News

(Contact Dr. C. Y. Lee, Press Secretary for more detail: jumpulse(at)ymail.com)

Reply to Comment On Financial Crisis 10/20/2009 (Original Comment following the Reply)
I am glad to see your comment on my post. Thank you for your comment on my crisis comment. Post-Science Institute currently devotes most of its time and energy to practical matters, namely, commercial real estate brokerage, the only problem it can predict with certainty, but with old friend jumpulse students will be happy to have one last intellectual discussion. I shall post our discussion as a news item on our newly updated web site
http://www.postscience.com:
http://www.postscience.com/news.htm
as a summary on the current financial crises, of which Post-Science Institute is the most successful predictor and the most busy commentator before and in the initial stages of the crisis.

Charles N. Steele (CNS): I'm not sure post-science, as described here, makes much sense... "Value, defined as the sum total of all the future benefits and losses..." Value (utility) is simply an ordinal ranking, and summing it is meaningless - both an Austrian and neoclassical point.
Post-Science Students (PSS): The entire economic community is misled by Samuelson (who our mathematical students considered a liar, using mathematics to muddle up the water) with his PhD thesis and books. Value can be expressed as either the price or the rate of return, which are numbers.

CNS: "Dr. Friedman must decide to plan or not to plan?" As Hayek pointed out, the debate was never "plan vs. no plan," but *central* plan vs. many individual plans coordinated by markets.
PSS: Post-science believes in Maximum Planning, both private and central planning. Friedman must decide to to Maximum Plan or not? is the question, but plan should be enough.

CNS: "We are free only within the limits of freedom defined by the non-violable (mathematical) laws of nature in social science, such as the Infinite Spreadsheet. Only when the market participants are well-informed of these laws of nature would the market be stable." I don't know about the infinite spreadsheet, but uncertainty about how the universe works is inescapable. Yet markets are stable, because that's what their job is, to cope with this uncertainty. In a world of certainty, markets would be irrelevant.
PSS: The function of your body (life science) is certain (Maximum Planned) and is far more complex than the market (social science). We had some discussions with people from Post-Normal Science. We believe that they are you might have been misled by Arrow and Debreu in studying Uncertainty. To post-science, which has solution of value, claims that Uncertainty is really Unsolved. By the way, we also believe that PNS is the criticism of prescience. We believe that in the future, say, 500 years, socioeconomic problems will be solved to the extend scientific problems are solved now. Yes, market would be irrelevant; people are rewarded by their contributions in value. We need to get the major problems in social science out the way before we can get into life science, the creation of permanent entities with values infinitely greater than the temporary creations of today.

CNS: "Laws of nature replacing man-made laws" Laws of nature are inescapable; man-made laws are tools we use - hopefully we'll design better tools, but we need the tools. A society with no rules, conventions, etc. except those imposed by nature makes no sense.
PSS: The number of man-made laws in science is exactly zero. Man-made laws not based on laws of nature will come into conflict with laws of nature, resulting in financial crises, as we have today. The law of nature described by the solution of value is more stringent than ALL the man-made laws combined!

"Mankind should move beyond science into post-science in the next two millennia" Post-science's Great Leap Forward? Most of us haven't made it to the science point yet...see my own blog for comments on this re evolution & faith (shameless self-promotion, I confess: http://www.unforeseencontingencies.blogspot.com)
PSS: Thank you for your "endorsement," but the motto of post-science is "To understand first, and after we understand we will cooperate and/or compete." Today, without the solution of value, the society is completely irrational (the Fed caused most crises), and competition is the main engine of progress. As friends, our intellectual competition should be enjoyable, not destructive.
Comment by Charles N. Steele - February 9, 2007 @ 12:36 am

1.I am a student of post-science, which is discussed in a recent book Knowledge http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Hugh-Ching/dp/0615136583/sr=11-1/qid=1170212885/ref=sr_11_1/103-3319597-0183824. Post-science is in agreement with Milton Friedman in general, except two notable differences. I would like to point out the similarities and the differences.

Differences:
Friedman: Empirical validity of falsity of an economic theory or policy prescription. Post-Science: Value, defined as the sum total of all the future benefits and losses, is NOT empirically verifiable, because infinity never arrives. Social science is different from science, which depends on empirical verification, and must depend on mathematical rigor (Kant).

Friedman: Free to choose.
Post-Science: We are free only within the limits of freedom defined by the non-violable (mathematical) laws of nature in social science, such as the Infinite Spreadsheet http://www.infinitespreadsheet.com. Only when the market participants are well-informed of these laws of nature would the market be stable. The Infinite Spreadsheet easily predicted the US S&L Crisis as early as 1984, as described in the above mentioned book http://lulu.com/ching. Dr. Friedman must decide to plan or not to plan?

Similarities: Friedman: Small government and political freedom.
Post-Science: Knowledge led society, where the order of authority is (1) Knowledge, (2) Persons of knowledge, (3) Free thinking individuals, (4) Government, (5) People as a whole.

Friedman: Free market
Post-Science: Maximum Planning, where individual plans should not be interfered by government central planning, but planning, not free-choice, is the goal of a social system.

Friedman: No government regulation.
Post-Science: Laws of nature replacing man-made laws http://www.knowledgebook.us.

Friedman: Predictions.
Post-Science: The Infinite Spreadsheet is almost (inputs might not be sufficiently accurate) infallible in prediction.

Friedman: Competition is engine of progress.
Post-Science: The Infinite Spreadsheet arbitrates between buyer and sellers of real estates and stocks and can greatly reduces unnecessary competition. Rational arbitration will contribute to world peace, whose solution might lie in life science from the speculative concept of self-creation from post-science http://www.self-creation.org, which is even beyond the book mentioned above.

The Austrians: Stability of price.
Post-Science: There is a definite relationship between the price, the rate of return, and the interest rate, as quantitatively determined by the Infinite Spreadsheet. Fed should know this relationship before it can adjust the interest rate.

Friedman: Against the tide.
Post-Science: Anti-established views. Mankind should move beyond science into post-science in the next two millennia.

Thank you for your attention. ### [CYL]

Comment by Chien Yi Lee - January 31, 2007 @ 6:20 pm


Press Release (December 15, 2003)

The following Web Versions will be available around the beginning of 2004:

Infinite Spreadsheet Real Estate Valuation System

Infinite Spreadsheet Time-Varying Valuation System

Infinite Spreadsheet Stock Valuation System

A short free trial period will be provided around the end of 2003 or the start of 2004. Please visit

http://post-science.com

for a free trial. Thank you.


Post-Science Institute

PO Box 2663, Fremont, CA 94536 USA Email: jumpulse (at) ymail.com; http://postscience.com
December 19, 2003

COURT
Clerk of the Court
San Francisco County Superior Court
P.O. Box 2821
San Francisco, CA 94126-2821

Dear Court:

I object to the settlement in Microsoft I-V Cases, case number (J.C.C.P. No. 4106). My name is Hugh Ching, my address is PO BOX 461, Berkeley, CA 94701, and my telephone number is (510) 717 1237 or (510) 843-5189.
My signature


Hugh Ching ( Bar Code No. * 0 3 8 3 0 2 7 3 2 *)

And the reasons why I object to the settlement is stated below.

I don't like the settlement. Being a Class Member, I object to the settlement, including the amount of Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses. This letter serves to present my objections to the settlement in Microsoft I-V Cases, case number (J.C.C.P. No. 4106). I believe that this case could serve to exemplify the application of rational decision making based on the solution to value and permanent software.

Value is the sum total of all the future benefits and losses. For example, an addictive drug might provide temporary relief to a user, but also might subject the user to permanent costly addiction. The monopolistic software from Microsoft has provided temporary user-friendliness, but is subjecting its users to endless upgrading cost.

Software upgrading has already taken up the bulk of the software budget. Microsoft profits from its monopoly because Microsoft software needs to be upgraded manually and the manual upgrading, when Microsoft does not release its source codes, can only be done by Microsoft. The Open Source Movement can only remedy the problem partially. The widely used virtual machine, which has the potential of providing completely automated upgrading of software, might eliminate the upgrading cost permanently. Microsoft has tried and, with its monopolistic marketing advantage, tried successfully, in the name of business competition, to stifle the market introduction of these innovations.

In conclusion, as factories have recently been made to pay for the cost of pollution caused by them, all the developers of temporary software, which cannot be automatically upgraded to their future versions, should be asked to pay for the cost of upgrading, in light of the availability of free/open-source software and completely automated, or permanent, software.

From the point of view of knowledge, society must not make laws which might come into conflict with laws of nature or with the design constraints of nature. For example, the antitrust laws, on which this case is based, might come into conflict with the law of nature on value. And, what Microsoft has also violated is the condition of permanence, which is a design condition of nature based on the fact that all temporary entities are valueless in comparison to the value of permanent entities, such as permanent software and the prime example of permanent software, DNA of all living organisms. Furthermore, like gravitation, the laws of nature in social science, as well as in physical science, are non-violable. Microsoft is automatically constrained by the law of nature for value, and its violation of the condition of permanence should be checked by society. It is the responsibility of the society to discover and explain, not to make, laws in both social and physical sciences. To support this fundamental principle, it could be mention that the number of laws made by man in physical science is exactly zero.

This settlement should not be approved by the Court because it lacks the correct reason for the settlement. The correct reason must come from knowledge in value and in permanent software. I also object to the amount of Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses, for the attorneys lack the knowledge to settle the case rationally and quantitatively. A quantitative value calculation of the upgrading cost should be the basis for the monetary settlement. The violation of the unfair monopolistic competition should be based on the understanding of permanent software. For example, Microsoft is currently in the process of developing a virtual machine in order to dominate the virtual machine standard. From the point of view of permanent software, the basic characteristics of the virtual machine is that software developed on one virtual machine should be able to be completely automatically upgraded to software for any other virtual machine. There is no need for a Microsoft virtual machine standard; Microsoft can simply add new functions to the existing virtual machines.

I thereby propose an attempt at a permanent solution to the rational settlement of this case base on value determination and on the understanding of software, rather than the potentially permanent litigation cost.

Sincerely,


Hugh Ching, Sc. D.


Post-Science Institute

PO Box 461, Berkeley, CA 94701 USA Tel (510) 843-5189; Fax (510) 548-6483; Email: ching@post-science.com; http://post-science.com

December 19, 2003

COURT
Clerk of the Court
San Francisco County Superior Court
P.O. Box 2821
San Francisco, CA 94126-2821

CLASS COUNSEL
Eugene Crew
Richard L. Grossman
TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW LLP
P.O. Box 2837
San Francisco, CA 94126-2837

DEFENSE COUNSEL
Robert A. Rosenfeld
HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & MCAULIFFE LLP
P.O. Box 150
San Francisco, CA 94104-0150

Dear Court:

I would like to ask the Court for permission to speak at the Fairness Hearing by myself or by my representatives (Dr. Y. C. Lee or Prof. C. V. Ramamoorthy) February 13, 2004, at the San Francisco Superior court, Department 305, 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. This letter serves as my "Notice of Intention to Appear in Microsoft I-V Cases, case number (J.C.C.P. No. 4106)."

I object to the settlement in Microsoft I-V Cases, case number (J.C.C.P. No. 4106). My name is Hugh Ching, my address is PO BOX 461, Berkeley, CA 94701, and my telephone number is (510) 717 1237 or (510) 843-5189. My signature


Hugh Ching ( Bar Code No. * 0 3 8 3 0 2 7 3 2 *)

Sincerely,


Hugh Ching, Sc. D.


Home Page http://postscience.com