Curt Doolittle

Form: Sketch

  • Strictly Constructed Law And Contract

    It’s not that different from programming, which any reasonably intelligent lawyer that can program a bit will readily observe. The Structure of a Program or Contract ———————————————————— Purpose (Whereas these conditions exist) Return Value (and whereas we wish to produce these ends) Constants and Variables (definitions constructed) Objects (constructions from base types / “first principles”) Libraries and Includes ( we refer to these libraries, objects, definitions) Functions (clauses that can be performed) Event Listeners ( criteria that invokes clauses) Operations (assignments of value, comparisons of value) Termination (termination conditions – no infinite loops)
    The only thing preventing law from strict construction was the definition of the first principle from which all constants, variables, objects, operations, and functions are derived: 1 – Productive 2 – Fully informed 3 – Warrantied 4 – Voluntary Exchange 5 – Constrained to externality of the same criteria. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • EQUATION / LAW, PROOF / ALGORITHM, JUSTIFICATION / THEORY It’s interesting. A PR

    EQUATION / LAW, PROOF / ALGORITHM, JUSTIFICATION / THEORY

    It’s interesting.

    A PROOF(deduction) and an ALGORITHM(construction) are approximately equal processes, with the algorithm greater in informational content.

    And that an EQUATION(description) and a THEORETICAL-LAW(description) are approximately equal processes.

    Everything that can be described in mathematical language can be described in ordinary language. Everything that can be described in ordinary language cannot be described in mathematical language.

    Everything that can be described in justificationary language can be described in theoretical language with greater exclusion. Everything that can be explained in theoretical language cannot be explained in justificationary language.

    Everything that can be described in operational language can be described in allegorical language. Everything that can be described in allegorical language cannot be described in operational language.

    All of this means something very profound that I am still trying to put into words.

    (I am also trying to narrow in on the cause of our natural justificationism, and I am getting very close now. Taleb inspired me to try to answer what he intuits but can’t explain.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-29 07:30:00 UTC

  • I don’t really know myself what macro problems I intuit need solving. But here i

    I don’t really know myself what macro problems I intuit need solving. But here is some clarity on categorical consistency.

    As you probably know, I see the problem of ignorance error bias and deception as one of laundering information by exposing unknowns, and prohibiting the obscurantism of ignorance by loading, framing, substitution, suggestion, switching existential point of view, and switching argumentative method.

    While any of these techniques may be used to convey meaning they cannot be used for argument and deduction with the same veracity as consistency in argumentative method under the existential point of view, moral, categorical, logical, empirical, and scope consistency.

    Yet the montage most people argue with consists of precisely these conflations.

    Why? Because we removed grammar, logic, and rhetoric and we failed to add economics – incentives and cost – to the educational system.

    Not just because teachers would have trouble teaching. But because students would stop buying the pseudoscientific messages.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 03:08:00 UTC

  • WE HAD EPISTEMOLOGY BACKWARD Instances of Deduction(informationally sufficient)

    WE HAD EPISTEMOLOGY BACKWARD

    Instances of Deduction(informationally sufficient) like instances of Apriorism(survives non-contradiction) occur only as a special case of hypothesizing. And hypotheses occur as a special case of overlapping ‘search results’ (free association). Once we identify a possible search result we criticize it by trying first to justify it (find a potential route to it), and then try to refine that route (test it). This act of refining sometimes results in questionable, sometimes in reasonable, sometimes rational, sometimes in logical, and sometimes in mathematical justifications (potential routes).

    There is but one universal method and it consists of:

    Free association > Pattern

    Wayfinding mental criticism > Hypothesis,

    Experimental criticism > Theory,

    Practical criticism > Law

    Perfect Parsimony > Name

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-20 04:34:00 UTC

  • True Names

    TRUE NAMES (notes to self for current line of thought) —“Any sufficiently true property of the universe appears to the trained eye as a model rather than reality.”—Jonathan Page Constancy and determinism and true names. True = True Name. True name is “invariant”. If we pass the tests of dimensional consistency that I suggest with the 6/7 model, then it is very hard to say we do not have a true name. We can test the dimensions of the universe with mathematics. We can test the dimensions of cooperation with various forms of reason. But I am not sure that either in mathematics, or in reason, that once we surpass a certain (small) number of dimensions, that we are in-fact talking about a property of the universe, or whether we have entered the realm of models alone. There is possibly no limit to the manifold RELATIONS that we can model using dimensions to track those relations. I mean, this is what I suggest is a superior method of constructing artificial intelligences for very, very, fast searches. I suspect this is the long term answer to post-human intelligences. I kind of doubt that anything could touch it. And in this sense, mathematical searching *WILL* surpass proceduralism. What I am unsure about is whether we are describing the universe then, or whether we are describing a model constrained by the properties of the universe.

  • True Names

    TRUE NAMES (notes to self for current line of thought) —“Any sufficiently true property of the universe appears to the trained eye as a model rather than reality.”—Jonathan Page Constancy and determinism and true names. True = True Name. True name is “invariant”. If we pass the tests of dimensional consistency that I suggest with the 6/7 model, then it is very hard to say we do not have a true name. We can test the dimensions of the universe with mathematics. We can test the dimensions of cooperation with various forms of reason. But I am not sure that either in mathematics, or in reason, that once we surpass a certain (small) number of dimensions, that we are in-fact talking about a property of the universe, or whether we have entered the realm of models alone. There is possibly no limit to the manifold RELATIONS that we can model using dimensions to track those relations. I mean, this is what I suggest is a superior method of constructing artificial intelligences for very, very, fast searches. I suspect this is the long term answer to post-human intelligences. I kind of doubt that anything could touch it. And in this sense, mathematical searching *WILL* surpass proceduralism. What I am unsure about is whether we are describing the universe then, or whether we are describing a model constrained by the properties of the universe.

  • Note to self:

    Epistemology  Promise  Narrative  Information is the model  History of allegorical models  Supply demand is the model. 

  • Note to self:

    Epistemology  Promise  Narrative  Information is the model  History of allegorical models  Supply demand is the model. 

  • Graphing Societies By Neuroticism and Individualism

    Once we evolved sentience we required a fanciful positive incentive in order to deal with the fact that the universe is hostile to us, does not care about us, and will exterminate us in a heartbeat if we cease the struggle. And that our collective consciousnesses in each tribe constitute the god we speak to so that together we maintain the illusion that there is some ‘hope’ for us. So some cultures look to the past(china, japan), some to the future(the west), and some to fantasy (Islam, Christianity, but most certainly Hinduism), and some to the rejection of reality altogether (Buddhism). That describes all possible extremes of present-avoidance available to man. I did not say that spirituality provided what is good for man. In fact, other than Stoicism, I think all cults in history are as destructive in some sense while constructive in another (But why does Christianity create prosperity?) But they all provide the same escape from stresses in the present through membership in a virtual ‘pack’ or ‘herd’ that we can appeal to through direct subjective introspection of the patterns in that system of thought. All of which is largely an external consequence of sentience without the ‘internet’ equivalent of constant communication from mind to mind that seems to occur between pack and herd animals. Individual thought comes at a high price. As an aside: stress is created by what psychologists call ‘neuroticism’. So some personalities feel this need greatly, and some personalities feel it very little. If we combine this with intelligence, we see some people have a trust issue because of dunning Kruger effects (they cannot tell whether someone lies or not). So if we combine intelligence vs neuroticism we get a pretty obvious way of graphing different populations and societies.Westerners have higher creativity, and this seems to be correlated with the fact that we have higher neuroticism. It may be that either higher demand for individualism produces higher neuroticism or the inverse.

  • Graphing Societies By Neuroticism and Individualism

    Once we evolved sentience we required a fanciful positive incentive in order to deal with the fact that the universe is hostile to us, does not care about us, and will exterminate us in a heartbeat if we cease the struggle. And that our collective consciousnesses in each tribe constitute the god we speak to so that together we maintain the illusion that there is some ‘hope’ for us. So some cultures look to the past(china, japan), some to the future(the west), and some to fantasy (Islam, Christianity, but most certainly Hinduism), and some to the rejection of reality altogether (Buddhism). That describes all possible extremes of present-avoidance available to man. I did not say that spirituality provided what is good for man. In fact, other than Stoicism, I think all cults in history are as destructive in some sense while constructive in another (But why does Christianity create prosperity?) But they all provide the same escape from stresses in the present through membership in a virtual ‘pack’ or ‘herd’ that we can appeal to through direct subjective introspection of the patterns in that system of thought. All of which is largely an external consequence of sentience without the ‘internet’ equivalent of constant communication from mind to mind that seems to occur between pack and herd animals. Individual thought comes at a high price. As an aside: stress is created by what psychologists call ‘neuroticism’. So some personalities feel this need greatly, and some personalities feel it very little. If we combine this with intelligence, we see some people have a trust issue because of dunning Kruger effects (they cannot tell whether someone lies or not). So if we combine intelligence vs neuroticism we get a pretty obvious way of graphing different populations and societies.Westerners have higher creativity, and this seems to be correlated with the fact that we have higher neuroticism. It may be that either higher demand for individualism produces higher neuroticism or the inverse.