I just want to point out that hoppe refers to economic science (falsification) but he himself relies entirely upon economic rationalism (justification), And he confuses philosophical positivism (which never occurred) with scientific skepticism (which is how science is practiced).
What’s the difference? Justification (excuse making) = bottom up rationalization. Positivism = justification through empiricism (top down). Science: a MARKET for ‘recipes’, where the stories (theories) provide searches (opportunities) for applications of the recipe, and where application of the recipe refines or falsifies the searches (opportunities). Science functions as just another market for actions (recipes). A market laundered of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit by the continual use of measurements in a competition between logical (mental) and physical instruments.
Theme: Science
-
The central problem of induction is learning the tools of micro and macro scale.
The central problem of induction is learning the tools of micro and macro scale…. while at the same time abandoning reliance on the intuition “of human scale”. I like this positioning because it explains the cause of the difficulty for humans: the intuition of human scale. -
The central problem of induction is learning the tools of micro and macro scale.
The central problem of induction is learning the tools of micro and macro scale…. while at the same time abandoning reliance on the intuition “of human scale”.
I like this positioning because it explains the cause of the difficulty for humans: the intuition of human scale.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-19 14:35:00 UTC
-
The central problem of induction is learning the tools of micro and macro scale.
The central problem of induction is learning the tools of micro and macro scale…. while at the same time abandoning reliance on the intuition “of human scale”. I like this positioning because it explains the cause of the difficulty for humans: the intuition of human scale. -
Just to foster some thought: The difference in induction between pet, child, and
Just to foster some thought: The difference in induction between pet, child, and scientist, is that while we all study constant relations, we study the constant relations at an inflation(bigger) or a deflation(smaller) of human (mammalian) scale – just as we study the universe at the subatomic, physical, chemical, biological, behavioral, and sentient scales. While meaningful (marginally different) causal density remains constantly complex across those scales, observability above our ability to act and below our ability to act rapidly decreases, forcing us to create physical and logical instruments to construct proxies for observations of constant relations at macro and micro scales. But either way, we seek operations (changes in state), constant relations(Stable states), and predictions of future states. -
Just to foster some thought: The difference in induction between pet, child, and
Just to foster some thought: The difference in induction between pet, child, and scientist, is that while we all study constant relations, we study the constant relations at an inflation(bigger) or a deflation(smaller) of human (mammalian) scale – just as we study the universe at the subatomic, physical, chemical, biological, behavioral, and sentient scales. While meaningful (marginally different) causal density remains constantly complex across those scales, observability above our ability to act and below our ability to act rapidly decreases, forcing us to create physical and logical instruments to construct proxies for observations of constant relations at macro and micro scales. But either way, we seek operations (changes in state), constant relations(Stable states), and predictions of future states.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-19 12:13:00 UTC
-
Just to foster some thought: The difference in induction between pet, child, and
Just to foster some thought: The difference in induction between pet, child, and scientist, is that while we all study constant relations, we study the constant relations at an inflation(bigger) or a deflation(smaller) of human (mammalian) scale – just as we study the universe at the subatomic, physical, chemical, biological, behavioral, and sentient scales. While meaningful (marginally different) causal density remains constantly complex across those scales, observability above our ability to act and below our ability to act rapidly decreases, forcing us to create physical and logical instruments to construct proxies for observations of constant relations at macro and micro scales. But either way, we seek operations (changes in state), constant relations(Stable states), and predictions of future states. -
Clarity (Time)
—“We are constantly moving through spacetime but we just trade movement in time for movement in space and vice versa, just like a function in cartesian space trades position in the x axis for position in the y axis. Gravity is reducible to a change in the elasticity of that trade.”—Thomas Wiltshire Simple. WHY IS CURT WRITING ABOUT THIS: Today. One philosopher and four physicists debating time, and sounding like a bunch of chipmunks. The underlying question is whether what we call time (rate of change) is merely altered by the expansion and contraction of space, or whether it is a product of the expansion and contraction of space. I can’t understand logically how it can be the latter, and still produce a dynamic universe of ANY kind. And as far as i know that is the the question, and we can’t answer it. But saying that time doesn’t exist is just pseudoscience. And we don’t know more than that (that I know of). And I haven’t ever encountered anything in physics that I can’t understand once we state it operationally. The universe is not complicated it is merley causally dense with operations (symmetries) forming by coincidence at increasingly complex (dense) levels. I have seen nothing in the universe at ALL that cannot be represented mathematically and geometrically once we understand the prevailing forces. The history of human knowledge expansion is this: everything is far more simple than we intuit. It’s people who are complicated. Because most of what we do is ‘lie’. -
CLARITY (TIME) —“We are constantly moving through spacetime but we just trade
CLARITY (TIME)
—“We are constantly moving through spacetime but we just trade movement in time for movement in space and vice versa, just like a function in cartesian space trades position in the x axis for position in the y axis. Gravity is reducible to a change in the elasticity of that trade.”—Thomas Wiltshire
Simple.
WHY IS CURT WRITING ABOUT THIS:
Today. One philosopher and four physicists debating time, and sounding like a bunch of chipmunks. The underlying question is whether what we call time (rate of change) is merely altered by the expansion and contraction of space, or whether it is a product of the expansion and contraction of space.
I can’t understand logically how it can be the latter, and still produce a dynamic universe of ANY kind.
And as far as i know that is the the question, and we can’t answer it.
But saying that time doesn’t exist is just pseudoscience. And we don’t know more than that (that I know of). And I haven’t ever encountered anything in physics that I can’t understand once we state it operationally.
The universe is not complicated it is merley causally dense with operations (symmetries) forming by coincidence at increasingly complex (dense) levels.
I have seen nothing in the universe at ALL that cannot be represented mathematically and geometrically once we understand the prevailing forces.
The history of human knowledge expansion is this: everything is far more simple than we intuit. It’s people who are complicated. Because most of what we do is ‘lie’.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-16 12:51:00 UTC
-
Clarity (Time)
—“We are constantly moving through spacetime but we just trade movement in time for movement in space and vice versa, just like a function in cartesian space trades position in the x axis for position in the y axis. Gravity is reducible to a change in the elasticity of that trade.”—Thomas Wiltshire Simple. WHY IS CURT WRITING ABOUT THIS: Today. One philosopher and four physicists debating time, and sounding like a bunch of chipmunks. The underlying question is whether what we call time (rate of change) is merely altered by the expansion and contraction of space, or whether it is a product of the expansion and contraction of space. I can’t understand logically how it can be the latter, and still produce a dynamic universe of ANY kind. And as far as i know that is the the question, and we can’t answer it. But saying that time doesn’t exist is just pseudoscience. And we don’t know more than that (that I know of). And I haven’t ever encountered anything in physics that I can’t understand once we state it operationally. The universe is not complicated it is merley causally dense with operations (symmetries) forming by coincidence at increasingly complex (dense) levels. I have seen nothing in the universe at ALL that cannot be represented mathematically and geometrically once we understand the prevailing forces. The history of human knowledge expansion is this: everything is far more simple than we intuit. It’s people who are complicated. Because most of what we do is ‘lie’.