Member 2851
7 entries
20848 views

 RSS
Immortal since Feb 21, 2011
Uplinks: 0, Generation 3
I slay sacred cows in my dreams. I cherish truth above all else. Peace Rebel
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Phyllotaxis’ favorites
    From YWorlds
    Activation
    From YWorlds
    Cells + Patterns =...
    From Sean Hurley
    Technology is a Tool Not a...
    From WarpedREVolution
    what did Nikola Tesla know?
    From notthisbody
    You are a Receiver
    Recently commented on
    From Sean Hurley
    Technology is a Tool Not a...
    From Environmentalalex
    Philosophy of Ethics
    From Phyllotaxis
    Peter Thiel as Visionary
    From OneQuantaAway
    Psychedelic Research...
    From WarpedREVolution
    what did Nikola Tesla know?
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    "After nearly 100 years, Einstein’s theories have not been unified. They are not falsifiable. These two facts alone merit reconsidering their continued use. The lack of unification and lack of fundamental ties to reality demands explanation. The LCDM model of the universe has no less than 5 adjustable parameters that can arbitrarily be adjusted to account for observation. This is no different than Ptolemy’s epicycles that were continually adjusted to account for observation without providing any real explanation of the mechanics behind what is being observed.

    "At this point it is almost impossible for even a professional cosmologist to name all of the hypothetical entities required by Einstein’s theories. Occam’s Razor demands we follow the theory with the least amount of unnecessary entities. While the standard model may be able to formulate responses to the problems presented, it seems that electric cosmology offers a solution to all of the problems by simply adding ONE postulate to the universe – that current flows in space plasmas. Given the utter simplicity of this postulate and the overwhelming evidence in support of it, Occam’s Razor demands it be given full attention.

    "Modern cosmology is engaging in what can broadly be categorized as scientific fraud. Nearly every explanation of astrophysical phenomena involves the use of frozen-in fields, an impossibility in any real plasma. Nearly every explanation involves the use of some totally unproven, unfounded, and baseless hypothetical form of matter or energy, be it dark energy, dark matter, or fictional black holes that blatantly violate Einsteinian relativity. Every attempt to prove the existence of these hypothetical entities has resulted in failure.

    "Because a steady state universe, as postulated by Lorentz, does not require unification and complies with Maxwell’s equations (which themselves assume an infinite universe and universal speed), this also resolves the long standing problem of unifying Einstein’s theories.

    "And finally, a large collection of papers in support of the arguments made."


    This is where to read it:
     http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented 
    ___-___



    Source: http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110707plasmoids.htm 

    These claims must be examined, for their impact when understood has far-reaching co-truths about the fundamental nature of what this life experience...is.
    We have to demand modern science prove its claims. Nothing more. Explain how some answers are better than others to the people that are trying to figure it out for themselves, and need to be convinced.
    It is a task quickly and eagerly answered by the fact-friendly camp.
    All of this comes down to a few crystal-clear points: every scientific theory must explain or refute through proof of testing, and record of observation.
    If it turns out one day that people look back on the recent (in historical terms) abstract and malleable interpretation of the universe as a habit overcome, the full scope, majesty, and content of our universe will expand in all directions, and the potential of mankind will accelerate beyond our dreams. Star Trek and interstellar exploration will carry man into a highness we can scarcely comprehend- but one day we will be capable, in principle, to continue to refine knowledge and its applications to our surroundings. We have to sift, repeatedly, through new ideas, and new interpretations. You might anticipate that future as life-extending technology. Another might dream of the cultural understanding of an intimacy yet unconcieved. It may be the possible connection with another impossibly rare occurance: life born and evolved in another speck of our vast universe. Whatever it is, it must see science as a tool to be used to answer those questions. When it ceases being a tool of purpose and becomes an object of art, the reasons for thinking about it become unmoored, and its use to them decouples.

    No matter your vision, we must be impartial and passionate. Those symbiotic traits must exist together, or we are wasting the minuscule slice of the time and exposure we have...in our one life. This science is real, and we must address it. We must stop ignoring the voluminous evidence any longer.

    We must do it right in the tiny moment we have in this place. Who are we robbing the future of, besides ourselves? The discoveries and their adoptance will come. But when?
    Einstein himself is repeatedly documented as having rejected much of what has since been tacked to his name by mathematic puzzle-makers.

    I, as one, want to see how far this life...my generation... can make it while you and I are here breathing.

    I see exciting arguments and great opportunity here for fitting the pieces together at last.
    Mon, Aug 1, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)
     
    "There is a revolution just beginning in astronomy/cosmology that will rival the one set off by Copernicus and Galileo. This revolution is based on the growing realization that the cosmos is highly electrical in nature. It is becoming clear that 99% of the universe is made up not of "invisible matter", but rather, of matter in the plasma state. Electrodynamic forces in electric plasmas are much stronger than the gravitational force.


    Mainstream astrophysicists are continually “surprised” by new data sent back by space probes and orbiting telescopes. That ought to be a clue that something is wrong. New information always sends theoretical astrophysicists "back to the drawing board". In light of this, it is curious that they have such "cock-sure" attitudes about the infallibility of their present models. Those models seem to require major "patching up" every time a new space probe sends back data.

    Astrophysicists and astronomers do not study experimental plasma dynamics in graduate school. They rarely take any courses in electrodynamic field theory, and thus they try to explain every new discovery via gravity, magnetism, and fluid dynamics which is all they understand. It is no wonder they cannot understand that 99% of all cosmic phenomena are due to plasma dynamics and not to gravity alone.

    When confronted by observations that cast doubt on the validity of their theories, astrophysicists have circled their wagons and conjured up pseudo-scientific invisible entities such as neutron stars, weakly interacting massive particles, strange energy, and black holes. When confronted by solid evidence such as Halton Arp's photographs that contradict the Big Bang Theory, their response is to refuse him access to any major telescope in the U.S.

    Instead of wasting time in a futile battle trying to convince entrenched mainstream astronomers to seriously investigate the Electric/Plasma Universe ideas, a growing band of plasma scientists and engineers are simply bypassing them. A new electric plasma-based paradigm that does not find new discoveries to be “enigmatic and puzzling”, but rather to be predictable and consistent with an electrical point of view, is slowly but surely replacing the old paradigm wherein all electrical mechanisms are ignored.

    http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm

    This web site is dedicated to explaining the basis of this ongoing scientific shift. It also presents links to other sites where you can investigate the details of what is happening.

    These pages are designed to be read through in order, starting with the Introduction. If you do this, the background information needed for understanding any given page will have been presented in an earlier page. However, each of the topics below is discussed in a reasonably self-contained way for anyone who just wants to pick and choose. Enter the site by clicking on the link to the Introduction below.
      Promote (3)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/peter-thiels-cs183-startup

    This link is to a summary of Peter Thiel's class topics written in superb essay style. It centers entirely around technology, how a new supplier (an entrepreneur) brings it to the people, and how the creative process navigates the modern world.

    The words are far-reaching and truly align to the best of humanity and our future potential.

    Peter Thiel "gets it"



    Purpose and Preamble

    We might describe our world as having retail sanity, but wholesale madness. Details are well understood; the big picture remains unclear. A fundamental challenge—in business as in life—is to integrate the micro and macro such that all things make sense.

    Humanities majors may well learn a great deal about the world. But they don’t really learn career skills through their studies. Engineering majors, conversely, learn in great technical detail. But they might not learn why, how, or where they should apply their skills in the workforce. The best students, workers, and thinkers will integrate these questions into a cohesive narrative. This course aims to facilitate that process.

    I. The History of Technology

    For most of recent human history—from the invention of the steam engine in the late 17th century through about the late 1960’s or so— technological process has been tremendous, perhaps even relentless. In most prior human societies, people made money by taking it from others. The industrial revolution wrought a paradigm shift in which people make money through trade, not plunder.

    The importance of this shift is hard to overstate. Perhaps 100 billion people have ever lived on earth. Most of them lived in essentially stagnant societies; success involved claiming value, not creating it. So the massive technological acceleration of the past few hundred years is truly incredible.

    The zenith of optimism about the future of technology might have been the 1960’s. People believed in the future. They thought about the future. Many were supremely confident that the next 50 years would be a half-century of unprecedented technological progress.

    But with the exception of the computer industry, it wasn’t. Per capita incomes are still rising, but that rate is starkly decelerating. Median wages have been stagnant since 1973. People find themselves in an alarming Alice-in-Wonderland-style scenario in which they must run harder and harder—that is, work longer hours—just to stay in the same place. This deceleration is complex, and wage data alone don’t explain it. But they do support the general sense that the rapid progress of the last 200 years is slowing all too quickly.

    II. The Case For Computer Science

    Computers have been the happy exception to recent tech deceleration. Moore’s/Kryder’s/Wirth’s laws have largely held up, and forecast continued growth. Computer tech, with ever-improving hardware and agile development, is something of a model for other industries. It’s obviously central to the Silicon Valley ecosystem and a key driver of modern technological change. So CS is the logical starting place to recapture the reins of progress.

    III. The Future For Progress

    A. Globalization and Tech: Horizontal vs. Vertical Progress

    Progress comes in two flavors: horizontal/extensive and vertical/intensive. Horizontal or extensive progress basically means copying things that work. In one word, it means simply “globalization.” Consider what China will be like in 50 years. The safe bet is it will be a lot like the United States is now. Cities will be copied, cars will be copied, and rail systems will be copied. Maybe some steps will be skipped. But it’s copying all the same.

    Vertical or intensive progress, by contrast, means doing new things. The single word for this is “technology.” Intensive progress involves going from 0 to 1 (not simply the 1 to n of globalization). We see much of our vertical progress come from places like California, and specifically Silicon Valley. But there is every reason to question whether we have enough of it. Indeed, most people seem to focus almost entirely on globalization instead of technology; speaking of “developed” versus “developing nations” is implicitly bearish about technology because it implies some convergence to the “developed” status quo. As a society, we seem to believe in a sort of technological end of history, almost by default.

    It’s worth noting that globalization and technology do have some interplay; we shouldn’t falsely dichotomize them. Consider resource constraints as a 1 to n subproblem. Maybe not everyone can have a car because that would be environmentally catastrophic. If 1 to n is so blocked, only 0 to 1 solutions can help. Technological development is thus crucially important, even if all we really care about is globalization.

    B. The Problems of 0 to 1

    Maybe we focus so much on going from 1 to n because that’s easier to do. There’s little doubt that going from 0 to 1 is qualitatively different, and almost always harder, than copying something n times. And even trying to achieve vertical, 0 to 1 progress presents the challenge of exceptionalism; any founder or inventor doing something new must wonder: am I sane? Or am I crazy?

    Consider an analogy to politics. The United States is often thought of as an “exceptional” country. At least many Americans believe that it is. So is the U.S. sane? Or is it crazy? Everyone owns guns. No one believes in climate change. And most people weigh 600 pounds. Of course, exceptionalism may cut the other way. America is the land of opportunity. It is the frontier country. It offers new starts, meritocratic promises of riches. Regardless of which version you buy, people must grapple with the problem of exceptionalism. Some 20,000 people, believing themselves uniquely gifted, move to Los Angeles every year to become famous actors. Very few of them, of course, actually become famous actors. The startup world is probably less plagued by the challenge of exceptionalism than Hollywood is. But it probably isn’t immune to it.

    C. The Educational and Narrative Challenge

    Teaching vertical progress or innovation is almost a contradiction in terms. Education is fundamentally about going from 1 to n. We observe, imitate, and repeat. Infants do not invent new languages; they learn existing ones. From early on, we learn by copying what has worked before.

    That is insufficient for startups. Crossing T’s and dotting I’s will get you maybe 30% of the way there. (It’s certainly necessary to get incorporation right, for instance. And one can learn how to pitch VCs.) But at some point you have to go from 0 to 1—you have to do something important and do it right—and that can’t be taught. Channeling Tolstoy’s intro to Anna Karenina, all successful companies are different; they figured out the 0 to 1 problem in different ways. But all failed companies are the same; they botched the 0 to 1 problem.

    So case studies about successful businesses are of limited utility. PayPal and Facebook worked. But it’s hard to know what was necessarily path-dependent. The next great company may not be an e-payments or social network company. We mustn’t make too much of any single narrative. Thus the business school case method is more mythical than helpful.

    D. Determinism vs. Indeterminism

    Among the toughest questions about progress is the question of how we should assess a venture’s probability of success. In the 1 to n paradigm, it’s a statistical question. You can analyze and predict. But in the 0 to 1 paradigm, it’s not a statistical question; the standard deviation with a sample size of 1 is infinite. There can be no statistical analysis; statistically, we’re in the dark.

    We tend to think very statistically about the future. And statistics tells us that it’s random. We can’t predict the future; we can only think probabilistically. If the market follows a random walk, there’s no sense trying to out-calculate it.

    But there’s an alternative math metaphor we might use: calculus. The calculus metaphor asks whether and how we can figure out exactly what’s going to happen. Take NASA and the Apollo missions, for instance. You have to figure out where the moon is going to be, exactly. You have to plan whether a rocket has enough fuel to reach it. And so on. The point is that no one would want to ride in a statistically, probabilistically-informed spaceship.

    Startups are like the space program in this sense. Going from 0 to 1 always has to favor determinism over indeterminism. But there is a practical problem with this. We have a word for people who claim to know the future: prophets. And in our society, all prophets are false prophets. Steve Jobs finessed his way about the line between determinism and indeterminism; people sensed he was a visionary, but he didn’t go too far. He probably cut it as close as possible (and succeeded accordingly).

    The luck versus skill question is also important. Distinguishing these factors is difficult or impossible. Trying to do so invites ample opportunity for fallacious reasoning. Perhaps the best we can do for now is to flag the question, and suggest that it’s one that entrepreneurs or would-be entrepreneurs should have some handle on.

    E. The Future of Intensive Growth

    There are four theories about the future of intensive progress. First is convergence; starting with the industrial revolution, we saw a quick rise in progress, but technology will decelerate and growth will become asymptotic.

    Second, there is the cyclical theory. Technological progress moves in cycles; advances are made, retrenchments ensue. Repeat. This has probably been true for most of human history in the past. But it’s hard to imagine it remaining true; to think that we could somehow lose all the information and know-how we’ve amassed and be doomed to have to re-discover it strains credulity.

    Third is collapse/destruction. Some technological advance will do us in.

    Fourth is the singularity where technological development yields some AI or intellectual event horizon.

    People tend to overestimate the likelihood or explanatory power of the convergence and cyclical theories. Accordingly, they probably underestimate the destruction and singularity theories.

    IV. Why Companies?

    If we want technological development, why look to companies to do it? It’s possible, after all, to imagine a society in which everyone works for the government. Or, conversely, one in which everyone is an independent contractor. Why have some intermediate version consisting of at least two people but less than everyone on the planet?

    The answer is straightforward application of the Coase Theorem. Companies exist because they optimally address internal and external coordination costs. In general, as an entity grows, so do its internal coordination costs. But its external coordination costs fall. Totalitarian government is entity writ large; external coordination is easy, since those costs are zero. But internal coordination, as Hayek and the Austrians showed, is hard and costly; central planning doesn’t work.

    The flipside is that internal coordination costs for independent contractors are zero, but external coordination costs (uniquely contracting with absolutely everybody one deals with) are very high, possibly paralyzingly so. Optimality—firm size—is a matter of finding the right combination.

    V. Why Startups?

    A. Costs Matter

    Size and internal vs. external coordination costs matter a lot. North of 100 people in a company, employees don’t all know each other. Politics become important. Incentives change. Signaling that work is being done may become more important than actually doing work. These costs are almost always underestimated. Yet they are so prevalent that professional investors should and do seriously reconsider before investing in companies that have more than one office. Severe coordination problems may stem from something as seemingly trivial or innocuous as a company having a multi-floor office. Hiring consultants and trying to outsource key development projects are, for similar reasons, serious red flags. While there’s surely been some lessening of these coordination costs in the last 40 years—and that explains the shift to somewhat smaller companies—the tendency is still to underestimate them. Since they remain fairly high, they’re worth thinking hard about.

    Path’s limiting its users to 150 “friends” is illustrative of this point. And ancient tribes apparently had a natural size limit that didn’t much exceed that number. Startups are important because they are small; if the size and complexity of a business is something like the square of the number of people in it, then startups are in a unique position to lower interpersonal or internal costs and thus to get stuff done.

    The familiar Austrian critique dovetails here as well. Even if a computer could model all the narrowly economic problems a company faces (and, to be clear, none can), it wouldn’t be enough. To model all costs, it would have to model human irrationalities, emotions, feelings, and interactions. Computers help, but we still don’t have all the info. And if we did, we wouldn’t know what to do with it. So, in practice, we end up having companies of a certain size.

    B. Why Do a Startup?

    The easiest answer to “why startups?” is negative: because you can’t develop new technology in existing entities. There’s something wrong with big companies, governments, and non-profits. Perhaps they can’t recognize financial needs; the federal government, hamstrung by its own bureaucracy, obviously overcompensates some while grossly undercompensating others in its employ. Or maybe these entities can’t handle personal needs; you can’t always get recognition, respect, or fame from a huge bureaucracy. Anyone on a mission tends to want to go from 0 to 1. You can only do that if you’re surrounded by others to want to go from 0 to 1. That happens in startups, not huge companies or government.

    Doing startups for the money is not a great idea. Research shows that people get happier as they make more and more money, but only up to about $70,000 per year. After that, marginal improvements brought by higher income are more or less offset by other factors (stress, more hours, etc. Plus there is obviously diminishing marginal utility of money even absent offsetting factors).

    Perhaps doing startups to be remembered or become famous is a better motive. Perhaps not. Whether being famous or infamous should be as important as most people seem to think it is highly questionable. A better motive still would be a desire to change the world. The U.S. in 1776-79 was a startup of sorts. What were the Founders motivations? There is a large cultural component to the motivation question, too. In Japan, entrepreneurs are seen as reckless risk-takers. The respectable thing to do is become a lifelong employee somewhere. The literary version of this sentiment is “behind every fortune lies a great crime.” Were the Founding Fathers criminals? Are all founders criminals of one sort or another?

    C. The Costs of Failure

    Startups pay less than bigger companies. So founding or joining one involves some financial loss. These losses are generally thought to be high. In reality, they aren’t that high.

    The nonfinancial costs are actually higher. If you do a failed startup, you may not have learned anything useful. You may actually have learned how to fail again. You may become more risk-averse. You aren’t a lottery ticket, so you shouldn’t think of failure as just 1 of n times that you’re going to start a company. The stakes are a bit bigger than that.

    A 0 to 1 startup involves low financial costs but low non-financial costs too. You’ll at least learn a lot and probably will be better for the effort. A 1 to n startup, though, has especially low financial costs, but higher non-financial costs. If you try to do Groupon for Madagascar and it fails, it’s not clear where exactly you are. But it’s not good.

    VI. Where to Start?

    The path from 0 to 1 might start with asking and answering three questions. First, what is valuable? Second, what can I do? And third, what is nobody else doing?

    The questions themselves are straightforward. Question one illustrates the difference between business and academia; in academia, the number one sin is plagiarism, not triviality. So much of the innovation is esoteric and not at all useful. No one cares about a firm’s eccentric, non-valuable output. The second question ensures that you can actually execute on a problem; if not, talk is just that. Finally, and often overlooked, is the importance of being novel. Forget that and we’re just copying.

    The intellectual rephrasing of these questions is: What important truth do very few people agree with you on?

    The business version is: What valuable company is nobody building?

    These are tough questions. But you can test your answers; if, as so many people do, one says something like “our educational system is broken and urgently requires repair,” you know that that answer is wrong (it may be a truth, but lots of people agree with it). This may explain why we see so many education non-profits and startups. But query whether most of those are operating in technology mode or globalization mode. You know you’re on the right track when your answer takes the following form:

    “Most people believe in X. But the truth is !X.”

    Make no mistake; it’s a hard question. Knowing what 0 to 1 endeavor is worth pursuing is incredibly rare, unique, and tricky. But the process, if not the result, can also be richly rewarding.

    Creative Commons License

    Tags: cs183


    This is only the first of 11 sections generously written by Blake Masters, the site's creator.
    Sun, May 13, 2012  Permanent link
    Categories: future
      RSS for this post
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    The Peaceful Resistance

    Whenever I'm feeling blue about domestic politics — there is plenty about which to despair — something great happens that reminds me of the long-term case for optimism, which is all about the astonishing expansion of the division of labor globally and in ways that weren't even possible just a few years ago.

    The world has changed to permit ever more people in all corners of the globe to cooperate to their mutual betterment. The very prospect is inspiring people to claim their freedom and use it to make their lives better. By comparison to this activity, the disgusting behavior of nation states appear like a ridiculous anachronism that will be steamrolled by the forces of history.

    And when these examples hit home, it is all the better.

    So, for example, I was preparing dinner two nights ago, and the Skype plug-in on my iPhone rang and it was a young man from some far-flung rural area of Australia. He had a charming accent that I could barely understand but he was full of smiles and exuberance. I showed him around my house and he showed me his rather barren room, full of computer stuff.

    After pleasantries, we got down to business. I was contracting with him to fix one small module on our Mises Academy software, the one that generates certificates of completion. He had already answered an email requesting an expert. He was the last person I would have expected to be on this job.

    Just ten minutes ago, he delivered his repaired module, and it is beautifully done with elegant code, along with an invoice for his work. I never would have imagined this possible, and the truth is that it would not have been possible even a few years ago. But with communication technology dramatically improving, the possibilities for international collaboration, in surprising ways, are more readily at hand.

    I don't have to move there and he doesn't have to move here. We found each other through a tiny mention on a social-networking site. And like magic, we had an opportunity for exchange. Everyone is better off. The world is a more beautiful place.

    The same happened with some developers in India, who are now doing the Mises Institute's ebooks at a very low price and with great expertise. This would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. But technology is making it happen.

    Never underestimate the implications of global economic relationships.

    This is the stuff that makes the world go round. It is the engine of progress, and the producer of peace and understanding. Together we can cooperate to make the world a better place. Expand this model a hundredfold, a thousandfold, a millionfold, and we create a glorious force for the betterment of the whole human race. It is mankind's method of peaceful resistance.

    How can some stupid government program or regulation compare to this? All the activities of the nation-state pale by comparison to the significance of the globalization of communication and commerce. In the digital age, we are discovering that all people of the world have more in common with each other than any of us has in common with the states that rule us.

    That's why revolution in one country is a revolution in all countries. The cries for freedom by one man are the cries for freedom of us all.

    These advances are taking place right under our noses. They are the most significant since the Industrial Revolution, and our grandchildren will look back in history books on these times as the turning point. We are truly blessed to be living in them and experiencing them.

    And it is not only the digital world at work here. Hyundai is a Korean car company that opened a plant in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1986. The plant cost $1.4 billion to build. That Montgomery plant now employs 2,650 people. It operates around the clock on weekdays and during the day on Saturday. It has a sister company, Kia, that opened another plant in Georgia in 2010, and it employs even more.

    As a result of these factories, parts suppliers are opening doors every few weeks. Today, 138 businesses have been founded just to support these companies, and thousands of other businesses owe their revenue stream to their presence. During the Great Recession, Hyundai hired while Detroit fired. Hyundai and Kia are now ahead of Ford Motor Company, and the fourth-largest carmaker worldwide. Hyundai alone built 300,000 cars in Montgomery last year. And for this reason, the jobless rate is very low in Alabama, even though textiles are gone.

    Ten Korean restaurants have opened in Montgomery and many thousands of Koreans have moved here. They are supporting churches, symphonies, and theaters. Their kids are taking violin lessons and playing in orchestras, bringing classical music to a land where it has never taken root.

    Consider the ways in which this story runs contrary to government plans. Americans were supposed to be patriotic and buy American-made cars forever. The great threat to this idea was imported cars, and hardly anyone expected the importation of car manufacturing itself. Montgomery has had terrible economic times for some 50 years, and every mayor and every governor has had a plan for recovery. No one expected it would come from abroad.

    Koreans haven't ruined Alabama culture but rather refurbished it and revitalized it.

    The spinoffs are widespread, helping to provide not only jobs in manufacturing cars but in manufacturing everything, plus improving retail and restaurants and even the arts. This recovery was not the result of any government plan or the carrying out of any centrally organized idea. It was never subjected to a political debate or vote.

    This is the market at work. The state does not plan it and cannot anticipate its actions and shape. But one thing is for sure: it is consistent with human choice. It is we who make or break these entrepreneurial plans. The market has the model for social organization. The law of association, first discovered by David Ricardo and elaborated upon by Ludwig von Mises, is the energy here. It points to the advantages that come to all parties when they trade, even when a more efficient supplier is trading with a much less efficient supplier. Both are more efficient together than they would otherwise be producing in isolation.

    Mises said that this law of association was responsible for a dramatic change in the outlook of humanity.

    People began to consider themselves not as rivals in a struggling for the appropriation of the limited means of subsistence; instead we discovered that we can consort with one another for the sake of cooperative production.

    And how does this come about? Not through compulsion. Not through social contract. It comes about because we recognize that it is in our interest to come together by mutual agreement. And this coming together comes about through differences among us, because of the realization that we each have something to contribute to a relationship. We are not sacrificing our well-being by doing this but exactly the opposite.

    Agreement and not force: this is what will save us and continue to build civilization.



    Jeffrey A. Tucker writes modern adaptations of applied progressive libertarian thought. He makes salient points worthy of attention.
    I share his optimism.


    http://mises.org/daily/5152/The-Peaceful-Resistance


    Sat, Mar 26, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    Going to the heart of how we define our interactions as a species, it may be instructive to wash away the distracting and conflicting details of some modern economic teaching, and instead refocus on the most basic, fundamental truths that have proven sound through all time and experience.

    These powerful facts do not demand a degree, or even particularly special training or intellect to "get". They are accessible to all humankind, and can be understood by children.

    Here is one thorough, brief synopsis.

    I believe the word economics has been colored with connotations that it may not deserve.

    Be it math, formalized education, modeling, or what have you, it seems to the laymen that only some voodoo practices, read like tea-leaves via statistical models, will allow true understanding of how it all works.

    That is simply not true.
    All of that is secondary to a few, simple facts.

    Economics is no more than the study of Human Action through exchange.


    That's it.
    It all comes down to this:
    "The law of diminishing marginal utility can be logically deduced from the axiom of human action."

    I feel this knowledge is vital to every mind that seeks to take humanity forward, to ever greater heights.
    Unless we acknowledge and integrate economic facts into our plans, all of our lofty aspirations will ultimately fail for predictable and avoidable economic reasons. I can not stress this enough.

    Working with economic facts will set us on the path to true advancement of purpose, unencumbered by misunderstandings and diversions of true progress.
    Mon, Feb 28, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)
     
    Could Einstein's Theory of Relativity be slipping into the past as a discredited misunderstanding?
    And could it be replaced with an intuitive and simplified scientific truth that was discovered over a century ago?

    A major turning point in the public’s understanding of science came about a century ago, with the introduction of Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity. Before then, educated laymen were expected to and usually could understand new developments in science, at least in outline. After Einstein this changed. Science moved beyond the ken of educated laymen. You didn’t understand what these new arguments were about? Then stick to your poetry, or perhaps your knitting. Science was becoming a private party to which you weren’t invited. (Except that, increasingly, your taxes were expected to pay for it.)

    Newton’s laws of motion and gravity always were intelligible to the layman, and could be expressed in plain language. Einstein’s relativity changed that, in the direction of reduced clarity, intelligibility and vastly increased complexity. I shall go further and say that relativity failed to improve on Newtonian physics in terms of accuracy.

    Recently I wrote a book about relativity, Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? It was based on the research and arguments of Petr Beckmann, who taught electrical engineering at the University of Colorado after defecting from Czechoslovakia in 1963. He wrote books that were both popular (A History of Pi) and obscure (The Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves from Rough Surfaces), and late in life he published Einstein Plus Two (1987).

    He argued that the facts that led to relativity could more easily be explained by classical physics – without relativity. His book was in many ways technical, but before he died (in 1993) he reviewed it for my benefit in a series of tape-recorded interviews.


    remainder of article here


    I am enamored of questioning the fundamentals.
    I find the deepest delight in discovering that all events behave with the reason of an axiom.
    There is value in asking questions of common assumptions, if only to define the axiom that defines the truth and explore further into the ramifications of that knowledge with a clear logical footing.
    Sometimes it is found that there is no truth in old, confusing ideas at all. Perhaps the reason that Relativity Theory doesn't make sense to anyone outside the club is because it's just plain wrong?

    (For all I know the luminiferous aether is the hard drive our program exists on.)
    Mon, Feb 28, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (4)
      
      Add to favorites (3)
    Synapses (2)
     
    The answer to the introduction: Everything.

    I am the living reflection of the sum of Everything that I have ever felt.
    That is who I am. I am Everything.


    What I seek to understand: Everything.

    I want to follow the lessons and logic I discover to understand Everything that comes my way.
    I seek to understand you.


    I believe in the harmony of logic and truth. I believe that understanding order explains disorder.
    I believe we already have the answers.

    I believe we know how we must be.

    Peaceful.
    Busy.
    Moving.

    I believe in us, because I believe in me
    Fri, Feb 25, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (3)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
          Cancel