Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • What Would Represent the Radix

    Apr 11, 2020, 7:21 PM

    —“In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics where the radix point separates integers from fractionals, would you say in Natural Law the radix point exists between ordinary language and opining?”—Billy Law-Bregan

    Smart. Good thinking. Good question. In mathematics the radix is the base set of names of positions (nouns), before restoring to positional naming (multipliers of the base: phrases). The grammar of mathematics adds the possible operations (verbs), all of which are variations on addition or its reverse, subtraction (transformations), and the only possible tests of positional comparison, less, equal, or greater (equilibria), an the only possible test of agreement (truth, false, undecidable) In law, the equivalent of radix (base nouns) consist of the vocabulary of actionable references given human facility for sensation, perception, intuition (nouns, names, referents), the vocabulary of operations (verbs, thought word and deed), and the possible changes in state (transformations), and the and the only possible tests comparison (possibility) and only possible test of agreement (empiricism-observation-action, logic-consistency-intuition-word, and experience-sense-perception-autoassociation ). So yes the human grammatical facility, and the structure of grammar, the structure of transactions with that grammar(journal), and the epistemology of the story(ledger) is the same across every one of the grammars from deflationary (math) to functional (programming) to operational (natural law) to ordinary language to the inflationary grammars of narratives, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits. MATH: Actor (presumed), associated reference (object named by positional name), name of referent – number (positional name), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. LAW: Actor, Action (name of human action), associated reference (object), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. STORY: name of referent – actor, action, transformation, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total All grammars are the same and accounting, finance, and economics are the least error prone methods of describing human action. In this sense, law asks us for a full accounting of human actions so that we can test whether the statements are testifiable (fully accounted) or not, and if not, then how they are not fully accounted, and by deduction, why they aren’t. (ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-farming, suggestion-obscurantism-overloading, the fictionalisms of sophistry, pseudoscience, or the occult, or outright deceit. Ergo P-law fits in the sequence: arithmetic, accounting, programming, natural law, economics, group strategy.

  • What Would Represent the Radix

    Apr 11, 2020, 7:21 PM

    —“In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics where the radix point separates integers from fractionals, would you say in Natural Law the radix point exists between ordinary language and opining?”—Billy Law-Bregan

    Smart. Good thinking. Good question. In mathematics the radix is the base set of names of positions (nouns), before restoring to positional naming (multipliers of the base: phrases). The grammar of mathematics adds the possible operations (verbs), all of which are variations on addition or its reverse, subtraction (transformations), and the only possible tests of positional comparison, less, equal, or greater (equilibria), an the only possible test of agreement (truth, false, undecidable) In law, the equivalent of radix (base nouns) consist of the vocabulary of actionable references given human facility for sensation, perception, intuition (nouns, names, referents), the vocabulary of operations (verbs, thought word and deed), and the possible changes in state (transformations), and the and the only possible tests comparison (possibility) and only possible test of agreement (empiricism-observation-action, logic-consistency-intuition-word, and experience-sense-perception-autoassociation ). So yes the human grammatical facility, and the structure of grammar, the structure of transactions with that grammar(journal), and the epistemology of the story(ledger) is the same across every one of the grammars from deflationary (math) to functional (programming) to operational (natural law) to ordinary language to the inflationary grammars of narratives, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits. MATH: Actor (presumed), associated reference (object named by positional name), name of referent – number (positional name), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. LAW: Actor, Action (name of human action), associated reference (object), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. STORY: name of referent – actor, action, transformation, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total All grammars are the same and accounting, finance, and economics are the least error prone methods of describing human action. In this sense, law asks us for a full accounting of human actions so that we can test whether the statements are testifiable (fully accounted) or not, and if not, then how they are not fully accounted, and by deduction, why they aren’t. (ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-farming, suggestion-obscurantism-overloading, the fictionalisms of sophistry, pseudoscience, or the occult, or outright deceit. Ergo P-law fits in the sequence: arithmetic, accounting, programming, natural law, economics, group strategy.

  • P Law Expressed in Mathematics

    Apr 14, 2020, 4:37 PM A very smart guy understands how to express P-Law in Mathematics. (I think in geometry, but he’s got it right). — Billy Law-Bregan — In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics where the radix point separates integers from fractionals, would you say in Natural Law the radix point exists between ordinary language and opining? — CurtD — Smart. Good thinking. Good question. In mathematics the radix is the base set of names of positions (nouns), before restoring to positional naming (multipliers of the base: phrases). The grammar of mathematics adds the possible operations (verbs), all of which are variations on addition or its reverse, subtraction (transformations), and the only possible tests of positional comparison, less, equal, or greater (equilibria), an the only possible test of agreement (truth, false, undecidable) In law, the equivalent of radix (base nouns) consist of the vocabulary of actionable references given human facility for sensation, perception, intuition (nouns, names, referents), the vocabulary of operations (verbs, thought word and deed), and the possible changes in state (transformations), and the and the only possible tests comparison (possibility) and only possible test of agreement (empiricism-observation-action, logic-consistency-intuition-word, and experience-sense-perception-autoassociation ). So yes the human grammatical facility, and the structure of grammar, the structure of transactions with that grammar(journal), and the epistemology of the story(ledger) is the same across every one of the grammars from deflationary (math) to functional (programming) to operational (natural law) to ordinary language to the inflationary grammars of narratives, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits. MATH: Actor (presumed), associated reference (object named by positional name), name of referent – number (positional name), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. LAW: Actor, Action (name of human action), associated reference (object), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. STORY: name of referent – actor, action, transformation, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total All grammars are the same and accounting, finance, and economics are the least error prone methods of describing human action. In this sense, law asks us for a full accounting of human actions so that we can test whether the statements are testifiable (fully accounted) or not, and if not, then how they are not fully accounted, and by deduction, why they aren’t. (ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-farming, suggestion-obscurantism-overloading, the fictionalisms of sophistry, pseudoscience, or the occult, or outright deceit. Ergo P-law fits in the sequence: arithmetic, accounting, programming, natural law, economics, group strategy. — Billy Law-Bregan — I get it, I think. In law, the radix exists as actionable references. Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required (radix economy) required express it in that particular base (in this case, actionable references. So continuous recursive disambiguation exists as the tool to teach that efficiency. Something else fell into place for me. I said that the radix exists as actionable references. And, Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required to express it in that particular base (actionable references). I think it does something else, too. The radix determines the magnitude of a particular system and represents the value of that system. Moreover, it determines the maximum value of the referents used in the system. E.g. Octagonal base type. Radix (r) = 8. Maximum value of referent exists as 0 to (r)-1. Therefore, maximum value of referent = 7. So, in octagonal base, 428 exceeds the limit of (r), which makes it ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false? (I think). So, I think that In Natural Law, as in mathematics, the radix (accountable references) determine the maximum value/limits of the operations, transformations, positional comparison, test of agreement, and Testimony. Anything that exceeds the limit of (r) exists as inflationary/ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false. I think this also explains why the verb “to be” creates problems in reporting. The various conjugations of the verb violate the magnitude/value/limit determined by the radix. –CurtD– Well done. 😉 You know you have a phd subject right there that unites philosophy mathematics and law. 😉 ===NOTE=== This exchange is in response to this post: MATH VERSUS NATURAL LAW — THE SAME? Math is a logic of positional naming, and Natural law a logic of Property Naming. The grammar of both Math and Law consists of operations on names. So in math we use operations to maintain balance (equilibrium) on both sides of an equal’s sign, and in natural law we use operations to maintain balance between individuals. See? Here: Human Logical Facility (constant relations) > …. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) > …. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) > …. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) > …. …. …. …. Math (positional names) > …. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) > …. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence (Notice: Note how I left out verbal logic, rationalism, and philosophy because they’re included in sophistry.)

  • P Law Expressed in Mathematics

    Apr 14, 2020, 4:37 PM A very smart guy understands how to express P-Law in Mathematics. (I think in geometry, but he’s got it right). — Billy Law-Bregan — In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics where the radix point separates integers from fractionals, would you say in Natural Law the radix point exists between ordinary language and opining? — CurtD — Smart. Good thinking. Good question. In mathematics the radix is the base set of names of positions (nouns), before restoring to positional naming (multipliers of the base: phrases). The grammar of mathematics adds the possible operations (verbs), all of which are variations on addition or its reverse, subtraction (transformations), and the only possible tests of positional comparison, less, equal, or greater (equilibria), an the only possible test of agreement (truth, false, undecidable) In law, the equivalent of radix (base nouns) consist of the vocabulary of actionable references given human facility for sensation, perception, intuition (nouns, names, referents), the vocabulary of operations (verbs, thought word and deed), and the possible changes in state (transformations), and the and the only possible tests comparison (possibility) and only possible test of agreement (empiricism-observation-action, logic-consistency-intuition-word, and experience-sense-perception-autoassociation ). So yes the human grammatical facility, and the structure of grammar, the structure of transactions with that grammar(journal), and the epistemology of the story(ledger) is the same across every one of the grammars from deflationary (math) to functional (programming) to operational (natural law) to ordinary language to the inflationary grammars of narratives, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits. MATH: Actor (presumed), associated reference (object named by positional name), name of referent – number (positional name), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. LAW: Actor, Action (name of human action), associated reference (object), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. STORY: name of referent – actor, action, transformation, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total All grammars are the same and accounting, finance, and economics are the least error prone methods of describing human action. In this sense, law asks us for a full accounting of human actions so that we can test whether the statements are testifiable (fully accounted) or not, and if not, then how they are not fully accounted, and by deduction, why they aren’t. (ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-farming, suggestion-obscurantism-overloading, the fictionalisms of sophistry, pseudoscience, or the occult, or outright deceit. Ergo P-law fits in the sequence: arithmetic, accounting, programming, natural law, economics, group strategy. — Billy Law-Bregan — I get it, I think. In law, the radix exists as actionable references. Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required (radix economy) required express it in that particular base (in this case, actionable references. So continuous recursive disambiguation exists as the tool to teach that efficiency. Something else fell into place for me. I said that the radix exists as actionable references. And, Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required to express it in that particular base (actionable references). I think it does something else, too. The radix determines the magnitude of a particular system and represents the value of that system. Moreover, it determines the maximum value of the referents used in the system. E.g. Octagonal base type. Radix (r) = 8. Maximum value of referent exists as 0 to (r)-1. Therefore, maximum value of referent = 7. So, in octagonal base, 428 exceeds the limit of (r), which makes it ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false? (I think). So, I think that In Natural Law, as in mathematics, the radix (accountable references) determine the maximum value/limits of the operations, transformations, positional comparison, test of agreement, and Testimony. Anything that exceeds the limit of (r) exists as inflationary/ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false. I think this also explains why the verb “to be” creates problems in reporting. The various conjugations of the verb violate the magnitude/value/limit determined by the radix. –CurtD– Well done. 😉 You know you have a phd subject right there that unites philosophy mathematics and law. 😉 ===NOTE=== This exchange is in response to this post: MATH VERSUS NATURAL LAW — THE SAME? Math is a logic of positional naming, and Natural law a logic of Property Naming. The grammar of both Math and Law consists of operations on names. So in math we use operations to maintain balance (equilibrium) on both sides of an equal’s sign, and in natural law we use operations to maintain balance between individuals. See? Here: Human Logical Facility (constant relations) > …. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) > …. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) > …. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) > …. …. …. …. Math (positional names) > …. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) > …. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence (Notice: Note how I left out verbal logic, rationalism, and philosophy because they’re included in sophistry.)

  • Updated Style Guide for P

    NOT JUST FOR NEWBS

    THE P-LAW STYLE GUIDE

    Due to popular demand (actually a specific recommendation), I’ve updated the Style Guide to P which explains the following:

    1. The formatting of posts
    2. Styling
    3. Parentheticals
    4. Use of “Disambiguation, Operationalization, Serialization”
    5. Use of Testing by Testimony, Reciprocity, Property-In-Toto
    6. Use of Arrows < > -> <- etc
    7. Use of Lists, Hierarchies, Graphs
    8. Use of Sequential Declarative Statements
    9. Use of Pseudocode

  • Updated Style Guide for P

    NOT JUST FOR NEWBS

    THE P-LAW STYLE GUIDE

    Due to popular demand (actually a specific recommendation), I’ve updated the Style Guide to P which explains the following:

    1. The formatting of posts
    2. Styling
    3. Parentheticals
    4. Use of “Disambiguation, Operationalization, Serialization”
    5. Use of Testing by Testimony, Reciprocity, Property-In-Toto
    6. Use of Arrows < > -> <- etc
    7. Use of Lists, Hierarchies, Graphs
    8. Use of Sequential Declarative Statements
    9. Use of Pseudocode

  • P Increases the Scope of The Crime of Baiting Into Hazard

    P Increases the Scope of The Crime of Baiting Into Hazard https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/p-increases-the-scope-of-the-crime-of-baiting-into-hazard/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 03:47:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265852236791459842

  • P Increases the Scope of The Crime of Baiting Into Hazard

    May 7, 2020, 8:32 AM The lender baits you into hazard, not the manufacturer. cash in hand is a present demonstrated capacity. credit is a prediction of future demonstrated capacity. So we don’t confuse ideals (omniscience) with due diligence and statistics free of arbitrage. Where arbitrage is charging It’s reciprocal as long as it’s fully informed. (we also included right to repair – which would increase the price of the car and decrease the price of maintenance.) creditworthiness is an actuarial science, and with linear returns and without loss-arbitrage, problem disappears. If it wasn’t in one’s self interest one wouldn’t do it. The court can’t determine self interest (via positiva) it can only determine harm. Courts do not determine ‘good’ (that’s choice) they determine harm. The Labor of rule of law is divided by design: Monarchy, Military, Law, Government, Court, Individual. And that law produces limits on monarchy, military, Government, court, and the individual.

    1. The individual produces agreements (good, specific).
    2. Court produces rulings (bad, specific),
    3. Government produces legislation (good and general),
    4. The military produces commands (necessary specific crisis)
    5. In UK Monarchy for when all fail. Monarchy is above the law. (Specific Crisis)

    The foundation of contract law is reciprocity, and irreciprocal contracts will not be enforced by the court. The problem is the court’s definition of irreciprocity favors personal choice and consequence rather than legal defense from baiting into hazard. P increases the scope of the law to cover both false promise, and baiting into hazard, at contractual ( private contracts ) and political ( contracts of the commons ) scales. This is the weakness in the current law. (Imagine what would happen if we kept credit ratings, but ended debt collection. We might not have to do anything else.)

  • P Increases the Scope of The Crime of Baiting Into Hazard

    May 7, 2020, 8:32 AM The lender baits you into hazard, not the manufacturer. cash in hand is a present demonstrated capacity. credit is a prediction of future demonstrated capacity. So we don’t confuse ideals (omniscience) with due diligence and statistics free of arbitrage. Where arbitrage is charging It’s reciprocal as long as it’s fully informed. (we also included right to repair – which would increase the price of the car and decrease the price of maintenance.) creditworthiness is an actuarial science, and with linear returns and without loss-arbitrage, problem disappears. If it wasn’t in one’s self interest one wouldn’t do it. The court can’t determine self interest (via positiva) it can only determine harm. Courts do not determine ‘good’ (that’s choice) they determine harm. The Labor of rule of law is divided by design: Monarchy, Military, Law, Government, Court, Individual. And that law produces limits on monarchy, military, Government, court, and the individual.

    1. The individual produces agreements (good, specific).
    2. Court produces rulings (bad, specific),
    3. Government produces legislation (good and general),
    4. The military produces commands (necessary specific crisis)
    5. In UK Monarchy for when all fail. Monarchy is above the law. (Specific Crisis)

    The foundation of contract law is reciprocity, and irreciprocal contracts will not be enforced by the court. The problem is the court’s definition of irreciprocity favors personal choice and consequence rather than legal defense from baiting into hazard. P increases the scope of the law to cover both false promise, and baiting into hazard, at contractual ( private contracts ) and political ( contracts of the commons ) scales. This is the weakness in the current law. (Imagine what would happen if we kept credit ratings, but ended debt collection. We might not have to do anything else.)

  • Closure on The Abortion Discussion

    May 24, 2020, 12:23 PM P lands with:

    “In the cases of killing in war, capital punishment in justice, suicide in suffering, euthanasia in old age or illness, infanticide in defect, and abortion in utero, we (polities) develop norms, traditions, and laws that permit us to terminate life when the consequences of not doing so are more than we can pay restitution for. The only outlier among these is abortion where (a) woman is as in control of her uterus as a man is in control of his violence – so why is she not as accountable for abortion as a man is for accidental murder, and (b) the outcome of the child’s life is unknown. As such we make these decisions empirically. And we are too forgiving of women in this subject as we are too forgiving (coddling) of women in all others. Why? Because we are biologically and traditionally if not consciously aware that women have lower agency than men, but that they are intrinsically more valuable and less disposable than men.”