Theme: Science

  • Math=Proof not truth. Truth requires correspondence with reality. A math stmt ab

    Math=Proof not truth. Truth requires correspondence with reality. A math stmt about reality itself may be true.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-24 18:26:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779748964115550212

    Reply addressees: @JimmyTrussels @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779718728615428096


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779718728615428096

  • Infinities don’t exist. Some limits are unknown, some sets can be produced faste

    Infinities don’t exist. Some limits are unknown, some sets can be produced faster than others.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-24 18:17:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779746477514121217

    Reply addressees: @JimmyTrussels @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779718728615428096


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779718728615428096

  • He removed property of time. Some sets constructed faster than others. So any se

    He removed property of time. Some sets constructed faster than others. So any set -/+ any other set @ any scale.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-24 18:10:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779744804175577088

    Reply addressees: @JimmyTrussels @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779718728615428096


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779718728615428096

  • (Peter Boettke : Thinking about your unassuming but thought-provoking quip on th

    (Peter Boettke : Thinking about your unassuming but thought-provoking quip on the importance of the P in PhD. Because I wrestle with this problem of the ‘need to reform philosophy’ that Locke set out to achieve in his era – and we must do again in ours. And, since what’s missing from philosophy is any notion of cost, I might go as far as saying that it’s absence of the insights of economics – even such things as the commensurability provided by money and prices – that have doomed the philosophical profession to empty verbalisms.

    I OFTEN feel like mathematicians and economists could do with a better understanding of philosophy. But I ALWAYS feel like philosophers could do with a better understanding of economics. I can’t think of any of the insights I have produced that would have been possible without econ, and particularly micro econ, and most importantly Austrian econ. And while I have been critical of the abuse of Mises by Rothbard, I am increasingly concerned that no one seems to be taking mises half-solution to the great logical problem of our age, any further.

    There is a terrible need for philosophy, and terrible need for its reformation. But I am pretty sure that the reason that terrible need exists, is the lack of accounting of costs, opportunities and incentives provided by economic philosophers. Philosophy is missing “demonstrated commensurability” across differences in perceptions, experiences, memories, judgements, knowledge, labor and advocacy, by different demands of different people, with different needs.)

    (Sorry if this is out of line in some way but I have very few people to think out loud to on these matters.)

    – Cheers

    (edited. like everything I seem to write on an iphone needs to be. ) 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 10:05:00 UTC

  • LOGICS: (worth repeating) 1 – Mathematics : commensurability provided by operati

    LOGICS:

    (worth repeating)

    1 – Mathematics : commensurability provided by operational, positional, names, and mathematical operations.

    2 – Physical sciences and engineering : commensurability provided by physical determinism (laws of nature).

    3 – Economics : commensurability provided by operationally produced prices

    4 – Politics : commensurability provided by voluntary exchanges, articulated as fully accounted transactions.

    3 – Testimony : commensurability provided by all possible human actions stated objectively as operations.

    I need to work on this further to make it clear but you get the idea.

    A logic is means of testing for possibility.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 05:33:00 UTC

  • Pinker’s Criticism Of Taleb Is Taleb’s Doing But…

    Taleb is right, Pinker is wrong, but Taleb makes his arguments to general principles rather than operational explanations. This is why we must have empiricism AND operationalism in scientific assertions. This is why people like Taleb must work top down (empirically) and others like me must work bottom up (operationally). And why opportunities to do both, like Darwin’s, are the product of novel data collection at much larger (logarithmic?) scale. I suspect that because of our status differences Taleb and I could not work together on this, and no one will see our different missions as the same as that of Hayek (long run law) and Mises (medium run finance), or that Taleb and I are working on the same problem that Poincaré, Mises, Hayek, Popper, Brouwer, and Bridgman failed to solve: how to we separate science from pseudoscience, once we are talking about stochastic systems at very great scale? What happened when teh industrial revolution hit, and we needed to move from operational accounting to correlative statistics, yet could not bridge the technological gap of testing our statistical statements like we do our theoretical statements. Especially when there is profound incentive to use financialization to accumulate risk and spend down capital precisely because at such scale operations are imperceptible to us. We boil the frog. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Pinker’s Criticism Of Taleb Is Taleb’s Doing But…

    Taleb is right, Pinker is wrong, but Taleb makes his arguments to general principles rather than operational explanations. This is why we must have empiricism AND operationalism in scientific assertions. This is why people like Taleb must work top down (empirically) and others like me must work bottom up (operationally). And why opportunities to do both, like Darwin’s, are the product of novel data collection at much larger (logarithmic?) scale. I suspect that because of our status differences Taleb and I could not work together on this, and no one will see our different missions as the same as that of Hayek (long run law) and Mises (medium run finance), or that Taleb and I are working on the same problem that Poincaré, Mises, Hayek, Popper, Brouwer, and Bridgman failed to solve: how to we separate science from pseudoscience, once we are talking about stochastic systems at very great scale? What happened when teh industrial revolution hit, and we needed to move from operational accounting to correlative statistics, yet could not bridge the technological gap of testing our statistical statements like we do our theoretical statements. Especially when there is profound incentive to use financialization to accumulate risk and spend down capital precisely because at such scale operations are imperceptible to us. We boil the frog. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • What Do We Meany by Natural Law?

    (with updates by Doolittle) A Little History of Natural Law – From The Good, to the Moral, to the Rational, to the Scientific.What is Law?Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884).  Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed.Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician. Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence Natural Law evolved as a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.The Greeks – Living In Correspondence with The Natural World The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8). The StoicsA Rational and Purposeful Law The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory. The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD) The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) – A Rational Natural Law – From Property (Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German, The 20th Century Thinkers – The Reduction of Social Science to Property Rights (Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German) 21st Century Thinkers – The Science of Cooperation (In Markets) (Doolittle) The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights,  and where such law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs – costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation.  Impediments to cooperation. Where cooperation creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation. In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda.