Category: Epistemology and Method

  • I don’t make excuses. I just ‘science’ everything down to first principles, and

    I don’t make excuses. I just ‘science’ everything down to first principles, and describe it as physics of the physical world, or the equivalent of physics in the behavioral world: reciprocal economic terms, and the physics of the evolutionary word: consequences.

    I don’t have a simplistic view of much of anything. What I have is a scientific understanding of nearly everything. Because operational logic, physics economics and evolution aren’t opinions. The problem I’ve faced is that writing all of that content is a vast project, but any casual perusal of any part of the work that is in draft form is as unassailable as geometry.

    That isn’t to say that people don’t need ‘feels’, and myths, and religions, for cooperation and mindfulness, because they are largely unfit for the world as it is – but it does allow me to judge (that’s my job) true/false, possible/not, ethical/not, moral/not, right/wrong, good/bad, regardless of feels. 😉

    No one really wants the truth except to stop some group of liars, cheaters, and thieves from lying cheating and stealing, while permitting themselves to continue lying, cheating, stealing. 😉

    Reply addressees: @FernandoGLV1212 @ToddNQuick1


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 17:15:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655622585973972992

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655605917319086081

  • So, what does ‘voices heard’ mean in a substantive form

    So, what does ‘voices heard’ mean in a substantive form.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 08:40:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655492788757176321

    Reply addressees: @FernandoGLV1212

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655487965055918080

  • Truth before Face. They can’t do it

    Truth before Face.

    They can’t do it.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 08:05:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655484144955039745

    Reply addressees: @FernandoGLV1212

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655482250643865601

  • Define voice. Because I don’t think the definition of the term as you’re using i

    Define voice. Because I don’t think the definition of the term as you’re using it will pass a test of possibility. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 07:46:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655479175199744000

    Reply addressees: @FernandoGLV1212

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655476541390741508

  • “We work each on our own time scale, with independent scales of decidability and

    –“We work each on our own time scale, with independent scales of decidability and confidence. We help each other within those bounds, and that is all that can be expected.”– @WerrellBradley https://twitter.com/WerrellBradley/status/1655286483505520640

  • THE LIARS PARADOX SOLVED – AND WHAT IT MEANS (important) Jeffrey, (all). I’m sur

    THE LIARS PARADOX SOLVED – AND WHAT IT MEANS
    (important)

    Jeffrey, (all).

    I’m sure you’re not expecting the rather odd occurence of the solution to the liars paradox in a Youtube comment, but doing so is an experiment of my own that tests the utilty of social media – and our fellow man.

    The liars paradox exists only because of the long standing failure to understand the science of grammar – something we have learned relatively recently in computer science (and how computer science, or computatation, differs from mathemtics: math is a verbal system of measurement and description, while computation is an operational system of causality, whcih explains why nearly evertyting is reducible to computational algorithm but very ittle is reducible to mathematical description.

    Now, there are four points we need make here:

    (1) all language means what the speaker or author intends it to mean – true false, right wrong, good bad, prefereable and not-preferable. Ergo words don’t mean things, people do. And we develop language as a protocol for the transfer of what we mean. As such all languge consists of measurements of various levels of precision. And we often misunderstand misapply or disagree on those measurements just as much as your foot and my foot represent a ‘foot length

    (2) All language then consists of measurements that are approximations open to suggestion imposing a cost of deduction, induction, abduction on the audience.

    (3) The word “is” (is, are, was, were etc), as the verb to be, or more specifically, the copula, evades the disambiguation of the means of existence of whatever the speaker or author referrs to – relying on suggestion requiring substitution by the listener and reader, allowing that individual to interpret it as he will on one hand, or as a means of deception by claiming equality of identity, OR false claim of knowledge of the speaker or author.

    (4) All grammar, as Chomsky partly explained, consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation, into an identity free of ambiguity. (English evolved as a legal and then scientific language, and appropriated words wherever possible as increasingly specific measurements, for a variety of reasons and is a minor improvement over German that contains a few grammatical issues, even if it originated a language of martial testimony, as did proto germanic, and indo european before it.)

    As such “everthying in this box is false” intentionally violates the demand for continuous recursive disambiguation by enaging in specifically designed recursive disambiguity. In other words, the author of the so called paradox is lying to illustrate the first rule of grammatical construction: continuous recursive disambiguation and a defense against suggestion, substitution, conflation, inflation, and deception.

    As such, the liars paradox is not a paradox (any more than Zeno’s word games), or chinese wisdom literature’s similar puzzles. It’s trying to teach you something profound: Its the canonical example of how lies are contructed by:
    (a) violating the promise of testimonial truth (anything you say yuo claim as true is in fact an act of testimoy we can test whether is testifiable);
    (b) claiming words mean something rather than suggest the meaning intended by their author;
    (c) failure to continuously recursively disambiguate a sentence, set of them, or narrative;
    (d) relying on the copula to to cause ambiguity, for deception by suggestion, of either identity, means of existence, or pretense of the speaker’s knowledge;
    (e) taking advantage of the ignorance of these matters by the common people – and even ther educatos and professors.

    The Kicker: Theology (imaginary), Philosophy (verbal), Pseudoscience(physical), and Positive Law (Social(Organizational)) – the last of which you won’t likely understand – are all dependent on you NOT understanding the above rules of testimony, grammar, suggestion, and liability for truth claims. Nor that all four of those paradigms, plus the fifth of ‘mathematical sophistry (or ‘mathiness’) are what we call ‘fictionalisms’: systematic means of lying to you for the simple purpose of manipulating you into some political alliance or other that is in opposition to the truth: the laws of the universe for someone’s gain or to impose a loss on someone or some group. 😉

    The (Negative) Natural Law of Cooperation is relatively simple, and a direct necessary andconsequential evolution of the physical laws of the universe that takes advantage of our evolution of memory prediction, socialization (imitation, sympathy, empathy) and choice:

    The reciprocal insurance, by word, deed, and if necessary, force of arms, of self determination by self determined means, by the eradication of authority, via the construction of sovereignty in demonstrated interests (stuff you’ve earned), reciprocity in display word and deed, and truth before face, duty before self, and excellence and beauty, by the direction of dominance expression to the production of commons, limiting us to markets for voluntary cooperation in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and war; and the production of commons by test of conccurrency of regions classes (and now sexes) whether voting, or legislation, and markets for resolution of disputes by fight, duel, and a hierarchy of courts by rule of law of the natural law and the accumulated evidence of decisions by that law in the the empirical, common, concurrent law of trespass prohibits the violation all of the above, at the cost of the punishment, prevention, exclusion, and if necessary death of those who consistently violate that law of tresspass and insurance of others from it, as well as the (ouch) suppression of the reproduction of those unfit for all of the above, thereby continuing evolution by natural selection independent of authority or opinion.

    I hope this clears up a few issues that have plagued humanity because the preservation of the opportunity for coercion by deception is of so much value to the talking, educating, administrating, and governing classes.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute.

    REGARDING:
    https://t.co/KvfnnsUOSs
    REFERRING TO:
    https://t.co/ZV60Iqzgna


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 01:14:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655380552512315393

  • THE LIARS PARADOX SOLVED – AND WHAT IT MEANS (important) Jeffrey, (all). I’m sur

    THE LIARS PARADOX SOLVED – AND WHAT IT MEANS
    (important)

    Jeffrey, (all).

    I’m sure you’re not expecting the rather odd occurence of the solution to the liars paradox in a Youtube comment, but doing so is an experiment of my own that tests the utilty of social media – and our fellow man.

    The liars paradox exists only because of the long standing failure to understand the science of grammar – something we have learned relatively recently in computer science (and how computer science, or computatation, differs from mathemtics: math is a verbal system of measurement and description, while computation is an operational system of causality, whcih explains why nearly evertyting is reducible to computational algorithm but very ittle is reducible to mathematical description.

    Now, there are four points we need make here:

    (1) all language means what the speaker or author intends it to mean – true false, right wrong, good bad, prefereable and not-preferable. Ergo words don’t mean things, people do. And we develop language as a protocol for the transfer of what we mean. As such all languge consists of measurements of various levels of precision. And we often misunderstand misapply or disagree on those measurements just as much as your foot and my foot represent a ‘foot length

    (2) All language then consists of measurements that are approximations open to suggestion imposing a cost of deduction, induction, abduction on the audience.

    (3) The word “is” (is, are, was, were etc), as the verb to be, or more specifically, the copula, evades the disambiguation of the means of existence of whatever the speaker or author referrs to – relying on suggestion requiring substitution by the listener and reader, allowing that individual to interpret it as he will on one hand, or as a means of deception by claiming equality of identity, OR false claim of knowledge of the speaker or author.

    (4) All grammar, as Chomsky partly explained, consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation, into an identity free of ambiguity. (English evolved as a legal and then scientific language, and appropriated words wherever possible as increasingly specific measurements, for a variety of reasons and is a minor improvement over German that contains a few grammatical issues, even if it originated a language of martial testimony, as did proto germanic, and indo european before it.)

    As such “everthying in this box is false” intentionally violates the demand for continuous recursive disambiguation by enaging in specifically designed recursive disambiguity. In other words, the author of the so called paradox is lying to illustrate the first rule of grammatical construction: continuous recursive disambiguation and a defense against suggestion, substitution, conflation, inflation, and deception.

    As such, the liars paradox is not a paradox (any more than Zeno’s word games), or chinese wisdom literature’s similar puzzles. It’s trying to teach you something profound: Its the canonical example of how lies are contructed by:
    (a) violating the promise of testimonial truth (anything you say yuo claim as true is in fact an act of testimoy we can test whether is testifiable);
    (b) claiming words mean something rather than suggest the meaning intended by their author;
    (c) failure to continuously recursively disambiguate a sentence, set of them, or narrative;
    (d) relying on the copula to to cause ambiguity, for deception by suggestion, of either identity, means of existence, or pretense of the speaker’s knowledge;
    (e) taking advantage of the ignorance of these matters by the common people – and even ther educatos and professors.

    The Kicker: Theology (imaginary), Philosophy (verbal), Pseudoscience(physical), and Positive Law (Social(Organizational)) – the last of which you won’t likely understand – are all dependent on you NOT understanding the above rules of testimony, grammar, suggestion, and liability for truth claims. Nor that all four of those paradigms, plus the fifth of ‘mathematical sophistry (or ‘mathiness’) are what we call ‘fictionalisms’: systematic means of lying to you for the simple purpose of manipulating you into some political alliance or other that is in opposition to the truth: the laws of the universe for someone’s gain or to impose a loss on someone or some group. 😉

    The (Negative) Natural Law of Cooperation is relatively simple, and a direct necessary andconsequential evolution of the physical laws of the universe that takes advantage of our evolution of memory prediction, socialization (imitation, sympathy, empathy) and choice:

    The reciprocal insurance, by word, deed, and if necessary, force of arms, of self determination by self determined means, by the eradication of authority, via the construction of sovereignty in demonstrated interests (stuff you’ve earned), reciprocity in display word and deed, and truth before face, duty before self, and excellence and beauty, by the direction of dominance expression to the production of commons, limiting us to markets for voluntary cooperation in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and war; and the production of commons by test of conccurrency of regions classes (and now sexes) whether voting, or legislation, and markets for resolution of disputes by fight, duel, and a hierarchy of courts by rule of law of the natural law and the accumulated evidence of decisions by that law in the the empirical, common, concurrent law of trespass prohibits the violation all of the above, at the cost of the punishment, prevention, exclusion, and if necessary death of those who consistently violate that law of tresspass and insurance of others from it, as well as the (ouch) suppression of the reproduction of those unfit for all of the above, thereby continuing evolution by natural selection independent of authority or opinion.

    I hope this clears up a few issues that have plagued humanity because the preservation of the opportunity for coercion by deception is of so much value to the talking, educating, administrating, and governing classes.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute.

    REGARDING:
    https://t.co/KvfnnsUOSs


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 01:14:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655373900165816326

  • I can. I can also understand data and make claims of the causal and deterministi

    I can. I can also understand data and make claims of the causal and deterministic ends of aggregate effects.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-07 22:51:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655344639497338883

    Reply addressees: @FernandoGLV1212

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655343981998342147

  • @DajaniRiad 1) We know the paradigm (first principles, causal hierarchy), logic,

    @DajaniRiad
    1) We know the paradigm (first principles, causal hierarchy), logic, and grammar of the universe, including not only physics, but neurology, psychology, sociology, politics, and group evolutionary strategy.

    2) We know the logic of decidability across all human cooperation and conflict at all scales.

    3) It’s trivially simple once you grasp it, but just as Galileo, Darwin, and Menger gave us knowledge we didn’t like, and the Greeks and Romans Knowledge the middle east despised, and so does the knowledge of the science and logic of human behavior.

    4) Why? Because it means suppression of the reproduction of the demonstrably unfit is necessary, and that necessity is impossible to overcome (soft eugenics), and that the systematic postwar suppression of research into and expression of human differences is equal to a fundamentalist revolution suppressing knowledge in prior ages.

    🙁

    Reply addressees: @SovereigntyKing @DajaniRiad @BrianRoemmele


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-06 18:59:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654923914626097153

  • GENERAL RULE OF INTELLECTUAL INVESTIGATION: Despite the division of labor in try

    GENERAL RULE OF INTELLECTUAL INVESTIGATION:
    Despite the division of labor in trying to solve a category of problems starting from different objectives and premises, all solutions that are non-false will tend to converge toward the least variation between solutions that provides universal commensurability and justification while at the same time preserving particular utility in application.

    Sort of ‘rule of convergence’ of scientific investigation.

    Reply addressees: @Josh_Ebner @ph2t3r


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-05 17:03:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654532367795486720

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654531269315657740