A Priori: “independent of observation.” There are three dimensions to a priori truth claims: i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori, ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and iii) Necessity vs Contingency Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims. (a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof. (c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: Childless women will have no grandchildren. (b) “General” Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation. (d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.” This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision: (a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori (b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori (c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori (d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori Nothing more to be said. We now have converted kantian apriorism to scientific and testimonial prose and in doing so explained the relationship between Testimonials and Kantian apriorism, and in doing so the increase in precision under P, increase in testability under P, and ended Kant’s attempt to undermine our ability to falsify and his attempt at preservation of christian and church authority. You may not yet grasp why that paragraph is so, but you will.
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Converting Kant’s Apriorism to Science(testimony)
A Priori: “independent of observation.” There are three dimensions to a priori truth claims: i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori, ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and iii) Necessity vs Contingency Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims. (a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof. (c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: Childless women will have no grandchildren. (b) “General” Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation. (d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.” This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision: (a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori (b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori (c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori (d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori Nothing more to be said. We now have converted kantian apriorism to scientific and testimonial prose and in doing so explained the relationship between Testimonials and Kantian apriorism, and in doing so the increase in precision under P, increase in testability under P, and ended Kant’s attempt to undermine our ability to falsify and his attempt at preservation of christian and church authority. You may not yet grasp why that paragraph is so, but you will.
-
P-Decidabilty Is a Dangerous Idea!
P-Decidabilty Is a Dangerous Idea! https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/p-decidabilty-is-a-dangerous-idea-2/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 13:44:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267451895754510336
-
P-Decidabilty Is a Dangerous Idea!
P-Decidabilty Is a Dangerous Idea! https://t.co/2Lk0AFhgkn
-
P-Decidabilty Is a Dangerous Idea!
P-DECIDABILTY IS A DANGEROUS IDEA! by Duke Newcomb This decidability is a dangerous idea. If the you-know-whos were to figure out the stuff we talk about and what we really mean, they’d SHUT IT DOWN! Decidability may be more of an antipode to parasitism than reciprocity. A decidable institution could hit such an escape velocity that it would shake off or burn off parasites along the way. It could not just counter the small hats’ group strategy as enforced reciprocity does, it could foreclose on its use. Perhaps that’s wishful thinking on my part, but mein Gott, this idea seems highly radioactive and long half-lived.
-
P-Decidabilty Is a Dangerous Idea!
P-DECIDABILTY IS A DANGEROUS IDEA! by Duke Newcomb This decidability is a dangerous idea. If the you-know-whos were to figure out the stuff we talk about and what we really mean, they’d SHUT IT DOWN! Decidability may be more of an antipode to parasitism than reciprocity. A decidable institution could hit such an escape velocity that it would shake off or burn off parasites along the way. It could not just counter the small hats’ group strategy as enforced reciprocity does, it could foreclose on its use. Perhaps that’s wishful thinking on my part, but mein Gott, this idea seems highly radioactive and long half-lived.
-
Decidability
Decidability https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/decidability/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 13:43:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267451704586444800
-
Decidability
Decidability https://t.co/D3LtRwjchp
-
Decidability
by Luke Weinhagen
1. Decidability facilitates the defining of limits.
2. The defining of limits facilitates the discovery of full accounting.
3. The discovery of full accounting facilitates the enforcement of reciprocity.
4. The enforcement of reciprocity facilitates the suppression of parasitism.
-
Decidability
by Luke Weinhagen
1. Decidability facilitates the defining of limits.
2. The defining of limits facilitates the discovery of full accounting.
3. The discovery of full accounting facilitates the enforcement of reciprocity.
4. The enforcement of reciprocity facilitates the suppression of parasitism.