Theme: Science

  • “Aren’t you implicitly conflating the hard sciences with computer programming? I

    —“Aren’t you implicitly conflating the hard sciences with computer programming? It seems so. For you the sciences at hand are absolutely sufficient for every decision making, which (I assume, sorry) is boiling down to the Boolean algebra.”—Igor Rogov

    I’m saying that there is only one ‘science’: truth telling, and that the scientific method, if completed (via testimonialism) unifies science, philosophy, law, and evolutionary biology.

    properties > category > sets > operations > sequential operations > externalities from sequential operations > macro-patterns from externalities.

    And that while computers can COMPUTE algorithms using TYPES, humans can CALCULATE ‘routes’ using CATEGORIES


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-23 08:40:00 UTC

  • The problem is that while our hard sciences produce scientific statements irrele

    The problem is that while our hard sciences produce scientific statements irrelevant to the state, our social sciences produce pseudoscientific content in furtherance of the state, and our economic and financial system is structurally unscientific in furtherance of the state.

    So the means by which conservatives resist the pseudosciences of the state is to resist the sciences at all, as an opposition strategy, the same way that the marxists, postmodernists, and other pseudoscientists attack the civilization.

    So the only way we solve this problem is FULLY SCIENTIFIC including the social economic and political sciences or we continue to practice ‘cherry picking’ in the sciences.

    It’s that simple.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 18:22:00 UTC

  • ON THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PSEUDOSCIENCE OF ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE (important)(

    ON THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PSEUDOSCIENCE OF ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE

    (important)(i don’t address this often enough)

    —“Curt, why do you say that accounting is fragile?”—

    Great Question.

    Our accounting systems have largely remained a technology of the era of their invention: the Age of Sail and Gold Standard with the production cycles of agrarian and international shipping.

    We still treat fiat money(shares in the state as a money substitute) as if it’s money proper (commodity money).

    If you want to make it simple:

    1) risk is not accounted for in accounting, reporting, or taxation, and is the inverse of reality.

    2) All accounting systems ‘launder’ money by pooling it, rather than tracing it.

    3) The financial system is archaic and predatory.

    4) Multiple audiences require different ‘distortions’ of management (true cash) accounting, yet we have no technical means (now) of producing those reports from a single act of data entry, because money is not traceable but pooled.

    5) Because of this accounting is far behind, terribly complex, and understates fragility (risk) dramatically.

    6) it is incredibly profitable for the state and the financial sector to preserve this universal deception that obscures the truth at the expense of the entrepreneurial, management, professional, craftsmanly, and laboring classes.

    GOVERNMENT DISTORTION

    Interference by Calendar (monthly) rather than Lunar (weekly) measurements.

    Interference and Distortion by Taxation and Double Taxation

    Interference and Distortion by taxes on dividends vs appreciation and loss.

    Interference by Amortization and Depreciation to maximize taxation.

    Lack of taxation by liquidity (personal, small cap, large cap) creates scale and fragility

    THE PROBLEM

    1) Business is volatile, management actions take time to produce results, and so risk is not accounted for in either accounting nor in taxation.

    2) Few capital intensive businesses, more knowledge and talent and customer-relationshp businesses, none of which the company can ‘own’ but the upper 10% of which constitutes its entire competitive difference, and persistence.

    3) R&D off book by small companies, profit by large companies that scale but buy smaller companies that do R&D.

    4) Few inter-decade (inter-generatinoal) companies, and larger networks of increasingly fragile self-organizing companies with less predicable outcomes.

    5) “Pensions” and liabilities (incalculable intergenerational transfers).

    6) Preferential treatment given to landlords and others during liquidation and those that have access to legal teams, on a first come first serve basis rather than by orderly payments. in other words, in financial duress the courts should have no recourse to cause preference in payments, and lender should “beware”.

    7) Vast, unimaginable, thefts on scales unheard of in history by manipulation of courts and financialization of agreements. (lender privilege rather than lender beware).

    8) Distribution of liquidity through the financial system to the benefit of the financial system yet running into the zero bound problem rather than distribution of liquidity directly to consumers to the benefit of the consumer and business sectors.

    9) The asymmetric power of lobbyists in funding political campaigns such that those attempts at reform since the 1980’s when the problems were first accepted, were

    10) Fallacy (and harm) of Common-Shareholder-as-owner which allows large financial interests to takeover companies, extend the risk, take profits and allow failure. (Same for george soros. Violates principle of productive voluntary fully informed and warrantied exchanges).

    What this all means is that the political, financial classes constantly extract money from the SMB space, the entrepreneur, the manager, the craftsman and the laborer by the gradual but constant transfer of risk downward, and the redistribution of gains upward, thereby institutionalizing the socialization of losses and privatization of gains.

    ACCOUNTING DISTORTION

    Management reporting (operating success), vs bank reporting(credit worthiness) vs tax reporting (taxation) vs investor reporting(balance sheet) vs stock market reporting (nonsense).

    The method of recording financial transactions and the work necessary to produce various reports for various audiences, means that accounting does what serves its interests, and the truth of the business is obscured from everyone and the viability of the going concern vastly overstated. There is too little algorithmic processing in accounting. it’s still manual or ‘macros’ (policies).

    Going Concern/Asset (credit) Value/ Tax Value / Liquidation Value. AFAIK the only ‘value’ proper is liquidation value, and that’s empirically the case. (In addition, conflating market CAP with market VALUE should be illegal. I would argue that PE ratio is the only )

    Selective Accounting (not measuring market potential vs debt). It is entirely possible to measure market capture and report it month to month and this is the best indicator of management performance, and management performance is nonsense without it.

    Conflating Operating from Non Operating Performance. Businesses should report on profit and loss from operations and produce separate profit and loss from capital operations, tax, credit, and shareholder reports from the same data.

    Eliminating intergenerational transfers. ie: there can be no post liquidation debts constructed – period, and no debts beyond the operating horizon of the business.

    Pooling (laundering) money – (obscuring) rather than tracing (transparency) There is no reason all financial transactions are not tagged and directed and traceable down to the penny (just as they are with Blockchain(bitcoin) transactions.

    IMPORTANT: My solution to this problem of pooling is to use blockchain ledgers on legally mandated financial categories so that each financial transaction inside an accounting system transfers ledger values, producing perfect transparency. This produces a perfect audit trail not open to ‘fudging’ which is so common.

    GOVERNMENT

    The government for example measures velocity but not capital. That’s what GDP does. Marylin Waring (a horrible feminist) at at least addresses the issue in the production of offspring. Mother’s production of children is a capital good. Yet we don’t account for it.

    Average age is a capital good.

    IQ is a capital good yet we don’t account for it.

    Personalities are a capital good but we don’t account for them.

    Trust is a capital good – perhaps the most important.

    Truth telling is a capital good – perhaps the most important.

    Rule of Law is a capital good – perhaps the most important.

    Monuments, parks, architecture (aesthetics) are a capital good.

    Work to Leisure ratio is a capital good.

    Savings are a capital good.

    Homogeneity of race and culture is a capital good.

    BLAME IT ON ACCOUNTING AS A PSEUDOSCIENCE

    We can easily say that the evils of the 20th century are produced by a combination of mathematical pseudoscience (keynesian economics) and monetary accounting (pseudoscience) because they both cherry pick consumption rather than changes in the state of capital

    Money is no longer money. Accounting no longer accounts. We are flying blind, and fragile, and burning down 1000 years of accumulated cultural capital.

    How do we separate science from pseudoscience?

    FULL INTERTEMPORAL ACCOUNTING OF OPPORTUNITY, COST, RISK, AND CONSEQUENCE.

    Is our accounting a science for the purpose of truth? Or is it a pseudoscience for the purpose of deceit?

    We know the answer.

    And we have known for twenty years how to fix the problem.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 09:01:00 UTC

  • ON TRUTH: WORKING WITH SCIENCE, NOT PLATONISM (closing in on the final words on

    ON TRUTH: WORKING WITH SCIENCE, NOT PLATONISM

    (closing in on the final words on truth)

    You are making the error of set comparisons that is so common in rationalist ‘pseudoscience’, by which you use framing to create false dichotomies.

    DEFINITIONS

    —“Thus, if you try to define the concept of “truth” by appeal to the concept of “knowledge”,”—

    I don’t. I define the concept of TRUTH by the spectrum of survival from due diligence.

    I define KNOWLEDGE as anything from awareness to perfectly informed.

    INFORMATION CONTENT UNDER CONSIDERATION

    We work, I work, not with ideal types, but with series (a spectrum).

    We work, I work, not with sets but with supply demand curves.

    We work, I work, not with set operations, but with algorithmic (existential) operations.

    We work, I work, with the information content of reality, not a subset of reality.

    Ergo We work, I work, with actions(reality) not just language(ideals).

    In other words, I work with science, not platonism.

    SPECTRUM OF KNOWLEDGE

    1) True (decidable) in the given context of a given question. (truth candidate)(law)

    2) Truthful (actionable) in the given context of a given question. (truth candidate)(theory)

    3) Undecidable (inactionable) in the given context of a given question. (non-truth)(hypothesis)

    4) Suspect (undecidable) in the given context of a given question.(non-truth)(theory)

    5) False (decidable) in the given context of the given question.(non-truth)(law)

    WHAT DOES THIS RESULT IN?

    Truth by Triangulation

    One can only estimate by triangulation.

    Truth is a process of incremental improvement of estimations.

    And in fact. If you were to study all facets of man (I have) this is how truth is determined in all disciplines wherein men act upon their statements (‘Skin in the Game’), and those disciplines that are ‘just talk’ do not.

    Hence the similarity in nonsense between rationalism and religious law (Hermenutics) that it evolved from.

    Hence the similarity in not-nonsense between sciences, and the common empirical law that they evolved from.

    CLOSING

    If you understand the past two long posts I have made you will understand the entire history of philosophy in those few words.

    The Iranian laws evolved to prevent retaliation cycles.

    Abrahamic religion was invented to lie.

    Greek philosophy to reform greek law – more reason.

    Stoic philosophy evolved out off greek law to speak the truth.

    Roman law evolved out of stoic philosophy.

    Western law evolved out of roman law and germanic pagan law.

    English law evolved more out of anglo saxon pagan law.

    Empiricism evolved out of germanic and anglo saxon law.

    Nothing else to be understood.

    In other words, if you’re practicing ‘cherry-picking’ using set operations on language, you’re engaging in pseudoscience.

    No dimension of reason’s subsets of reality is capable of proving itself without appeal to the next dimension of reality.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-19 13:43:00 UTC

  • PLEASE TRY TO BE SMARTER ABOUT APPLIED MATHEMATICS THAN I AM. IT’S EASY. I AM GL

    PLEASE TRY TO BE SMARTER ABOUT APPLIED MATHEMATICS THAN I AM. IT’S EASY. I AM GLAD PEOPLE DO THAT SO I DON”T HAVE TO. BUT DO NOT TRY TO BE SMARTER ABOUT THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATH (OR TRUTH) THAN I AM. OK?

    > Curt Doolittle :

    A priori consist of trivial examples of hypotheses. The deductive consist of trivial examples of the a priori.

    There exists only one epistemic method:

    observation > free association > wayfinding > hypothesis > self criticism > theory > market criticism > law.

    The non-contradictory, the a priori and the deductive are simply trivial cases.

    ===

    >Robert Mosimann :

    If such a simplistic view of the a priori and epistemic methods were true then

    Provide the observational evidence to establish the axioms of mathematics such as

    The axiom of infinity

    The Power set axiom

    The Generalized Continuum Hypothesis.

    How about the law of Contradiction itself

    Etc

    Only someone not knowing much science or mathematics would consider the a priori and deductive cases to be trivial.

    ====

    Curt Doolittle:

    You’re kidding me.

    Let’s just take the first one.

    “I promise that I observe that the method of constructing positional names that we commonly refer to as ‘natural numbers’, can be performed without limit, other than practical limit, and as such I can deduce that at least that single set of positional names satisfies the criteria of limitlessness independent of applied context that we commonly represent with the symbol *infinity*.”

    Ergo: “I can truthfully claim, as a general rule of scale independence – meaning that by removing the dimensions of time, space, operations, and cost, at least one condition of infinity is possible.”

    This is a trivial observation.

    The Continuum Hypothesis is the most interesting because it’s stated pseudo-scientifically and appears profound. But if stated scientifically (meaning informationally complete) then it’s also trivial:

    “I promise that I observe that the method of constructing position names beginning with the natural numbers all ratios thereof, that the rate of production of some positional names (numbers) will vary per operation.”

    Or the law of contradiction.

    “I promise that I observe that when I name a set of properties, relations, and values (category), that if I refer to (testify) a different set of properties, relations and values(category) by the same name I engage in either error or deception (falsehood).”

    These are trivial statements dressed upon pseudo-scientific garb, because of the remnants of archaic platonism in the field.

    The foundation of mathematics is trivial: correspondence and non-correspondence. Dimensions included, or dimensions ignored. The only challenge in mathematics is in applied math: like chess, the learning of observable patterns of transformations.

    Each dimension of reality we can speak of (identity, logical, empirical, operational(existential), rational, reciprocal, and fully accounted), and each dimension of constant relations (mathematics) we can speak of (identity, number(name), arithmetic(quantity), geometry(space), calculus(motion), and algebraic geometry (pure relations), can only be tested (proved) by appeal to the subsequent dimension. (No system of logic can prove itself). Hence the necessity of axiom of choice..

    Anyway. If there is anyone living who understands these matters better than I do, I would love to know. But as far as I know, there isn’t.

    Cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 14:53:00 UTC

  • (excerpt) Philosophy has faced a worse decline than science, if for the simple r

    (excerpt)

    Philosophy has faced a worse decline than science, if for the simple reason that separating truth, goodness, preference, utility, and possibility in the discipline of philosophy in the same way that physics, chemistry, biology, and cognitive science has been separated in the sciences, has been almost impossible.

    (see?)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 19:52:00 UTC

  • COMPARING TESTIMONIALISM AND MATHEMATICS AS TESTS OF DESCRIPTIONS OF INCREASING

    COMPARING TESTIMONIALISM AND MATHEMATICS AS TESTS OF DESCRIPTIONS OF INCREASING DIMENSIONS OF REALITY

    (more very important ideas in here for serious philosophy students)

    Testimonialism = test all possible dimensions of reality.

    categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, and fully accounted (scope and limits).

    Just like math: identity, correspondence, positional name, arithmetic (quantity) operations, geometric (space) operations, Algebra (change) operations, Calculus (relative change) operations, algebraic geometry (pure relations) operations.

    So in both mathematics and testimony we test all possible dimensions of reality. The difference is that in mathematics we are familiar with the choice of which level of math is necessary to describe a problem, whereas in Testimony we are not yet familiar enough to understand which level of reasoning is necessary to describe a problem.

    So think of Testimonialism as differing from math in that mathematical objects consists of identical categories of constant relations in relation to the possible dimensions of reality. Whereas Testimonialism consists of any set of categories and any set of relations, in relation to the possible dimensions of reality.

    Or another way, mathematics and logic and empirical science and law are subsets of testimonialism. (truthful testimony)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 18:53:00 UTC

  • THE STATES OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY (very important ideas in here for serious p

    THE STATES OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY

    (very important ideas in here for serious philosophy students)

    If we define ‘science’ as ‘the invention of instruments by which we produce measurements, with which to reduce the imperceptible and incomparable to the perceptible and comparable, such that it is accessible to reason’ and that ‘the scientific method’ is the process by which we do that, then ‘science’ succeeds in applied science, (chemistry, biology, engineering, programming, mathematics) and is stalled in physics, and has been an utter failure in the social pseudo-sciences, and was an utter failure in ( the pseudoscience of ) psychology – although, in the past two decades, thanks to advances in imaging, have attempted to rectify psychology to some degree.

    So the problem is better stated as “science does well in the use of instruments’ and not so well in the use of reason.

    Philosophy has faced a worse decline than science, if for the simple reason that separating truth, goodness, preference, utility, and possibility in the discipline of philosophy in the same way that physics, chemistry, biology, and cognitive science has been separated in the sciences, has been almost impossible.

    Worse, the continental tradition continues to practice Abrahamic (religious) invention of conflating both point of view (experience, intention, action, observation) as well as the utility (true, good, preferable, useful, and possible), and even worse, the existential dimensions (real, hyperbolic, ideal-platonic, and supernatural-impossible). So the entire continental program is engaged in secular theology and nothing more.

    Worse, despite the (wasted century) culminating in Frege/Kripke, and the knowledge that set operations cannot result in meaningful truth propositions and that ‘all logic is but a test of tautology’ the discipline of philosophy still relies on language and set membership rather than operations and existential possibility (and if necessary, external correspondence).

    Worse, philosophy continues (to talk nonsense) to practice the long tradition of ignoring costs, or full accounting. And while, via negativa, this made sense in the ancient world, where all virtues require little more than refraining from imposing costs upon others – in the modern world, where we can use the vote as a proxy for violence by which to impose costs upon others, this is far less “honest and truthful” a tactic -and instead, is a means of self, and other-deception.

    If your discipline cannot fully account for all dimensions of reality in its propositions ABOUT reality. Particularly in the Possible, GOOD and the TRUE, then the entire purpose of the discipline is nothing more than evading reality (religion) and a means by which to produce falsehoods for the purpose of justifying parasitism on the left, and predation on the right.

    I am one of the harshest anti-philosophy philosophers, precisely because I do not practice ‘cherry picking’ of what I account for, nor do I tolerate conflations in any of the common dimensions.

    The excuse that philosophy is philosophizing is about as honest as religion’s claims – including the entirely falsifiable claim that philosophy ‘does good’.

    Either philosophy is the means by which we develop methods of decidability in possibility, utility, preference, good, and true, where the ‘true’ is that which is decidable independent of goodness, preference, utility, and possibility, or it is, like religion, a method by which – at best – dilettantes produce witticisms with which to deceive honest and moral people, and – at worst – the means by which the crimes of marketers, frauds, priests, academics, politicians, prey upon others for fun and profit.

    So, I don’t see much serious philosophy going on in this world outside of a few individuals who work in the sciences. What I see instead, is a vast number of dilettantes virtue signalling their cunning, while advocating their preferred version of self-rewarding immorality over that preferred vision of self-rewarding immorality of others.

    And that’s probably the most accurate description of philosophy today you will find.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 18:34:00 UTC

  • What happens when we are no longer functioning in the context of the fantasies o

    What happens when we are no longer functioning in the context of the fantasies of literature and history, and are face-front with the science that says: “Yes, the source of evil in the ancient and modern worlds, and the causes of our dark ages, is the invention of lying by suggestion and it has caused more death, suffering, poverty, ignorance, and degeneracy than all the plaques of history combined.?”

    What happens when we can no longer deny the fact that Abrahamism evolved to be worse with each generation, and islam – the third generation – was worse than all other ills of mankind combined?

    We can’t deny it any longer.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 15:44:00 UTC

  • test of parsimony: E8. purely geometric universe. boringly so. Superposition and

    test of parsimony: E8. purely geometric universe. boringly so. Superposition and entanglement obvious effects. possibility that we cannot conduct experiments of sufficient energy to answer the non-EMR relations for millennia. forward progress in physics limited until then


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 15:14:00 UTC