ofd

Still not an inch closer to knowing what a monad is, nor having seen one. Still waiting for an argument where you show how we can experience wave functions.

Wave functions exist. They can't be experienced. Try harder. Indeed. But even basic concepts like p-value are little understood, even among scientists. In short, you don't look for confirmation, rather you look for points that discredit your theory. If those findings are marginal enough, you may have a better theory.

Wave functions of superpositions exist, yet by definition they can't be experienced.

That's likely, considering you can use the zeta-function in qm.

Is that a circumspect way of saying you can't?

Back to the beginning. Show me a monad then.

Why not say nervous system then?

Not at all. I have yet to see a Monad though. Seen some brains and what not that processes informations and stimuli.

That's not clear at all. At least not for me.

Sure, you have those cases but there are instances when the mathematical theory was invented first (Riemann and Hilbert) and later there was an application for it in physics (relativity and QM). I get that from a Lockean perspective, but evolutionary psychology made other discoveries Many of our base behavioural actions were selected for. The way we behave today is an adaption to living in small groups of hunterer and gatherers some 100 000 years ago.

From what I can see, Knapp reinterprets maths to fit into Rand's objectivism. Nothing wrong with that, but that's not what maths is about when you learn it at university. There are no negative or imaginary numbers in nature, but they were introduced to make maths symmetrical.

No. Maths isn't based on measurement, but on set theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo–Fraenkel_set_theory

UPB is largely based on Argumentation ethics and performative contradictions.

The objective measure for success on the individual level is to pass on your genes, on the family level the continuation of your family and on the ethnic level the existence of social institutions and their future. How this happens depends on selective factors that are only partially up to humans. Adaptions occur to the climate, the geography and geology. To some extent also sexual selection and cultural laws restricting it (in some cultures you may not marry a cousin and so on). Natural selection doesn't care about ideologies it cares about what works. And if you can't pass on your genes or your people die off there was either bad luck or a maladaption. '

Hoppe makes a point that you can't make an argument and not presuppose the validity of the NAP. And since property is an extension of your body, it falls under it as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics

Science makes falsifiable and testable statements about empirical reality. Any statement that cannot be tested or in theory shown to be false is not scientific. If a statement that is simpler or explains new phenomena is found it replaces the older statement. You can transform the geocentric theory into a scientific, falsifiable statement but it falls apart once can measure the parallax motion of the stars. Until that, the heliocentric model was more likely to be true since it could explain more and was easier. But in theory, the geocentric theory had a slim chance of being correct.

There is not a really a code that can be understood behind AI / expert systems. Only nodes that have different weights.

If you think that it's a valuable asset to have, add btc to a permanent portfolio.

Learn a craft with a union. Join the union.

Scenario 1: One or two companies have a monopoly on taxi rides. In this case, the taxi driver is screwed while the company gets rich. Scenario 2: Competition among many small companies / independent taxi drivers. Since the skill level is low, the wages or earnings will also be low. Scenario 3: No more taxis because of self driving cars.

Time to watch Japanese, Korean or Russian movies. Most Hollywood movies nowadays have a shitty story and bad cinematography. Add to that ADHD cuts and you have the recipe for annoying movies.

Who's talking about a population?

Which principles were that? I can. It's making dumb people breed a lot by handing out welfare. Freedom without consequences for bad behaviour isn't really libertarian either. The best eugenics would be a free market without government interfence but that's not an option for the near future. Of course he is. That's his appeal to libertarians who are frustrated that the pendulum has swung away since Ron Paul first ran in the 2000s.

As if it needs to be created.

Google makes most of the money selling ads. I don't see what subsidies they get. When they build a new data centre, different towns or regions compete for that, offering money to have it built there. Lets make the power of the state disappear. Poof, it's gone. How would that change the current situation with the government doing nothing with regards to youtube's policies when it comes to demonetizing videos and censoring content?