False & True Philosophical Utopias...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Re: East Meets West Logic...

Quantum Strange Attractor(Hydrodynamics of waves...)(amazing animation, click and drag mouse to change angles...)


Originally Posted by labelwench
Just wondering, from a technical standpoint, if they have the access, and would they use it? Seems that persons such as yourself might have a better understanding of such capability. Lorrina



The CIA and FBI are presently running Carnivore on the web, right now, and have been since some time in the mid-`90's. That's their information spy network, with the capacity of looking at every dangerous idea anyone, they choose to look at, anywhere in the world may type. The NSA has thousands trying to sort the wheat of danger from the chaff__24-7, after computers do the first sorts. No Lorrina, they've the technical power to do what they wish. I myself, along with others, have been shut out of China back in 2003, for publishing on a really professional e-mag there_then. None of us invited to publish, have any idea where or what happened to the publisher__He and the e-mag just disappeared over-night. China controls all access to the www_Now. The US or any nation has that ability, any time they wish...rrr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nddVC8iTbeM&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEX8mv864-0&feature=related

[Lloyd Gillespie]

SB and SteveA, it's not that we're locked out of 'fundamentals'__It's just most do not realize many valuable fundamentals really do exist. Here's a few examples:

Frank P. Ramsey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_P._Ramsey
Ramsey's theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey%27s_theorem
Ramsey theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_theory
Jacques Herbrand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbrand
Herbrand's theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbrand%27s_theorem
Herbrand's Term algebra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbrand_universe
Herbrand Universe http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HerbrandUniverse.html

The above all relate to fundamental background independencies of the universe, etc. There are many of these areas hidden to all of us, throughout history__Imo, we must all join our minds in the search, of a true values' mathematical enlightenment...rrr



Originally Posted by SB_UK
grrr! (he's at it again)
Originally Posted by _
Not fundamental - we're locked out of 'fundamental' -
the other direction though
(evolution is unidirectional) -
unconstrained.
==
Originally Posted by SteveA
I apologize if my comment was an interruption, but I'm rather certain that no matter which way you go, past the boundaries of the physical universe to convoluted universes of possibilites beyond and farther out and beyond the realm of communication and past that of certainty and further past that to the realms of intuition and even that of sole incomprehensible experience, there's still a realm beyond that and it simply cannot be touched in any way except for the fact that it constructed all of the rest and it has immersed our experiences since the beginning and if there was anything to ever love or place ones trust it that is it. It has done nothing else the entire time and it has given us everything. (I think the pay back is simply to accept the gift and make the best use of it).



“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I am not sure about the universe”. Albert Einstein

The global choice__Control mathematical money evolution, or let global money evolution control us...

The a-ethical phenomena of reality__Corporatism's money math rules...

Fundamental academic validity is only possible through numbers...

Fundamental values come from tolerances and acceptances of differences...

Ya can't place a simplicity on complexity, or a complexity on simplicity__They must be scientifically discovered...

Mathematical money fundamentally runs the world__This must change. We need human values running the world of money maths...

Math needs control Earth positively, not negatively__As is the case...

We must start our math systems from the universal background independencies, of the given universal symmetries__and draw our mathematical aesthetic/esthetic values of, into the entire system, that must be applied to real world conditions(we should limit our maths and values to these real world conditions). This(the more complex maths) is your area of expertise SteveA, and SB and I have the universal geometries of genericities for simpler clarities of explanations of__and all three sets of ideas must be united with the women's values' ideas, within the frameworks of any new models of. This is all entirely possible through just cause/effect applications of all our fundamental possibilia...rrr

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I'm not sure if you are understanding what I mean as the highest level background independencies...? This position is seeing one's own mind, and everyone elses as best functioning from a position of the freedoms of differences you speak of below, yet respecting each's and all's differences__but at the same time respecting the natural symmetries of the given geometric universe. It's no perfect system, yet it's the closest possible of a start of forming new ideas and thinking, only loosely guided by what nature has to offer mathematically, independently of any man-made systems__that natural beyond the beyond you've spoken of. It's a freedom of independence of thought guided only by the universal system of natural symmetries, to base new mathematical models in__No-one's in charge__only the universe's natural energies, as pertains to intuitions and desires, in this area. I'm simply suggesting, the natural symmetry mathematics offers us a given background independence, to draw from, just as Einstein did, in developing his intuitive mathematical visions__as pertains to the highest level you speak of__Uncontrolled by anyone but the pure mechanics' maths of the geo-spheres and bio-spheres...

It's fundamentally, a pure freedom of thought ground, as it's everything from universality to particularism, under a model of universal genericity, and respect for all sensible diversities. Sensible diversities can be decided by the universal geometries and maths, thus removing the drastic fallibilities of human frailties__As long as we stay within first order arithmatics, and first order logics, which everyone from Peirce, Ramsey, Brouwer, Keynes, Herbrand, to Gode'l, Tarsky and others have already proved are complete and thoroughly functional. Then all needs be done, is to figure out the universal values' systems place of fit__within these initial background independencies...

I realize background independencies are hard to grasp if one has not been long introduced to this very important area of theorizations__yet it's really easy to grasp, as it's the true difference between quantum and relative mechanics problems. It's entirely impossible to unite these diverse schools of thought, when qm demands background dependency, and rm uses background independency in all its formulations, since Einstein first introduced it in 1905. Free variables systems are not yet unitable with fixed variables systems' fundamentals...

We require the isomorphisms of these two disparate extended systems__And I think the solutions of values' re-integrations, into our social systems, offers the mathematical path we are all seeking, to unite qm and rm__Thus offering the possible unification of the four forces of nature, as the extended functions necessary, in the field of values, can then be mapped back into the unification of qm and rm__Thus the four forces unifications. I see it all as a function of understanding human values intergrations, with the full scientific mathematical spectrum, through the over-arching system of full background independencies, respecting disparate varieties of ideas...

You say; "I don't think we're there yet " I say; "We can be, iff we choose to be..."rrr


Here's one of the best links I've come across at attempting to unite qm and rm: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.3080v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0812/0812.1946v1.pdf
I've had his math checked out by a physicist friend of mine_based on C.S.Peirce logic. See what you think...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKym33vK1cs

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Steve, and good to see your caution... Below you loosely mention the ideal as anarchy, and if one applies that to individuals’ personal states of mind, that is mostly true, as long as the ideals remain within sensible(pragmatically functional) bounds, as anarchy extended to its limit, we must realize is a state of war, which no-one wants. This is where the older generations realized the limits of anarchic thinking lead to, and long ago dis-allowed it, but imo, went too far, as personal anarchy is needed for complete theorizing of best ideals, yet one must separate personal states of theorizing, from the pragmatic social states of organizing ideal law systems, of possible best social order. We can anarchically theorize, as that’s how the mind works the most free, but when transferring ideas from the abstract state of free mind, to the workable state of law reality, we must have a goal of consistency/constancy(Ben Franklin), which would protect the safety and sovereignty of the largest numbers possible, of any type of organized society__If not, we accomplish nothing, with all our theorizing…

Imo, we must respect the differences of sensible(pragmatic) minds’ theorizing, yet respect nature and the universe, as to states of order. Long ago the universe ordered itself from chaotic states of random motions, into uniform motions and ordered states of reality, thus abandoning its prime anarchic state, which imo, we must copy, if we are to have success of taking our anarchic states of mind, into a best ordered state of social organization, just as the Greeks long ago stated. If science be respected, we would realize that mathematics taken to its social limit__eons into a future state__where all social problems have been over-come, would be a single state of best possible order, respecting the most possible personal and social liberties of all citizens concerned. It is just a mathematical fact, as C.S.Peirce long ago showed, that if the scientific method be followed to its ultimate conclusion, all sensible citizens will discover the same exact truths, just as SB stated about thinking, think and think, and think a bit more, and we all eventually see the one answer__At thought’s natural epistemic(innate) limits…

It’s just most everyone is confused by the natural anarchy of their own minds telling them ideas that are the opposite of the scientific limits of the mathematical sciences. Ever since a child, no matter what is said, from emotions to social systems, my mind calculates these statements and ideals, as a possible probability of truth. I truly think everyone, knowingly or unknowingly, does exactly the same thing__as the mind’s natural state is a computational system, acting on all emotions, where fairness__a mathematical process__even helps us decide all emotional states, just as much as it helps us decide all states between emotions and logic, mathematically(fairness). To me, the soul is a mathematical difference engine, and I don’t see how anyone can honestly dis-agree with this, when stated in its simplest state of fairness(that innate mathematical difference engine of the soul) to all. I’ve just thought ever since a child, if more children, men and women could see and realize this simple gift of given nature, we could much more easily solve the personal and social problems__ plaguing the earth…

But, could anyone ever convince certain people/persons, that a natural innate difference engine of pure nature’s given mathematics, really and truly runs/helps run, their souls and minds__either good or bad__by our choices and non-choices of…? This is nothing we create, it’s the discovered truths of lil’ ol’ nature herself__She’s a wise mathematical wizard(she couldn’t be anything else and evolve = equal definition of evolution; 1+1=2^r), and I think we’d better start listening to her, if we’re ever to begin solving these real world problems…

Steve, imo, mathematics can be applied to anything, yet we must realize she is still incomplete between the infinite origin of universals and the definite particulars, but this is where the background independencies come into play. If background independencies are respected, over the background dependencies, one will quickly see this background independency acting within all our very own minds__mathematically__yet with no gound state, than nature’s own given, and the universe’s infinite production of this very pure state…

And imo, if we could simply respect this given possible decider state of nature, we could dream up wondrous ideal states, for our future’s safety and sovereignty, as only mathematics can be the fair decider of all knowledge systems’ truths, and not the ridiculous egos of man, woman and child. Without nature’s natural given decider engine, we are simply making all decisions with ego__your’s, mine or others__and that’s the dangerous anarchy, the older generations are scared to death of, and will fight the younger generations__to ‘blood in the streets’__to protect against…rrr

[Lloyd Gillespie]

No Steve, I didn't mis-interpret you at all. As I stated in my last paragraph; "Without nature’s natural given decider engine, we are simply making all decisions with ego__your’s, mine or others__and that’s the dangerous anarchy, the older generations are scared to death of, and will fight the younger generations__to ‘blood in the streets’__to protect against…"(and I'm with them) It was personal and political anarchy, I was referring to throughout. And I must tell you, I think anyone is personally insane, who advocates political anarchy, just as the older generation believes, but my position is not based in fear, it's based in my knowledge of human beings__which imo, are eternally evil, when too free. I will never change that opinion, as I see people far too deeply, to think differently__no matter how the 'anarchists' try to manipulate and frame their ideas, to their preferred 'false state of kindness'__It's a chimera to me...

You see, Noam Chomsky is, imo, nothing but a complete nut-case, and is steering many people down a false road__as are many of his compadres on tv channels such as Link-TV. Yes, there are good critical points of view to be gained from such shows, but 'political anarchy' just ain't one of em. The only reason we have government, is solely because people are so evil, and not because they are good, or even have the potential to be good. This will not change, no matter how much internet expansion we have, because the number of people who know and believe government is absolutely necessary__Far out-number those who are against sensible forms of government__Far Out-Number, and always will, as it's a human necessity to protect man from man, due to his ignorant state of lowly evolution...

Anarchy, as a social organization is not even a sane possibility__Na Da__Forever...!!! Imo, ideas like that are not even within the sane thinking, on this Earth...rrr

Imo, when it comes to compatible people, that ends where systems begin__and since systems will always be needed to feed the planet__that fact alone will require governments. So, it isn't a fact of improving peoples' personal states of minds__which many think__The real issue is improving peoples' systems' states of understanding the larger realities. The personal states could be in the worst states possible__and still be able to feed the planet__if they simply understood the absolute fundamentals of food and water distributions__So, it's not a humanistic problem__as many think__It's a statistics, logistics and mathematical problem__We Face...rrr

[Lloyd Gillespie]

(first published, Nov. 26, 2003)
Gustav Cassel - PPP's - China?

Over the past week I have posted several articles about the international financial architecture, the IMF, WTO, sweatshops, FTAA, etc. I felt I should expand my ideas to bring more clarity to these posts. I thought I'd use the case of China - U.S. trade and purchasing power parities. Below is quoted a few lines about Professor Cassel, the creator of purchasing power parity theory. I feel this is the most important economic theory, especially in trying to understand the global labor and wealth arbitrage now going on in the world. Many have argued trade will eventually rebalance markets. As I have already pointed out in a recent post, "the glaring imbalances in global wages is beyond economic reality, no matter what other economists' dribble may say. This sweatshop situation will almost empty America of jobs befor trade realities rebalance markets to fair global ppp's if let to continue." Let me expand.

Let's just take Wall-Mart for an example as it is the largest corporate footprint between the U.S. and China trade and economic realities - close to a trillion dollar corporation. It would be one thing if we only had to deal with a currency value at 8.27 to 1. It's quite another when the internal value of that currency is another 25 to 50 times cheaper[depending on location in China] than ours, making real wages for Wall-Mart sweatshops at an average of 10 cents/hr. to an average of 25 cents/hr. for their retail stores' workers in China. I think all the economists writing on this subject should get a handle on it by rereading Professor Cassel's books again. They may wake up and come to different conclusions about trade and economic realities being able to rebalance world markets over time - how much time, a hundred years? China is in deflation, making matters worse, not better. They have lost 22million jobs, themselves. World demand has shrunk tremendously since the crashes of `95 to 2002. We have never been here befor as Edward Hugh often points out.

The NGO's around the world are trying to wake up everyone, but the sleep seems to be a Rip-Van-Winkle reality. Befor the Elite Consensus awakens we will have arbitraged every democracy in the world to corporatocracy. Do we want that? America has been nothing but a giant dump truck full of corporations, with the body slowly going up for the last thirty years, spewing extractive corporations to every nation. No one wants them coming in and destroying but they are there doing just that. Now at this point economists and others will scream what are you a kook? No, I am not. I am simply pointing out a powerful economic reality. It is impossible to build locally, or nationally fast enough to keep up with the international economic extractive capabilites of the corporations. As Steven Roach pointed out, global trade has risen from 11% of global GDP in 1970 to 25% of global GDP in 2003, with no end in sight. Pretty soon the oceans and skys are going to be overfull with cargo carriers, polluting and using massive amounts of our precious fossil fuels, for nothing other than infectious greed.

Corporations operating out of China are making as high as 40 to 90 cents profit on every dollar. This is outrageous, and it will not stop, and they surely arent sharing out of the 37+ tax havens. Not only are they not sharing the wealth but the internation dynamics of credit producitvity and multiplication factors of drastically reduced reserve requirements' banking, is contributing to an ever faster creation of massive asset bubbles that will surely end in crashes, sooner or later. The major question is how soon, and where?

Now if anyone still thinks trade will rebalance world markets in a climate of global deflation, of 31million manufacturing jobs vanished from 1995 to 2002, let me know. Even if the currencies between China and the U.S. were floated and reached 1 to 1 the internal ppp values would still allow corporations plenty of profit to continue the madness for years to come. An does anyone seriously think the U.S., or other nations, is going to let the dollar become cheaper than the yuan? It would have to be .07, or there abouts, to the dollar to balance ppp's, and truly rebalance these markets. This is why I say this situation is beyond economic realities' solutions - future crash guaranteed if let to continue.

Gustav Cassel

Gustav Cassel, a Swedish economist, developed the theory of exchange rates known as purchasing power parity. He did so in some post-World War I memoranda for the League of Nations. The basic concept can be made clear with an example. If 2 U.S. dollars buy one bushel of wheat in the United States, and if 1.6 German marks exchange for 1 U.S. dollar, then the price of a bushel of wheat in Germany should be 3.2 German marks (2 * 1.6). In other words, there should be parity between the purchasing power of one U.S. dollar in the United States and the purchasing power of its exchange value in Germany.

Cassel believed that if an exchange rate was not at parity, it was in disequilibrium and that either the exchange rate or the purchasing power would adjust until parity was achieved. The reason is arbitrage. If wheat sold for $2.00 in the United States and for DM4 ($2.50) in Germany, then arbitragers could buy wheat in the United States and sell it in Germany and would do so until the price differential was eliminated.

Economists now realize that purchasing power parity would hold if all of a country's goods were traded internationally. But most goods are not. If the price of a hamburger in the United States was $1.00 and in Germany was $1.50, arbitragers would not buy hamburgers in the United States and resell them in Germany. Transportation costs and storage costs would more than wipe out the gain from arbitrage. Nevertheless, economists still take seriously the concept of purchasing power parity. They often use it as a starting point for predicting exchange rate changes. If, for example, Israel's annual inflation rate is 20 percent and the U.S. inflation rate is 4 percent, chances are high that the Israeli shekel will lose value in exchange for the U.S. dollar. ....Article Continued__rrr

(Hi Lorrina. I think my words are/have bared out in this post of years ago. Many of the figures you may seek are offered, here and on my two blogs: MacroMouse and The Awakening of The American Mind...)(I've often wondered why true information makes so many people so angry...?)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Choices... Quantum Strange Attractor Link...

The battlefield is between sentimental psychologies of imagination, and the fair essence of mathematical scientific logic. Evolution has brought us to these final battles of differences and samenesses__Which do you want to win?__Sentiments that may be illusional, or Fairness that can be mathematically proven true__for all future ideal, reals...?

One letter word for Ego --> I
Two letter word for Ego --> Om
Two letter word for Ego --> Me
Three letter word for Ego --> God
Three letter word for Ego --> Tao
Four letter word for Ego --> Soul
Four letter word for Ego --> Mine
Five letter word for Ego --> Spirit
Five letter word for Ego --> Logic
Five letter word for Ego --> Being
Six letter word for Ego --> Reason
Eight letter word for Ego --> Judgment
Eight letter word for Non-Ego --> Fairness
Ten letter word for Ego --> Psychology
Eleven letter word for Non-Ego --> Mathematics...rrr

(expansion of later...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9ySRK3poq8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoUtUxY81fM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q259PP4HdzM&feature=related

[labelwench]

(I've often wondered why true information makes so many people so angry...?)

Originally posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Anger is one of our natural reactions when we are in a state of conflicted thought, and unless one has early on learned the skill of processing their way through such state of mind, our emotions will intercede when our logic comes into conflict.

We depend upon our previously learned perceptions and experience to guide us through new situations, recognizing that we may need to learn and add to our existing data or experience base. Most often, new information is peripheral, and merely adds new files or 'rooms' to our personal 'house of knowledge'.

When this new information seems to attack the very foundation of our existing data base, we may become frustrated and angry, as it places in question all of the information that is built upon such foundation.

We begin to question the very things which have given us a sense of security to that point in our journey, and we are fearful to even think that we may have 'gotten it wrong' to that point.

Our 'inner compass' is pulled off course by this new 'magnet' of information, and we may comprehend that there is a need to 'chart a new course', but we no longer trust either our own compass, or the new setting.

For a time, we feel 'lost', and the anger and frustration is more an expression of underlying fear and insecurity.

Individually, and collectively, we may have this reaction, and it is a visceral response.

'New', even if it is only new to us, is cause for concern to most of the species with which I am familiar, and response to such will depend upon our past experience.

Some people embrace new ideas as opportunity for growth, even if they must tear down old ideas and rebuild with new. Other persons may be skeptical, fearful, or lacking in the energy needed for this intellectual undertaking.

Emotional, physical and intellectual investment is threatened by 'new' thinking, and even when such may be in our best interests, we are not going to rush to discard all of the personal energy we may have invested in our present personal paradigm.