Empirical Marxian Thread

Thanks to the disappearance of two of the three threads listed in pic related and the need to stoke the fires of actual discussion in addition to my inability to find those studies which link chaos theory to Marxian economics, I'll start this thread.

If you can help it, post things about Marxian economics, architecture and technology. The three topics seem to complement each other very well.

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
math.stackexchange.com/questions/154/do-complex-numbers-really-exist
arxiv.org/html/physics/0102047
galileospendulum.org/2012/06/09/imaginary-numbers-are-real/
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7cbf/db00665b3b251abb52ff937be6945aac164a.pdf
marxist.com/science-old/uncertaintyandidealism.html#Determinism and Chaos
dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html#econ
eprints.gla.ac.uk/58987/1/58987.pdf
youtu.be/skZtywXBR-w?t=1937
marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1968/reading-capital/ch03.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=IJtSXkZQf0A
econ.yale.edu/~gjh9/econ526b/Methods3.pdf
ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp171.pdf
spiritofcontradiction.eu/rowan-duffy/2014/10/28/is-class-real-some-empirical-contributions-from-econophysics#wsa-endnote-3
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_game
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

define "empirical Marxism"

...

there's been a lot of forum sliding recently

A Marxism which seeks to return to arguing on the basis of facts and empirical evidence and expanding on those rather than resorting to philosophical handwaving and word games.
It doesn't mean "lol dialectics are dumb, liberal arts majors get out", it means that we should be wary of returns to pure, abstract philosophy and critique devoid of a concrete path forward like with Badiou and Zizek (great respect for the work of both, but they're not what Marxism or socialism in general need right now). A meaningful critique of economics must engage modern forms of economistic thinking on their own grounds, on every level. That includes neoclassicals, but not just them - finance, Silicon Valley, conventional political logic, etc, all must be subject to wide-ranging, developed critiques which remove their mystification ("even if we don't like them, whatever would we do without Musk and the all-powerful venture capitalists?", etc.) and lay a path towards their abolition.

…is an ideology and a variant of communist methodology. Many of the stronger ancoms and ansynds attempt to use Marxian theory to describe the nature of the communist movement in addition to using it for the analysis of capitalism. Sorry to be so pedantic but just like in the Marxian LTV, terminology matters.

Very well said. I'm definitely looking forward to more Marxist theory that uses rigorous, modern methodology in the coming years, and which develops with falsifiability rather than induction in mind. Exhaustively critiquing "the internal logic of capitalism" must entail some amount of "economism" and forays into the topics you bring up, I agree.
Sure, it's the people themselves who have to carry out a revolution, and making Marxism a scientific (in the modern sense) project won't make it more accessible to the layman, but we are simply walled off from so many serious scientists and intellectuals who can dismiss the theory as defunct without a thought - because we do not bother to operate within their internal logic - which in turn creates the illusion of a position that has been thoroughly examined by society's "intellectual vanguard" and found lacking.
You could almost argue that a strong presence as a serious contender in the technical/scientific world is necessary for reaching the masses, paradoxical as that sounds. But then again, academia has never really been about who has the best ideas

Is this an "alive and well" area of ongoing research? Is there an associated praxis other than "read what's on my list and do math problems?" Another question: is this more of a "starter pack" or is it a true "reading list"?

Historical setbacks always seem to, roughly in proportion to their severity, spark the idea that we need to further "develop" Marxism. Honestly, just once, it's nice to see this go in another direction than "deeper and deeper into continental bullshit" a la the Frankfurt School, Althusser, Badiou, Laclau, and Zizek

how about no

That's a very good point, you should be proud of yourself

Learn to study properly?

I guess what I'm asking here is why specifically the bottom two rows are included - are they preparatory/ancillary work you should do to understand the key arguments and the argument path in general of books in the top row? Are they meant to prepare you to "do" empirical marxism, in some arena that becomes clear later on? Are they just included for being tangentially relevant to the top row material, what?

There's just kind of a lack of direction here, I feel. People might be unwilling to invest the time without an idea of where it leads and how it fits together. I think it would help a lot if the guy who made this list could talk briefly about his experience in math/computation, what he finds relevant to empirical marxism and why, how you'll use various skills, and how he made each recommendation. Or if it's not OC but a list from some group, how they intend you to use it

I guess his general thrust is "we need science for proper marxism" and "big and efficient networks written in python" so we should "study math" and "praise cockshott!"

I don't get how this ought to put Marxism itself on the level of science. It seems more like a package that could possibly be put to use for a very specific group of specialists who wants to develop IT systems for economic planning, i.e. Howard Scott and his technocratic dream.

I mean… the levels of irony clearly escaped you. Popper's falsificationism ruled out Marxism of ever possibly becoming a science. At least try to get a scientific epistemology that wasn't created with the intent to discredit Marx, Freud, etc. to the liking of Mises and Hayek.

Try maybe Lakatos or Kuhn.

*the complete historical disaster of 20th century communist projects, a.k.a. "minor setbacks"
Oh, so then why do you list philosophers who do not do that? The pic you are replying to with Cockshott has to do more with developing Marxism further than
who clearly throws out a good deal of Marxism instead of further refining/developing it, trying to give completely new ground for dialectical materialism;
whose philosophical project is more Leninist than Marxist, having more critique against the latter than the former, and being more interested in the materialist preconditions for and hindering counter-currents against revolutions, etc.;
whose ontology is nothing like Marx's under-articulated philosophical positions, Lenin's unfortunate empirio-criticism;
which was a negative (critical) project,
I see one bullshitter here, and I'm replying to him.

This is honestly kind of like saying that "all true statements presuppose observable evidence, whether or not this evidence is necessarily available at a given moment" is an epistemological framework that begs the question against creationism and related currents.
I've seen people argue on this board that historical materialism is falsifiable, and that you only need to observe "a set of mismatched social and historical conditions that persist for an extended period of time." What constitutes that, I suppose, is a bit of a hairy matter. But still, in any scientific investigation the use of ad hoc hypotheses in a provisional capacity is unavoidable, and it's only afterwards that you pare down the theory with Occam's razor and the like, favoring those with equal predictive/explanatory power and fewer ad hoc exceptions to more specific general principles. In that framework theories are never refuted, merely superseded by more effective ones for the same evidence set. Saying "wow, seems there are people who rationalize unexpected phenomena within the Marxist framework, rather than predicting everything ahead of time" doesn't seem like an adequate refutation of Marx within falsificationism to me. And still you have groups like the SEP who haven't made a false prediction yet and take a dim view of those who do as a reflection of weaker theoretical foundations.
The achievements of physical science are intimately linked to their rigorous philosophical foundations. Granted, more rigor happens to be more appropriate and less scope-limiting when dealing with the physical world, but an appeal for rigor (keeping in mind other constraints) is always warranted.
Mises himself said that his theory falls outside of even inductive science.
I don't think I can really endorse his methodology, man, or its having a place in the revolutionary transformation of society.


I clearly meant "development" as a euphemism for "errant adventurist heterodoxy" - hence the scarequotes - and you try to refute me by painting the thinkers I mentioned as exactly that. Brilliant.
Gee, I'm sorry I said "setbacks" instead of "extreme catastrophe" when illustrating a general principle which explicitly depends on a historical moment's severity. Are you drunk?

...

The content of "lower division" math, as opposed to rigorous, proof-based math, is concerned with acquiring facility with the mechanics of specific argumentation techniques, generally ones useful in specific scientific and practical contexts, rather than studying what is implied generally by various rule sets for abstract reasoning when they're coupled with various definitions

This is what philosophyfags actually believe.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

You miss the basic point that OP's post is actually about Marxist economics. Which involves stats.

Then maybe OP should call the thread "Marxist economics" or "Marxist economic planning," instead of something that
1) doesn't exist;
2) carries an unnecessary epistemological commitment that goes over his head;

and then maybe unnecessary stem vs. philosophy shit can be evaded.

OP of original empirical Marxism thread here, When I said empirical 'Marxism', the term seems to have been misinterpreted. As a good burger, I'm certainly more inclined to be suspicious of continental philosophy, but the word empirical here does not refer to an epistemological stance, for example Cockshott seems to be a sort of Althusserian, while Shaikh seems like more sympathetic to anglo-analytical type philosophy. The word empirical here refers to the fact that what unites the school of thought is a commitment to heavy statistical and econometric work used to justify the labor theory of value.
With regards to those books, they were something I threw together based on the fact that alot of the work in the books in the first row involves some higher math. Cockshotts work on economic planning involves understanding linear algebra as sparse matrix methods are used to solve the input-output tables of labor value. Furthermore, his plan for balancing the economy uses neural networks to do linear optimization/programming in n log n time (understanding time complexity is where the theoretical computer science comes in). You can't really understand his work on using neural networks without some basic calculus and linear algebra. Also Shaikh, in his empirical strength of the labor theory of value paper, uses a Von Neumann machine/model from theoretical computer science.Ironically, as Von Neumann himself was a rabid anti-communist, but thats besides the point.Actually, the original list could use a few more math books as well. one of the things Cockshott contributed to Marxian econophysics (also used by Shaikh) is modelling capitalist economies as rotations in hilbert space, metric spaces are part of functional analysis, that could probably use a few sources as well. Much of the work in econophysics also revolves around information theory and statistical physics which is why the probability and statistics book is there. Stochastic processes are also referenced in Cockshott's Classical econophysics. I am in the process of learning these things myself as I am a weak math babby software engineer with only a knowledge of discrete math, linear algebra, calculus, and numerical analysis/linear programming (and some statistics). I don't know much about functional analysis, information theory & statistical physics, or stochastic things, other than the basics of 'its a collection of random variables'. The bottom line though is, you really can't understand much of statistics without understanding calc and linear.
I chose python because it was one of the most popular and easy to learn programming languages on the poll we conducted, plus it has well developed mathematical libraries which are used in scientific and machine learning applications. The iterative methods book was to simply introduce some sparse matrix algorithms which would be needed to make fully disaggregated economic planning tractable. As Cockshott explains in TANS, Gaussian Elimination is an O(n^3) operation for computers, thus solving a system of millions of equations using it would take thousands of years. Thus an alterative (probably iterative for such a large system) method is needed, this is all explained in TANS. Data structures and algorithms book explains complexity analysis and basic data structures which is necessarily for programming anything, also you need to understand the basic idea of complexity to understand the reasoning behind alot algorithms Cockshott puts forth, such as why he chose to do LP using a neural net system, because traditional LP methods including Kantorovich's one have (theoretically) bad complexity. Finally, information theory itself is used heavily in Cockshotts econophysical work, and the work where he BTFO of Hayek's information argument.

This is fair. I agree with your choice of python, btw. I was planning to read Cockshott for a time now, probably after my exams.

Those filthy rationalists

Get out of here you filthy platonist.


They don't mean empirical in the sense of philosophical empiricism, but rather in the sense of empirical evidence.

I'm beginning to regret naming it 'empirical' Marxism. I actually didn't make the term up, I read it on wikipedia article on the transformation problem where Cockshott, Shaikj, farjoun and machover are referred to as "empirical marxists". I didn't give it much thought, they are certainly a discrete school of thought within western Marxism, however, they probably wouldn't self identify as 'empirical' Marxists. Cockshott least of all as hes an Althusser fanboy.
I thought about calling it the glasgow school or something, but it wouldn't make sense since Cockshott, Cottrell, and Michaelson are scottish, but Shaikh is american, farjoun and machover are israeli, and the rest of the theorists like Yakovenko et al are eastern european. Throw in a few more random brits and americans, there as well, so regional naming seemed not the right way to go either.
In any case the naming of the thing is the least important part, the important part is the work itself

Show me the square root of minus one (i) in nature. I'll wait.

Furthermore, to add to my previous response to you, pure logic in itself finds it much harder to deal with change than dialectics if it can handle it at all. That said, formal logic and 'modern' proofs are fine with given assumptions as far as I know. I am by no means an expert and I'd appreciate it if someone could show me that I am wrong if I am indeed wrong.

Hello, CIA! Just because you wish to slide this thread to oblivion and push it one step closer to the bump limit to aid such an action doesn't mean we can't have our fun. Maybe you'll learn something and fuck with the burger government itself rather than us; you should know how to do it.

I christened it as the 'Empirical Marxian Thread' because all I see is an autistic focus on the content of the Marxian LTV, similar to how most mainstream economists keep screeching about their debunked marginalist theory instead of testing it. Those who do often set up situations which do not reflect reality or use mathematical sleight of hand to skew the data to suit their agenda; we Marxians must not repeat the mistakes of either kind of neoclassical economist in order for our critique of capitalism to remain rigorous.


If this is true then that's the second mistake which I know he's made, the first of which being that he's an ML. Apparently he literally thinks that the higher stage of socialism is impossible and that red social democracy is the way forward. I wonder what he thinks about P2P networks and their potential for resource creation and distribution.


I'm not going to take sides given that I know too little to seriously take one but:

math.stackexchange.com/questions/154/do-complex-numbers-really-exist
arxiv.org/html/physics/0102047
galileospendulum.org/2012/06/09/imaginary-numbers-are-real/

Though I'm not sure on the details, I think that you should look at quantum mechanics.

Read Shaikh's Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crisis; its a fairly complete treatment of modern, quantitative 'empirical marxist' economics. Keep in mind this is more of a western branch of marxism in the vein of analytical marxism, there's not much in the way of long treatises on 'dialectal ideas of the party and blah blah blah'. If you want to do research, go ahead. Perhaps become Shaikh's phd grad student in economics at New School in new york. Pretty sure Cockshott is soliciting grad students to work on econophysics at the U of Glasgow as well.

He was an ML in the 70s and 80s, he believes in direct democracy now, he hasn't been a tankie for decades although hes considerably more sympathetic to the soviet union than leftcoms and anarchists would like.
Hes not really an Althusserian like Wolff, more like… well, have a look:
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7cbf/db00665b3b251abb52ff937be6945aac164a.pdf

This might help.
marxist.com/science-old/uncertaintyandidealism.html#Determinism and Chaos

Although I agree there should be developed empirical approach to marxist theory - any theory that speculates about future society is in its nature speculative. And I would not agree that it is weakness. In capitalist economy speculation is driving force behind markets i.e. stock market - stock market trade is pure speculation in sense that it if you want to make profit you need to go beyond empirical facts that are presented in objective price. In that sense it is more practical to be speculative and have dynamic system that accounts for change then pure static system that can only work with heavy abstraction from reality.

Explain what is wrong with Althusser.

Who, Cockshott or Althusser? In either case: provide source to back it up.

I was so glad I found one of your earlier threads. Arguments for Socialism was a great read & I am currently reading TANS. I got myself Classical Econophysics, Shaik's books and Laws of Chaos. Should you find new additions to the list, please let us know!

Being able to present a coherent alternative economic System to the current one is the most important task of the Left at the moment. When faced with neoliberal BS I have seen far too many leftist respond along the lines of "oh, but do you think this is just?". It's a weak response making the capitalists seem mature and their ideology rooted in reality. That's where all these "socialists just don't understand economics" memes come from.

On a side note, I have encountered many Marxists claiming the LTV to be merely a description of how capitalism works, not a prescription of how to do things. What's up with that?

.pdf, plz

The role of the LTV under socialism is debated among socialists. IF you want more sources, I suggest you read Cockshotts research papers which flesh out some of the ideas he had and other miscellaneous theory.
dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html#econ
Shaikh's book is actually quite thorough, but after that you can read sources Shaikh cites as well.
IMO we need more people doing work/research on this topic, especially economic computability/planning

eprints.gla.ac.uk/58987/1/58987.pdf

I think hes referring to this:
youtu.be/skZtywXBR-w?t=1937

eprints.gla.ac.uk/58987/1/58987.pdf


Thanks

The text which that link refers me to will take me a long time to read and even longer to understand (I'm the illiterate leftcom, you might remember me). The graph seems to attract my interest; I'm a sucker for diagrams.


I feel like I'm missing out on something here.

I was looking for two names in particular which I've found: Emmanuel Farjoun and Moshé Machover.

I hear that Althusser referred to historical materialism as a description of raw technological development rather than social development and changes in the use of technology. Bourgeois uses of AI will be different to the usage of similar AI under a proletarian system as will the derivation of power. Eventually this will lead to a divergence in technological change between the two separate societies but it can from from two similar starting points.

Regarding Cockshott being an Althusserian, it was hearsay for me. Maybe has a valid source.

@thread: I remember some people saying elsewhere that bookzz.org is down; it's moved to b-ok.org.

Heard that from where? You dislike Althusser based on hearsay?

marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1968/reading-capital/ch03.htm

Ultimately, yes. As I've said, I'm not very literate. I'm having trouble just understanding what you've quoted from his work.

Here's the relevant parts of the Glossary from the end of the English version of Althusser's For Marx. If Cockshott is truly an Althusserian (still looking for sources for this claim) then he's not an empiricist.

Not him, but he's saying "by 'society' we mean its constituent social relations plus its material conditions, and so 'how does society change?' makes more sense semantically than 'how do material conditions change society?'"

…that's simply the base and the superstructure influencing each other, right?

It's a "style guide" for definitions

Reanalysis Marxism using the latest scientific advancements seems to disincentivise Marxism's traditional intellectual vanguard. The issue stems from how "Capital" and "Means of Production" are defined. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence now points to unequal distribution of genetic traits as the underlying cause of unequal distribution of resources within societies.

The fundamental "Means of Production" appears to be genes for good brains. This realization has profound impact on Marxist theory. Unequal distribution of material capital is merely a downstream effect of the hoarding of genetic capital through selective breeding within endogamous elite castes. Principled Neo-Marxism would require a dedication to the redistribution of genetic capital, the breaking up of endogamous elite castes, and enforced interbreeding between intellectual elites and un-intellectual proletarians.

In the light of recent discoveries in genetics and cognitive science, many previous leftist movements seem to have merely been power struggles within the elite intellectual castes, wherein one elite faction attempts to manipulate the proletarians into revolution by promising the redistribution of worthless material capital, with the intention of taking power and continuing to hoard genetic capital.

The Russian revolution provides a clear example of this process. Due to complex evolutionary reasons, the Russian people posses lower native genetic capital than other populations in the Europe, consequently Russia has been dominated by foreign elite castes for much of its history. The traditional Russian aristocracy was largely Germanic in origin. The high-IQ Ashkenazi merchant clans experienced a major population boom in Eastern Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries and consequently came into contention for power with the local elites. Ashkenazim formulated Marxism as a means to displace the local elites by co-opting the proletarians. Ashkenazim successfully eliminated the previous elite and were able to take power for a period before tensions due to their dissimilarity to the local population eventually forced them from power.

tl;dr: Any Neo-Marxism must have an effective program for the long term redistribution of genetic capital, otherwise revolution will simply put in place a new endogamous elite caste. Sometimes I fear that this outcome is actually the motivating end-goal for many Marxists, that they are simply hereditary elites who failed to compete within the tradition arenas of elite status striving and wish to "cheat" their way to the top through the deceit and manipulation of low-IQ proletarians. Any Marxists who oppose the redistribution of genetic capital can be considered unprincipled elite status strivers.

Come on, Holla Forumsintelpro. No matter how much you dress it up we can still sniff you out.

...

We already had mods delete your stupid post once because it's shitting up a good thread.


Don't respond to it, it's retarded.

What I find confusing is what arguments you can make for socialism without appealing to some sort of higher universality under socialism. If you are truly familiar with the LTV, one should know the worker receives the full power of his labour power and the Western Proletariat is hardly the proletariat anymore. As Zizek says, these people have a muh privilege to have a job, car, etc.

Anyway, I think that empirical analysis to "prove" the LTV completely misses the point. The "value-form" is precisely why labour is represented by value as opposed to utility. This is developed through Marx's sociological analysis, which involves looking at the formation of social production and the distributution of social labour. Marx also develops labour as a social activity. In other words, the best "proofs" for the LTV are developed within Marx's framework in the 1844 Manuscripts. Correlating time with price isn't going to impress anyone, as Bohm-Bawk pointed out 100 years ago.


I'll be honest none of this really makes a difference. Race "exist", I say this as someone who used to be against admitting that. But really, who cares.

Good.

Mods, please sticky this and make it a cyclical.

The aim here is to show that the LTV is useful to a greater degree than marginalist analysis.

Also, define 'race'.

...

I cycled it since the other threads got removed but there are already a lot of stickies on the front page

Why would correlating time with price do that? You'd have to prove it's superiority within a sociological framework first.

Anyway, I don't want to further derail the thread by talking about "race" but I'l just say that my views on this come from personal research and talking to a friend who's done academic work in genetics and epigenetics.

No one owes you an adequate response. You're derailing a thread about econometrics and sociology to talk about "genetic capital". If you want to talk about the prospects of revolution when all the proles are untermench, then make a thread specifically for that.

Modify the FAQ thread and add the link to bunkerchan at the top with red text arrows indicating the URL, because everyone knows average chanfags don't read.

Also I suggest moving the FAQ to the top because it needs more visibility than the Moderation thread.

I am but a humble volunteer but I'll see what I can do.

Also don't hesitate to report VPN fag.

It would be helpful if you made an official rule against the discussion of biological sciences as they relate to Marxism. Principled scientific Marxists would then have the impetus to make our own board.

you could not be a liar and stop shitting up a thread and make your own instead of being an attention whoring faggot that goes out of his way to piss people off

You mean the full value of his labour power, referring to the distinction Marx made between that and concrete labour and that he said say are paid not for labour, but labour power; and when that full value is defined as what is necessary to sustain the worker, that's usually true.
Don't be silly. Proletariat doesn't just mean muscle guys covered in dirt and grease. You can have fancy hobbies, if you aren't a boss or a landlord, if you can't hire or fire anybody, if you don't live from dividends, if you have to work, what are you then? You can be a freelancer who directly interacts with customers or you work for a boss, and whether that company has a modern image or some nice perks doesn't fundamentally change what you are here.

??? Labor power is the ability to perform work, so ofc the worker always had the 'full' power of their labor power, its surplus value which is being extracted.
Its true that even Bohm Bawerk did indeed concede in his critique of Ricardos version of the LTV that it was empirically correct,
Well we go through this debate every time, value is not something that can be empirically measured, only price can be. Therefore in order to scientifically prove the LTV we have to explain a logical/mathematical mechanism of how values are transformed into prices, and how those prices match prices in reality. Otherwise, the LTV is 'metaphysical'.

read this:
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7cbf/db00665b3b251abb52ff937be6945aac164a.pdf

Althusser's analysis of the state and ideology was clearly superior to Marx's

Not quite empirical marxist, but G. A. Cohen's analytical marxist theories about freedom were pretty good.

youtube.com/watch?v=IJtSXkZQf0A
indeed

Exactly because he draws from experiences of Lenin, Mao, etc. This isn't Marx's fault, tho.

econ.yale.edu/~gjh9/econ526b/Methods3.pdf
ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp171.pdf
Blocks your path

Don't really understand what neoclassical DSGE models have to do with marxian econophysics.

Anyway, here's a great article by Gavin Mendel Gleason about econophysics and income distributions

spiritofcontradiction.eu/rowan-duffy/2014/10/28/is-class-real-some-empirical-contributions-from-econophysics#wsa-endnote-3

is this the world's shortest book?

why don't you read it and find out?

I have a question regarding the compensation of jobs in the service sector in a socialist society where labor vouchers have replaced money.

I am aware of Cockshott's method of calculating a commodities labor content and it makes perfect sense to me. I can the reasoning of the LTV can be expanded to certain services, too. However I am not sure how we would calculate the labor content of something like elder care. Could you guys help me out?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_game
What do you guys think of using differential game theory to model conflict between capital's imperative to self-reproduce at exponential rates and the homeostatic tendencies of human collectives as a way to chart the relation of the births and deaths of firms (with the corresponding shuffling-around of capital and financial changes) to the regular crises of capital?
I've been thinking about the crises of capitalism relative to the stagnation of state-planned economies and started to think of the stock markets and other elements of high finance as an emergent-conscious self-interested actor in dialogue with the material realities of human organizational forms such as households, states, cultural institutions, etc, and that perhaps their dances with one another can be charted in an econophysical manner using stochastic modeling, game theory, and mass data gathering.

I'm not fond of cycling for any thread that isn't generic chat, because valuable posts end up getting pushed out and God only knows if someone managed to archive it.

age
Goddamnit, guys! This got 200+ replies the last time!

gonna save this thread

Why post the image without any links?

Bump

Any thoughts on this?

PSA: our dear bipolar BO created the board >>>/gnussr/ for further conversations regarding topics of the 3 threads in OP's pic. He announced it in the soon-to-be-dead cybernetics thread.


I don't know if I understood well, but with that in mind…

The latter part seems like threading close to reification. But I suppose that if the numbers were to expose a relation between those entities, then I can't argue with that and it's a perfectly modellable system.