Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Here is the thing…. when I write about math, economics, science, law, and phil

    Here is the thing…. when I write about math, economics, science, law, and philosophy it’s not so much that I know the subject as that I know what various systems of representation can possibly communicate within that subject, and I know what category errors humans make on a regular basis. So when I research something that’s bothering me (today I’m still on a math kick), I just look at the tools people are using and the problems they have with them and this tells me the most likely area of inquiry: those where humans generally err. In the case of mathematical physics you can easily separate the men from the boys by their platonism and their claims. In mathematics you have to listen very carefully but you can separate them by platonism. In economics by whether they talk in curves and aggregates or they say “I just don’t know” a whole lot – which is the right answer in all these fields. As far as I can tell all philosophy is just drivel.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-26 21:45:00 UTC

  • The great gift of testimonialism is not so much that you can be sure you’re righ

    The great gift of testimonialism is not so much that you can be sure you’re right but it is just so damned hard to be wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-26 21:32:00 UTC

  • It would be interesting to debate some of the terms Stephen uses. As far as I kn

    It would be interesting to debate some of the terms Stephen uses.

    As far as I know, only natural numbers exist. Only one mathematics exists. Many operational logics exist – limited only by the axiomatic limits we place upon them by Types (constant relations), Operations (transformations), and Grammar (structure of operations). Stephen is almost always talking of operational logics of arbitrary categories, not mathematics of correspondent and constant relations.

    This difference is one of the two principle reasons why people are awed by mathematics – which is quite simple. The first is the apparent mystery of the limits of our prediction from constant relations. The second, illustrated above, is the misrepresentation of the real, correspondent, constant relations of mathematics, and the ideal, arbitrary, constant relations, of operational logic.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-26 14:35:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM: DataTypes, Operations, Grammar, Syntax Think of Propertarianism

    PROPERTARIANISM: DataTypes, Operations, Grammar, Syntax

    Think of Propertarianism as a programming language consisting of data types, operations, grammar, and syntax.

    if you can ‘write a program’ that ‘computes’ (is operationally constructable’) with those data types, operations, grammar, and syntax, then you can write a formal description of any phenomenon open to human experience in the language of natural law.

    You cannot do math without understanding it, and you can’t write software without understanding it, and you can’t write natural law without understanding it.

    I mean… you’d honestly have to be a simpleton to think that you’re going to learn this FAST. you’ll learn it as fast as you could learn to program. If you can program you can simply do it faster because you’ve learned VERY SIMPLE VERSIONS of the form of operational logic of transformations that exist in propertarianism: Natural Law

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 21:58:00 UTC

  • THE FORMAT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF POSTS 1 ========================== THIS MEANS I

    THE FORMAT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF POSTS

    1 ==========================

    THIS MEANS I WROTE IT FOR YOU TO READ AS AN ARGUMENT

    (this cues you to important stuff)

    And this is the body text here.

    –“this is quoting someone else”–

    ***this is quoting myself***

    … this

    … … is a

    … … … series that you might want to learn.

    2 ===========================

    this doesn’t have header so it’s just a record from elsewhere or quick thought or observation, or a work in progress.

    3 ===========================

    (this doesn’t have a header, is in parenthesis and in all lower case, which means it’s possibly something to ignore … because it’s not an argument.)

    4 ===========================

    (diary entry)

    this is something I wrote for myself that is unfiltered, and likely includes very personal feelings of my own, or on the state of my thinking, and not something that you will probably want to read unless the psychology that I operate under is of some interest to you or other.

    ===========================

    Closing:

    I work in public, partly to conduct experiments. I am personally open in public because this prevents people attributing psychological motivations to me that I don’t have. I create conflict in order to run tests. The purpose of running a test is to attempt to create a proof.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 11:27:00 UTC

  • While I don’t really ‘teach’ so much as perform research online, teaching is a b

    While I don’t really ‘teach’ so much as perform research online, teaching is a byproduct of that research.

    One of the reasons I like “teaching” online is because people have time to contemplate in a way that they do not have time in the classroom. Furthermore they can choose what to contemplate, and when to contemplate it.

    One of the other reasons is the One Room Schoolhouse where people of all levels exist, and people can learn by observation, repetition, asking questions, making arguments, and teaching others.

    We can cover the same material from dozens of different directions.

    To some people this may seem inefficient. But is it? You can teach a hell of a lot of people this way. Versus a classroom? We have an enormous one room schoolhouse on the internet.

    We teach most humans the wrong way – not as a campfire, but as a job. Not through stories and problems but through stress. Not through repetition but through force.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 02:22:00 UTC

  • Someone (thankfully) brought up the difference between high context low precisio

    Someone (thankfully) brought up the difference between high context low precision languages and low context high precision languages.

    Is there a correlation between individual property rights and the degree of context and precision in language?

    do people defend their context as if it is property?

    If they do, then why?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 02:11:00 UTC

  • Question. Imagine a line, say, on the floor, then on the street, then in the sky

    Question. Imagine a line, say, on the floor, then on the street, then in the sky. And think about the properties of a line, so that you can describe it. Now, at what length does your definition of a line fail? what are the limits of a ‘line’?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-24 19:46:00 UTC

  • TRUE ENOUGH – FOR THE CONSEQUENCES We are limited by physical reality, and the l

    TRUE ENOUGH – FOR THE CONSEQUENCES

    We are limited by physical reality, and the limits of our biology and technology within that physical reality, because of costs. Costs of time, energy, and resources.

    True? Truthfulness is costly. So, True enough for what?

    1) … The Transfer of Meaning (understanding without harm)

    2) … … Taking Personal Action (utility without harm)

    3) … … … Taking Interpersonal Action (avoiding harm to others)

    4) … … … … Providing Dispute Resolution (imposing harm on others)

    When we discourse or debate? True enough for what?

    1) … To convey meaning?

    2) … … To obtain agreement on categories and values?

    3) … … … For the purposes of subsequent deduction? (sufficiency)

    4) … … … … For the purpose of falsification? (removing argument)

    5) … … … … … For the purpose of coercion? (removing choice)

    6) … … … … … … For the purpose of prosecution? (imposing harm)

    ‘Deflationary Truth’ refers to the absence of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit.

    ‘Science’ refers to the process by which we produce deflationary truth by the systematic elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit. Not meaning, not sufficiency for individual action, or interpersonal action, but for the provision of agency(limitation of choice), and dispute resolution (reduction of choice), or punishment (elimination of choice).

    “Agency” refers to the condition under which an individual acts having eliminated ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit, so that individuals may act in perfect concert with the universe. Perfect Agency exists in a condition of perfect Truth, and Perfect Truth exists only so far as it is created by science.

    “Sovereignty” refers to a condition of agency when acting in reality amidst the limits of physical and cooperative reality. PerfectSovereignty exists in the condition of perfect agency.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-24 12:03:00 UTC

  • LOOK, IT’S NOT COMPLICATED: THEY’RE TERMS impulse “experienceable’ free associat

    LOOK, IT’S NOT COMPLICATED: THEY’RE TERMS

    impulse “experienceable’

    free association ‘imaginable’

    reason ‘comparable and preferable’

    rational ‘justificationary and possible’

    rationalism ‘non-contradictory’

    logic ‘axiomatic, formal, sets, comparisons and operations’

    empirical ‘observably confirmable’

    statistical ‘observably correlated ‘

    science ‘and falsifiable’

    operational ‘existentially possible and non conflationary’

    reciprocal ‘cooperatively possible’

    complete ‘fully accounted’

    testimonial ‘warrantied’

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-23 15:39:00 UTC