Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Testimony (Propertarianism) consists of … the use of procedural falsification;

    Testimony (Propertarianism) consists of

    … the use of procedural falsification;

    … in all dimensions of human perception;

    … resulting in the completion of the Scientific Method ;

    … its application to the totality of human knowledge;

    … resulting in a universally commensurable language of all thought;

    … its embodiment in the common law of tort;

    … its use in the construction of a template for constitutions;

    … and as a consequence creating a market for the prosecution of;

    … … superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit

    … and the eradication of:

    … … … superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit

    … from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons;

    … reversing the second Semitic attempt at the destruction of Western Civilization as it has destroyed every other by systematic undermining from within;

    … and restoring the quality of life we have expected from Western Civilization;

    … for those that live today, and those that will yet live in the future;”

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-13 10:27:00 UTC

  • DEFINITION: PARSIMONY “Lowest cost across all dimensions testable by man” EXPANS

    DEFINITION: PARSIMONY

    “Lowest cost across all dimensions testable by man”

    EXPANSION

    – Given human faculties: sense, disambiguation (constant relations), perception(integration-prediction), auto-association-prediction, attention-prediction (will), recursion-prediction, and release of actions;

    – And dimensions of tests of constant relations: free associative, categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational choice, reciprocal rational choice, completeness;

    Parsimony must refer to:

    “Lowest Cost”, expanded to:

    – the lowest cost (least information), description of a chain of causation

    – surviving tests of: entropy, realism, naturalism, operationalism,

    – and;

    – bounded rational self interest:

    – in the seizure of opportunity,

    – from the field of identified opportunities,

    – given the opportunity cost of the opportunity,

    – determined by competition for the greatest return in the shortest time for the least effort, with the greatest certainty at the lowest risk,

    – to the point of disequilibrium and subsequent re-equilibration,

    – eliminating the opportunity from the field of opportunities.

    – and

    – reciprocity (repeating the above) is the only productive rather than parasitic (costly) means of interaction.

    (- although parasitism and predation are profitable means of interaction, they are consumptive not productive.)

    The difference between:

    – Testimony (due diligence by self),

    – Coherence(consistency by audience),

    – Parsimony(competition by market),

    … is grammatical (point-of-view), and an application of and conformity to,

    – the law of epistemology (free association-idea-> hypothesis-surviving > theory-surviving > application-surviving)

    I can fuss with this a bit to make it as tight as reciprocity and testimony, or any of the other definitions, but ‘skeptical subjective testing against Occam’s Razor serves as the colloquial reduction.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-13 09:21:00 UTC

  • Q: “What is P?”– Jody Short for “Propertarianism” So we use: “P” (overall), “P-

    –Q: “What is P?”– Jody

    Short for “Propertarianism”

    So we use: “P” (overall), “P-law”, “P-testimony” P-operationalism’ etc to for brevity and to disambiguate formal P definitions from common definitions.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-13 09:02:00 UTC

  • WE LOST FROM –“I wonder what they called P before all the great libraries were

    WE LOST FROM
    –“I wonder what they called P before all the great libraries were destroyed.”—Andrew Gribble

    —“I’m pretty confident that Aristotle got as close to it as Archimedes got to… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=504797723450456&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-12 04:31:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1194110454429298689

  • WE LOST FROM –“I wonder what they called P before all the great libraries were

    WE LOST FROM

    –“I wonder what they called P before all the great libraries were destroyed.”—Andrew Gribble

    —“I’m pretty confident that Aristotle got as close to it as Archimedes got to calculus.”—Luan Raphael

    Archimedes: 287 BC.

    Epicurus 341 BC

    Alexander 356 BC

    Aristotle 384 BC

    When Alexander Crosses the Hellespont 334 BC, he conquered the persian empire at the expense of infecting europe with oriental despotism.

    We should not look at alexander as a hero, but as a fool who brings greece to an end, as napoleon that brought europe to an end.

    It took us until:

    newton-liebniz to rediscover calculus

    descartes to restore us to geometry (reality)

    Davinci to restore roman engineering

    It takes until the royal society before we institutionalize it again and reach greek and roman levels of schools. (1660)

    We don’t restore ‘physical’ thought until the industrial revolution ~1700-1830, physical thought

    We don’t restore administration and military order until Napoleonic France.

    It takes until Darwin before we reach aristotelian ‘cleanliness’ of thought.

    The main innovations are technological, and the main innovation in logic returning to Archimedes with Babbage by accident and Turing by design.

    We are, I am, still trying to restore aristotle, our original frame of european thought.

    I mean, realistically, the worst thing that ever happened is letting the barbarians across the hellespont. but there is no natural barrier in anatolia like there are in the caucuses to build a wall upon. so Anatolia must be lost.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-11 23:31:00 UTC

  • Issue isn’t semantics, but of our specializations, and the market of cooperation

    Issue isn’t semantics, but of our specializations, and the market of cooperation. My work requires greater suppression of falsehood, most people’s requires greater seizure of opportunity (with hope of no-falsehood)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-09 14:55:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1193180315264663554

    Reply addressees: @DeplorableDJDJ @Nalo_Nei @FreePeterBiarM

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1193179869884100613

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @DeplorableDJDJ @Nalo_Nei @FreePeterBiarM And as in ANY MARKET, the velocity of transformation (‘prosperity’) is determined by the degree of expression of various wants in competition with the degree of suppression of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictions, fraud and deceit.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1193179869884100613

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @DeplorableDJDJ @Nalo_Nei @FreePeterBiarM And as in ANY MARKET, the velocity of transformation (‘prosperity’) is determined by the degree of expression of various wants in competition with the degree of suppression of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictions, fraud and deceit.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1193179869884100613

  • I look for five things: 1. Comprehension (do you understand P?) 2. Construction

    I look for five things:

    1. Comprehension (do you understand P?)

    2. Construction (how well constructed is your argument)

    3. Precision (how parsimonious and balanced is it.)

    4. Innovation (have you added an insight – hard but happens)

    5. Poetics (is it aesthetically constructed)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-09 12:23:00 UTC

  • DISAMBIGUATION: MISTAKE VS ERROR —“Mistake(mistaken) vs. Error (err). Whats yo

    DISAMBIGUATION: MISTAKE VS ERROR

    —“Mistake(mistaken) vs. Error (err). Whats your distinction?”—Richard Hall

    ERROR: Errors in the construction of arguments that lead to erroneous conclusions (logic, operations)

    -vs-

    MISTAKE: Mistakes in articulation that do not lead to erroneous conclusions (explanation, example)

    I mean, I produce a lot of content, almost every day. So I make mistakes all the time. I make typos all the time, poor word choice, vocabulary mistakes, phrasing, or sentence structure, misquote, mis-remember, all sorts of things, and I tend to write in language that eliminates ‘optional’ words, and omg the list is endless. Those are mistakes.

    Errors would be the production of an argument that produced an irreciprocal or false conclusion.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-09 10:20:00 UTC

  • Stereotype = Observed Pattern of behavior Archetype = Character illustrating Ete

    Stereotype = Observed Pattern of behavior
    Archetype = Character illustrating Eternal Psychological Exper.
    Ideal = Idea w/o causality
    Category = Set of referents w/same constant relations
    Referent = instance of a set of constant relations
    Archetype ⊂ ideal, an ideal ⊃archetype.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-09 08:38:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1193085322638381056

    Reply addressees: @DeplorableDJDJ @Nalo_Nei @FreePeterBiarM

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1193035608945504256

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1193035608945504256

  • OK. Well, maybe we can do a youtube thing and entertain the folks. But in the en

    OK. Well, maybe we can do a youtube thing and entertain the folks. But in the end it’ll come down to: I have to create measurements to prohibit lying, and you want (justifiably) the most efficient means of understanding and communicating. I just need a sharper knife for my work.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-09 03:41:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1193010643726716928

    Reply addressees: @Nalo_Nei @FreePeterBiarM

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192994058269937664

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Nalo_Nei

    @curtdoolittle @FreePeterBiarM Um, well you know, that’s not a legitimate counter-argument right? You ‘just aren’t disambiguating’ (would love a full and contextual definition of that when you get the chance) my statements (reality) from your own complicit drive to counter them (verb) ;>

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192994058269937664