Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Q: –“Curt, can you recommend a book that explains these grammars/linguistics in

    Q: –“Curt, can you recommend a book that explains these grammars/linguistics in more detail?”–

    No such book exists.

    Simple version: given the ternary logic of the first principles of the universe, during the process of evolutionary computation, we observe the emergence (evolution) of new sets (paradigms) of ‘things’ (nouns), ‘actions'(verbs), and ‘survival’ (agreement/not), and the the logic of their interactions, we capture as ‘rules of continuous recursive disambiguation (grammars), for each paradigm (discipline).

    In addition mankind can subtract dimensions of meaning from that vocabulary, or add dimensions of meaning to that vocabulary, and as such produce additional grammars (methodologies) such as arithmetic, mathematics, algebra or physics, chemistry, biology, or reason, calculation, computation, or say. counting, accounting, and bayesian accounting.

    In addition mankind can inflate and conflate and obscure meaning – means of fiction, fictionalization, an deception.

    The videos explain it.
    https://t.co/m8y74Jkl4K

    You could also start here: https://t.co/O6szQMS5CD

    Reply addressees: @DwightExMachina @X_Filosofo @AshaLogos @sovereignbrah


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-13 19:21:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757485067633311744

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757453982480413102

  • “Is belief in the truth fundamentally predicated upon God?”– @Whatifalthist THE

    –“Is belief in the truth fundamentally predicated upon God?”– @Whatifalthist

    THE CORRECT ANSWER:
    1) The term ‘truth’ refers to testimony – it can only refer to testimony. And testimony sufficient for the provision of decidability. And as such, decidability sufficient for the marginal difference in the production of desired outcomes and the reduction of failure or harms in the context in question. Ideal truth refers to that testimony we would give if possessed of perfect and complete knowledge of the context in question. (All truth and therefore decidability consist of a competition between supply of information vs demand to avoid risk).

    2) All people need a means of disambiguating, categorizing, and evaluating the universe sufficient for successful understanding, prediction, choice, and action – and that demand increases as the population, division of labor, class structure emerges, and diversity from travel and trade increase – because they require commensurable systems of conceptual measurement in order to suppress neuroticism (insecurity, fear), cooperate, and cooperate in networks of increasing complexity, without causing retaliation and retaliation cycles, which inhibit that cooperation at best and at worst cause conflict and war.

    3) Given the hierarchy of accessible systems of measurement from the imitative to the anthropomorphic to the theological, to philosophical, to empirical, to scientific, to operational, the lowest common denominator available to all humans independent of their varying capacity for reason, is anthropomorphism. Conversely, the less intuitive and the more rational, the less available to humans.

    4) In addition, the less trust a people have of one another, and the more diverse and alienating the population for those within it, the greater the difficulty in converting the submission to authority necessary for suppression of self interest and deferring gratification and contribution to the commons from parent to elders, to headmen, or their abstractions in institutions.

    5) As such between (a) the need for a framework of understanding sufficient for action, among others in populations at scale, (b) the necessity of suppressing neuroticism (c) facilitating the development of trust necessary for cooperation (d) the spectrum of ability ad competency where the anthropomorphic is the most simplistic (e) and utility of the abstraction to an ideal anthropomorphic entity to overcome local absence of trust in one another. (f) then it is logical we should develop religions (disciplines of intuition) with more anthropomorphism among lower trust peoples, and less anthropomorphism among higher trust peoples. (g) And the resistance to surpassing the use of abstract deities (god, gods) and restoring say, natural religion of hero, ancestor, and nature ‘debt recognition and appreciation’ (worship, submission to the pack response), or graduating to say, stoicism-epicureanism, or graduating further to say, natural law and man as gods in the making, is persistent as long as the distribution of ability-inability, agency-submission, and empathizing-systematizing, division is below a threshold where a majority can naturally form norms traditions values, rituals, narratives, and institutions that favor higher trust methods of achieving mindfulness, standards of measure, and the trust and cooperation that results.

    6) As such, in lieu of aggressive eugenics, the production of an intuition in a population within a normal distribution requires greater investment and training as we attempt to evolve from the easily intuitionistic and anthropomorphic to the necessity of understanding that which requires accumulation of knowledge of others, the world, and the universe. (hence why stoicism-epicureanism failed to propagate to the lower classes leaving room for christianity (a religion of women, slaves, and the lower classes)).

    7) As such, to answer the question provoking this response, god as a proxy (substitute) for decidability is necessary as long as: (a) our population is only sufficiently competent for such a paradigm of measurement and decidability (b) our population lacks the trust necessary for greater directness of debt recognition’ (worship), and (c) our knowledge of the universe is sufficient to provide decidability on the one hand and the suppression of false alternatives (marxism-to-woke) on the other.

    This is the most complete and correct answer you will find. And your response to this answer will tell you more about your trust in others than what is possible for the production of the intuition of trust and cooperation in a population. 😉

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-13 15:24:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757425459489300480

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757285085903028400

  • WHY THE EMPHASIS ON OPERATIONAL PROSE – AND WHAT IS IT? Operational prose, withi

    WHY THE EMPHASIS ON OPERATIONAL PROSE – AND WHAT IS IT?

    Operational prose, within the context of Doolittle’s Natural Law, P-Law, or Propertarianism, represents a method of expressing ideas, concepts, and statements in a manner that is precise, verifiable, and grounded in observable and testable actions. This approach is designed to eliminate ambiguity, reduce misunderstandings, and facilitate clear communication, and improve truth or falsehood detection, especially in complex fields like law, economics, and social sciences.

    Here’s a breakdown of its key aspects and implications:

    1. Definition and Purpose

    Operational prose requires defining concepts and statements in terms of specific, observable actions or processes. This method aims to ensure that every term and sentence can be empirically tested or logically verified, mirroring the precision found in programming languages or mathematical formulations.

    2. Techniques and Elements

    Elimination of Ambiguous Language: Operational prose avoids vague terms and generalizations by specifying the exact actions or phenomena being discussed.

    Use of Complete Sentences: Each statement is structured to convey a complete thought, including the subject, action, and object, ensuring clarity and coherence.

    Operational Vocabulary: The vocabulary consists of terms defined through their operational (action-based) meanings, which relate directly to observable and testable phenomena.

    E-Prime Language: Operational prose often employs E-Prime, a version of the English language that excludes all forms of the verb “to be” (is, are, was, were, etc.). This exclusion aims to reduce the assertion of absolute or objective states, focusing instead on perceptions and experiences.

    Promissory Form: Statements in operational prose may include a form of promise or warranty, indicating the speaker’s commitment to the truthfulness and reliability of their assertions.

    3. Applications and Benefits

    Clarity and Precision: By requiring descriptions to be grounded in observable actions, operational prose minimizes the risk of misinterpretation and enhances the clarity of communication.

    Empirical Testability: This approach ensures that statements can be empirically tested or logically verified, aligning with the scientific method’s emphasis on falsifiability and verification.

    Reduction of Deceit and Ambiguity: Operational prose is designed to make deceit more difficult and to clarify intentions, making it a powerful tool in legal and ethical reasoning.

    4. Challenges in Adoption
    Operational prose is, like grammatical analysis, a methodology, and tool, where repeated use develops an intuition in the person using it. So, while operational prose offers significant benefits for clarity and precision, it can be challenging to adopt widely due to its departure from conventional language use. It requires a rigorous rethinking of how we express ideas and a commitment to specificity that may not always be intuitive or straightforward.

    5. Impact on Disciplines
    In disciplines like law, economics, and the social sciences, operational prose could revolutionize the way concepts are discussed and arguments are made. By demanding that statements be operationalizable, it ensures that theoretical discussions have practical, testable implications, bridging the gap between abstract theory and empirical reality.

    Conclusion
    Operational prose, as advocated in Doolittle’s Natural Law, P-Law, and Propertarianism, is more than just a stylistic choice; it’s a methodological tool designed to enhance the precision, reliability, and verifiability of communication across various fields. Its emphasis on observable actions and testable statements aligns closely with the scientific method, promising to refine and improve discourse in both the hard and soft sciences.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-11 22:06:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1756801913306161152

  • Yes but it requires a non trivial understanding of the conflict in the foundatio

    Yes but it requires a non trivial understanding of the conflict in the foundations of mathematics, and the subsequent movements in related fields – even philosophy.

    Simple version: time and space are measurements (ideal, mathematical), probabilities are measurements (ideal, mathematical), infinities can’t exist, but are an artifact of mathematical grammar caused by scale independence (ideal, mathematical). In other words, while Descartes rescued western mathematics by returning it to the greek science of measurement, cantor, bohr, einstein re-platonized it equating it with language again (as the middle east had done with algebra for example).

    This affected every field. It affected physics the most by making it non-physical. And this is important. Because the information present in a physical theory creates greater opportunity for deduction and induction and even abduction than does an ideal theory – something which has been overwhelmingly demonstrated by the failures in physics over the past half century.

    I’m increasingly concerned that the next ‘scientific revolution’ will require a lot of tombstones in physics.

    Reply addressees: @vertetluisant @charlesmurray


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-10 15:12:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1756335415445905408

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1756313377721270568

  • WHEN SEEKING CONSPIRACIES DO THIS FIRST: You know that I love you right? I mean,

    WHEN SEEKING CONSPIRACIES DO THIS FIRST:
    You know that I love you right? I mean, you should by now. Because I support you often on your journey into your potential.
    So, from that same affection, please take this advice, that you should exhaust all ‘conspiracy of common interest’ from ‘conspiracy of intent’. Conspiracy of intent does exist. More often than any of us could have imagined in previous decades. But whenever you’re looking at any organization public or private, then follow the money so to speak, by trying to understand the interests of the investors, owners, execs, top 10% of the talent, the need to keep the other 90% productive, and what kind of people seek employment in those organizations, and what customers, regions, and locations and classes are they from. In other words even Conspiracies of Intent are only expressions ‘not’-conspiracies of common interest.
    It is very hard to hold a conspiracy of intent together because it is in too many people’s interest to expose it and benefit from doing do. Yet it is very easy to hold a (not) conspiracy of common interest together for the opposite reason.
    In other words,’ Think BIgger’. That’s the central problem with conservative thinking. It’s thinking small.

    Reply addressees: @FlashGorgone


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-08 17:31:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1755645642527969280

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1755625061220856205

  • To self: New Year. I wanted to know. I do. That is enough. Truth is not a matter

    To self: New Year. I wanted to know. I do. That is enough. Truth is not a matter of agreement or consent. It s not a matter of popularity or acceptance. It is merely greater correspondence than all known alternatives. That is all. And that is all it can be. The rest is vanity. And truth has no place for vanity.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-31 17:01:00 UTC