Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • THE CORE P-VOCABULARY ISN”T THAT LARGE But applying it to the sum total of human

    THE CORE P-VOCABULARY ISN”T THAT LARGE
    But applying it to the sum total of human knowledge requries using terms from all fields of humnan knowledge.

    —“Generally, the words you choose are from fields of econ, business, acctg, philosophy, religion, science (esp. physics), math—a large knowledge fund. Theorists do that. How long would you say it takes someone to learn your linguistic pattern so they more easily learn from you?”—TruthQuest
    @TruthQuest11

    1. Most ‘smart folk’ say it takes six months to understand it just by following, and about two to three years to be able to work with it. In that sense it’s just like any other discipline.

    2. The core vocabulary isn’t that large as you’d think. it’s that every ‘term'(concept) is defined in series, so three, five, eight or more variations on a term (concept).

    3. If you learn disambiguation-serialization, and operationalization first, then the grammars, then Property in toto, Reciprocity, and Testimony (reciprocity in word). The rest is rather obvious. It’s just practice like any other formal discipline. It’s a lot like writing code.

    4. Explaining all that and applying it is what takes all the terminology.

    5. And reforming all the fields so that they are free of platonisms and pretentions is … overwhelming.

    6. When I write the core vocabulary down on the cheat sheet it’s just not that large. Application to the total body of human knowledge is so.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-24 23:52:05 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/104747048961060790

  • DECIDABILITY IS THE OPERATIONAL NAME FOR THE CAUSE OF FIRST PRINCIPLES Philosoph

    DECIDABILITY IS THE OPERATIONAL NAME FOR THE CAUSE OF FIRST PRINCIPLES

    Philosophers often talk about the difference between seeking first principles, and seeking fit, commensurability, untility, choices or preferences.

    —“A first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. In philosophy, first principles are from the First Cause method taught by Aristotelians, and nuanced versions of first principles are referred to as postulates by Kantians. In mathematics, first principles are referred to as axioms or postulates. In physics and other sciences, theoretical work is said to be from first principles, or “ab initio”, if it starts directly at the level of established science and does not make assumptions such as empirical model and parameter fitting.”—

    In propertarianism I call this the search for “decidability”. The point at which we can decide (must), versus choose (can), versus prefer (may). So in this sense, “decidabilty” is the operational definitino of ‘first principle”.

    In the examples above, first principles (decidability) in mathematics is provided by position in an order (positional names), adding(increasing) to or subtracting(decreasing) from a position in that order. To say that mathematics instead consists of axioms is only partly true. The axioms are logical consequences of positional names. As such they are variables, and only first principles. For example, ZFC axioms in mathematics are statemetns of set theory (ideals) not operations (reals).

    As I’ve written elsewhere, Kantianism is a psychological not operational system of thought in the german (conflationary) school of philosophy (and logic), versus the anglo analytic (depersonalized, or legal ) school of philosophy (logic), or what I suppose we should call today’s cognitive science or neural network school of logic – which is no longer philosophy but operational science. In Propertarianism I translate Kantianism’s apriori logic into formal logic.

    THE NEW AGE OF PHILOSOPHY
    So I would call the current era the Operational and Neural Network Age of Logic, leaving behind the second age of idealism (Platonism).

    What’s the problem with neural networks? We can’t introspect on them yet either (although we will).

    EVOLUTION FROM FIRST CAUSES:
    Myth: inter-Imaginary,
    Law: inter-personal, and
    Engeneering inter-physical
    … … … … … Play … Literature ->
    Mythology … History ————>
    … … … … .. Theology (myth+law) ->
    Law … Politics … Economics —>
    …. … … … Philosophy(law+math) ->
    … … … … … … … …. … ..Science ->
    Engineering … Mathematics —–>

    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-24 22:27:52 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/104746717748472408

  • Boost of @curtd DECIDABILITY IS THE OPERATIONAL NAME FOR THE CAUSE OF FIRST PRIN

    Boost of @curtd DECIDABILITY IS THE OPERATIONAL NAME FOR THE CAUSE OF FIRST PRINCIPLES

    Philosophers often talk about the difference between seeking first principles, and seeking fit, commensurability, untility, choices or preferences.

    —“A first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. In philosophy, first principles are from the First Cause method taught by Aristotelians, and nuanced versions of first principles are referred to as postulates by Kantians. In mathematics, first principles are referred to as axioms or postulates. In physics and other sciences, theoretical work is said to be from first principles, or “ab initio”, if it starts directly at the level of established science and does not make assumptions such as empirical model and parameter fitting.”—

    In propertarianism I call this the search for “decidability”. The point at which we can decide (must), versus choose (can), versus prefer (may). So in this sense, “decidabilty” is the operational definitino of ‘first principle”.

    In the examples above, first principles (decidability) in mathematics is provided by position in an order (positional names), adding(increasing) to or subtracting(decreasing) from a position in that order. To say that mathematics instead consists of axioms is only partly true. The axioms are logical consequences of positional names. As such they are variables, and only first principles. For example, ZFC axioms in mathematics are statemetns of set theory (ideals) not operations (reals).

    As I’ve written elsewhere, Kantianism is a psychological not operational system of thought in the german (conflationary) school of philosophy (and logic), versus the anglo analytic (depersonalized, or legal ) school of philosophy (logic), or what I suppose we should call today’s cognitive science or neural network school of logic – which is no longer philosophy but operational science. In Propertarianism I translate Kantianism’s apriori logic into formal logic.

    THE NEW AGE OF PHILOSOPHY
    So I would call the current era the Operational and Neural Network Age of Logic, leaving behind the second age of idealism (Platonism).

    What’s the problem with neural networks? We can’t introspect on them yet either (although we will).

    EVOLUTION FROM FIRST CAUSES:
    Myth: inter-Imaginary,
    Law: inter-personal, and
    Engeneering inter-physical
    … … … … … Play … Literature ->
    Mythology … History ————>
    … … … … .. Theology (myth+law) ->
    Law … Politics … Economics —>
    …. … … … Philosophy(law+math) ->
    … … … … … … … …. … ..Science ->
    Engineering … Mathematics —–>

    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-24 22:27:52 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105752621694800353

  • There is no difference between say, einstein’s gravity, math and elevators, and

    … There is no difference between say, einstein’s gravity, math and elevators, and my acquisition, operations, and actions. Same process Math(physics), Programming, and Reciprocity (actions).

    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-22 20:10:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1297264920883601408

    Reply addressees: @TruthQuest11

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1297264775517347841

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @TruthQuest11 (PS: I don’t always understand me either. Imagine you’re trying to do a mathematical proof, and you try something only to discover something else. You discover that you just intuited something smart, and wrote it down, and afterward discovering the depth of it. …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1297264775517347841

  • There is no difference between say, einstein’s gravity, math and elevators, and

    … There is no difference between say, einstein’s gravity, math and elevators, and my acquisition, operations, and actions. Same process Math(physics), Programming, and Reciprocity (actions).

    Reply addressees: @TruthQuest11

  • (PS: I don’t always understand me either. Imagine you’re trying to do a mathemat

    (PS: I don’t always understand me either. Imagine you’re trying to do a mathematical proof, and you try something only to discover something else. You discover that you just intuited something smart, and wrote it down, and afterward discovering the depth of it. …

    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-22 20:09:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1297264775517347841

    Reply addressees: @TruthQuest11

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1297260223988731904

  • (PS: I don’t always understand me either. Imagine you’re trying to do a mathemat

    (PS: I don’t always understand me either. Imagine you’re trying to do a mathematical proof, and you try something only to discover something else. You discover that you just intuited something smart, and wrote it down, and afterward discovering the depth of it. …

    Reply addressees: @TruthQuest11

  • 5. And reforming all the fields so that they are free of platonisms and pretenti

    5. And reforming all the fields so that they are free of platonisms and pretentions is … overwhelming.

    6. When I write the core vocabulary down on the cheat sheet it’s just not that large. Application to the total body of human knowledge is so.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-22 14:06:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1297173266017157120

    Reply addressees: @TruthQuest11

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1297172921354457091

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @TruthQuest11 … Property in toto, Reciprocity, and Testimony (reciprocity in word). The rest is rather obvious. It’s just practice like any other formal discipline. It’s a lot like writing code.

    4. Explaining all that and applying it is what takes all the terminology.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1297172921354457091

  • 5. And reforming all the fields so that they are free of platonisms and pretenti

    5. And reforming all the fields so that they are free of platonisms and pretentions is … overwhelming.

    6. When I write the core vocabulary down on the cheat sheet it’s just not that large. Application to the total body of human knowledge is so.

    Reply addressees: @TruthQuest11

  • 2. The core vocabulary isn’t that large as you’d think. it’s that every ‘term'(c

    2. The core vocabulary isn’t that large as you’d think. it’s that every ‘term'(concept) is defined in series, so three, five, eight or more variations on a term (concept).

    3. If you learn disambiguation-serialization, and operationalization first, then the grammars, then…

    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-22 14:01:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1297172157366177792

    Reply addressees: @TruthQuest11

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1297171535451631616

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @TruthQuest11 1. Most ‘smart folk’ say it takes six months to understand it just by following, and about two to three years to be able to work with it. In that sense it’s just like any other discipline.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1297171535451631616