Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • MARKETS SERVE THE DEMANDS OF COMPLEXITY by Jim Leis So as a very simple example,

    MARKETS SERVE THE DEMANDS OF COMPLEXITY

    by Jim Leis

    So as a very simple example, complexity structurally demands trial. And also innately breaks up large populations in preference for smaller ones; large ant hills and wolf packs split at certain sizes. Actually, complexity demands it.

    So, on a very base level, globalism is too hierarchical and statist for complexity. Globalism, socialism, communism, will never work because it drives complexity out of a society. Which will kill it.

    Put another way, a king’s power is in upholding the rule of law. If he amasses too much power, regulating business, property, etc., he relegates his fellow citizens to robots and kills complexity, and then kills society.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 10:05:00 UTC

  • ABRAHAMISM: THE RELIGIONS OF THE ENEMY. by Alex Macleod –“You cannot have an en

    ABRAHAMISM: THE RELIGIONS OF THE ENEMY.

    by Alex Macleod

    –“You cannot have an enemy be the core of your culture.”–

    To put it very simplistically isn’t that what Judaism (goyim), Mohamedism (unbelievers) and Christianity (the devil) have?

    (Curt: Exactly. The abrahamic religions are the semitic pastoralist revolt against the agrarian metal workers. Thus explains the invention of organized religion as a resistance movement against transcendence [property].)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 10:01:00 UTC

  • TALEB AND DOOLITTLE (worth repeating) And Taleb is the counter to Keynesian Prob

    TALEB AND DOOLITTLE

    (worth repeating)

    And Taleb is the counter to Keynesian Probabilism, the same way I am counter to Marxist, Boasian, Freudian, Frankfurt School, Postmodern pseudoscience and pseudo-rationalism. And there are very few of us working on ending the 19th-20th century’s experiment with ‘new mysticism’.

    Taleb = truth in probability. (anti-innumeracy – numbers )

    Doolittle = Truth is testimony. (anti-fictionalism – words )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 09:56:00 UTC

  • ANY SUFFICIENTLY COMPLEX THEORY WILL BE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC —“Most pe

    ANY SUFFICIENTLY COMPLEX THEORY WILL BE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC

    —“Most people won’t understand the basis for [the Propertarian] legal theory, and it will need explanation in mythological terms. To the people who require this form of explanation it will essentially be a religion.”– Eric Orwoll

    You know, sometimes you just need someone to reframe it for you. Thanks Eric. That’s smart.

    You could ahve told me that three years ago and saved me six months… lol

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 09:32:00 UTC

  • “Complexity is not nature’s favorite form; it’s nature’s only form.”—Jim Leis

    —“Complexity is not nature’s favorite form; it’s nature’s only form.”—Jim Leis

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 09:29:00 UTC

  • THE PROCESS OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT by Bill Joslin So the process of cognitive

    THE PROCESS OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT

    by Bill Joslin

    So the process of cognitive development and concept creation would follow this spectrum.

    1) Analogistic : abductive, fictional, imaginary, free association, imaginable – hypothesis creation.

    2) Theoretical – inductive, narrative, possible, hypothesis development

    3) Axiomatic – deductive, descriptive, deterministic, testable, probable, provable law proposal

    4) Operational – descriptive, directive, decidable, actionable, warrant able, testable, falsifiable – creation(discovery) of law

    A (spectrum) process of constant disambiguation leading to more effective action (increases in agency) – which is why some may get stuck at one position and then assert each as separate discrete entities which are opposed to each other (a type of cherry picking) versus steps toward disambiguation

    (I think you did it Bill Joslin …. damn!) 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 09:27:00 UTC

  • TRUMP LOOKS FOR AND USES POSTURING TO DRIVE OPPONENTS INTO “FAIR DEALS”. If you

    TRUMP LOOKS FOR AND USES POSTURING TO DRIVE OPPONENTS INTO “FAIR DEALS”.

    If you posture or virtue signal, Trump will humiliate you for it. Trump takes posturing off the table. He is a master of it. And his response is always the same: “lets just do a fair deal”. This is a variation on “The Last Moral Man” negotiating tactic. This strategy is almost impossible to defeat. Which is one of the reasons it’s helpful to have a larger number of people involved in any negotiation – so that people posture themselves into traps, which you can then use against them.

    (I know because I do the same damned thing)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 09:23:00 UTC

  • A LITTLE DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE LUDIC FALLACY AND WHY I RARELY USE ANY VARI

    A LITTLE DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE LUDIC FALLACY AND WHY I RARELY USE ANY VARIATION ON “PROBABLE”.

    The Ludic Fallacy consists in the error that probability can be calculated on unclosed systems, whereas outliers are of greater influence on consequences that change state than are regularities that maintain state.

    In other words, there are very few conditions under which dice are a model for probability, and the ratio of influence (change) is a log of the tail. Dice are closed systems. There are no outliers. Whereas in all other categories (real world) we are almost always measuring variations in a norm, not possible outliers – which although rare, are far more influential than the regularities we measure. In other words, we get what we measure but what we measure is largely unimportant, because it’s obvious and not influential. What we don’t measure is that which is not obvious and rare, but influential.

    When we predict the future we depend upon regularities. but if regularities exist then there is no profit to be made. it is from outliers that profits are made.

    This is a via negativa strategy, just as is falsification.

    Or stated otherwise, the unimaginable and improbable is more influential than the imaginable and probable.

    This is – reductio version – the whole point of Taleb’s work.

    And Taleb is, even if he doesn’t succeed, the counter to Keynesian Probabilism, the same way I am counter to Marxist pseudoscience.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 09:21:00 UTC

  • (humor) Q: What’s the difference between Derrida and his critics? A: Derrida say

    (humor)

    Q: What’s the difference between Derrida and his critics?

    A: Derrida says there is nothing outside the text. His critics say there is nothing inside his texts either.

    Q: What’s the difference between Heidegger and Carnap?

    A: Heidegger believed that his writings contain thoughts about Nothing, whereas Carnap believed that they contain thoughts about nothing.

    Q: What’s the difference between Heidegger, Sartre and Foucault?

    A: It’s just narcissism of small differences. All of them extolled the value of freedom (in theory), but in practice they all fell in love with various forms of totalitarianism. Heidegger supported Hitler, Sartre supported Stalin, and Foucault supported Khomeini.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 09:11:00 UTC

  • REGULATION CORRESPONDS TO ALL OTHER REGULATION: FEAR OF CORRUPTION AND FRAUD DRI

    https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=675084119021000008105023125118069122024006056079005030120082087022112105009097072123124060121106033007109026005122102031064113107006090023002100029123106099097011040043080069105097094023119094121092126007117028010000096013066030095076126076013106021&EXT=pdfhttps://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=675084119021000008105023125118069122024006056079005030120082087022112105009097072123124060121106033007109026005122102031064113107006090023002100029123106099097011040043080069105097094023119094121092126007117028010000096013066030095076126076013106021&EXT=pdfLANGUAGE REGULATION CORRESPONDS TO ALL OTHER REGULATION: FEAR OF CORRUPTION AND FRAUD DRIVES REGULATION.

    James Santagata just shared an excellent paper, which illustrates the relationship between common law and continental law, language regulation, and economic regulation.

    Well, the conclusions should be pretty obvious (prior restraint vs post resolution) and that all countries pay a trade off between the utility of some regulation to prevent frauds of all sorts, lots of regulation to prevent malinvestment or tax evasion, and post-hoc litigation to encourage experimentation.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 09:09:00 UTC