THE CALCULUS OF MAN
“Property is to Morality
as Signals are to Status,
as Money is to Exchange
as Measurement is to Science.”
As far as I can tell. That’s the net of it. Just took us 2,500 years to get it all figured out. đ
(Yes, you can quote me. It’s OK. lol)
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-03 15:36:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/How-long-before-we-have-another-Einstein
https://www.quora.com/How-long-before-we-have-another-Einstein
WHY WE NEED THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT: UNIVERSALIST ANTI-RATIONALITY IN SCIENCE
“I am continually amazed at the extent to which evolutionists have been indoctrinatedâmainly by Richard Dawkinsâagainst supposing that groups have any important role to play in human evolution.”
–Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone:
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-28 08:12:00 UTC
WHY WE NEED THE “DARK ENLIGHTENMENT”
Why was anglo objective, universalist empiricism intuitive and acceptable to the British, while a duty-bound subjective hierarchy intuitive and acceptable to the germans? Why are order and duty more important to germans than to the english? Is Raico right that it’s just geographic?
I can understand why the counter-enlightenment (the continentals) fought against the anglo social construct, although I cannot really grasp why they didn’t simply try to solve the problem empirically rather than mystically. The germans at least, were correct. Anglo civilization degenerated rapidly, while german society at least for now, survives. Anglo civilization I suspect, without some event, will survive only in the protestant religions. We are, without our insular island, fragile.
Isn’t providing a RATIONAL and EMPIRICAL institutional solution to uniting germanic order and duty with anglo individual empiricism something that can reunite the two strains? I don’t think so. They are fine. We’re in trouble. I don’t see how to unite us.
Are we forced for some reason, into a choice between anti-rationalist socialism, and scientific and rational, individualist, universalist, self-destruction?
Or, is it possible to solve our cultural problem by creating institutions that acknowledge that the universalist property of the enlightenment was a failure? That equality and universalism are incompatible, just as freedom and democracy are incompatible?
Science and Reason, Naturalism and Correspondence need not be abandoned. But it appears that we must abandon the belief in universalism and equality, in exchange for nationalism and relative equality within a meritocratic hierarchy?
But given the lack of our individual power under capitalism, and the presence of mass political and economic power under all forms of representative government, can we create a hierarchy of meritocracy rather than pure political power? I don’t see how that can be accomplished without violence.
Our political history is masculine – the paternal family with private property. But women, in the work force and in politics, try to restore the feminine – the socialist model of common property. So that they need not form micro tribes of one man and one woman but instead, can force the support for their children onto the rest.
It must be visible that the system will not work before an alternative is an acceptable compromise. Monogamous marriage was a compromise. One that must return for a society to be economically viable, I think. I do not see it possible any other way, for the high costs of single parent families to compete with the lower cost of double income families. Nor do i see double income families continuing to support those who breed without double incomes. This is just a recipe for a caste system.
In the end, the family structure provides the morality that sustains the society and fulfills the demands of production. So I cannot see how
The reason that we need the “Dark Enlightenment” is because we need to use MORE science, not less. We need to use science to demonstate that the german social model is correct, but that anglo ratio-empiricism is correct. We need the common law. But germanic morality, community and duty.
Because we anglos have no community at all any longer.
And without community we are dead.
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-28 06:36:00 UTC
NOTES ON MATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY
“âŚMathematics is an established, going concern. Philosophy is as shaky
as can be.”
CD: This seems quaint, as it is meant to seem quaint by the author to illustrate the point. However, the problem of philosophy is one of “intermediacy”, rather than ends. To incorporate new discoveries and ideas into our system of thought. To develop some means of conceptual commensurability. WHile in the past, all domains were at some point parts of philosophy, the success of philosophy has been at casting off those domains. At present, the only remaining domain philosophy addresses is that of the commensurable integration of knew ideas into our body of knowledge. For this reason, philosophy, like money in the calculation plans, makes the moral and ethical world of action commensurable despite the disciplinary differences in method and goal. It may be that all philosophy does is protect us from catastrophic errors that may cause us harm, rather than provide any particular innovation. But the works of Aristotle, Machiavelli, Smith, Hume, Jefferson and Darwin are evidence enough that at times, our entire systems of thought must be reordered, and new values attached to causes and consequences. Or by contrast, Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Marx, Freud, Heidegger and Rorty, who have tried to do the opposite: To restore immoral obscurantism as a revolt against modern empirical thought.
“a distinct history in which philosophical theories of mathematics have not been required to conform to the practice of mathematics”
CD: True, but I’m not doing that at all. In Propertarian ethics, I place no constraint on the practice of mathematics. We constrain only what can be SAID about mathematics, for ethical and MORAL reasons. I think that this is the problem that the various Revisionists have tried but failed to address: that philosophy is a social science, and mathematics is a pattern science, but when mathematicians speak of their discipline in public, or to students, or in writing, they are entering the public domain. In all manner of life we place limits on private activity if it has public consequences. In particular, we constrain the conceptual, verbal and physical creations of moral hazards. My criticism of mathematics on Propertarian grounds is not how math is practiced, it is the justification used in mathematics to explain it’s platonism-of-convenience, which in turn, as a matter of public discourse, creates the hazard of mystical platonism.
So if the only constraint is that you must not communicate moral hazards, and that this merely alters the language of your justifications, then this is an internal cost that you may not morally export onto others just because it is convenient to do so.
“One of the most important forms of revisionism in philosophy of mathematics of the latter part of 20th century has been extreme (strict) formalism (nominalism), and its ontological conclusion, Hartry Fieldâs (1980) fictionalism. According to it mathematical objects do not exist, and the formal axiomatic systems that form the core of mathematics do not refer to anything outside them. In other words, for the extreme formalist rules of proof and axioms
are all there is to mathematics.”
…
“One main purpose of this work is to show that we do not. In this work that is called the problem of theory choice, and I will try to show it to be the most fundamental problem with strict formalist philosophy of mathematics. Simply put, I will argue that when taken to its logical conclusion, extreme formalism implies completely arbitrary mathematics: we would have no reason to prefer one set of axioms and rules of proof over another. That is a staggering conclusion, but we will see it is the only one that can be plausibly made if we reject all outer reference from mathematics. Fortunately it never comes to that, since mathematics without any outer reference does not make sense. We need to explain why we prefer some rules of proof and some axioms to others, and without any concept of reference this cannot be done. In this work I will argue that without any outer reference, mathematics as we know it could simply not be possible: it could not have developed, and it could not be learnt or practised. Sophisticated formal theories are the pinnacle of mathematics but, philosophically, they cannot be studied separately from all the non-formal background behind them.”
CD: Agreed. It is impossible to escape correspondence between method and reality. But lets see where the author takes this…
“In contemporary philosophy of science there is a visible emphasis on what may be called the sociological aspect. Rather than following the Carnapian ideal of neatly structured formal scientific theories, we are now more convinced that the actual practice of science should also have its mark in the philosophy of science. Overall, this is a healthy development, even though it has sparked off less than healthy theories where philosophy of science has become a bastardized form of sociology of science.”
CD: I am a bit troubled by the difference between philosophy of science as a pursuit of truth and the sociology of science as moral and practical counsel. If they are not materially different then this statement makes sense. If instead, that philosophical pursuit of truth is substantially different from the moral and ethical pursuit of social inquiry then I think that this is a failure to understand the function of philosophy as commensurable and ethical, rather than consisting of metaphysical truths.
“We seem to have a great deal of humility toward the methods and practices of
physicists, but in mathematics we reserve a different, much more powerful and revisionist, role to philosophy. It is hard to see the reasons behind the difference in approaches. Perhaps it is because most philosophers of mathematics are more familiar with mathematics than philosophers of physics are with their subject. Modern physics requires, as well as a great deal of expertise, access to a lot of expensive equipment. Mathematics, for the most part, only requires the expertise. In this way most philosophers cannot understand the nature of modern physical inquiry as well as the nature of mathematical inquiry.”
CD: I think the author is mistaken, just as philosophers are mistaken. The philosophical criticism of mathematics is precisely over its abandonment of correspondence and our failure to state the method of correspondence. I see philosophical criticism in the Revisionist and Intuitionist movements as moral objections to the recreation of magic and those criticisms, even if poorly conducted, poorly articulated, are correct. I don’t want to claim that Propertarianism solves this problem I simply think that propertarianism makes it possible to determine the cause of conflict between philosophers and the platonism of classical mathematics. That philosophers mistakenly see their discipline as the pursuit of truth rather than commensurability of systems of recipes is the causal problem. The criticism of the morality of mathematical platonism stands.
“While ontologically minimal, extreme formalism makes mathematics impossible as a human endeavour â which is much more alarming than any intricate philosophical problems. In a nutshell, I will argue that if extreme formalism were correct, mathematics could not have developed in the first place â nor could it be practised today. It must not be forgotten that mathematics is a human endeavour just like all other sciences. If something is essential to mathematics as a human endeavour, we would seem to have good reason to believe it is also a factor in the philosophy of mathematics â or at least something we should expect a theory in philosophy of mathematics not to conflict with.”
CD:I’m not sure where he’s going with this. I agree with the argument that there must be some sort of correspondence in mathematics, and I have argued that this correspondence is reducible to the practical limits of the human mind, which mathematics serves to compensate for. And I think that’s a sufficient argument when combined with commensurability and moral constraint. But perhaps I will learn more from the rest of the paper.
Right now, I must go to the office and do my other job. đ
https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/19432/truthpro.pdf?sequence=2
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-26 03:39:00 UTC
ECONOMICS AS ARCHAEOLOGY
“I would happily settle for economics being compared to archaeology and our scientific activity placed on a level with that of the archaeologist. It would be a noble analogy.”
“…the veneer of mathematics tends…[T]o dress scientific brilliancies and scientific absurdities alike in the impressive uniform of formulae
and theorems. Unfortunately however, an absurdity in uniform is far more persuasive than an absurdity unclad.â – Schwartz, 1986, p.22.
“Classical real analysis is only one of at least four mathematical traditions within which economic questions can be formalized and discussed mathematically. Non-standard, constructive and computable analyses have been playing their own roles in the formalization and mathematization of economic entities – but mostly within the closure of neoclassical economic theory.”
(NOTE: a) Real analysis, b) non-standard, c) constructive and d) computable – all must be addressed from finitist perspective.)
“In other words, mathematics is about proof. I believe this to be a valid and standard characterization which helps delineate the different `schools’ of mathematics in terms of it”
(NOTE: mathematics is the process of making proofs ‘balances’, not truths (forecasts and testimonies).)
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-17 01:49:00 UTC
http://www.igc.gulbenkian.pt/pages/article.php/A=282___collection=pressReleases___year=2013GENETIC ADVANTAGE IS LOST IN THE POPULATION
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-16 09:07:00 UTC
How many axis can these disciplines be ordered by?
Mathematics
Computer Science
Physics
Engineering
Economics
THOUGHTS
Causal Density
Susceptibility to mathematical representation
Testability
Computabiity
Platonic vs Real
???
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-14 15:53:00 UTC
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/07/big-green-in-denial/HOW BIG ‘GREEN’ ORGANIZATIONS HURT THE CAUSE
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-09 04:24:00 UTC