Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird,can human thought make the number of prime non-infinite? Whether we invented numbers or found them primes are infinite, irrespective of the wishes or ideas of humans.
SP, well, it's actually arguable whether maths is entirely a human construct, or if it relates to something real (hence the unreasonable efficacy of mathematicsL: after all, Dirac predicted anti-matter through mathematics alone, and experiment had to follow). Further, since the discussion is about truth, and materialism, whether humans created maths is irrelevent, the fact is it is true that there are an infinite number of primes. Whether you are proletarian, aristocracy, or bourgeois, there are an infinite number of primes. So, it does cut to the heart of the matter.
Lbird,No, I don't think he is, but to my mind a mild variant on Russell's Teapot applies to any notion of a truth beyond the observable.So, back to prime numbers, is it true that there are an infinite number of prime numbers?
Lird is clearly a mind reader, since he knows what i think without having to wait for me to produce words to state what I think. Apparently.Anyway, a further quote:
Charlie & Fred wrote:We know only a single science, the science of history.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htmAnd back to the previous section of the economic manuscripts, Marx agrees with what I've been saying here all along (he had time travel and other useful stuff at his disposal):
Quote:Man is the immediate object of natural science; for immediate, sensuous nature for man is, immediately, human sensuousness (the expressions are identical) – presented immediately in the form of the other man sensuously present for him. Indeed, his own sense-perception first exists as human sensuousness for himself through the other man.Remember, I said it first.Science is an organised system of reliable knowledge.Anyway, Lbird, quick Q: are there are infinite number of prime numbers?
Just a quick Charlie Bomb I was thinking of throwing in :
Quote:Sense-perception (see Feuerbach) must be the basis of all science. Only when it proceeds from sense-perception in the two-fold form of sensuous consciousness and sensuous need – is it true science. All history is the history of preparing and developing “man” to become the object of sensuous consciousness, and turning the requirements of “man as man” into his needs. History itself is a real part of natural history – of nature developing into man. Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
I don't think we have Piketty per se to thanks for that data (although I gather his conclusion is low growth is likely to be a feature of capitalism for sometime), I just drew back to him since the thread is ostensibly about his data.
Quote:Productivity is even more significant than GDP per capita because without growth employers can’t increase wages.And herein the pernicious lie, and (in line with what Piketty has been saying) the problem for reformists. It's easy to give away wages when productivity is rising, especially as the increase in wages will not be the same as the total increase in productivity.
and while Israel, strangely, gets all the headline:http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/07/refugees-living-a-nightmare-in-northern-pakistan/
Quote:[Internall Displaced Persons] have been streaming in since the military operation began on Jun. 15, reaching close to a million by mid-July, officials here say. So far, aid has come in the form of food rations and medical supplies for the wounded, as well as those left dehydrated by the scorching 45-degree heat.Pakistani generals are claiming no civilians killed:http://www.criticalthreats.org/pakistan/jan-gauging-success-nwa-operation-july-25-2014This may, though, be the old trick of labelling everyone killed a terrorist.This is just a coincidence of live fire, there are other hotspots like Israel/Palestine with sporadic slaughter as a continuing feature, and these do not get half an inch as much coverage. Anyone remember the fate of the Tamil Tigers?
This article if fascinating:http://theconversation.com/my-time-in-israeli-defence-force-tells-me-the-level-of-casualties-in-gaza-is-avoidable-30133Although the call is, ultimately, for a more refined butchery (changes to the rules of engagement) it comes from an authoritative source.
Quote:There’s no reason to think the Israelis couldn’t change their rules, though. We have international conventions banning, for instance, the use of chemical weapons in war, so it is possible, I believe, to also prohibit the use of heavy artillery, big bombs and cruel procedures in densely populated areas such as the Gaza Strip. After all, it is also in Israel’s interest, as the horrific pictures coming out of the Gaza Strip ruin the country’s already tarnished reputation.He notes that the IDF are dropping 250-1,000 kg bombs on Gaza. Last I checked, the payload of the rockets Hamas are chucking out are about 10kg (in ethical terms, neither here nor there, but the different is a brick wall is likely to protect you from a 90 kilo bomb at about 10 metres). As Wikipedia notes the Hamas rockets cost about €500 each to make, so just by launching them, and forcing Israel to spend millions shooting them down, they are inflicting a significant cost on Israel. Such is the harsh logic of war.Thus, the article's suggestion that the bombing campaign is about trying to rive a wedge between Hamas and the population of Gaza is interesting. That would mean Israel reckons the cost of this offensive is less than the drain of fighting off Hamas' rockets.
Well, it's a different communications branch, butt here is something called "Costly signalling theory" (it's related to the article I posted at the beginning), which basically says that talk is cheap, so human groups have come up with energy expensive ways of demonstrating loyalty and communicative truthfulness. For example, people who attend church every week: they may be screaming hypocrits deep down, but if after may years of attending, they have invested so much in their church that it would be difficult for them to act in a way that would invalidate what that attendenace signals about them.Thuswise, for party members, we suddenly ask people to actively state, through writing or speech, their agreement with the party case. This is more costly than siomply filling in a membership form and ticking a box. We attach a value to membership (and to being able to at least explain the party case). Many years ago Armando Iannucci on one of his satirical shows managed to get Darth Vader and a Man in HIs Pants to join the Conservative Party: opportunism sets the bar very low.As a party, we forge intensive and strong links btween ourselves, because we're small and likely to be drowned out in the noise of other less rigorous parties.
Well, the point of mentioning the model, was how it shows, in part, how ideas diffuse through a society, and how part of that diffusion isn't always abstract ratiocination, but sometimes pro-social behaviours. the trick is to get the pro-social behaviours to swing in our direction, so that people will begin to caolesce behind socialist ideas.For example, if Noam Chomsky suddenly joined the WSPUS we'd suddenly have a flood of applicants. this would be no bad thing, if we assume Chomsky were an honest applicant. We'd screen further applicants to check that they were honest, and probably exclude a lot, but we'd still grow the mass of our fringe fairly rapidly, especially those who would want to pose as cool and radical. This isn't, though, a model of party growth, but of processing and reacting to news, I just think it helps us think about how our ideas impact on community groups and spread through them.
Indeed, the movement into the party, I'm sure as we become more hegemonic various Christian, Jewish and Islamic Socialist societies will spring up around us, and fair play to them, but not this party. We do ask people to vote for us, but we jkust want to warn them to be sure they know what they are voting for. Building a few strong links is better at the moment than many weak links.
SocialistPunk wrote:Could this relate to socialists with spiritual beliefs?No, cause we don't want people with spiritual beliefs to have a vote in the party.The interesting question is how an opinion spreads along a population. Stating 'we don't want your vote' foregrounds the issue of ideas, separates us from reformist groups and vote grubbers, and helps us as a tiny minority mark out a clear space: after all, the various pro-capitalist social networks already exist and need dismantling. I'll just add, this isn't a numbers game, we're discussing building links, and powerful links, which is different from mere nose counting.
