RestoringGuy

That idea seems to suggest any old formula or expression that can be written constitutes math. I think that is not exactly the right picture, that is just a symbolic view of math. Mathematics is also process by which proofs are done, and not any formula is going to be provable. There is a connection between foundational axioms and the set of conclusions that may be derived. That connection can be tested procedurally, either by human or computer verification. Well I guess that is "descriptive" in the sense that it describes (and indicates empirically) whether or not a proof can be done. But it seems strange to me to require a verification procedure but also say theory has nothing to do with it. There are points in time where I believed logic and math were just useful, and that is why I study them merely as a handy fiction. Then i changed my view and believed mathematics is this real "other world", only some of which comes in handy to us in the real world, and our logical verification process exposes this other world as real but leaves it detached from ours physically. Then I changed by view again, and realized all such mathematics you might call "true" are connected together by proofs, and there is always a context and scientific test proving exactly where any bit of mathematics is useful. The proofs are always done "in the real world", not in some imaginary place, which makes them capable tools of making predictions of physical systems (especially those sorts of physical system which carry out the proofs). It is certainly possible to say mathematical concepts are descriptive, but they are also predictive which I think brings them closer to scientific theory. The descriptive part is, in some sense, weaker because you have to define variables and have a context of meaning in order to say a description is happening. Whether that part of the process is properly called "math" is something I think nobody seems to agree on. Some will insist if you count birds in the sky and use simple addition, you are no longer doing mathematics, it is somehow applied science.

I tend to agree with this interpretation, with the caveat that logic must be empirically verified in some context in order for it to be valid. A person could read sheet music, and maybe never have heard sound, yet they can conceivably use other senses to process the music and judge the quality. Also, objects that are previously unseen are discovered by inventions such as the telescope. So we clearly allow construction of an apparatus to be a validation tool added to our senses. One of those tools is formal logic, and it is added to our senses because it is needed to make predictions. While formal logic seems to be detached from physics (that is what we are taught anyway),we still find it indispensable to make empirical predictions much as a telescope is indispensable tool to detect distant objects. If a particular logical theory seems totally useless, and not even a computer can confirm or deny it, then it is difficult to say in what sense the theory is valid.

I wish it was as simple as buy or don't buy and there was full disclosure. I wouldn't worry if that were the case. However with OS locking, they can now hold your system hostage. A game bought on download can be disabled at will by the vendor and brick the machine if their rules for continued use are not followed. Game designers must sell through a central approver who is increasingly able to brick the machines if our paid-for software is used in a way they don't like. Government can easily pull the strings.

Is a bird's nest assembled by nature? So what makes a volcano non-living?

Kind of harsh. You write like there is no need to negotiate meaning. You suggest nothing happens "on it's own" except naturally by it's environment. I don't get that. You seem to say that motion includes an object's origin, not just continued motion. You say the plane is nonliving because it is not assembled by "its" environment. But human beings are part of its environment. Forget that fact, and let's suppose humans can never be part of any environment. What about certain hybrid animals/plants, artificial insemination,etc.? Some of those may be considered "not assembled naturally". How do you get around that?

I don't know if that is possible to argue that. If true, then one can eliminate all aggression from one's behavior by simply refusing to construct a framework that includes aggression. I guess I aim to define aggression without necessarily including action in the most general way, and I think of force/aggression as being attack of the person being attacked, and not their hopes and dreams or their MP3 player. When it comes to right/wrong of the sort that is not based on force/aggression (property, honesty, good manners), then we must resort to a mutually constructed framework. A person can construct a framework that does not include such things, but I do not see that as aggression, just stupid. I did not say you choose and sanction on the basis of your choice while believing it is a good one. I am saying you didn't choose (or would not), and your preferred choice would be different now that you're back in control. As a non-bank-robber and never pondering their perspective, I will not know what remedy will be effective. Besides, I am not talking about pretending or having the bank robbers entire knowledge set, including their faulty ethical system - only the knowledge of what took place. I'm only trying to consider what sanction I would want applied to me that would seem correct, if I were in the same situation (except for the situation of having the faulty ethics). That is why I brought up the example of the guy who unknowingly buys stolen property. He will be sanctioned (even by the anarchocapitalists) simply for doing an "action" that is wrong. Yet it is hard not to imagine being upset if you found out stuff you owned could be confiscated "justifiably" because of corrupt middleman. But with the state and corporations we cannot escape that middleman. Should we give up property that we "paid for" but do not "own"? I do not know a way to resolve this without considering the knowledge sets.

The word "action" is not simple. I can move my hands, but my "action" includes where my hands go. Some people would say action includes other consequences, such as feelings or changes of perception (damage to property value in the market). Saying universality is easy to state implies that action is easy to state. I do not mean there is no responsibility. This applies only to NAP, not financial responsibility in general. I mean only to determine whether that responsibility is sufficient to justify the use of force. By force I mean what is the basis of how much force I would inflict on myself to stop me from doing a particular wrong (even one that I had no choice in doing). Yes. By materialized I meant with the knowledge of what has previously happened. People still feel guilty when causing an accident, so guilt is not automatically nullified by knowing the past. It is necessary to pretend in order to decide what action should be taken against others. We cannot all become bank robbers to learn enough about bank robbing to figure out what is the ideal remedy.

I think UEFI and similar jailing tech poses larger threat than acknowledged. Windows/Apple only throw us a small bone to do what we want until they no longer have to. 40 trillion distros of Linux do not help if no future hardware will run it. GPS cell phone chip was mandated, just as UEFI can easily be state mandated. What makes that politically feasible is the programmers (including free software proponents) write things that obediently run on UEFI capable hardware. We build our own guillotine for the state, thinking no harm is done by building it.

I believe there is not one kind of justification. There is NAP-justification and there is necessity-justification. Necessity is just what needs to be done to produce a desired outcome, so it rather weak but still essential. To survive it might be necessary to steal. The NAP-justification maybe can be defined like this: "would you approve of force against you in the same situation?" So if I were to be taken over body-snatchers-style and forced to rob a bank, and I had a say in the matter of what exactly the bank guard does, would I want to be shot by the bank guard? I would say no, because I could give the money back later or there are hopefully less permanent remedies. Now if I were forced by the body snatcher to attack somebody and risk their life, and I could (while my brain is on hold) control who I attacked and get them to punch me or stop my taken-over body from harming them, I would generally say yes even though it damages me when all is over with. So by that thought experiment, I am able to distinguish what aggression is considered responsive versus initiative. With regard to stealing and chain of ownership, I think it is difficult. I am confused when I hear news about a guy who buys stolen property (unknowingly), and it is discovered and returned to the "rightful" owner, because now all you have done is move the damage and loss from one honest guy to another. It does not seem right to me. The thief still gets away and the honest guy at the end is punished the worst. But that is what laws do, and from what I understand, that is what most anarchocapitalists advocate also based on theory that property "originates" somehow at the time of first claim. I am confused as to what your thought experiment proves as it seems to me impossible and therefore irrelevent. Do you think you could break it down for me? There are too many weird exceptions in golden rule style of ethics, so matters of principle require an abstraction. In other words, what "should" we do is subjected to conditions that the other guy is not me nor in my situation or have my knowledge set. So universality seems difficult to state or evaluate. Each case seems only to be evaluated by hypothetical overlay of our decision process on top of the other person's current situation. I hold the view that I am what I am, not who I was. So when a person is doing something wrong, they make a choice at each instant to continue, and its not a wrong that exists all at once at the time of their initial decision to act. We can argue whether a thief is wrong when they touch an item, or walk with it, or how many millimeters away now constitutes theft. My thought experiment is to judge as if you were in that situation, not through your choice but as if you were just materialized there. This eliminates the need for past choices to ethically persist for arbitrary amounts of time, but they persist in terms of being a present choice of harm that continues to be done. It is relevant because if ownership is based on the ethics of past acquisitions, we are all just beneficiaries of the actions of our past selves and all property becomes unethical. If I suddenly materialized as a bank robber running with a bag of money (having had no control of prior action), then I carry two things: money and feeling of guilt. I am compelled to give the money back not to punish or correct error of myself, but to remove present guilt (neglecting that it could turn out that money is government funds). I think we know intuitively things are more wrong when they persist, considering stealing versus unannounced borrowing. I do not know if my views are totally consistent, but that is just my thinking so far.

I also think PC is the way to go. But I have become disturbed by Windows 8 and the distros of Linux that have built in app stores and so plainly aim to become gatekeeper of what you are allowed to do. There are plenty of free games, but what happens when UEFI hardware will eventually require Windows Eight-ish or a version of Linux that is Holy. It does not seem like overreaction to expect this, given that Apple has iOS following a totally central-Statist model and people just buy it. The open source people claim to fight this, but they still make their stuff amicable to PC-disabling technology. Their stuff should just refuse to run if a central-repository-based app store is loaded anywhere on the machine.

I believe there is not one kind of justification. There is NAP-justification and there is necessity-justification. Necessity is just what needs to be done to produce a desired outcome, so it rather weak but still essential. To survive it might be necessary to steal. The NAP-justification maybe can be defined like this: "would you approve of force against you in the same situation?" So if I were to be taken over body-snatchers-style and forced to rob a bank, and I had a say in the matter of what exactly the bank guard does, would I want to be shot by the bank guard? I would say no, because I could give the money back later or there are hopefully less permanent remedies. Now if I were forced by the body snatcher to attack somebody and risk their life, and I could (while my brain is on hold) control who I attacked and get them to punch me or stop my taken-over body from harming them, I would generally say yes even though it damages me when all is over with. So by that thought experiment, I am able to distinguish what aggression is considered responsive versus initiative. With regard to stealing and chain of ownership, I think it is difficult. I am confused when I hear news about a guy who buys stolen property (unknowingly), and it is discovered and returned to the "rightful" owner, because now all you have done is move the damage and loss from one honest guy to another. It does not seem right to me. The thief still gets away and the honest guy at the end is punished the worst. But that is what laws do, and from what I understand, that is what most anarchocapitalists advocate also based on theory that property "originates" somehow at the time of first claim.

I believe this is where most of our disagreements stem from. A computer performing a mathematical operation has no notion of mathematics any more than a river understands fluid dynamics. The computer doesn't do mathematics. It simply runs electricity through an integrated circuit. You, as a human, can abstract out the physical process through a conceptual framework (such as mathematics) because you're capable of concept formation. This is why I asked you if mathematics exists outside the human mind. We've come back to conceptual boundaries and their importance yet again. That is possible. I don't deny a modern computer has limitations a human does not. But to establish what is and is not mathematics requires, in your view, invoking a conceptual framework which you admit is electrochemical (a physical process). If a human is doing their taxes, adding numbers on a calculator, writing numbers, following a procedure, making simple decisions, you would say the human is not doing any mathematics because they might not have sufficient understanding of what they do? I do not believe mathematics "exists outside the human mind" in the same way an idealist would. Originally I thought it was a slightly sarcastic question to add some humor to the discussion. It seems to me mathematics includes the mind as a component, and there are components outside the mind that are necessary. The mind (a human one) is not a necessary component, because every decision and conclusion that is mathematically doable by human is doable by some type of computer. True the river does not understand fluid dynamics, but only because fluid dynamics is far more general than the specific action the river takes. The river can not give answers to questions different than its own particular behavior. If we take the angle that human conceptualization is the only valid litmus test, then we are at a philosophical dead end and physics too does not exist outside the mind. Same is true for the scientific method in general. It is just a mental fiction like all subjective things. But in an objective view, I argue there is no way define conceptualization outside of asking questions and seeing what conclusions are derivable by a physical system that is doing the conceiving. If human is a requirement, then our words become very specific. Birds can not eat, and computers cannot answer questions, because eating and answering are things humans do, if we choose to restrict verbs in that fashion. If no such restriction is made, then what is an objective test to know when a conclusion is derived in a qualifying manner?

No it does not belong to them and there is no justification to initiate force as a remedy. Take it back by using non-aggressive barriers. Even though it does not belng to them, force is not justified as a remedy because force was never initiated by those you take back from. This simple definition eliminates the need for arbitrary time limits.

The two ideas are the same. You should have no time. It is always unjustified while occupied. The descendants have to hold on to it, as does the guy who takes absentee land. Neither was an aggressor, only a corrupt beneficiary.

I did some more thinking. Quite true what you describe, although I do not conflate. Yes the thinking is conceptual, but mathematics is not just thinking. I know you don't claim such a thing, but you'd have to say that if you maintain I was conflating. Mathematics must make a proof, and I argue this constitutes external validation and that proves the predictive value. The electrochemical signals (which make the same predictions as some external device) now have the same value. Not all of the signals, just the mathematically proven ones! Knowledge statements cannot be physical? The electrochemical signals are physical. Correct (well correct for every system more complex than arithmetic). Yes of course incompleteness says nothing about whether an axiom is true or not. You are right, they should quit. Not because it's applicable only outside our universe, but because it is applicable to physical objects inside our universe different than the ones physicists should be working on. Let's say a system of equations is solved and the variables have no known meaning. They still have predictive value. If you encounter a physical system that matches those equations (and I guarantee you there is one, even if it's just a microchip), then you can predict what that physical system does. The level of complexity matters, because the abstractions needed to make an accurate prediction will be totally unrecognized by the physicist. The mathematician can make those physical predictions in cases where the physicist fails.

The claimant cannot be the sole source of boundary. The claimant does not use (and cannot use) "all" of what they claim. I claim Earth. I use it. The fact that I don't use all of it (and can never) destroys my claim. I can never use one acre of land either, not every single atom of it, for productive value. Nor can I use every bit of my car. The claimant and the opposing competitor agreeing mutually seems to be the only way to have a boundary that makes property useful as a concept.

When I was in high school, I thought the girls in calculus were hotter than the girls in basic math. I wonder, half-seriously now, whether I was corrupted or not.

I thought I was the only one left! You have my deepest respect and admiration.

I think there are good questions about limitations. It is not force when your body and mind are absent from the property, because what is the measurable objective target of force? A magical soul? Nobody will answer directly, they will dodge that question. I will argue there is compensation owed to all, because there are those we, by force, prevent from using land that we currently do not stand in front of. The market will say how much, because compensation level set too high will become worthless to hold knowing those who did not yet receive it will side with the owner and demand elevated compensation from you for property you hold. Cost of ownership simply becomes a convergent infinite series. No aggression and no magic.

That is not something I understand. You strip away reality from mathematics in order to prove what you assume. When the expression "2+2" is asked to be made shorter (simplified), and 4 is answered, the symbols and the human brain are together the system that I think in your view you might call "doing mathematics". Sure without the human brain (and no other change), the mathematics would not be done in this particular case. But if you substitute the brain with a computer and assume humanity is gone, are you now claiming this calculation "2+2=4" proven by computer no longer constitutes mathematics? You are actually insisting that "mathematics" and "human" are words connected by definition? In that case, by your words I am not even talking about mathematics, but mathematics-like-behavior and you can reinterpret all of my other sentences with that substitution. The physical artifact of mathematics might be a human with paper-and-pencil. It might be a computer. It might be any number of physical systems which require mathematical calculation to make a prediction. You will argue that the symbols are following laws that are not in fact physical laws, but concepts in the mind. True. But the mind itself is a physical thing that is itself part of the system. When the mind is a computer, the same predictions are made and mathematics does not magically become false.

If human soul is not left behind or something equally unprovable, the default idea that nobody takes our property evaporates when going out for lunch. If we rely strictly on the idea that I am here and you must attack me to take my property, then consequently I am not attacked when you take it while I am gone. The church uses morality, or the state uses laws, to prevent this. We market capitalists can only use contracts, and moral requirement to obey the contract does not exist for parties who have not signed it. By the state stealing our right, we get an immoral method of property, but it is still one that we pay for and get protection from theft (theoretically anyway). When this idea of paying for protection is transplanted to anarchy, we still must resort to immoral methods. Just being free to defend our property seems worthless, since once taken we lack the ability to recover it by moral means except to patiently wait for the thief to abandon it.

Cooperation? So what is the difference between taxation and cooperation in the case where neighbor and state treat me the same?

The validation methods of mathematics, while symbolic, have to be manifested in physical reality. You have said mathematics is conceptual construct and a language. But that is insufficient and I challenge that view. If I say such a thing about physics, you would suggest it must be augmented by the scientific method in reality. That is simply a physical action that verifies some physics symbolism. But I have met no mathematician who claims something must be accepted as "true" without demanding a physical presentation (a proof as one example). In those cases where mathematical proof is so complex only a computer can do the job, it seems to me totally illogical to say mental conceptualization is all that is required. A physical artifact must be shown that demonstrates truth, even if the entire concept is too complex to simply be held inside our monkeylike brains. Your point about boundaries is a good one. But that only seems to be a valid argument many years ago when mathematicians could never prove things they cannot personally grasp. At that time one could get away with arguing that mathematics is just conceptual. Proof is not a method for checking internal consistency (that is model theory), but it only establishes that a particular state can be acheived given the axioms (same as initial conditions in a science experiment). I don't believe internal consistency of axioms can ever be shown because of the incompleteness theorem. Mathematicians have accepted this. With all the conflicts with quantum mechanics and relativity, science in general does not mandate rigorous proof of consistency. It should be no surprise that mathematics can never be proven to be consistent. Proof is something mathematicians demand, and physical demonstration of proof is also required. Even if we cannot comprehend the proof, it is still allowable as long as the methodology is valid. To me it seems perfectly reasonable that mathematics should be equally as certain and physically relevant as any other science. Your points in interpreting things incorrectly are good. I am sure F=ma with m=0 is of little use in physics. But I do not know what meaning it has in mathematics either. Until somebody tells me what those letters mean and what predictions do they make (as far as provability of mathematical assertion), I doubt F=ma has any mathematical meaning.

I think the pattern goes: Fear, Goverment, Welfare/Warfare, Fatherlessness, Child Abuse, and finally back to Fear.

My idea is that all mathematics has predictive value, but that is only half of what I claim. My perspective is that when a symbolic formula has predictive value and that value is objectively reproducible in a totally generalized way, that is what makes it mathematical truth. There is a view that "true" mathematics does not exist until it is conceived (constructivism), and a view that mathematics is simply manipulation rules over symbols (formalism), but it says nothing about how those symbols must be embeddable into the real world. I am closer to the view called Platonism (not the Idealist flavor, but the Realist flavor) which holds that mathematical truths exist, and by an act of proof we expose them to observation. My main reason for this holding this view has to do with computer algorithms and the independent way certain results can be reproduced. Certainly the fields of physics and mathematics have been damaged by government, and the evils of seeking funding take precedence over any real progress. By connecting mathematics to the public school system, sure it is easy to argue mathematical science is bad. There is certainly a large part of mathematical activity that is conceptual construct, including the axioms. In that regard it is like you say, a fantasy novel. But fantasy novels do not require proofs. What I am talking about is the relationship between the axioms (which we may regard as fictional) and the conclusions (when isolated they may be regarded as fictional). With the advent of automated deduction and automated proof checking, it has become easier and more empirically certain whether or not such a symbolic relationship exists. We have dealt with this kind of thing in science for a long time. In the classical physics equation F=ma the letter "F" is fictional and only a conceptual construct. Only by connecting the letters to some apparatus (a spring scale or whatever) do these letters have meaning and the truth of the symbols "F=ma" are only true in the fictional realm where the letters mean what you have decided they mean. In the same way, when I write a computer program to generate prime numbers, and my apparatus proves 3433 is prime, my claim "3433 is prime" is only true in the fictional realm where digits and symbols (what is "3",etc.) hold the meaning I have decided upon. Despite all that fiction, I am able to make a prediction about what a physical system will do much like F=ma. When a prime number generator is made of atoms, simply an apparatus, I predict it will generate 3433. What about the fiction? Well if the computer is built so that "3" and "4" are reversed, then 4344 will be produced, but 4344 is not prime. But 4344 is prime in a fictional world where symbols are chosen differently (1,2,4,3,5,..). The numeric value of the speed of light will also be "different" now that 3 and 4 are switched. Nevertheless, I am able to predict 4344 in such a reversed-computer will be generated using the mathematics that I already know, because the reversal of the symbols is something I can learn about. This kind of generalization is exactly the same as physics, where experiments are performed in a specialized environment (a laboratory). When principles and predictions are made and proven, they can be applied to new situations in places and in other symbolic languages where those results have previously not been empirically verified.