-
How long until this forum closes, and will the posts be archived?
-
What exactly is the story with the mises.org front-end these days? Ever since they replaced the blog with that "Circle Bastiat" thing the comments have fallen off by maybe 95%, the Mises Dailies have slowed by two-thirds, and Jeffrey Tucker and Doug French (former president of the institute) and maybe some others don't seem to be around
-
Best analysis I've found on the significance of the above development.
-
As for "energy," that doesn't sound like a physical object at all. Definition? Regarding the points made by others about relativity, if it is merely a measurement effect and says nothing about what is actually going on from a purely physical perspective, it may be useful for engineering, but what use does it have for theorizing? What we
-
Sorry for the delay, Anenome. [quote user="Anenome"]But when you take that metaphor into 3d it's much harder for people to visualize curving in three dimensions. You have to imagine an omni-directional pinch towards a gravitational center. I like to think of it in term of rarification and thickification (my terms). Where strong gravity
-
I personally find the "gang of thieves" view 100% useless, except as some kind of hypothetically-effective rhetoric to "shock" someone out of their statist mindset. The Internet is bringing us out of the age of propaganda, where the game was to simply bombard people with facts, arguments, and rhetoric that make your side look good
-
I do think there is a strong "rightist" lopsidedness to many libertarian argument suites, where the positives of corporations are emphasized and the (state-enabled) negatives are passed over in silence. This is particularly odd when debating leftists, since the very anti-state arguments omitted are the ones most likely to be acknowledged and
-
Notice that David Friedman's definition of coercion basically just defines the word away, which I think is the best approach. What practically constitutes aggression or coercion (hence the NAP or voluntary interaction) in a given society simply depends on the prevailing attitudes of the people in that society. There are definite regularities and
-
Oh I see, thanks. What do you think about Wildberger's rejection of real numbers given Omega is supposed to be uncomputable? (Not to mention the infinities.)
-
Since Omega is defined as the probability it will halt, I'm simply wondering what definition of the word "probability" is being used within that definition (a priori, a posteriori, etc. - and if a priori what is the actual definition?). As Andris mentioned, Chaitin's conclusion seems to depend on probability being a non-subjective