Skip to content

Aha, aha, aha

A weekend spent trying to avoid some of the discussion going on around the election was worthwhile. At the end of it I had done some serious thinking about new ideas to write about over the summer, albeit summarised in little more than a series of mathematically logical statements at present.

If all his things start out mathematically logical then what in buggery happens on their way to being presented to the world?

15 thoughts on “Aha, aha, aha”

  1. The Meissen Bison

    I’m surprised at you, Tim, taking a statement from Captain Potato at face value.

    Just as Elynomics is distant from the dismal science, “matematically logical” makes extensive use of Fen Diagrams and the Poisson Distribution is when our hero goes to his posh supermarket on Friday evening just before it closes.

  2. It’s not the maths that is wrong, it’s the assumptions about the variables.
    I mean it might also be the maths, but the assumptions on the varaible are quite definitely going to be very wrong.
    Idiot Feeding Garbage In = Garbage Out

  3. I wonder what his concept of ‘mathematically logical’ actually is. I would guess it’s not closely related to mathematics or logic judging by his previous utterances.

  4. If your axioms are wrong you get the wrong answer . If your axioms are inconsistent you can get any answer. If you use logical fallacies and inconsistent axioms …

  5. Update to a discussion on here recently about Shien the online fashion retailer.
    Yep. It is a drop shipper. Their goods are being shipped to customers from China (Or from stocks front-loaded to European delivery nexus I suspect)
    Updating because the company doesn’t make any of this plain in its advertising & you might be tempted to use them. Not saying they’re in any way a duff outfit. But you should know what you’re dealing with.

  6. Could it be he’s solved mass market nuclear fission? Or do his equations state tax + tax = moar tax

  7. The process involved, of sitting back, reflecting, and trying to search for some truth in the midst of the plethora of noise to which we are subjected both now, and on a regular basis, was useful.

    In part, that was simply because trying to avoid that noise made so much sense. It is easy to understand why those who are unexcited by politics are so turned off so much that is said by our politicians when so much of it is, to be candid, worse than total nonsense.

    If there was any evidence of him searching for ‘The truth’ he has kept it well hidden. It is true that a lot of what is said by politicians is total nonsense but he has a long record of absurdity unmatched by almost anyone extant in cyberspace.. People in Glass houses and all that.

    I am bored politicians who will not tell the truth. Tory politicians are paying the price for this at present but there can be no doubt that one of the reasons for the decline in their party’s popularity has been its total inability to communicate anything that makes coherent sense to anyone for sometime. Boris Johnson might have tried to turn lying into an artform, but the curious side effect has been that vast numbers of people have rumbled that his colleagues have followed his example, and they will all be paying the price for that.

    There have been few more dishonest politicians in my lifetime than Caroline Lucas – who embodies the age old adage ‘I know you’re lying – your lips are moving’ and yet Murphy holds her up as a a paragon of virtue. Leaving aside his lauding of the Welsh and Scots devolved administrations for the purpose of grift, probably the only two administrations that are on a par with North Korea in terms of competence.

    Labour are, however, no better. Whilst they may not be outright lying during the course of their election campaign, a refusal to tell the truth about anything that they plan to do hardly provides a convincing alternative to the Conservative’s failings. Both parties are providing a choice of a leap in the dark. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of democracy. They can be little wonder that, as a consequence, it is expected that the combined number of votes to be cast for both of these parties will be lower in this election than in any in recent recorded history.

    What can they say precisely?

    – If you’re White your property will be seized and you will be condemned to a marginal existence to fund reparations for improprieties committed centuries before you were born

    – We want to steal your money to fund pensions for all our supporters

    – Our plans for a ‘zero carbon’ future will involve you and your family reverting to a 19th century existence

    – We’re planning to import three more Londons in the next decade to make sure we don’t ever leave office

    – I think many things of the Starmer regime but to overtly admit these policies would probably be unwise

    i would emphasize Murphy wholeheartedly endorses all the above.

    Some claim that this is the consequence of an increase in alternative political thinking amongst the electorate. To some extent, I accept that claim. But, at least as likely is the explanation that people have had enough of the entire system as it currently stands, not least because it is designed to ensure that they can never get what they want or need. The real question is for how long people can be persuaded to believe in what they are told is democracy when our two leading parties deliberately rig that system to make sure that people cannot be represented by those who they would really choose if only the system allowed them to?

    You are in favour of the EU and other supranational organizations and have opposed democracy at every stage if it comes to a conclusion you dislike – for you to pose as a democrat is like a Hamas supporter offering himself as an authority on Bar Mitzvah.

    There is another dimension to this though. Whilst most people do not spend an enormous amount of time thinking about politics, the majority of us have an inability to appraise what might best be called bullshit, since this also exists way beyond the obvious political sphere. It is this ability that lets people all too readily understand how thin are the political promises being made by all the major political parties in this election, in which category I would also include both the SNP and the Liberal Democrat’s.

    It is very obvious that none of these parties have any clear understanding of what they are about now. They obsess about detail, but people want to hear the big stuff. People know that neoliberalism has failed and that it deeply patronises them, even if that is not the way in which most people would express their understanding. What people want to know is what the alternative might be.

    You have spent the last decade or so peddling nothing but obvious bullshit for the delectation of sundry morons. I would agree that the promises being made are thin but this is entirely because real power has been stripped away by supranational organizations you are usually in favour of for reasons of personal enrichment.

    The obvious failure of these parties to have any such alternative is precisely why they are permitting Farage, Reform and the far right of the Tories to have a platform in this election. If the mainstream have nothing of consequence to say, as seems to be the case, it creates a vacuum that can only provide the far-right with a continuing opportunity.

    So, is it that the absolute absence of ideas, and even the refusal of the mainstream body politic to think at all, that creates the political problem that we have, which is all about a lot of noise and absolutely nothing of substance being said?

    I think there’s an awful lot of ideas out there – might not be something that, obsessed as you are by your own ego and the UK you don’t realize but there are a lot of ideas.

    – Total enslavement and replacement by AI

    – Complete lockdown in perpetuity and a ban on personal travel

    – Total ban on meat and dairy consumption

    – Forced conscription to save Ukraine and Taiwan

    – Compulsory vaccination against ‘Disease X’

    All on the agenda of Klaus Schwab and co. Your opinion most definitely neither sought nor required.

    And is that because those seeking political office really do think that there is no need at all for any new political thinking now, since they presume that intellectually neoliberalism is now the philosophy we must maintain in perpetuity, and that the idea of the person as a consumer is now so dominant a narrative that no further explanation of society is required?

    And could it, in fact, be that the politician as consumer of neoliberal thinking believes that thought is, in any case, beyond them because in their role as a consumer of ideas they have accepted that their own role is entirely passive, which is what, intellectually, they now appear to be? Could this explain the origin of the politics of blandness, from which we are suffering?

    I do not know the answers to these questions. But there is one thing of which I am certain, and that is that I will be thinking about them, whilst the likes of Streeting, Starmer and Reeves will not be. As purveyors of the politics of blandness thinking is the last thing that they want to do, or might be capable of.

    Strangely – like a caveman with a laptop he actually recognizes the problem – he can tell something is awry. Sadly he doesn’t have the intellectual heft or basic knowledge to realize that most of what he considers ‘new thinking’ is decades old, and was as wrong then as it is now.

  8. His latest “I’m not hard left – please tell me how wonderful I am” ego trip blog is a wonder to behold.

  9. Andrew C

    That’s a true gem: Full debunking later on (time permitting) but here’s a flavour:

    I have been described as being far-left and Marxist and communist and all sorts of absurd names on my blog and elsewhere now for simply talking about the fact that we should be relieving child poverty in the UK and raising taxes to do that

    You’ve blocked nearly 30,000 commentators and they just keep coming. As if the only thing that is ‘Far left’ about him is his crusade to ‘end poverty’

    Are those on the right who describe me as a left-winger saying that I should not have a social conscience? I should not follow the teachings of all the major wisdom traditions on earth, which are summarised, in fact, in Christianity, which many of them will say is one of their guiding philosophies, which says, “Love your neighbour as yourself”.

    At the same Time you should steal his assets, or facilitate the confiscation of such assets by the state if he has more than you

    I think I’m on the soft left, the moderate left. I’m not a hardcore, clause four socialist even, as once would have been described by the Labour Party. I don’t believe that all the means of production should be in the ownership of workers. I’m happy to believe that we should have companies which are in private ownership.

    But that, apparently, is now far left, according to people who are so far right that they hate every aspect of government, every aspect of any form of government regulation, and every aspect of our democracy that provides people other than those with the power afforded by wealth some element of choice in our society.

    He really is delusional enough to believe this pure c^ap?

    That worries me. Because this, frankly, is the language of those who are describing, well, what I consider to be neo-fascism. And I don’t subscribe to that. And I never will. In fact, I’ll spend the rest of my days opposing it.

    Says one of Hamas’ leading cheerleaders…

  10. Dennis, Noting The Bright Light Emanating From Ely

    …albeit summarised in little more than a series of mathematically logical statements at present.

    The statement “mathematically logical statements” is meaningless, and does nothing more than demonstrate that Richard Murphy doesn’t have a grasp of mathematics (yeah, I’m just as surprised as you are).

    The statement is overly broad, imprecise and completely pompous.

    Much like Murphy himself, come to think of it.

  11. I sneeze in threes

    Do think he’s been utilising the profound mathematical insights provided by actor Terrence Howard, including 1 x 1 = 2? Maybe they could co-author a paper.

    Terence recently revealed his stunning insights on Joe Rogan’s show, though I don’t believe he included any Venn diagrams.

    If you think Terrence appearing on the Rogan podcast isn’t sufficiently credible. Here he is at the Oxford Union. Has Spud ever spoken there?’m

  12. Martin Near The M25

    “I had done some serious thinking about new ideas to write about over the summer”

    It’s amazing how so few words can inspire such existential horror.

  13. The pretentious and pompous one delivers his slate tablets from above for the benefit of all mankind.
    We’re all saved!

    Do his (model) trains run on time?
    Are there Ely pubs welcoming the savant into their snugs?
    Has he got a pension?

    Capt. Murky is truly unique.

  14. Do pubs have snugs these days, even in Ely? It’s a long time since I’ve seen/been in one. The Cat in Whitworth where I drank as a child had one, and very snug it was too, but then they remodelled the pub ☹️

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *