Mises axioms [Archive]

Havet

7th April 2010, 19:55

A lot of talk on the board about "mises this" and "mises that" and "axioms here" and "axioms there" that I start to wonder what the hell are these people talking about.

Would anyone care to explain what axioms are actually "Mises axioms" and how are they relevant?

From what my lone wandering could discover, there are basically 4:

- humans act purposefully;
- humans prefer more of a good to less;
- humans prefer to receive a good sooner rather than later; and
- each party to a trade benefits ex ante.

Note: Ex ante = "before the event"

Let me go one by one and if any "misean" (aka sympathizer with the austrian school of economics) wants to correct me or argue against me feel free to do so.

Axiom 1: Humans act purposefully

Not really much of a comment here. Purpose is subjective and varies from every human to human, so I guess the sentence humans act purposefully is always correct.

Axiom 2: Humans prefer more of a good to less

Here we run into the problem of how to define a good. If a good is merely an object/service that is in demand by a person, then we might find occasions where a person having more of a good might cripple his/her preferences.

ie: If I buy a a hamburger for 1 dollar, i might prefer 2 hamburgers for the same amount of money, but if I receive, for example, 10.000 hamburgers for a dollar i'm gonna end up with more hamburgers than I can handle. I cannot realistically use the remaining time until they become uneatable to eat them all myself or even distribute them with every single person I could find, since not all would like a hamburger.

So it really isn't an axiom.

Axiom 3: humans prefer to receive a good sooner rather than later

I would say: yes if it's a good with immediate value or its value decreases over time; no if its a good that increases value over time (like a business stock, for example, or an historical item whose scarcity is always increasing, like a ww2 helmet for instance).

Again, doesn't seem like an axiom.

Axiom 4: each party to a trade benefits ex ante

At first sight, one would conclude that each party, in a trade, expects to be better off with that trade, otherwise they wouldn't trade. And since we're dealing with subjective criteria here (benefits are subjective), one is lead to believe that this statement is always correct.

But what if one is forced to trade? Then this axiom falls apart quicker than a house of cards in hurricane Katrina.

If I am forced to trade (indirect force through coercive elements of a certain system or direct force aka gun aimed at your head) then I stop having any preferences because I was not expecting to benefit before the trade occured since I wasn't even expecting the trade to happen!

ie (for libertarians): taxation. What benefits do you gain from this trade?
ie (for everyone else): a thief who demands your money or your life. What benefits do you gain from this trade?

Anyone else have anything to add here?

Left-Reasoning

7th April 2010, 20:04

Here we run into the problem of how to define a good. If a good is merely an object/service that is in demand by a person, then we might find occasions where a person having more of a good might cripple his/her preferences.

Goods are subjective. If a person does not desire a good then it is not a good to him. Therefore the statement, "Man prefers more of a good to less" is tautologically true and always valid.

IcarusAngel

7th April 2010, 20:11

Goods are not always subjective. We know for a fact that we will always need water. Thus, protecting water should be of concern for human beings. There's a way to objectively figure out what people need.

Miseans make up axioms and draw highly illogical and inordinate conclusions from them.

This doesn't mean that they're wrong always on social issues but likely they will be wrong since they have a flawed methodology.

Publius

7th April 2010, 20:16

A lot of talk on the board about "mises this" and "mises that" and "axioms here" and "axioms there" that I start to wonder what the hell are these people talking about.

Would anyone care to explain what axioms are actually "Mises axioms" and how are they relevant?

My understanding on this is rusty, as I haven't given a shit about Mises for like 4 years now (I used to be a libertarian) but the general idea is that von Mises had a theory of human behavior called praxeology that was based on some fundamental axioms which purportedly explain all human economic behavior.

From what my lone wandering could discover, there are basically 4:

- humans act purposefully;
- humans prefer more of a good to less;
- humans prefer to receive a good sooner rather than later; and
- each party to a trade benefits ex ante.

Note: Ex ante = "before the event"

Let me go one by one and if any "misean" (aka sympathizer with the austrian school of economics) wants to correct me or argue against me feel free to do so.

Axiom 1: Humans act purposefully

Not really much of a comment here. Purpose is subjective and varies from every human to human, so I guess the sentence humans act purposefully is always correct.

Yep.

This is just either a tautology or plainly false.

Axiom 2: Humans prefer more of a good to less

This is just false.

I prefer to have a certain amount of rice, say a ton. I wouldn't prefer to have 10^10^10 tons of rice.

Here we run into the problem of how to define a good. If a good is merely an object/service that is in demand by a person, then we might find occasions where a person having more of a good might cripple his/her preferences.

ie: If I buy a a hamburger for 1 dollar, i might prefer 2 hamburgers for the same amount of money, but if I receive, for example, 10.000 hamburgers for a dollar i'm gonna end up with more hamburgers than I can handle. I cannot realistically use the remaining time until they become uneatable to eat them all myself or even distribute them with every single person I could find, since not all would like a hamburger.

So it really isn't an axiom.

Even worse, there reaches a point where you'd crush everything on earth with your axiomatic demand.

I want some water, but it doesn't follow that I want enough water to drown everyone on earth.

Axiom 3: humans prefer to receive a good sooner rather than later

I would say: yes if it's a good with immediate value or its value decreases over time; no if its a good that increases value over time (like a business stock, for example, or an historical item whose scarcity is always increasing, like a ww2 helmet for instance).

Again, doesn't seem like an axiom.

Yep. Not an axiom.

It's not even true. There will be times throughout my life that I want coconuts, but it doesn't follow that I want all the coconuts that I'll want over my life at this moment.

I positively don't.

Axiom 4: each party to a trade benefits ex ante

At first sight, one would conclude that each party, in a trade, expects to be better off with that trade, otherwise they wouldn't trade. And since we're dealing with subjective criteria here (benefits are subjective), one is lead to believe that this statement is always correct.

Yep.

Another tautology, or falsehood, depending on how you interpret it.

But what if one is forced to trade? Then this axiom falls apart quicker than a house of cards in hurricane Katrina.

If I am forced to trade (indirect force through coercive elements of a certain system or direct force aka gun aimed at your head) then I stop having any preferences because I was not expecting to benefit before the trade occured since I wasn't even expecting the trade to happen!

ie (for libertarians): taxation. What benefits do you gain from this trade?
ie (for everyone else): a thief who demands your money or your life. What benefits do you gain from this trade?

Anyone else have anything to add here?

You're perfectly correct to conclude that all these statements are either vacuous or false.

Wolf Larson

7th April 2010, 20:17

Publius

7th April 2010, 20:17

Publius

7th April 2010, 20:19

Goods are subjective. If a person does not desire a good then it is not a good to him. Therefore the statement, "Man prefers more of a good to less" is tautologically true and always valid.

Which is to say that it's meaningless.

As Wittgenstein said, knowing that it will rain or it will not rain tommorow tells you nothing about the weather.

Similarly, knowing that a person wants what a person wants tells you nothing about people.

Skooma Addict

7th April 2010, 20:19

I accept Mises' axioms as very reasonable assumptions. As of now I am not certain whether or not they are actual axioms. Either way, ill try to answer your points.

Axiom 1: Humans act purposefully

Not really much of a comment here. Purpose is subjective and varies from every human to human, so I guess the sentence humans act purposefully is always correct.

Yes, humans act purposefully.However, not every action is a purposeful action. It is precisely purposeful action which Mises was concerned with.

Axiom 2: Humans prefer more of a good to less

Here we run into the problem of how to define a good. If a good is merely an object/service that is in demand by a person, then we might find occasions where a person having more of a good might cripple his/her preferences.

ie: If I buy a a hamburger for 1 dollar, i might prefer 2 hamburgers for the same amount of money, but if I receive, for example, 10.000 hamburgers for a dollar i'm gonna end up with more hamburgers than I can handle. I cannot realistically use the remaining time until they become uneatable to eat them all myself or even distribute them with every single person I could find, since not all would like a hamburger.

So it really isn't an axiom.

The axiom is all other things being equal, people prefer more to less. But anyways, I have always been weary of taking this as an axiom. It is however a general truth which holds in all but the most extreme cases in my opinion.

Axiom 3: humans prefer to receive a good sooner rather than later

I would say: yes if it's a good with immediate value or its value decreases over time; no if its a good that increases value over time (like a business stock, for example, or an historical item whose scarcity is always increasing.

Again, doesn't seem like an axiom.

Again, it is all other things being equal. For example, if I offer you a cookie right after a feast or a cookie in the future when you are hungry, you will probably choose the latter. But Mises does not consider these to be the same goods. If I offer you a good who's value you know for certain to be less now than in the future, it is not the same good. So your stock example is like offering 100 dollars now or 1,000 dollars in the future (assuming you knew for certain the value would go up).

Axiom 4: each party to a trade benefits ex ante

At first sight, one would conclude that each party, in a trade, expects to be better off with that trade, otherwise they wouldn't trade. And since we're dealing with subjective criteria here (benefits are subjective), one is lead to believe that this statement is always correct.

But what if one is forced to trade? Then this axiom falls apart quicker than a house of cards in hurricane Katrina.

If I am forced to trade (indirect force through coercive elements of a certain system or direct force aka gun aimed at your head) then I stop having any preferences because I was not expecting to benefit before the trade occured since I wasn't even expecting the trade to happen!

ie (for libertarians): taxation
ie (for everyone else): a thief who demands your money or your life.

You could translate the axiom to: at the moment of a voluntary transaction, each party feels it will benefit. Otherwise, they would not have engaged in the transaction. Forced trade does not apply for Mises.

Skooma Addict

7th April 2010, 20:25

Goods are not always subjective. We know for a fact that we will always need water. Thus, protecting water should be of concern for human beings.

Non sequitur.

And yes, goods are always subjective.

Nothing Mises said was relevant and the small sect of white racist working class wannabe capitalists who worship at the feet of their masters are also irrelevant.

No offense, but you almost come off as being brainwashed.

Publius

7th April 2010, 20:27

I accept Mises' axioms as very reasonable assumptions.

In the same way that 'if p then p' is a reasonable assumption.

As of now I am not certain whether or not they are actual axioms.

They're not.

You can't create an axiom system from this propositions to deduce human behavior.

Yes, humans act purposefully.However, not every action is a purposeful action. It is precisely purposeful action which Mises was concerned with.

How do you know which are purposeful and which aren't?

The axiom is all other things being equal, people prefer more to less.

So in every case where people prefer more to less, they prefer more to less.

Except in the case which they don't, but I've excluded those with a ceteris perabis clause.

But anyways, I have always been weary of taking this as an axiom. It is however a general truth which holds in all but the most extreme cases in my opinion.

It's a truth that holds whenever it's true.

Amazing.

Again, it is all other things being equal. For example, if I offer you a cookie right after a feast or a cookie in the future when you are hungry, you will probably choose the latter. But Mises does not consider these to be the same goods. If I offer you a good who's value you know for certain to be less now than in the future, it is not the same good. So your stock example is like offering 100 dollars now or 1,000 dollars in the future (assuming you knew for certain the value would go up).

So then what good is this axiom? It can't be applied in the real world because you can't see into the future.

You could translate the axiom to: at the moment of a voluntary transaction, each party feels it will benefit. Otherwise, they would not have engaged in the transaction. Forced trade does not apply for Mises.

Again, this is either false or meaningless.

And try to come up with a principled distinction between 'forced' and 'free' action.

Why is holding a gun to someone's head "forced"? They can choose not to do the transaction -- they have freedom of choice -- they'll just got shot if they don't.

They'll suffer a (rather drastic) loss if they don't do the transaction, but how is that different from any other loss?

If someone holds a gun to your head in an economic transaction, you go along with them because you stand to benefit from doing so as opposed to not.

Right?

Skooma Addict

7th April 2010, 20:43

Could you have responded to me by not quoting 5 words at a time?

How do you know which are purposeful and which aren't?

Didn't you said you read Mises? A purposeful action is an action which you engage in to achieve some goal. So twitching for example is not a purposeful action.

There are gray areas like turning a doorknob and scratching your head. However, most of the gray areas actually aren't purposeful actions, or they have been covered by Mises and more recently Long (who by the way, uses Wittgenstien to support Praxeology and refute polylogism).

So in every case where people prefer more to less, they prefer more to less.

Except in the case which they don't, but I've excluded those with a ceteris perabis clause.

No. All other things being equal, people prefer more to less. That is the axiom.

So then what good is this axiom? It can't be applied in the real world because you can't see into the future.

I don't care if you personally find it useful or not.

Again, this is either false or meaningless.

And try to come up with a principled distinction between 'forced' and 'free' action.

Why is holding a gun to someone's head "forced"? They can choose not to do the transaction -- they have freedom of choice -- they'll just got shot if they don't.

They'll suffer a (rather drastic) loss if they don't do the transaction, but how is that different from any other loss?

If someone holds a gun to your head in an economic transaction, you go along with them because you stand to benefit from doing so as opposed to not.

Right?

A free transaction is one you voluntarily engage in. So if someone holds a gun to your head, that is not a voluntary transaction. That is for all intents and purposes theft at gunpoint.

But yes, the person would go through with the transaction anyways as they value their life more than the good being traded in your example.

LeftSideDown

7th April 2010, 20:45

Axiom 2: Humans prefer more of a good to less

Better to say "Humans prefer more satisfaction to less.

Axiom 3: humans prefer to receive a good sooner rather than later

Better to say "Humans prefer satisfaction sooner rather than later".

Axiom 4: each party to a trade benefits ex ante

At first sight, one would conclude that each party, in a trade, expects to be better off with that trade, otherwise they wouldn't trade. And since we're dealing with subjective criteria here (benefits are subjective), one is lead to believe that this statement is always correct.

But what if one is forced to trade? Then this axiom falls apart quicker than a house of cards in hurricane Katrina.

If I am forced to trade (indirect force through coercive elements of a certain system or direct force aka gun aimed at your head) then I stop having any preferences because I was not expecting to benefit before the trade occured since I wasn't even expecting the trade to happen!

ie (for libertarians): taxation. What benefits do you gain from this trade?
ie (for everyone else): a thief who demands your money or your life. What benefits do you gain from this trade?

Anyone else have anything to add here?

You're introducing a factor into an axiom that isn't there. Implied in trade is "voluntary", no outside body is forcing you. Obviously when you introduce force into the equation you (the person acting in this "trade) are no longer acting in a way you would act without force. But the axiom still holds true: you benefit more from having your life than you benefit from having the money that is on your person. Obviously this conduct is illegal, but the axiom still holds true. For taxation, if you don't count the obvious benefits of roads, schools, etc etc you at least benefit in as much as you don't go to jail.

LeftSideDown

7th April 2010, 20:48

Nothing Mises said was relevant and the small sect of white racist working class wannabe capitalists who worship at the feet of their masters are also irrelevant.

Really? Is this what you degenerate to? Childish name calling?

Skooma Addict

7th April 2010, 20:51

Better to say "Humans prefer satisfaction sooner rather than later".

That is a good way to put it.

IcarusAngel

7th April 2010, 21:06

How does Russell's paradox refute the idea that a = a?

It was the first step in showing that arithmetic cannot be reduced to a set of axioms without leading to a contradictions. That is why mathematicians restrict their axioms and provide a valid use for each axiom in today's mathematics.

I removed it as the wording is confusing but nonetheless if all of mathematics was A = A and Not A = Not A, as is claimed on Mises forums, then there would indeed be a set that could be constructed that are not true statements about x. So the idea that mathematics is the same as A = A has been known to not be true for at least 100 years, if not longer.

Havet

7th April 2010, 21:11

Better to say "Humans prefer more satisfaction to less.

Depends. If you just went through a marathon of sex, would you still want to make sex, even though it would bring you more satisfaction, or would you rather take a break? :D

Better to say "Humans prefer satisfaction sooner rather than later".

What if that good/service which brings satisfaction increases its satisfaction as time goes by? ie: the world war 2 helmet, which will bring more money to the owner (and consequently, satisfaction) the later it is sold? Obviously at some point a clash of interests will happen (ie, he will value the money now more than the prospect of future money later), but I think the analogy is still sound and disproves the axiom.

But the axiom still holds true: you benefit more from having your life than you benefit from having the money that is on your person. Obviously this conduct is illegal, but the axiom still holds true. For taxation, if you don't count the obvious benefits of roads, schools, etc etc you at least benefit in as much as you don't go to jail.

I don't think it still holds true, because we were talking ex ante. You don't expect to have any benefits before the forced trade occurs. You're just minding your own business. Then, a thief appears, you are confronted with the situation, and you can't reasonable expect his demands to bring you any benefit, only the loss of something, which can be either your money or your life.

IcarusAngel

7th April 2010, 21:14

Non sequitur.

How is that a non-sequitur? It's a fact that we can determine what goods people need to survive, at least with a certain degree of accuracy.

And yes, goods are always subjective.

No they are not. People need the good water. That is true whether or not you realize it.

Skooma Addict

7th April 2010, 21:20

How is that a non-sequitur? It's a fact that we can determine what goods people need to survive, at least with a certain degree of accuracy.

Ok, this...

Thus, protecting water should be of concern for human beings.

Does not follow from this...

Goods are not always subjective. We know for a fact that we will always need water.

From the fact that humans need water to survive, it does not follow that water is an "objective good" or that all humans should be concerned with it. After all, I may prefer to die, or I may prefer to have the human race go extinct. In such a case, I am not concerned with making sure I or anyone else gets water.

It only looks objective to you since so many people demand it. But the fact that we need a good to survive does not mean it is an "objective good." Some alien could view water as completely worthless.

No they are not. People need the good water. That is true whether or not you realize it.

Yes, they need it to survive. However, that does not make it an objective good whether or not you realize it.

LeftSideDown

7th April 2010, 21:30

Depends. If you just went through a marathon of sex, would you still want to make sex, even though it would bring you more satisfaction, or would you rather take a break? :D

If I just went through a marathon of sex, I wouldn't really be that much more satisfied by more sex. After I ejaculate I really do not feel a need to do it again, at least not in the short run. So if I would gain more satisfaction than I would by resting, I would continue, if not I would rest. You're ignoring DMR.

What if that good/service which brings satisfaction increases its satisfaction as time goes by? ie: the world war 2 helmet, which will bring more money to the owner (and consequently, satisfaction) the later it is sold? Obviously at some point a clash of interests will happen (ie, he will value the money now more than the prospect of future money later), but I think the analogy is still sound and disproves the axiom.

Things aren't staying equal. ITs really frustrating that I have to explain this to you. If the good or service gains more value with time (i.e. wine) then it comes down to an individual's time preference. But, ALL ELSE being equal, I would take a good now instead of a good later. Its not sound at all, and it disproves nothing.

I don't think it still holds true, because we were talking ex ante. You don't expect to have any benefits before the forced trade occurs. You're just minding your own business. Then, a thief appears, you are confronted with the situation, and you can't reasonable expect his demands to bring you any benefit, only the loss of something, which can be either your money or your life.

The circumstances change precisely before the trade takes place. You are benefiting the difference between the value you place on your life (should be pretty high) and the value you put on the wallet (comparatively almost negligible). Anyway, its still NOT a voluntary trade, the participants aren't willingly participating. You're really looking at this at face value and you're not even bothering to look up the definition of trade: Trade is the voluntary exchange of goods, services, or both.

Havet

7th April 2010, 21:50

If I just went through a marathon of sex, I wouldn't really be that much more satisfied by more sex. After I ejaculate I really do not feel a need to do it again, at least not in the short run. So if I would gain more satisfaction than I would by resting, I would continue, if not I would rest. You're ignoring DMR.

Yes, but do take notice of the following: we were talking of the satisfaction of sexual intercourse. You can't just change the paradigm of satisfaction of sexual intercourse to the satisfaction of resting all of the sudden.

Humans do not always prefer more satisfaction of sex to less satisfaction of sex precisely because there will be other activities (such as resting, like you pointed out) which we will be more physically attracted to do after certain activities.

What do you mean by DRM, by the way? Digital rights management??

Things aren't staying equal. ITs really frustrating that I have to explain this to you. If the good or service gains more value with time (i.e. wine) then it comes down to an individual's time preference. But, ALL ELSE being equal, I would take a good now instead of a good later. Its not sound at all, and it disproves nothing.

So if everything else is equal, would you take a googolplex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googolplex) of hamburgers now rather than just 2?

... Anyway, its still NOT a voluntary trade, the participants aren't willingly participating. You're really looking at this at face value and you're not even bothering to look up the definition of trade: Trade is the voluntary exchange of goods, services, or both.

Well, I wasn't aware that the definition of trade implied voluntary action. I thought that trade included voluntary actions as well as involuntary actions. If what you say is true, then I can't come up with any example to refute that particular axiom.

LeftSideDown

7th April 2010, 21:58

Yes, but do take notice of the following: we were talking of the satisfaction of sexual intercourse. You can't just change the paradigm of satisfaction of sexual intercourse to the satisfaction of resting all of the sudden.

Humans do not always prefer more satisfaction of sex to less satisfaction of sex precisely because there will be other activities (such as resting, like you pointed out) which we will be more physically attracted to do after certain activities.

Its really hard to stay calm. Yes we were talking of sex, but sex isn't the only thing that exists. There is such a thing as "opportunity cost"; by engaging in sexual activity you are excluding the possibility of doing some things. One of those things is resting. If the opportunity cost of resting (i.e. the satisfaction gained from resting) is greater than the benefit of having sex (i.e. the satisfaction from ejaculation), then you will prefer to rest, not have sex.

I agree humans do not always prefer more of one thing at the cost of another. If I wrote "DRM" I didn't mean it I meant "DMR" which is diminishing marginal returns. The more you do/consume something the less valuable the next marginal unit of that good/service is to you.

So if everything else is equal, would you take a googolplex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googolplex) of hamburgers now rather than just 2?

Diminishing marginal returns kicks in, and eventually the hamburgers start having negative value (it costs more to keep them/store them/you're sick of consuming them) so of course not. UNLESS I could sell them quickly and make a lot of money. Still, your definition of the axiom is false. I prefer more satisfaction to less, not necessarily more of one good than less.

Well, I wasn't aware that the definition of trade implied voluntary action. I thought that trade included voluntary actions as well as involuntary actions. If what you say is true, then I can't come up with any example to refute that particular axiom.

Well I'm glad I cleared that matter up for you.

Havet

7th April 2010, 22:13

I agree humans do not always prefer more of one thing at the cost of another. If I wrote "DRM" I didn't mean it I meant "DMR" which is diminishing marginal returns. The more you do/consume something the less valuable the next marginal unit of that good/service is to you.

Interesting. Do you have some sort of article I could read about DMR?

Diminishing marginal returns kicks in, and eventually the hamburgers start having negative value (it costs more to keep them/store them/you're sick of consuming them) so of course not. UNLESS I could sell them quickly and make a lot of money. Still, your definition of the axiom is false. I prefer more satisfaction to less, not necessarily more of one good than less.

So in reality the axiom should read:

"Humans prefer satisfaction sooner rather than later, until DMR kicks in and that satisfaction starts diminishing"

No?

LeftSideDown

7th April 2010, 22:24

Interesting. Do you have some sort of article I could read about DMR?

Sorry, DMR refers to only employment DMU (diminishing Marginal Utility) refers to the phenomena I was talking about.

I guess just read the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_marginal_utility#Marginal_utility

Its pretty self evident.

So in reality the axiom should read:

"Humans prefer satisfaction sooner rather than later, until DMR kicks in and that satisfaction starts diminishing"

No?

No, not quite. You don't have to include the DMU in the definition, it applies everywhere as well. You will do something as long as its gives you more satisfaction now and is the best option available to you at the time.

Publius

8th April 2010, 03:00

It was the first step in showing that arithmetic cannot be reduced to a set of axioms without leading to a contradictions.

Yeah, but Russell's paradox by itself doesn't show any such thing.

It just shows that naive set theory is non-well-founded.

That is why mathematicians restrict their axioms and provide a valid use for each axiom in today's mathematics.

I assume you mean ZFC set theory?

I removed it as the wording is confusing

I understood what you were getting at, but you're right to fix it.

Neither Russell's paradox nor even Goedel's proof showed that "a = a" is false.

They did show that math was not MERELY a = a.

but nonetheless if all of mathematics was A = A and Not A = Not A, as is claimed on Mises forums, then there would indeed be a set that could be constructed that are not true statements about x. So the idea that mathematics is the same as A = A has been known to not be true for at least 100 years, if not longer.

That's true.

Left-Reasoning

8th April 2010, 03:05

Interesting. Do you have some sort of article I could read about DMR?

http://mises.org/daily/3100 (http://mises.org/daily/3100)

So in reality the axiom should read:

"Humans prefer satisfaction sooner rather than later, until DMR kicks in and that satisfaction starts diminishing"

No?

False. Man, ceteris paribus, always prefers the same amount of satisfaction sooner rather than later. Otherwise man would be stuck in a paradox.

Left-Reasoning

8th April 2010, 03:07

Which is to say that it's meaningless.

As Wittgenstein said, knowing that it will rain or it will not rain tommorow tells you nothing about the weather.

Similarly, knowing that a person wants what a person wants tells you nothing about people.

Indeed.

mikelepore

8th April 2010, 03:47

Axiom 4: each party to a trade benefits ex ante

Of course overpriced food is better than no food at all, overpriced shoes are better than no shoes at all, overpriced housing is better than no housing at all. That fact is of no help at all in evaluating capitalism versus socialism. The concept of socialism is similar to the proposal to refrain from adding profit increments to consumer prices, for industry to set prices of product's to be equal to those product's unit costs of production, so that no product would ever be overpriced in the first place. For Mises to gloat that trade is great because whatever you get is better than getting nothing at all, well -- I think only a college professor could be that stupid.

LeftSideDown

8th April 2010, 04:47

Of course overpriced food is better than no food at all, overpriced shoes are better than no shoes at all, overpriced housing is better than no housing at all. That fact is of no help at all in evaluating capitalism versus socialism. The concept of socialism is similar to the proposal to refrain from adding profit increments to consumer prices, for industry to set prices of product's to be equal to those product's unit costs of production, so that no product would ever be overpriced in the first place. For Mises to gloat that trade is great because whatever you get is better than getting nothing at all, well -- I think only a college professor could be that stupid.

It is difficult to see how people can decide that Socialism is in any way better than Capitalism unless they can maintain that it functions better as a social system. With the same justification it might be said that a machine constructed on the basis of perpetual motion would be better than one worked according to the given laws of mechanics—if only it could be made to function reliably. If the concept of Socialism contains an error which prevents that system from doing what it is supposed to do, then Socialism cannot be compared with the Capitalist system, for this has proved itself workable. Neither can it be called nobler, more beautiful or more just.

God, I love reading this argument. What decides prices?

IcarusAngel

8th April 2010, 16:40

Yeah, but Russell's paradox by itself doesn't show any such thing.

It just shows that naive set theory is non-well-founded.

Frege was attempted to build a foundation for mathematics, starting from arithmetic and working from the ground up. Russell's paradox destroyed this attempt. So it destroyed Frege's attempt at reducing mathematics to a series of axioms, and Frege had to admit his reasoning was worthless.

It was Godel's incompleteness theorem that showed that no set of axioms, whatever they be, can be used to justify or explain all of mathematics.

I assume you mean ZFC set theory?

Yes. However, set theory is often blown out of proportion in the public's imagination. You can proceed in mathematics regardless of what you view as the "foundation" of mathematics. What is Wiles' opinion of Godel's theorem or ZFC, for example? Who knows.

Neither Russell's paradox nor even Goedel's proof showed that "a = a" is false.

I said it helps disprove that everything in mathematics is A = A, and yes, we know that this is not true.

They did show that math was not MERELY a = a.

Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that any axiomatic set for arithmetic will lead to a contradiction. It isn't possible then to reduce mathematics to a set of axioms. This has an influence in other fields, such as computer science, because you cannot write a program that will solve any problem, and all problems no matter what they be cannot be reduced to a series of algorithms.

So it shows that mathematics cannot be reduced to a set of axioms. Russell's work would have shown that math is not merely A = A and he never made any such a claim to the best of my knowledge, he merely tried to avoid contradictions in mathematics.

Had he not been led astray by false logic, he could have developed his theory of types more fully and simplified them, so that mathematics would have proceeded much quicker.

IcarusAngel

8th April 2010, 16:41

(http://mises.org/daily/3100)False. Man, ceteris paribus, always prefers the same amount of satisfaction sooner rather than later. Otherwise man would be stuck in a paradox.

This is false. Humans make complicated calculations all the time that delay their satisfaction to a period later rather than sooner. This type of thinking has all been discredited anyway, since there are no simple set of axioms or reasoning processes that govern all of our decisions. People's emotions play a role in decision making, and people's decisions are all different.

So there isn't a single misean axiom that is true, including this one.

IcarusAngel

8th April 2010, 16:43

Yes, they need it to survive. However, that does not make it an objective good whether or not you realize it.

As usual Olaf is wrong. For a society to exist you need a certain amount of parameters, and these can be objectively determined. Thus they are valuable to the human species, such as oxygen. We as humans must rationally recognize this, and work to ensure that all humans have an access to water, air, and so on.

So we can rationally make decisions on what people are going to need, and we can rationally determine what modes of production are most effective, and so on and so forth. Of course the earth is not static, so we need democratic decision making to continue to ensure that we are utilizing resources effectively.

LeftSideDown

8th April 2010, 16:44

This is false. Humans make complicated calculations all the time that delay their satisfaction to a period later rather than sooner. This type of thinking has all been discredited anyway, since there are no simple set of axioms or reasoning processes that govern all of our decisions. People's emotions play a role in decision making, and people's decisions are all different.

So there isn't a single misean axiom that is true, including this one.

The only reason you would delay satisfaction is if satisfaction would be greater for the cost than it is at the moment. These axioms are all true; saying that there is complicated calculation is an understatement. But it is not false to say that someone who needs a car and has 20,000 dollars and who sees a car that costs 18000 dollars will wait until tomorrow to buy that car if he knows as a fact it will remain the same price. If you can never get a better value for your dollar, or at least not in a reasonable amount of time, it does not do you any good at all to wait, and may harm you as what you may want may raise in price or be bought by others.

You have 20,000 dollars, you are not getting any more. There is a car for 18,000 dollars whose price will not change for a year. You need a car as soon as possible. Will you wait (assuming this is the only car available in town)?

IcarusAngel

8th April 2010, 16:58

But it is not false to say that someone who needs a car and has 20,000 dollars and who sees a car that costs 18000 dollars will wait until tomorrow to buy that car if he knows as a fact it will remain the same price.

It is false. I might need a car. I go in and the salesman shows me the car for $18,000, but I decide to wait a day to see if I really want the car. In fact, it's a good idea after being talked into a car to go home and wait it over, and this is a general rule for most people.

You might then figure our a scenario where you don't need the car.

In fact, it is stupid to buy a car the first day you go car shopping, this is why people generally "hold" items, to think it over. These are the smart people.

If you can never get a better value for your dollar, or at least not in a reasonable amount of time, it does not do you any good at all to wait, and may harm you as what you may want may raise in price or be bought by others.

As said above this assumes the world is a static place. I could go home and learn that they're building a mass transit system, and I could take that to work every day. Then I would have a ride to work, plus $20,000 to spend on whatever I wanted.

Furthermore, the depend on the car might suddenly fall, causing the price of the car to fall. Or I could determine that I could wait until the car is "last year's model" and purchase the car then.

"Good things come to those who wait." is a truism and the real axiom; satisfying your urgent demands and wants is generally a stupid tactic.

You have 20,000 dollars, you are not getting any more. There is a car for 18,000 dollars whose price will not change for a year. You need a car as soon as possible. Will you wait (assuming this is the only car available in town)?

It depends on the circumstances but there would be a very good chance that I would wait to buy the car. If I don't wait, I could suffer from buyer's remorse for not rationalizing my decision more.

LeftSideDown

8th April 2010, 17:09

It is false. I might need a car. I go in and the salesman shows me the car for $18,000, but I decide to wait a day to see if I really want the car. In fact, it's a good idea after being talked into a car to go home and wait it over, and this is a general rule for most people.

All you are saying is the benefits of waiting outweigh those of acting sooner, thus it is better for your satisfaction to wait. All things are not being equal; there are benefits accrued from waiting.

You might then figure our a scenario where you don't need the car.

There are benefits accrued from waiting, not all things are being equal.

In fact, it is stupid to buy a car the first day you go car shopping, this is why people generally "hold" items, to think it over. These are the smart people.

There are benefits accrued from waiting, not all things are being equal.

As said above this assumes the world is a static place. I could go home and learn that they're building a mass transit system, and I could take that to work every day. Then I would have a ride to work, plus $20,000 to spend on whatever I wanted.

There are benefits accrued from waiting, not all things are being equal.

Furthermore, the depend on the car might suddenly fall, causing the price of the car to fall. Or I could determine that I could wait until the car is "last year's model" and purchase the car then.

There are benefits from waiting, not all things are being equal.

"Good things come to those who wait." is a truism and the real axiom; satisfying your urgent demands and wants is generally a stupid tactic.

I'm going to sit outside on the curb and just wait and I hope a television, house, car, family, etc etc to drop on my head. Good things come to those who wait smartly is a better "truism".

It depends on the circumstances but there would be a very good chance that I would wait to buy the car. If I don't wait, I could suffer from buyer's remorse for not rationalizing my decision more.

There are benefits from waiting, not all things are being equal. Every single attack you made didn't attack the axiom. The axiom, in and of itself, is pretty unrealistic as there are always benefits from waiting, and things are never held equal. However, you can for the most part predict the benefits of waiting and predict the benefits of doing something now. Your "mass transit" system wouldn't just pop up over night, and you NEED a car. You need to go to work, and you cannot walk or wait for the mass transit system. I tried to make an illustration that would show, all things being equal, you would seek satisfaction sooner rather than later. All you did was show the inadequacy of my illustration, not the inadequacy of the axiom. All of your "refutations" were just introductions of a new element that wasn't within the illustration, and introduced "inequalities" that make decision making more complicated and defer satisfaction to those with a lower time-preference. Let me try again to illustrate the axiom:

If the benefits of buying a car now are more than any cost you can conceivably come up with and greater by the highest margin now than they will be at any time in the future, it follows logic that you will buy that car now, and not later. Right?

Left-Reasoning

8th April 2010, 17:45

This is false. Humans make complicated calculations all the time that delay their satisfaction to a period later rather than sooner.

Indeed they do. But the axiom stands.

This type of thinking has all been discredited anyway, since there are no simple set of axioms or reasoning processes that govern all of our decisions. People's emotions play a role in decision making, and people's decisions are all different.

You are critiquing a straw man.

mikelepore

8th April 2010, 20:43

God, I love reading this argument. What decides prices?

Are you asking how what method businesses use to determine what price tag to place on the merchandise?

They begin by calculating the unit cost of production, which is always the base line for the wholesale price, and then they have to choose one of several methods to determine how much they can get away with adding to the cost of production to extract a profit.

One of the popular methods is to estimate what graph probably shows a decreasing number of sales with increasing prices, and another graph to show the profit per unit increasing with increasing profits, and then choose the point of intersection of the two graphs.

Sometimes competition among various sellers causes all of them to raise prices arbitrarily but simultaneously and unanimously, particularly in cases where you know that buyers will buy the product regardless of the price, such as automobiles, heating oil, medical goods and services, apartment rental, home repair services, etc. As soon as you learn that your competitors have raised their prices x percent, and they have managed to keep their customers anyway, that's the signal for you to raise your prices by a similar amount.

In the long run, there has to be what investors call market efficiency, which means no "free lunches" for investing in some sectors that the investors in other sectors wouldn't also receive. To have such asymmetries in investor opportunity would cause too much capital to migrate toward the more profitable sector, until its special profitability has been diluted back to the typical level. For example, if a high sale price of a gizmo was out of proportion to the cost of production of a gizmo, compared to other sectors, this would cause too many manufacturers to begin selling gizmos, and the increased supply would lower the price. Because of this, the exchange values of various commodities tend to be, as Marx explained, approximately proportional to the socially necessary labor time that is materialized in their production.

IcarusAngel

8th April 2010, 21:09

Indeed they do. But the axiom stands.

You don't even know what an axiom is. An axiom has to hold for all cases concerning it. If it's proven to be false once, then the axiom is false and doesn't exist.

And even if it did exist, it would be an observation of human nature, not an axiom. Although the observation is false.

It's obvious you have no training in logic/mathematics.

You should either start presenting arguments with evidence and reasoning, or be warned/banned.

Cal Engime

8th April 2010, 21:26

IcarusAngel

8th April 2010, 21:30

Left-Reasoning

8th April 2010, 21:50

You don't even know what an axiom is. An axiom has to hold for all cases concerning it. If it's proven to be false once, then the axiom is false and doesn't exist.

Correct.

And even if it did exist, it would be an observation of human nature, not an axiom. Although the observation is false.

The axiom is true by logical necessity. It is not merely an observed fact of reality.

IcarusAngel

8th April 2010, 21:56

http://axiomaticeconomics.com/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://axiomaticeconomics.com/)

Here's another "axiomatic method" to economics that's at least based on some mathematics.

You should study this axiomatic method - I can tell it's more realistic than Mises' method.

Havet

8th April 2010, 21:58

IcarusAngel

8th April 2010, 22:11

Some nice "hate speech" from our new Misean:

Men dominate scientific research for the same reason that they dominate prisons: wider variation in natural ability. 71% of the 99th percentile is male. Men and women also exhibit behavioural differences that influence the fields they choose to go into despite equal ability, with men preferring mathematics, engineering, and physical science while women go into fields like psychology and biology.

I'm inclined to think that racial differences in education level would be due to the different value placed on education in different cultures; Asian parents, for example, are notorious taskmasters. I've known friends to be thrown out on the street by their immigrant parents for getting Cs, even Bs. Ultimately, I think how far you go will be determined by how involved your parents are in your education.

Anyone who thinks I'm a sexist can go to hell. Politics have no place in science.

And after some thought, the only prominent gay scientist I can think of is Alan Turing, the father of computer science, who committed suicide in 1954 after being convicted of gross indecency.

The hate speech is absolutely dripping from his mouth.

First, his "gross indecency" was merely the "crime" of being gay and of loving another man. There was nothing wrong with Alan Turing. He persecuted for being gay under British anti-homosexual laws. Given the choice between prison and chemical castration, he chose chemical castration, which led him to be injected with female hormones. What effect do you think all this would have on a person? That is why he committed suicide - he was PERSECUTED for doing something that shouldn't have even been a crime.

Chomsky, another one who has contributed to computer science, has written about the crimes committed against Turing by the British.

"And who can imagine that the British government would have murdered the very distinguished mathematician and computer scientist Alan Turing by forcing him to undergo hormone therapy for his "disease," leading to suicide. The year was 1953, which has a certain significance in US/UK-Iran relations. "

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200711--.htm

That he leaves this out and claims Turing was convicted of "gross indecency" is indecent in and of itself.

(Notice the hatred Miseans have for mathematicians, homosexuals, logicians [Russell and Godel are two other frequent targets], "liberals," socialists, etc. etc. It rivals only Nazism in contempt for other individuals who differ from them.)

Skooma Addict

8th April 2010, 22:11

Skooma Addict

8th April 2010, 22:18

As usual Olaf is wrong. For a society to exist you need a certain amount of parameters, and these can be objectively determined. Thus they are valuable to the human species, such as oxygen. We as humans must rationally recognize this, and work to ensure that all humans have an access to water, air, and so on.

So we can rationally make decisions on what people are going to need, and we can rationally determine what modes of production are most effective, and so on and so forth. Of course the earth is not static, so we need democratic decision making to continue to ensure that we are utilizing resources effectively.

Why didn't you quote everything I said? And no, you are wrong. Are you too dull too see the mistake you are making here?

Your argument is "we need X to survive, and X is therefore an objective good." However, what if I don't want to survive? Then something like Oxygen is not a good for me. Even if we all wanted to survive, that still would not make the good "objective." That would just mean we all happen to subjectively value a certain good. Please learn about subjects before you speak. I am tired of walking you through this.

And no, mob rule does not ensure that we are using resources effectively.

Dimentio

8th April 2010, 22:18

Soon, we could change name of the OI to "mises.org embassy".

Nolan

8th April 2010, 22:20

mob rule

Warning!

Austrian buzz term detected!

IcarusAngel

8th April 2010, 22:31

My first reading of "Mises" was in a book on capitalism that had an argument by Mises in it. I thought it was an interesting, if misguided, critique of socialism. Only later did I realize there was a cult of "Misean economics" or what is called Austrian economics.

And of course many people have noticed the cult like behavior. It's generally outright rejected in modern economics and philosophy. Milton Friedman distanced himself from the method, and many at the Mises institute have said Hoppe et al. are cultists and clowns who use fallacies to prove their methods. They have since left the Mises institute, such as Palmer.

Unfortunately for capitalists, this is basically the last resort to defend capitalism, to establish a cult around it. I call them "capitalists' last line of defense," and it's a pretty weak defense. This may be good for the left and makes it easy for social scientists to knock them down, but it's sad how people can reject logic just to favor an obscure political ideology and pseudo-science.

anticap

8th April 2010, 22:45

Would anyone care to explain what axioms are actually "Mises axioms" and how are they relevant?

Certainly:

1. Humans act; therefore, capitalism is the ideal economic system. (This is similar to Ayn Rand's "A=A; therefore, capitalism is the ideal economic system.")

2. Socialism is not capitalism; therefore, socialism can't work. (This was dubbed "the economic calculation problem" to make it sound serious, so that people wouldn't laugh.)

These axioms are relevant because they are lies, and have caused the deaths of uncounted millions of innocents.

What decides prices?

According to you, subjective psychology does. And then when I ask what determines subjective psychology in that case, you say price does. And then I skip around you in circles, singing "Ring Around the Rosie" and giggling like a child.

http://axiomaticeconomics.com/

Here's another "axiomatic method" to economics that's at least based on some mathematics.

You should study this axiomatic method - I can tell it's more realistic than Mises' method.

The author also has a substantial critique of Misesian economics (http://axiomaticeconomics.com/critiques.php) (from his own perspective, of course, but still useful), which, when it was raised on the mises.org forums, was essentially dismissed for not listing its axioms simply and directly <cue laugh track>, with the author accused of suckpuppetry and summarily banned.

Skooma Addict

8th April 2010, 22:47

IcarusAngel

8th April 2010, 22:58

The author also has a substantial critique of Misesian economics (http://axiomaticeconomics.com/critiques.php) (from his own perspective, of course, but still useful), which, when it was raised on the mises.org forums, was essentially dismissed for not listing its axioms simply and directly <cue laugh track>...

LOl. That is pretty ridiculous. Especially when you have to spend hours fighting with Miseans to get them to state their axioms, and when they do it's things like "humans move around." As I said at least this other guy pretends to be serious.

Why couldn't you come up with a set of axioms for a robot? Robotics often have sensors that are even more sharp then sensors of humans. You can be specialized instruments that are much better than human eyes, for example.

Why wouldn't the Robot have axioms? Like "Robot, turn around." Or "Robot, spin 360 degrees."

In this case, we KNOW why the robot is acting, but no one is really even sure what makes a cockroach turn left.

The whole thing would really be hilarious if the "axioms" weren't used to justify capitalism.

...with the author accused of suckpuppetry and summarily banned.

This happens all the time there. They run the forum like a scientology forum. At least they know how to recognize dissenting opinion, and quickly ban it, so as not to interrupt their "discussion" of Mises.

Skooma Addict

8th April 2010, 23:06

Why couldn't you come up with a set of axioms for a robot? Robotics often have sensors that are even more sharp then sensors of humans.

Because that is not an axiom.

You can be specialized instruments that are much better than human eyes, for example.

Not an axiom.

IcarusAngel

8th April 2010, 23:18

LeftSideDown

8th April 2010, 23:21

Are you asking how what method businesses use to determine what price tag to place on the merchandise?

Thats only one part of it, but yes.

They begin by calculating the unit cost of production, which is always the base line for the wholesale price, and then they have to choose one of several methods to determine how much they can get away with adding to the cost of production to extract a profit.

What determines unit cost of production? What is the determining factor for deciding what the "cost" of a resource is?

One of the popular methods is to estimate what graph probably shows a decreasing number of sales with increasing prices, and another graph to show the profit per unit increasing with increasing profits, and then choose the point of intersection of the two graphs.

Yes yes, the price equilibrium and all of that. It ensures there are no shortages (no doubt this is a bad thing) and no surpluses (you'll admit a surplus of milk allowed to sit out and waste is bad, just like you'll agree that a surplus of labor (unemployment) is also bad). So, they try to make sure these bad things don't happen. The first phenomena you're talking about is price/supply elasticity. But keep in mind that manufacturers do not determine this (as you will see, the ultimately determine nothing), consumer's do.

Sometimes competition among various sellers causes all of them to raise prices arbitrarily but simultaneously and unanimously, particularly in cases where you know that buyers will buy the product regardless of the price, such as automobiles, heating oil, medical goods and services, apartment rental, home repair services, etc. As soon as you learn that your competitors have raised their prices x percent, and they have managed to keep their customers anyway, that's the signal for you to raise your prices by a similar amount.

Competition doesn't arbitrarily raise prices, if anything it consistently lowers them and for better quality. For examples of this see plastic surgery and computers (both of which have had a downward trend in prices, and, in computer's especially, an upward trend in quality). The phenomena of raising prices because you know that the demand curve is relatively inelastic and increasing profits this way can only happen in the short run. Try to do for a long period of time and imperfect substitutes (for automobiles think about public transportation) begin to become better and better options for your money, and not automobiles so those companies begin to lose money. Also, a high profit margin in a certain industry is an indicator to other prospective entrepreneurs to get into that industry and copy/improve on the methods of the producers that are already there. Anyway, your example of one car company raising prices ensuring that another can is completely facetious. One car company could have an innovation that costs more but consumer's demand thus allowing the company to raise prices to absorb costs. Or it could be that one company has just increased the quality and must increase the cost to compensate whilst the other company has changed nothing and consumers will just buy less because more price for same quality doesn't really fly.

In the long run, there has to be what investors call market efficiency, which means no "free lunches" for investing in some sectors that the investors in other sectors wouldn't also receive. To have such asymmetries in investor opportunity would cause too much capital to migrate toward the more profitable sector, until its special profitability has been diluted back to the typical level. For example, if a high sale price of a gizmo was out of proportion to the cost of production of a gizmo, compared to other sectors, this would cause too many manufacturers to begin selling gizmos, and the increased supply would lower the price. Because of this, the exchange values of various commodities tend to be, as Marx explained, approximately proportional to the socially necessary labor time that is materialized in their production.

I don't see how your (or Marx's) logic follows at all. The phenomena you are describing is equilibrium (more profitable sectors are invested in until the "normal" rate of profit is reached, if more enter than the "normal" profit allows some (the less efficient companies) go out of business and at the end only the ones more efficient at handling resources/their company in the creation of this gizmo stay about). So because of this "socially necessary labor time" determines value? Labor creates value on inasmuch as consumer's value you something; no matter how much you work on a piece of junk, no matter how long and how arduously, ultimately its value is only determined through voluntary trade of consumers. It is also consumer's willingness to buy/pay for something that determines the cost of its resources. For instance; if steel only created steel boxes and was only used for the creation of steel boxes the cost of steel could only raise as much as consumer's are willing to pay for steel boxes. Whether there was only 1ton or if there were 200 tons of steel on earth you cannot raise the price of steel if the only product made with steel is steel boxes and consumers are only willing to spend 10 dollars per box. Of course, if its more scarce consumers will probably value whatever is made with that resource more just because diminishing marginal utility kicks in and things that are more rare are valued more just because they are more rare and cannot be utilized as much so that they lose value (as things like water/bread do even though they are staples of life). However, the cost of a resource is determined by the most profitable per unit use of that resource to consumer's.

LeftSideDown

8th April 2010, 23:26

According to you, subjective psychology does. And then when I ask what determines subjective psychology in that case, you say price does. And then I skip around you in circles, singing "Ring Around the Rosie" and giggling like a child.

What determines individual valuations? And you say that I say prices? Thats silly circular reasoning (although I suppose thats why you set up that straw man). Individual circumstances, natures, and tastes determine their valuations for something. So, according to your misapplied reasoning to me, the only reason a person with a nut allergy avoids eating nuts because of prices? Thats so silly.

LeftSideDown

8th April 2010, 23:33

Warning!

Austrian buzz term detected!

Yeah, cuz Austrians invented this concept completely out of their imagination and no one before them had ever thought about/feared this. I mean, Plato's Republic didn't talk about mob rule and oppose it, right? Austrians invented it.

LeftSideDown

8th April 2010, 23:44

My first reading of "Marx" was in a book on socialism that had an argument by Marx in it. I thought it was an interesting, if misguided, critique of capitalism. Only later did I realize there was a cult of "Marxian economics" or what is called Socialist/Communist economics.

And of course many people have noticed the cult like behavior. It's generally outright rejected in modern economics and philosophy. Leszek Kołakowski distanced himself from the method, and many communists have said Trotsky et al. are cultists and clowns who use fallacies to prove their methods. They have since left the Communist party, such as Gorbachev.

Unfortunately for communists, this is basically the last resort to defend communism, to establish a cult around it. I call them "communsts' last line of defense," and it's a pretty weak defense. This may be good for the left and makes it easy for social scientists to knock them down, but it's sad how people can reject logic just to favor an obscure political ideology and pseudo-science.

LeftSideDown

8th April 2010, 23:56

Why can't you just show the axioms and their uses here? Why do we always have to sign up for Mises forums in order to understand the logic? Notice the cult like behavior here "come on over here so we can re-educate you before we show you the axioms."

And no where in human action does he develop an axiomatic system.

1) Humans act. (Pretty self evident, if you try and argue against it you're proving it by acting).
2) Humans prefer more satisfaction to less (you can try and argue that people live lives that are aesthetic, but they obviously get more satisfaction from this than they would living a material life: satisfaction doesn't have to be measured in number of goods, and indeed you cannot measure someone else's degree of satisfaction)
3) All else being equal, human prefer satisfaction sooner rather than later. (I don't know how to explain this other then the way I have. Of course different humans have different time preferences, but this does not disprove the axiom, because even people with extremely low time preference (those who don't really care how soon they get something, generally they "save" a lot) will prefer something now if no benefits can be accrued by saving it for later.
4) Each party in a trade benefits ex ante. (No one has really tried to disprove this one, and I honestly can't think of a way it can be disproven. Even Hayenmills attempts involved force or the threat of force (which do not exist in trade as in the definition trade includes that it is voluntary).)

Is that satisfactory?

LeftSideDown

9th April 2010, 00:03

LOl. That is pretty ridiculous. Especially when you have to spend hours fighting with Miseans to get them to state their axioms, and when they do it's things like "humans move around." As I said at least this other guy pretends to be serious.

Why couldn't you come up with a set of axioms for a robot? Robotics often have sensors that are even more sharp then sensors of humans. You can be specialized instruments that are much better than human eyes, for example.

Why wouldn't the Robot have axioms? Like "Robot, turn around." Or "Robot, spin 360 degrees."

In this case, we KNOW why the robot is acting, but no one is really even sure what makes a cockroach turn left.

The whole thing would really be hilarious if the "axioms" weren't used to justify capitalism.

You can program a robot, not make an axiom for it. Humans have free will, and what makes axioms useful that, in spite of free will, all humans have these things in common.

This happens all the time there. They run the forum like a scientology forum. At least they know how to recognize dissenting opinion, and quickly ban it, so as not to interrupt their "discussion" of Mises.

LOL? How is this forum run? Everyone who disagrees is immediately restricted, and sometimes outright banned. I've read threads that go on for PAGES with someone who is a communist/socialist/keynesian. So, please, if the only thing you have to add is ad hominems you can just save yourself the trouble and not.

LeftSideDown

9th April 2010, 00:05

It's true, therefore it is an axiom. The axiom is that logically it is possible to create robotic instruments that are better than the human eye. That robots can move around is the "Robot action axiom."

Ergo, socialism.

(I think I'm starting to get the hang of this. :laugh:)

I'll definite for you: "A self-evident and necessary truth; a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted; a proposition whose truth is so evident that no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer; A fundamental theorem that serves as a basis for deduction of other theorems"

Your axiom isn't self evident. It certainly is a possibility that we could do that, but it isn't self evident that it must be better than a human eye or that it would even be possible.

I guarantee you I could make a robot that doesn't act. Robots need to be programmed and do not have free will. If they had free will we could make axioms for them too.

IcarusAngel

9th April 2010, 00:22

You can program a robot, not make an axiom for it. Humans have free will, and what makes axioms useful that, in spite of free will, all humans have these things in common.

Bullshit. Robots have things in common as well, such as moving parts. And the axiom is that the robot will act when properly programmed, which is true, and is also based on other axioms.

This is always true, and we know what makes the robot act. The robot axiom is therefore far more valid.

And no, free-will is something that is debated. There is no conclusion as to whether or not humans have free will.

1) Humans act. (Pretty self evident, if you try and argue against it you're proving it by acting).

Many things act, such as robots. And just because we observe something, doesn't mean that it is an axiom. Bugs etc. also "act."

2) Humans prefer more satisfaction to less...

This isn't true at all, since we do not know what is causing humans to act, but we do know why robots act.

3) All else being equal, human prefer satisfaction sooner rather than later...

Again, this has not been shown to be true by you and I've pointed out the flaws with it.

4) Each party in a trade benefits ex ante.

Again, this is an observation, not an axiom, and it is also not true. You might trade because your in a very unfair situation, in which you are essentially forced to trade, such as in capitalism when you're forced to sell labor for money,.

Is that satisfactory?

Of course not.

You provide no evidence for any of your beliefs, psychological or otherwise.

Left-Reasoning

9th April 2010, 00:24

Publius

9th April 2010, 00:27

1) Humans act. (Pretty self evident, if you try and argue against it you're proving it by acting).

Sometimes humans act. Other times humans don't act.

Saying "humans act" is no different than saying "humans play guitar".

So what does this really mean?

"Humans always act" is just false.

"Humans sometimes act" is true, but totally useless since "humans sometimes don't act" is also true.

The problem with this "axioms" isn't that they're false, per se, but that they're vacuous or tautologous.

2) Humans prefer more satisfaction to less (you can try and argue that people live lives that are aesthetic, but they obviously get more satisfaction from this than they would living a material life: satisfaction doesn't have to be measured in number of goods, and indeed you cannot measure someone else's degree of satisfaction)

Humans prefer what humans prefer.

Sure. I guess.

3) All else being equal, human prefer satisfaction sooner rather than later.

This just seems false.

(I don't know how to explain this other then the way I have. Of course different humans have different time preferences, but this does not disprove the axiom, because even people with extremely low time preference (those who don't really care how soon they get something, generally they "save" a lot) will prefer something now if no benefits can be accrued by saving it for later.

Can you prove this?

You seem to just be begging the question here by SAYING, ceteris paribus, people prefer things now rather than later.

Why?

Because, of course, people prefer things, all else equal, now rather than later!

I just don't think this is true. You certainly haven't proven it, and it isn't obviously true in the way axioms generally are supposed to be.

Furthermore, don't you think it's problematic for your axioms to contain ceteris paribus clauses?

4) Each party in a trade benefits ex ante. (No one has really tried to disprove this one, and I honestly can't think of a way it can be disproven. Even Hayenmills attempts involved force or the threat of force (which do not exist in trade as in the definition trade includes that it is voluntary).)

What, exactly, does this mean?

IcarusAngel

9th April 2010, 00:28

I'll definite for you: "A self-evident and necessary truth; a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted; a proposition whose truth is so evident that no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer; A fundamental theorem that serves as a basis for deduction of other theorems"

Your axiom isn't self evident. It certainly is a possibility that we could do that, but it isn't self evident that it must be better than a human eye or that it would even be possible.

Why isn't it self-evident that, when programmed, the robot will act?

I guarantee you I could make a robot that doesn't act. Robots need to be programmed and do not have free will. If they had free will we could make axioms for them too.

So for an axiom to exist there has to be free will? You are making things up as you go along.

And I can give you a human that doesn't act: a human who is legally brain dead does not act, and crazy people do not make choices based on what will provide them with the most satisfaction.

Furthermore, your robot could be modified to act, therefore all robots act, and the axioms stands, whereas the human who is braindead cannot be so revitalized.

And humans are programmed, only nature is our ultimate programmer. For example, if I had complete free-will, i would program myself to be able to fly. I cannot do this, thus I do not have complete power over myself, or over the universe, or my choices.

In contrast, the robot can reprogram himself given certain situations.

IcarusAngel

9th April 2010, 00:32

I don't see how the conclusion directly follows from the assumptions but it is correct.

YES! Now we are getting somewhere. We admit that the robot action axiom is valid, and the conclusion is valid.

It doesn't matter if the reasoning process is valid (which I admit that it is based on flawed premises, but it's perfectly possible for flawed premises to have a *true* conclusion).

I will develop the robot action axiom in more detail later.

Left-Reasoning

9th April 2010, 00:33

Sometimes humans act. Other times humans don't act.

Saying "humans act" is no different than saying "humans play guitar".

So what does this really mean?

"Humans always act" is just false.

"Humans sometimes act" is true, but totally useless since "humans sometimes don't act" is also true.

Man acts means that man can and does behave purposefully. That is that his actions can be understood in terms of goals and utility.

This just seems false.

Man must by logical necessity prefer satisfaction sooner rather than later, ceteris paribus. For it to be otherwise is for there to be a paradox.

IcarusAngel

9th April 2010, 00:36

IcarusAngel

9th April 2010, 00:37

Man must by logical necessity prefer satisfaction sooner rather than later, ceteris paribus. For it to be otherwise is for there to be a paradox.

What paradox is that?

Publius

9th April 2010, 00:41

Man acts means that man can and does behave purposefully. That is that his actions can be understood in terms of goals and utility.

All the time? All of them?

It's IMPOSSIBLE for man to be irrational or illogical?

You need to clarify this. Sometimes man (not every human is a man, by the way) behaves purposefully. Sometimes he doesn't.

Man must by logical necessity prefer satisfaction sooner rather than later, ceteris paribus. For it to be otherwise is for there to be a paradox.

What would the paradox be?

Quoting something you said earlier:
[QUOTE=LeftSideDown;1715314]The only reason you would delay satisfaction is if satisfaction would be greater for the cost than it is at the moment. These axioms are all true; saying that there is complicated calculation is an understatement. But it is not false to say that someone who needs a car and has 20,000 dollars and who sees a car that costs 18000 dollars will wait until tomorrow to buy that car if he knows as a fact it will remain the same price. If you can never get a better value for your dollar, or at least not in a reasonable amount of time, it does not do you any good at all to wait, and may harm you as what you may want may raise in price or be bought by others.

You have 20,000 dollars, you are not getting any more. There is a car for 18,000 dollars whose price will not change for a year. You need a car as soon as possible. Will you wait (assuming this is the only car available in town)?

Maybe.

I have free will (that's what you said) so I certainly COULD wait.

Right?

The universe isn't going to fall apart if I don't buy it today, even though that's the rational thing to do.

Do you think, in the entire span of human economic behavior, no person has ever acted in the manner you ridicule here? Has ever done the equivalent of what you list here?

That's quite a strong claim.

I don't see any reason to believe that.

Skooma Addict

9th April 2010, 00:41

YES! Now we are getting somewhere. We admit that the robot action axiom is valid, and the conclusion is valid.

It doesn't matter if the reasoning process is valid (which I admit that it is based on flawed premises, but it's perfectly possible for flawed premises to have a *true* conclusion).

I will develop the robot action axiom in more detail later.

I am starting to believe that you don't know what an axiom is. You may be able to give me a definition. But you don't actually know what an axiom is.

Publius

9th April 2010, 00:42

LeftSideDown is claiming that since humans have "free-will," our actions are ultimately based upon "free decisions," which validates the "action axiom." Of course, this doesn't prove that the action axiom is valid, and some people have problems with free-will:

_VxQuPBX1_U

If humans have free will then they're behavior can't be modeled by an axiomatic systems at all.

Axiomatic systems are deterministic in nature.

There's a contradiction right there.

IcarusAngel

9th April 2010, 00:46

I am starting to believe that you don't know what an axiom is. You may be able to give me a definition. But you don't actually know what an axiom is.

Lol. This is hilarious coming from you. I've already shown how the robotic axiom contains more truth to it than the "human action axiom." There isn't a single thing I've said about robots that isn't true, and the axiom could get us to all of them... So how is it less valid?

Your axiom is a platitude. My axiom may be as well, but at least it's logically consistent.

Axiomatic systems are deterministic in nature.

There's a contradiction right there.

Yes. That's another good point.

Skooma Addict

9th April 2010, 00:49

Lol. This is hilarious coming from you. I've already shown how the robotic axiom contains more truth to it than the "human action axiom." There isn't a single thing I've said about robots that isn't true, and the axiom could get us to all of them... So how is it less valid?

Your axiom is a platitude. My axiom may be as well, but at least it's logically consistent.

The only two supposed axioms that I saw you come up with were not axioms.

"Robotics often have sensors that are even more sharp then sensors of humans."

"You can be specialized instruments that are much better than human eyes, for example."

IcarusAngel

9th April 2010, 00:52

You're ignoring the robotic action axiom. And the second one should read that specialized instruments are often better at responding to stimuli than human constructed ones.

But our Misean friends are just making things up as they go along, "no no, you can't deny that axiom, it creates a paradox...." :laugh:

It's almost as if they've never had to deal with sets in their life.

Skooma Addict

9th April 2010, 00:55

You're ignoring the robotic action axiom. And the second one should read that specialized instruments are often better at responding to stimuli than human constructed ones. The robotic man axiom? What is that?

You are coming off as completely insane right now. The second one is still not an axiom.

But our Misean friends are just making things up as they go along, "no no, you can't deny that axiom, it creates a paradox...." :laugh:

Ok now I am really beginning to think that you don't know what an axiom is.

IcarusAngel

9th April 2010, 01:01

Axioms and postulates are unproven statements that are accepted as true. The reason that they exist is to prevent deductive systems from becoming circular.

For example, take a simple proof in geometry

A______L
\ /
\ /
i
/ \
/ \
C______E
Given that I is the midpoint of both AE and LC; AE = LC
Prove AI = LI

The axioms that are contained there is the axioms that two points make a line.

But how do we prove that, Olaf?

Left-Reasoning

9th April 2010, 01:03

All the time? All of them?

No, merely that he does sometimes. It is this purposeful behavior and the consequences of it that is studied in economics.

It's IMPOSSIBLE for man to be irrational or illogical?

Certainly not in the way you mean it.

A man who wishes for it to rain and so performs a rain dance is acting in the Misesian sense.

You need to clarify this. Sometimes man (not every human is a man, by the way) behaves purposefully. Sometimes he doesn't.

There are purposeful actions and there are reflexes which have no purposeful cause.

What would the paradox be?

It was summed up quite well somewhere but I have not yet found it. When I do, I shall post it. I do not wish to do the argument injustice.

Quoting something you said earlier

That wasn't me.

Skooma Addict

9th April 2010, 01:04

IcarusAngel

9th April 2010, 01:06

Publius

9th April 2010, 01:16

No, merely that he does sometimes. It is this purposeful behavior and the consequences of it that is studied in economics.

Yes, but you have be wary not to define yourself correct in the first instance.

"All we study are the things which conform to our theories!" isn't a good response, I think you'll agree.

Certainly not in the way you mean it.

A man who wishes for it to rain and so performs a rain dance is acting in the Misesian sense.

But can't people economic mistakes?

There's no such thing as economic irrationality?

There are purposeful actions and there are reflexes which have no purposeful cause.

And that's it?

Those are the only two classes of human behavior?

It was summed up quite well somewhere but I have not yet found it. When I do, I shall post it. I do not wish to do the argument injustice.

Is it in terms of expected utility?

If so, I have no need to see it.

If it isn't, go for it.

That wasn't me.

Oops.

You guys have very similar names and avatars and were both arguing for the same position.

Skooma Addict

9th April 2010, 01:18

lol. So you can't work with axioms even in 9th grade geometry.

You're breaking my balls here Olaf. I'm not sure I can go any lower than Geometry and still deal with axioms (arithmetic yes, but to start doing proofs requires even more uses of mathematics and knowledge of set theory).

* I'm definitely putting this on Youtube - the resident "logician" and "Axiomatic master" has trouble with jr. high mathematics.

Who says I can't do it? I am not obligated to respond to logical fallacies. See, you just realized your idiotic robot axioms make you look insanely stupid, so you are trying to change the subject. As for the proof...

IE=AI and IC=LI means that

2LI=LC and 2AI=AE

So 2AI=2LI

AI=LI

Edit: Lol @ the youtube threat. You are pathetic. What is your youtube account name?

IcarusAngel

9th April 2010, 01:26

Lol. You copied the proof from:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1295215&postcount=4

Notice how you didn't even state the reasons for each proof.

That was my thread by the way - don't take credit for other people's work Olaf.

LeftSideDown

9th April 2010, 01:29

That was my thread by the way - don't take credit for other people's work Olaf.

Some libertarians don't believe in intellectual property, so hes not taking anything :D.

Skooma Addict

9th April 2010, 01:30

l Lol. You copied the proof from:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...15&postcount=4 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1295215&postcount=4)

Notice how you didn't even state the reasons for each proof.

I didn't even know that website existed.

That was my thread by the way - don't take credit for other people's work Olaf.

You created the thread?

Left-Reasoning

9th April 2010, 01:30

Some libertarians don't believe in intellectual property, so hes not taking anything :D.

Take: To assume for oneself: take all the credit.[1]

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/take

Skooma Addict

9th April 2010, 01:30

Some libertarians don't believe in intellectual property, so hes not taking anything :D.

I believe in IP

But anyways, my fear has come true. Icarus has successfully derailed the topic.

Left-Reasoning

9th April 2010, 01:34

Yes, but you have be wary not to define yourself correct in the first instance.

"All we study are the things which conform to our theories!" isn't a good response, I think you'll agree.

Indeed.

But can't people economic mistakes?

There's no such thing as economic irrationality?

Yes and no. Give an example of what you mean.

And that's it?

Those are the only two classes of human behavior?

A certain behavior is either purposeful or it is not, yes.

Is it in terms of expected utility?

If so, I have no need to see it.

If it isn't, go for it.

Not really, no.

You guys have very similar names and avatars and were both arguing for the same position.

It's just about the only thing we appear to agree on. Well that and self-ownership.

IcarusAngel

9th April 2010, 01:42

I didn't even know that website existed.

Your statement isn't even a proof as you didn't give the reasons. The reason the statements were left out is because it is assumed that I already had the reasons given.

lol. Typical Misean passes off other people's work as his own.

I forgot I put that problem online for Olaf to copy LOL.

Skooma Addict

9th April 2010, 01:49

Your statement isn't even a proof as you didn't give the reasons. The reason the statements were left out is because it is assumed that I already had the reasons given.

lol. Typical Misean passes off other people's work as his own.

I forgot I put that problem online for Olaf to copy LOL.

Well I obviously couldn't have copied it since I didn't know the website existed. And you think that since it was discussed on some forum somewhere on the internet, that I must have then copied it?

This is so petty and pathetic. But just to be sure, you started that thread?

IcarusAngel

9th April 2010, 01:56

Olaf, that proof isn't even complete.

When you copy other people's work, make sure you also incorporate their corrections into the post above it Olaf.

Skooma Addict

9th April 2010, 01:58

Olaf, that proof isn't even complete.

When you copy other people's work, make sure you also incorporate their corrections into the post above it Olaf.

Ok, well you are obviously never going to believe that I didn't copy it so I am not going to waste my time arguing.

Now, answer this question....

Did you start that thread?

Congrats on completely derailing the topic by the way.

LeftSideDown

9th April 2010, 02:21

If humans have free will then they're behavior can't be modeled by an axiomatic systems at all.

Axiomatic systems are deterministic in nature.

There's a contradiction right there.

Humans are restricted by these axioms anymore than they are restricted by life.

Publius

9th April 2010, 06:18

Humans are restricted by these axioms anymore than they are restricted by life.

I presume you mean "are not"?

If that's what you meant, then they're not axioms of human behavior.

LeftSideDown

9th April 2010, 06:25

I presume you mean "are not"?

If that's what you meant, then they're not axioms of human behavior.

They're not restricted by facts of life, its just something that exists.

Publius

9th April 2010, 06:27

They're not restricted by facts of life, its just something that exists.

What?

Either human beings act in accordance with certain axioms, meaning they're not free, or they're free and are not determined by certain axioms.

It's a clear choice.

LeftSideDown

9th April 2010, 06:58

What?

Either human beings act in accordance with certain axioms, meaning they're not free, or they're free and are not determined by certain axioms.

It's a clear choice.

If by having to conform to the laws of this universe you are unfree, than yes by extension you are unfree because of these axioms. You are not free to fly, create mass, or exceed the speed of light. If you mean free in this sense, you are unfree.

Havet

9th April 2010, 10:10

Sometimes humans act. Other times humans don't act.

Saying "humans act" is no different than saying "humans play guitar".

So what does this really mean?

"Humans always act" is just false.

"Humans sometimes act" is true, but totally useless since "humans sometimes don't act" is also true.

The problem with this "axioms" isn't that they're false, per se, but that they're vacuous or tautologous.

But humans always act. The mere fact that you're trying to refute this axiom constitutes an action by your part.

Dimentio

9th April 2010, 10:17

But humans always act. The mere fact that you're trying to refute this axiom constitutes an action by your part.

Not always. A lot of the times they react. When you are eating, going to the toilet or sleeping, it is mainly because of reactions. Sometimes, you don't act as well, like when you are sitting in front of the TV, passively watching something without really paying attention.

Havet

9th April 2010, 10:32

Not always. A lot of the times they react. When you are eating, going to the toilet or sleeping, it is mainly because of reactions.

But a reaction implies, as its name says, an action, even if it was triggered by something else. If I am hungry (the cause), I act (the reaction/effect) and eat.

Sometimes, you don't act as well, like when you are sitting in front of the TV, passively watching something without really paying attention.

In that case you are acting because you are watching (with your eyes, by your will) the television. Action doesn't imply physical movement.

IcarusAngel

9th April 2010, 13:36

Notice how Libertarians always give the fallacious proof that by trying to argue against them, you're actually arguing for them.

"Humans act, and any attempt to refute this is an action, thus it is self-proving."

"Humans own themselves, and any attempt to refute this is claiming ownership over yourself."

Of course, they ignore simple logical knowledge that y could get us to z, not just x (self-ownership). I don't have to assume I own myself to make a comment against self-ownership.

And just because I may act to refute human action, doesn't mean I'm always acting.

Publius

9th April 2010, 16:07

If by having to conform to the laws of this universe you are unfree, than yes by extension you are unfree because of these axioms. You are not free to fly, create mass, or exceed the speed of light. If you mean free in this sense, you are unfree.

I mean unfree in the sense of not having libertarian free will.

Publius

9th April 2010, 16:07

But humans always act. The mere fact that you're trying to refute this axiom constitutes an action by your part.

That I acted in writing that post doesn't imply that I "always" act.

I don't always act.

You don't either.

vyborg

9th April 2010, 16:23

The profound axioms of Mises explain very well wvy austrian economics is more similar to a weird religious sect than to anything scientific.

"human" is maybe the most stupid term in the axiom as means nothing at all practically. neither this term can distinguish "human" from anything else.
you can say the same thing about animals, even vegetables...

LeftSideDown

9th April 2010, 20:37

That I acted in writing that post doesn't imply that I "always" act.

I don't always act.

You don't either.

Does the axiom say "always"? Just a thought.

IcarusAngel

9th April 2010, 20:52

You said the Robot axiom was false because robots can be programmed to not act. But any robot can do what another robot can do, theoretically. So you've contradicted yourself.

Havet

9th April 2010, 20:54

And just because I may act to refute human action, doesn't mean I'm always acting.

So when are you not acting?

By the way, the axiom doesn't say always.

IcarusAngel

9th April 2010, 21:00

When I'm sleeping or in a coma.

Saying humans act, sometimes, is like saying rocks fall, sometimes. Not an axiom, but a fact. What causes humans to act is a matter of psychology.

Dean

9th April 2010, 21:14

So when are you not acting?

By the way, the axiom doesn't say always.

This is a matter of language. All things can always be said to be acting. Its not meaningful, much like any other "axioms" people live by.

------------------------------------

I think axioms are farcical because they place assumed characteristics on various things which do nothing but hinder our ability to understand what is going on.

Every study of human behavior has to survey what is going on in a specific example. But if some of that human behavior is assumed, then we fail to be able to understand when there are subtle differences or outright contradictions to these axioms.

So, the "rational" / "self interested" actions of humans becomes an assumed characteristic, and cases where people act out of these bounds cease to exist within the context of any study which assumes these axioms.

Its nothing more than an intellectual hobbling, which has the added benefit of often being completely contradictory to human activity in many cases.

IcarusAngel

9th April 2010, 21:20

That's a great point. When a rock is at rest on my desk, it is exerting force against the desk, and the desk is exerting force against the rock, and the monitor, and the speakers, and so on. So it is "acting" in that since. When I touch a well, the electrons and protons of my hand and the wall work against each other.

LeftSideDown

9th April 2010, 21:26

Havet

9th April 2010, 21:29

That I acted in writing that post doesn't imply that I "always" act.

I don't always act.

You don't either.

Sorry about that, i misinterpreted the axiom when replying. The axiom actually states "Human acts", not that "humans always act"

anticap

9th April 2010, 21:48

I think axioms are farcical because they place assumed characteristics on various things which do nothing but hinder our ability to understand what is going on.

Every study of human behavior has to survey what is going on in a specific example. But if some of that human behavior is assumed, then we fail to be able to understand when there are subtle differences or outright contradictions to these axioms.

So, the "rational" / "self interested" actions of humans becomes an assumed characteristic, and cases where people act out of these bounds cease to exist within the context of any study which assumes these axioms.

Its nothing more than an intellectual hobbling, which has the added benefit of often being completely contradictory to human activity in many cases.

Yup.

Mises’ axiom, the proposition that humans act, is really just a platitude. Hoppe writes, “This axiom, the proposition that humans act, fulfills the requirements precisely for a true synthetic a priori proposition. It cannot be denied that this proposition is true, since the denial would have to be categorized as an action – and so the truth of the statement literally cannot be undone” (1995, p. 22). Thus, caught in this catch-22 situation, we must all be Misesians – or be dead. To acknowledge that people act (as opposed to what?) is to accept all of Mises’ theory, including originary interest and the works. This is rather like being asked, “Are you taking your antipsychotic medication?” There is no way to answer the question directly without implicitly admitting that one is psychotic.
http://axiomaticeconomics.com/critiques/critiques17.php

Publius

10th April 2010, 00:08

Does the axiom say "always"? Just a thought.

You're missing the point.

If it's stated "man acts" and man doesn't always act, then it's negation "man doesn't act" will be true too, some of the time.

Do you see why that might be an issue?

Publius

10th April 2010, 00:09

Sorry about that, i misinterpreted the axiom when replying. The axiom actually states "Human acts", not that "humans always act"

Irrelevent.

If humans don't always act then sometimes they don't act.

Therefore "humans don't act" is an equally true fact of human behavior.

It would be like saying "numbers are even". Well... some are. But some aren't.

It's either the case that humans always act or that "humans don't act" is equally true as "humans act".

In which case it isn't an axiom of human behavior that "man acts" anymore than it's an axiom that "man doesn't act".

I take you see why is the problematic.

Publius

10th April 2010, 00:13

Yup.

http://axiomaticeconomics.com/critiques/critiques17.php

"Synthetic a priori position"

:laugh:

Furthermore the negation of "humans act" is "humans don't act" not "humans never act".

If you want to draw a distinction between "man acts" vs. "man always acts" you then have to draw the same distinction between "man doesn't act" and "man never acts".

Why is everyone making this mistake? It's especially egregious from Hoppe, who's supposed to be a professional academic.

IcarusAngel

10th April 2010, 00:31

The most interesting thing about this:

After the war, at a time when mainstream economists were trying to emulate physicists, Austrians went math-free on the advice of Ludwig Mises ([1949] 1966). As Skousen has recorded (2001, pp. 290-291), this was largely a result of a sibling rivalry between Ludwig and his brother Richard, a famous probability theorist (1981).

...

Who ever heard of an axiomatic system with only one axiom? There are only postulate sets (e.g. Euclid has five, Kolmogorov has five and this author has three).29 But Ludwig Mises knew nothing about mathematicians and denounced them all, making no distinction between axiomatists like Kolmogorov and positivists like his brother. Thus having missed a splendid opportunity to team up with his brother’s rival,30 Ludwig Mises’ embryonic vision would lie dormant for half a century before the axiomatic method would find its champion in economics.

So we have to put up with this bullshit because Ludwig Mises was jealous that his brother was given the mathematical talent in the family?

And lol at having one axiom. People at Mises forum openly talk about how even mathematics itself is reducible to A = A, while insisting that they're not Randians. It's really unbelievable.

Left-Reasoning

10th April 2010, 00:57

So we have to put up with this bullshit because Ludwig Mises was jealous that his brother was given the mathematical talent in the family?

Menger wasn't a big fan of mathematics in economics, either. He crossed out the numerical tables in his copy of Principles.

Of course Wieser had no such aversion to mathematics.

LeftSideDown

10th April 2010, 04:13

Irrelevent.

If humans don't always act then sometimes they don't act.

Therefore "humans don't act" is an equally true fact of human behavior.

It would be like saying "numbers are even". Well... some are. But some aren't.

It's either the case that humans always act or that "humans don't act" is equally true as "humans act".

In which case it isn't an axiom of human behavior that "man acts" anymore than it's an axiom that "man doesn't act".

I take you see why is the problematic.

Within the "human action" axiom there is the assumed "purposefully". Even numbers are not even "purposefully".

Publius

10th April 2010, 04:41

Within the "human action" axiom there is the assumed "purposefully". Even numbers are not even "purposefully".

"Humans act purposefully" is still false or incomplete.

Humans don't always act purposefully.

LeftSideDown

10th April 2010, 04:54

"Humans act purposefully" is still false or incomplete.

Humans don't always act purposefully.

Really? how else do they act? Unpurposefully? What is something you do unpurposefully? Falling down doesn't constitute an act, btw, just an accident.

Publius

10th April 2010, 05:04

Really? how else do they act? Unpurposefully? What is something you do unpurposefully? Falling down doesn't constitute an act, btw, just an accident.

People do all kinds of things with no overt purpose because they do them without conscious awareness. The exact ways you move your limbs, most of the time, are not aimed at some purpose. If you're focused on doing some particular task, you'll often find that you start tapping your foot or playing with something in your hand without the slightest awareness that you're doing so.

A lot of what people is done "on autopilot" as it were, which presumably precludes it from being done for any purpose.

People sleepwalk, people do things without any understanding of why they did them.

The idea that every human action is dedicated to some purpose is just false. Not all human actions are goal-directed.

SmilingDave

10th April 2010, 06:13

Where did the OP get this list of axioms? They certainly are not those of Mises or of Rothbard. So that, until the OP or some valiant defender of his provides a link, we may say that this whole thread has been shooting at a straw man.

Here is my list, taken from Rothbard's article,
Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics

[I have not posted enough times to be able to provide links, but we always have google]

1. People take actions to "feel better" in some way.

2. Not everybody wants the same thing.

3. Leisure has value to some people.

Skooma Addict

10th April 2010, 06:15

1. People take actions to "feel better" in some way.

2. Not everybody wants the same thing.

3. Leisure has value to some people.

Lol, what?

Dean

10th April 2010, 07:20

Really? how else do they act? Unpurposefully? What is something you do unpurposefully? Falling down doesn't constitute an act, btw, just an accident.

Really, "purposefully" is another meaningless issue of language. everything has a purpose, so singling out human action does not set Mises apart.

Really, what are we supposed to get from this other than "we can study human action"? Few people deny this, and for those who do, this fact is a relatively meaningless characteristic of their idea structure. This notion hasn't set Mises apart, in fact, he may as well be telling us that "change is inevitable" or something. Well, sure. But how is that going to factor into some reasonable analysis? We already knew these things and didn't need to consider them to come to our understanding of the specific human activity we're discussing.

I really just think it is an emotive compulsion that leads one to take his specific analysis of human activity as accurate. By first saying "we can say what makes humans do X," it makes it more acceptable to say "humans do x because of y." But it provides no evidence, proof or supporting concept to lead one to this particular conclusion.

Havet

10th April 2010, 10:27

IcarusAngel

10th April 2010, 16:53

Lol. The jack-asses at Mises forums have made a thread on this, claiming we don't know what an axiom is (Like Olaf, who gives incomplete proofs for basic geometry problems and STILL hasn't even named the relevant axioms involved in that problem).

Anyway:

An axiom is a self-evident truth. The central axiom of Misesian economics is "humans act."

It's obvious this retard has never been through a mathematics course.

Axioms in mathematics come from "decision". For example, Frege's axioms were once accepted, now they have proven to be incomplete. They still have their use, and most computer science courses limit themselves to Frege's axioms (although incomplete).

The only exist to construct a theory; and the "definitions" provided (in which the converse of the statement is probably true) are used to prevent the reasoning from becoming circular. Otherwise mathematicians would go around in circles, in much the same way the idiots at Mises forums spend all their time on definitions without ever actually proving anything.

The second kind of axioms are self-evident axioms that are assumed to be true in order to proceed.

In both cases the truth is necessary to proceed, and the axioms are used to construct theorems and a logical deductive system. Misean axioms don't exist in this domain because they do not lead to theorems.

The third kind of axiom: "the term "axiom" is used loosely for any established principle of some field."

This is what "human action" falls under, and it is full of all kinds of holes; it isn't even as complete as my "robot axiom."

In other words, humans engage in purposeful action - e.g. sleeping, walking, eating, talking, writing, running, etc.

As has been shown repeatedly and has been known for a long time, not all human actions are for a purpose and not all human actions are self-conscious. (Thus, humans act, and humans act purposefully are both false.)

If you try to disprove this axiom, you prove it

This is stupid because if you act to prove something doesn't mean you're always acting.

This has all been addressed by Publius in the forum.

For one, an axiom is one of the major players in what differentiates Austrian economics as a science compared to other economics.

Sciences aren't axiomatic; mathematics is, which is not a science. Scientists don't need to construct axioms because they study the FACTS of the universe, whereas mathematicians need axioms in order to proceed.

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/15854.aspx

krazy kaju

10th April 2010, 17:04

It's obvious this retard has never been through a mathematics course.

There's a difference between an axiom in philosophy and an axiom in mathematics.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom):

In traditional logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence), or subject to necessary decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making). Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.
In mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics), the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom#Logical_axioms) and "non-logical axioms" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom#Non-logical_axioms). In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Unlike theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem), axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof), simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow (otherwise they would be classified as theorems).

As has been shown repeatedly and has been known for a long time, not all human actions are for a purpose and not all human actions are self-conscious. (Thus, humans act, and humans act purposefully are both false.)

The claim isn't that all human action is purposeful. Obviously, you don't get to choose whether or not your heart beats and the like. The point of "purposeful action" is that humans have some desires, wants, or ends and humans act on these. If you deny that, you're falling into a performative contradiction.

This is stupid because if you act to prove something doesn't mean you're always acting.

Thinking is action. Speaking is action. Writing is action. Typing is action. You try to prove/disprove something, you are purposefully acting.

Sciences aren't axiomatic; mathematics is, which is not a science.

From dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science):

science
–noun1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

The "hard" sciences (e.g. chemistry) aren't axiomatic. That doesn't mean that some of the "softer" sciences (e.g. social sciences like economics) cannot be axiomatic.

Scientists don't need to construct axioms because they study the FACTS of the universe, whereas mathematicians need axioms in order to proceed.

So you claim that mathematicians don't study facts? So two plus two does not equal four? That's just an imaginary construct?

IcarusAngel

10th April 2010, 17:20

There's a difference between an axiom in philosophy and an axiom in mathematics.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom):
In traditional logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence), or subject to necessary decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making).Which confirms everything that I just said. Philosophical axioms are probably subject to "necessary decision"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making

The claim isn't that all human action is purposeful.From hayenmill's link:

humans act purposefully;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Austrian_School

It's good we've establish this version of this particular axiom is false.

Obviously, you don't get to choose whether or not your heart beats and the like. The point of "purposeful action" is that humans have some desires, wants, or ends and humans act on these. If you deny that, you're falling into a performative contradiction.

We have desires, wants, and ends because we have a brain, not because we have an axiom. Denying it doesn't lead to any logical contradiction as it's impossible to logically prove that we are not all driven by god, a random series of neurons and electrons, etc. Denying that just means you're ignoring the empirical evidence and what is known is psychology, just like denying that there is gravity means that you're denying empirical evidence and what is known in physics.

Thinking is action. Speaking is action. Writing is action. Typing is action. You try to prove/disprove something, you are purposefully acting.A rock sitting on the desk is also "acting" - exerting a force on the desk. What is the point of this? And when I'm sleeping I disagree that I'm purposefully acting as I have no control over my thoughts when I'm asleep.

From dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science):
science
–noun1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

The "hard" sciences (e.g. chemistry) aren't axiomatic. That doesn't mean that some of the "softer" sciences (e.g. social sciences like economics) cannot be axiomatic.But there is no reason to accept your axioms since they do not prove anything and are really observations about human nature, not axioms.

So you claim that mathematicians don't study facts? So two plus two does not equal four? That's just an imaginary construct?Mathematicians study theorems and axioms. Not all the axioms are applicable to other areas of mathematics. For example, the axioms that are true for cardinal numbers are not true for higher mathematics, and new axioms are used.

anticap

10th April 2010, 17:43

I think I basically agree with this guy (http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Beowulf/axioms/axioms/index.html), who says that we all begin from a set of "axioms," which he takes to basically mean our premises (I think; it's been a while since I read it), and that the trick thereafter is to simply try to remain consistent. Other than that, he takes all philosophy to be bullshit, which appears to be pretty much correct, AFAICT. There's no "truth" to be found in it; it's just a matter of trying not to put your foot in your mouth.

So for the Misesites, the task would be to convince the rest of us that their "axioms" lead by logical necessity to where they think they do. Of course, we could just as easily show them to lead where we'd like them to; but in neither case will anything have been "proved" by any of our hot air.

What can be proved (and here's where the Misesites balk) is that material conditions lead to material results. And when capitalism leads to misery, its victims are justified in toppling it, even if the Misesites can present a slick argument to show that it is the very fountain of freedom and happiness. When hard reality bumps up against philosophy (i.e., words), one or the other has got to step aside.

IcarusAngel

10th April 2010, 17:58

If his axioms are true then the misean axioms should be false as they do not serve as a starting point from the same system, and should be considered false theorems.

". A relatively few students may move on and hear the term used in the second, ``wishful'' sense (wishful in that by calling an established principle an ``axiom'' one is generally trying to convince the listener that it is indeed a ``self-evident and necessary truth'')."

The author is right to note that the "good axioms" are axioms like those in geometry that take us somewhere.

anticap

10th April 2010, 18:12

All I know is that philosophical axioms are never going to lead us to any truth, and that all we can do is choose our own starting premises based on our own subjective preferences and moral codes, and try to remain true to them without getting tripped up by philosophical trickery. Some of us (e.g., Misesites) believe that there are superiors and inferiors, and that the former should rule. Others disagree. Both sides can employ either wordplay, or evidence, or both, but only evidence ought to convince anyone with a lick of sense. I see no evidence for the Misesite worldview, but I see lots of evidence against it. Sadly, they have many well-honed philosophical tricks up their sleeves, which are sucking in an increasing number of naive young people who are angry at the status quo and eager to change it for the better. Our task is to show them the hard evidence that will push aside the Misesite hot air.

IcarusAngel

10th April 2010, 19:12

[I have not posted enough times to be able to provide links, but we always have google]

1. People take actions to "feel better" in some way.

2. Not everybody wants the same thing.

3. Leisure has value to some people.

So now we have a new postulate set?

How do you explain masturbation within this postulate set? For example, I'm reading something right now that's rather boring and I'd rather be doing something else. It's something about how when students enter college they have dualist view of academia, in that there are always right and wrong answers, and teachers want the right answer. Then they become "multiplists" or what we might call a relativist. There are answers that are wrong and then some that are right, and your teachers' attitude will determine your grades. Then there is a higher level than this, when you realize the same two viewpoints could be scored differently, and depends on how well you pose and attempt to solve problems in your writing.

The whole thing is boring and I'd rather masturbate - but I'm not going to. There must be something inside of me, my reason, that determines that short-term pleasure isn't as good as boring knowledge, even though I don't feel it.

Anyway, it was fun discrediting these axioms and watching other people poke holes in them. Publius' arguments were the best (flood him, not me), but in reality the time spent discussing these "axioms" could have better been spent refuting capitalists' claims, such as that the "market" invented everything in society regarding computer architecture.

That's the real reason why Miseans constantly bring up these axioms, to delay intelligent discussion.

Havet

10th April 2010, 19:31

The whole thing is boring and I'd rather masturbate - but I'm not going to. There must be something inside of me, my reason, that determines that short-term pleasure isn't as good as boring knowledge, even though I don't feel it.

Then you should do what I do in those situations: masturbate.

Publius

10th April 2010, 20:07

Also, there are people who deny that people act purposefully. Paul Churchland, for example.

He's an eliminativist about beliefs, desires, wants, etc. He doesn't think they exist.

You could say he's contradicting himself, for example "He believes that there are no beliefs" but his response is that such an objection begs the question by assuming him to be false in the first place.

Therefore the entire "performative contradiction" defense seems, at least on this analysis, to be question begging.

Skooma Addict

10th April 2010, 20:38

Publius

10th April 2010, 20:55

Arguments like this are what make me somewhat skeptical to take Mises' axioms as actual axioms. I haven't read Churchland yet, but I assume he makes arguments similar to those of Dennett or Metzinger.

Similar to Dennett, but more direct.

Of course I don't buy Churchland's argument, but it demonstrates that this isn't "a priori" true.

SmilingDave

10th April 2010, 21:17

So now we have a new postulate set?

I provided a link, the OP did not.

The whole thing is boring and I'd rather masturbate - but I'm not going to. There must be something inside of me, my reason, that determines that short-term pleasure isn't as good as boring knowledge, even though I don't feel it.

In other words, you feel better doing the boring stuff for some reason.

refuting capitalists' claims, such as that the "market" invented everything in society regarding computer architecture.
I see a straw man dangling on a tree

That's the real reason why Miseans constantly bring up these axioms, to delay intelligent discussion.
So you haven't had an intelligent discussion with a Misean, he was always talking about his axioms. Can you name names, provide a link toi thread where you initiated an intelligent discussion and WHAM!, you were sidetracked into a discussion of these axioms?

~

SmilingDave

10th April 2010, 21:23

You could say he's contradicting himself, for example "He believes that there are no beliefs" but his response is that such an objection begs the question by assuming him to be false in the first place.

Therefore the entire "performative contradiction" defense seems, at least on this analysis, to be question begging.

Could you please elaborate on this? How are any assumption being made about him being false?
The way I see it, the thinking is like this:
1. He believes there are no beliefs.
2. Therefore, he believes something.

But the real answer is of course, we have here a case of the Emperor's New Clothes. An absurd idea that universal common sense knows is nonsense is being touted as great wisdom.

People have no desires. Hahahaha.
Why did you post anything unless you wanted to?

Publius

10th April 2010, 22:27

Could you please elaborate on this? How are any assumption being made about him being false?
The way I see it, the thinking is like this:
1. He believes there are no beliefs.
2. Therefore, he believes something.

If there are no no such things as beliefs (as Churchland contends) then 1 is false.

1 presupposes that there are such things as beliefs.

Churchland likes to give this example, regarding vital spirits in biology. It was thought that what made something alive was the possession of a vital spirit. Now say you contend (correctly) that there are no such things as vital spirits.

Would it be OK for your opponent to argue like this:

"My learned friend has stated that there is no such thing as a vital spirit. But this statement is incoherent. For if it is true, then my friend not have vital spirit, and must therefore be dead. But if he is dead, then his statement is just a string of noises, devoid of meaning or truth. Evidently, the assumption that antivitalism is true entails that it cannot be true! Q.E.D." (PM Churchland, Matter and Consciousness)

What Churchland can, and does, coherently maintain is that while there are not beliefs, there is some neurological state which DOES explain his behavior. We just don't know what it is yet.

But the real answer is of course, we have here a case of the Emperor's New Clothes. An absurd idea that universal common sense knows is nonsense is being touted as great wisdom.

People have no desires. Hahahaha.
Why did you post anything unless you wanted to?

"People don't possess vital spirits" hahahaha.

How could you say that unless you were alive?

SmilingDave

10th April 2010, 22:55

OK I have a source which explicitly lists the axioms. Still too early to link, but the article is In Defense of “Extreme Apriorism” By Murray N. Rothbard

I'll quote snippets that state them, and add a comment or two in brackets:

1. He “assumes” only that men act, that is, that they
have some ends, and use some means to try to attain them. This is Mises’s
Fundamental Axiom.

[Which I wrote as "People take actions to "feel better" in some way." Apparently somebody got the idea that the best way to feel better is to masturbate, and yet found upon introspection that he did not want to masturbate constantly. Sometimes he had other goals which he considered more important. He took this for a rebuttal of the axiom. Hope this restatement helps.

But just to make sure, let's quote a piece from Human Action that argues that said poster's non-wanking is not a rebuttal of the axiom, but proof of it:

"We interpret animal behavior on the assumption that the animal yields
to the impulse which prevails at the moment. As we observe that the
animal feeds, cohabits, and attacks other animals or men, we speak of its
instincts of nourishment, of reproduction, and of aggression. We assume
that such instincts are innate and peremptorily ask for satisfaction.

"But it is different with man. Man is not a being who cannot help yielding
to the impulse that most urgently asks for satisfaction. Man is a being ca-
pable of subduing his instincts, emotions, and impulses; he can rationalize
his behavior. He renounces the satisfaction of a burning impulsc in order
to satisfy other desires. He is not a puppet of his appetites. A man does not ravish every female that stirs his senses; he does not devour every piece of food that entices him; he does not knock down every fellow he would like to kill. He arranges his wishes and desires into a scale, he chooses; in short, he acts.

"What distinguishes man from beasts is precisely that he adjusts his
behavior deliberatively. Man is the being that has inhibitions, that can
master his impulses and desires, that has the power to suppress instinctive
desires and impulses.

"It may happen that an impulse emerges with such vehemence that no
disadvantage which its satisfaction may cause appears great enough to prevent the individual from satisfying it. In this case too there is choosing. Man decides in favor of yielding to the desire concern."

In other words, you chose not to wank. And for a reason. Which is what the axiom is saying. People do things for a reason.]

[Another fellow found that he likes to tap his foot sometimes. He also notes that people sleepwalk. He is positive that he has destroyed the whole Misean system with that foot tapping in his sleep.

To qoute his excellent conclusion, "The idea that every human action is dedicated to some purpose is just false. Not all human actions are goal-directed."

Nope. Mises did not say that EVERY single movement is goal directed. He merely stated that SOME of them are. It is an existence theorem. Let's prove this with a quote form Human Action, where he DEFINES what he means by the technical term "Action" as it is to be used in the book:

"Human action is purposeful behaivior.Or we may say: Action is...the ego's meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person's conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life. Such paraphrases may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself is adequate and does not need complement or commentary.
"Conscious or purposeful behavior is in sharp contrast to uncon-
scious behavior..."

Read it again. Note that he says TWICE that to say Human Action is purposeful behavior is a DEFINITION. And he acknowledges that people do other things too, but HE IS NOT GOING TO STUDY THOSE THINGS. Or, to quote once more, "The field of our science is human action..."

Everybody feel better now?

2. (1) the most fundamental--variety of resources, both natural and human. [Which I wrote as "not everybody wants the same thing. Implicit in there is that there is more than one thing to want].

3. (2) less important, that leisure is a consumer good.

4. When we analyze the economics of indirect exchange, therefore, we
make the simple and obvious limiting condition (Postulate 3) that indirect
exchanges are being made. [In other words, some places use money and don't just barter. When studying such places, we will insert an axiom that people don't just barter.]

5. The fourth--and by far the least fundamental--postulate for a theory of
the market is the one which Professors Hutchison and Machlup consider
crucial--that firms always aim at maximization of their money profits....this assumption is by no means a necessary part of economic theory. From our [Fundamental] Axiom [Number One in this list] is derived this absolute truth: that every firm aims always at maximizing its psychic profit. This may or may not involve maximizing its money profit.
Often it may not, and no praxeologist would deny this fact. When an
entrepreneur deliberately accepts lower money profits in order to give a good job to a ne’er-do-well nephew, the praxeologist is not confounded. The entrepreneur simply has chosen to take a certain cut in monetary profit in order to satisfy his consumption--satisfaction of seeing his nephew well
provided.

The assumption that firms aim at maximizing their money profits is
simply a convenience of analysis....

OK guys, there you have it, straight from the horse's mouth. The 5 axioms. Nowhere does it say that people want an infinite amount of hamburgers right away, as has been claimed here. Sheesh!

SmilingDave

10th April 2010, 23:10

SmilingDave

10th April 2010, 23:16

SmilingDave

10th April 2010, 23:17

Lol, what?
Not sure what your problem is. A later post has it all in fancier language, with full qoutes and sources.

IcarusAngel

10th April 2010, 23:17

No. It doesn't say that.

Show me any informed source whatsoever that claims such foolishness.

It is absolutely what it means. Basically for any axiomatic system there will be at least one statement that is unprovable.

IcarusAngel

10th April 2010, 23:21

I wrote a complete list of axioms in an earlier post, with sources.

Your axioms have all been addressed; there is no point to go over them again.

anticap

10th April 2010, 23:23

Advantages of [reading Rothbard]: You will know what you are talking about when discussing Mises.

Should I assume that you've done the same with regard to Marx? (Or, rather, that you've read Marx, not someone else's interpretation of him, as you've suggested with regard to Mises. Though I'm sure you'd be glad to have us read Mises himself; I just want to point out that reading, e.g., Lenin, in order to understand Marx, is, IMHO, not the smartest move.)

SmilingDave

10th April 2010, 23:26

I took them from here. Happy now?

TY, I feel much better now. :) BUT.......

Although the article indeed lists the axioms you wrote, THERE IS NO SOURCE FOR THEM. Not a single footnote, nothing.

You'll be glad to see one of my earlier posts, where I give full quotes from Rothbard, a key figure in AE, as to what the axioms are.

IcarusAngel

10th April 2010, 23:33

So, for any axiomatic system there exists Godel's statement G, which cannot be proven. If G were proven under the theory's axioms, then the theory would have a theorem, G, which contradicted itself. The same contradiction would occur if G were proven to be false, so we have to accept the fact that G cannot be proven true or false, and we have to accept this truth about G.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Read the book Godel's Incompleteness or theorem or check out:

For each consistent formal theory T having the required small amount of number theory, the corresponding Gödel sentence G asserts: “G cannot be proved to be true within the theory T”. If G were provable under the axioms and rules of inference of T, then T would have a theorem, G, which effectively contradicts itself, and thus the theory T would be inconsistent. This means that if the theory T is consistent then G cannot be proved within it. This means that G's claim about its own unprovability is correct; in this sense G is not only unprovable but true. Thus provability-within-the-theory-T is not the same as truth; the theory T is incomplete.
If G is true: G cannot be proved within the theory, and the theory is incomplete. If G is false: then G can be proved within the theory and then the theory is inconsistent, since G is both provable and refutable from T.
Each theory has its own Gödel statement. It is possible to define a larger theory T’ that contains the whole of T, plus G as an additional axiom. This will not result in a complete theory, because Gödel's theorem will also apply to T’, and thus T’ cannot be complete. In this case, G is indeed a theorem in T’, because it is an axiom. Since G states only that it is not provable in T, no contradiction is presented by its provability in T’. However, because the incompleteness theorem applies to T’: there will be a new Gödel statement G’ for T’, showing that T’ is also incomplete. G’ will differ from G in that G’ will refer to T’, rather than T.While Godel's incompleteness theorems prove that mathematics cannot be reduced to a set of axioms, it also shows that attempts to reduce any system, such as human nature, to a set of axioms is flawed.

Mises existed at a time when mathematicians and others were looking for "universal theories." Your whole system has been discredited.

http://ccrow.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/godels_proof.jpg

SmilingDave

10th April 2010, 23:41

If there are no no such things as beliefs (as Churchland contends) then 1 is false.

1 presupposes that there are such things as beliefs.

Churchland likes to give this example, regarding vital spirits in biology. It was thought that what made something alive was the possession of a vital spirit. Now say you contend (correctly) that there are no such things as vital spirits.

Would it be OK for your opponent to argue like this:

"My learned friend has stated that there is no such thing as a vital spirit. But this statement is incoherent. For if it is true, then my friend not have vital spirit, and must therefore be dead. But if he is dead, then his statement is just a string of noises, devoid of meaning or truth. Evidently, the assumption that antivitalism is true entails that it cannot be true! Q.E.D." (PM Churchland, Matter and Consciousness)

What Churchland can, and does, coherently maintain is that while there are not beliefs, there is some neurological state which DOES explain his behavior. We just don't know what it is yet.

"People don't possess vital spirits" hahahaha.

How could you say that unless you were alive?

TY for making that crystal clear.

Are you claiming I can say "people don't posess vital spirits" while I am dead? WHat are you getting at?

SmilingDave

10th April 2010, 23:42

Should I assume that you've done the same with regard to Marx? (Or, rather, that you've read Marx, not someone else's interpretation of him, as you've suggested with regard to Mises. Though I'm sure you'd be glad to have us read Mises himself; I just want to point out that reading, e.g., Lenin, in order to understand Marx, is, IMHO, not the smartest move.)
Have you seen me discussing Marx?

Publius

10th April 2010, 23:43

Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that any axiomatic set for arithmetic will lead to a contradiction.

No. It doesn't say that.

Show me any informed source whatsoever that claims such foolishness.

Goedel's proof demonstrates that no set of axioms powerful enough to model arithmetic can be formally complete.

Publius

10th April 2010, 23:44

TY for making that crystal clear.

Are you claiming I can say "people don't posess vital spirits" while I am dead? WHat are you getting at?

I'm saying that one can reject that there are vital spirits without being committed to there being vital spirits.

anticap

10th April 2010, 23:47

Have you seen me discussing Marx?

Not in your whole nine previous posts, no (actually, I didn't check, but I'll trust you).

But tell me, what's your username over at mises.org? ;)

IcarusAngel

10th April 2010, 23:58

Any system that attempts to be complete would have to account for Godel's statement, which would mean it would be self-contradictory, since G contradicts itself. If the set is consistent, G cannot be proved within it, but that implies that G's claim about it's own unprovibility is correct(G cannot be proved within theory T).

So I guess it'd be more accurate to state that attempting to account for G (to make it complete) would lead to a contradiction.

"
It is important to note that while the hypothesis that G is provable leads to a contradiction, the hypothesis that G is not provable does not lead to a contradiction. If we suppose that G is not provable, then we suppose ~http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/writing/syncon.gifG, which is exactly what G says of itself. This is the important difference between G and the liar paradox: the liar's statement leads to contradiction whether we affirm it or deny it. G leads to contradiction only if we suppose it is provable, not if we suppose it is not. This is enough to show that it is not provable.
Second we show that the negation of G is not provable in S, again using an indirect proof. Suppose that ~G were provable, or http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/writing/syncon.gif~G. Recalling that G is the same proposition as ~http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/writing/syncon.gifG, we obtain by substitution http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/writing/syncon.gif~(~http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/writing/syncon.gifG). This reduces to http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/writing/syncon.gifG, which contradicts our hypothesis. Actually, it contradicts our hypothesis only on the assumption that S is consistent and does not contain both G and ~G as theorems. (Try this proof in full English. The negation of G is "It is not the case that 'this proposition cannot be proved'." Hence we can prove 'this proposition cannot be proved', which is to prove G.)
We do assume that S is consistent, since if it is not, then G and its negation and all other wffs will be provable. There is no point asking about the completeness of an inconsistent system. Gödel's theorem only shows a limitation for consistent systems.
So, if neither G nor ~G is provable in S, then G and ~G are undecidable in S."

"Each theory has its own Gödel statement. It is possible to define a larger theory T’ that contains the whole of T, plus G as an additional axiom. This will not result in a complete theory, because Gödel's theorem will also apply to T’, and thus T’ cannot be complete. In this case, G is indeed a theorem in T’, because it is an axiom. Since G states only that it is not provable in T, no contradiction is presented by its provability in T’. However, because the incompleteness theorem applies to T’: there will be a new Gödel statement G’ for T’, showing that T’ is also incomplete. G’ will differ from G in that G’ will refer to T’, rather than T."

SmilingDave

11th April 2010, 00:10

It is absolutely what it means. Basically for any axiomatic system there will be at least one statement that is unprovable.
1. That is NOT the same as saying it will contain a contradiction.

2. Also, it does NOT say that for "any axiom system" there will be an unprovable statement. It only says that any axiom system RICH ENOUGH TO INCLUDE ARITHMETIC there will be unprovable statements.

3. Also, it does NOT say there will be an unprovable statement. It says there will be a FORMALLY UNPROVABLE statement. Meaning, given a system of deduction, such as first order logic, that system will not be able to prove or disprove it. However, it MAY be provable outside the system, as Godel himself proved the theorem he said was unprovable [in first order logic] by using informal reasoning.

A later poster goes even further, saying saying greater nonsense. Let me quote:

"While Godel's incompleteness theorems prove that mathematics cannot be reduced to a set of axioms, it also shows that attempts to reduce any system, such as human nature, to a set of axioms is flawed."

If you understand points 1, 2, and 3 above, you should be feeling shame now. Even more so after the next point, because anyone can understand point 4, while 1,2 and 3, require a bit of thinking to grasp.

Another quote from the later poster:

"Mises existed at a time when mathematicians and others were looking for "universal theories." Your whole system has been discredited."

Reread points 1, 2 and 3 again, and be enlightened my son. Also point 4, if you want to really know something.

4. One last very important point that everyone here seems to be missing. Why is high school geometry still taught? Why is axiomatic set theory still taught ? Why is any math still taught? Hasn't Godel showed that they are all as "flawed" and "discredited" as Mises' long suffering axioms? Do they not all contain "contradictions"?

The answer is that, no, well constructed axiomatic systems DO NOT contain ANY contradictions. What is proven from them is absolutely TRUE. Godel was NOT saying, "Hey guys, maybe 2+2=5". So that, while an axiomatic system and an accompanying strait jacket of a formal logical system may not reveal ALL true theorems, what they DO reveal is not "contradictory" or "flawed" or "discredited." It is beyond reproach.

To explain it with an analogy, Godel proved that not everyone who lifts weights the right way will become Mr Universe [=prove everything]. But he certainly admits that lifting weights correctly makes everyone bigger and stronger and fitter [=prove thousand and thousands of true and important theorems]. He was not saying it will make you weaker than before you started [=fllawed, contradictory, discredited].

Which is why people still study Math and geometry and all the sciences. And may gain something from studying Mises.

SmilingDave

11th April 2010, 00:22

But tell me, what's your username over at mises.org? ;)

I have quoted Marx there, where he says he will love to see lots of blood flowing in the streets. I guess one can quote Marx word for word without having to read every last thing he wrote, right?

I have not argued that he is right or wrong there. Maybe blood in the streets is a good thing.

IcarusAngel

11th April 2010, 00:29

1. That is NOT the same as saying it will contain a contradiction.

It will contain a contradiction if you try and make a meaningful axiomatic system complete.

2. Also, it does NOT say that for "any axiom system" there will be an unprovable statement. It only says that any axiom system RICH ENOUGH TO INCLUDE ARITHMETIC there will be unprovable statements.

I.e. Axiomatic systems that are actually useful are always incomplete.

3. Also, it does NOT say there will be an unprovable statement. It says there will be a FORMALLY UNPROVABLE statement. Meaning, given a system of deduction, such as first order logic, that system will not be able to prove or disprove it. However, it MAY be provable outside the system, as Godel himself proved the theorem he said was unprovable [in first order logic] by using informal reasoning.

This is just pointless rambling. If you're applying Godel's Theorem to theory T and G is false, then the theory is necessarily inconsistent.

4. One last very important point that everyone here seems to be missing. Why is high school geometry still taught? Why is axiomatic set theory still taught ? Why is any math still taught? Hasn't Godel showed that they are all as "flawed" and "discredited" as Mises' long suffering axioms? Do they not all contain "contradictions"?

The axioms are true for Euclidean geometry, that is why they are taught. They have some applications in the real world as well in the sense that you can approximate shapes and so on using Euclidean Geometry.

However, the axioms are NOT true for non-Euclidean Geometry. So, for sphere geometry, we must reconsider our geometric postulates, even regarding such "axioms" as points and lines.

The answer is that, no, well constructed axiomatic systems DO NOT contain ANY contradictions.

They don't contain contradictions because they're not complete and do not account for all of mathematics.

What is proven from them is absolutely TRUE. Godel was NOT saying, "Hey guys, maybe 2+2=5". So that, while an axiomatic system and an accompanying strait jacket of a formal logical system may not reveal ALL true theorems, what they DO reveal is not "contradictory" or "flawed" or "discredited." It is beyond reproach.

No one said he was saying this. However, the axioms of arithmetic are still incomplete. If they weren't, they'd applied to all areas of mathematics.

To explain it with an analogy, Godel proved that not everyone who lifts weights the right way will become Mr Universe [=prove everything]. But he certainly admits that lifting weights correctly makes everyone bigger and stronger and fitter [=prove thousand and thousands of true and important theorems]. He was not saying it will make you weaker than before you started [=fllawed, contradictory, discredited].

Which is why people still study Math and geometry and all the sciences.

Lol. Now you're just ranting.

I've read your posts on Mises' forums and it's obvious you've got a screw loose.

You completely ignore the fact that the restricted sets in geometry, first order logic, etc. have consistent, logical uses that the Misean axioms do not have. It's obvious you're probably a discredited mathematician - and an old kook - probably because you believe in axioms that do not take us anywhere.

IcarusAngel

11th April 2010, 00:35

But tell me, what's your username over at mises.org? ;)

He uses the same user name there, only with a space.

For example, Isaac Newton said, "Let me assume three axioms. [the famous F=ma, and the other two laws of motion.]" As a mathematician, he studied the logical consequences of those three axioms, and all physicists to this day keep doing it. The result: Big fat calculus books full of formulas and pictures.

Where did Isaac Newton say this?

But now comes something mindboggling in the extreme. Newton said, "Guess what, guys?" F=ma is not only an "axiomatical fact" [to use the language of the OP. Of course there no such thing as an axiomatical fact. An axiom is by definition an unproven assumption], but an empirical fact as well!

Of course, Newtonian physics has completely been by Einsteinian space-time, so much so that some physicists doubt that "force" even exist. It just so happens that Newtonian physics has some practical uses, just as does Euclidean geometry.

(Keep in mind Pythagoras discovered most of his principles from observations about the real world - and supposedly Newton did as well when he was sitting under a tree and an apple fell on him. Our knowledge of numbers comes from our observations about the real world.)

Anyway, this guy hasn't opened up a textbook in decades. File under "kook."

anticap

11th April 2010, 00:46

I have quoted Marx there, where he says he will love to see lots of blood flowing in the streets. I guess one can quote Marx word for word without having to read every last thing he wrote, right?

I have not argued that he is right or wrong there. Maybe blood in the streets is a good thing.

If by "one" you mean "you," then I guess that would depend on how you would respond in kind. Would you object if such comments did not include full context, for example?

Anyway, the following example of your work seems to put the lie to your purse-lipped, eyelash-batting, self-portrayal as a scrupulous debater who would only offer advice to us that he himself would follow:

Mises had you guys pegged a long time ago. I'm sure the more erudite here can find the quote, where he writes that Marx taught all his disciples to ignore logic [because you can't win, marxism won't hold up to logic], and throw mud instead.

BTW my post was not an ad hominem attack. It was a logical analysis of what you poor fellows suffer through. I was assuming Marxism to be claptrap, relying on the great scholars who already proved it.

mises.org/Community/forums/p/15219/316590.aspx#316590

Do as you say, not as you do, eh?

IcarusAngel

11th April 2010, 00:57

Don't ban this misean. He's at least funny. It's hilarious when they know a little bit about something and try and mix Misean axioms in with it. What are the "axioms" of calculus that you refer to Dave..? Mostly the abstract concept of a limit is enough for most people's purposes.

Also, Godel's theorem applies to non-TRIVIAL axiomatic systems.... So is he saying that the Misean axioms are a trivial set of axioms that take us on the road to nowhere?

That I would agree with.

SmilingDave

11th April 2010, 01:14

It will contain a contradiction if you try and make a meaningful axiomatic system complete.
Note that you have changed your tune, waffling and backtracking.
This is true. But not relevant to the discussion.

I.e. Axiomatic systems that are actually useful are always incomplete.
This is also wrong. To be useful, an axiom system does not have to be rich enough to incorporate the laws of arithmatic.

This is just pointless rambling. If you're applying Godel's Theorem to theory T and G is false, then the theory is necessarily inconsistent.
No it's not. Your reply is pointless rambling.

The axioms are true for Euclidean geometry, that is why they are taught.
Can you explain to me why they are not contradictory and flawed and discredited? Euclid lived a way before Mises, and so his system should be totally discredited and flawed and contradictory.

You cannot, because you don't understand Godel's theorem.

They have some applications in the real world as well in the sense that you can approximate shapes and so on using Euclidean Geometry.
You are just rambling. You have not answered my q, which was why have they not been exposed as flawed and contradictory and discredited by Godel

However, the axioms are NOT true for non-Euclidean Geometry.
This is a nonsensical statement. The correct statement is "However the axioms are not ASSUMED AS GIVEN when studying non euclidean geometry.
And there is a big difference. Your nonsense version is trying to say that euclids axiom system has been partially discredited, that it is indeed flawed and contradictory and discredited, But it isn't.
So, for sphere geometry, we must reconsider our geometric postulates, even regarding such "axioms" as points and lines.
"Points" and "lines" are not axioms. Further evidence that you know not of what you speak.

They don't contain contradictions because they're not complete and do not account for all of mathematics.
Very good. Now we gotten somewhere. We agree on this. But we have also gotten to the point where you have painted yourself into a corner.

Your silly attack on Mises said that Godel proved him wrong. But he didn't. All he can possibly prove is that maybe it is incomplete. Being incomplete is not a "flaw" or a "contradiction" or a "discredit". As you yourself have been forced to admit, all the great fruitful logical systems are incomplete.

No one said he was saying this.
Yes they were. An earlier post said it.
However, the axioms of arithmetic are still incomplete. If they weren't, they'd applied to all areas of mathematics.
No, if they weren't they would have to be discarded, because they would contain a contradiction. Further evidence, if any is needed by now, that you don't know the first thing about Goels Theorem.

Lol. Now you're just ranting.
No I'm not.
I've read your posts on Mises' forums and it's obvious you've got a screw loose.
I take that as a white flag of surrender. Mises taught that the sign a Marxist knows he's wrong is when he stoops to name calling., TY.

You completely ignore the fact that the restricted sets in geometry, first order logic, etc. have consistent, logical uses that the Misean axioms do not have.
Now there is an unsubstantiated statement. And of course, you are now backtracking. It started with Mises axioms being flawed and discredited and contradictory. Now you say well, in my informed opinion, having read his works, they do not seem usefull.

It's obvious you're probably a discredited mathematician - and an old kook - probably because you believe in axioms that do not take us anywhere.
I am a mathematician, but not a discredited one. I am not a teenager, and not a kook.
Here to is a medal of honor, coming from a Marxist.

I take this as a white flag of defeat on your part. Anyone with any knowledge of Math has been laughing at your earlier posts, but this one has stooped to new lows that they warned me Marxists loved to use when they have been shown wrong.

SmilingDave

11th April 2010, 01:26

He uses the same user name there, only with a space.
Correct.

Where did Isaac Newton say this?
In Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Obviously you know nothing of physics if you have to ask this.

Of course, Newtonian physics has completely been by Einsteinian space-time, so much so that some physicists doubt that "force" even exist. It just so happens that Newtonian physics has some practical uses, just as does Euclidean geometry.
You are befuddled. For instance, you did not write a proper sentence. And your desrciption of the current state of physics shows you are befuddled. And if your fishing around to discredit me only found that one post, I feel good, becausze you have taken it out of context.

(Keep in mind Pythagoras discovered most of his principles from observations about the real world - and supposedly Newton did as well when he was sitting under a tree and an apple fell on him. Our knowledge of numbers comes from our observations about the real world.)
Besides being irrelavnt, it shows you are pretty clueless. You really think Newton got to F=ma from observing an apple falling on his head.

Anyway, this guy hasn't opened up a textbook in decades. File under "kook."
I suspect all your knowledge is from wikipedia, actually. Because as I have shown many times with specific quotes, you have no clue.
TY again, Marxist.

~

SmilingDave

11th April 2010, 01:35

If by "one" you mean "you," then I guess that would depend on how you would respond in kind. Would you object if such comments did not include full context, for example?
Im all for full context. Please tell me the context which sheds light on why lots of blood in the streets is a good thing.

Anyway, the following example of your work seems to put the lie to your purse-lipped, eyelash-batting, self-portrayal as a scrupulous debater who would only offer advice to us that he himself would follow:

mises.org/Community/forums/p/15219/316590.aspx#316590

Do as you say, not as you do, eh?
I was quoting Mises, and found his portrayal very apt with regards to the marxist who was slinging mud in that thread. Some of you guys are resorting to it here as well.

Yes of course I assume marxism to be claptrap. But I do not debate its m
merits with anyone, because I am not informed enough about it.

[This is in contrast to someone saying here that Mises has been discredited because he lived before Godel. I pointed out that Euclid has not been discredited, even though he lived WAY before Godel. The informed among us can have a good laugh seeing his confused attempt to get out of that one.]

The thread there, to give the full context you insist on, was not wether marx was right or wrong, but about wether he looked forward to the kind of world he claimed was going to come into being.

IcarusAngel

11th April 2010, 01:41

This is also wrong. To be useful, an axiom system does not have to be rich enough to incorporate the laws of arithmatic.

It'd help your case dave if you could spell arithmetic. Give me an example of such a weak axiomatic system from mathematics. Godel's theorem also applies to all non-TRIVIAL axiomatic systems - and yet you continue to state that it only applies to axiomatic systems "rich enough" to incorporate the "laws" of arithmetic. Further proof you don't know what you're talking about.

Can you explain to me why they are not contradictory and flawed and discredited? Euclid lived a way before Mises, and so his system should be totally discredited and flawed and contradictory.You completely misunderstand the arguments being made. The point is that all of mathematics cannot be REDUCED to such an axiomatic set. If you can reduce mathematics to Euclid's axioms, you'd be given a fields medal. We know we cannot do this, even without Godel's theorem, as Euclid's axioms are FALSE when applied to spherical geometry.

This is a nonsensical statement. The correct statement is "However the axioms are not ASSUMED AS GIVEN when studying non euclidean geometry.
And there is a big difference. Your nonsense version is trying to say that euclids axiom system has been partially discredited, that it is indeed flawed and contradictory and discredited, But it isn't.

I did no such a thing. I merely said that Euclid's postulates regarding lines and so on have to be restated regarding spherical geometry. There is no difference and I did not apply that Euclid's axioms have been discredited, only that they're not applicable.

"Points" and "lines" are not axioms. Further evidence that you know not of what you speak.

I meant to say we must reconsider our postulates regarding points and lines.

Very good. Now we gotten somewhere. We agree on this. But we have also gotten to the point where you have painted yourself into a corner. How have I painted myself in a corner? Everything I said is true.

You, however, have failed to give one example of a useful axiomatic system where Godel's incompleteness theorems do not apply.

No, if they weren't they would have to be discarded, because they would contain a contradiction. Further evidence, if any is needed by now, that you don't know the first thing about Goels Theorem.You're right Dave, I don't understand "Goel's theorem." Can you tell me about it?

But regarding arithmetic, GODEL's theorem actually does prove that any axiomatic system of arithmetic is incomplete, including Russell's.

I take that as a white flag of surrender. Mises taught that the sign a Marxist knows he's wrong is when he stoops to name calling., TY.

You're a kook because you make things up as you go along. Miseans claim that all of human nature can be reduced to a set of axioms. This is what is disputed by me, especially since this isn't even true for mathematics, and we know it isn't because of Godel's incompleteness theorems.

Now there is an unsubstantiated statement. And of course, you are now backtracking. It started with Mises axioms being flawed and discredited and contradictory. Now you say well, in my informed opinion, having read his works, they do not seem usefull.

No, I'm not backtracking. I still believe that Misean axioms are flawed, discredited, and contradictory.

I am a mathematician, but not a discredited one. On Mises forum you admit you "don't know enough about mathematics." So which is it? I assume you have evidence you have a Ph.D in mathematics?

SmilingDave

11th April 2010, 01:49

Don't ban this misean.
hahaha. Banning. The Marxist's last resort, hey?

He's at least funny. It's hilarious when they know a little bit about something and try and mix Misean axioms in with it. What are the "axioms" of calculus that you refer to Dave..?
Well we are getting somewhere. You admit I know a "little bit". LOL. More than you ever will, my friend.

I don't remember mentioning axioms of calculus. I did mention axioms of Newtonian Physics. They will be found in the first chapter of most physics books. They are called "Newton's Laws of Motion".

But since you've asked, the axioms of set theory account for all of calculus as we know it. If you ask about Newton, he was way too early to try and axiomatize calculus.

Mostly the abstract concept of a limit is enough for most people's purposes.
A "limit" is not an axiom. It is a definition.
Also, Godel's theorem applies to non-TRIVIAL axiomatic systems.... So is he saying that the Misean axioms are a trivial set of axioms that take us on the road to nowhere?
"Trivial" as used in Godel's theorem is a technical term. It means "rich enough to include the laws of arithmetic". Euclid's masterpiece may also be trivial in this sense. Group theory is as well, I believe. And topology, and who knows what else.

But all those studies do not take us on the road to nowhere. I hope you realize that.

I also hope you realize that an axiom system for economics will not have as its aim to produce the laws of arithmatic, right?
That I would agree with.
~

IcarusAngel

11th April 2010, 01:53

In Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Obviously you know nothing of physics if you have to ask this.

He wrote "Axioms, or Laws of Motion."

Scientists discarded the statement "axiom" and kept "laws of motion," hence they are referred to as Newton's First Law, Newton's Second Law, and Newton's third law. This is because they are not at all "Axioms" about the real world.

You are befuddled. For instance, you did not write a proper sentence. And your desrciption of the current state of physics shows you are befuddled. And if your fishing around to discredit me only found that one post, I feel good, becausze you have taken it out of context.Show me how my description of the modern state of physics is "befuddled."

I suspect all your knowledge is from wikipedia, actually. Because as I have shown many times with specific quotes, you have no clue.
TY again, Marxist.
I'm the only one who has provided any specific sources so far in this discussion.

I think it's YOUR knowledge that is from wikipedia, as you have not provided a valid explanation for any of your beliefs, including Mises' axioms.

IcarusAngel

11th April 2010, 02:06

I don't remember mentioning axioms of calculus. I did mention axioms of Newtonian Physics. They will be found in the first chapter of most physics books. They are called "Newton's Laws of Motion".

Yes. They're called Newton's LAWS of motion because they are not actually axioms.

Well we are getting somewhere. You admit I know a "little bit". LOL. More than you ever will, my friend.Given your attitude, ad-hominem arguments, straw men, constant misspelling of the word "arithmetic," etc., you certainly haven't shown you know much about about logic or mathematics here.

You've not presented any evidence you are a mathematician or even have a degree in mathematics.

A "limit" is not an axiom. It is a definition. I didn't say it was an axiom.

"Trivial" as used in Godel's theorem is a technical term. It means "rich enough to include the laws of arithmetic". Euclid's masterpiece may also be trivial in this sense. Group theory is as well, I believe. And topology, and who knows what else.

Find me a mathematician (a real one) who has ever said this. Topology, geometry, group theory is obviously non-trivial.

IcarusAngel

11th April 2010, 02:39

Euclid's masterpiece...

On the weakness of Euclid's elements and of dangers maintaining only one postulate set:

The development of Lobachevskian and of Riemannian geometries came as something of revolutionary intellectual significance. Earlier thinkers, and especially the philosopher Kant, had held that there was only one true geometry, whose laws were necessarily and immutably Euclidean. Was not that view clearly refuted by the appearance of these new types of geometry? But if mathematicians permit the development of alternative geometries whose laws contradict those of Euclidean geometry, what has become of the notion of truth in mathematics? Can it be that these conflicting geometries are equally true? Or is it that mathematicians no longer even seek the truth about space?

Many conservative-minded people were deeply puzzled by these questions and were deeply shocked by the working out of non-Euclidean geometries. They felt that Euclid's postulates and theorems were all true, and necessarily so; they felt that any non-Euclidean geometry must therefore contain what is necessarily false. And it seemed to them that a system of geometry must be logically inconsistent if it contains necessarily false postulates and theorems about space, such as that the same of the angles of a triangle is less than, or greater than, two right angles. Yet no one ever succeeded in discovering either in Lobachevskian or in Riemannian geometry any pair of theorems that were strict logical contradictions of each other (that is, that contradicted each other by virtue of their logical form). Opponents of non-Euclidean geometry, although they tried hard, never were able to show that it violated the requirements of formal logical consistency. Yet these non-Euclidean systems had not positively been proved to be consistent either. The very important question whether they were consistent hung in the air for a time. The seriousness of this question was powerful factor that forced mathematicians to seek still more rigorous logical procedures than those observed by Euclid. Another factor was increasing awareness of logical weaknesses within Euclid's Elements itself.--Mathematics, People, Problems, Results, Douglas M. Campbell, John C. Higgins

SmilingDave

11th April 2010, 02:51

It'd help your case dave if you could spell arithmetic.
That's what you are reduced to now?
Give me an example of such a weak axiomatic system from mathematics.
I am not sure about htis. Most of Math is assumed nowadays to be embedded in [meaning use the the axioms of] set theory, which certainly deduces the laws of arithmatic. That is why godels theorem was such a blow to the mathematical world. It seemed to apply to everything they knew about until then. It would be a very specialized field that studies such a weak axiomatic system. However, Euclid's axioms might very well be candidates.

Godel's theorem also applies to all non-TRIVIAL axiomatic systems - and yet you continue to state that it only applies to axiomatic systems "rich enough" to incorporate the "laws" of arithmetic. Further proof you don't know what you're talking about.
hahaha. That line is further proof YOU don't knwo what you are talking about. Do you think a mathematicianm would use the word "trivial" and not define it? I doubt he even used the word. You got it from wikipedia. Look it up over there and you will see that when Godel used the term Trivial, he meant rich enough to incorporate the laws of arithmatic. I cant post links , but read about godels theorem on wiki and you will see, over and over and over, that he is talking about a system rich enough to include the laws of arithmatic. that is what trivial means in this context. Live with it.

You completely misunderstand the arguments being made. The point is that all of mathematics cannot be REDUCED to such an axiomatic set. If you can reduce mathematics to Euclid's axioms, you'd be given a fields medal. We know we cannot do this, even without Godel's theorem, as Euclid's axioms are FALSE when applied to spherical geometry.
You are waffling again. Your said in post number 141 that " Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that any axiomatic set for arithmetic will lead to a contradiction." When challenged, you reread wikipedia and said in post 144, "Basically for any axiomatic system there will be at least one statement that is unprovable." When challenged about that, you ran again to wiki and came up with post 157 "It will contain a contradiction if you try and make a meaningful axiomatic system complete."
That last one is still wrong. The word "meaningful" has to be replaced by "rich enough to include basic arithmatic."

Now you are setting upo a straw man, trying to make people think i said Euclids axioms can be used to reduce ALL OF MATH to them. I never said that. I said they are consistent and yield important information.

BTW, I have bad news for you. Euclid's axioms are not wrong when applied to spherical gemetry. Spherical geometry is studied using Euclid's axioms EXCLUSIVELY. What you have misread in wikipedia is something else entirely. It has been discovered that if we redefine "line" to mean "a great circle on a sphere," then the sphere is a model of a reality where one of euclids axioms is not true USING THAT NONSTANDARD DEFINITION OF "LINE." But when actually studying spherical geometry, make no mistake, it's euclid all the way.

I did no such a thing. I merely said that Euclid's postulates regarding lines and so on have to be restated regarding spherical geometry. There is no difference and I did not apply that Euclid's axioms have been discredited, only that they're not applicable.
I wrote above that this is a factual error.

I meant to say we must reconsider our postulates regarding points and lines.

How have I painted myself in a corner? Everything I said is true.

You, however, have failed to give one example of a useful axiomatic system where Godel's incompleteness theorems do not apply.

You're right Dave, I don't understand "Goel's theorem." Can you tell me about it?

But regarding arithmetic, GODEL's theorem actually does prove that any axiomatic system of arithmetic is incomplete, including Russell's.

You're a kook because you make things up as you go along.
Lol, no I don't, you do, as I have shown very clearly above.

Miseans claim that all of human nature can be reduced to a set of axioms.
This is untrue. Show me a quote. He did not do that at all. What he did was what every serious scientist and mathematician does. He stated a list of axioms and studied their consequences. This is NOT the same as "reducing ALL of human nature" to a set of axioms.

This is what is disputed by me, especially since this isn't even true for mathematics, and we know it isn't because of Godel's incompleteness theorems.
Two errors here. One, he did not do that, as I explained in previous paragraph. Two, his axioms may not be rich enough for godels theorem to apply. Put another way, it is a tremendous mistake to use the word "even" in your sentence.

No, I'm not backtracking. I still believe that Misean axioms are flawed, discredited, and contradictory.

On Mises forum you admit you "don't know enough about mathematics."
Have you ever walked into a Mathematics Library in any University?
Or even a good college bookstore? I doubt I said I do not know enough about Godel's theorem. I assume it was about a different part of the vast universe which is mathematics.
BTW I could not find where I said that, even though it's true. Link please?

So which is it? I assume you have evidence you have a Ph.D in mathematics?
I do not have PhD. However, I studied Godels theorem ALONE for six months. Afterwards, I studied Mathematical Logic with the best minds in UC Berkeley for over a year. It got to the point where I once verbally stated the proof of Godel's theorem from scratch in an idle moment, when we were waiting for the prof to show up. Took me about five minutes or so, and made me some friends with that group.

Tell you what. Find someone who does have a PhD in Mathematical Logic and see if he finds a single flaw in all I have written.

Well I have nothing to add. My final post. Good luck guys.

~

IcarusAngel

11th April 2010, 03:08

I am not sure about htis. Most of Math is assumed nowadays to be embedded in [meaning use the the axioms of] set theory, which certainly deduces the laws of arithmatic. That is why godels theorem was such a blow to the mathematical world. It seemed to apply to everything they knew about until then. It would be a very specialized field that studies such a weak axiomatic system. However, Euclid's axioms might very well be candidates.

Lol. So in other words you're talking out of your ass, and got called on it. Euclid's axioms are not candidates. However, his system is not applicable to even all of geometry, let alone all of mathematics. You don't even need Godel's theorem to show this.

You are waffling again. Your said in post number 141 that

You're going in circles and I stand by my statements. Any attempt to PROVE completeness will lead to a contradiction.

I wrote above that this is a factual error.

It is not a factual error and Euclid's system is weak:

The development of Lobachevskian and of Riemannian geometries came as something of revolutionary intellectual significance. Earlier thinkers, and especially the philosopher Kant, had held that there was only one true geometry, whose laws were necessarily and immutably Euclidean. Was not that view clearly refuted by the appearance of these new types of geometry? But if mathematicians permit the development of alternative geometries whose laws contradict those of Euclidean geometry, what has become of the notion of truth in mathematics? Can it be that these conflicting geometries are equally true? Or is it that mathematicians no longer even seek the truth about space?

Many conservative-minded people were deeply puzzled by these questions and were deeply shocked by the working out of non-Euclidean geometries. They felt that Euclid's postulates and theorems were all true, and necessarily so; they felt that any non-Euclidean geometry must therefore contain what is necessarily false. And it seemed to them that a system of geometry must be logically inconsistent if it contains necessarily false postulates and theorems about space, such as that the same of the angles of a triangle is less than, or greater than, two right angles. Yet no one ever succeeded in discovering either in Lobachevskian or in Riemannian geometry any pair of theorems that were strict logical contradictions of each other (that is, that contradicted each other by virtue of their logical form). Opponents of non-Euclidean geometry, although they tried hard, never were able to show that it violated the requirements of formal logical consistency. Yet these non-Euclidean systems had not positively been proved to be consistent either. The very important question whether they were consistent hung in the air for a time. The seriousness of this question was powerful factor that forced mathematicians to seek still more rigorous logical procedures than those observed by Euclid. Another factor was increasing awareness of logical weaknesses within Euclid's Elements itself.

I do not have PhD. However, I studied Godels theorem ALONE for six months. Afterwards, I studied Mathematical Logic with the best minds in UC Berkeley for over a year. It got to the point where I once verbally stated the proof of Godel's theorem from scratch in an idle moment, when we were waiting for the prof to show up. Took me about five minutes or so, and made me some friends with that group.

Tell you what. Find someone who does have a PhD in Mathematical Logic and see if he finds a single flaw in all I have written.

So, like a typical Misean you're speaking out of school and are not trained in mathematics.

I've already provided links, quotes from mathematicians, and sources that show that YOU are wrong.