ON TRUTH: WORKING WITH SCIENCE, NOT PLATONISM (closing in on the final words on

ON TRUTH: WORKING WITH SCIENCE, NOT PLATONISM

(closing in on the final words on truth)

You are making the error of set comparisons that is so common in rationalist ‘pseudoscience’, by which you use framing to create false dichotomies.

DEFINITIONS

—“Thus, if you try to define the concept of “truth” by appeal to the concept of “knowledge”,”—

I don’t. I define the concept of TRUTH by the spectrum of survival from due diligence.

I define KNOWLEDGE as anything from awareness to perfectly informed.

INFORMATION CONTENT UNDER CONSIDERATION

We work, I work, not with ideal types, but with series (a spectrum).

We work, I work, not with sets but with supply demand curves.

We work, I work, not with set operations, but with algorithmic (existential) operations.

We work, I work, with the information content of reality, not a subset of reality.

Ergo We work, I work, with actions(reality) not just language(ideals).

In other words, I work with science, not platonism.

SPECTRUM OF KNOWLEDGE

1) True (decidable) in the given context of a given question. (truth candidate)(law)

2) Truthful (actionable) in the given context of a given question. (truth candidate)(theory)

3) Undecidable (inactionable) in the given context of a given question. (non-truth)(hypothesis)

4) Suspect (undecidable) in the given context of a given question.(non-truth)(theory)

5) False (decidable) in the given context of the given question.(non-truth)(law)

WHAT DOES THIS RESULT IN?

Truth by Triangulation

One can only estimate by triangulation.

Truth is a process of incremental improvement of estimations.

And in fact. If you were to study all facets of man (I have) this is how truth is determined in all disciplines wherein men act upon their statements (‘Skin in the Game’), and those disciplines that are ‘just talk’ do not.

Hence the similarity in nonsense between rationalism and religious law (Hermenutics) that it evolved from.

Hence the similarity in not-nonsense between sciences, and the common empirical law that they evolved from.

CLOSING

If you understand the past two long posts I have made you will understand the entire history of philosophy in those few words.

The Iranian laws evolved to prevent retaliation cycles.

Abrahamic religion was invented to lie.

Greek philosophy to reform greek law – more reason.

Stoic philosophy evolved out off greek law to speak the truth.

Roman law evolved out of stoic philosophy.

Western law evolved out of roman law and germanic pagan law.

English law evolved more out of anglo saxon pagan law.

Empiricism evolved out of germanic and anglo saxon law.

Nothing else to be understood.

In other words, if you’re practicing ‘cherry-picking’ using set operations on language, you’re engaging in pseudoscience.

No dimension of reason’s subsets of reality is capable of proving itself without appeal to the next dimension of reality.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev Ukraine