1+1 could = 0 but only if you redefine what “+” means. You would have to say that though and I think that’s what JMFC is saying.
Believe it or not, I can grab two apples versus three apples. Language might be an abstraction, but what it describes is not.
What is a 3? Can you show me a 3? If not, it’s an abstraction; a mere generalization we use to understand the universe so we don’t go crazy. You can grab 50 apples, you will still rely upon count nouns to express what it is, exactly, that you have grabbed.
anguage is supposed to be precise enough for one to understand what the other person is trying to get accross. You are butchering language by arguing that something like a ‘+’ sign can have multiple interpretations (which is absurd).
1+1+1=1 to a catholic. If you want to refute that, try. You can’t.
Sometimes people also use + to mean “and,” rather than explicitly in addition to (like a lion + a tiger, which could or could not = liger). What about Pert Plus?
4 legs + 1 top = 1 table
What is a 3? Can you show me a 3? If not, it’s an abstraction; a mere generalization we use to understand the universe so we don’t go crazy.
And that is what a Human being, or anything else is in any scientific catagory. It is an abstract model in a set language, with set rules that you choose to enter or speak.
I can show you my hand, a 3 , or a human being for our purpose.
Also note, poetry is a language too. Not that poetic language is or isn’t being used, but it is a language unto itself.
Also have you read Danny’s article?
Also, in Bolean Algebra (Base 2 modular arithmetic) 1+1=1 and 1+1=0 are both true.
And that is what a Human being, or anything else is in any scientific catagory. It is an abstract model in a set language, with set rules that you choose to enter or speak.
I can show you my hand, a 3 , or a human being for our purpose.
Also note, poetry is a language too. Not that poetic language is or isn’t being used, but it is a language unto itself.
You and I need no communicability for you to understand gravitation… just drop an apple. Maths are not scientific in their own right. Only when applied to real existing things does it become scientific. As I have said, 1+1+1=1 is a valid form of math to a catholic.
Also have you read Danny’s article?
Yes. I think it is riddled with circular defintions and other fallacies and amounts to nothing more than an appeal to geometry (geometry works, so economics does too). I mean, I get that we need logic… duh. I get that we developed geometry a priori. But as I said above, perhaps if there were a Sen. Clay back then, the Greeks would have relied more upon empiricism, and we wouldn’t have had nothing more than “truth by pure coincedence” up until the scientific revolution.
As I have said, 1+1+1=1 is a valid form of math to a catholic.
In poetry or theology sure, whateves. Not in algebra
You and I need no communicability for you to understand gravitation… just drop an apple
I’m sorry but everything you are saying still falls into something I have to contextualize and make sense of first. Perspectivism exists, ontology exists. This is a self evident fact. Science / empiricism is a model, just like everything else, this can not be denied or you are getting really loopy. There is no reason to care for it unless you find it useful.
We could have evolved a plethora of ways to describe things or model things in a different way, but we didn’t (or if we did it got bred out), it doesn’t matter anyway and is beside the point, so here we are. Mises addresses this anyway in HA, I think
"To a catholic 1+1+1=1 "
Is this a reference to the trinity?
What do you think intersubjectivity even is? Honestly, if we could use an approach like medicine, it would just be rendered into a field like biology or something and not economics. We would have doctors and mechanics and not economists, and any worry about the social sciences simply wouldn’t exist.
But we don’t work that way. And the parts of us that do are outside the sphere of what we study. And the parts that will work that way in the future, those too will no longer be economic issues
In poetry or theology sure, whateves. Not in algebra
In Bolean algebra (base 2 arithmetic) 1+1=1 is as true as 1+1=0.
I’m sorry but everything you are saying still falls into something I have to contextualize and make sense of first. Perspectivism exists, ontology exists. This is a self evident fact. Science / empiricism is a model, just like everything else, this can not be denied or you are getting really loopy. There is no reason to care for it unless you find it useful.
We could have evolved a plethora of ways to describe things or model things in a different way, but we didn’t (or if we did it got bred out), it doesn’t matter anyway and is beside the point, so here we are. Mises addresses this anyway in HA, I think
I understand all this, and it is certainly valid, but I think it’s mistaking the forest for the trees.
But maths are not valid in and of themselves. They only develop utility, for science anyway, when they are tested against the physical world. 1+1+1=1 is a valid math. But you certainly won’t find it applicable to any existing real world phenomena. We can develop tons of things a priori.
But, and I did not see this addressed in Danny’s article. there is no way of knowing their truth value unless we can test them against the real world. And, once again, Danny (maybe I missed it) doesn’t address this, other than to appeal to geometry. In fact, he says the opposite. He says that if real world phenomena contradict the “laws” of economics, then you must have done it wrong.
His analogy of geometry works because I can physically show you it does. If you found something that contradicts it, I can physically show you what you did wrong. You can’t do that with economics. We must rely upon pure faith that the “laws” of economics are, in fact laws.
there is no way of knowing their truth value unless we can test them against the real world
Everything is “tested” in the real world. By inventing the word and knowing what “production” means, you have created and tested it. This isn’t an abstract any more than anything else you are bringing up, but simply how an individual relates to a subjective world of shifty values. There is no such thing as “immaterial”, it is a nonsense word and concept to begin with
I understand all this, and it is certainly valid, but I think it’s mistaking the forest for the trees.
Interesting I think the opposite is true, unless I am missing the point of reference here. Or perhaps the tree is the forest? Or at least gets to name what a forest is
In Bolean algebra (base 2 arithmetic) 1+1=1 is as true as 1+1=0.
Also, and in typical austrian fashion I know little of mathematics so I can’t say much else, but you are the one who just declared and catagorized these as two seperate things hence…
{Vx3R|x+x=2x} Now, 2+2=4 is universally true.
(when x=2)
Strictly speaking, math has nothing to do with the real world.
Human action occurs in the real world. As Mises himself wrote, to deny the apparent fact of human action, you must deny reality itself as “the ultimate given”.
Strictly speaking, math has nothing to do with the real world
Well, that’s been my point all along, neither does logic. Not in their own right anyway. They can be applied to real the world, but they’re not real world phenomena in their own right.
Human action occurs in the real world. As Mises himself wrote, to deny the apparent fact of human action, you must deny reality itself as “the ultimate given”.
Are there any other performative contradictions that are usefull for understanding reality? Or is just in the economics field?
It’s just clever word play, nothing more.
Besides, why is it “human action.” Even Mises admits vegetables don’t do it. But the rub is… animals do! It’s not “human” action at all. All action is taken with a given goal in mind, even instinct. I’m hungry, I will remove my dis-ease of hunger.
That depends on how you define “real-world phenomenon”.
I don’t understand the question.
Please clarify. If you mean what I think you mean, then everything that everyone has ever said is also clever word play and nothing more.
Are you being skeptical just for the sake of being skeptical? Honestly, I’m confident you already know what I meant by “human action”. But instincts aren’t considered part of human action at all, because instincts have no conscious goals in mind. I don’t choose to feel hungry - I just do.
That depends on how you define “real-world phenomenon”.
I’m saying there is no such thing as a 1, or a +. They are tools we use to describe things, but not things in and of themselves. 1 apple is actually, 1 stem, 1 skin, 1 core, 100,000,000 cells. Sometimes when you “add” something, you have to “subtract” it from somewhere else. So in this case A!=A (A being addition), it is, rather, A=AB.
I don’t understand the question.
It’s not that hard. Are there any things that result in a performative contradiction that are usefull for explaining the world that are not the action axiom, or within the realm of economics? It’s a clever word play. But it’s not like gravity. By denying gravity I don’t fall on my ass… well… maybe metaphorically
Are you being skeptical just for the sake of being skeptical? Honestly, I’m confident you already know what I meant by “human action”. But instincts aren’t considered part of human action at all, because instincts have no conscious goals in mind. I don’t choose to feel hungry - I just do.
Ya, but you choose to go find food, and consciously choose what type of food you want And what about birds that build houses… is that instinct? Or are they choosing consciously to do that? Taking its’ validity or invalidity aside, calling it “human action” is anthrocentrism. Somewhat understandable for Mises, as he may or may not have known much about animal cognition. But for people in this day and age, it’s pretty unforgivable.
When two dogs are playing, is that instinct, or are they trying to have fun? When a chimp builds a tool to capture ants is that instinct or a conscious choice? When your cat brings you a mouse, knowing full well there is always food for you, is he doing that instinctively, or because he wants you to be proud of him?
Mises’ poinit was to differentiate conscious action versus instinctual action. He called it Human Action. Whether or not other animals can consciously act does not invalidate the action axiom. The difference between a man throwing his hands up to protect his face when being attacked versus a man typing a message on a forum is clear. One is instinctual, the other conscious.
It’s like the word “humane”. I’m sure we’ve all witnessed animals be kind to one another, whether in person or perhaps in a documentary. The word is still “humane” and not “animalane” or “creaturane”. Just because an animal may show compassion for another animal does not invalidate the idea of “humane”.
It’s interesting to note that, because of these very reasons, superstring theory is nothing but a highly complex example of begging the question.
Please explain."
There are X number of dimensions. How do we know? Because we can show it mathematically. Why can we show it mathematically? And the answer, according to superstring theory, is because there are X number of dimensions. But one doesn’t necessarily follow from the other. You can show that there are three dimensions, with or without math to prove them, because we can examine length, width and height objectively. But the only objective evidence for the other dimensions is some mathematical formula. As far as can be proven, they are merely mental constructs, not something in reality. The formula is evidence, but nothing conclusive as to the existence of X dimensions. To claim so is to beg the question.
The strings themselves are also mental constructs. As far as can be shown, superstrings are just a way to play with numbers. This doesn’t delegitimize anything, but it does act to demonstrate how math can be used to confirm a biased conclusion, not unlike certain formulas applied to the realm of economic realities.