Ero

It's precisely these disclaimers that make it so difficult. There are people who are genuinely a danger to themselves and others without them. I have family members and close friends on them, so it is a topic on which I generally have to be careful.

Kilindi Iyi? Brother is probably in the 17th dimension right now.

I think I made that clear.

I don't think you are wrong here, I would rather reframe it as needing to "graduate" to a post-Marxist socialism rather than pre-marxist.

@Elliott Then you are much closer to where I stand. The "bringing a marxist YouTube video to a school project on economic theory" was giving me flashbacks lol.

A nuanced modern take on this topic is Thomas Piketty's Capital, I recommend it. His argument is that concentration of wealth follows when the return on capital exceeds the growth rate of the economy. He acknowledges it as politically consequential without defaulting to a Marxian "collapse ".

I agree with Jack's critique on this statement, it is epistemically disingenuous to claim marginal value theory has greater "expressivity" than LTV. That just isn't true. There are indeed rigorous predictions you can make with the latter but not the former, as both the document you linked and (Ref 1) in my previous response show. I was trying to add nuance on top of that to why LTV is not my sole explanatory framework. Absolutely. My "social metaphysics" point was aimed at Elliot and the "that's not what he meant" move by Richard Wolff in the YouTube Video, which makes Marxism into a philosophy and not a falsifiable theory, at which point I tune out lol.

Replace "end stage" with "political philosophy". I am not interested in intellectual regurgitation which is what these academics get paid to do. All of this is post-factum rationalizations of what "Marx meant" has the purpose to protect their ideology, distancing it away from any concrete economic theory to value in the abstract. That's the same thing the Christian's did after Darwin. I can give you explicit quotes from Das Kapital that demonstrate Marx was very much talking about economics, not just political philosophy, but you bringing a YouTube video to the already multiple paper references I have provided dissuades me from doing so. Clearly we care for different things. You have the freedom to be a Marxist, but I found no epistemic value in your responses, so I won't engage further.

I have read Wealth of Nations, Das Kapital and a dozen other books and textbooks, most recently Keynes's Treatise and General Theory books. How you see or what it means to you does not change the epistemic power of it as a "theory", which is something you can test and see that it as a statistical predictor (Ref 1). You can conduct similar statistical tests for the other variables I mentioned (Ref 2) (Ref 3) with demonstrable contributions, not explainable by labor. I have about 14 more references. What are yours? As I said above, I treat LTV as any other explanatory framework or theory, I never said there isn't value in it. If you choose to LTV/Marxism as your "end stage", that's a perfectly fine choice to make, but we are no longer talking about a 'general theory', rather a 'social metaphysics' which is a different discussion entirely that I am not at all interested in. The thing with economic theories is that you can literally put your money where your mouth is. I and all my quant friends at Jane Street, Jump Trading or Citadel would gladly take any bets you wanna make.

The faults are numerous and fundamentally about "missing variables" to the theory - Fed capital devaluation and inflation accounting, globalization and deindustrialization, intangible capital and IP, financial derivates and instruments, etc. To put it simply, we are long past the point of history where labor, be it useful or abstract, is the sole and primary determinant of monetary value. It's like trying to do a linear fit (first order Taylor expansion) on a multi-dimensional manifold. Being a Marxist in today's day and age is an ideological position, not a scientific one. That is to say nothing of automation, which is another matter entirely.

Sam Altman already (1) backtracking (2).

Yeah. Think of the distinction between the Pure Mathematics vs that of Applied Mathematics. The former is abstract concepts in of themselves, whereas the latter is some segment of the world with its own effective theory. For Pure Math, internal consistency is the minimal requirement for a theory/ framework to even be considered. What one does is to make a full description of the theory/object as a system - what it assumes, what it tracks, what are the dynamical laws, etc. in order to place it into the context (i.e. background) of all other theories/ ideas. For Applied Mathematics, "background knowledge" is implicitly limiting here. The world is always noisy and more complex than you can account for, so in the context of an applied theory (such as economics), after you have set on a model, you need to perform statistical inference and hypothesis testing. That's why "empiricism" is in fact a much more nuanced concept than naive science bros can appreciate.

Thanks, I didn't get that far because I was losing brain cells lol. If one is ignorant from the get go that LTV have prescriptive power, then losing a debate to a moderately well-read individual isn't a particularly high bar. In general, I treat LTV as I do any theory or explanatory framework: through the lens of "meta-epistemic synthesis", i.e. first I conduct a self-contained "for-its-own-sake" examination of assumptions, confounding variables and dynamics and only after do I pass on epistemic filters, such as empiricism. From a contemporary POV, even the author of the paper you linked above acknowledges that "empirical evidence generally supports this prediction of Marx's theory at least up through the Great Depression of the 1930s". This failure is explained, but not exhuasted by, the Federal Reserve Act and the beginning with Roosevelt in 1933 of the U.S gold-standard break, both of which need to be accounted for in any contemporary economic framework.

Depends on your head shape. Also on the sub-demographic you are trying to attract. I am rocking a buzz cut and it really works for me.

@zurew Anything this guy has written up or explicitly references? I agree with his pushback against Destiny for talking out his ass about LTV with only superficial understanding, but his appeal to "scientific theories" without the references are a big red flag for me. Economic debates should start with a bibliography list from both sides. "If you didn't do your homework, you don't get to talk in class."

Watch Labor Value Theory disintegrate in front your eyes.

Maybe start reading history to see why we will never get it.

Brudda, when I solve nuclear fusion energy becomes free and so does desalination and hence food production, recycling etc. Socialism doesn't work, my country is picking up its remains after it.

I already have former classmates who are self-made billionaires. Will take me longer because of the visa situation, but I am dead set on getting there. Funding archeology to decolonize our history, metamaterials and fusion, genomics research. For the money Musk bought twitter, he could have sent JWST and the Hubble telescope to space, built the CERN hadron collider and still have $5B left. You could literally engineer civilizational jumps with that type of money.

If you are asking about the mathematical contributions themselves, I can give you a short description. If you are asking about the mechanics behind his prowess, I wish I did. Figuring those out is an actual sub-task of my life purpose.

Then you are much closer to the idea of "proofs being paths through cognitive space" than to "mathematical logic". That idea, however, is mathematically, epistemologically and philosophically different enough to have its own term. I am pushing back not because I am being pedantic, but because I am trying to highlight one frequent failure mode you have when you talk specifically on scientific topics (e.g. previous forum discussion on Gödel's theorems and the distinction between "incompleteness" and "inconsistency"). In mathematics, technical words come pre-loaded with a lot of definitional "weight". It is what helps mathematicians know that they are talking about the same thing, because the "notion" is air-tight (i.e. "math-speak"). The biggest failure mode (not yours, highlighting the risk) of people outside of math/science is that they haven't done their homework to understand the precise meaning which makes them conflate words/color them with their own notions. That makes all serious thinkers scoff (case in point are hippies with their "quantum lingo" ) and simply tune out because we immediately know the people have fitted the words to their meaning which makes what are already incredibly difficult conceptual questions impossible to be discussed - the "that's not what I meant" script. I know for a fact that is not you. You know the concepts and definitions and are well-read on the history/genealogy of these words and ideas. That is why when you are being loose with your wording, you risk being conflated yourself with the "hippie quantum" guys than be recognized as a generational thinker, which is what you are. Your book truly has the potential to be generational, which is why I have been posting over the last few days. I don't want you to miss that opportunity. As someone who reads and produces technical papers, reads a book or two a week and a textbook a month, I can tell you that "writing" is the hard part. Because reading it yourself will always seem understandable - you already have all the context for what you mean. But for someone who has not spent the thousands of hours like you contemplating, it takes a lot more to "catch them up to speed". This is the art of "condensing thought" into building blocks that you can craft an edifice from. Too many great thinkers get lost from humanity's Intellectual stream (Intelligence with capital "I") because their ideas were hard to penetrate. I really hope you are not one of them. Ask for feedback from the precise demographic you want to reach - the deep and contemplative thinkers. I am giving you feedback as one such sample point. I know you care for understanding Truth for its own sake (Arhat). If that was your only stated goal, then all I've said wouldn't matter. But you also want to write a book and to "be understood" in order to move the needle of Consciousness (Bodhisattva). And that happens on the plane of Maya.

@zurew Thank you for the words. I didn't read it as dismissive, my phrasing was just the mathematician's equivalent "this is trivial" so all I meant is you wouldn't have to worry about me defending nominalism.

@zurew That would be intellectually lazy on my part so you don't have to worry about it. @Leo Gura Side note, THE most spiritual people I have met (visions, psychedelics, meditation, maturity, etc), by far, are all vocationally scientific (Math PhD, MD/PhD and History PhD). Could be a selection bias, but also, does ring true since we are the "Mage" class after all.

From the perspective of HoTT (arguably the most probable future foundations of mathematics) and higher topos theory (the semantics), mathematics exceeds bare formal logic insofar as proofs are not merely external rule-following derivations but internal constructions in structured universes ( e,g. (∞,1)-topoi). Propositions are interpreted as types and equivalences as paths in a universe. There are highly nontrivial relations between such universes, including changes of model, base or modalities In this context, formal logic in its usual interpretation is best understood as a 0-truncated reflection of this richer higher-dimensional structure. It forgets nontrivial types, paths, and coherence data, retaining only the flattened propositions and truth values. All examples I can think of the failure are pretty technical, but ones that most practicing mathematician experience at different points.

Thank you for your receptiveness. On the math vs science topic, I carry the burden of proof for elucidating my ideas, so I will defer this discussion for a separate post when I have crystallized some of the following "prompts"/seeds (writing them down so I can come back to them and address): Math ≠ Logic Proofs are not "programs" or "rule games" but paths through "cognitive" space, which extends beyond "human". "Math is 100% a mental game" and that is precisely what makes it magical because Reality is but a Game in the Mind of God Math opens up the multiverse, which is why parts of math do not at all touch the physical world. The most paradigm shattering idea in all of math, larger than Cantor (set theory/infinity) or Grothendieck (category theory/toposes) , is 30 years old in its most impactful formulation and is called "Geometric Langlands Program (Vid)", which has been called a "grand unified theory of mathematics" by Edward Frenkel.