Mar 22, 2017 11:08am I THINK THIS MIGHT BE HARD FOR YOU BUT …. (mathematics and truth) (very important) (hot gates pls read) The answer is quite simple: you just demonstrated proof of operational construction and named that series of actions. Reality consists of the following actionable and conceivable dimensions: 1 – point, (identity, or correspondence) 2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points) 3 – area (defined by constant relations) 4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations) 5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations) 6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas)) 7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations) 8 – reality (or totality) (full causal density) We can speak in descriptions including (at least): 1 – operational (true) names 2 – mathematics (ratios) 3 – logic (sets) 4 – physics (operations) 5 – Law (reciprocity) 6 – History (memory) 7 – Literature (allegory (possible)) 8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible ) 8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory) 8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory) 8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature) 8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory) 8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory ) We can testify to the truth of our speech only when we have performed due diligence to remove: 1 – ignorance, 2 – error, 3 – bias, 4 – wishful thinking, 5 – suggestion, 6 – obscurantism, 7 – fictionalism, and 8 – deceit. So of the tests: 1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point) 2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line) 3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object) 4 – operational possibility (what you just described) (equivalent of change [operations]) 6 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof) You have demonstrated test number 4. Only. Those operations existed or can exist. That you engaged in conflation (or deception) because you have given allegorical (fictional) names to a sequence of operations does not. Because you reintroduced falsehood by analogy. You can imagine a something with the properties of a unicorn, you can speak of the same, draw the same, sculpt the same … but until you can breed one (and even then we must question), and we can test it, the unicorn does not exist ***in any condition that we can test in all dimensions necessary for you to testify it exists*** This is just one of the differences between TRUTH (dimensional consistency (constant relations)), and some subset of the properties of reality (DIMENSIONAL CONSISTENCY). Mathematics allows us to describe constant relations between constant categories (correspondence) by means of self-reference we call ‘ratios’ to some constant unit (one). The more deterministic (constant) the relations the more descriptive mathematics, the higher causal density that influences changes in state, the more information and calculation is necessary for the description of candidate consequences, and eventually we must move from the description of end states to the description of intermediary states that because of causal density place limits on the ranges of possible end states. In other words, in oder to construct theories (descriptions) of general rules of constant relations, we SUBTRACT properties of reality from our descriptions until we include nothing but identity(category), quantity, and ratio, and constrain ourselves to operations that maintain the ratios between the subject (identity). Mathematics has evolved but retained (since the greeks at least) the ‘magical’ (fictional, supernormal fiction, we call platonism) as a means of obscuring a mathematician’s lack of understanding of just why ‘this magic works’. When in reality, mathematics is trivially simple, because it rests on nothing more than correspondence (identity), quantity, ratio, and operations that maintain those ratios, and incrementally adding or removing dimensions, to describe relations across the spectrum between points(identities, objects, categories) and pure relations at scales we do not yet possess the instrumentation or memory or ability to calculate at such vast scales – except through intermediary phenomenon. As such, operationally speaking, the discipline of mathematics consists (Truthfully) of the science (theories of), general rules of constant relations at scale independence, in arbitrarily selected dimensions. In other words. Mathematics consists of the study of measurement. it is understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of the universe – they are unobservable directly except at great cost. It is not understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of mathematics: because measurement is a very simple thing, and dimensions are very simple things. That mathematicians still speak in fictional language, just as do theists and just as do the majority of philosophers (pseudo science, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-mythology) is merely evidence of retention of ancient fictionalism (platonism). And the fact that we must have these discussions demonstrates the equivalent of faith in platonic models, is equal to faith in theological models – merely lacking the anthropomorphism. Ergo, infinities are a fictionalism. Multiple infinities are a fictionalism. Both fictionalism describe conditions where time and actions (operations) have been removed as is common in the discipline of measurement (mathematics). Operationally, numbers (operationally constructed positional names, must be existentially produced as are movements of gears attached in ratio. And as such certain sets of numbers (outputs) are produced faster (like seconds or minutes vs hours) than other sets of numbers (outputs), and the reverse: some slower. But we simply ignore this fact and instead of saying no matter what limits we apply, the size of the current set of x will always be larger than the current set of y, we say the infinities are of different sizes? No. the intermediary sets produce members at different rates, and the term ‘infinity’ merely refers to ‘unknown limit’ or ‘limit that must be supplies by correspondence with reality upon application. Practice math as science, or practice it as supernatural religion. I can make correspondent statements referring to god, I can make correspondent statements referring to ‘infinities’ or any other form of mathematical platonism, but in the end, when I do that, I merely make excuses for my inability to testify to causality: TRUTH. Ergo, like I said, I am pretty well versed in the philosophy of mathematics, and I am perhaps most versed in the philosophy of science of anyone living. And I am pretty confident that mathematicians are no different from scripturalists and platonists: using arcane language and internal consistency to justify a failure to grasp causality: that the only reason internal consistency correspondence to reality is because at least in the physics of the universe if not the actions of man, determinism reigns. In other words, mathematicians in most senses have no idea why what they do, allows them to do what they do. And at least physicists admit it. And lawyers before juries have no choice. Our “Objectives” (intentions) are irrelevant in court. You do not have any right, permission, or ability to determine harm to others. Others determine if you have caused harm to them. And the jury, the judge, and the law are used to determine if in fact your words and deeds cause harm to others. As a prosecutor in court, trying you on whether you speak truthfully, you are guilty of making excuses for the harm you have done by false representation of the discipline of measurement. 😉 you might claim no harm, but then the opposition would say that your retention of fictionalism imposes a cost on every student which is multiplied by every possible action that they could have taken involving any judgement requiring measurement. If we can prevent other kinds of fraud in the market for goods, services, and testimony, why cannot we fill the gap, and prevent fraud in the market for information? 😉 In other words, in crime, neither your intentions nor your opinion matter. Defacto, you’re imposing costs on the commons. The question is only whether the outcome of your actions imposes costs. Once that question is settled, you are liable for restitution regardless of intent. Now, since the cost of the practice of supernaturalism, super-normalism (platonism), pseudo-rationalism, and pseudoscience, are only substantial when in the commons, whatever you think in your head is your choice. However once yo speak it in public you are just as liable for that damage as you are liable for yelling fire in the theater. There is no fire in the theatre, and there is no imaginary existence. Infinity is the name we give to unknown limits that must be provided by context.
Theme: Science
-
THREE POINTS TO HELP: 1) He uses this strategy all the time, He did it through t
http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2017/03/12/the-president-undermining-economic-data-is-no-laughing-matter/?utm_source=followingimmediate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20170312Adam.
THREE POINTS TO HELP:
1) He uses this strategy all the time, He did it through the campaign. He did it prior to taking office. And he has continued to do it since taking office: “Say what the base thinks, and cause the media to justify its possition thereby educating the people.” In this way he talks to his base, who understands exactly what he is doing, and avoids putting the press in control of the discourse.
I’m not the only person who has been putting this forward, dozens of others have.
2) One of the other techniques he makes use of is that conservatives speak in hyperbole in order to accentuate the conservative intuition to treat all moral statements under the Kantian Categorical Imperative: what if everyone did that, or what would be the consequences of a lot of this happening? (The intuition of the conservative time preference).
3) As someone who has spent a few decades now working on performative truth (and what we refer to as the scientific method), I think many of us in the population are desirous of putting the shoe on the other public intellectuals foot so to speak, and changing to where we actively interrogate the state, academy, and media. If for no other reason than the misuse of statistics, and the misrepresentation of nearly all ‘reserach’ in the social sciences and psychology.
Even within that discipline of economics, I find it trivially easy to demonstrate that almost every measure we can find constitutes cherrypicking and does not fully account for the changes in various forms of capital, and the cost of doing so. Isn’t economics of growth de-facto cherrypicking?
Anyway. On behalf of the public I prefer that politicians prosecute the academy state and media. Because those of us out here in the fields (little think tanks included) are clearly not able to do so in sufficient numbers.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 19:22:00 UTC
-
Los errores de Hoppe
Hay que reformar el racionalismo justificativo de Hans Hermann Hoppe en términos racionales y científicos. Los errores de Hoppe son naturales para un filósofo alemán crecido entre Marxistas y entrenado por ellos. Y mientras que esos errores son sustanciales, para estándares de la actualidad, son limitados a errores de construcción y justificación con sus conclusiones provenientes a la supervivencia de sus justificaciones. Esto es importante entenderlo. Desde los primeros trabajos de Hoppe en adelante, sus deducciones a partir de los incentivos son correctas. Los hombres justifican sus acciones morales dentro de un sistema normativo que evolucionó de las reglas. Los hombres ponen a prueba la veracidad de las cosas que afirman para ver si esas teorías sobreviven.-No pedimos permiso, simplemente lo hacemos-Encontramos la verdad cuando nuestras ideas sobreviven a todo tipo de crítica.
Los hombres no hemos hallado la verdad por medio de la justificación.
Justificación es interpretada como el que un hombre se salga con la suya al decir cualquier cosa para evitar algún tipo de represalia por violar las reglas pilares de la cooperación: Moralidad y la Ley. Las propuestas científicas de la verdad son puestas a prueba por métodos de debida diligencia que determinan si esas premisas son capaces de sobrevivir a la crítica, independientemente de preferencia, moralidad o leyes. Hoppe confunde la justificación legal (inventar excusas), con la verdad (supervivencia a toda competencia). De igual forma, Mises descubrió pero fracasó al entender que las propuestas honestas incluyen acciones y elecciones humanas requieren de la posibilida de construir una serie de secuencias racionales Y la supervivencia de falsificación lógica, empírica, y categórica. La verdad sobrevive a la competencia que le hacen las mentiras.
La posesión empíricamente existe previa a la cooperación y la propiedad existe después de llegar a un acuerdo para cooperar.
La escasez existe previa a la cooperación. Pero la escasez es imperceptible. Los costos son perceptibles. El origen de la propiedad demostrable es el costo de adquisición. La escasez sólo explica por que las cosas son costosas, no explica el origen de la posesión ni el origen de la propiedad. Existen distintos grupos de derechos de propiedad, y estos evolucionan de forma distinta en comunidades debido a la desproporción que hay en las ganancias que se reciben al cooperar a distintos niveles de habilidad, conocimiento y trabajo. La necesidad de preservar ese tipo de ganancias al prohibir el parasitismo es menester. Los derechos de propiedad no originan escasez de bienes, esos derechos se originan en la escasez y en las ganancias desproporcionadas que originan de la cooperación. Los hombres pagan por cooperar al llevar adelante las oportunidades de usar o consumir aquellos bienes y servicios en los que otros han invertido al usar, transformar y refinar materia prima para convertirla en bienes y servicios consumibles. El hombre, como otros animales, toma represalias contra toda imposición de costos externos hacia los bienes y servicios que a éste le ha costado tanto producir para tener un inventario. La demostración universal del castigo a parásitos y depredadores demuestra que la necesidad y valor de la cooperación es evolutiva, y que el valor de dicha cooperación para poner coto a los parásitos y depredadores es costosa y es escasa. Esto derrumba la argumentación (((libertaria))) que sugiere que la cooperación puede ser obtenida de forma gratuita, o que es un sesgo natural de los hombres u animales. En vez de ello los hombres y los animales son racionales. Cooperamos cuando no es posible, parasitamos cuando nos es posible y depredamos cuando nos es posible, y todo depende de lo que nos cueste.
La argumentación y la no contradicción
Se originan en la justificación legal posterior a la cooperación, no en las restricciones previas a cooperar. Si los hombres realizan intercambios, no existe moralidad para que lo hagan, los hombres crean la moralidad con sus acciones, valores, creencias, aptitudes y actitudes. La lógica de la cooperación no es binaria. Vivimos en un mundo amoral de violencia, robo, conspiración y engaños, y mientras podamos desarrollar y construir procesos cooperativos de forma voluntaria sabiendo los costos y las ganancias, tenemos la oportunidad de: A. Conservar el estado violento, de robo, engaño y conspiración hasta que tengamos la oportunidad de hacerlo. B. No agredir pero tampoco cooperar C. Cooperar cuando nos sea útil para conservar la posibilidad de seguir cooperando cuando se presente la oportunidad. D. Cooperar cuando nos sea posible y esperar lo mismo de los demás. E. Cesar cualquier nivel de cooperación y retroceder en las opciones anteriores. Asi que la contradicción es una prueba para un juez cuando le toca resolver disputas. No es una propiedad necesaria de la cooperación. Se pueden probar las violaciones de la reciprocidad (cooperación) durante las disputas pero no existe dependencia interna consistente previo a la fijación de un contrato que haga que las partes involucradas cooperen.
El enfoque mínimo de propiedad necesaria
Para construir un intercambio recíproco, para proveer incentivos mínimos para la formación racional de una entidad política voluntaria es la propiedad como un todo. La propiedad demostrable. Esa propiedad debe demostrarse cuando se defiende la afirmación de que se pagaron costos para su adquisición, y su mínimo enfoque es la propiedad verificable intersubjetivamente (IVP, intersubjectively verifiable property). Es aquella propiedad que es epistemológicamente sencilla de demostrar si la transferimos. Hoppe y (((Rothbard))) aplicaron de forma errónea éticas separatistas entre estados como razones suficientes para la formación de entidades político administrativas. Esto se conoce en el argot propietarista como Ética de Guetos. Se pudiera argüir que Hoppe sugiere que la IVP es un criterio mínimo y que todas las demás propiedades se construyen sobre ese criterio a manera de piedra fundacional. Sin embargo, esto quiere decir que el IVP no tiene criterios suficientes para ser la base de las leyes. Por su parte, la propiedad como un todo (propiedad demostrable) es un criterio suficiente para la base de la ley. En otras palabras, la propiedad física y tangible es insuficiente para la formación de un ente político administrativo, sólo es suficiente para cooperación entre estados (entes político administrativos organizados).
La formación de un ente político-administrativo anárquico
Requiere que los costos locales de transacción sean lo suficientemente bajos para limitar la demanda de la autoridad para prevenir represalias por violaciones de la propiedad como un todo, y para proveer suficientes incentivos para unirse a tal ente político administrativo en lugar de un ente político administrativo de características democrático-humanistas. La razón de esto es que debemos escoger entre costos locales elevados de transacción con costos políticos muy bajos que prohíban la velocidad económica; y costos locales de transacciones que incentivan alta velocidad económica con costos políticos elevados. Esto quiere decir que la anarquía sólo es posible si la sociedad en la que se aplica es una sociedad de altos niveles de confianza. Los altos niveles de confianza en las sociedades sólo son posibles cuando la propiedad en todo prohíbe por completo el engaño en vez de la propiedad verificable intersubjetivamente con su tolerancia tácita para el robo, el saqueo y la expoliación. Un ente político administrativo racionalmente anárquico sólo se puede formar bajo el esquema de propiedad como un todo, no como el esquema de la propiedad verificable intersubjetivamente. Esos entes político administrativos anárquicos de existencia discutible, en las pocas ocasiones que han existido lo han hecho porque estados más grandes han usado a okupas, invasores, colonos y los estados han liberado derechos de reclamación territorial en tierras fronterizas para poder quitárselas a los competidores de forma barata, sin tener que invertir mucho, toda vez que se puede ir a la guerra con estos si hay intentos contra ellos. Si esos han evolucionado por otras razones, han sido objeto de exterminio por sus vecinos. Porque la única razón de buscar tener un ente político administrativo con bajos niveles de confianza es porque se busca algun nivel de parasitismo: Gitanos en su punto más bajo, piratas en un punto medio, y depredadores financieros (riesgo moral) en un punto más alto. La formación de un ente político administrativo anárquico sólo es posible bajo formas occidentales de igualitarismo marcial aristocrático (una milicia) y el derecho consuetudinario independiente, que prohíba todo parasitismo contra la propiedad demostrable. Ludwig Von Mises, al igual que muchos de sus contemporáneos estaba intentando resolver el problema de su era, e incorrectamente desarrolló pruebas operativas al someter de forma subjetiva el análisis de incentivos racionales (praxeología) como una forma positiva de explorar y tener investigación suficiente para el fenómeno de la cooperación dentro de las relaciones económicas, en lugar de desarrollar una prueba de posibilidad existencial de sus clamores. La economía es empírica como cualquier otra ciencia y sólo difiere en lo que sabemos son los primeros principios de cooperación (Incentivos racionales en el polo positivo y parasitismo e imposición de costos en el lado negativo). Los pensamientos de Hoppe han sido perversos incentivos de las burocracias, incluso en las democracias más evidentes y exponen todos los argumentos morales y legales como derechos reducibles de propiedad. Toda esta justificación es Kantiana, Marxista y Cosmopolita. Y es un sinsentido. No justificamos la verdad con propuestas. Las premisas verdaderas sobreviven a los intentos de refutarlas. La filosofía ha sido usada por cierto (((demográfico))) para mentir. El libertarianismo rothbardiano es la prohibición más extremista del marxismo que se impone a la propiedad privada, reformada e invertida al extremismo marxista de la propiedad común. A pesar de que los derechos de propiedad sólo pueden existir comúnmente, y ningún ente político administrativo puede sobrevivir a la competencia por la gente y el intercambio y contra los competidores sin proveer bienes como los múltiples necesarios para hacerlo.
-
Los errores de Hoppe
Hay que reformar el racionalismo justificativo de Hans Hermann Hoppe en términos racionales y científicos. Los errores de Hoppe son naturales para un filósofo alemán crecido entre Marxistas y entrenado por ellos. Y mientras que esos errores son sustanciales, para estándares de la actualidad, son limitados a errores de construcción y justificación con sus conclusiones provenientes a la supervivencia de sus justificaciones. Esto es importante entenderlo. Desde los primeros trabajos de Hoppe en adelante, sus deducciones a partir de los incentivos son correctas. Los hombres justifican sus acciones morales dentro de un sistema normativo que evolucionó de las reglas. Los hombres ponen a prueba la veracidad de las cosas que afirman para ver si esas teorías sobreviven.-No pedimos permiso, simplemente lo hacemos-Encontramos la verdad cuando nuestras ideas sobreviven a todo tipo de crítica.
Los hombres no hemos hallado la verdad por medio de la justificación.
Justificación es interpretada como el que un hombre se salga con la suya al decir cualquier cosa para evitar algún tipo de represalia por violar las reglas pilares de la cooperación: Moralidad y la Ley. Las propuestas científicas de la verdad son puestas a prueba por métodos de debida diligencia que determinan si esas premisas son capaces de sobrevivir a la crítica, independientemente de preferencia, moralidad o leyes. Hoppe confunde la justificación legal (inventar excusas), con la verdad (supervivencia a toda competencia). De igual forma, Mises descubrió pero fracasó al entender que las propuestas honestas incluyen acciones y elecciones humanas requieren de la posibilida de construir una serie de secuencias racionales Y la supervivencia de falsificación lógica, empírica, y categórica. La verdad sobrevive a la competencia que le hacen las mentiras.
La posesión empíricamente existe previa a la cooperación y la propiedad existe después de llegar a un acuerdo para cooperar.
La escasez existe previa a la cooperación. Pero la escasez es imperceptible. Los costos son perceptibles. El origen de la propiedad demostrable es el costo de adquisición. La escasez sólo explica por que las cosas son costosas, no explica el origen de la posesión ni el origen de la propiedad. Existen distintos grupos de derechos de propiedad, y estos evolucionan de forma distinta en comunidades debido a la desproporción que hay en las ganancias que se reciben al cooperar a distintos niveles de habilidad, conocimiento y trabajo. La necesidad de preservar ese tipo de ganancias al prohibir el parasitismo es menester. Los derechos de propiedad no originan escasez de bienes, esos derechos se originan en la escasez y en las ganancias desproporcionadas que originan de la cooperación. Los hombres pagan por cooperar al llevar adelante las oportunidades de usar o consumir aquellos bienes y servicios en los que otros han invertido al usar, transformar y refinar materia prima para convertirla en bienes y servicios consumibles. El hombre, como otros animales, toma represalias contra toda imposición de costos externos hacia los bienes y servicios que a éste le ha costado tanto producir para tener un inventario. La demostración universal del castigo a parásitos y depredadores demuestra que la necesidad y valor de la cooperación es evolutiva, y que el valor de dicha cooperación para poner coto a los parásitos y depredadores es costosa y es escasa. Esto derrumba la argumentación (((libertaria))) que sugiere que la cooperación puede ser obtenida de forma gratuita, o que es un sesgo natural de los hombres u animales. En vez de ello los hombres y los animales son racionales. Cooperamos cuando no es posible, parasitamos cuando nos es posible y depredamos cuando nos es posible, y todo depende de lo que nos cueste.
La argumentación y la no contradicción
Se originan en la justificación legal posterior a la cooperación, no en las restricciones previas a cooperar. Si los hombres realizan intercambios, no existe moralidad para que lo hagan, los hombres crean la moralidad con sus acciones, valores, creencias, aptitudes y actitudes. La lógica de la cooperación no es binaria. Vivimos en un mundo amoral de violencia, robo, conspiración y engaños, y mientras podamos desarrollar y construir procesos cooperativos de forma voluntaria sabiendo los costos y las ganancias, tenemos la oportunidad de: A. Conservar el estado violento, de robo, engaño y conspiración hasta que tengamos la oportunidad de hacerlo. B. No agredir pero tampoco cooperar C. Cooperar cuando nos sea útil para conservar la posibilidad de seguir cooperando cuando se presente la oportunidad. D. Cooperar cuando nos sea posible y esperar lo mismo de los demás. E. Cesar cualquier nivel de cooperación y retroceder en las opciones anteriores. Asi que la contradicción es una prueba para un juez cuando le toca resolver disputas. No es una propiedad necesaria de la cooperación. Se pueden probar las violaciones de la reciprocidad (cooperación) durante las disputas pero no existe dependencia interna consistente previo a la fijación de un contrato que haga que las partes involucradas cooperen.
El enfoque mínimo de propiedad necesaria
Para construir un intercambio recíproco, para proveer incentivos mínimos para la formación racional de una entidad política voluntaria es la propiedad como un todo. La propiedad demostrable. Esa propiedad debe demostrarse cuando se defiende la afirmación de que se pagaron costos para su adquisición, y su mínimo enfoque es la propiedad verificable intersubjetivamente (IVP, intersubjectively verifiable property). Es aquella propiedad que es epistemológicamente sencilla de demostrar si la transferimos. Hoppe y (((Rothbard))) aplicaron de forma errónea éticas separatistas entre estados como razones suficientes para la formación de entidades político administrativas. Esto se conoce en el argot propietarista como Ética de Guetos. Se pudiera argüir que Hoppe sugiere que la IVP es un criterio mínimo y que todas las demás propiedades se construyen sobre ese criterio a manera de piedra fundacional. Sin embargo, esto quiere decir que el IVP no tiene criterios suficientes para ser la base de las leyes. Por su parte, la propiedad como un todo (propiedad demostrable) es un criterio suficiente para la base de la ley. En otras palabras, la propiedad física y tangible es insuficiente para la formación de un ente político administrativo, sólo es suficiente para cooperación entre estados (entes político administrativos organizados).
La formación de un ente político-administrativo anárquico
Requiere que los costos locales de transacción sean lo suficientemente bajos para limitar la demanda de la autoridad para prevenir represalias por violaciones de la propiedad como un todo, y para proveer suficientes incentivos para unirse a tal ente político administrativo en lugar de un ente político administrativo de características democrático-humanistas. La razón de esto es que debemos escoger entre costos locales elevados de transacción con costos políticos muy bajos que prohíban la velocidad económica; y costos locales de transacciones que incentivan alta velocidad económica con costos políticos elevados. Esto quiere decir que la anarquía sólo es posible si la sociedad en la que se aplica es una sociedad de altos niveles de confianza. Los altos niveles de confianza en las sociedades sólo son posibles cuando la propiedad en todo prohíbe por completo el engaño en vez de la propiedad verificable intersubjetivamente con su tolerancia tácita para el robo, el saqueo y la expoliación. Un ente político administrativo racionalmente anárquico sólo se puede formar bajo el esquema de propiedad como un todo, no como el esquema de la propiedad verificable intersubjetivamente. Esos entes político administrativos anárquicos de existencia discutible, en las pocas ocasiones que han existido lo han hecho porque estados más grandes han usado a okupas, invasores, colonos y los estados han liberado derechos de reclamación territorial en tierras fronterizas para poder quitárselas a los competidores de forma barata, sin tener que invertir mucho, toda vez que se puede ir a la guerra con estos si hay intentos contra ellos. Si esos han evolucionado por otras razones, han sido objeto de exterminio por sus vecinos. Porque la única razón de buscar tener un ente político administrativo con bajos niveles de confianza es porque se busca algun nivel de parasitismo: Gitanos en su punto más bajo, piratas en un punto medio, y depredadores financieros (riesgo moral) en un punto más alto. La formación de un ente político administrativo anárquico sólo es posible bajo formas occidentales de igualitarismo marcial aristocrático (una milicia) y el derecho consuetudinario independiente, que prohíba todo parasitismo contra la propiedad demostrable. Ludwig Von Mises, al igual que muchos de sus contemporáneos estaba intentando resolver el problema de su era, e incorrectamente desarrolló pruebas operativas al someter de forma subjetiva el análisis de incentivos racionales (praxeología) como una forma positiva de explorar y tener investigación suficiente para el fenómeno de la cooperación dentro de las relaciones económicas, en lugar de desarrollar una prueba de posibilidad existencial de sus clamores. La economía es empírica como cualquier otra ciencia y sólo difiere en lo que sabemos son los primeros principios de cooperación (Incentivos racionales en el polo positivo y parasitismo e imposición de costos en el lado negativo). Los pensamientos de Hoppe han sido perversos incentivos de las burocracias, incluso en las democracias más evidentes y exponen todos los argumentos morales y legales como derechos reducibles de propiedad. Toda esta justificación es Kantiana, Marxista y Cosmopolita. Y es un sinsentido. No justificamos la verdad con propuestas. Las premisas verdaderas sobreviven a los intentos de refutarlas. La filosofía ha sido usada por cierto (((demográfico))) para mentir. El libertarianismo rothbardiano es la prohibición más extremista del marxismo que se impone a la propiedad privada, reformada e invertida al extremismo marxista de la propiedad común. A pesar de que los derechos de propiedad sólo pueden existir comúnmente, y ningún ente político administrativo puede sobrevivir a la competencia por la gente y el intercambio y contra los competidores sin proveer bienes como los múltiples necesarios para hacerlo.
-
Q&A: “CURT HOW DO I LEARN ABOUT ECONOMICS?” IMPLIED (why don’t you recommend the
Q&A: “CURT HOW DO I LEARN ABOUT ECONOMICS?”
IMPLIED (why don’t you recommend the Jewish austrian canon of : mises, rothbard, hoppe? In fact, why not austrians at all?
GREAT QUESTION:
No I don’t really recommend you read Mises, Rothbard or Hoppe any longer, except for the works below, qualified as I have qualified them below. And all of Austrian (Mengerian) Economics has been incorporated into mainstream economics, with the single exception of the certainty (determinism) of the business cycle.
Instead I’ve listed some books below that I consider the least bad at this point in time.
Why? Not Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe
MISES: We must see Mises Praxeology an attempt to (a) preserve jewish separatism (b) prevent funding of the commons, and (c) a failed attempt at operationalism in economics – mostly because he did not understand science, or mathematics, or logic for that matter, and was, making a facile attempt at creating a logic of social science.
ROTHBARD: We must see rothbard as again, attempting not to create liberty but to (a) restate jewish law of disaporic separatism (libertinism) and poly-ethicalism, (b) propose the ethics of the Caravan Trader, the Bazaar and the Ghetto as enlightenment universal morality (none of which can hold territory, construct rule of law, or create competitive commons) (c) preserve the ability to conduct parasitsm through verbal means, coercion, and trickery while at the same time prohibiting retaliation for parasitism through verbal means, coercion, and tricker – all of which make the formation of a voluntarily organized polity with consensual commons an impossibility due to the malincentives and high transaction and opportunity costs.
HOPPE: As I’ve written elsewhere, (here: ) Hoppe is a victim of (a) his ‘German’ education in LITERARY, and Kantian (rationalism) rather than scientific (ratio-empirical-operational) thought (b) his education by Marxists who attempted to take Kantian moral argument, into jewish legal argument, and (c) his love of his friend and mentor rothbard (which is we must appreciate – he was a wonderful human I wish I had met), and his infuence under rothbard reinforcing (a) and (b). What we CAN take from hoppe is valuable but it is very hard to access without falling victim to his ‘nonsensical but sophisticated use of ‘Pilpul’ arguments: argumentation in particular.
THE TRAP OF LITERATURE
We all learn by different means and the more literary and accessible the easier, and the more abstract, deductive, and calculative, the more difficult.
Libertarianism is writte almost entirely in entry level prose. IT is written almost entirely in literary prose. it is written almost entirely in morally intuitive prose. So it is attractive to the high school and college level individual in no small part because it includes basic economics, a simplified version of law, and for all intents and purposes never questions whether a libertarian polity can survive competition against opponents with different interests and institutions. (no it can’t).
The reason we require money, prices, contract, law, institutions that regulate our actions and defend our investments, is precisely because the world of specialists who make improtant decisions that influence our lives does not consist of entry level prose, literary prose, morally intuitive prose, and it is not accessible to high school and colloge level readers – people those with specialized knoweldge employ.
The world operates by war, technology, economy, government, demographics, law, norm, tradition, and myth – in precisely that order.
So what is Curt telling you? Don’t be tricked by literature.
When I tell people to become informed, I tell them to read a literary history, a biography or two, an economic history, and then get into the science of it (measurements). This takes us through the natural learning curve of myth, literature, history, and science. And through that incremental process we learn as we evolved to learn.
READ THESE INSTEAD
Instead Consider These Instead.
(High School Market)
1. Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson (80% of everything you need to know about economics can be reduced to ‘full accounting’ of differences between potential actions, and their internal and external consequences.)
(College Market)
1. Nial Ferguson’s Ascent of Money
2. Rothbard’s History of Banking (best work he did)
3. Plucknett: A Concise History Of The Common Law.
4. Fukuyama: Trust
5. Civilization: The West and the Rest
(College Graduate Market)
1. Mankiw’s Micro Economics
2. Mankiew’s Macro Economics (I don’t think macro helps other than to understand how policy is made and why feds work they way they do.)
3. Mises Human Action (!!! but ONLY chapter 6+. The first five chapters are the cause of his failure.) Mises could have done it. I have looked at trying to correct it but it’s almost impossible.
Simmel’s The Philosophy of Money
( Graduate School Market) (by: Emil Suric )
1. Capital and its Structure (Lachmann);
2. Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle (Hayek);
3. Monetary Nationalism and International Stability (Hayek);
4. Prices and Production (Hayek);
5. Interest and Prices (Wicksell);
6. Theory of Money and Credit (Mises);
7. The Positive Theory of Capital (Bohm-Bawerk);
8. They Keynesian Episode (Hutt);
9. Anything ever written by Garrison.
(optional)
Hoppe: read his PAPERS,on his website, not his books.
THE MOST IMPORTANT ADVICE
Mortimer Adler’s “How To Read A Book” Why? Because you don’t really try to remember what you read. You definitely read the table of contents. You pick out a chapter or two that’s interesting to you. And then if you feel like you can chew it, read more of it. Only read what you get value out of. Return later once you’ve had more experience if there is something new to grasp.
I swear it is more important to understand the table of contents so that you understand the author’s basic outline of his argument than it is to go through the book which is largely all the excuses he makes for proposing that argument.
Read a bunch of Amazon reviews that have high ratings. Then read the Table of contents, pick a chapter. And for god’s sake, remember we have almost all these books online in digital form where you can read them for free if you are impoverished. If you can afford books, or use the library then please ‘pay the author his due’. But never sacrifice your learning. Copyright is a privilege not a right.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 14:43:00 UTC
-
RT @sapinker: Time to end the mindless, expensive, & unconstitutional control ov
RT @sapinker: Time to end the mindless, expensive, & unconstitutional control over social science research by IRB bureaucrats. https://t.co…
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 23:41:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/843608438643068928
-
Retweeted Steven Pinker (@sapinker): Time to end the mindless, expensive, & unco
Retweeted Steven Pinker (@sapinker):
Time to end the mindless, expensive, & unconstitutional control over social science research by IRB bureaucrats. https://t.co/GibQ7k0aTi
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 19:41:00 UTC
-
THE OPERATIONAL NAME OF INFINITY IS “LIMIT SUPPLIED BY CONTEXTUAL APPLICATION” B
THE OPERATIONAL NAME OF INFINITY IS “LIMIT SUPPLIED BY CONTEXTUAL APPLICATION” BECAUSE OF SCALE INDEPENDENCE.
Defenders of infinity are simply saying that mathematical platonism is a useful mental shortcut to provide decidability for you in the absence of understanding, the way religion is a useful mental shortcut for decidability for others in the absence of understanding.
Authority (decidability) in platonic mathematics and authority (decidability) in religion are provided by the same error: empty verbalisms.
If mathematical decidability is constrained to correspondence with reality, we do not need the concept of limits because limits are determined by that which we measure.
Yet as we use mathematics to create general theories of scale independence, we intentionally abandon scale dependence substituting arbitrarily definable *limits*. By applying mathematics of general rules under scale independence to some real world phenomenon, we merely substitute limit for precision necessary to achieve our ends (marginal indifference).
As we add the dimension of movement to our measurements we add time to our general rules, which like distance we define as a constant. (though it is not, per relativity).
As the universe consists entirely of curves, yet our deduction from measurements requires lines, and angles (geometry) with which we perform measurements of curves by the measurement of very small lines, we must define limits at which the marginal difference in the application of mathematics to a real world problem is below the margin of error in the prediction of any movement. (where we have reached the *limit* of the measurement necessary for correspondence.
While measurement requires both time, and a sequence of operations, and while mathematical deduction requires time and a sequence of operations, cantor removed time and a sequence of operations. So instead of operationally creating *positional names* (numbers) at different RATES, as do gears, and therefore creating sets larger or smaller than one another at different rates, he said, platonically that they created different ‘infinities’. Despite the fact that no infinity is existentially possible, just that at scale independence we use infinity to mean *limited only by context of correspondence: quantity, operations, and time.
This is just like using superman as an analogy for scale independence in the measurement of man. Literally, that’s all it is: supernaturalism.
All mathematical statements must be constructable (operationally possible), just as all mathematical assertions must be logically deducible. (and you can see this in proof tools being developed in mathematics).
Mathematics always was, and always will be, and only can be, the science of creating general rules of MEASUREMENT at scale independence. And the fact that math still, like logic was in the late 19th and all of the 20th century, lost in platonism is equivalent to government still being lost in religion.
The only reason math is challenging is that it is not taught to people *truthfully*, but platonically.
Otherwise the basis of math is very simple: this pebble corresponds to any constant category we can imagine, and each positional name we give to each additional pebble represents a ratio of the initial unit of measure: a pebble, and as such corresponds to reality.
Hence why I consider mathematical platonism, philosophical platonism, and supernatural religion crimes against humanity: the manufacture of ignorance in the masses in order to create privileged priesthoods of the few through mere obscurantist language.
Another authoritarian lie. Another priesthood.
Yet I understand. I understand that heavy investment in comforting shortcuts is indeed an investment and that the cost of relearning to speak truthfully is just as painful for mathematicians, as it is for philosophers, and theologists.
Curt Doolittle
(Ps: oddly, my sister is sitting next to me working on common core standards designed to improve math skills)
=== Addendum by Frank ===
by Propertarian Frank
The exact same argument we use to stop believing in ghosts should have prevented Cantor’s infinities. But it didn’t.
(1) People familiar with Diagonal Argument and understand it is epistemic cancer.
(2) People familiar with advanced Platonist trickery like the Diagonal Argument and buy it even though they avoid falling for Platonism in other domains.
(3) People that are unfamiliar with advanced Platonist trickery, but intuitively understand truth is ultimately about actionable reality.
(4) People that are unfamiliar with advanced Platonist trickery, and believe in primitive forms of Platonism (theism, dualism).
Type (1) people will get testimonialism immediately.
Type (2) people could be persuaded. Trick is to prompt them to explain what differentiates the type of reasoning Cantor uses from the type of reasoning that tries to determine how many angels can dance simultaneously on the head of a pin. Induce cognitive dissonance by making explicit that wishful thinking is only possible when you use non-constructed names.
Type (3) people lack the information necessary to judge constructionism in philosophy of mathematics. Understanding Testimonialism requires a bare minimum of familiarity with philosophy of science. Absolute key concept is ‘decidability’. How does a type (3) person ascertain that he ‘gets’ operationalism? Through demonstration in something like the ‘line exercise’ from the other day. So, unfortunately, this type of person will miss the profundity and importance of operationalism. (Seeing the importance of operationalism was the reason I kept reading your corpus). We need to see concrete instances of a method failing so that we can eventually incorporate the solution to that failure into our epistemological method. Without the concretes, it’s impossible. Unfortunately, adding lessons on the Diagonal Argument, operationalism in psychology, instrumentalism and measurement in physics etc, would not be feasible methods for familiarizing the uninitiated. In other words, if you haven’t spent considerable time thinking about philosophy of science already, courses in Propertarianism will not convince you, because you lack the means of judging them.
Type (4) people are the hardest to persuade. You have to show them a domain in which Idealism fails, and prompt them to think about why they think it doesn’t fail in this other domain. If you can’t crush their Platonist belief in a certain domain (due to emotional blocks for instance), they can’t consistently apply operationalism. The fact that they haven’t already given up on simpler forms of Platonism indicates that they may have psychological blocks. Ergo, I think this type of person is the least amenable to learn Testimonialism through video lectures.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 13:38:00 UTC
-
The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences (
The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences ( Frankfurt/aesthetics and history, freud/psychology, boaz/anthropology, marx/sociology/economics, mises/economics, cantor/mathematical-platonism, (b) the conquest of the university by pseudoscience (all of the above), (c) as well as the organized attack on our constitution (Natural Law) by the selective prosecution of cases designed to incrementally break it, (d) as well as the current method of financial parasitism which we incorrectly call capitalism, but should call Rothchildian Monetary Fraud. There is nothing immoral about capitalism. But everything immoral about financialism. And they are the principle activists in propagandizing in the Entertainment, Media, and Advertising industries.
“The People Who Lie and Defraud.”
yeah, we arent exactly saints and teh british certainly take the cake during colonialism, but the consequences of their administration by rule of law turn out to be profoundly beneficial.
Americans basically are great sherrifs but the worst possible judges of anything. And between the british and americans we pretty much do everything WRONG except the law.
Thankfully THE LAW AND TRUTH ARE ENOUGH despite our multitude of utopian idealistic and entirely false fantasies about the nature of man.
The evil of (((their))) intuitions like the evil of women’s intuitions is not so much from intent but from parasitic impulse and lack of agency.
We must either conquer and rule, and rule by natural law, or be ruled and conquered.
Yes (((they))) and their islamic cousins are evil as hell. But that does not mean they cannot be domesticated like all other wild animals we have domesticated in the past.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 17:19:00 UTC
-
The Dimensions of The Pack Response
(Psychology) 1 – as to any ‘beginning’ to the universe, the central question is whether time has any meaning at the extremes. We simply do not know the answer. But we know enough to know, that we do not know the answer. Ergo, any argument to ad-infinitum is no more likely than any argument to singularity because we don’t know if there is a difference. Note that I think in terms of persistence. And so whether there is a beginning to the universe is not as material as whether we persist (survive) the behavior of the universe. 2 – As long as the set of forces that constitute mass-radiation-space-time are constant, there is no reason that the universe or universes do not simply pulse indefinitely, although it is very difficult to say whether they follow in sequence or repeat the same time over and over again. We just don’t know. 3 – there are deep psychological reasons that cause us to seek the psychological safety of the pack in various group activities – and they are chiefly the result of living in large numbers rather than consanguineous bands and tribes. This need exists at the personal subconscious level, the group level(community), and the tribal (regional) level. And religions evolved to assist us in establishing normative expectations of one another on the one hand, and reducing the burden of uncertainty and fear of outsiders and being outside on the other. 4 – As we have seen people seek replacement for talking around the campfire, being read to, watching a play or movie, listening to talking in church, listinening to lectures in university, watching people talk on television. The phenomenon is always the same. 5 – We have seen people able to obtain the feeling of submission of reason to the pack (which is what feels good about religion) by many possible means: disciplined ritual, disciplined though (stoicism’s virtues), disciplined internal conversation (prayer), and disciplined quietude (buddhist meditation). 6 – We have seen people use music and dancing, group runs and walks, organized sports, hunting, festival, holiday, and feast – even parade and war. 7 – Each of these dimensions provides increasing safety of the pack in a world where – since agrarianism – we have existed uncomfortably as individuals. This allows us to ‘rest’ our minds from teh constant effort of reason and our constant battle with uncertainty whenever modernity’s comforting consumptions are insufficient for us to counter alienation that it produces. 8 – The question remains why we must rely on lies (supernatural) rather than myths, legends, and aspirations. There is no reason to rely upon lies, superstitions, and falsehoods – because they are, just like alcohol and drugs, methods of escape and deceit, and self harm. The wonder of being human, of what we have done in our short time, and what we may yet do, is enough for us.