Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • P IS A LEAP IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. SORRY. MAN UP AND LEARN. —“Brandon Hayes

    P IS A LEAP IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. SORRY. MAN UP AND LEARN.

    —“Brandon Hayes so in other words p has similar descriptive and predictive powers to things like astrology and Marxism. If you recite these dogmas enough I’m sure they come to seem like objective truths, but my suggestion would be that you read a few things that are not by other cult members, or books of quotations taken out of context”—John Tangney

    Alright you overconfident idiot, let’s dance.

    —“Lol, who writes your dialogue?”—John Tangney

    1. Is science defined as the use of the scientific method or not? If not, then what is it defined as?

    2. Is that scientific method justificationary or falsificationary?

    3. Is mathematics the logic of constant positional relations, if not then what?

    4. What are the limits of mathematics as we currently understand them? (I’ll tell you: quantum mechanics (probability at the low end), and economics (probability at the high end). Why? Informational availability and categorical consistency.

    5. So is prediction in science limited? Or limited is it by current mathematical understanding? (I’ll tell you: it’s a limit of our current understanding of single-position mathematics, and we haven’t – see Wolfram – developed the geometric equivalent that we have in curves (calculus ), lines (geometry), points (arithmetic). It appears that it is not possible for humans without the help of computers. We can however use variation from intermediary symmetries (constants) in the meantime.

    6. Is prediction or explanation by constant relations a test of falsification? It doesn’t matter.

    P is a falsificationary, operational, explicatory, logic of limits. It is predictive given information (bounded rationality), and is predictive given symmetries (findings of general rules of economics). It cannot be as mathematics can be closed, because we can innovate and axioms can’t.

    Not only is P itself scientific, it defines science and the scientific method completely.

    Now watch john engage in GSRRM, Pilpul and Critique.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 10:38:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) The first four minutes of this video are nonsense. There is no

    (from elsewhere)

    The first four minutes of this video are nonsense. There is no conflict between the coordinate system (our means of description) and the change in the background (described by that coordinate system), and the motion of the particle (energy, change) through the background. He’s confusing the math with reality given that we don’t know the underlying geometry, so we have to resort to use of aggregates (the wave function). Math is a language (logic, grammar) of positional names ideal for the description of constant relations (patterns). If history is a judge of anything, we are stuck in a problem that Hilbert warned us about, and Einstein and Bohr trapped us into, by using probability (aggregates) instead of solving the problem of the underlying geometry. Whether that geometry is a circular (loops) creating a 3d space, or triangles and tetrahedrons creating 3d space, the resulting pattern of which is loops or strings, is something we don’t know and it’s why quantum mechanics and relativity are seemingly incompatible. They make use of two aggregates describing two different patterns. Both theories are correct. The same way that biology and chemistry are correct. But the geometry underneath quantum mechanics is something we just don’t know yet. Unfortunately mathematical platonism is as infectious a disease in physics as it is in mathematics – and lest not even get started on economics.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-30 16:12:00 UTC

  • REGARDING MATHEMATICAL PLATONISM AND THE TEST OF .999.. = 1. This article is ide

    REGARDING MATHEMATICAL PLATONISM AND THE TEST OF .999.. = 1.

    This article is ideological propaganda (which is common here) in favor of mathematical platonism that intentionally or not misrepresents the problem.

    This question of whether .999… = 1 is the canon example, and litmus test, of the conflict over the foundations of mathematics between the schools (a) demanding the scientific basis of mathematics (mathematical realism) by Hilbert and (b) the literary (pseudoscientific) basis of mathematics that was reintroduced by Cantor resulting in the catastrophe of mathematics, logic, and even mathematical physics in the twentieth century. So it is not a question of pedagogy but an unsettled conflict over the choice between mathematical realism under which no infinity is operationally impossible, limits always extant in any application, and therefore .999 != 1, versus mathematical platonism dependent upon the law of the excluded middle, under which deductively, one cannot construct a statement in the vocabulary and grammar of mathematics (the logic of positional names) where .999… does not equal 1. This is the battle between realism (science, operational mathematics), and idealism (philosophy, literary mathematics).

    For example, Descartes was important because he restored mathematics to geometry (operations) giving us the cartesian model, and the result was newton-liebnitz’s calculus on one end and the restoration of the realism on the other. Cantor, Bohr, and yes, even Einstein as well as the logicians tried to restore idealism. This led to the constructivist argument. That argument succeeded in physics and has slowly propagated through the sciences, even, oddly causing the reformation of psychology (although not sociology). Computer science has taken up constructivist mathematics leaving mathematical platonism to the discipline of math. Unfortunately, we are stuck with Einstein-Bohr-Cantor versus Hilbert-Poincare-Turing, and this is one of the profound failings ofthe 20th century.

    For example. Numbers exist as names of positions and nothing else. We use positional naming to generate unique names. Positions are ordered but scale independent. All of mathematics consist of functions producing names in the grammar and vocabulary of positional names. Cantor states that we can produce multiple infinities of different sizes. This is a fictionalism (parable). Instead, no infinity is constructible only predictable in imagination. So, in any sequence of operations, different sets will produce new positional names at different rates, such that at any given limit, the sets will differ in sizes. There are no different ‘sizes’ of infinities, only different rates of production of positional (unique) names. Math is full of such parables.

    In ethics for example, the litmus test is blackmail: it’s voluntary, it’s an exchange, but why do we react against it? Because it’s an unproductive transfer. In logic it’s whether logic is binary and a rule of inference (true vs false) or ternary and scientific (false, truth candidate, undecidable). In mathematics the litmus test is whether .999… = 1. Under realism, no it doesn’t. Under idealism (Platonism) it does. Science (meaning testimony) imposes a higher standard than idealism (platonism). Platonism remains justificationary and Realism falsificationary.

    So when you make the claim the question is pedagogical (error) and that people don’t understand – that’s patently false. It’s that operationalism (realism, science) has a higher standard than platonism (idealism, prose). And under realism .999… cannot possible ever equal 1 since no infinity is operationally possible. Whereas under idealism the standard is lower, because under scale independence, infinity substitutes for the unknown limit, which as a consequence is 1.

    The fact that people aren’t pedagogically informed that this debate exists, and persists, and that its origin is between western engineering and geometry, and middle eastern algebra and astrology, leading to western reason and science, versus eastern theology and mysticism – then you begin to understand how important this question is – and why our physicists have been lost in mathematical platonism – and why scientific woo woo is so common, when it’s increasingly likely that mathematics of positions names (points) has most likely reached its limits. And that we have failed to create the next generation of mathematics (shapes, geometries) that would allow us to solve protein foldings and the structure of the universe that results in our observed but unsolvable quantum distributions of probability.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-29 00:00:00 UTC

  • MORE ‘WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM” CRITICISM “Propertarianism is the completion of (

    MORE ‘WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM” CRITICISM

    “Propertarianism is the completion of (the complete) scientific method.”

    That’s it. Period. But it’s a profound thing. Very. It means not only the physical sciences but logics, psychological, social, political, legal, economic sciences.

    Now what do we do with that completed scientific method?

    The scientific method is value neutral, and commensurable regardless of discipline, and universal in application.

    We use that scientific method to produce a value neutral fully commensurable language across all disciplines.

    We use that logic and language to produce a universally commensurable value neutral system of law.

    We used that value neutral system of law to produce a constitution.

    That constitution’s principle innovation is to incrementally suppress the means by which western civlization in the ancient and modern world was undermined by crimes of plausible deniability (which I won’t explain right here), but that’s what you think of when you think of leftism.

    One can create an infinite number of constitutions of infinite variety using that law, as long as one constructs them truthfully and reciprocally (which is a problem for the left).

    The constitution we propose restores the american constitution to its original intent as military and treasury that allows for the concentration of military power sufficient for defense of the continent, devolves all other powers to the states, makes everyone liable for the truth and reciprocity of speech in public to the public about matters public (outlaws leftism), and reforms every single aspect of life so that we restore our civilization from the ((())) harms done to it this past century.

    That constitution is on line and in progress and is a lot to swallow, but then so are the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Federalist Papers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Amendements, History of Supreme Court Rulings, Federal Code, and Individual State constitutions and codes.

    Propertarianism is the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to the totality of human knowledge, creating a universally commensurable value neutral language; its embodiment in the natural common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of [all deceit] from the informational commons.

    See?Updated Dec 28, 2019, 2:57 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-28 14:57:00 UTC

  • “PROPERTARIANISM CONSISTS OF ….” —“This is a very vague non-answer that trie

    “PROPERTARIANISM CONSISTS OF ….”

    —“This is a very vague non-answer that tries to appear smart by using a big word salad and sounds like something the typical libertarian atheist who’s sure of his own intellect would say. I still don’t understand what Propertarianism is.”— Ryan Chapman

    Always an overconfident moron in the bunch.

    What’s the difference between aristotelianism, platonism, and abrahamism? What’s the difference between reason, logic, rationalism? What’s the difference between Aristotelian, enlightenment(empirical) and scientific, revolutions? Whats the difference between math, logic, programming, recipes, and protocols? So what is the difference between aristotelianism, empiricism, science, and testimonialism (propertarianism)? Well, the difference is from the rational to the empirical to the operational. What does operational mean? It means the difference between logic (Sets) and programming (operations). It means the difference between logic (language), empiricism (observation), and operations (actions).

    Propertarianism completes the scientific method. The culmination of the philosophical program of the 20th century was that there is no via positiva scientific method. Instead, The scientific method is a via negativa method: falsificationary. There are only so many dimensions humans can cognitively imagine and cognitively falsify by tests of consistency: categorical, logical, operational, empirical, rational, reciprocal, complete in scope with defined limits, and consistent and therefore coherent across those dimensions, where one warranties such due diligence, and is liable for the consequence of his displays words and deeds resulting from such statements. By using this method we can create a universally commensurable, value neutral, operational language and as such a universally commensurable logic, across all fields: a system of measurement for the truthfulness of speech. We can then use this language and this method to restate the constitution, and our law, in scientific, and operational language, closed to interpretation (legislation from the bench). Moreover we can use this law to outlaw the primary innovation in organized crime that was used to undermine western civilization: false promise; baiting into hazard, using pilpul (sophism) and critique(undermining, straw manning) under cover of plausible deniability to profit from the imposition of harms upon others by financialization (innumeracy), pseudoscience, sophism, supernaturalism, denialism, including the false promises, pseudo-mathematics, pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial of marx, boas, freud, Cantor, Adorno et al, Gramsci et al, Derrida et al, Friedan et al, rand/rothbard, and the neocons. And yes, we can even use it to reform and obtain insight into the failures of Bohr ad Einstein that hilbert predicted, and we can explain the 20th century of mysticism and deceit that hayek warned us of. In other words we can end the jewish-muslim, marxist-postmodernis-feminist program of lying by false promise, and explain why it’s a crime.

    So, hopefully you can understand why this brief passage here is not something I would stick on the front page for marketing purposes.

    And if you can’t comprehend it – it doesn’t matter. You probably don’t know calculus, analysis, algebraic geometry, relativity, quantum mechanics, or the difference between hierarchical, relational, functional, object oriented, and bayesian programming, or the design patterns in each. Or the fundamental problems of mathematical economics, categories, use of symmetries as intermediary systems of economic measurement. Or even the problem of protein folding or why all of those questions are related by the problem a lack of an operational logic of geometries that replaces the operational logic of lines and curves using positional names that we call mathematics.

    I know what the fuck I”m doing.

    Don’t shit on my doorstep.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-26 14:12:00 UTC

  • He’s never run a company, had a board of directors, a horde of shareholders, tho

    He’s never run a company, had a board of directors, a horde of shareholders, thousands of employees and he certainly doesn’t know, anyone who does. Profitability is extremely difficult to achieve and maintain. Customers are difficult to obtain and maintain. Shareholders are difficult to obtain and maintain. Employees are difficult to obtain and maintain. Credit capacity is difficult to obtain and maintain – at least until you obtain access to the stock market. In every generation there is a google, facebook, apple, microsoft, and within three generations they are gone. Workers have the same power in a company shareholders do: departure (starve the business). The problem is that employee contribution to the business’ survival are distributed by a power law. The CEO almost always being the most important of them. Google is an outlier that won’t survive the first company that invents a recursive search that provides the person with what he wants – because the opportunity to advertise decreases with getting the answer you want. Microsoft was an outlier that lost its position because the government forced out its CEO. Apple survived only by hiring back the CEO it had fired. In every company, someone or some group, knows the answer to any problem the business faces. But it might be financially, politically, memetically, impossible to reorganize – because it means all those people entrenched in jobs. Mondragon is a dishonest (false) example: they produce niche products in small volume, in a remote, poor, location. Many employees are not franchise holders. Only a minority of employees are involved in management. The workers do not collectively decide. They bubble information upward. (I’m calling the speaker a liar by the way.) All successful companies take in employee feedback. Marx caused 100M dead seeking stability. The Abrahamic revolution in the ancient world created judaism, christianity, islam and a thousand year dark age. Stability is a bad thing. Look at the developmental history of China and India. Look what intellectual and cultural stability did to Islamic civilization: five great civilizations of the ancient world were reduced to genetic, cultural, artistic, technological, and social, ashes. Marx (pseudoscience), Freud (pseudoscience), Boas (pseudoscience), Adorno (pseudoscience), Friedan (pseudoscience), Derrida (sophism), Rand/Rothbard (sophism). We don’t study marx not because we are afraid, but because it has failed in every single instance – and yes we know why. So the First Generation of Jewish Abrahamic Thought caused 1Billion dead, five great civilizations, a thousand year dark age. And this second Generation of Jewish Abrahamic Thought caused 100M dead so far, and is in no small part responsible for the collapse of european civilization and it’s attempt at dragging the world out of ignorance and poverty. Europe only stagnated during the dark age of christian (lying) stability. Western Contractualism, rule of law, sovereignty, and reciprocity, made possible Western Capitalism, which dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and vicissitudes of a nature all but hostile to advanced life. In the ancient world, greek reason, roman administration and in the modern world, germanic empiricism and administration. There is no failure of a capitalist system. It’s what dragged humanity – all of it now – out of poverty. Period. Now, it’s not false that we should pursue nationalist policies so that consumption does not so exclusively drive economic behavior. It’s not true that worker opinion about governance is worth anything. There isn’t much evidence of it. I mean, it’s kind of surprising we don’t make advocacy of this kind of nonsense illegal – or any other religion, sophism, or pseudoscience. Every downturn is a GOOD thing, just as europe’s, india’s and china’s wars were a good thing. It’s called evolution. Evolve or die.

  • He’s never run a company, had a board of directors, a horde of shareholders, tho

    He’s never run a company, had a board of directors, a horde of shareholders, thousands of employees and he certainly doesn’t know, anyone who does. Profitability is extremely difficult to achieve and maintain. Customers are difficult to obtain and maintain. Shareholders are difficult to obtain and maintain. Employees are difficult to obtain and maintain. Credit capacity is difficult to obtain and maintain – at least until you obtain access to the stock market. In every generation there is a google, facebook, apple, microsoft, and within three generations they are gone. Workers have the same power in a company shareholders do: departure (starve the business). The problem is that employee contribution to the business’ survival are distributed by a power law. The CEO almost always being the most important of them. Google is an outlier that won’t survive the first company that invents a recursive search that provides the person with what he wants – because the opportunity to advertise decreases with getting the answer you want. Microsoft was an outlier that lost its position because the government forced out its CEO. Apple survived only by hiring back the CEO it had fired. In every company, someone or some group, knows the answer to any problem the business faces. But it might be financially, politically, memetically, impossible to reorganize – because it means all those people entrenched in jobs. Mondragon is a dishonest (false) example: they produce niche products in small volume, in a remote, poor, location. Many employees are not franchise holders. Only a minority of employees are involved in management. The workers do not collectively decide. They bubble information upward. (I’m calling the speaker a liar by the way.) All successful companies take in employee feedback. Marx caused 100M dead seeking stability. The Abrahamic revolution in the ancient world created judaism, christianity, islam and a thousand year dark age. Stability is a bad thing. Look at the developmental history of China and India. Look what intellectual and cultural stability did to Islamic civilization: five great civilizations of the ancient world were reduced to genetic, cultural, artistic, technological, and social, ashes. Marx (pseudoscience), Freud (pseudoscience), Boas (pseudoscience), Adorno (pseudoscience), Friedan (pseudoscience), Derrida (sophism), Rand/Rothbard (sophism). We don’t study marx not because we are afraid, but because it has failed in every single instance – and yes we know why. So the First Generation of Jewish Abrahamic Thought caused 1Billion dead, five great civilizations, a thousand year dark age. And this second Generation of Jewish Abrahamic Thought caused 100M dead so far, and is in no small part responsible for the collapse of european civilization and it’s attempt at dragging the world out of ignorance and poverty. Europe only stagnated during the dark age of christian (lying) stability. Western Contractualism, rule of law, sovereignty, and reciprocity, made possible Western Capitalism, which dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and vicissitudes of a nature all but hostile to advanced life. In the ancient world, greek reason, roman administration and in the modern world, germanic empiricism and administration. There is no failure of a capitalist system. It’s what dragged humanity – all of it now – out of poverty. Period. Now, it’s not false that we should pursue nationalist policies so that consumption does not so exclusively drive economic behavior. It’s not true that worker opinion about governance is worth anything. There isn’t much evidence of it. I mean, it’s kind of surprising we don’t make advocacy of this kind of nonsense illegal – or any other religion, sophism, or pseudoscience. Every downturn is a GOOD thing, just as europe’s, india’s and china’s wars were a good thing. It’s called evolution. Evolve or die.

  • I studied science economics art and history. I only studied philosophy to falsif

    I studied science economics art and history. I only studied philosophy to falsify it. It’s bad for you. It’s wishful thinking by those who lack agency, secular theology, sophistry, or its pseudoscience. Religion makes you comfortable, philosophy uncomfortable, science empowering.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-25 18:18:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1209901275313319936

    Reply addressees: @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1209390115602288640

    IN REPLY TO:

    @DegenRolf

    “Philosophy seems to attract less happy students and then makes them less happy.” https://t.co/WruEJJFASk https://t.co/ltzaqynUQv

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1209390115602288640

  • Hollywood needs to just stop producing movies. I mean, ban everyone in every inc

    Hollywood needs to just stop producing movies. I mean, ban everyone in every including every production company, and every union, including writers, script consultant and supervisors,… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=535909220339306&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-22 21:59:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1208869694016503811

  • Hollywood needs to just stop producing movies. I mean, ban everyone including ev

    Hollywood needs to just stop producing movies. I mean, ban everyone including every production company, and every union, including writers, script consultant and supervisors, producers, casting director, agent, and actor and keep just the camera, lighting, sound, set, and costume staff. Just shut it all down. All of it. Tax 60% of production costs, and 60% of revenue, regardless of profit. Put the whole thing out of business. What they’re doing is criminal.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-22 16:59:00 UTC