http://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0082
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-08 13:24:00 UTC
http://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0082
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-08 13:24:00 UTC
—“In my case, I was a hardcore mathematical platonist without being aware of it (coming from pure math background). Then saw your argument about Cantor, thought you were posturing initially, then kept thinking about it. … Major red pill.”— Propertarian Frank
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 22:30:00 UTC
—“You can’t understand decidability without computer science.—Propertarian Frank
That’s the conclusion I came to. I can read all those thinkers at the turn of the 20th century. And then I read … just ONE paper by Turing, and .. I get it. It wasn’t until I got to Mises and I understood he had it wrong somehow, but right somehow. It just took me a long time to put it all together.
Computers are a different way of thinking – a NEW way of thinking. They are as different as empiricism was from reason, and as different as rationalism was from reason, and as different as geometry was from arithmetic.
We burned a century because babbage couldn’t get his machine into production on a meaningful (military) problem.
We burned almost 2000 years because Achimedes was his era’s Babbage, and Athens and Sparta were our era’s Germany and Britain.
We could have dragged humanity out of ignorance and poverty 2000 years ago.
I know why now. I know what we do wrong.
And we, in our generation, must fix it forever.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 22:28:00 UTC
Nassim. 1) is there any need for more precise rule than exponential dist? 2) Does the data exist to test for a more precise rule?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 15:14:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850366157592952832
Reply addressees: @nntaleb
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/849692842398281729
IN REPLY TO:
@nntaleb
Probability Du Jour:
The border between thin tails & fat tails resides in exponential distribution.
Maximum entropy under MAD constraint. https://t.co/cAXWRqVzS9
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/849692842398281729
FOR FANS OF AUSTRIAN ECON
(worth repeating)
***There is a very great similarity between the economic calculation debate against classical economics and the intuitionist-constructivist against classical mathematics. Once you see the parallel you will see how this is not a problem of math or economics but of epistemology that popper suggested: it is increasingly difficult to make truth propositions that are dependent upon deductions, unless we can also construct the result we have deduced without the need for deduction.***
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 10:56:00 UTC
SHOULD I READ POINCARE OR ABOUT POINCARE, OR ABOUT THE DEBATES POINCARE WAS ACTIVE IN??? 😉
—“Hey Curt – here’s a question for you: what of Poincare’s should I read? Since I know you like him!”—Davin Eastley
Great question. Although, Poincare was, like Hilbert, so successful, that we live in a mathematics that you probably know of so thoroughly it is really old hat to you. So reading about his biography might be interesting. Reading about his philosophy might be interesting. But reading about his math? You’ve already learned it all.
Poincare is interesting in the debate on the foundations of mathematics and against that of Cantor. I view him along with Menger (marginalism), Mises(praxeological constructivism), Brouwer (Mathematical intuitionism and later, Constructivism), Bridgman (scientific operationalism), and Popper (Scientific falsificationism – his attempt at completing the scientific method, as part of the tribe attempting to solve the problem of pseudoscience that arose out of the excessive use of statistical analysis in the 19th century, and in particular, the use of probability by Keynes to circumvent moral (reciprocity) testing of each action in a network of transactions.
So that said, I would suggest reading the SEP articles on Constructive Mathematics and Intuitionism first, in the context of the struggle to define the foundations of mathematics. Then to read the SEP articles on all the rest of theh players above for the same reason. Then to read Poincare’s book …. (wait… I’ll look it up, it’s escaping me)… “Science and Hypothesis”.
There is a very great similarity between the economic calculation debate against classical economics and the intuitionist-constructivist against classical mathematics.
Once you see the parallel you will see how this is not a problem of math or economics but of epistemology that popper suggested: it is increasinly difficult to make truth propositions that are dependent upon deductions, unless we can also construct the result we have deduced without the need for deduction.
Stated in those terms I think its understandable. Particularly because we tend to work today in high causal density fields, with far greater categorical variation than classical mathematics operated under.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 10:54:00 UTC
William Butchman
re: —“I see sovereignty as the strategy, and the heroic narrative in myth, religion, literature, history… and science, as the western narrative.”— Curt Doolittle
I posit that the NSDAP did that. But they had a positive value system which failed when validated against the Darwinian test. I think that sovereignty via heroism can be pursued in many ways, but the outcome will vary greatly based on the positive value system… something via negative cannot provide.
Curt Doolittle
correct. and something we cannot KNOW. Therefore we require a market for via-positiva value systems, so that we calculate by trial and error the possibility that at least one of them will work.
Which is saying the same thing EXCEPT I intuit (right or wrong) that you (like most) desire a monopoly narrative, not a market for them.
Via negativa, sovereignty, and transcendence are enough for those who possess agency, because the need for anything ELSE is an admission of the lack of agency.
But few men possess agency. Even in this group where we have many smart people that number is in the low single digits.
The rest of men want only (a) convfirmation that their narrative, the narrative needed for their level of agency, is ‘good’. (b) the method of arguing against competing narratives with lower or higher agency.
I think that like reproductive value, like class, like intelligence, we must understand that agency is another trait that separates us – and that we seek to deny until we can no longer deny it.
My advocacy of natural law (truth), and soverignty, is not to advance our people as much as it is to prevent the harm to our people by those who would make the same excuses (arguments) as a means of distributing (selling) another parasitic and predatory narrative as did the jews and teh christians and muslims, and buddhists.
So the man lacking sovereignty seeks via positiva, and the man possessing sovereignty seeks via negativa – there is nothing else for the sovereign to SEEK.
The powerful are so becaue of correspondence. They do not need license, they need to eliminate competitors.
There are many layers of weakness (lack of agency) below sovergithy. we must give them the tools to transcend.
If they do not want those tools we must force them or exterminate them out of defense. If they cannot use the tools we must manufacture them (narratives) that support them.
This is the unstated conundrum you and Bill Joslin are struggling with.
To which the uncomfortable answer is evident, but requires intellectual honesty.
The answer is sovereignty, natural law, and via negativa. But there are very few capable of it. Even if it is the only means of transcendence and therefore production. All other alternatives are not methods of transcendence and production, but of decline, and consumption.
Accepting this is probably the one thing you’d both need to do in order to lead those who share your intuitions, rather than require a leader with those intuitions who had made that acceptance.
Love always.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 10:01:00 UTC
RELIGION = FEEL (fully intuit – absence of measure)
RATIONALISM = THINK ( partly intuit – measure internally)
SCIENCE = CALCULATE (minimally intuit-maximally measure externally)
(feels, thinks, and reals)
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 09:42:00 UTC
RELIGION = FEEL
RATIONALISM = THINK
SCIENCE = CALCULATE
(feels, thinks, and reals)
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 09:30:00 UTC
Kant has a special place in hell for restoring plato and ensuring that the scientific revolution was given an alternative.
Aristotle, and the victors – description: history, and science.
Plato and the germans – imaginary fiction
Aquinas and the Rest – supernatural fiction
As far as I can tell,
if you are not very bright you choose religion.
If you are able to at least read well you choose platonism (idealism)
If you are able to calculate you choose science.
Why? because the difficulty in the employment of reason to obtain decidability increases as you increase the form of communication.
There is nothing to be found in philosophy worth finding. And kant and the cancers of thought that he gave rise to both german, jewish , russian, and french are the source of the pseudorationalism that has destroyed philosophy and relegated it to western religion.
And worse, it gave technology of argument to the jews, who, just as Kant preserved christianity in transforming it into pseudorational verse, the jews transformed pilpul into jewish law, and jewish law into pseudosciences: boazian anthropology, marxist sociology and economics, freudian psychology, Frankfurt anti-aesthetics, cantorian mathematics, and the anglo crime built upon it, keynesian economics.
Time travel literature: Kill zoroaster if not, Kill abraham if not, kill plato, if not, Kill Justinian and Constantine, if not Kill Aquinas, if not kill Rousseu, if not Kill Kant, if not Kill marx, frued, boaz, weil and all the frankfurt school.
READ THE SCIENCE
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 21:32:00 UTC