Theme: Truth

  • How to Study Any Subject

    Some idiot on Quora counter-signaling one of my posts on ethnicity, by demanding sources. You know, I don’t put sources for a lot of things because it requires a second copy-paste, and google image search or text search will always find it. (and maybe subconsciously i like to bait these assholes.) As usual, it’s a diagram and quotes from Nature. Which is pretty much the top of the scientific stack. and… Fuck. Do people think I make this shit up? Fucking read something other than stupid shit…. You know how easy getting a grasp of anything is? You find a subject. You search wiki and read the articles and copy the references. Now you search for those references. you read reviews of published papers that were published later, and you read reviews of books on amazon. You read the reviews of all related books suggested by amazon. You make a list of names, and terms, and key-phrases. You repeat this process until ‘I cant find anything that isn’t a duplicate of something someone else said’. Once you’ve done that pick the best book, and read it’s table of contents. Try figure out which chapter makes the argument rather than prepares for it or explains it. Scan that chapter. then read it. Then if you think there is more to learn read more until there isn’t. Check the back of the book’s glossary and bibliography. Just scan them for things you either don’t know or sound interesting. Pick another book. Do the same. Most of the time BOOKS CAN BE REDUCED TO A SET OF KEY PAPERS REFERENCED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY. If not, they can be reduced to a central thesis, and the rest of the book is just DEFENSE of it. My opinion on research is not to put a lot of stock in any defense, but to put stock tin the competition of books and papers that compete with one another on the topic. So I recommend using the cheapness of the internet to survey a subject and then get into the books. Most of the time I work by finding an author that has created a novel insight and then reading the papers in his bibliography. It may seem like a lot is published but the truth is very few books in any year are of substance at the level of group evolutionary strategy and politics. Once you are ‘current’ with the state of knowledge you just literally follow the top blogs, and read the relatively few papers that have any meaning. What you find is that all the discipilnes duplicate effort on what you would consider awfully obvious matters. By contrast, what most people do is the other way around: try to find one book and they get ‘hooked by the authors frame.’ and then they’re anchored. Start with an overview of the ‘market for ideas’. This isn’t the middle ages. Nearly every book more than a year old is available for free somewhere somehow. In fact, we have just about everything worth reading already in our library in digital form. (Rant off.)

  • The most intolerant wins. Truth is the most intolerant measure of all. (Truth So

    The most intolerant wins.
    Truth is the most intolerant measure of all.

    (Truth Sovereignty and the Natural Law of Reciprocity)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 15:18:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004382038928056321

  • REMINDER OF WHAT I DO HERE “Let a thousand nations bloom” I don’t do racism. Eve

    REMINDER OF WHAT I DO HERE

    “Let a thousand nations bloom”

    I don’t do racism. Every group can transcend, by sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, and markets in everything. The net effect must always produce incrementally eugenic populations, that continuously limit the reproduction of the lower classes, allowing the working, middle and upper classes to gradually leave behind the drag of the underclasses, and to continuously compete with the red queen, who requires progress in man as it does in his knowledge and technology.

    Nationalism merely allows the self interested production of those commons necessary for the distribution of abilities in the group, and prohibits the predation upon other groups by internalizing the costs and benefits of eugenic civilization, and ameliorating differences between nations by trade policy.

    Every alternative is nothing but theft, parasitism, and predation.

    Let a thousand nations bloom.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 13:03:00 UTC

  • The most intolerant wins. Truth is the most intolerant measure of all. (Truth So

    The most intolerant wins.

    Truth is the most intolerant measure of all.

    (Truth Sovereignty and the Natural Law of Reciprocity)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 11:18:00 UTC

  • On “mathiness” in Physics

    ON “MATHINESS” IN PHYSICS ‘Mathiness’ is a f–cking pseudoscientific plague. And people wonder why Hayek called the 20th century an age of mysticism, and I call it the age of pseudoscience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathiness MATHINESS = SCIENTISM = PSEUDOSCIENCE = “LITERATURE” I think the pejorative “Scientism” refers to pseudosciences (overreach in particular), just as “Mathiness” Refers to pseudoscience (“Overreach”). FROM THE ARTICLE —“Physicists today “write a lot of papers, build a lot of [theoretical] models, hold a lot of conferences, cite each other — you have all the trappings of science,” he says. “But for me, physics is all about making successful predictions. And that’s been lacking.””— —“Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now they try to explain why they can’t explain what was not observed. And they’re not even good at that.”— THE ANSWER FROM ECONOMICS As far as I know the problem is (a) we have far too many unproductive academics paid to write papers rather than spending money on experiments. And (b) the low hanging fruit has been captured and we may not be able to (yet) capture and use enough energy to perform necessary experiments. SCIENCE IS THE DISCIPLINE OF TESTIMONY AND TESTIMONY REQUIRES OBSERVATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS REQUIRE TESTS Tests can be “PRE-dictive” if the production of the data is controlled, or “DE-scriptive” if the production of the data is uncontrolled. But if we don’t have an observation, and a system of measurement then we don’t have science.

  • On “mathiness” in Physics

    ON “MATHINESS” IN PHYSICS ‘Mathiness’ is a f–cking pseudoscientific plague. And people wonder why Hayek called the 20th century an age of mysticism, and I call it the age of pseudoscience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathiness MATHINESS = SCIENTISM = PSEUDOSCIENCE = “LITERATURE” I think the pejorative “Scientism” refers to pseudosciences (overreach in particular), just as “Mathiness” Refers to pseudoscience (“Overreach”). FROM THE ARTICLE —“Physicists today “write a lot of papers, build a lot of [theoretical] models, hold a lot of conferences, cite each other — you have all the trappings of science,” he says. “But for me, physics is all about making successful predictions. And that’s been lacking.””— —“Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now they try to explain why they can’t explain what was not observed. And they’re not even good at that.”— THE ANSWER FROM ECONOMICS As far as I know the problem is (a) we have far too many unproductive academics paid to write papers rather than spending money on experiments. And (b) the low hanging fruit has been captured and we may not be able to (yet) capture and use enough energy to perform necessary experiments. SCIENCE IS THE DISCIPLINE OF TESTIMONY AND TESTIMONY REQUIRES OBSERVATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS REQUIRE TESTS Tests can be “PRE-dictive” if the production of the data is controlled, or “DE-scriptive” if the production of the data is uncontrolled. But if we don’t have an observation, and a system of measurement then we don’t have science.

  • Ivar Diederik Hits the Transcendent Nail on The Head…..

    —“I’ve seen people accuse Curt of denying the transcendent. But even the mystics themselves have all said the same thing: the transcendent can’t be expressed in words. The greatest mystics are silent about it. Because that which is beyond the grasp of words, should not be put into words. Do not try to testify what can’t be testified. Curt’s methodology is about the realm of spoken words. It doesn’t make any claims about the unspeakable. If you want to have transcendental, psychedelic and religious experiences, have them. Just don’t say anything about them that is false. Because otherwise Curt is going to swing his hammer of testimonialism at you.”—- Ivar Diederik

  • Ivar Diederik Hits the Transcendent Nail on The Head…..

    —“I’ve seen people accuse Curt of denying the transcendent. But even the mystics themselves have all said the same thing: the transcendent can’t be expressed in words. The greatest mystics are silent about it. Because that which is beyond the grasp of words, should not be put into words. Do not try to testify what can’t be testified. Curt’s methodology is about the realm of spoken words. It doesn’t make any claims about the unspeakable. If you want to have transcendental, psychedelic and religious experiences, have them. Just don’t say anything about them that is false. Because otherwise Curt is going to swing his hammer of testimonialism at you.”—- Ivar Diederik

  • Overview

    We can sense Perceptions (physical world), intuitions (not open to introspection) and reason (open to introspection) 1 – Physical (Senses) 2 – Intuitionistic (Emotions and Intuitions) 3 – Intellectual (reason) 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) 7 – 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) Those operations existed or can exist. 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) 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 changes in gears. And as such certain sets of numbers (outputs) are produced faster (like seconds or minutes vs hours) than other sets of numbers (outputs).

  • Overview

    We can sense Perceptions (physical world), intuitions (not open to introspection) and reason (open to introspection) 1 – Physical (Senses) 2 – Intuitionistic (Emotions and Intuitions) 3 – Intellectual (reason) 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) 7 – 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) Those operations existed or can exist. 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) 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 changes in gears. And as such certain sets of numbers (outputs) are produced faster (like seconds or minutes vs hours) than other sets of numbers (outputs).