I have a question. You said that no two actions can be preformed at the same time and gave the example of reading and sleeping. But what about texting and driving, those are two actions that can be done at the same time, even if not done well. In fact there are plenty of thing that can be done at the same time like playing a video game and talking to someone. So I guess my question is, how can you say that two actions cannot happen at the same time when people multitask everyday?
Talk about over-complicating something! If the girl weren't cute, I could not have made it to the end. I think quantum mechanics pretty much put this arcane view of time to rest. In fact, there is something in a Platonic dialogue about all events occurring simultaneously if looked at from a different perspective. I think the insight that whether past or future there is only Now is more valuable than this praxeology. It is always now.
@MarcusCMarcellus I think she established early on in the series that praxeology is useful to frame our understanding of the human condition here and now, instead of worrying about the theoretical implications of an unproven model. String theory and quantum physics are far more theoretical at this point than you claim.
Unless you're saying that you're capable of traveling through time right now, the studyof the implications of linear time is still of great value.
Two actions cannot happen at the same time? What about something as simple as watching TV and eating a snack. Aren't those both actions? Is multi-tasking a fallacy? Can you clarify? Thanks :)
@drootshnoot It would simply be classified as one action. These definitions are created in such a way that they can't be rejected. For example, Mises uses "uneasiness" to talk about what cause a man to act, but you may not literally be uneasy. Your emotional state may be excited, for example, but we simply refer to uneasiness as that which causes the man to act.
Septeus, your comments are becoming more and more insane. People do not act on the past in the sense of changing past events. No amount of classical music or college BS sessions about relativity theory will change that.
The immortality on action is the basis of civil society in the classical sense. The Austrian school is an attack on the foundation of civilization. By separating the action of the mind from it acting a efficient creative principle in the universe one attacks the idea that one should act morally i.e. which a certain regard for the future and disregard for other actions.
Not all actions are equally valuable and no civilization can survive without this physical reference toward the future.
@Septeus7 "The immortality on action is the basis of civil society in the classical sense. The Austrian school is an attack on the foundation of civilization."
What the fuck? The Austrian school simply does not pass judgment on the values that people hold or the goals they have; it instead concerns itself with the implications of their actions in pursuit of those goals. If you want a study of ethics go bother an ethical school of thought, not an economic school of thought.
All future action that result from the discovery of a principle can only result from the actions of individual sovereign mind then all "so-called" acts which follow from said principle must be contained within the potential of the single moment of discovery and thus one's action a simultaneous throughout time i.e. immortal. The mind exists within the universe efficiently and thus in giving action to an immortal principle it must also be immortal . Why is the important? I'll continue...
No, No, No, NO.... Action doesn't produce change. Change produces Action. You go on present time based on Laplace's thoroughly debunked classical view. Man acts on the past as we as on the future. You don't understand this then I suggest you stop reading Austrian economics and learn to play a Bach fugue and learn about relativity of time on a fun and practical level.
Time isn't scarce because discover a principle that works forever within one's life time (continued) and beyond.
@Thetwistedcorner Precious metals are finite on this planet. All of the metals above iron are only fused in supernova explosions like the one that our solar system coalesced from. There is also only a finite divisibility of elements(atoms). Further, the permanent physical properties of elements(density and conductivity) and chemical properties of certain metals like low reactivity make them the most reliable as tokens for exchange.
@Thetwistedcorner Any Analogous features, like being finite after some time, are artificially imposed by the HUMAN network. There is no more garauntee that the limit to the number of bitcoins won't be raised, or just as likely that the divisibility won't stay limited.
@Thetwistedcorner The only difference between the fed adding zeros to electronic balance sheets of banks and "mining" bitcoins is that the processing power(capital resources) required for "mining" is an extremely large multiple compared to touch of a keystroke transaction.
@metalfuelandfire Mining isn't just generating coins. Mining is more about securing the network and verifying all the transactions that happen across the network. Mining does take alot of resources, but ask yourself how much resources does the whole banking industry itself take to run?
@Thetwistedcorner You don't seem to understand my argument. The fact that maintaining credit expansion in the Fed system isn't virtually free, only strengthens my argument that the difference between fiat notes and Bitcoins will rapidly become trivial with future productivity increases.
@Thetwistedcorner Further, the fact that BItcoins isn't centralized now and that there are a much larger number of people participating in "securing the network and verifying all the transactions" does not insure that it won't become centralized like any other currency not bound by physical constraints. At some point the rules WILL change and divisibility will become infinite like any other Fiat currency.
@metalfuelandfire The desires of Bitcoin holders is the insurance. In order to centralize bitcoins one would have to accumulate all of them, after they are all mined and distributed. Any attempt to centralize will be crushed by reality through price. That last 1/1,000,000th of BTC would cost approx. as much as the rest combined to acquire. Outside of that, it would require everyone holding BTC to spontaneously and voluntarily group and pool. One hold out kills. It amounts to unwarranted fear.
@IcarusMoonsight Nonsense. You still don't understand my argument. All that's necessary to change the nature of bitcoins is for a small group that owns a majority of Bitcoins. They would just amend their Bitcoins and circulate the fraudulent coins into the marketplace until all existing Bitcoins were modified. No legal tender law backed by the threat of force is required to run a pyramid scheme.Only a large enough initial stake to consolidate the fraud is required.
@IcarusMoonsight The fact that you or I may know better than to buy fraudulant Bitcoins does not insure that the overall market of eventual participants wouldn't make such a mistake. It's meaningless to talk about "insurance" when it comes to currencies, any currency can be manipulated..
@IcarusMoonsight In fact, it's a absolute certainty even for metals. However, only metals cannot be inflated out of existence in the wake of manipulation. That is why only metals can be money(fallback currency standard) and everything else is inflated out of existence eventually.
@metalfuelandfire BTC as it stands in not manipulable in that sense. If it ever becomes that way, it's the same as a change of currency. You are no longer dealing with BTC, but something else riding on the trust associated with BTC (if/when it acquires that widespread value reputation). Gold/Silver backed dollars became debt backed... They're not the same, though still called USD. Humans can error, and fraud is always possible. Nothing can change this.
@metalfuelandfire All value is subjective. Metals are only useful because they satisfy certain needs, and because currency has value in and of itself. Anything agreed upon can be money; it just so happens that gold has historically served that demand. *Anything* the market comes up with as currency will act that way as per the regression theorem.
@morrowindz "just so happens" is an extremely poor explanation. I explained why the default money will always revert to what we currently call precious metals because of their specific physical qualities. Anything else can be money if agreed upon but anything but metals can be inflated out of existence and physically destroyed or "printed" infinitely via electronic tokens. The amount of each nonreactive, non-radioactive element on this planet is finite and constant.
@metalfuelandfire Further...NO it's not hard to tell. All currencies eventually are manipulated. Nothing human lasts forever. While Bitcoins may be a better alternative to Fiat currencies, they WILL NOT remain that way. It's not difficult to predict. I'll say it again, the rules governing Bitcoins are HUMAN rules. Therefore, at some point they will change based on the certainty of other things humans do in groups: Fraud, Coercion, Theft, etc...
@morrowindz No matter how many times it is misrepresented through fractional currency it will always physically be there to return to use as money during the brief periods between empires. Nothing, including Bitcoins can match that quality.
@metalfuelandfire If a group issues paper/token currency with BTC as a reserve unit (token redemption vs having the BTC codes on the note/instrument), then you might have your nightmare scenario. Though a tangible or even fractional reserve currency backed with BTC isn't bad in itself, that is assuming it's not also backed by legal tender force. So if you see BTC fractional paper that is backed by legal tender, don't accept it.
@metalfuelandfire Sure there will probably be some centralization to it. There is a difference between something being divisible and just making more of it. When the fed is adding dollars to the balance sheet out of thin air its a little different than the fed splitting up one dollar into many pieces.
@Thetwistedcorner You're wrong. All currencies move from "some centralization" to complete devaluation. The take-home point is that once a token currency is introduced into the Bitcoin market at a rate faster than it can be extinguished by double-spending safe-gaurds, the division can be repatriated as the parent(whole BTC) currency at an indefinite rate. Meaning at some point in the pyramid scheme there will be no distinction between dividing Bitcoins, and selling bitcoin tokens. See denarii
@metalfuelandfire Thinking about it again. The Fed system actually does accomplish the same ends as splitting money into pieces when it adds money to balance sheets. When you deposit $.001 into a bank you are actually creating up to $1.00 in new dollars in credit with a %10 reserve requirement. So yeah, split your "new" electronic dollar 1000 times and you've got 1000 more dollars in the system.
@metalfuelandfire This isn't quite true, because of the distribution of the currency on the structure of the economy. In the case of the federal reserve, the distribution will be very uneven and will first inflate capital goods. I suspect that in the case of bitcoin, the distribution will be very even - hard to tell but ultimately the units of bitcoin don't really change significantly.
@morrowindz How long exactly and how rapid the devaluation? That's unclear. What is clear is that in the periods of renewed freedom where other currencies collapse, Metals are money.
@Thetwistedcorner As we Austrians understand, scarcity is a function of underproduction(real money excepted). In other words, by the time the Bitcoin count reaches it's artificial max, processing power will have made "mining" much more trivial despite the curve of diminishing returns in place.
Really? Time is a definite and undeniable truth? Sorry praxgirl, Einstein blew that concept out of the water with just his own thought experiments. I find it pretty Ironic that you state human action cannot be modeled using using mathematics when the fundamental concept of spontaneous order is a direct analog to the concept of self-organisation in physics.
You are describing an Automata that choses A first, and in it's new state then chooses C. That's perfectly fine. I never really understood the missesans *Beef* with mathematics.
@carlosjhr64 Praxeologists have no beef with mathematics, as long as its used as a language to describe what we know through logic. The problem of Praxeologists is with using Mathematical models to derive new facts about reality. Plus the way she explains it is easier to understand for most people, the way you put it is easy to understand for mathematicians and comp sci majors only.
@prashantpawar I agree, but a lot of them don't have a solid enough math background and I think there's a real confusion as to what Mises meant to say.... with a Doctoral from 1914, by mathematics does he just mean y = f(x) for x and y in R? What of Game Theory, Chaos, Emergence, etc. I tried to read *Human Action*, but it was too heavy in esoteric philosophy of its time. The confusion maybe in the reading of "Mathematical Catallactics".
No, its not an automata, unless you make it a dynamically changing automata, overtime as progression thru time occurs. But then, if your automata keeps changing and growing, there is no point to claiming that you have an automata.. right?
The main point often is that they do not and cannot "know" the Automata and the example is only hypothetical and only to be used for explaining concepts.
Such automata would be incredibly complex and large for a single person and subject to change. Now, think of every single person involved in the economy and their interconnections etc. It is almost impossible to deal with it. Austrians generally are attempting to explain how an economy works and not trying to model it.
@utubehayter I'm just saying that the description of a Man in a *State* of uneasiness that acts (or *Transitions*) to remove the uneasiness (and thus enter into a new *State*) is Automata Theory (LOL). There is no description of the Automata's internals, only that from a given State, it transitions (Acts) to a set a allowed states. It's a logical system and still falls under Mathematics... usually used to describe language.
If it helps you to visualize it like an automata, go ahead. But beware that it is a very non-definite automata and you don't know what the states and transistions are.
Also, if you are going to do that, you would not have states without descriptions; there would always be a description although you can never find out what it is beyond superficially observed characteristics.
@utubehayter Yes, she's describing an Automata and it's state transitions. :) The allowed transitions in a given state need NOT be the same as the allowed transition in another state. Likewise, a person's preferences need not (and is not expected to be (think diminishing return for one thing)) remain the same after an action.
i've read your profile and, while i am sure that you are very smart and you indeed believe in praxeology, your good looks played an important part in choosing you to be spokesperson among your group of praxeologists.
I don't understand the argument about preference order: A>B>C, but C>A, in terms of preference... Why is this not irrational, and what has time to do with it. Aren't preferences transitive?
@alalelalex Preferences aren't transitive(that's the whole point), BECAUSE of time. The point is A>B>C cannot be expressed through an action in one instant, first action expressing A>B must happen then B>C, or vice versa, because one action cannot perform the two preferences at the same time, A>B>C can never be determined, its always in time t1 A>B and time t2 B>C, so in time t3 C>A or A>C.
Time is an undeniable truth, but money is a vicious lie. Tomorrow can be better than yesterday, but if you waste all of your time today on trivial and meaningless activity rooted in the monetary system, that future will never be.
@Lightrider4444 do you have any idea what you're talking about? Money has transformed our existence for the better. It facilitates trade, calibrates the availability of credit with capital-intensive investments promotes uniformity in goods via prices. The political system is rotten though, I'm sure you agree. And yes the existing monetary system is atrocious, but that doesn't negate the value of money.
@networkedfreedom Don't concern your time with him, he's probably one of those insane zeitgeist people who's arguments are riddled with logical fallacies and disproven dogma.
@praxgirl Were I wealthy enough, I'd sponsor you. Stefan Molyneux earns enough through tips on his work to be a full-time podcaster and stay-at-home dad. I think you offer enough value to possibly reach that point. Until then I'll just keep you on my list for when I have money to burn.
@Lightrider4444 Define 'monitary system' do you mean voluntarily exchanges with a preferable medium of exchange, or do you mean fiat fictions and the technocratic system in place?
concerning law#4, "two actions cannot happen at the same time." well, to take an example, what about walking? when you walk, you are doing swinging your arm as well as moving your alternate leg forward. each has the purpose of maintaining balance on your body and shifting momentum. but then again, these actions are reflexive, so would they count?
@Bluestarhand She also sad "one action can serve multiple purposes". So you could treat that as a single action. I'm not sure about something like walking to work while texting your friend though.
I don't think it's an essential issue but remember it in case something else depends on this.
@Bluestarhand When she refers to action, she does not refer to change in molecules or atoms. She refers to employing means to attain chosen ends. Thus, walking (moving legs and arms) is an action in economic, praxeological sense. And its end is, fore instance, to get from A to B.
I have a question. You said that no two actions can be preformed at the same time and gave the example of reading and sleeping. But what about texting and driving, those are two actions that can be done at the same time, even if not done well. In fact there are plenty of thing that can be done at the same time like playing a video game and talking to someone. So I guess my question is, how can you say that two actions cannot happen at the same time when people multitask everyday?
23bloodbath 4 hours ago
public school 12th grade econ fails so hard
capi7al 3 weeks ago
Best video thus far, keep up the great work praxgirl! :)
AlecTaylor6 2 months ago
Talk about over-complicating something! If the girl weren't cute, I could not have made it to the end. I think quantum mechanics pretty much put this arcane view of time to rest. In fact, there is something in a Platonic dialogue about all events occurring simultaneously if looked at from a different perspective. I think the insight that whether past or future there is only Now is more valuable than this praxeology. It is always now.
MarcusCMarcellus 2 months ago
@MarcusCMarcellus "It is always now. "
True...
Why there so much blabbering around?
TheHomoludens 2 months ago
@MarcusCMarcellus I think she established early on in the series that praxeology is useful to frame our understanding of the human condition here and now, instead of worrying about the theoretical implications of an unproven model. String theory and quantum physics are far more theoretical at this point than you claim.
Unless you're saying that you're capable of traveling through time right now, the studyof the implications of linear time is still of great value.
HeyItzMeDawg 2 months ago
Crap, I stopped looking her in the eyes and now I have to re-watch the video...
kingcherub 3 months ago
Two actions cannot happen at the same time? What about something as simple as watching TV and eating a snack. Aren't those both actions? Is multi-tasking a fallacy? Can you clarify? Thanks :)
drootshnoot 3 months ago
@drootshnoot It would simply be classified as one action. These definitions are created in such a way that they can't be rejected. For example, Mises uses "uneasiness" to talk about what cause a man to act, but you may not literally be uneasy. Your emotional state may be excited, for example, but we simply refer to uneasiness as that which causes the man to act.
RKAddict101 3 months ago
Septeus, your comments are becoming more and more insane. People do not act on the past in the sense of changing past events. No amount of classical music or college BS sessions about relativity theory will change that.
vacaboi 4 months ago
"its" not "it's"
.
hard to take you seriously after such a trivial mistake... :(
ZamolxisReborn 5 months ago
The immortality on action is the basis of civil society in the classical sense. The Austrian school is an attack on the foundation of civilization. By separating the action of the mind from it acting a efficient creative principle in the universe one attacks the idea that one should act morally i.e. which a certain regard for the future and disregard for other actions.
Not all actions are equally valuable and no civilization can survive without this physical reference toward the future.
Septeus7 5 months ago
@Septeus7 "The immortality on action is the basis of civil society in the classical sense. The Austrian school is an attack on the foundation of civilization."
What the fuck? The Austrian school simply does not pass judgment on the values that people hold or the goals they have; it instead concerns itself with the implications of their actions in pursuit of those goals. If you want a study of ethics go bother an ethical school of thought, not an economic school of thought.
HeyItzMeDawg 2 months ago
All future action that result from the discovery of a principle can only result from the actions of individual sovereign mind then all "so-called" acts which follow from said principle must be contained within the potential of the single moment of discovery and thus one's action a simultaneous throughout time i.e. immortal. The mind exists within the universe efficiently and thus in giving action to an immortal principle it must also be immortal . Why is the important? I'll continue...
Septeus7 5 months ago
No, No, No, NO.... Action doesn't produce change. Change produces Action. You go on present time based on Laplace's thoroughly debunked classical view. Man acts on the past as we as on the future. You don't understand this then I suggest you stop reading Austrian economics and learn to play a Bach fugue and learn about relativity of time on a fun and practical level.
Time isn't scarce because discover a principle that works forever within one's life time (continued) and beyond.
Septeus7 5 months ago
No offency hunny, but you kinda overdid it with blush in this video ^_^
CleverDjembe 5 months ago
Do what you say. Say what you do. One thing leads to another!
GroovePatriot 6 months ago
Awesome series. You're a beautiful girl promoting a beautiful methodology.
AminCad 6 months ago
I'd also like to say, that without a knowledge of physics you can't understand why Bitcoins don't possess the properties of money.
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
Comment removed
Conza88 6 months ago
@metalfuelandfire what properties of money don't bitcoins possess?
Thetwistedcorner 6 months ago
@Thetwistedcorner Precious metals are finite on this planet. All of the metals above iron are only fused in supernova explosions like the one that our solar system coalesced from. There is also only a finite divisibility of elements(atoms). Further, the permanent physical properties of elements(density and conductivity) and chemical properties of certain metals like low reactivity make them the most reliable as tokens for exchange.
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
@Thetwistedcorner Any Analogous features, like being finite after some time, are artificially imposed by the HUMAN network. There is no more garauntee that the limit to the number of bitcoins won't be raised, or just as likely that the divisibility won't stay limited.
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
@Thetwistedcorner The only difference between the fed adding zeros to electronic balance sheets of banks and "mining" bitcoins is that the processing power(capital resources) required for "mining" is an extremely large multiple compared to touch of a keystroke transaction.
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
@metalfuelandfire Mining isn't just generating coins. Mining is more about securing the network and verifying all the transactions that happen across the network. Mining does take alot of resources, but ask yourself how much resources does the whole banking industry itself take to run?
Thetwistedcorner 6 months ago
@Thetwistedcorner You don't seem to understand my argument. The fact that maintaining credit expansion in the Fed system isn't virtually free, only strengthens my argument that the difference between fiat notes and Bitcoins will rapidly become trivial with future productivity increases.
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
@Thetwistedcorner Further, the fact that BItcoins isn't centralized now and that there are a much larger number of people participating in "securing the network and verifying all the transactions" does not insure that it won't become centralized like any other currency not bound by physical constraints. At some point the rules WILL change and divisibility will become infinite like any other Fiat currency.
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
@metalfuelandfire The desires of Bitcoin holders is the insurance. In order to centralize bitcoins one would have to accumulate all of them, after they are all mined and distributed. Any attempt to centralize will be crushed by reality through price. That last 1/1,000,000th of BTC would cost approx. as much as the rest combined to acquire. Outside of that, it would require everyone holding BTC to spontaneously and voluntarily group and pool. One hold out kills. It amounts to unwarranted fear.
IcarusMoonsight 6 months ago
@IcarusMoonsight Nonsense. You still don't understand my argument. All that's necessary to change the nature of bitcoins is for a small group that owns a majority of Bitcoins. They would just amend their Bitcoins and circulate the fraudulent coins into the marketplace until all existing Bitcoins were modified. No legal tender law backed by the threat of force is required to run a pyramid scheme.Only a large enough initial stake to consolidate the fraud is required.
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
@IcarusMoonsight The fact that you or I may know better than to buy fraudulant Bitcoins does not insure that the overall market of eventual participants wouldn't make such a mistake. It's meaningless to talk about "insurance" when it comes to currencies, any currency can be manipulated..
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
@IcarusMoonsight In fact, it's a absolute certainty even for metals. However, only metals cannot be inflated out of existence in the wake of manipulation. That is why only metals can be money(fallback currency standard) and everything else is inflated out of existence eventually.
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
@metalfuelandfire BTC as it stands in not manipulable in that sense. If it ever becomes that way, it's the same as a change of currency. You are no longer dealing with BTC, but something else riding on the trust associated with BTC (if/when it acquires that widespread value reputation). Gold/Silver backed dollars became debt backed... They're not the same, though still called USD. Humans can error, and fraud is always possible. Nothing can change this.
IcarusMoonsight 6 months ago
@metalfuelandfire All value is subjective. Metals are only useful because they satisfy certain needs, and because currency has value in and of itself. Anything agreed upon can be money; it just so happens that gold has historically served that demand. *Anything* the market comes up with as currency will act that way as per the regression theorem.
morrowindz 6 months ago
@morrowindz "just so happens" is an extremely poor explanation. I explained why the default money will always revert to what we currently call precious metals because of their specific physical qualities. Anything else can be money if agreed upon but anything but metals can be inflated out of existence and physically destroyed or "printed" infinitely via electronic tokens. The amount of each nonreactive, non-radioactive element on this planet is finite and constant.
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
@metalfuelandfire Further...NO it's not hard to tell. All currencies eventually are manipulated. Nothing human lasts forever. While Bitcoins may be a better alternative to Fiat currencies, they WILL NOT remain that way. It's not difficult to predict. I'll say it again, the rules governing Bitcoins are HUMAN rules. Therefore, at some point they will change based on the certainty of other things humans do in groups: Fraud, Coercion, Theft, etc...
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
@morrowindz No matter how many times it is misrepresented through fractional currency it will always physically be there to return to use as money during the brief periods between empires. Nothing, including Bitcoins can match that quality.
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
@metalfuelandfire If a group issues paper/token currency with BTC as a reserve unit (token redemption vs having the BTC codes on the note/instrument), then you might have your nightmare scenario. Though a tangible or even fractional reserve currency backed with BTC isn't bad in itself, that is assuming it's not also backed by legal tender force. So if you see BTC fractional paper that is backed by legal tender, don't accept it.
IcarusMoonsight 6 months ago
@metalfuelandfire Sure there will probably be some centralization to it. There is a difference between something being divisible and just making more of it. When the fed is adding dollars to the balance sheet out of thin air its a little different than the fed splitting up one dollar into many pieces.
Thetwistedcorner 6 months ago
@Thetwistedcorner You're wrong. All currencies move from "some centralization" to complete devaluation. The take-home point is that once a token currency is introduced into the Bitcoin market at a rate faster than it can be extinguished by double-spending safe-gaurds, the division can be repatriated as the parent(whole BTC) currency at an indefinite rate. Meaning at some point in the pyramid scheme there will be no distinction between dividing Bitcoins, and selling bitcoin tokens. See denarii
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
@metalfuelandfire Thinking about it again. The Fed system actually does accomplish the same ends as splitting money into pieces when it adds money to balance sheets. When you deposit $.001 into a bank you are actually creating up to $1.00 in new dollars in credit with a %10 reserve requirement. So yeah, split your "new" electronic dollar 1000 times and you've got 1000 more dollars in the system.
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
@metalfuelandfire This isn't quite true, because of the distribution of the currency on the structure of the economy. In the case of the federal reserve, the distribution will be very uneven and will first inflate capital goods. I suspect that in the case of bitcoin, the distribution will be very even - hard to tell but ultimately the units of bitcoin don't really change significantly.
morrowindz 6 months ago
@morrowindz How long exactly and how rapid the devaluation? That's unclear. What is clear is that in the periods of renewed freedom where other currencies collapse, Metals are money.
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
@Thetwistedcorner As we Austrians understand, scarcity is a function of underproduction(real money excepted). In other words, by the time the Bitcoin count reaches it's artificial max, processing power will have made "mining" much more trivial despite the curve of diminishing returns in place.
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
Really? Time is a definite and undeniable truth? Sorry praxgirl, Einstein blew that concept out of the water with just his own thought experiments. I find it pretty Ironic that you state human action cannot be modeled using using mathematics when the fundamental concept of spontaneous order is a direct analog to the concept of self-organisation in physics.
metalfuelandfire 6 months ago
HG ÷ DM = V
or, Hot Girl divided by Dull Material equals Viewership. In this illustration, Dullness >Hotness. Goodbye.
SueUTube 6 months ago
You are describing an Automata that choses A first, and in it's new state then chooses C. That's perfectly fine. I never really understood the missesans *Beef* with mathematics.
carlosjhr64 6 months ago
@carlosjhr64 Praxeologists have no beef with mathematics, as long as its used as a language to describe what we know through logic. The problem of Praxeologists is with using Mathematical models to derive new facts about reality. Plus the way she explains it is easier to understand for most people, the way you put it is easy to understand for mathematicians and comp sci majors only.
prashantpawar 6 months ago
@prashantpawar I agree, but a lot of them don't have a solid enough math background and I think there's a real confusion as to what Mises meant to say.... with a Doctoral from 1914, by mathematics does he just mean y = f(x) for x and y in R? What of Game Theory, Chaos, Emergence, etc. I tried to read *Human Action*, but it was too heavy in esoteric philosophy of its time. The confusion maybe in the reading of "Mathematical Catallactics".
carlosjhr64 6 months ago
@carlosjhr64
No, its not an automata, unless you make it a dynamically changing automata, overtime as progression thru time occurs. But then, if your automata keeps changing and growing, there is no point to claiming that you have an automata.. right?
utubehayter 6 months ago
Comment removed
carlosjhr64 6 months ago
@carlosjhr64
The main point often is that they do not and cannot "know" the Automata and the example is only hypothetical and only to be used for explaining concepts.
Such automata would be incredibly complex and large for a single person and subject to change. Now, think of every single person involved in the economy and their interconnections etc. It is almost impossible to deal with it. Austrians generally are attempting to explain how an economy works and not trying to model it.
utubehayter 6 months ago
@utubehayter I'm just saying that the description of a Man in a *State* of uneasiness that acts (or *Transitions*) to remove the uneasiness (and thus enter into a new *State*) is Automata Theory (LOL). There is no description of the Automata's internals, only that from a given State, it transitions (Acts) to a set a allowed states. It's a logical system and still falls under Mathematics... usually used to describe language.
carlosjhr64 6 months ago
@carlosjhr64
If it helps you to visualize it like an automata, go ahead. But beware that it is a very non-definite automata and you don't know what the states and transistions are.
Also, if you are going to do that, you would not have states without descriptions; there would always be a description although you can never find out what it is beyond superficially observed characteristics.
utubehayter 6 months ago
@utubehayter Yes, she's describing an Automata and it's state transitions. :) The allowed transitions in a given state need NOT be the same as the allowed transition in another state. Likewise, a person's preferences need not (and is not expected to be (think diminishing return for one thing)) remain the same after an action.
carlosjhr64 6 months ago
So sexy.
JusticeSpray 6 months ago
i've read your profile and, while i am sure that you are very smart and you indeed believe in praxeology, your good looks played an important part in choosing you to be spokesperson among your group of praxeologists.
tulceaujcm 6 months ago
@tulceaujcm So what? You bringing it up makes you an ass.
Rothbardo 6 months ago
@Rothbardo actually, my comment, if it's not neutral, it's a compliment at most.
so, sorry, dude, but i'm not the ass here
tulceaujcm 6 months ago
I don't understand the argument about preference order: A>B>C, but C>A, in terms of preference... Why is this not irrational, and what has time to do with it. Aren't preferences transitive?
alalelalex 6 months ago
@alalelalex Preferences aren't transitive(that's the whole point), BECAUSE of time. The point is A>B>C cannot be expressed through an action in one instant, first action expressing A>B must happen then B>C, or vice versa, because one action cannot perform the two preferences at the same time, A>B>C can never be determined, its always in time t1 A>B and time t2 B>C, so in time t3 C>A or A>C.
prashantpawar 6 months ago
i have no idea whats going on
WhoDaresWins1189 6 months ago
Time is an undeniable truth, but money is a vicious lie. Tomorrow can be better than yesterday, but if you waste all of your time today on trivial and meaningless activity rooted in the monetary system, that future will never be.
Lightrider4444 6 months ago
@Lightrider4444 do you have any idea what you're talking about? Money has transformed our existence for the better. It facilitates trade, calibrates the availability of credit with capital-intensive investments promotes uniformity in goods via prices. The political system is rotten though, I'm sure you agree. And yes the existing monetary system is atrocious, but that doesn't negate the value of money.
networkedfreedom 6 months ago
@networkedfreedom Don't concern your time with him, he's probably one of those insane zeitgeist people who's arguments are riddled with logical fallacies and disproven dogma.
s0beit 6 months ago
@Lightrider4444 don't get ahead of the lessons! I'll explain why money is important soon ;)
praxgirl 6 months ago 5
@praxgirl What about two videos each week? It seems like you have many lessons planned. Are we all going to be gramps when we're done? lol
MartyrofCake 6 months ago
@MartyrofCake the only way I could bust out two lessons a week would be if this were my full time job!
praxgirl 6 months ago 8
@praxgirl :p oh well, keep yourself busy, praxgirl.
MartyrofCake 6 months ago
@praxgirl Were I wealthy enough, I'd sponsor you. Stefan Molyneux earns enough through tips on his work to be a full-time podcaster and stay-at-home dad. I think you offer enough value to possibly reach that point. Until then I'll just keep you on my list for when I have money to burn.
JaceJohanson 1 month ago
@JaceJohanson Thanks :)
praxgirl 1 month ago
@Lightrider4444 Define 'monitary system' do you mean voluntarily exchanges with a preferable medium of exchange, or do you mean fiat fictions and the technocratic system in place?
machwon 6 months ago
Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day...
sharperguy 6 months ago
concerning law#4, "two actions cannot happen at the same time." well, to take an example, what about walking? when you walk, you are doing swinging your arm as well as moving your alternate leg forward. each has the purpose of maintaining balance on your body and shifting momentum. but then again, these actions are reflexive, so would they count?
Bluestarhand 6 months ago
@Bluestarhand She also sad "one action can serve multiple purposes". So you could treat that as a single action. I'm not sure about something like walking to work while texting your friend though.
I don't think it's an essential issue but remember it in case something else depends on this.
sharperguy 6 months ago
@Bluestarhand When she refers to action, she does not refer to change in molecules or atoms. She refers to employing means to attain chosen ends. Thus, walking (moving legs and arms) is an action in economic, praxeological sense. And its end is, fore instance, to get from A to B.
rumco 6 months ago
Devising mathematical models to describe human action is outright bogus!
She's like a sexy,well spoken Walter Block lol.
Nicely done btw!
dirtbagstatus 6 months ago
@dirtbagstatus *Predict*
dirtbagstatus 6 months ago
You don't know me... I sleep and read at the same time ALL the time!
triforcelink 6 months ago 3
@triforcelink LOL!
praxgirl 6 months ago
I read books in my dreams. OWNED. @praxgirl
lashkaretoiba 6 months ago
WOO Time Preference Theory of Interest Rates :D
LibertarianWatch 6 months ago
crushingly didactic here on this one praxgirl...
savvysymbiont 6 months ago