Got gold in bullionvault/goldmoney/viamat? Time to look elsewhere.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Got gold in bullionvault/goldmoney/viamat? Time to look elsewhere.

It seems to be acting like "capital controls", which I think are very bad in the long run.

[jk]

Re: Got gold in bullionvault/goldmoney/viamat? Time to look elsewhere.

there is nothing irrational about the positions of either santafe or gec. they have different axiomatic systems, each of which is consistent and fully explains the phenomena they are discussing. the "conspiracy" posited by gec has not been demonstrated to exist by direct evidence, but rather by inference from events theorized to flow from such a conspiracy. this cannot be disproven, so does not meet popper's criteria for a scientific hypothesis. nonetheless, it might be true; we just don't have any direct evidence thereof. for myself, i believe enlightenment is having a minimal axiomatic set.

[Polish_Silver]

Conspiracy vs Popper

there is nothing irrational about the positions of either santafe or gec. they have different axiomatic systems, each of which is consistent and fully explains the phenomena they are discussing. the "conspiracy" posited by gec has not been demonstrated to exist by direct evidence, but rather by inference from events theorized to flow from such a conspiracy. this cannot be disproven, so does not meet popper's criteria for a scientific hypothesis. nonetheless, it might be true; we just don't have any direct evidence thereof. for myself, i believe enlightenment is having a minimal axiomatic set.

Well said, JK.

I think there is direct evidence of mendacity, which arguably is "lower level conspiracy". This would include things mentioned in "Confessions of an economic hit man", the Pentagon Papers, and the publicity preceding the Iraq war.

"Confessions" is interesting because it is hard to verify/falsify the claims using other pulic information, yet the book claims to be a first person insider account, if accurate, it is "direct evidence".

[shiny!]

Re: Got gold in bullionvault/goldmoney/viamat? Time to look elsewhere.

there is nothing irrational about the positions of either santafe or gec. they have different axiomatic systems, each of which is consistent and fully explains the phenomena they are discussing. the "conspiracy" posited by gec has not been demonstrated to exist by direct evidence, but rather by inference from events theorized to flow from such a conspiracy. this cannot be disproven, so does not meet popper's criteria for a scientific hypothesis. nonetheless, it might be true; we just don't have any direct evidence thereof. for myself, i believe enlightenment is having a minimal axiomatic set.

What's an axiomatic set?

[Chris Coles]

Re: Got gold in bullionvault/goldmoney/viamat? Time to look elsewhere.

What's an axiomatic set?

Thanks Shiny, my thought too.

My dictionary says: Axiom A self-evident or universally recognised truth: A maxim An established rule, principle or law. In mathematics & logic it says: A statement or proposition requiring no proof An undemonstrated proposition concerning an undefined set of elements, properties, functions and relationships; a postulate.

We are dealing with very heavyweight minds here you should know.....

[Woodsman]

Re: Got gold in bullionvault/goldmoney/viamat? Time to look elsewhere.

What's an axiomatic set?

Presumably, the ideas and information one considers self-evident and obvious.

FWIW, I think it takes considerable will to deny the role of conspiracy in history recent or ancient and also requires us to deny aspects of human nature that seem forever in play. There is a difference between acknowledging the role of conspiracy in the affairs of men and uncritical, axiomatic acceptance of some grand, unified theory of everything (Communism, the Illuminati, shape shifting aliens, the devil etc.).

I feel there's some affinity between people whose evidentiary standard is so strict that they deny even the possibility of mendacious collusion and those holding to a particular theory of everything. It's hard to really talk to either cohort, sometimes. I'm pleased that is not something that happens too often here at iTulip.

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: Got gold in bullionvault/goldmoney/viamat? Time to look elsewhere.

Presumably, the ideas and information one considers self-evident and obvious.

FWIW, I think it takes considerable will to deny the role of conspiracy in history recent or ancient and also requires us to deny aspects of human nature that seem forever in play. There is a difference between acknowledging the role of conspiracy in the affairs of men and uncritical, axiomatic acceptance of some grand, unified theory of everything (Communism, the Illuminati, shape shifting aliens, the devil etc.).

I feel there's some affinity between people whose evidentiary standard is so strict that they deny even the possibility of mendacious collusion and those holding to a particular theory of everything. It's hard to really talk to either cohort, sometimes. I'm pleased that is not something that happens too often here at iTulip.

One of the main problems we have today as a society is the lack of critical thinking. Let me give you an example. In September of 2006 noted systems programmer Hans Reiser killed his wife. This was a big deal in the San Francisco Bay Area where he lived. It was in all the newspapers and discussed widely. He was found guilty of the crime by a jury, but it was the way that they arrived at their decision and the public reaction to it that I want to focus on. Specifically, he was convicted of the crime entirely on circumstantial evidence. None of the usual Method, Motive, or Opportunity was to be found. There was no murder weapon ( he killed her with his bare hands). He had no obvious motive ( i.e. no immediate threat or new event in a multi-year divorce). He had no opportunity ( the murder was committed while his kids where watching TV downstairs and did not hear any struggle). There was no body ( he buried her in a shallow grave a few miles from the house and said she was traveling ).

The jury reached it's decision based on slim facts like these: Reiser bought some books on crime after the murder. He took the rear seats out of his car and hosed out the inside of the car. He had a blanket with a blood stain on it. He took the battery out of his cell phone. In short the jury used deductive reasoning to convict a obviously guilty guy. What is so special about that? I poled a dozen friends and co-workers, each and every one of whom said they would have released Hans Reiser for lack of evidence. If those people had been in the jury room, a brutal murderer would be roaming the streets right now. Are these people stupid? In a word yes. They lack thinking skills. They are not able to contemplate motives or put themselves in someone else's place.

How did we get into this situation? I think simply that most people have never had to debate or defend their ideas. They have not needed to think carefully. I blame the education system, but I also blame the simple fact that we have too much money and not enough challenges in life. People learn quickly in the school of hard knocks.

I'm trying hard to avoid a confrontation here, but my next step in this conversation will be interpreted as a insult, so I will drop it now.

[aaron]

Re: Got gold in bullionvault/goldmoney/viamat? Time to look elsewhere.

iTulip has definitely helped my critical thinking skills. People do not let you get away with anything here!

(now, using these skills is another matter)

[lektrode]

Re: Got gold in bullionvault/goldmoney/viamat? Time to look elsewhere.

iTulip has definitely helped my critical thinking skills. People do not let you get away with anything here!

(now, using these skills is another matter)

+1 (and another .5 for the bernanks cut ;)

[jk]

Re: Got gold in bullionvault/goldmoney/viamat? Time to look elsewhere.

axioms are assumptions used to prove theorems, i.e. inferences which flow from those assumptions. which axioms are required to prove a certain set of theorems? a minimal axiomatic set will be only those essential to the proofs- i.e. no unnecessary assumptions.*

i used axiomatic set as a synonym for an axiomatic system. from wikipedia: In mathematics, an axiomatic system is any set of axioms from which some or all axioms can be used in conjunction to logically derive theorems.

thus my belief that enlightment is a minimal axiomatic set is a way of saying that, for me, a higher state of consciousness involves making the fewest possible assumptions.



*little personal story- in 11th grade, our math text used an axiomatic approach and included an axiom that any set of numbers which had an upper bound, had a least upper bound. i said to my teacher that that didn't seem to be an axiom to me, that it was a theorem that should be proven. he said, ok, prove it. weeks later, i ended up in the columbia university math library reading about dedekind cuts. i think this experience is at the base of my attachment to minimal axiomatic sets.

[santafe2]

Re: Got gold in bullionvault/goldmoney/viamat? Time to look elsewhere.

there is nothing irrational about the positions of either santafe or gec. they have different axiomatic systems, each of which is consistent and fully explains the phenomena they are discussing. the "conspiracy" posited by gec has not been demonstrated to exist by direct evidence, but rather by inference from events theorized to flow from such a conspiracy. this cannot be disproven, so does not meet popper's criteria for a scientific hypothesis. nonetheless, it might be true; we just don't have any direct evidence thereof. for myself, i believe enlightenment is having a minimal axiomatic set.

Agreed. Proving the validity of a belief system in the face of a contradictory belief system is, as I said earlier, a fool’s errand. The axioms on which my belief system stands, with regard to this issue, are impossible to reconcile with the idea that a worldwide and select group of humans are secretly coordinating our demise for their own gain. It will likely happen about the same day I begin to believe in miracles. That is to say, never.
The axioms that drive my everyday thinking and for that matter, allow me to get up every morning and attempt to make my and my family’s life better are all based on the idea that I am in control of my life and if I choose to work hard and smart, I’ll do well. I never consider that there’s an invisible hand that may be holding me back or controlling my progress.
As I think someone else mentioned, Occam’s Razor is a good place to start whenever one is considering the validity of two theories. The theory which is more simple will most often be correct. Stephen Hawking elaborated on this in his book, “A Brief History of Time”, and I think it makes a clear statement regarding the impasse inherent this thread.

"We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed."

So while it is possible for there to be an unprovable conspiracy, the addition of that layer of complexity to any set of beliefs, normally subtracts from one’s ability to observe outcomes and understand them.

[Polish_Silver]

Occam vs financial corruption

. . .
So while it is possible for there to be an unprovable conspiracy, the addition of that layer of complexity to any set of beliefs, normally subtracts from one’s ability to observe outcomes and understand them.

This is logical. For example, there are a lot of conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve.

But almost everything they do can be explained by these ideas:

1) lower interest rates to help the ruling party win the next election, thereby keeping cushy fed jobs.

2) Maintain good terms with bank executives, thereby get lucrative post-fed sinecures.

Regulatory capture results in public policy which enriches corporations. It has some of the same obervables that a conspiracy would have. But only personal greed in a faulty system is needed to explain it.

But then there are things like "plunge protection team". And that's just what they have admitted publicly.

[lektrode]

Re: Got gold in bullionvault/goldmoney/viamat? Time to look elsewhere.

.....thus my belief that enlightment is a minimal axiomatic set is a way of saying that, for me, a higher state of consciousness involves making the fewest possible assumptions.

and +1 to that
esp since ASSuming _anything_ these daze can cost ya plenty (like EJ mentioned prev, regarding the silver market/bubble a couple years back - re: "avoiding an ass-handing" - and boy, did that one stick with me ;)

[lektrode]

Re: Occam vs financial corruption

This is logical. For example, there are a lot of conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve.

But almost everything they do can be explained by these ideas:

1) lower interest rates to help the ruling party win the next election, thereby keeping cushy fed jobs.

2) Maintain good terms with bank executives, thereby get lucrative post-fed sinecures.

Regulatory capture results in public policy which enriches corporations. It has some of the same obervables that a conspiracy would have. But only personal greed in a faulty system is needed to explain it.

But then there are things like "plunge protection team". And that's just what they have admitted publicly.

and we just saw #1 & #2 in action, like no other period in history - but here's an interesting take on this

[shiny!]

Re: Got gold in bullionvault/goldmoney/viamat? Time to look elsewhere.

Thank you, jk. It's a lot for this dyscalculic mind to take in, but by and large I agree with your philosophy.