Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Operations (real) vs Sets (ideal)

    October 28th, 2018 8:43 AM AGAIN: OPERATIONS (REAL) VS SETS (IDEAL) – CANTOR AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM IN MATHEMATICS AND BY EXTENSION EVERYTHING.

    —“Ok but Cantor’s work is specifically set-theoretic, not analytical. Also, an infinite sum is by definition a sum over a countable set. So cantor’s notions are in fact relevant for this.”—Alex Pareto

    [Y]es it is a sacred cow because people who are (knowingly or unknowingly) mathematical platonists are just as indoctrinated into superstitious nonsense as people who are indoctrinated into platonism proper, and people indoctrinated into theology. They know how to DO what they do (meaning make arguments with the objects, relations, and values of their vocabulary and grammar) but they don’t know how and why what they do functions. Frequencies are the scientific description and infinities (sizes) the fictional (imaginary) description. The difference is that those of us who work in the sciences, where we CANNOT engage in Platonism, because that is the purpose of science: to prevent such ‘magical’ speech, and instead force us to undrestand the causal relations between reality and our speech. So in this case a number consists of nothing more than the name of a position. That’s it. Mathematics consists of the vocabulary and grammar of positional names. Nothing more. Period. We generate positional names by the process of positional naming. We can scientifically describe that process as did Babbage, Turing, and Computer Science (consisting of nothing but addition), with gears, or the positional equivalent of gears (positional names), or the electronic-switch(memory) of positional names, and use these gears to produce positional names and operations on positional names at varying speeds. We can also tell a ‘story’ about those things (a fiction) which is what we do with literary, symbolic, and set mathematics. And then we can tell a fairy tale about sets, as if they are an equivalent to red riding hood. But no matter what we do, operationally, (scientifically) all we can do is produce a series of positional names faster or slower than another series of positional names. Ergo, there exists only one name “infinity” for “unknown limit of operations” and different rates (frequencies) by which we generate positional names, using any set of operations with which we produce positional names. This is why mathematics ‘went off the rails’ into fictionalism despite Poincare’s and others efforts at the beginning of the 20th century. Math is just the use of positional names which have only one property: position, and therefore only ONE constant relation: position. All logic consists of the study of constant relations, and as such mathematics provides the most commensurable language of constant relations, since it has only ONE constant relation: position.

  • Grammars Matter

    October 28th, 2018 8:38 AM GRAMMARS MATTER: COMPACT MONOPOLY CONFLATIONARY STAGNANT DYSGENIC VS DIFFERENTIATED MARKET DEFLATIONARY EVOLUTIONARY, EUGENIC SOCIAL ORDERS (important concepts)

    —“You might want to take a look at Eric Voegelin’s distinction between “compact” and “differentiated” symbolic systems.”– Chip Sills

    [I] understand it but it’s psychological not scientific and I work with the scientific model instead. In the end we face problems of computational cost (neural economy), and the grammars (models, objects, relations, values) that allow us to calculate (make comparisons, judgements, plans), offset by the frictions of status(face), and our order’s demand for either status(public/economic) or face (familial/personal), and local competition (homogeneity vs heterogeneity) and the institutions(norms, traditions, values, formal institutions) that arise from those conditions in the geography we sustain ourselves within. Simple people need simple anthropomorphic means of computation by free association (dream state, imagination, intuition) and more sophisticated people require means of calculation and computation that are increasingly more precise than the limits of human scale present in anthropomorphic models(grammars). So simple people and civilizations use high context/low precision grammars, and more complex civilizations use low context/high precision grammars. And our languages slowly evolve into “pidgins’ for high context, and large vocabulary nouns in low context for lower cognitive load, and for higher precision at the cost of higher cognitive load. So what Vogelin refers to as compact vs differentiated is an insightful version, rendering the choice psychological or arbitrary, where I use more precise, higher precision, terms and definitions, that expose the causes and consequences, and the non-arbitrariness of the relationship. Moreover, the CONFLATIONARY structure of MONOPOLY (monotheistic) religions and the MARKET structure of western civilization (poly grammatical) provides some of the best evidence of how monotheism (compact, monopoly, conflationary) models are easier to understand, but produce of necessity ignorance , stagnation, decline, and dysgenia. I hope this helps.

  • Why and How Pilpul Functions as A Means of Deception.

    October 28th, 2018 2:27 PM WHY AND HOW PILPUL FUNCTIONS AS A MEANS OF DECEPTION.

    —“(((They))) win by creating false dichotomies; the use of language is very important.”—Mirjana Bilić

    [T]heir technique of Pilpul: They use an element of truth to create a false dichotomy and therefore frame the question by suggestion, and obscure the solution due to anchoring. We are always vulnerable to anchoring. Because we are vulnerable to anchoring we are vulnerable to framing. Because we are vulnerable to framing we are vulnerable to suggestion and obscurantism. Because we are vulnerable to suggestion and obscurantism we are vulnerable to influence. If we are provided for incentive to justify that influence we can be controlled – by BLOCKING our OPPORTUNITY and MOTIVATION for seeking truth. The three abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all produce recursive ignorance cue to BLOCKING our search for truth. This is how PILPUL is used to deceive, and why math, logic, science, economics, law and testimonial truth are such an important defense. A lie (incentive), a half truth, a False dichotomy (choice). Low trust people simply dont’ go beyond the tangible. High trust people do. Our asset of high trust in constructing the commons which produce such outsized returns compared to other peoples. But our trust( suspension of disbelief), and vulnerability to anchoring, suggestion, and obscurantism make our ordinary folk easily deceived, manipulated, controlled, and preyed upon.

  • WHY AND HOW PILPUL FUNCTIONS AS A MEANS OF DECEPTION. —“(((They))) win by crea

    WHY AND HOW PILPUL FUNCTIONS AS A MEANS OF DECEPTION.

    —“(((They))) win by creating false dichotomies; the use of language is very important.”—Mirjana Bilić

    Their technique of Pilpul: They use an element of truth to create a false dichotomy and therefore frame the question by suggestion, and obscure the solution due to anchoring.

    We are always vulnerable to anchoring.

    Because we are vulnerable to anchoring we are vulnerable to framing.

    Because we are vulnerable to framing we are vulnerable to suggestion and obscurantism.

    Because we are vulnerable to suggestion and obscurantism we are vulnerable to influence.

    If we are provided for incentive to justify that influence we can be controlled – by BLOCKING our OPPORTUNITY and MOTIVATION for seeking truth.

    The three abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all produce recursive ignorance cue to BLOCKING our search for truth.

    This is how PILPUL is used to deceive, and why math, logic, science, economics, law and testimonial truth are such an important defense.

    A lie (incentive), a half truth, a False dichotomy (choice).

    Low trust people simply dont’ go beyond the tangible. High trust people do. Our asset of high trust in constructing the commons which produce such outsized returns compared to other peoples. But our trust( suspension of disbelief), and vulnerability to anchoring, suggestion, and obscurantism make our ordinary folk easily deceived, manipulated, controlled, and preyed upon.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-28 14:27:00 UTC

  • AGAIN: OPERATIONS (REAL) VS SETS (IDEAL) – CANTOR AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM I

    AGAIN: OPERATIONS (REAL) VS SETS (IDEAL) – CANTOR AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM IN MATHEMATICS AND BY EXTENSION EVERYTHING.

    —“Ok but Cantor’s work is specifically set-theoretic, not analytical. Also, an infinite sum is by definition a sum over a countable set. So cantor’s notions are in fact relevant for this.”—Alex Pareto

    Yes it is a sacred cow because people who are (knowingly or unknowingly) mathematical platonists are just as indoctrinated into superstitious nonsense as people who are indoctrinated into platonism proper, and people indoctrinated into theology. They know how to DO what they do (meaning make arguments with the objects, relations, and values of their vocabulary and grammar) but they don’t know how and why what they do functions.

    Frequencies are the scientific description and infinities (sizes) the fictional (imaginary) description. The difference is that those of us who work in the sciences, where we CANNOT engage in Platonism, because that is the purpose of science: to prevent such ‘magical’ speech, and instead force us to undrestand the causal relations between reality and our speech.

    So in this case a number consists of nothing more than the name of a position. That’s it. Mathematics consists of the vocabulary and grammar of positional names. Nothing more. Period.

    We generate positional names by the process of positional naming. We can scientifically describe that process as did Babbage, Turing, and Computer Science (consisting of nothing but addition), with gears, or the positional equivalent of gears (positional names), or the electronic-switch(memory) of positional names, and use these gears to produce positional names and operations on positional names at varying speeds. We can also tell a ‘story’ about those things (a fiction) which is what we do with literary, symbolic, and set mathematics. And then we can tell a fairy tale about sets, as if they are an equivalent to red riding hood.

    But no matter what we do, operationally, (scientifically) all we can do is produce a series of positional names faster or slower than another series of positional names.

    Ergo, there exists only one name “infinity” for “unknown limit of operations” and different rates (frequencies) by which we generate positional names, using any set of operations with which we produce positional names.

    This is why mathematics ‘went off the rails’ into fictionalism despite Poincare’s and others efforts at the beginning of the 20th century. Math is just the use of positional names which have only one property: position, and therefore only ONE constant relation: position.

    All logic consists of the study of constant relations, and as such mathematics provides the most commensurable language of constant relations, since it has only ONE constant relation: position.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-28 08:43:00 UTC

  • GRAMMARS MATTER: COMPACT MONOPOLY CONFLATIONARY STAGNANT DYSGENIC VS DIFFERENTIA

    GRAMMARS MATTER: COMPACT MONOPOLY CONFLATIONARY STAGNANT DYSGENIC VS DIFFERENTIATED MARKET DEFLATIONARY EVOLUTIONARY, EUGENIC SOCIAL ORDERS

    (important concepts)

    —“You might want to take a look at Eric Voegelin’s distinction between “compact” and “differentiated” symbolic systems.”– Chip Sills

    I understand it but it’s psychological not scientific and I work with the scientific model instead. In the end we face problems of computational cost (neural economy), and the grammars (models, objects, relations, values) that allow us to calculate (make comparisons, judgements, plans), offset by the frictions of status(face), and our order’s demand for either status(public/economic) or face (familial/personal), and local competition (homogeneity vs heterogeneity) and the institutions(norms, traditions, values, formal institutions) that arise from those conditions in the geography we sustain ourselves within.

    Simple people need simple anthropomorphic means of computation by free association (dream state, imagination, intuition) and more sophisticated people require means of calculation and computation that are increasingly more precise than the limits of human scale present in anthropomorphic models(grammars).

    So simple people and civilizations use high context/low precision grammars, and more complex civilizations use low context/high precision grammars. And our languages slowly evolve into “pidgins’ for high context, and large vocabulary nouns in low context for lower cognitive load, and for higher precision at the cost of higher cognitive load.

    So what Vogelin refers to as compact vs differentiated is an insightful version, rendering the choice psychological or arbitrary, where I use more precise, higher precision, terms and definitions, that expose the causes and consequences, and the non-arbitrariness of the relationship. Moreover, the CONFLATIONARY structure of MONOPOLY (monotheistic) religions and the MARKET structure of western civilization (poly grammatical) provides some of the best evidence of how monotheism (compact, monopoly, conflationary) models are easier to understand, but produce of necessity ignorance , stagnation, decline, and dysgenia.

    I hope this helps.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-28 08:38:00 UTC

  • ie: did you generate commensurability between measurements

    ie: did you generate commensurability between measurements.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 20:28:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056281566463361031

    Reply addressees: @BrentWRoberts @DegenRolf @PsychoSchmitt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056277850746249217

    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/1056277850746249217

  • —“Curt: Please Define ‘Post-Moral’?”–

    October 27th, 2018 8:42 AM —“CURT: PLEASE DEFINE ‘POST-MORAL’?”–

    —“Can you explain POST-MORAL to a newb?”— Scott Claremont

    [S]o just like we changed from theological(authoritarian) discourse on morals, to philosophical (rational) discourse on morals during the enlightenment, that we have changed from philosophical (rational) discourse on morals, to scientific (measurements) discourse on morals. |Explanation(Model)| traditional(norm) > religious (theology) > rational (moral) > scientific (reciprocity). It means (a) our language consists of reasoning by morality( intuition, habit, norm, tradition) rather than reasoning by reciprocity(measurement),(b) and where morality(intuition, habit, norm, tradition) vary not only between groups, but between individuals, reciprocity does not. (c) as such we can use the language of law (decidability), accounting (directly measurable), and economics ( indirectly measurable) to measure that which removes ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our discussion of ‘morality’, and describe human actions scientifically (universally) rather than normatively (colloquially).

  • —“Curt: Please Define ‘Post-Moral’?”–

    October 27th, 2018 8:42 AM —“CURT: PLEASE DEFINE ‘POST-MORAL’?”–

    —“Can you explain POST-MORAL to a newb?”— Scott Claremont

    [S]o just like we changed from theological(authoritarian) discourse on morals, to philosophical (rational) discourse on morals during the enlightenment, that we have changed from philosophical (rational) discourse on morals, to scientific (measurements) discourse on morals. |Explanation(Model)| traditional(norm) > religious (theology) > rational (moral) > scientific (reciprocity). It means (a) our language consists of reasoning by morality( intuition, habit, norm, tradition) rather than reasoning by reciprocity(measurement),(b) and where morality(intuition, habit, norm, tradition) vary not only between groups, but between individuals, reciprocity does not. (c) as such we can use the language of law (decidability), accounting (directly measurable), and economics ( indirectly measurable) to measure that which removes ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our discussion of ‘morality’, and describe human actions scientifically (universally) rather than normatively (colloquially).

  • Someday…

    October 27th, 2018 10:24 AM SOMEDAY … [S]omeday, I have fairly high confidence, nearly everyone will understand my work on the grammars, from measurements to fictionalisms, and what sounds ‘odd’ in my categorization of prose is as normal as enumerating logic, math, physics, chemistry, biology, and ecology. Once you see it you can’t unsee it. And that is why the Vitruvianist, Testimonialist and Propertarian revolution will be as impactful in the social and political sciences as the empirical revolution in the physical sciences.