Aug 29, 2016 10:10am

( I hope someone understands this. It will give me joy. lol)

(Note: this is a deceptively complicated question, and I”m going to answer it incompletely becuase of that complication, but hopefully thoroughly enough to get the point across)

*—“I understand that the incompleteness theorem depends on plenty of axioms, which could be rejected if one wishes to do so. Can you explain why Propertarianism is not contained within that range of prohibition?”— (*reddit user)

Godel refers to computable axiomatic systems, and special cases within those systems. When people here ‘philosophy’ they limit themselves to those tools we call logic, rationalism, and reason, and they tend to eliminate correspondence (science), reciprocal morality, operationalism, and Limits-and-full-accounting.

This limitation is caused by the differences between axiomatic, logical, operational systems without correspondence, and theoretical, scientific systems with correspondence to, and therefore constrained by the limits of reality.

The irony is that incompleteness exists primarily because (a) we do not know the first principles of the physical universe yet, so we cannot give operational descriptions (true names) to our theories (b) philosophers consider subsets of reality, just as religious considered supersets of reality, whereas scientists consider only reality.

Internally consistent systems (axiomatic systems), and symbolic operations within those systems, Godel refers to as incomplete rather than ‘unlimited’. We use the term ‘limit’ in mathematics as an arbitrarily chosen substitution for external (empirical) correspondence with reality. In loose terms, axiomatic systems are unlimited because without external correspondence we encounter many nonsense-concepts like ‘infinity’, which when we use as correspondent (limited) we find cannot exist.

In any THEORETICAL system, we speak in terms of correspondence in ADDITION to axiomatic regularity. Scale dependence (external correspondence) produces limits, because all general statements (theories) are limited in application. We no longer have to provide limits and decidability because there are many limits to existential phenomenon.

In the case of [everything between these brackets is false] this is a nonsense concept. Precisely because with operational reason (a sequence of events constructing that box) we know it is an intentional construction. Yet within set theory, unlimited by correspondence or operational sequence, this cannot come into being, except as a deception. (which is what it is).

So testimonialism and propertarianism and rule of law, and market government, and group competitive strategies are categorically, logically(internally), empirically(externally), existentially(operationally,) morally(reciprocally), and scope (limited) consistent.

I can go into much more epistemological detail, but the net is that if you can pass all those tests of consistency (and therefore determinism), it is extremely difficult to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute