Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • (from elsewhere) Prof Wildberger: I love that you’re trying to de-platonize math

    (from elsewhere) Prof Wildberger: I love that you’re trying to de-platonize mathematics, and return it to the sciences. Mathematical platonism uses a grammar and semantics of fiction (it’s technically a ‘Fictionalism’). And I can understand why some people have a natural tendency, out of historical bias, and out of the influence of hermeneutics (religious and scriptural interpretation) to fictionalize mathematics. In doing so they convert it from a science of measurement of constant relations in increasing dimensions into a linguistic ANALOGY – thereby obscuring (losing) the causal properties of mathematics (measurement of constant relations in increasing dimensions using positional naming). And that is the reason it’s both difficult to teach people (when it should be trivial), and forces us to rely on memorization rather than ‘understanding’. Where “understanding” means ‘in the context of existential reality, and therefore an extension of existential reality.

  • (from elsewhere) Prof Wildberger: I love that you’re trying to de-platonize math

    (from elsewhere) Prof Wildberger: I love that you’re trying to de-platonize mathematics, and return it to the sciences. Mathematical platonism uses a grammar and semantics of fiction (it’s technically a ‘Fictionalism’). And I can understand why some people have a natural tendency, out of historical bias, and out of the influence of hermeneutics (religious and scriptural interpretation) to fictionalize mathematics. In doing so they convert it from a science of measurement of constant relations in increasing dimensions into a linguistic ANALOGY – thereby obscuring (losing) the causal properties of mathematics (measurement of constant relations in increasing dimensions using positional naming). And that is the reason it’s both difficult to teach people (when it should be trivial), and forces us to rely on memorization rather than ‘understanding’. Where “understanding” means ‘in the context of existential reality, and therefore an extension of existential reality.

  • (from elsewhere) Prof Wildberger: I love that you’re trying to de-platonize math

    (from elsewhere)

    Prof Wildberger:

    I love that you’re trying to de-platonize mathematics, and return it to the sciences.

    Mathematical platonism uses a grammar and semantics of fiction (it’s technically a ‘Fictionalism’). And I can understand why some people have a natural tendency, out of historical bias, and out of the influence of hermeneutics (religious and scriptural interpretation) to fictionalize mathematics.

    In doing so they convert it from a science of measurement of constant relations in increasing dimensions into a linguistic ANALOGY – thereby obscuring (losing) the causal properties of mathematics (measurement of constant relations in increasing dimensions using positional naming).

    And that is the reason it’s both difficult to teach people (when it should be trivial), and forces us to rely on memorization rather than ‘understanding’. Where “understanding” means ‘in the context of existential reality, and therefore an extension of existential reality.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-21 11:03:00 UTC

  • How Do You Define Philosophy?

    Philosophy. Mindfulness. Dominance over the mind in the face of the unknown. Using grammar of technology. Tech(philio) vs Fiction(religion). Deflation vs Inflation. Mindfulness was necessary at ‘worry’ post-human-scales. All civ’s encountered demand for mindfulness as scale increased – and trust decreased. All about the same time. Probably due to trade. Westerners used competing (class) variants of mindfulness. Science can in fact provide mindfulness for those with the ‘ability’. Sport, Family, Work, Ritual, Wealth, Science Philosophy/Reason, Fiction, Religion. All can provide mindfulness (Disciplined thought in the face of the unknown/complexity). The principle problem of scale was creating mindfulness through trust. The only question is whether one’s form of mindfulness encouraged adaptation (philosophy > reason > science) or discouraged it (religion > abrahamism).

  • How Do You Define Philosophy?

    Philosophy. Mindfulness. Dominance over the mind in the face of the unknown. Using grammar of technology. Tech(philio) vs Fiction(religion). Deflation vs Inflation. Mindfulness was necessary at ‘worry’ post-human-scales. All civ’s encountered demand for mindfulness as scale increased – and trust decreased. All about the same time. Probably due to trade. Westerners used competing (class) variants of mindfulness. Science can in fact provide mindfulness for those with the ‘ability’. Sport, Family, Work, Ritual, Wealth, Science Philosophy/Reason, Fiction, Religion. All can provide mindfulness (Disciplined thought in the face of the unknown/complexity). The principle problem of scale was creating mindfulness through trust. The only question is whether one’s form of mindfulness encouraged adaptation (philosophy > reason > science) or discouraged it (religion > abrahamism).

  • HOW DO YOU DEFINE PHILOSOPHY? Philosophy. Mindfulness. Dominance over the mind i

    HOW DO YOU DEFINE PHILOSOPHY?

    Philosophy. Mindfulness. Dominance over the mind in the face of the unknown. Using grammar of technology. Tech(philio) vs Fiction(religion). Deflation vs Inflation. Mindfulness was necessary at ‘worry’ post-human-scales. All civ’s encountered demand for mindfulness as scale increased – and trust decreased. All about the same time. Probably due to trade. Westerners used competing (class) variants of mindfulness. Science can in fact provide mindfulness for those with the ‘ability’. Sport, Family, Work, Ritual, Wealth, Science Philosophy/Reason, Fiction, Religion. All can provide mindfulness (Disciplined thought in the face of the unknown/complexity). The principle problem of scale was creating mindfulness through trust. The only question is whether one’s form of mindfulness encouraged adaptation (philosophy > reason > science) or discouraged it (religion > abrahamism).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-21 08:25:00 UTC

  • Every increase in explanatory power has been the result of a counter intuitive d

    Every increase in explanatory power has been the result of a counter intuitive discovery that caused a costly revision of existing categories, relations and values. Just how it is. Your simple sacred cows die. New generations of superior sacred cows evolve. The slaughter continues anew. And in this stepwise fashion evolution leaves behind the detritus of past utility. 😉

  • Every increase in explanatory power has been the result of a counter intuitive d

    Every increase in explanatory power has been the result of a counter intuitive discovery that caused a costly revision of existing categories, relations and values. Just how it is. Your simple sacred cows die. New generations of superior sacred cows evolve. The slaughter continues anew. And in this stepwise fashion evolution leaves behind the detritus of past utility. 😉

  • Every increase in explanatory power has been the result of a counter intuitive d

    Every increase in explanatory power has been the result of a counter intuitive discovery that caused a costly revision of existing categories, relations and values. Just how it is. Your simple sacred cows die. New generations of superior sacred cows evolve. The slaughter continues anew. And in this stepwise fashion evolution leaves behind the detritus of past utility. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-20 19:53:00 UTC

  • I just want to point out that hoppe refers to economic science (falsification) b

    I just want to point out that hoppe refers to economic science (falsification) but he himself relies entirely upon economic rationalism (justification), And he confuses philosophical positivism (which never occurred) with scientific skepticism (which is how science is practiced). What’s the difference? Justification (excuse making) = bottom up rationalization. Positivism = justification through empiricism (top down). Science: a MARKET for ‘recipes’, where the stories (theories) provide searches (opportunities) for applications of the recipe, and where application of the recipe refines or falsifies the searches (opportunities). Science functions as just another market for actions (recipes). A market laundered of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit by the continual use of measurements in a competition between logical (mental) and physical instruments.