Wednesday, June 16, 2021

Infinity is a Set, Not a Number.

There is no such thing as ∞, there is only [∞]. x/∞ = NaN. It's exactly as meaningful as x/Tuesday or x/your_face. 

To define [∞] you need two things. A specific number in question, and a precision. Let's pick 333. Precision say ±0.01%. [∞] is then any number such that 333/[∞] is 0 to within 0.01%, that is, smaller than 0.00005, meaning for our purposes [∞] is 6,660,100 and all larger numbers. Note the placement of the one is at five significant figures. To be precise [∞] >= 6.6601*10^6. 

Let's recurse. We can easily see that [∞] exists for any integer or real number, because division works. That's the [∞] mathematicians like to talk about - the [[∞]], basically.

We can also see [∞] does not exist for [∞]. If we divide [∞] by 5*10^-5, we don't get a number, we get nonsense. [∞] is not an integer or a real number, it is a set of numbers. You can multiply any particular entry by 20,000 if you want, but that doesn't change which members belong in the set. 

You can see that no matter how precise you need to be, there will be at least one member for [∞]. The set is never empty. However, statements such as 'infinitely precise' are meaningless. You can't have a number ±[4, 12, 0.09, 333]. At best that's four numbers, not 'a' number. What about [∞] defined on 333 ± 1/[∞]? Recursive, doesn't converge. NaN. 

Numbers with finite precision do not approximate nature. Nature is inherently finite in precision, because infinity is not a number, and precision is a number.

Confirmed: Incompleteness is False

Godel numbers remain brilliant - too brilliant, which is why nobody is using them. 


Godel's proof includes a particular number, g. This is a specific number, like pi or e, albeit finite. Except it isn't. Nobody has calculated g. You can't, because the number is self-referential and doesn't converge.

Likewise Turing's halting proof diverges. You can write the formula for its godel number, but it is not computable.

Basically this happens because they made grammatical errors. In reality, being provable from the axioms is what it means to be true. Godel appears to prove that true things aren't true, which means it must be appearance only, not substance.

Someone really should have noticed g diverges. But they also should be using godel numbers in real applications, so...


As always, counter confirmation bias by looking for counter-evidence rather than looking for confirming evidence.
Nobody can point to a single true mathematical statement that is unprovable. The denial evidence does not exist, as expected.

Monday, June 14, 2021

Math can answer all your questions.
Exception: if you don't know what questions to ask, math can't help you.
Knowing what question to ask is what consciousness is for. 

Likewise, it's very possible to build an unconscious robot or raise a p-zombie which could carry out your decisions exactly the same way your evolution-designed body can. However, the robot's distribution of decisions would be wrong. It can make the decisions, but it can never figure out why to make them.
If someone attacks the robot, why would it defend itself? It doesn't want to be alive, nor does it want to be dead, the same way the number 8 isn't intrinsically orange. "Are circles left-handed or right-handed?" The question is wrong. The robot can defend itself or choose not to defend itself, such as when it's not under attack, but it can't tell the difference between being attacked and not being attacked, because for the robot there is no difference to notice. It can't make the right decision. Or rather, there is no such thing as a right decision for the robot, because it is indifferent to its own survival.
Insects are almost totally robotic and can't figure out why they're doing the things they do, and subsequently you can trap them in lethal behavioural loops. They will play with you until they die, because they don't and can't care.

Sunday, June 13, 2021

Contra Inflation Myths & Monopoly Sidebar

Moldbug says inflation is about giving more money to rich people.
Naturally, this is not the case. (Envy inc.) Rather, those given Cantillon-privileged dollars become rich.

Inflation is about giving more money to politically-connected people, such as congresscritters or the folk running the Harvard endowment fund. This is mainly done using political favours, not inflation; they can accumulate wealth on below-inflation investments because they have various advantages, such as being exempt from taxes or regulations. E.g. Harvard can make a loan to Google which will pay back less than it's worth, after inflation, then immediately sell the bond at a premium to Fannie Mae or someone. Harvard and Google make money, Fannie Mae takes the haircut. The loan was nominally profitable to Harvard due to Harvard tax privileges, which is how this graft is legalized.*

Inflation benefits those with debts and those being paid recently-printed money. Again, the latter are politically connected. Inflation is neutral to purchasing power and previously-purchased objects. Indeed that's often why real estate is "hot" as it holds value (accumulates nominal price) against inflation.

The point of investing is exactly to make more-than-inflation returns. (P.S. perhaps this is why everyone hates deflation so much: there are many complications blocking accounting of real gains when prices are typically falling.) You can't hold regular dollars, or T-bills or bonds, because the dollar's value is always falling. A good investment, by contrast, takes all the money from competing, failed investments. Horse betting, except you're allowed to fully investigate the health and abilities of the horses.

Moldbug most likely has to take this "inflation for the rich" line because he's jealous of those with profitable investments. It is true you can live like an idle aristocrat on investment returns in modern times. Moldbug has to come out morally against this either because he tried and failed, or because he chose not to try. By contrast I could have bought BTC at 17 cents and didn't, yet I'm still pro-BTC and approve of anyone who holds substantial amounts of it. (Not a flex, I was just born that way. Got it for free.)

That said I think the net-worth measurement of inflation is a good one.  Half the US economy is inflation? Plausible. When you have the global reserve currency and invoke the Triffin dilemma, your inflation steals from the whole world. America as a whole is certainly Cantillon-privileged compared to say, Africa. Though, frankly, this is an idiot tax. Never allow a reserve currency into your country. Indeed, as previously, you want at least two internal currencies, not to deliberately join a currency bloc. Joining a currency bloc is utterly retarded. Pure brain damage - except for the central bank, and their friends, who are pushing the currency, of course. 

Though this also means Moldbug didn't calculate inflation across all dollars. It's not easy; you have to figure out the dollar-backed fraction of the net worth of everyone holding dollars, then find out their gross gain, then fraction out the not-dollar gain and the dollar-gain and also factor in any dollar purchases or sales... Bleh. Not impossible, but ridiculously expensive. Considering statistics are fake around 98% of the time, and you have to do this globally where statistics are accurate only by accident...


*SEC regulations are written based on equality before the law. Folk are not equal before the law, and anyone so unequal can quite legally scam the SEC regulations as long as the buyer is stupid or institutionally required to be stupid.
Do you know any three-letter agencies who are legally required to be stupid? Maybe one or two? 


P.P.S. Come to think, since investment is betting on horse races, a monopoly is the only time when investment is inherently unprofitable. If there's no competition then you can't eat the competition's lunch and the return on investment should always be below par. Investment return is proportional to disruption.
Except maybe [idiot tax]? The thing to do with an monopoly is not buy it. Americans seem extremely bad at not buying monopoly products, especially when there's a superior alternative to signal not-nerd by not-buying. Instead they let the monopoly's privilege eat away at productive companies, thus providing a nice investment return for folk who buy the monopoly instead of buying the monopoly's products. 

Note that Congress and the Fed have a monopoly on money-printing. It's supposed to be a duopoly, but they're all the same people so it doesn't matter. Cartel.

Thursday, June 10, 2021

Consciousness Can't Be Studied by Secular Humanists

In short, numbers don't have colours.

If I say some numbers are blue and others are green, you should first ask me, "How do you know?" The answer is: I don't. There's no difference between green and blue numbers. If I accidentally mislabel them as grue and bleen, I won't be able to catch the mistake, because in reality numbers don't have colours. It's an arbitrary hallucination I'm applying to the numbers in some largely irrational attempt to meet some orthogonal-to-math psychological need.
3 + 5 = 8. It's not like 3 + 5 = [orange] if 3 is blue.

All secular consciousness research (e.g. everything on this sidebar) says some equations are conscious and others aren't. Except, 3 + 5 = 8. It acts exactly as if it's unconscious. The green numbers act exactly as if they're blue, and vice-versa.
Occasionally some of the sharper philosophers will notice that this system requires everything to be conscious. Problem: anything which can be interpreted as an equation must be conscious, which means everything has infinite consciousnesses, and again this is like saying 3 + 5 = triangle if 5 is yellow. They're conscious in the way they would be if they were fully unconscious. Green is blue.

A Conventional Analysis of Why Parasites Are Parasitic

"The causes of [bureaucratic failure] have proven quite resistant to conventional analysis, but there is one thread running through all the social pathologies: Failure of Feedback."
https://nitter.pussthecat.org/Outsideness/status/1401811261692669954

Liar.

You have an employee you can't fire and who sets their own wage.
How much money do you expect to spend on them, and how much useful work do you expect to get out? 

Apparently these two lines constitute transcendent genius that an entire civilization cannot fathom. 

Naturally, in reality, a bunch of parasites were tasked with finding out why parasitism causes pathology. "How do we stop parasites from sucking blood?" It is not surprising that they couldn't come up with anything even remotely convincing, given that anything remotely accurate shows they can all be fired without thinking about it.

Tuesday, June 8, 2021

Twitter vs. Self-Condemnation

I'm not against censorship. I think there should be a lot more of it. A nonpartisan or objective publisher is a ridiculous self-contradiction. In a real country all platforms would have to declare their propaganda angle. 

Twitter claims to be against censorship.
This means every time Twitter censors something, Twitter is declaring that Twitter is evil. The fact they have to make excuses shows they themselves believe they're doing something that needs to be excused. Mens rea.
There's no reason we can't take them at their word.

Monday, June 7, 2021

Rectification: Purchasing Power

Purchasing power can't be fudged by accounting tricks. Total purchasing power is the amount of stuff for sale. 

If Ford has 100 cars for sale, and you double the monetary supply, Ford has 100 cars for sale. If Ford has 100 cars for sale and the monetary supply is slashed by 90%, Ford has 100 cars for sale. 

Though certainly if you perform radical operations on the money supply, the feedback gets all buggered and the price system has a tendency to lock up.

This is the very good reason not to have a national currency. Want at least two, so if one locks up the other can take over with minimal fuss. That or genuine specie-backed currency which makes manipulations impossible.

Basically accounting locks up when prices become inconsistent. A handful of bird feed is not worth as much as a car, but if the price system is buggered vigorously enough, the nominal prices can converge. Or, equivalently, when only folk who already have a car have any money, and thus Ford cannot see any demand from those who wish to buy a car. 

If you really bugger the price system you can always just re-issue the currency. Sort of guess how much money everyone is owed and re-set their net worth on the new standard. In other words issue funny* money and declare by law that its holders are allowed to buy food and pay wages and so on. As long as folk keep making stuff, the purchasing power exists and there is stuff to buy. Grandfather in revenue streams. It won't be accurate but it's better than accidental mass murder. 

*Funnier money, in this case. 

The second stage of this plan would be to slowly wean the system off newly printed money. You absolutely don't want the government centrally deciding wages any longer than strictly necessary. Or: methadone exists. If you have a heroin addiction, use it. Don't like methadone? The alternative is death, so...