User talk:Lycurgus/ArkivEnd

Current

I'll be back

Trying to channel time I would spend on en:WP content into other activities, will respond to emails if possible, however I am not an admin here and my time for the standard tragedy of the commons drama in such scenes and acts as the David North¹ matter, Sicko, u.a.m., (cf. archives) is very limited. Lycurgus (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

¹ It appears the SEP/GRPI were able to operate here unopposed and suppress the previous article David North (Trotsykist) and it's discussion which glaringly showed their attempt to suppress what the "Notes on the SEP/GRPI Puzzle" article linked above is referring to. There were more details supplied by others, but the main thing it showed was how Joe Kay and presumably others from the group in question attempted to simply suppress the discussion. I think it's the obscurity of this group and especially the obscurity of socialism in US politics that allows this to happen here. All politics is either Democrat or Republican and the other stuff just doesn't matter should it become known. If this was about video games or something the wiki community process would probably have worked better. Lycurgus (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

EM Communication Implications

Additionally, with respect to Kurzweil's argument in Ch. 6 of "The Singularity Is Near", there is another issue. If we assume that current physics is correct in what it positively states, then there is a strong violation of the Copernican principle. This is because since EM signals further and further away must correspond to events that much further back in time up to the limit imposed by the overall evolution of the universe, probably in fact back to the second generation of stars. This in turn implies that our knowledge of ETI in all but a tiny section of time and space must be impossible by this means. Search by such means requires that the signal either be very long ago or pretty close to the Earth. However except for the observed distribution of galaxies, there is no reason to assume that such would be anything other than randomly distributed within that distribution. Indeed, the rate of species attaining to the singularity should be increasing in time over the period from the middle of the second generation of stars so that most should be relatively recent, in effect making the contribution of those long ago less than significant as a term in comparison to the location bias.

74.78.162.229 (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC) (6 Harvest 4706 公元 )

Full employment

Hello--I rolled back some of your recent changes to Full employment. I know you've done a lot to try to clean up the article, I think those might have gone too far, and wound up making it confusing again. It also seems like some POV is slipping in.Cretog8 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's your opinion. As noted, I restricted my edits to current consensus thinking placing my comments in the talk page. Your edits were arbitrary and mechanical and in fact (ironically) rolled back important standard NPOV explanations. Lycurgus (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It was hard to identify exactly where the problems arose. I rolled back the stuff by your anon IP before I realized you were the same people. After that rollback, it didn't look perfect, but it had addressed some of the problems. For instance, I have trouble reading "the rate of unemployment is the difference from unity of the ratio of units of supply of labour actively seeking employment to the matched units of public or private employment demand." as a common-sense explanation of the rate of unemployment.Cretog8 (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet in spite of your difficulties, that is precisely what it is. Also, this article is about employment and the maximal case of it at that, not unemployment. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Marxian theory and mathematical economics

Eventually I will be able to look up your reference first-hand. However, I'm fairly familiar with mathematical economics, and Marxian value theory has never come up as part of it. So I'm naturally skeptical of the idea that it's "fundamental". If you could provide specific quotes or examples of where it's fundamental, that would help. Thanks. Cretog8 (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So now the denouement is clear. Mainstream economics is a class dominated by the neoclassical synthesis which in turn implies that it is classically bourgeois in orientation. By class of course I mean an ordinary set. The defining characteristic of the set is failure of its members to either identify with or found a school of their own. It is only a corroboration of their role as petty bourgeois academics or corporate salarymen and it in no way inhibits and in fact re-inforces their compulsion to recognize common-sense and rational (e.g mathematical) statements in their area of expertise. Indeed, the failure to give a proper founding in what is in fact a social science seems to have created an excess of technical/mathematical detail relative to the hard theoretical core common to the hard sciences and generally missing from social science generally and more pointedly (whence the particular applicability of the term "bourgeois") in this case. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

19 Harvest, 4706 公元 Thu 20:27:38 EDT