Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy.
Most people want a clean environment while the current US administration is pulling back environmental regulations to allow for more pollutants. The current US Supreme Court has taken gifts from those that have invested interest in the outcome of their judgements.
Social axioms are mutable while mathematical axioms are immutable.
Human trafficking is bad. How many of the wealthy that partook of Epstein's trafficking have been prosecuted? This shows that human trafficking being bad is mutable based on wealth and power.
> Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
That is a micro level analysis versus macro. By that logic the current wealth gap should not exist between CEO and average worker in the USA.
> Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy.
Well... no. I'd say that most of the social constructs I'm thinking of predate wealth. Most likely shaped by evolutionary pressures.
> mathematical axioms are immutable
I invite you to Google "the axiom of choice" to see a lively debate.
"The Axioms of choice" is talking about a mutable set of sets that contain immutable axioms.
The number 4 in a set is immutable, 4 == 4 under all stances, while it can be taken out or added to the selected set. Objective reasoning.
Example: The OS function that applies IP port assignments. Application may utilize one or more port numbers. When the application is done, they are moved back into the unused set. The port numbers themselves are immutable.
Social axioms are mutable because subjective reasoning is being applied.
Example:
Ask a person if they support domestic abuse. They most likely will so no. Ask them if they ever funded a performer that committed acts of domestic abuse after the facts were revealed. There is a high chance they did and write it off by saying, "don't look at their character, look at how well they perform. That was a good show, movie, book, ..."
Ever hear someone use the phrase, "that is different" when describing two equal scenarios that apply to two different people?
Kanye West still selling out shows highlights that people are willing to reject objective reasoning in a social environment.
Or to rephrase, social axioms are mutable because they can collapse and no longer exist.
My point was - mathematicians still argue about whether the axiom of choice is a good idea or not. They probably always will.
So mathematical axioms are in flux.
Axioms are not in flux, set of axioms are in flux. Axioms are fixed and finite. This is how software works.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems is built around this. By saying axioms change then one could create an universal math theorem. Since axioms are finite in definition and applied in a finite space, functions, there cannot be an universal math.
Example: Fibonacci sequence only works with positive integers and zero. It will work with negative integers wrapped in absolute value. The axioms of Fibonacci did not change while wrapped in absolute value. Rational and irrational numbers can work with Fibonacci too by applying another function bound to absolute value.
> The axioms of Fibonacci...
Hmmm. I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
You have a nice day.
So long as there have been people, there have been those who had more than others, be it material goods or power, which gains more material goods, which begets power. I'm not really sure there it's true that any society predates wealth, ergo no social construct predates wealth.
Right. I'm thinking of social behaviors that predate humans.
Territory and hunting grounds are a form of wealth, in that it is a form of control over shelter and natural resources like food and water.
Money is a social construct for trading value, but is not itself a prerequisite for the accumulation of value (wealth).
I think you missed my point. Let me try again:
> ergo no social construct predates wealth.
What about the social construct of parenting?
Easily argued to be a natural, biological instinct, and not a social construct.
Yes, most social contracts do stem from evolved strategies. That was my original point.
But parenting in humans varies from culture to culture. That's what makes it a social construct.
>ergo no social construct predates wealth.
How wealthy is your dog?
Compared to feral dogs, quite wealthy indeed. They've claimed sleeping and feeding spots that are very valuable for being both safe and climate controlled, and have a number of chew bones and toys that are free of dangerous splintering wood, animal bone, parasites and fleas. These are things that are valuable enough to fight over and will contribute greatly to their lifespan.
If you think the only measure of wealth is money, you have it backwards- money is a polite fiction representing an abstraction of value, and is only good for use as an exchange into another more concrete form of value.
I think you missed his point - that social behaviors exist outside and before human societies.
You've missed the point of my response- wealth, as in the accumulation of value- is not uniquely human. It is born out of the inability to see into the future, gathering resources to survive times of hardship. It is securing the most desirable mates, controlling territory, being the first to get the choicest fruits or bites of prey.
It is this biological imperative that pushes humans to desire ever more, and only higher order thinking- social behavior, religious discipline, whatever floats your boat- that suppresses those instincts into virtue, altruism or civility.
So, when I replied to the following:
> Well... no. I'd say that most of the social constructs I'm thinking of predate wealth. Most likely shaped by evolutionary pressures.
I'm pointing out that the social constructs were shaped as a reaction to our nature, which includes a intrinsic, if subconscious, understanding of the concept of value and wealth.
It sounds like you're redefining wealth as evolutionary advantage. That's fine - but it's not what most people mean by the word.
I defined it in the first sentence of the comment you replied to.
Yes, I know. But you're using it as I described.