lorry

Jordan Peterson has no idea what information is, but he talks about information all the time. "The flow of information across boundaries" justifies "The flow of people across boarders". Boomer-tier silo-ed intellectualism. >Talk about information >Never define information >Never discuss information theory Dropped.

My dude, please consider a call to Stefan and have a convo. Again. I am a dude on the internet projecting myself. I don't know what you should do, because I don't know you, but there is some information in your posts and I have something of an idea about myself. You have a business. This is awesome, well played. But, how is it that you are currently making business decisions? Are you gathering information and analyzing it so as to predict the most likely outcome of your decisions? Or are you somewhat flying by the seat of your pants, throwing stuff out there, and seeing what sticks? Have you actually measured your business and empirically proven that it is not viable (so as to support a family)? And what exactly does viable mean in your context? $50k? $100k? If not, how do you know that you can't be a "successful" music teacher or run a music teaching business? Like, is your music teaching optimized such that you are actually maximizing your potential as a self employed teacher? Are you targeting higher paying customers? Do you have different prices? What does your churn rate look like? What do your customers look like? Where do they live? Is there a difference in churn between customers based on where they live? Dude, there are so many questions. I don't want to snow you in, but have you answered them, or are you running on intuition? And it is OK if you are running on intuition and know you are running on intuition, but you have to know, eh? A few to consider: ------------ Am I running on intuition or am I measuring things empirically? In my context, what is the definition of success (how much money do I need)? If I am running on intuition, what is required to measure things empirically? If I am running on intuition, and I don't have the skill to measure things empirically, what is required to gain the skill to measure things empirically? ------------ Given the skills to measure things empirically..... What is the current state of my business and am I maximizing the profitability of my business as it exists currently? If I am not maximizing the profitability of my business, what choices can I make differently and what is required to inform those choices? If I made those choices, what difference would it make relative to attaining my goal? ------------ Full blown projection time? Call in and chat to Stef if you can. Define what you mean by success. (Super projection starts here) Learn business analysis. You have a business, it behooves you to be able to make informed business decisions. Incidentally, this is a very, very, very valuable skill. Every single question you are asking, is a business analysis question. Every. Single. One. Once you know business analysis. Optimize the shit out of your business (and record every thing you do as a project, write it up in log books and reports and publish that online somewhere, a blog or something). Once you have optimized, measure your business and prove it can't achieve your goals. If you can't, then consider the youtubes and the ebooks and what not, but again, measure it, research it, prove it. (I just looked, there are alot of teaching music youtube channels, not to say you can't do it better, but fucking stiff competition). After all that, then look to using your music skills and your analysis skills. Can you provide analysis to other self employed creative types? (you speak their language after all, right?) Do you want to build on your analysis skills in a musical context (can you analysis a song and predict it's chances for success? or who will buy it? or what emotions it will evoke?) You could (possibly) dominate these kinds of problems because you have so much musical experience to draw on that you will intuit a lot. Again. I do not know you. So I am projecting myself onto what you wrote.

Has anyone considered that, given the never ending bombardment of guilt upon Germans, it would be rational this think of all Germans as having a minimum ACE of 2 or 3? And then you look at Germany and think OK, everyone in this country has a minimum ACE of 2 or 3 from never ending abuse about "the holocaust" and that is what 64 million abuse victims look like. Bottom point in OP, homeschooling is illegal. Got to make sure you torture these kids into understanding how fucking evil they are because "6 million? 11 million? 500,000? 182,000? 6 million Jews were killed by electric floors? roller-coasters that threw them into ovens? masturbation machines? giant electric chairs which fried 10,000 Jews at a time? poison gas" and if they question the reason why they are evil? Jail. Germany is a nation of abuse victims and they act like a nation of abuse victims.

I'm just a guy on the internet, but I don't think you should abandon the years and years of industry knowledge being a music teacher provides without some real thought. Like, if you have 10 years music experience, can you supplement your skill set so as to allow you to draw upon your musical knowledge in some new context? Say you are interested in programming, in your area is there a demand for programmers who work on musical problems? If not, can you move? Or, if you have the head for numbers required for accountancy, have you considered a role in data analysis (again analyzing musical problems?). An analysis role might be a better fit because, ordinarily, you interact with technology at a higher level and there a lot of communicating and presenting of ideas (10 years teaching, eh?). Again, are there data analysis jobs working on musical problems in your area? If there are not, can you move? If not, have you considered skilling up and applying said skill set to musical problems in a teaching format online? Or developing a youtube channel wherein you do analysis on music (pop?) an ongoing basis, or something? Is there a market for a specialist music analytical consultant? (I bet there is) I don't know why the "just for the money" is a thing. I think the problem to solve is I have all this expertise in this area which I am really passionate about, what skill can I learn that will enable me to translate this expertise into more value for other people. Again, I am just a guy on the internet. Everything I said is in the context of just a guy on the internet reading a paragraph and projecting myself onto said paragraph.

I know right! My experience with experiments wasn't as bad. I think I went into physics as a flight from humanities. Rand talks about this a lot. Like, in other areas of study there is an absence of rationality so some people, seeking some semblance of rationality, take up the sciences as a sanctuary of sorts. Because I don't think I ever really cared about understanding a lot of what was being "taught" (old professors handing out partially filled out lecture notes and then filling in the blanks and talking around the notes, seriously, this was at a "very good" University too). I think, with hindsight, I was looking for epistemology, because whenever I was presented with a topic which was something of a unifying topic (classical thermodynamics or the principle of least action) I became very interested, but then immediately stopped caring when it came to something quantum physics or astronomy.

Same with murder? I murder and thus destroy the Logos (the creation of God and thus rightly God's property) and in doing so I assume for myself the state of Godhood?

I guess that would make the taking of a economic property the taking of Logos? I dunno, I'm not fluent in the idea. Something like...... the appropriation of Logos? Is that something like the taking of that which God created and thus an assumption of Godhood in the taking? Like, your Logos is infused into your property, God created your Logos, so your Logos is a property of the divine, so by taking your property I take your Logos and assume for myself the right of Godhood (because God owns the Logos as God created the Logos in man)?

With that conception, you can get to J Peterson talking about Logos (ie, a human as the potential to create order from chaos AS human thinking and AS human creating property) JP: Logos is a (potential) property of man, and it is this property infused (by infusing ones labour in the Lockean sense) which makes economic property a property (ie, we infuse the human property Logos into the economic "property", or, that which makes a economic good a property is the property: Logos). <------ metaphorically speaking.

Try to think of information as in formation. It helps, like: here is a rock in a state of nature, and by working on it so as to produce a sculpture (and by working on it make it my property) I transform it from a state of nature to a state of being in formation. If you call the state of nature un-ordered (not in formation), then I work so as to order the un-ordered, and in the ordering (putting in formation) it becomes my property.

Yeah hey, a while ago I resolved to knock out a MSc in Math because I figured it would be more useful to understand physics than studying physics

Yeah, but there is an application because the relationships exist in nature, hey? And they didn't invent nature. Maybe theoretical physics is a branch of mathematics?. p.s. Yeah right, hey?

True, eh. From what I have gathered it is the application of "Rand's" theory of concepts extended to mathematics. As I said, I haven't fully read and digested, and I didn't study mathematics at university. I did study physics though, so the idea that an expression is incomplete without units (dimensions), fits with my conception of physics. I totally get there are no negative numbers, and no complex numbers in nature. But, there are also no real numbers, hey? There are waves though, and complex numbers are pretty fundamental in their description. And you might argue that things in mathematics are introduced for symmetry, but I don't know why you would assume that those symmetries aren't a fact of nature discovered by mathematics, which I think Noether's theorem implies, like, there is symmetry in mathematics because there is symmetry in nature. If it makes sense: I think mathematics is about relationships of phenomenon in reality. The discovery of the phenomenon and the measurement you would call physics, the techniques of relating the phenomenon you would call mathematics. Like, I don't think Leibniz invented calculus (or Newton for that matter) but I think they discovered calculus as descriptions of the particular phenomenon they were trying to describe. I think philosophically it would go something like: there is nothing in the mind which isn't first int the senses, and the mind can only rearage (only! like it is some trivial task! i wish), and so the product of the mind (any concept, but take mathematics) can only be a product of what was first in the senses (and what was first in the senses was first in nature).

I have not yet got to the chapter on set theory, but set theory is covered by Knapp. If you are mathematically minded, check it out. You can pick it up on kindle unlimited.

Bants aside, if you want a good book on math as measurement check out R. Knapp's Mathematics is About the World. H. Binswanger's How We Know, for epistemology (coupled with Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding). Reading both know, didn't know I needed to know it.

Don't creators of memes want them to be used as such? Like, if I create a meme, I want you to take it and play with it and spread it. That is why I would make it, right? Presumably because I gain value in the creation and in the spreading of the magic (idea) of the meme.

Measurements can be made outside of reality............ Is it that reality is outside of reality, or man is outside of reality, my dude?

You are wrong. You are wrong because mathematics is the science of measurement. 1 + 1 = 2 is just shorthand for 1a + 1a = 2a. We drop the a and forget about it, thinking that 1 + 1 = 2 is somehow meaningful, it isn't. 1 of nothing + 1 of nothing = 2 of nothing is a meaningless statement. You are also wrong because you think man is apart from reality. I have noticed this in almost every thread I post in though. Man does not exist apart from reality, my dude. I'm am sorry this wasn't taught to you, but tbh, that science is measurement is not really hammered home anywhere. We need science because there exists facts of reality which we can not directly measure. We can not directly measure them because we can not directly perceive them (but we can their effects). Thus, we measure them indirectly, relating them to that which we can measure directly, which is to say to that which we can directly perceive. Referring back to momentum: we can not directly measure it. We can directly measure mass, but, we can not directly measure velocity, but, we can directly measure position and time so we can indirectly measure velocity. If you want to know more, research dimensional analysis.

Don't conflate the methodology with the purpose. Science is about one thing and one thing only, measurement. And yes, math is a science.

Science is about measurement. Measurements are contextual. Try this, measure your foot at the start of the day, measure your foot after walking all day. Different size? Why? Context. Does you foot not have a size? Does it not exist? It does, in context. Measurements are valid in context. Contexts change, usually the range of a measurement increases. When contexts change, a theory, being a measurement, will be "superseded" by a more precise theory which accounts for all previous context and the the new context of measurement. Example: Newtonian Momentum: p = m x v momentum = mass x velocity Einstein Momentum: p = m x v / square_root( 1 - ( v_squared / c_squared ) ) momentum = mass x velocity, devided by the square root of 1 minus the square of the velocity divided by the square of the speed of light You can see how Einstein Momentum is an extension of Newtonian Momentum: Einstein Momentum = Newtonian Momentum / square_root( 1 - ( v_squared / c_squared ) ) This is because it extends the measurement of momentum, accurately, to really high velocities (velocities so high no one had ever observed them, the new context of measurment). We can also see how the Einstein Momentum reduces to Newtonian Momentum at low velocities: Let v = 0.000001 x c (the speed of light) then v_squared = 0.00000000001 x c_squared and v_squared / c_squared = 0.00000000001 and square_root( 1 - ( v_squared / c_squared ) ) = square_root( 1 - 0.00000000001 ) The square root of 1 is 1, but is the difference between 1 and 0.99999999999 is negligible, it makes not noticeable difference because v is so low, eh? So we just say that 1 is basically 0.99999999999, and devide m x v by 1 p = m x v / 1 = m x v So, at low v, the Einstein equation reduces to Newtonian. The measurement in this case is momentum, the context is the velocity of the thing being measured. This is how theories are superseded. They are extended to include new context.

Let all work = 1 Let all money representing work = 1 Work per money = 1 Keep constant the amount of work 1 Double the amount of money to 2 (by copying money, duplicating it) Work per money = 1/2 Pre copying, I had 1 money and 1 work per money, thus, 1 work. Post post, I have 1 money (it hasn't been taken from me, whats the big deal?) I now have 1/2 work per money, thus I have 1/2 work. Copying a thing is a taking of work, in this case, it takes 1/2 work. Stop being parasites.

And he only has to consume if he wants to continue to exist.

Is your argument that only that which exists independent of me can be my property? Then how is it that my work is rightly mine? Do you understand that ideas require work to create? Do you think ideas are not produced? How do they come to be? From whence do they come? Are they intuited, without effort, from a different realm of existence? Do you understand that work in creating is the foundation of property? Do you understand that in the taking of property you are taking the work required to create the property? Did you actually read what you linked to? Look at number 2. Think conceptually, my dude. An apple is property because of the work I do in taking it out of a state of nature, if you take my apple, you take for your own my work. That my work is "infused" in an apple is by the by. It is the taking of my work which is immoral. It is that which is akin to an act of enslaving me to work for you.

Incidentally this is how you spot a plagiarist, or a second hander. They have "ideas" which lack a chain of conception AND have no references to the previous conceptions used in the formation of "their idea".

No, I'm saying you own what you produce. I didn't say inside or outside of the mind. Ideas are of the mind, they are conceptualizations, a function of your consciousness. But they require work to produce, purposeful work. As it is the working, the infusing of labour (energy) into a thing that makes it a property so then it must be that the work done in the production of an idea makes the idea a property. If you copy my idea, then you are making use of my property, the function of my work. If you work so as to create your own idea (without copying mine!), you have created your own property. That ideas can be the same AND be the product of individuals work, ie, not copyed, is right. This is because ideas, as a form on knowledge, are (if correct) a conceptualization (abstraction) of perceptions of reality, and reality has a given nature. To give you an example: I can have an idea on how to make a plane, and you can have an idea on how to make a plane, and we can have never met each other and both of us own our ideas because we both worked for their creation. Our ideas are the same because, to make a plane, you must conform to the laws of physics (which rather constrains the nature of a plane). This is different if I have the idea on making a plane and you copy my idea without doing the work to generate the idea. Just as with counterfitting currency, you are appropriating the function of my work. And, if I sell you my idea, or rent you my idea, then I am taking payment for the work required to create the idea. We are exchanging the product of our work.

Because an idea is a conceptualization, and any conceptualization is of a very high order, ie, it is a conceptualization of a conceptualization of a conceptualization of a conceptualization. You can prove an idea is your own work by explaining how it is that you came by the idea, you can trace the chain on conceptualization all the way back to the start (perceptions of reality). You can't breathe because I had the idea of breathing first. GET REKT, LOLZ.