and social power (norms) and assets (their own accumulated status signals) for themselves and their groups. This set of facts is demonstrated by our demonstrated universal preference to work (largely) and live (largely) with people who share our same ethnicity and social class. The data illustrates that preference over and over again.  In simple terms, we are ‘judged’ more easily, and therefore included more easily among those with whom we share physical, intuitive, conceptual, and habitual similarities. However, at the extremes, the very successful and prosperous tend to form a worldwide-class and the lower classes seek mates more opportunistically, and there are social signaling benefits to certain racial groups (a mating between a below average white woman and an above-average black man may increase the social standing and quality of mates of both. So the racial norm is a majority-middle preference. While there is a noticeable rise in the inbreeding going on between Asians and whites,  women still seem to demonstrate an extraordinary preference for men within their race (men are less discriminating) of upwards of 80%.  But this preference is a middle-class statistic obtained from dating sites. And it becomes very hard to make the same statements about the lower classes outside of what’s stated in the census (about 15% intermarriage).  The reason is that some races are

    Differences in Sexual, Social, Economic, Political, Market Value Of Races to One Another

    1) The distribution of physical desirability for mating, the demonstrated behaviors of impulsivity and time preference, aggression, and demonstrated intelligence vary between individuals. (true) 2) The social classes are organized by these distributions due to reproductive desirability, status utility, and cooperative (economic) utility. (true) 3) The races demonstrate different relative distributions of these classes. (true) 4) Racial groups demonstrate kin selection in mating, neighborhoods, friendship, social organizations, and business organizations. (true). 5) The norms demonstrated by racial groups reflect behavior at the mean (true). This means lower trust, less intelligent groups must compete against norms in groups with higher trust and higher intelligent groups. (true). It also means that the group that holds dominant political power, and biases toward their norms, determines the economic velocity of the entire polity (true). 6) Racial groups demonstrate kin selection in voting (true). 7) INABILITY to use the state for rents and privileges limits political competition and conflict, whereas the ABILITY to use the state for rents and privileges increases political competition and conflict. (true) 8) Economic Wealth reduces dependence upon kin for mutual insurance under kin selection. (true). Economic stress increases dependence upon kin for mutual insurance via kin selection. (true) 9) The difference between economic, political, social, reproductive and status success of one race or another is due to the distribution of superior talents versus inferior liabilities of the members of those races – plus normative factors, the most important of which is in-group trust, and the second is the degree of the suppression of free riding. (true) 10) As such the only reason for racism is the rates of reproduction between the classes. And the only possible means of achieving equality in any and all cases is to suppress the reproduction of the lower classes of the races whose distribution is bottom weighted. 11) It is non-rational to treat unknown individuals who are visually indistinguishable by other than the properties of their peer groups. (true) (which is what people do). One cannot both demand rational action, defend Praxeology, and deny this statement. 12) Equality is achievable and desirable in just four generations. But it is upward reproductive redistribution that must march downward economic redistribution for equality to be possible. If China can do this so can the rest of the world. Otherwise, it is non-rational for people with higher reproductive desirability, lower impulsivity, lower aggression, and higher intelligence to tolerate political competition from those who are less desirable and in the net, parasitic, just as it is politically preferable to compete via parasitism if one is less desirable at the bottom. Human beings are not unique and precious snowflakes. It is only that disregard for life is a moral hazard. The fact that mothers MUST believe their dysgenic offspring are precious is an evolutionary convenience, not a demonstrable fact. The purpose of science is quite often to force us to acknowledge uncomfortable truths. Equality is not a problem of belief (lying), but one of fact (truth). Try not to lie.  It hurts mankind.

    Just Tell the Truth – Disgusting

    —“The Leftist tendency is to conflate the Rightist Disgust response to various things as phobias. In other words, the Left confuses Disgust for Fear.”—

    The right is just too well mannered to say:

    Actually it’s because we find your/their ____________ behavior disgusting and revolting because it is a genetic defect, and harmful to the tribe.”

    I mean. Why can’t we just say that?

    “You know, We don’t like dogs dragging their anuses on the carpet, or ___________ doing ________.” 

    Genetic defects are disgusting to us. And you’re advocating for genetic defects that are disgusting.

    (We have a purity instinct. They don’t. Hence women’s fascination with the discussion of children’s bodily fluids and excrements.)

    Higher Disgust Sensitivity

    Conservatives(empiricists) have a higher level of disgust sensitivity. Conservatives are the population’s means of detecting and purging harm – the white blood cells of the social order and polity. Progressives (consumptivists) have low sensitivity to disgust, but high demand for consumption, novelty, experience, and fear of being ‘left behind’. That does not mean that our disgust sensitivity is always right. It means that we must test whether than harm actually exists by tests of reciprocity.

    —”There is a distinction between endocrinological & neurological conservatives, driven mostly by disgust, which tend to be within a SD left of the mean, and market driven (agency) conservatives who recognize cost on longer time-horizons & are able to organize a body law which facilitates the cooperation & trust, necessary for the functioning of enterprise. The former group are right for the wrong reasons & the latter group are right as a matter of agency & incentive.”—Ferdinand Pizarro

    We Can’t We Just Tell the Left the Truth?

    1) Our civilization has succeeded because it’s been eugenic in every era – right up until the industrial revolution. 2) We find you disgusting. 3) and it’s because you’re unfit. 4) and you are unfit because you lack agency. 5) and you lack agency because you’re still undomesticated. 6) and as undomesticated still an animal. 7) and it isn’t any more complicated than that. 8) We cannot cooperate with you on equal terms any more than we can cooperate with any other animal – you lack the agency. 9) We don’t grant barn animals equality which is why we don’t grant you equality. And we don’t want barn animals in our homes, business, or our commons. 10) This is what we mean when we want to separate from you. Because you’re disgusting.

    Conflicts over Class

    Whether Classism vs Racism? (GSRRM) : The Solution Is Markets.

    Classes vs Races  European Iranic Semitic Indic E-Asian SE-Asian
    Out of Sight 
    Upper
    Lower Upper
    Upper Middle
    Middle
    Lower Middle
    Upper lower
    Lower
    Low
    Out of Sight

    Horizontal Compatibility and Common Interest of Classes at expense of power distanceVertical Compatibility and Common Interest of Races and Nations for Power distanceNeither is a problem. Both are un-circumventable evolutionary, reproductive, social, economic, and political realities and necessities. Humans organize that is our principal ability, and our intelligence evolved only for the purpose of increasing the complexity of our cooperation – even across gender, family, clan, classes, tribes, nations(in the genetic sense), subraces, and races. The classes demonstrate different genetic, social, economic, and political abilities. Unfortunately, everyone at the bottom quartile is six times as costly as everyone at the top two quartiles can compensate for.( the third quartile appears to be neutral or at least a tolerable loss. Those tribes, nations, subraces, and races unable to limit the reproduction of their underclasses (as have Europeans and East Asians through manorialism or extraordinary prosecution), or have expelled their underclasses (Ashkenazis) or have been able to concentrate sufficient capital to drag people out of permanent Malthusian (population) and dysgenic(distribution) poverty. Those tribes, nations, subraces, and races unable to limit the reproduction of their underclasses, and who have not engaged in martial, juridical, or economic (manorialism), have ended up as the Levant, India, Southeast Asia, and now South America, with underclasses so large that they cannot be organized into a voluntary organization of production capable of producing marketable goods. Present Problems Worse, in the current era, as the low hanging fruit of petrochemical energy, mechanical technology, and now computational utility has been captured, likewise, labor has evaporated as a market good, mechanical capital has dramatically depreciated as market good, and at present calculation labor (what we call clerical and white-collar work) is depreciating as a market good. And without markets to provide information to us, we cannot cooperate at scale. And there are few if any multipliers on service provision. All technology can be implemented quickly and easily and the marginal competitive advantage between groups eliminated. So as the world continues to adopt the inventions of western civilization – not the least of which is Aristotelian (scientific) reasoning, and the Anglo (Germanic) natural law of torts, and the Italian(Templar) method of banking, the relative standard of living of peoples will decline, because the only competitive advantage a population has, is genetic. The primary competitive advantage that does not produce regression into Malthusian and dysgenic poverty is genes. And the difference in one standard deviation is so profound it is the HIGHEST POSSIBLE RETURN for any group – as well as for all mankind. The data is in. The 20th century experiment with social economic and political pseudoscience is over. We misspent that capital on reversing at least 1300 years of improving human genetic, cultural, and institutional capital. There are three known magic bullets. A battery with the energy density of gasoline. The reduction of the size of the underclass through one child policies for the underclasses, and the development of artificial general intelligence that means he with the most capital and the lowest population wins. The individual human is quickly approaching not only Malthusian and genetic equilibrium but political, economic, social, damage. We outran the productivity of nature and resorted to farming. We outran the productivity of farming and turned to industry. We outran the productivity of industry and turned to information. There is nowhere to go beyond information, and as such the only gains are to be obtained from the reduction of negative human capital. Via-negativa in all things at scale. Once you maximize returns on any set of operations, the only improvement possible is to remove costs and defects. More is not better. Fewer people with more is better than more people with less. That’s unavoidable.  

    Our Choices

    Races are a good thing. Subraces are a good thing. Tribes are a good thing. Clans are a good thing. Families are a good thing. You can choose between kin-group-states or Corporate-States. You can choose between small very different states or large homogeneous states. You can choose between collapse under political monopoly or rapid progress under political diversity. Because in the spectrum from dictatorship to anglo rule of law you must possess an increasingly optimum demographic as you move from dictatorship to liberty. The only value of scale is military conquest. The value of homogeneity is psychological, not real. The effect of diversity in a polity that has access to political power is always the same: collapse. The best countries to live in have small homogeneous populations with very small underclasses, high median intelligence, and well-developed neoteny, without hostile competitors on their borders. The only reason your one is behind another, or any other race, is the difference between rates of reproduction of the classes. Just as my race is behind or ahead of other races because of our suppression or lack of suppression of birth rates at the bottom. That’s it. So fix it. Because until you do, racism will persist – and should. Because any other behavior is illogical. It is not the color of your skin or the shape of your nose, but the percentage of your population in the bottom half of mankind. Human life isn’t universally sacred. It’s just that anyone who demonstrates a disregard for human life is a potential risk and threat to the rest of us. But just because disregard for life is dangerous doesn’t mean you’re worthy of redistribution – or even the consumption of oxygen. You’re merely a moral hazard for the rest of us. If you or your offspring can’t find a way to participate in production without externalizing your costs, then you aren’t a precious snowflake. You’re a moral hazard, and a drain on both humanity and the planet. And the source of the demand for a political class that exploits productive people to fund the dysgenic and unproductive. You cannot deny this argument without in turn demonstrating your racial bias. So control reproduction. A woman has no intrinsic right to bear a child, and a man no intrinsic right to spawn one. That is the only way we get to equality. Equality in fact, not in lie. And I agree: equality is a moral ambition. But not by dragging others down, but by evolving everyone to greater heights.  

    Feminism

    Pandora’s Box – Gender Differences

    WHY DO WOMEN UNDERMINE THE CIVILIZATION and CULTURE, the INSTITUTIONS, and MALES?

    —“…what kind of evolutionary pressure would create a desire to undermine the ingroup. All the plausible explanations I’ve seen had to do with abusing female impulses that have evolved for entirely different purposes….”—

    Females undermine the concentration of power in alphas in order to preserve some control over their reproductive choice and access to resources and male-provisioned resources, including defense. ie: females can barter attention, effort, care, and sex if they have control of the attention economy. Which is why females are so conscious (and gay men evidencing it) of attention and approval and agreeableness. So just as females operate on a status and attention economy, they fight within that economy: disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, moralizing, undermining, and reputation destruction. And decreasing the number of females is not necessarily in their disinterest – so literally killing off other females increases remaining female market value, so that his the strategy females pursue: that of Hens. Undermining the males (‘sh-t testing’) is useful both at the level of insuring the ‘fitness’ of males in defending them, preserving their ability to choose, assisting them in outing ‘cheaters’ (which women are terrible at, and men excel at), maximizing cost of (returns on) their attention, care, and sex. The only problem here is that women still sexually select for males as if we are under those conditions of hunter gatherers. And this explains the attraction of women to more primitive (less domesticated) groups of males with lower agency despite that the female condition is dependent upon those of us with higher agency, innovation, and adaptivity. Hence the necessity of more domesticated (higher agency) males of defending the ingroup females from conquest or even exposure to, lower agency, higher aggression, males. (FWIW:Delayed marriage provides women with greater reproductive certainty, and therefore greater sortition, and greater formation of genetic castes, and therefore greater speciation – hence white people.) Males conversely, operate on the physical equivalent of the warfare economy, and so losses of males weakens the pack, and dilution of the ingroup male genes weakens male reproductive (evolutionary) persistence, as well as reverses domestication (evolution of agency). THE PROBLEM OF FEMALE AGENCY The female of our species, or more correctly, the female mind in our species, is extremely susceptible to individual psychosis and solipsism, and even more so, herd panic, trend and consensus; and verbalizing those behaviors by drama, outburst, disapproval, shaming, ridicule, rallying, gossiping, and reputation destruction that never ceases. This is the reason why women’s testimony has been discounted throughout history; why the cancer of Abrahamism was spread through women; why women defected against their men and their civilization yet again, to feminism-postmodernism; and why there are continuous calls for “women must be heard”; and then, not surprisingly, counter-to-all-evidence that “women must be believed”. The female lacks the degree of male agency because she is more dependent upon the panic of the herd than the hunting of the pack. It is rather obvious that once given the franchise under the presumption of agency, that women took out their anger on the church in europe, and on men in america. It’s rather obvious that as much as marxism was designed to appeal to and rally men at the bottom, that feminism and postmodernism were designed to appeal to and rally women as was Christianity. It is rather obvious that women’s urge to nest and preen are more easily manipulated by advertising marketing and media. But Truth is Truth. The feminine mind lacks agency regardless of the sex of its bearer. And we cannot both preserve our civilization which is the originator of truth, reason, science, and all that comes from it by once again submitting to the herd of the female in this modern era as we did in the ancient. “Herd Panic”, and “herd consensus”, as well as the series solipsism, psychosis, and disapproval, shaming, ridicule, outburst, rallying gossiping and reputation destruction as a means of obscuring the truth due to lack of agency and fear of falling out of sync with the herd, must become part of our conscious vocabulary and argument such that we bring the distinction between lack of agency, falsehood and fear, versus agency, truth and reason. Lacking agency means you are not yet human and therefore not worthy of or capable of reciprocity any more than is a child – but require parenting. It is truth that in modernity we have greater prosperity and as such greater ability to absorb the damage of the feminine mind than in the past. But that reservoir is not limitless. That same prosperity however does leave us a choice: we can oppress one another, or we can revolt and separate, and develop feminine (failing) dysgenic orders and return to the animals and another dark age, or masculine competitive eugenic orders, that will continue our transcendence. It’s time to choose which of those consequences we will pursue.  

    Just Use The Word: Infantilization

    Just state the obvious, that the female mind of reproductive necessity biases heavily to that which she can control: infantilism. And this is why women take such great fascination with babies, and prefer their children are born with properties that make them pliable and their ‘friends’ rather successful competitors. Because women must be strong and possess agency to raise those who are strong and with agency. And women who are weak an lack agency wish children who they can control despite their weakness and agency. Abrahamism, Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism: they advocate infantilism. Because their followers have infantile minds. And I suspect that like everything else, that’s because in 80% of cases they have infantile brains. And that during the great transformation, buddha came close, but only Epicurious, Zeno and Aristotle got it right. Meaning, living in correspondence with reality without submitting to it, by making the mind as strong as the body, ether by Achilles/Alexander(aristocracy), Zeno/Aurelius (Middle class), or Epicurious (Working Class), but never by abandoning reality to a fictionalism (underclass). These are adulthoods. Agency. Whether for the powerful, the influential (middle class), or the valuable (Working Class). And just as we can train people in reading, writing, math, accounting, and physics – we can train people in stoicism, epicureanism, and heroism. But that is counter to the infantile: because all of them require agency, and the infantile is still an undomesticated animal, neither genetically able, nor sufficiently trained, to be included in that label of sentience and agency we call ‘Human’. The infantile is equal to the animal.

    Female Mental Illness

      The degree of demonstrated feminism is determined by four factors: (a) declining sexual market value and (b) declining agency. (c) degree of disagreeableness, (d) the demand for virtue-signaling in the virtue signaling marketplace.  

    Developmental Defects

    Nature Nurture

    Free Speech

    intentionally defective product