Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • (in case you missed it, bill calls out something to ponder.) —“Because all axi

    (in case you missed it, bill calls out something to ponder.) —“Because all axiomatic systems can eventually be internally justified, … it’s the survivability of the axioms (criteria of decidability) that they are dependent upon, rather than the explanatory power, and benefits of that explanatory power, that permit their survival as truth candidates.”— CD —“^THIS^ A THOUSAND TIMES THIS!”– Bill Joslin

  • All grammars limit the domains (property ranges) of semantic content. Semantic l

    All grammars limit the domains (property ranges) of semantic content. Semantic limits do not exist independent of grammars, but expand (inflate) fictionally or contract (deflate) operationally, empirically, and logically (meaning scientifically). In fact, the purpose of deflationary grammars is primarily to decrease deception, fiction, disambiguation, and dimensions, and therefore increase precision.

  • All grammars limit the domains (property ranges) of semantic content. Semantic l

    All grammars limit the domains (property ranges) of semantic content. Semantic limits do not exist independent of grammars, but expand (inflate) fictionally or contract (deflate) operationally, empirically, and logically (meaning scientifically). In fact, the purpose of deflationary grammars is primarily to decrease deception, fiction, disambiguation, and dimensions, and therefore increase precision.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-14 14:59:00 UTC

  • All grammars limit the domains (property ranges) of semantic content. Semantic l

    All grammars limit the domains (property ranges) of semantic content. Semantic limits do not exist independent of grammars, but expand (inflate) fictionally or contract (deflate) operationally, empirically, and logically (meaning scientifically). In fact, the purpose of deflationary grammars is primarily to decrease deception, fiction, disambiguation, and dimensions, and therefore increase precision.

  • OK. so I will make a painful set of observations that I promise are correct. 1)

    OK. so I will make a painful set of observations that I promise are correct. 1) never, ever, every, extrapolate a curve. Almost every human error in intellectual history has been the result of doing so. 2) all phenomenon in the universe produces cycles of that repeat at increasing scales, because the maximum energy use given the available operations (lie groups) create multipliers at their maximum causal density. (Think subatomic, atomic, chemical, organic, sentient, environmental, economic, energy-production.) 3) Every quadrant in the diagram is the victim of this error. 4) If this diagram were true we would not encounter speciation. But we do. We would not find a LIMIT to subatomic multipliers in atomic interactions. We would not find a LIMIT to atomic multipliers in the chemical interactions, and not find a limit to chemical multipliers in biological interactions. But we do. 5) The question is, what is the limit of cooperation at human scale before cooperation is NO LONGER OF VALUE, and competition is of higher value. 6) all theories (descriptions of possible operations made possible by causal relations) have limits, and only in the expression of these limits do we test (subject to falsification) our theories. 7) All theories must be internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally possible, limited, and scope complete. In the case of sentient theories, they must be 8) This chart is missing either LAW or PROPERTY, or SUPPRESSION OF DEGREES OF PARASITISM BY NORM ETHIC MORAL AND LAW. I don’t have time at the moment to spend more time on the subject but I think northwest is out of order, southweste is out of order becasue reason was a late development and contract early, and I don’t now whether contract refers to agreement, and normative habit or third party insurance, northwest and southeast are … justificationary not predictive. NOrtheast is conflating instruments and fiat is in the wrong place, and derivatives is incorrect. The general idea CAN be done. I do it. But until you significantly increase causal density (the number of axis) and realize we make excuses and narratives to justify our siezure of opportunities, it will simply be justificationary, and neither descriptive or predictive. At what point is cooperation no longer in one’s interest? A tribe’s? A nation’s? A civilization’s? What civilizations resist cooperation today and why?

  • OK. so I will make a painful set of observations that I promise are correct. 1)

    OK. so I will make a painful set of observations that I promise are correct.

    1) never, ever, every, extrapolate a curve. Almost every human error in intellectual history has been the result of doing so.

    2) all phenomenon in the universe produces cycles of that repeat at increasing scales, because the maximum energy use given the available operations (lie groups) create multipliers at their maximum causal density. (Think subatomic, atomic, chemical, organic, sentient, environmental, economic, energy-production.)

    3) Every quadrant in the diagram is the victim of this error.

    4) If this diagram were true we would not encounter speciation. But we do. We would not find a LIMIT to subatomic multipliers in atomic interactions. We would not find a LIMIT to atomic multipliers in the chemical interactions, and not find a limit to chemical multipliers in biological interactions. But we do.

    5) The question is, what is the limit of cooperation at human scale before cooperation is NO LONGER OF VALUE, and competition is of higher value.

    6) all theories (descriptions of possible operations made possible by causal relations) have limits, and only in the expression of these limits do we test (subject to falsification) our theories.

    7) All theories must be internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally possible, limited, and scope complete. In the case of sentient theories, they must be

    8) This chart is missing either LAW or PROPERTY, or SUPPRESSION OF DEGREES OF PARASITISM BY NORM ETHIC MORAL AND LAW.

    I don’t have time at the moment to spend more time on the subject but I think northwest is out of order, southweste is out of order becasue reason was a late development and contract early, and I don’t now whether contract refers to agreement, and normative habit or third party insurance, northwest and southeast are … justificationary not predictive. NOrtheast is conflating instruments and fiat is in the wrong place, and derivatives is incorrect.

    The general idea CAN be done. I do it. But until you significantly increase causal density (the number of axis) and realize we make excuses and narratives to justify our siezure of opportunities, it will simply be justificationary, and neither descriptive or predictive.

    At what point is cooperation no longer in one’s interest? A tribe’s? A nation’s? A civilization’s?

    What civilizations resist cooperation today and why?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-14 09:48:00 UTC

  • OK. so I will make a painful set of observations that I promise are correct. 1)

    OK. so I will make a painful set of observations that I promise are correct. 1) never, ever, every, extrapolate a curve. Almost every human error in intellectual history has been the result of doing so. 2) all phenomenon in the universe produces cycles of that repeat at increasing scales, because the maximum energy use given the available operations (lie groups) create multipliers at their maximum causal density. (Think subatomic, atomic, chemical, organic, sentient, environmental, economic, energy-production.) 3) Every quadrant in the diagram is the victim of this error. 4) If this diagram were true we would not encounter speciation. But we do. We would not find a LIMIT to subatomic multipliers in atomic interactions. We would not find a LIMIT to atomic multipliers in the chemical interactions, and not find a limit to chemical multipliers in biological interactions. But we do. 5) The question is, what is the limit of cooperation at human scale before cooperation is NO LONGER OF VALUE, and competition is of higher value. 6) all theories (descriptions of possible operations made possible by causal relations) have limits, and only in the expression of these limits do we test (subject to falsification) our theories. 7) All theories must be internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally possible, limited, and scope complete. In the case of sentient theories, they must be 8) This chart is missing either LAW or PROPERTY, or SUPPRESSION OF DEGREES OF PARASITISM BY NORM ETHIC MORAL AND LAW. I don’t have time at the moment to spend more time on the subject but I think northwest is out of order, southweste is out of order becasue reason was a late development and contract early, and I don’t now whether contract refers to agreement, and normative habit or third party insurance, northwest and southeast are … justificationary not predictive. NOrtheast is conflating instruments and fiat is in the wrong place, and derivatives is incorrect. The general idea CAN be done. I do it. But until you significantly increase causal density (the number of axis) and realize we make excuses and narratives to justify our siezure of opportunities, it will simply be justificationary, and neither descriptive or predictive. At what point is cooperation no longer in one’s interest? A tribe’s? A nation’s? A civilization’s? What civilizations resist cooperation today and why?

  • What Is The Adjective Form Of Truth?

    WHAT DOES TRUTH MEAN? (AND WHAT IS ITS ADJECTIVE FORM?)

    Truth can only mean ‘descriptive testimony free of error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit’. In other words, speech, the semantic content of which corresponds with reality.

    One speaks truthfully, or untruthfully , or honestly or dishonestly.

    To be precise, one speaks honestly not having done due diligence, nor warrantying one’s speech. One speaks truthfully having done due diligence, and warrantying one’s speech.

    So you might speak honestly – not having done due diligence on your speech. But that is not the same as speaking truthfully – having done due diligence on your speech. So you might give your honest opinion, but that differs from doing diligence that such an opinion survives criticism – meaning correspondence.

    Both the physical sciences and law specialize in the art of due diligence. As an extension of law, anglo analytic philosophy attempts to specialize in the art of due diligence. Strangely, continental philosophy does the opposite.

    But if speaking truthfully requires that we perform due diligence, and warranty our speech, then how does one perform such due diligence? How do we test correspondence? In the most simple of terms, a truth statement must be:

    1. categorically consistent (non conflationary)
    2. internally consistent (logical),
    3. externally correspondent (empirical),
    4. operationally possible (existentially possible),
    5. coherent categorically, internally, externally, and operationally (consistent across all tests)
    6. fully accounted (you haven’t cherry picked cause and/or consequence)

    And if you want to claim it’s ethical and moral (and objectively legal):

    1. rational: consisting of nothing but a series of fully rational choices
    2. reciprocal: consisting of nothing other than productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges free of imposition upon others by externality.

    We use the word ‘Truth’ in many, many contexts. Most of them somewhere between a convenience and a dishonesty. True, honest, logical, and good are independent concepts frequently conflated to attribute authority where it is absent.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-adjective-form-of-truth

  • What Is The Adjective Form Of Truth?

    WHAT DOES TRUTH MEAN? (AND WHAT IS ITS ADJECTIVE FORM?)

    Truth can only mean ‘descriptive testimony free of error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit’. In other words, speech, the semantic content of which corresponds with reality.

    One speaks truthfully, or untruthfully , or honestly or dishonestly.

    To be precise, one speaks honestly not having done due diligence, nor warrantying one’s speech. One speaks truthfully having done due diligence, and warrantying one’s speech.

    So you might speak honestly – not having done due diligence on your speech. But that is not the same as speaking truthfully – having done due diligence on your speech. So you might give your honest opinion, but that differs from doing diligence that such an opinion survives criticism – meaning correspondence.

    Both the physical sciences and law specialize in the art of due diligence. As an extension of law, anglo analytic philosophy attempts to specialize in the art of due diligence. Strangely, continental philosophy does the opposite.

    But if speaking truthfully requires that we perform due diligence, and warranty our speech, then how does one perform such due diligence? How do we test correspondence? In the most simple of terms, a truth statement must be:

    1. categorically consistent (non conflationary)
    2. internally consistent (logical),
    3. externally correspondent (empirical),
    4. operationally possible (existentially possible),
    5. coherent categorically, internally, externally, and operationally (consistent across all tests)
    6. fully accounted (you haven’t cherry picked cause and/or consequence)

    And if you want to claim it’s ethical and moral (and objectively legal):

    1. rational: consisting of nothing but a series of fully rational choices
    2. reciprocal: consisting of nothing other than productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges free of imposition upon others by externality.

    We use the word ‘Truth’ in many, many contexts. Most of them somewhere between a convenience and a dishonesty. True, honest, logical, and good are independent concepts frequently conflated to attribute authority where it is absent.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-adjective-form-of-truth

  • I’m trying to figure out if that’s a profoundly ignorant, profoundly stupid, or

    I’m trying to figure out if that’s a profoundly ignorant, profoundly stupid, or profoundly dishonest question … Let’s see. Reported vs Demonstrated. Possible vs Impossible. Voluntary vs involuntary. I mean… so many logical problems in there and so few characters to work with.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-12 15:48:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951843255506923520

    Reply addressees: @Mr_Cain_Thaler

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951838492253966336

    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/951838492253966336