Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • OPERATIONALISM MATTERS IN MATHEMATICS: DEMYSTIFYING AND EXPLAINING THE ART OF DE

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160524-mathematicians-bridge-finite-infinite-divide/WHY OPERATIONALISM MATTERS IN MATHEMATICS: DEMYSTIFYING AND EXPLAINING THE ART OF DEDUCTION OF DETERMINISTIC PHENOMENON WITH DECREASTING AMOUTS OF INFORMATION.

    This subject is interesting if for no other reason than mathematical language developed out of a form of mysticism(platonism), and has retained some of those characteristics across over two thousand years.

    The intuitionists failed to create the reformation that would have made these subjects quite simple to understand.

    We have reformed physics from the Aristotelian “first mover” category of language. We have reformed morality to be expressed in economic language. but we have not reformed the language of mathematics, thereby reducing mathematical platonism to operational (existential and computable) axioms.

    If we do so, the discipline of mathematics has evolved as much by eliminating axioms of correspondence (or asserting axioms of non-correspondence), then leaving mathematicians to attempt to find methods of deduction with fewer and fewer properties to work with.

    From this perspective, mathematical reasoning has been an exercise in the exploration of deduction of deterministic systems of correspondence (pairs) using decreasing information because of decreasing axioms (rules) of correspondence.

    Or more simply said, mathematics evolved from the pairing of stones while counting sheep, then giving names to the stones, then positional names to larger quantities of stones. then to sets of stones. Then to ratios of stones. Then space, then time. Then deductions from stones, space, and time.

    So we have merely increased the properties (axioms) and removed the properties (axioms) of correspondence with reality and explored how to perform deductions with more or fewer properties (axioms) of correspondence.

    That we have not reformed the philosophy and language mathematics as we have in other fields is due to the fact that the intuitionists in all fields (Bridgman/physics, Mises in economics, Brouwer/mathematics, and various authors in Psychology) possessed different incentives and different threats to their credibility. Interestingly, psychology has reformed through the use of ‘operationism’, the physical sciences have reformed in large part, economics has not reformed, and mathematics has not. And the answer why is interesting: psychology was under threat of classification as a pseudoscience threatening incomes. Economists currently fight that battle, but the political utility of models plus the extensive time that passes (a generation or more) before policy makes itself visible, provides convenient escape from criticism. Mathematics has not in large part because unlike psychology, economics, or the physical sciences **it’s external consequences are irrelevant**. Meaning that there is no pressure to reform, because mathematicians outside of the sciences have no feedback mechanism to force them to.

    There is nothing magical or mysterious about mathematics. What’s interesting is how we add and subtract properties of reality in order to created models that retain determinism and allow us to perform deductions with decreasing information, about scale independent patterns.

    The only reason it’s even vaguely interesting is because the human mind is so easily overwhelmed with but a few short term memory facts, and a few axis of causality. Almost all mathematical operations (transformations) are determined by the capacity of our minds, and greater minds might not need symbols and operators of similar simplicity in order to see deductions or relations of far greater complexity.

    So, mathematics is trivial really. But if you talk about it in magic words, it’s going to sound magical. When really, it’s just a matter of not being able to sense relations with our mind, the same way we cannot sense distant objects in the heavens with our eyes, the same way we cannot hear distant sounds with our ears or feel subtle vibrations with our feet.

    We use tools of all forms to increase the power of our senses, and mathematics consists of states and operations that humans can operate and sense in complex deterministic models what we cannot sense and perceive without states and operations to assist us.

    The moment you add or remove an axiom (command, or fact) the results are deterministic. The interesting part is only that we are developing the art of deduction for increasingly informationally sparse relations.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-02 05:09:00 UTC

  • ON ASKING FOR CITATIONS (JUSTIFICATIONISM) There is a difference between questio

    ON ASKING FOR CITATIONS (JUSTIFICATIONISM)

    There is a difference between questioning experimental data, and questioning asserted theory.

    We can ask for data for cites – that’s criticism, but we can’t ask for arguments for cites – that’s justificationism.

    Best answer is not to request cites but to offer alternative, more parsimonious hypotheses- what we call criticism, and see if the original argument survives.

    While dishonest people ask for cites in order to create a justificationary rhetorical fallacy, what most honest people mean when they ask for cites is that they want to know more, so that they can judge for themselves.

    My position on these questions is driven empirically: papers are almost always *shit* (always actually), and so the only works worth recommending are books that integrate hypotheses into contextual knowledge.

    I’d get into why that’s true but that would take me a while.

    So, ask for, and supply:

    1) cites for experimental data,

    2) counter argument for theory,

    3) books for understanding.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 03:08:00 UTC

  • Worth repeating. My position in Russia and Russians fills a volume at this point

    Worth repeating.

    My position in Russia and Russians fills a volume at this point. But for sake of newbies I’ll repeat it.

    Russian leadership is correct in preventing the expansion of western neoliberalism.

    My criticisms of the leadership were driven by the use of deception to invade Ukraine, and the adoption of intentional disinformation strategy. Because this division was unnecessary given that Ukraine would have traded territory for discounts in energy suce the dinbas was the source of much of our politics conflict and organised crime.

    And my position was the unification of German finance and technology with Russian resources and labor would produce a common interest that would allow the USA to complete its withdrawal from Europe.

    So my view is that in a fit of conspiratorial panic, Putin blinked and screwed the Russian people out of immediate prosperity, Americans out of exiting empire, and Europe out of salvation from cultural disintegration.

    I view Putin’s failure as the equivalent of the Assassination of duke Archibald – a catastrophic error that set off horrid chains of events.

    I think America if not all Anglo civilisation has been a disaster for the modern world since the 1850s. Everything Anglos have done has been wrong. Idealistic. Utopian. Profiteering under moral pretence.

    A total disaster.

    But that does not mean the Russian people appear capable of self government, creating an advanced economy, or even approaching rule of law. And they certainly shouldn’t be allowed to expand into Europe and cause even more harm to the Eastern Europeans who were terrorised and set back a century by soviet barbarism.

    Nor should we tolerate Russian failure to come to terms with their barbaric history and the falsehoods it is constructed upon.

    At this point in history we understand that Germany was always in the right and that Russia and the Anglosphere were in the wrong. And that German Ascent in support of her people was the best thing that could have happened to Europe.

    That American neocons were too stupid to work hard at incorporating Russia into nato, and Russians (Putin) too stupid to provide a plan and educate these imbeciles is another coincidence of mutual idiocy that’s hard to grasp

    Now at the present time, Putin has abandoned most of his absurd pollution of the informational commons and made positive internal moves taking advantage of nationalism.

    And he persists the conflict in Ukraine despite it having turned Ukraine from split to entirely antagonistic to Russia. But weakness would hurt him and nationalism empowers him so he will force exhaustion to take its course.

    Love this part of the world. I love Russian people and culture. But I dislike a world of deception between white people and I prefer we unify against the only threat we face in this world – Muslim invasions.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-31 14:29:00 UTC

  • The ‘Good’ In Religion Is The Civic Ritual. Not The Content

      There is nothing in the bible that made the church good. They could have read greek legends and done good with them. It’s the ritual that matters, not the content. What the church spread was literacy, and diplomacy, and eventually natural law. The rest was a bucket of catastrophic lies. What’s the difference between the Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, and Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media? Nothing The Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, were invented to defeat the aristocracy using false promises to rally women and proles. Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media were used to defeat aristocracy, by using false promises to rally women and proles.

    Cultural Marxism and Postmodernism are nothing more than an attempt to use secular language as ancients used mysticism: for deceit. The western tradition consists is in heroism, empiricism, the oath (truth and non parasitism), the common judge discovered law, the jury. We have been attacked in our duress (post our european civil war) by the same method that the romans were attacked: invasion, new ‘mysticism’ in the form of pseudoscience. And attacked the same way the byzantines were attacked after their war with the Persians by islam. Christianity ushered in a thousand years of ignorance. Islam has ushered in nearly a thousand, and has no sight of stopping. Is there any greater evil than the false book of Abraham?

  • The ‘Good’ In Religion Is The Civic Ritual. Not The Content

      There is nothing in the bible that made the church good. They could have read greek legends and done good with them. It’s the ritual that matters, not the content. What the church spread was literacy, and diplomacy, and eventually natural law. The rest was a bucket of catastrophic lies. What’s the difference between the Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, and Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media? Nothing The Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, were invented to defeat the aristocracy using false promises to rally women and proles. Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media were used to defeat aristocracy, by using false promises to rally women and proles.

    Cultural Marxism and Postmodernism are nothing more than an attempt to use secular language as ancients used mysticism: for deceit. The western tradition consists is in heroism, empiricism, the oath (truth and non parasitism), the common judge discovered law, the jury. We have been attacked in our duress (post our european civil war) by the same method that the romans were attacked: invasion, new ‘mysticism’ in the form of pseudoscience. And attacked the same way the byzantines were attacked after their war with the Persians by islam. Christianity ushered in a thousand years of ignorance. Islam has ushered in nearly a thousand, and has no sight of stopping. Is there any greater evil than the false book of Abraham?

  • The Failure of Traditionalists

    THE FAILURE OF THE TRADITIONALISTS TO UNDERSTAND OUR OPTIONS. At present we have traditionalists that don’t understand the content of their traditions, only that through mandatory indoctrination and ritual do we behave aristocratically – in the western tradition. The Patriarchy for example, is popular primarily by appeal to traditional (aristocratic) aesthetics. Under the assumption that the church was the originator rather than the recipient and beneficiary of the aristocratic tradition.

    The Traditionalists do the same. But the church is just a temple for the weak side of the aristocracy. It’s not that we don’t need our great temples, and that we don’t need our great artistic achievements, but that My point is not to demean the church or advocate for atheism (individualsm) rather than a civic religion (familialism). Nor is it to deny that commercial empires have been as damaging for western civilization as has been our great wars, and our invasion by christian mysticism. My point is that we can create a civic religion out of truthful content rather than lies. Why? We do not need to appeal to a fantastic utopia that may be the home of false gods. WE MADE THAT UTOPIA EXISTENTIAL BY OUR ANCESTORS ACTIONS. We need no gods. Only heroes. And we have legions of them. COMMENTS
    Monotheistic Religion requires submission and submission is incompatible with sovereignty. And the experience of Liberty requires existential sovereignty.
    I don’t reject natural law. I don’t reject extension of kinship love. I don’t reject prohibition on inbreeding. I don’t reject aristocracy and paternalism. I do reject mysticism. I do reject the great babylonian, egyptian and jewish lies. and most importantly I do reject submission. And furthermore, so does the vast majority of the population. One need not respect or propagate mysticism in order to extend kinship love, reject prohibition on inbreeding, or reject submission. One does need natural law, common law, and civic rituals. No one requires civic rituals that include mysticism. The feeling of spirituality occurs whenever a body of people move, speak, or think in unison. That’s where it comes from: running with the pack. The church as it stands is the enemy of europe and the european peoples. It is not that we do not need a church, nor to to reform the church, it is that the church has failed us since the reformation. And continues to fail us. Why? Because enlightenment and literacy and knowledge make mysticism not only no longer possible, not only unnecessary, but it’s antagonistic to the population. So, how should the church reform?
    John Kersey: Most traditionalists I know also reject the Reformation, being either traditionalist Catholic or Orthodox. The Church did not fail us until it fell victim to secularism. Also, mysticism is not all there is to the church, indeed mysticism has generally been very tightly controlled by the church. Submission is characteristic of some religious beliefs, and is integral to Islam. But it is not the basis of Christianity, which rests not upon compulsion but on a voluntary, free-will relationship between God and man created in His image. That relationship is nothing more than drawing ourselves closer to the essence that made us and that governs and knows our every impulse.
    Curt Doolittle
    Putting aside submission to the will of God, and putting aside the failure to adapt to secularism (science)… Then if you cut all the nonsense out of Christianity what would you teach from the pulpit. My view is that the church can teach from its history without the need for superstition. The catholic encyclopaedia is a pretty good canon.

  • The Failure of Traditionalists

    THE FAILURE OF THE TRADITIONALISTS TO UNDERSTAND OUR OPTIONS. At present we have traditionalists that don’t understand the content of their traditions, only that through mandatory indoctrination and ritual do we behave aristocratically – in the western tradition. The Patriarchy for example, is popular primarily by appeal to traditional (aristocratic) aesthetics. Under the assumption that the church was the originator rather than the recipient and beneficiary of the aristocratic tradition.

    The Traditionalists do the same. But the church is just a temple for the weak side of the aristocracy. It’s not that we don’t need our great temples, and that we don’t need our great artistic achievements, but that My point is not to demean the church or advocate for atheism (individualsm) rather than a civic religion (familialism). Nor is it to deny that commercial empires have been as damaging for western civilization as has been our great wars, and our invasion by christian mysticism. My point is that we can create a civic religion out of truthful content rather than lies. Why? We do not need to appeal to a fantastic utopia that may be the home of false gods. WE MADE THAT UTOPIA EXISTENTIAL BY OUR ANCESTORS ACTIONS. We need no gods. Only heroes. And we have legions of them. COMMENTS
    Monotheistic Religion requires submission and submission is incompatible with sovereignty. And the experience of Liberty requires existential sovereignty.
    I don’t reject natural law. I don’t reject extension of kinship love. I don’t reject prohibition on inbreeding. I don’t reject aristocracy and paternalism. I do reject mysticism. I do reject the great babylonian, egyptian and jewish lies. and most importantly I do reject submission. And furthermore, so does the vast majority of the population. One need not respect or propagate mysticism in order to extend kinship love, reject prohibition on inbreeding, or reject submission. One does need natural law, common law, and civic rituals. No one requires civic rituals that include mysticism. The feeling of spirituality occurs whenever a body of people move, speak, or think in unison. That’s where it comes from: running with the pack. The church as it stands is the enemy of europe and the european peoples. It is not that we do not need a church, nor to to reform the church, it is that the church has failed us since the reformation. And continues to fail us. Why? Because enlightenment and literacy and knowledge make mysticism not only no longer possible, not only unnecessary, but it’s antagonistic to the population. So, how should the church reform?
    John Kersey: Most traditionalists I know also reject the Reformation, being either traditionalist Catholic or Orthodox. The Church did not fail us until it fell victim to secularism. Also, mysticism is not all there is to the church, indeed mysticism has generally been very tightly controlled by the church. Submission is characteristic of some religious beliefs, and is integral to Islam. But it is not the basis of Christianity, which rests not upon compulsion but on a voluntary, free-will relationship between God and man created in His image. That relationship is nothing more than drawing ourselves closer to the essence that made us and that governs and knows our every impulse.
    Curt Doolittle
    Putting aside submission to the will of God, and putting aside the failure to adapt to secularism (science)… Then if you cut all the nonsense out of Christianity what would you teach from the pulpit. My view is that the church can teach from its history without the need for superstition. The catholic encyclopaedia is a pretty good canon.

  • REGARDING PUTIN AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH I get it. I also get the significance of

    REGARDING PUTIN AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH

    I get it. I also get the significance of pervasive corruption, the near absence of rule of law, the constructivist use of the absence of rule of law to steal companies and assets from their producers, the inability of the state to construct an advanced, productive economy, and the extensive poverty of the majority of the Russian population.

    We would like it we could return to kings, and the unity of church (proletarians) burghers (merchants and craftsmen), and nobility(military).

    We can do that.

    But the way it must be done is to use violence to create rule of law. Not violence to create corruption.

    THE SECRET TO OUR SUCCESS WAS THE LAW

    Natural law governed a powerless working class, a fruitful population of burghers (merchants), a weak but wealthy and landed church, and powerful but small monarchies.

    I am all for authority to impose rule of law. I am all for athority to defend the tribe, nation, and territory. But I am not all for authority to violate the natural law, nor to render western achievement back into the dark ages from whence Russia has barely climbed. Because like arabs they run on oil, not economies. Because economies require trust and the minimization of corruption.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 09:22:00 UTC

  • JONES AND JOHN MACAFEE. ITS NOT THE REPUBLICANS THAT ARE TAKING OVER THE LIBERTA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icfiOdFcmUsALEX JONES AND JOHN MACAFEE. ITS NOT THE REPUBLICANS THAT ARE TAKING OVER THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY – ITS THE TRADITIONAL RIGHT

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icfiOdFcmUs

    —–

    Dear ALEX and JOHN:

    Republicans taking over the Libertarian Party? No.

    The New Right, which unifies classical liberal libertarians, classical liberal conservatives, and Traditionalists is taking over the Republican and Libertarian parties, and absorbing the white middle class from the Democratic party. It is an emerging party of traditional norms.

    What you see is the libertine libertarians (a demonstrably marginal group) being abandoned by the emerging New Right consensus.

    Why? Because the ‘libertine libertarian’ project has been a demonstrated failure. And because ‘movement conservatism’ has been a demonstrated failure.

    Liberty CAN ONLY BE obtained by and held by the organized application of violence in order to enforce rule of law, under natural law – the law of property and sovereignty over it.

    But the libertine/libertarian program sought to avoid the payment for construction of normative institutional, and formal commons – and not to obtain liberty. It was a theory of inverted communism in where all property is a common – but instead desiring that no property is common. But the problem is, the west achieved liberty through the construction of commons: truth telling, jury, Judge, Natural Law, Universal Standing, Rule of Law, Common Judge Discovered Law, Martial Service, the Civic Commons (voluntary).

    So libertine libertarianism is a failed, and dead strategy. Just as dead as movement conservatism, neo-conservatism, neo-liberalism. The mixed economy is necessary to compete against other economies given demographic and geographic and institutional differences between groups. Commons are necessary since rule of law and private property and a condition of liberty are produced as commons.

    All organizations are formed to pursue a strategy in the interest of members. All organizations grow to the point where the rents sought by members leave the organization unable to produce new incentives in response to significant change, or shocks.

    Our nation has experience the accumulation of changes and shocks caused by the attempt of the 20th century public intellectuals to assume that they could abandon hard money, rule of law, intergenerational lending, and the nuclear family, while at the same time importing vast numbers of the underclass at a time when marginal differences in productivity held by the west for 500 years are no longer a normative, institutional, and physical asset.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    ( PS: Yes, Gary is a nice man. He is also a weak man. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-29 04:30:00 UTC

  • THE FAILURE OF THE TRADITIONALISTS TO UNDERSTAND OUR OPTIONS. At present we have

    THE FAILURE OF THE TRADITIONALISTS TO UNDERSTAND OUR OPTIONS.

    At present we have traditionalists that don’t understand the content of their traditions, only that through mandatory indoctrination and ritual do we behave aristocratically – in the western tradition.

    The Patriarchy for example, is popular primarily by appeal to traditional (aristocratic) aesthetics. Under the assumption that the church was the originator rather than the recipient and beneficiary of the aristocratic tradition.

    The Traditionalists do the same. But the church is just a temple for the weak side of the aristocracy. It’s not that we don’t need our great temples, and that we don’t need our great artistic achievements, but that

    My point is not to demean the church or advocate for atheism (individualsm) rather than a civic religion (familialism). Nor is it to deny that commercial empires have been as damaging for western civilization as has been our great wars, and our invasion by christian mysticism.

    My point is that we can create a civic religion out of truthful content rather than lies. Why? We do not need to appeal to a fantastic utopia that may be the home of false gods.

    WE MADE THAT UTOPIA EXISTENTIAL BY OUR ANCESTORS ACTIONS.

    We need no gods. Only heroes. And we have legions of them.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-28 03:25:00 UTC