I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete. Philosophy now only tells us choice, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice. The top of the epistemic pyramid is not philosophy(rationalism) but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice. In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence), mathematics(measurement) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
They are cases of application. Theories of observations (facts), theories of app
They are cases of application. Theories of observations (facts), theories of application (theories), evidence of application (laws), evidence of parsimony (coherence). A position is a preference. One does not take a position on the science. One falsifies it – or fails to.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 17:51:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174017952066265089
Reply addressees: @Brian_Alford @DineshDSouza
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173962862533824512
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/1173962862533824512
-
I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is c
I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete.
Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence,… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=467274753869420&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 07:03:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173854983051186177
-
I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is c
I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete.
Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice.
The top of the pyramid is not philosophy but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice.
In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 03:03:00 UTC
-
Doesn’t tell me anything other than evidence of action is superior to descriptio
Doesn’t tell me anything other than evidence of action is superior to description of action, narrative, storytelling, fictionalization of actions. I mean, etymology doesn’t even remain constant.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 21:24:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173709345105821696
Reply addressees: @Semiogogue
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173708897561010176
IN REPLY TO:
@Semiogogue
@curtdoolittle Roger that. Look at a group of prehistoric hunters. They follow a track. It has a before and an after, based upon linear sequence mapping to the passage of time. Event sequence. Reading such signs as reliable environmental indicators is the basis of eating and NOT getting eaten.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173708897561010176
-
Words, like dna, lose their means of past construction, and retain only their cu
Words, like dna, lose their means of past construction, and retain only their current associations. Words are products manufactured in the moment. Are you trying to do what webster did, or the Egyptians did, and the chinese less so, and anchor words in time?
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 21:21:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173708556350251008
Reply addressees: @Semiogogue
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173707729510309889
IN REPLY TO:
@Semiogogue
@curtdoolittle No desire to unmake words. Only to show what they rest upon, their developmental antecedents, which are *persistent* and running, mostly unnoticed, as a parallel (and older) system: territorial, environmental and resource marks. Marks used to shape behavior.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173707729510309889
-
that doesn’t tell me anything about how to brew a cup of coffee, balance account
that doesn’t tell me anything about how to brew a cup of coffee, balance accounts, design an engine, preserve a market economy, or construct a system of rule of law. Operations aren’t arbitrary. But symbols are. Are you arguing in favor of pictographs? I’m trying to understand.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 21:20:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173708194956402688
Reply addressees: @Semiogogue
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173706923939704835
IN REPLY TO:
@Semiogogue
@curtdoolittle Key is the arbitrariness or non-arbitrariness of the association. Either motivated or arbitrary. In case of an animal track we have motivated signification, which is reliable as a basis for making behavioral determinations. We evolved through such RELIABLE determinations.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173706923939704835
-
All language is reducible to analogy to experience and all experience communicab
All language is reducible to analogy to experience and all experience communicable by language marginally indifferent. ie: measurements.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 21:17:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173707577944870912
Reply addressees: @Semiogogue
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173707173286879237
IN REPLY TO:
@Semiogogue
@curtdoolittle How are words ‘measurements’? Is a poem falsifiable?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173707173286879237
-
The fact that we are not taught grammar as math and accounting, and math and acc
The fact that we are not taught grammar as math and accounting, and math and accounting as grammar, so that we are easily misled by abrahamic, postmodern sophistry and deceit is just a matter of lacking education and incentives. (law as the incentive). You can’t unmake words.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 21:13:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173706492270317568
Reply addressees: @Semiogogue
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173706151533391872
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Semiogogue As far as I know all words are names, and all names are measurements, and all strings of names (phrases, sentences, paragraphs, descriptions, narratives) are collections of measurements that either balance or they don’t. (consistent, correspondent, operational and coherent)
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173706151533391872
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@Semiogogue As far as I know all words are names, and all names are measurements, and all strings of names (phrases, sentences, paragraphs, descriptions, narratives) are collections of measurements that either balance or they don’t. (consistent, correspondent, operational and coherent)
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173706151533391872
-
As far as I know all words are names, and all names are measurements, and all st
As far as I know all words are names, and all names are measurements, and all strings of names (phrases, sentences, paragraphs, descriptions, narratives) are collections of measurements that either balance or they don’t. (consistent, correspondent, operational and coherent)
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 21:12:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173706151533391872
Reply addressees: @Semiogogue
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173705655414403072
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Semiogogue Give me an example. Language, like violence can be used for true and reciprocal or false and irreciprocal ends. It is just a resource. So while I work on eliminating falsehood by law I am not sure what you are working on other than association, which is useless for operations.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173705655414403072
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@Semiogogue Give me an example. Language, like violence can be used for true and reciprocal or false and irreciprocal ends. It is just a resource. So while I work on eliminating falsehood by law I am not sure what you are working on other than association, which is useless for operations.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173705655414403072