Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • THE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST SKEPTIC ASKS, THE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST OVERCONFIDE

    THE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST SKEPTIC ASKS, THE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST OVERCONFIDENT DEMANDS.

    (I wish more people would simply ask questions, rather than try to debate me – very, very few people can participate in non-trivial debate – but then I don’t want to suppress, and instead I want to celebrate, the male desire to learn through competition. The problem with learning through competition is understanding that you’re testing yourself, not the other. I run my classroom so to speak as a great game of king of the hill, because I understand that competition and heroism is how men are willing to ‘invest’ in their education, the same way that women are willing to invest by obedience and conformity. Men need a game – a proxy for war – to have the incentive to learn. This is why mixed-gender education is literally causing brain damage to men.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-13 09:52:00 UTC

  • There are no laws to mathematics, other than determinism. Positional names are s

    There are no laws to mathematics, other than determinism. Positional names are simply the most reductive grammar of measurement with the lowest possible error. All constant relations can be expressed in positional (constant) names. Not because of any particular magic, but because anything that is measurable between states must be deterministic. Math is a great language precisely because it’s the absolutely dumbest one possible, and as such least open to errors.

    All human progress in the sciences has required us to change our presumptions (models, premises) from intention (complexity) to entropy (parsimony), just as in economics from planning to self organization, and in sentience from the magical to the tediously boring neural. Every advance we have made only eradicates intention (design), and replaces it with self organization (entropy). And in religion from gods to deism to ’the mystery(wonder) of the universe’’s production of everything out of near randomness (self organization).

    Gods do not exist except as a system (language) of measurement, just as numbers do not exist except as a system (language) of measurement.

    Gods are useful as a system (language) of measurment (meaning a hyperbolic and conflationary) just as math is useful as a system (language) of measurement (concise and deflationary).

    The question isn’t whether these things exist (persist) independent of us (they don’t) but whether we can distinguish between these things as useful language constructs of our own design, vs existential.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-13 09:22:00 UTC

  • THE DAMAGE OF CANTOR’S FRAME DEPENDS UPON WHICH PROBLEM YOU”RE TRYING TO SOLVE S

    THE DAMAGE OF CANTOR’S FRAME DEPENDS UPON WHICH PROBLEM YOU”RE TRYING TO SOLVE

    So cantor’s argument is regressive because it reversed the trend toward historizing math and merging math and science.

    And it provided a generation with excuses to restore platonism. And it contributed to the misdirection of philosophy and logic in the 20th century just when we needed the opposite.

    So, you know, I am criticizing the tendency of abrahamists to make similar methaphysical fictions and cause damage by externality.

    So if you are only concerned with ‘meaning” then cantor’s fictionalism is a suppose a fairy tale that explains pairing-off (one to one correspondence) as a means of testing extremely large sets.

    If you are concerned with truth, then cantor is a fictionalist, and is leading to the confusion of generations of minds.

    If you are concerned with platonism and abrahamism as the primary means by which western civilization was destroyed in the ancient and modern worlds, then Cantor like Marx, Freud, Boaz, and Adorno is a half-liar undermining the very secret of western civilization: words are sacred, promise is sacred, and by creating moral hazards with language all the ‘liars’ contributed to the catastrophe of the present.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-12 18:55:00 UTC

  • Esotericism….

    —“You’re getting too esoteric man, can’t follow.”—  Working on the esoteric requires one work with the esoteric. I can’t figure out yet what ‘esoteric’ ideas are violations of natural law and what aren’t. We are all working on learning the best we can. It’s the idiots that dig their heels into ignorance and defend it with stupidity and arrogance that vote themselves off the train. at present i’m simply trying to find a way to explian our biological want of a pack leader, and membership in a pack with the current fully indoctrinated lot of people who conceive only of equalitarian individualism ,and are unable to be intellectually honest about the animal impulses inside. I’d like to find a way to fulfill that “MARKET DESIRE” with something not false. If it was easy, someone would have done it before me

  • Esotericism….

    —“You’re getting too esoteric man, can’t follow.”—  Working on the esoteric requires one work with the esoteric. I can’t figure out yet what ‘esoteric’ ideas are violations of natural law and what aren’t. We are all working on learning the best we can. It’s the idiots that dig their heels into ignorance and defend it with stupidity and arrogance that vote themselves off the train. at present i’m simply trying to find a way to explian our biological want of a pack leader, and membership in a pack with the current fully indoctrinated lot of people who conceive only of equalitarian individualism ,and are unable to be intellectually honest about the animal impulses inside. I’d like to find a way to fulfill that “MARKET DESIRE” with something not false. If it was easy, someone would have done it before me

  • 3) we use confirmation only to test measurements, not to test the search algorit

    3) we use confirmation only to test measurements, not to test the search algorithm (hypothesis/theory/law).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-11 20:40:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995040958130610177

    Reply addressees: @Noblesm85

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995040787736997888

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Noblesm85 2) … , and if including choice, rational choice (praxeologiccal consistency), and if including reciprocity (morality: reciprocal praxeological consistency), then we do not know if we have falsified our fantasies (free associations). Confirmations don’t tell us anything.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/995040787736997888

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Noblesm85 2) … , and if including choice, rational choice (praxeologiccal consistency), and if including reciprocity (morality: reciprocal praxeological consistency), then we do not know if we have falsified our fantasies (free associations). Confirmations don’t tell us anything.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/995040787736997888

  • 1) I don’t think you understand that logics are not closed – they only test poss

    1) I don’t think you understand that logics are not closed – they only test possibility (survivability) and without categorical consistency, logical consistency (internal consistency) operational consistency (existential possibility), full accounting, parsimony, and limits ….

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-11 20:37:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995040281740365825

    Reply addressees: @Noblesm85

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994980601752117248

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Noblesm85

    @curtdoolittle 1) Induction is not our only method of understanding existence; we also have deduction and abduction.

    2) I confused nothing. Your empiricism requires the belief that you can understand the universe, ie, the rational intelligibility of the universe.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994980601752117248

  • All justificationism is false. We can perform deductions (necessary), inductions

    All justificationism is false. We can perform deductions (necessary), inductions (contingent), abductions (free associations), but in the end deduction or induction, or abduction only provide us with an hypothesis that must survive falsification.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-11 20:35:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995039823869239298

    Reply addressees: @Noblesm85

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994979373349527552

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Noblesm85

    @curtdoolittle You: We don’t need to make a statement about the physical universe because our actions aren’t contingent upon our understanding; even though I’m going to pretend that my actions actually gives me a piece of evolutionary knowledge- which I made no hypothesis on.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994979373349527552

  • again, you’re confusing excuse making and opportunity exploitation. I don’t need

    again, you’re confusing excuse making and opportunity exploitation. I don’t need to justify anything, I just need to be able to falsify everything that I can, and use what remains.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-11 20:34:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995039394393481216

    Reply addressees: @Noblesm85

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994980601752117248

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Noblesm85

    @curtdoolittle 1) Induction is not our only method of understanding existence; we also have deduction and abduction.

    2) I confused nothing. Your empiricism requires the belief that you can understand the universe, ie, the rational intelligibility of the universe.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994980601752117248

  • Recipes for action (operations), vs search algorithms for finding opportunities.

    Recipes for action (operations), vs search algorithms for finding opportunities.
    You probably can’t invert from justification to falsification and permanent uncertainty.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-11 20:33:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995039174335062016

    Reply addressees: @Noblesm85

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994979373349527552

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Noblesm85

    @curtdoolittle You: We don’t need to make a statement about the physical universe because our actions aren’t contingent upon our understanding; even though I’m going to pretend that my actions actually gives me a piece of evolutionary knowledge- which I made no hypothesis on.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994979373349527552