frank harley
-
Posts
212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by frank harley
-
-
It seems like you're trying to find a universal standard of value rather than money. They're different. Mark and Adam Smith both thought that labor was the basic cost (the "Labor theory of value"). This was an improvement on the earlier idea that land and natural resources were the only original value (ref. "Physiocrats"). Using Joules might seem like an improvement, but the basic problem is with the whole approach. Just because something costs a certain amount does not make it have value. That's the basic error of Marx and Smith. I could have a brilliant idea for a new product that just comes upon me, and yet it is worth billions. Two bottles of wine may take the same inputs to produce, and yet 10 years later one is hugely more expensive than the other. Value is not about the making of the product; that's cost.
Well, yes, re Marx: his 'Transformation Problem' is the quantitative conversion of labor values into prices.
Working backwards, we can inquire as to what's really the value of something other than its stated price?
As money enters into the issue because money is what we measure prices by,the issue (for some) becomes 'what's the value of money'?
In pother words, if it has a deeper reference that 'represents' labor, worth, or whatever,it's highly advisable not to padoddle around with the quanity in circulation.
OTH, saying it's just 'purchasing power' permits you to adjust the quantity to fit what you want to see as depletion of stock, consumation, etc...
-
Dear, aleph_1! From Physical point of view your exmaple is a transformation of energy. In this process energy conservation law does not contain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_value. You may consider my "theory" as introduction of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conversion_efficiency into Economics.
Several points, please:
* usable energy is created by a given technology. It is not in any way a constant.
* the energy used to produce energy (itself a variable) must be calculated out.
* You have to develop an exotic daffy-nition of 'money to see it as anything other than available purchasing power, ostensibly depending upon many factors...
-
Frank said:
Yes, one way to read Kant is to say that the A-S distinction is a result of "maxims" generated by "pure reason" causing "dialectical" error.
Its interesting the manifold ways that Kant was a fountainhead for certain schools, where these schools often had different interpretations of his works.
yes...in any case, to return to Quine, i'd say that there's a 'consensus' that his 50-ish article 'Tow dogmeas of empiricism' is extremely impoerant, or even seminal.
* Because all knowledge is synthetic, analytic has never existed.
* The introduction or rejection of small facts can alter whole systems (his ontology).
-
Ilya, your posts are mostly incomprehensible and arbitrary nonsense... a series of sentences put together to make it seem like they're saying something.
The Woody Allen parody of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky; 'Love and Death'.
-
Let's just say for the sake of argument that children pick up on their partents' world view fairly easily, but in a way that cannot be explained by the children themselves due to a lack of linguistic skill.
What we seem to presently see among adults is a feeling of self-entitlement, or an 'it's all about me' attitude that makes a parody out of Rand's virtue of selfishness.
Why, then, would we not expect children to behave in the same manner? The same is true, BTW, of bullying.
Love, then, in part seem to exist as a type of acknowledgement that children are bent and mutilated by a zeitgeist over which individual parets have little control.
-
Hello everybody!
Let me ask dummy questions!
1. Why is this ratio so critical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-to-GDP_ratio ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
For example, Luxembourg's value is enormous... still.. there is no bankruptcy or something...
2. Can anybody suggest simplest way to compare countries' economies? Say, 3-4 ratios and their common sense, please.
I also want to suggest alternative understanding of Economical Analysis!
IMHO actual money on the planet is Energy. And its unit of measurement is Joule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
This is inspired by K. Marx (see his writings about Gold).
Any comments are welcome.
Debt to GDP reflects a nations basic capacity to repay what it owes, In this sense, smaller nations borrow against their ability to repay as a sort of credit report.
Richer nations, however, can simply print their own money to repay debt, or extend credit to themselves. The assumption here is that money itself has no intrinsic value, rather serving no purpose but as 'ability to purchase.
OTH, Austrian School Philosophy, by maintaining that money represents real value, obviously finds serious fault with padoodling with the money supply.
The problem, with the Austrian POV, as it were, is their refusal to enter the empiricist fray with numerical-based proof; This is why it's advisable to call their work 'Philosophy' rather than 'Economics'.
For better or worse, what's normal, paradigmatic behavior for economists is to use math to fight out their positions.
-
- Indeterminacy of any sort is empirically unverifiable. Since "random" is the negation of any pattern, as such, it can never be proven to exist; we can only disprove various patterns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
- Quantum Indeterminacy is logically derivative from determinism; you cannot define "random" except by reference to a pattern, in the same way and for the same reasons that you cannot define "nothing" except by reference to "something". This makes its assertion one gargantuan, conceptual larceny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness
- The negation of any sort of pattern, as such, is a negation of the Law of Identity which logically descends from the Primacy of Consciousness implicit in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
- Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle implicitly denies the Primacy of Existence when it refers to subatomic particles, in the absence of any observer, as physical "information".
It may well be a valid formula (I doubt it would still be used if it were not empirically valuable) but its widespread interpretation amounts to an inversion of Consciousness over Existence which inevitably leads to the denial of the Law of Identity which can only occur as a Reification of the Zero- because to be is to be something.
And at the root of all such epistemological contortions, in their motivation, is fear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_interpretation_of_time
Please remember that Heisenberg himself did not derive any 'uncertainty' principle. All the equation says is that measurement (dT/dD) can go down to h/2. That it can't go lower means there 's nothing smaller in nature than a photon (wave) divided by 2.
Yet to a working Physicist, the fact that the measurement can go this precise is a holy grail of opportunity, not a stopligh of 'indetermanacy. For more, please see 'Bose/Einstein equations. Bosons, or massless particles that emit energy because of theie whole spin, can be studdied and classified.
'Indetermanancy', then, is a set of interesting metaphysical issues that are extrinsic to how physics is really done.
-
To clarify, my professor did not say that consciousness affects reality, but he did say that time-space is metaphysically indeterminate for subatomic particles, and he explicitly referenced the Copenhagen theory.
Time space is indeed determinate down to h/2, per the Heisenberg. As to 'metaphtysically' determinate, welll....uhhh...h/2 means workable down far beyond the level of the smallest subatomic.
-
"If keyboards and democracy are equally 'real' then there's a poverty of distinction between thoughts, sociasl constructs, and material."
You are missing the point. Our KNOWLEDGE of keyboards and democracy are both abstractions (concepts).
I can't disagree. Rather, if that's all there is to the randian/epistemological issue regarding concepts, then i'm afraid you're the talking hore with nothing interesting to say. In other words, you're not doing 'pholossophy', but rather using philosophical-sounding language to describe the commonly-held notion that we create mind-onjects. Rather ilke putting lipstick on a pig.
-
Frank, all knowledge is mind-dependent - and knowledge of entities is all we have. Democracy (or any other abstraction) exists, and is every bit as real as this keyboard that I'm typing on. You claim that Plasmatic fails to "ontologically" distinguish between the two is because you've adopted an ontology view that is false.
If keyboards and democracy are equally 'real' then there's a poverty of distinction between thoughts, sociasl constructs, and material.
Re plasma, of course it's an existant in the sense that ionized gasses exist. Here on earth, however, that's not the natural state:
In other words, truth or falseness is not the issue.Rather, ontologies should offer disctinctions that are in some way meaningful, as the word implies--the best, or 'fist' way to divide things up.
To say, therefore, that everything is mind-dependent is a rejection of the ontological issue altogather.
-
This condition is not what nullifies the claim of what 'A' is, - 'A' is simply the object being discussed. The object being discussed is what the object is regardless of what any party claims it to be. In this sense, what 'A' is, is the precondition rather than a nullifier. A linguistic agreement is arrived at by coming to a mutual understanding of a concept and the relationship it bears to its referents.
I If you have a 'linguistic agreemen't as to what things are (ie whale is mammal, not fish), then asserting that A=A is redundant.
Logic, on the other hand, assists you in discovering what A's are by clarification. But again, no clarification is neede if there's prior agreement.
-
I don't think this position is advocated by any actual physicist, or ever has been, although I'm sure there are a few New Age mystics who would make that claim. What the "collapsing wavefunction" model would mean is that a particle has an indeterminate wavefunction until it interacts with another object in the macroscopic world. This would not, strictly speaking, be a human consciousness under any plausible circumstance. It would be the piece of computer equipment used to measure the position and velocity of a particle.
A wave/particle does also have definite properties before it is "observed" -- namely, a range of probability of where it might be, and how fast it might be going, defined by a specific set of mathematical equations which are equivalent to a wave function. Once it has interacted with the measuring equipment, the mathematical equations change to something more similar to a particle, but it is probable that, once the equations involved are properly understood, they will resolve into something which the human mind can interpret more easily.
At least that's my understanding of it. It's been a while since I've picked up a physics book.
One normal way of understanding particle behavior of photons is by matrix algebra. This was first developed, btw, by Heisenberg, et cie in 1925, I believe. Wigner and Heisenberg developed further, nore complex matrices, the D & S models.
Present models refer more to Feynman's Path Integral...
The problem is that the math of particle description simply doesn't 'talk' to that of wave; Copenhagen, then, is far more a pragmatic reality than a philosophical posture.
-
I don't think this position is advocated by any actual physicist, or ever has been, although I'm sure there are a few New Age mystics who would make that claim. What the "collapsing wavefunction" model would mean is that a particle has an indeterminate wavefunction until it interacts with another object in the macroscopic world. This would not, strictly speaking, be a human consciousness under any plausible circumstance. It would be the piece of computer equipment used to measure the position and velocity of a particle.
A wave/particle does also have definite properties before it is "observed" -- namely, a range of probability of where it might be, and how fast it might be going, defined by a specific set of mathematical equations which are equivalent to a wave function. Once it has interacted with the measuring equipment, the mathematical equations change to something more similar to a particle, but it is probable that, once the equations involved are properly understood, they will resolve into something which the human mind can interpret more easily.
At least that's my understanding of it. It's been a while since I've picked up a physics book.
The most famous Physicist who took a decidedly mentalist view of his science was Wigner, who said that the confluence between math (a mental construct) and observable data was \far too close to be naturally coincidental. For him, our mind was indeed a causal element....
-
Quantum mechanics is valid insofar as the mathematics does describe how very small things behave and they do not behave as classical particles.
Interpretations of Quantum mechanics which invoke consciousness to "observe" and "cause" wavefunction collapse are incorrect.
Physcists have not turned to the DeBroglie Bohm theory because it invokes additional physical things which, since it cannot be measured independently, is superfluous. Using Occam's razor, most physicists turn to the purely mathematical model of a system characterized ONLY by the outcomes. Some like to think seriously about various "interpretations".
De Broglie/Boem was proven wrong by the application of Bell's Theorem. The behavoir of photons--including 'spooky action at at distance' --are predictably consistent; therefore no hiden variable is needed.
-
Frank said:
The meaning of existence and the question of the types of existents-ontology are two different questions.
Its true its not clear what Ms Rand would call an entity, but its very clear that she wanted to use existence as pertaining to all that is.
Edit:
Frank said:
Are you actually claiming that an ionized gas contains no matter?!!!
If you say that 'existence' means 'all that exists' and yet you fail to (ontologically) distinguish mind-dependent from mind-independent existants, you're created a bad infinity; the mind can conjure up an infinite number of entities.
Yes, i'm aware that standard textbook- cum- Wiki defines ionized gas (plasma) as one of the four states of matter.
-
Louie said:
If only this were true....Many since Quine have defended it, in particular against Quine.
Quine, in 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism' demonstrated that all statements are 'synthetic', and that analytic really means that we've internalized its factual relationship to the world. Therefore, to say that Quine abolished the distinction is somewhat incorrect, although commonly employed with reference to kant.
Yet...the problem here is that Kant, carefully read, used 'analytic' as an ad hoc-ism to describe what philosophy is not. inso far as the real problem is finding the synythetic a priori...
-
Perhaps your most manifold distinction is between Anglo-Saxon 'analytical' philosophy and 'continental', which is practised in America, as well.
-
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” -Albert Einstein
I do not recognize that distinction as valid. The laws we prove today become tomorrow's principles.
However, by all means; you may distinguish away. You do not need my permission.
The distinction, as it wwere, is not mine. Scientists refer to 'laws' as a matter of discourse
.OTH, philosophers use 'principe', although in a somewhat ambiguous sense.
-
DonAthos,
Similar to my response to 425, since your answer to the question asked in the original post is that we can say that something is moral or immoral by appealing to the evidence we have and logic and so forth, if I state that X is moral by appealing to the evidence I have and logic and so forth, then X is moral. And if you state that X is immoral by appealing to the evidence you have and logic and so forth, then X is immoral. And since we disagree, at best, we end up in a situation where I try to convince you that you are somehow in error and you try to convince me that I am somehow in error. And if we can’t convince each other, then I will claim that I am correct, claim that you are incorrect, and act accordingly and you will claim that you are correct, claim that I am incorrect, and act accordingly. Do you agree with my summary?
Per an application of Kahneman and Tversky, morality seems to have a reasoned dimension which might be argued out between consenting adults of good will , but also a heuristic one, as well.
This means that much of what we call 'moral' is how we instantly react to unforseen events (See 'trolly-ology for more!). This is also where Aristotle comes back in and says, 'Ethos pathein; moral transgressions give an emotive reaction.
So i suppose that part of the issue, in aristotelian terms, is that we expect a 'nomos oud-pathein' investigation--or that morality should stand up to the logical, dispassionate scrutiny of law!
We generally, then, react to transgressions with emotion. All we can therfore say is that both first-principle reasoing and reflecttion upon past reactions can offer us some hope of future adjustments...
-
re 'existants': even a quick google-up of the Stanfiord article on Objectivism will emplasize that the weak point of Rand's philosophy is her failure to expand on the typology of 'existants'
For example, do they include all mental constructs, rrgardless of the origin of either mind-dependent or independent? If not, then she's a hopeless idealist!
As for 'plasma', there are several accounts of its theoretical state with respect to math. One, by Landau, is 'pheniomenal', ostensibly dealing with observation.
-
Fortunately for those who study the physics of plasma, it still exists for them to study, which would be more in line with the implication intended by 'existence' to which you directed your reply,
'Existence' to me means 'possessing material properties'. Plasma, oth, is a state in which matter is said not to exist because it's too hot.
-
Frank said:
Absolute non-sequitor.... The concept existence applies to everything that exist. A perfect example of why physicist (and physics students) need philosophy of science.
My fave is from Nancy Cartwright: The laws of physics lie.
-
An explicitly generalized integration.
Albert Einstein once said "a good theory is one that a child of six could understand". That is a principle which has two different components, "good theories" and "the mental capacity of six-year-old children", which are generalized (not 'some six-year-old children' but 'any six-year-old child') within a certain integration; all A's are B.
"Man is a rational animal" qualifies as a principle, just as "E is MC2" does.
Moral principles, such as "I should be rational", boil down to statements of intention: "I cannot survive without reason" and "I wish to survive," therefore "I want to be rational".
The exception is any statement of a causeless duty, such as "I must have faith in God, because I must". They are derived from actual principles, but the "duties" themselves are invented specifically to hide such reasoning.
I'm really not sure of the context in which Einstein spoke of a six-year old understanding time-space manifolds, ricci curvatures and Lorentz contractions. Kindly elaborate.
I'd also like to distinguish 'principle'--a means of reasoning--from 'law' which is established with proof.
-
That is a brilliant premise for a cautionary children's tale, "There once was a man Frank Harley who lived inside a book".
Yes, 'great idea to scare children out of reading!
What are the implications of existence regarding plasma?
in Physics and Mathematics
Posted
Well, i believe thatthe original question was , "What are the implications of existence re plasma? So if your answer is that plasma is an 'existant' just like anything else, you've mooted the question itself.
Better asked, then, would be "Plasma is what type of existant"? At tempratures far too hot for the natural world of earth to survive, gasses ionize. This indicates that said 'fourth state' of astrophysical matter is not a 'life-existant', so to speak.