Apr 10, 2017 9:50am
(very advanced stuff)
—“The former are concerned with impossibility, whilst the latter are concerned with impermissibility”—
1) Are they possible? In other words, are you creating a point of demarcation (the error of sets and digital/binary thinking) rather than continuous/analog causes and effect? (yes)
2) physical reality provides decidability (possibility), but does not human behavior provide decidability (possibility), with the distinction that humans can ‘recall’ as well as ‘forecast’ and therefore we can take on debts and make investments in cooperation. But can we in fact, state that humans will tolerate free riding, parasitism, predation and genocide? and if so where is some evidence of that? (there isn’t any, because it isn’t possible, it’s just SLOWer than physical phenomenon because of the ‘capacitance’ and ‘resistance’ provided by our ability to remember and forecast.)
( Tip: you’ve studied enough philosophy to fall into the trap of 20th century thought inherited from mathematics: set theory, and non contradiction. This is rationalism and includes only a subset of information about reality. Once you include the additional – missing – dimensions of reality you will no longer be able to make use of ‘the error of rationalism’: sets. … which is a very long discussion outside of the context of this topic.)
—“Could you unpack this a bit? My statement is directed more towards the limits of empiricism, so I am unclear as to what you mean by unlimited and insufficient.”—
3 – The positivism/empiricism debate, especially those who were unfortunately poisoned by first Kantian, and second Jewish (so called austrian, but not austrian) thought, as well as all cosmopolitan thought (freud, marx, boaz, cantor, frankfurt) is, like all late 19th and 20th century philosophy, a failed program.
So, to deflate this set of fallacies, let’s start over with the dimensions of reality:
a) identity (categorical consistency) ie: point
b) logic (internal consistency) ie: line
c) empiricism (external consistency / external correspondence) ie: space
d) operationalism (existential consistency ) ie: time (change)
f) morality (reciprocal consistency / reciprocity ) ie: cooperation (volition)
g) limits (full-accounting, limits, and parsimony) ie: consequence.
And to speak of reality we can also use terms that correspond to those dimensions, and thereby avoid errors of the past.
a) Operational Definitions, therefore deflating experience, intention, assumption, and analogy. (identity, point)
b) Operational Definitions in a series, therefore deflating the natural conflation of ideal types, by describing any concept on a scale – usually a scale of quantity (or population) on one axis, and time on the other axis. (identity, logic, line)
c) Supply Demand Curves (competition) (identity, logic, line, space)
d) Multiple Supply Demand Curves (equilibria) (identity, logic, line, space, time )
e) Models consisting of all discernably causal equilibrating forces (identity, logic, line, space, competition)
So like we cannot predict the location of a molecule of gas released in a vacuum, and we cannot predict subatomic phenomenon, because we cannot measure the states without affecting them; and like we cannot measure certain economic phenomenon at the individual level for the same reason, (we simply lack the information on the one hand, and attempting to obtain it would change the state), and just as we cannot determine the future competition between civilizations, that does not meant that there are not universal and necessary rules to these phenomenon whehther conditionaly invariant (physical), heuristically variant (interpersonal), or exogenously invariant (civilizational). The reason being that there are limits to human perception, cognition, retention, forecast, trust, ethics/morality, and action.
Man is his own measure.