Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Computational Linguistics: What Distinguishes Subjective (held In The Mind) From Objective (testable)?

    I’ll try to answer this question as correctly and completely as I can.

    Subjectivity refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that we can experience directly with our senses and faculties if we possess necessary experience.

    Subjectively experienced:
    – yes, I like vanilla more than chocolate. (demonstrable, not testable)
    – yes, I can see/feel/hear that change. (testable)
    – yes, I can feel it is cold in here. (reportable not testable)
    – yes, I can agree that statement is true. (reportable)
    – yes, that seems reasonable if I were in that circumstance. (reportable)
    – no, that’s not believable. (reportable).

    Objectivity refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that can be directly perceived or instrumentally perceived, and whether those instruments are physical or logical.

    Objectively experienced:
    – that volume will hold more or less water than this volume, (despite our perceptions)
    – I took longer for this than for that (despite our perceptions)
    – this is moving at the same velocity as that (despite our perceptions)
    – the car caused the accident (despite our perceptions)
    – the world is less violent today (despite our perceptions)
    – that seems what a reasonable person would think (false, despite our perceptions).

    Neither Subjectively or Objectively Experienceable – or knowable:

    – Just about everything at very great or very small scales of time, space, velocity, size, and number.
    – Another person’s (or creature’s) experiences and intuitions.
    – ‘the Good’ (despite everyone’s intuition to the contrary).

    SCIENCE AND THE WEST
    The purpose of the scientific method is to demand that we perform due diligence against our natural limitations, whether they are biological, emotional, social, or intellectual. And it is the competition between the free association that our minds evolved to do so well, the clarity of our thoughts that we evolved through language and then reason, and the scientific method that we use to constrain our thoughts and observations, and measurements such that they are as free of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit as they possibly can be.

    The west never engaged in totalitarianism or conflation of other societies and we retained competition in all walks of life including the epistemological, such that only that which survives the best from competition might remain a truth, or a good.

    This competition is what made the west evolve faster than the rest in the bronze, iron, and steel ages.

    But we still wish we could escape that competition in all walks of life – despite it being the reason that we and the rest of the world, have been dragged out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, violence, and disease because of it.

    What we intuit is often not a good thing.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/Computational-Linguistics-What-distinguishes-subjective-held-in-the-mind-from-objective-testable

  • WESTERN CIV ON SKIN IN THE GAME Your narrative is exceptional – as wisdom. But w

    WESTERN CIV ON SKIN IN THE GAME

    Your narrative is exceptional – as wisdom. But wisdom cannot be converted into law unless in a formal, deflationary argument.

    The west differs from the east. We never conflated law with other fields. And the skin of the loan IN put = the warranty OUT put.

    High trust civilization (the west) could use warranty rather than skin. So what happened that the west stopped demanding warranty?

    Without low trust SKIN IN -or- high trust WARRANTY OUT, western civ kept high trust population but low trust economics and policy.

    Now, if the west relied upon high trust warranty, how could we rely once again on high trust, or must we move to low trust Skin?

    When you discuss cultural deltas I hear (a) levantine low trust with (b) mathematical and literary platonism. Not Natural Law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-02 16:47:00 UTC

  • YOUR POVERTY AND YOUR LACK OF AGENCY You’re poor because you lack Agency sure. B

    YOUR POVERTY AND YOUR LACK OF AGENCY

    You’re poor because you lack Agency sure. But you know, even if we remove obstructive institutions, and even if we create institutions to invest in overcoming your initial circumstance, we are still stuck with the fact that we cannot change YOU, and that YOU can lack Agency for your own informational, intellectual, emotional, or physical reasons. We know for certain that you cannot tell if you are able or not. We don’t like to choose whether you are able or not – we can err. All we can do is invest in eliminating impediments so that you can DEMONSTRATE whether you possess agency and ability – or not.

    Anyone who tells you more money will matter is simply lying to you. You’re poor because you lack Agency, because you or your parents or your ancestors have lacked intellectual, emotional, or physical ABILITY as well as informational (ignorance) or institutional impediment.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-02 10:23:00 UTC

  • The foundations of mathematics are so simple. Seriously. The fact that they even

    The foundations of mathematics are so simple. Seriously. The fact that they even phrase the question as such is hysterical. The reason mathematics is so powerful a tool is precisely because its foundations are so trivial. Like discourse on property in ethics and law it is a word game because no one establishes sufficient limits under which the general term obscures a change in state.

    Math very simple. Correspondence (what remains and what does not), Types, operations, grammar, syntax. Generally we use mathematics for the purpose of scale independence. in other words, we remove the property of scale from the set of correspondences. But we might also pass from physical dimensions to logical dimensions (there are only so many possible physical dimensions). So now we leave dimensional correspondence. In mathematics we remove time correspondence by default, and only add it in when we specifically want to make use of it. In sets we remove temporal and causal correspondence … at least in most cases. So we can add and remove many different correspondences, and work only with reciprocal (self referencing) correspondence (constant relations). But there is nothing magic here at all except for the fields (results) that can be produced by these different definitions as we use them to describe the consequences of using different values in different orders.

    But if you say “I want to study the parsimony, limits, and full accounting, of this set of types using this set of operations, with the common grammar and syntax” that is pretty much what someone means when they say ‘foundations’. Most of the time. Sometimes they have no clue.

    There is nothing much more difficult here in the ‘foundations’ so to speak. What’s hard in mathematics is holding operations, grammar and syntax constant, what happens as we use different correspondences (dimensions), types, and values in combination with others and yet others, to produce these various kinds of patterns that represent phenomenon that we want to describe. And what mathematicians find beautiful is that there is a bizaare set of regularities (that they call symmetries or some variation thereof), that emerge once you becomes skilled in these models, just like some games become predictable if you see a certain pattern.

    But really, math is interesting because by describing regular patterns that produce complex phenomenon, we are able to describe things very accurately that we cannot ‘see’ without math to help us find it.

    Its seems mystical. It isn’t. Its just the adult version of mommy saying ‘boo’ to the toddler and the joy he gets from the stimulation. There is nothing magical here. it’s creative, and interesting, but it’s just engineering with cheaper tools at lower risk: paper, pencil, and time.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-01 15:22:00 UTC

  • UNDERSTANDING ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE I’ve been told all my life by some asshole

    UNDERSTANDING ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE

    I’ve been told all my life by some asshole or other that I don’t understand accounting or finance. And I always found that humorous. I took the same classes as everyone else. I just learned something very different from them: most of it is used to lie under pseudoscientific pretense caused entirely by the necessity of limiting profitability in order to reduce taxation, complying with government regulation that obscures real costs of doing business, and complying with bank lending requirements that force you to claim regularity to your income that does not exist, forcing you to keep Operational P&L to run a business, Credit P&L to borrow money, Tax P&L to pay taxes, and Investor P&L to estimate upside.

    But given the archaic and pseudoscientific nature of accounting and finance and that super-pseudoscience we call mainstream macro economics, all of these things are falsehoods that address special cases.

    The value of a business is one of three things: the current liquidation value in the event of closure, the value of the business as a going concern to a competitor in the market, and the value to some sucker you can find who will pay you more than either of those numbers.

    What it is expressly NOT is whatever nonsense your bank, or the government says that it is. Every time I hear the value of a company is expressed in market cap I wanna put irons on someone and stick them in a cell.

    Suckers exist in america in large numbers principally because we just create so many of them, and we hold so few punishments for them, that the legal and financial industry largely seems to exist in order to allow and profit from, sucker- plays. Now sure, you might be lucky and get a Peter Theil or one of the other Paypal Mafia to invest in your company. These are entrepreneurs who happen to have turned to entrepreneurship at scale. They are not engaged in financialization which provides them with gains whether you win or lose. But that is exactly how most of the capitalist class functions.

    We need to get back to lender beware.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-01 14:40:00 UTC

  • ON UNIONS The unions made common mistakes of overreach. They began with the mora

    ON UNIONS

    The unions made common mistakes of overreach. They began with the moral: safety, liability, minimum wages, profit sharing, and replacing with cheaper workers (arbitrage). But then proceeded with overreaches that varied from moral hazard: demands for impossible future claims: continuous increases and pensions; then to the immoral: mandatory membership, mandatory fees, and fostering endemic corruption; then to the violation of natural law: interfering in the political process.

    It’s a shock to capitalists and free marketers raised on the myth of constant growth made possible under the agrarian and industrial (hydrocarbon) eras, and prohibiting temporal labor arbitrage is perhaps hard for the layman to understand when it occurs across decades of time rather than across national borders, but men are not commodities and their marketability declines rapidly after choice of first opportunity – and seizing all the ‘best’ time at the lowest price under promise of future rewards is merely an act of fraud. So it is all too easy to socialize uncompetitiveness and privatize commons into the hands of investors and capitalists.

    Most capitalists cannot compete under free trade because profits would be much smaller. Contrary to libertarian dogma, and contrary to anglo bourgeois values, while the puritan/manorial work ethic is an unquestionable good, and while rule of law assisting in capital concentration and formation is an unquestionable good, as a good Propertarian we query ‘But what are the limits of that good? Because there exist no unlimited theories and therefore no unlimited goods.’ And we find that it is possible to socialize losses and privatize gains if we do not perform full accounting.

    And a full accounting only ends when we have reduced all accounts to ‘time’. Because it is ‘time’ that is the currency we trade.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-01 09:06:00 UTC

  • We are prosecutors. Why? We have taken away the benefit of the doubt under which

    We are prosecutors. Why? We have taken away the benefit of the doubt under which the first great lie of the Jews (christianity), and the second great lie of the jews (marxism/ socialism/ libertarianism/ neoconservatism) has infected the west and which we still seek to escape from.

    Propertarianism only asks whether you speak truthfully and warranty your statements, and whether you bear a cost or earn a profit, or cause a cost or earn a profit by the argument you make.

    We have ended the great lies.

    You no longer have the benefit of the doubt. We no longer seek justification for you to avoid blame, we seek survival from criticism, as your warranty, and resulting out come as your guilt or innocence.

    In public speech, you are guilty until found not guilty.

    That is what you have done.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-28 16:31:00 UTC

  • 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

  • Even at the cost of the Anglo world we must ensure that this next ascent of Germ

    Even at the cost of the Anglo world we must ensure that this next ascent of Germany is successful. They have been ascending since the fall of the soviet union both economically and politically and greater Germania again possesses both the population necessary (>500M), and the sphere of influence, (germanic, latin and slavic Europe), to achieve the restoration of European (Germanic) civilization. Her primary weakness is created by Anglo-American military presence (NATO). The ending of the American world empire, the restoration of the balance of powers between core states, and the natural ascent of a federated and germanic Europe will allow the german core, latin and slavic periphery to form into a world power. The natural relations today in the anglo world – as a collection of large islands across all the seas, can then return to internal development, and cultural restoration. The problem of islam “the cult of submission by the low” will be spread across Chinese, Indian, Russian, European, and African – and crushed as we have crushed all archaic civilizations in history. I realize that I am an anglo saxon. a german. And that my kin, sometime in the 1800’s fell into the folly of the jews.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-26 11:34:00 UTC

  • THE STATE OF MATHEMATICAL ECONOMICS Understanding advanced mathematics of econom

    THE STATE OF MATHEMATICAL ECONOMICS

    Understanding advanced mathematics of economics and physics for ordinary people.

    The Mengerian revolution, which we call the Marginalist revolution, occurred when the people of the period applied calculus ( the mathematics of “relative motion”) to what had been largely a combination of accounting and algebra.

    20th century economics can be seen largely as an attempt to apply the mathematics of relative motion (constant change) from mathematics of constant categories that we use in perfectly constant axiomatic systems, and the relatively constant mathematics of physical systems, to the mathematics of inconstant categories that we find in economics – because things on the market have a multitude of subsequent yet interdependent uses that are determined by ever changing preferences, demands, availability, and shocks.

    Physics is a much harder problem than axiomatic mathematics. Economics is a much harder problem than mathematical physics, and before we head down this road (which I have been thinking about a long time) Sentience (the next dimension of complexity) is a much harder problem than economics.

    And there have been questions in the 20th century whether mathematics as we understand it can solve the hard problem of economics. But this is, as usual, a problem of misunderstanding the very simple nature of mathematics as the study of constant relations. Most human use of mathematics consists of the study of trivial constant relations such as quantities of objects, physical measurements. Or changes in state over time. Or relative motion in time. And this constitutes the four dimensions we can conceive of when discussing real world physical phenomenon. So in our simplistic view of mathematics, we think in terms of small numbers of causal relations. But, it does not reflect the number of POSSIBLE causal relations. In other words, we change from the position of observing change in state by things humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density higher than humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density such that every act of measurement distorts what humans can observe and act upon, by distorting the causality.

    One of our discoveries in mathematical physics, is that as things move along a trajectory, they are affected by high causal density, and change through many different states during that time period. Such that causal density is so high that it is very hard to reduce change in state of many dimensions of constant relations to a trivial value: meaning a measurement or state that we can predict. Instead we fine a range of output constant relations, which we call probabilistic. So that instead of a say, a point as a measurement, we fined a line, or a triangle, or a multi dimensional geometry that the resulting state will fit within.

    However, we can, with some work identify what we might call sums or aggregates (which are simple sets of relationships) but what higher mathematicians refer to as patterns, ‘symmetries’ or ‘geometries’. And these patterns refer to a set of constant relations in ‘space’ (on a coordinate system of sorts) that seem to emerge regardless of differences in the causes that produce them.

    These patterns, symmetries, or geometries reflect a set of constant relationships that are the product of inconstant causal operations. And when you refer to a ‘number’, a pattern, a symmetry, or a geometry, or what is called a non-euclidian geometry, we are merely talking about the number of dimensions of constant relations we are talking about, and using ‘space’ as the analogy that the human mind is able to grasp.

    Unfortunately, mathematics has not ‘reformed’ itself into operational language as have the physical sciences – and remains like the social sciences and philosophy a bastion of archaic language. But we can reduce this archaic language into meaningful operational terms as nothing more than sets of constant relations between measurements, consisting of a dimension per measurement, which we represent as a field (flat), euclidian geometry (possible geometry), or post Euclidian geometry (physically impossible but logically useful) geometry of constant relations.

    And more importantly, once we can identify these patterns, symmetries, or geometries that arise from complex causal density consisting of seemingly unrelated causal operations, we have found a constant by which to measure that which is causally dense but consequentially constant.

    So think of the current need for reform in economics to refer to and require a transition from the measurement of numeric (trivial) values, to the analysis of (non-trivial) consequent geometries.

    These constant states (geometries) constitute the aggregate operations in economies. The unintended but constant consequences of causally dense actions.

    Think of it like using fingers to make a shadow puppet. If you put a lot of people together between the light and the shadow, you can form the same pattern in the shadow despite very different combinations of fingers, hands, and arms. But because of the limits of the human anatomy, there are certain patterns more likely to emerge than others.

    Now imagine we do that in three dimensions. Now (if you can) four, and so on. At some point we can’t imagine these things. Because we have moved beyond what is possible to that which is only analogous to the possible: a set of constant relations in multiple dimensions.

    So economics then can evolve from the study of inputs and outputs without intermediary state which allows prediction, to the study of the consequence of inputs and the range of possible outputs that will likely produce predictability.

    in other words, it is possible to define constant relations in economics.

    And of course it is possible to define constant relations in sentience.

    The same is true for the operations possible by mankind. There are many possible, but there are only so many that produce a condition of natural law: reciprocity.

    Like I’ve said. Math isn’t complicated if you undrestand that it’s nothing more than saying “this stone represents one of our sheep”. And in doing so produce a constant relation. all we do is increase the quantity of constant relations we must measure. And from them deduce what we do not know, but is necessary because of those constant relations.

    Math is simple. That’s why it works for just about everything: we can define a correspondence with anything.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 11:05:00 UTC