Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • GOOD EXAMPLE (GODEL, CHOMSKY) —“Not quite, as Godel presented a mathematical m

    GOOD EXAMPLE (GODEL, CHOMSKY)

    —“Not quite, as Godel presented a mathematical model of this phenomenon. You cannot reduce this to mere positivistic linguistics. On which point, are you not assuming Chomsky’s universal grammar with your definition of grammar? If so, this has been shown to be unempirical.”—

    I didn’t say anything like that. I’m saying that he’s correct.

    I haven’t met anyone other than the author of the best book on the subject that understands the limit of Godel’s argument:

    (a) we identify new constant relations (experiences)

    (b) we invent new references

    (c) we invent new paradigms

    (d) we require grammars to talk about them

    (e) we can make ungrammatical statements.

    Godel said it. Turing said it. Kripke said it.

    So there is no closure to logic without appeal to the operational, empirical, limits and completeness, and even then there is only closure on falsification not justification.

    THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE IN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY:

    There is nothing positivistic in P. It’s purely falsificationary. Either it survives adversarial competition by the terms stated in testimonialism or it doesn’t. If more than one does, then we just don’t know and nothing else can be said.

    In general, i have found that the first and most significant hurdle that people have trouble with – at least those not educated in the sciences – is that all propositions are contingent and all truth propositions are achieved by falsification. And P articulates the METHOD for universal falsification.

    ====

    Afterward: Chomsky was trying to bring Turing to language. His original paper is simply pulling Turing into language. Chomsky’s contribution – from my understanding – is correctly stating that:

    (a) the brain produces experience by continuous recursive disambiguation.

    (b) linguistic thought consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation.

    (c) grammar regardless of language consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation.

    (d) language serves as a system of measurement for thought – albeit we use many different paradigms (metaphysics) within each human language, and these paradigms vary according to the correspondent vs the three non-correspondent (fictionalisms).

    (e) there appear to be higher demands on cognition for higher levels of thought. And we should expect aliens if there are any to use simpler or more complex grammatical structures given their abilities.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 14:17:00 UTC

  • “I agree with a good deal what you say. But none of this is particularly new. Pr

    —“I agree with a good deal what you say. But none of this is particularly new. Propertarianism is a sort of restatement of English Common Law combined with modern Economics 101. Economics tells us that the proper role of the state is to prevent/punish externalities. English Common Law developed over centuries – albeit in a groping-in-the-dark sort of way – precisely to prevent/punish externalities even though the theory of externalities wasn’t fully understood until last century. Propertarianism seems to me to be basically true because Economics 101 is theoretically elegant as the English Common Law is empirically robust. All I’m saying is that I fail to see anything innovative in Propertarianism. What theoretical advance does Propertarianism assert for itself?”—Calixto Muni

    Formal operational logic, extension of commercial suppression of hazard to political speech, ending baiting into hazard, and rent seeking, and undermining of the natural law. For example, how do you test Truthful speech in court? What is the test of tort (reciprocity)? How can we prevent redefinition of legal terms that are insufficiently defined in order to circumvent the law’s dependence upon them. How can we strictly construct law closed to interpretation? How do we return undecidable cases to the legislature? How do we stop the legislature from constructing unconstitutional law before inserting it into the polity? Was via negativa constitutional monarchy really worse or better? Why do we need multiple houses for the classes instead of single house parliaments. Why has democracy failed, and where did we go wrong? What was the west’s group evolutionary strategy and why was it different from other civilizations, and why did it produced outsized responses? How do we stop another overthrow of our civlization through the abrahamic technique of undermining by false promise of escape from physical and natural law in exchange for undermining host polities and creating dark ages – this time with boasian anthropology, freudian psychology, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism – the use of pseudoscience and sophism to undermine our market for cooperation between the classses at the cost of suppressing the reproduction of the underclasses, so that we can devote surpluses from those savings to the production of increasingly productive high trust commons?

    How do we reform the polity given what we’ve learned in the past century and a half (almost two)? The economic reforms will restore the family and the middle classes. The legal reforms will prevent future conquest of our peoples. The intellectual reforms will crush the academic-media-entertainment propaganda system of organized undermining of our people. The scientific reforms will end the incompatibility of the disciplines.

    You’re seeing correctly, that we restore common law, add the lessons of economics, and the lessons of the experiments with an open franchise government. What you’re not seeing is the completion of the construction of a constitution of formal natural law. You’re not seeing is the completion of the Aristotelian program, the end of the left’s second attempted dark age, and the renaissance that *must* result from the completion of the sciences by extension from the physical to the metaphysical (linguisic), psychological, and sociological, so that it is no longer possible to lie about the universe man and how we survive and evolve while in a condition of excellence.

    P is a huge program. This is why it takes someone like john to explain it.

    I built it for intellectuals who must rule and defend against ill rule.

    John takes it to ordinary people who desire good rule, and avoid ill rule.

    And those who cannot grasp either, must follow only because of the material benefits that will be the greatest restoration of the middle since the roman reforms.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 14:02:00 UTC

  • (Link to bill’s videos pls. Can’t find them.)

    (Link to bill’s videos pls. Can’t find them.)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 13:44:00 UTC

  • WHY LOSS OF T? Sedentary Living. Not lifting heavy things. Not competing with me

    WHY LOSS OF T?

    Sedentary Living.

    Not lifting heavy things.

    Not competing with men.

    Too much light, tv, monitor, not enough sleep.

    Probably … estrogens everywhere.

    —

    (edit: By light, I didn’t mean sunlight (which is good), I meant, “Not getting enough sleep, because of tv, computer, etc”)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 13:42:00 UTC

  • RUSSELL’ S PARADOX ISNT. Russell’s Paradox (a version of the liar’s paradox), is

    RUSSELL’ S PARADOX ISNT.

    Russell’s Paradox (a version of the liar’s paradox), is not a paradox, it’s an ill formed statement (Grammatical error) because it failed the test of continuously recursive ambiguity – which is what ‘grammar’ means: rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. Nearly all seemingly challenging philosophical questions play on some variation of the verb to be. In the case of the liar’s paradox in all its forms, it’s not a paradox it’s constructed ambiguity. Words don’t mean things. People mean things. They use language well or not well to state their meaning – or their deceit.

    A number is the name of a position, and beyond the base (glyphs) we use ‘Positional Naming’. We can name anything we choose with a position in an order just like we can name anything else. All that matters is that we all rely on the same names in the same order. Numbers exist as names. That’s it. Nothing else.

    Mathematics is ill-grounded (vulnerable to grammatical errors) because of sets (platonic, ideal, verbal) rather than operations (gears and geometry). If you explain all mathematics using positional names, gears, and geometry (as it was invented) you do not expose yourself to grammatical errors.

    The same is true of philosophical (verbal) statements. If you state all statements as promises, in operational prose, in complete sentences, without the ‘cheat’ (or lie) of the verb to be, you will have a very difficult time make grammatical errors.

    So the entire analytic program (sets) was a failure. So was the attempt to discover a via-positiva scientific method. This is because all epistemology is falsificationary and adversarial, with surviving truth propositions competing in networks of paradigms themselves in falsificationary and adversarial competition.

    Most of philosophy is little more than sophistry. (really)

    Everything that isn’t sophistry is in the domain of science including that science we call ‘grammar’.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 13:39:00 UTC

  • SORRY BUT SCIENCE SOLVED MORALITY – MORALITY IS CLOSED,. —“so yes, science can

    SORRY BUT SCIENCE SOLVED MORALITY – MORALITY IS CLOSED,.

    —“so yes, science can tell us what is but not what we ought to do.”—

    This is a justificationary position (sophism).

    |Decidability| = That which is not irreciprocal or false (negatively consequential) -> Value (personal strategy -> Positively Consequential) -> Preference (Inconsequential)

    Science (law) tells us what we may not do (irreciprocity) – that which is unethical, and immoral. Anything that is not unethical and immoral is merely a PREFERENCE to be settled in the market competition for means and ends.

    What we ‘ought’ to do is anything we CAN organize voluntarily TO DO that which is not false or irreciprocal.

    Even so, we can just as equally test positive moral claims by the investments that you make, the externalities caused, and desired outcomes produced.

    All truth propositions are falsificationary.

    All moral claims are merely claims that one acts not immorally.

    All moral propositions, means, and outcomes are testable by reciprocity.

    All moral propositions are open to triangulation of the returns on investments (compare by ordinality if not cardinality).

    All moral propositions are decidable by adversarial competition in markets for voluntary production of moral outcomes, given scarcity and competition for means and outcomes.

    All markets produce empirical results, and as such are scientific. All epistemological questions are the result of falsification by adversarial competition. All moral questions are epistemological questions.

    All not-evil-immoral-unethical propositions are amoral, ethical, or good, depending upon the means of organizing their production, the structure of their production, and the returns on that production.

    We can make a claim to means, externalities, or ends, or all three. We can measure the claim, the means, the ends – all three, and do so scientifically.

    There is nothing in metaphysics, language, psychology, or sociology that cannot be expressed scientifically in these terms.

    That is a purely scientific statement. Conversely you cannot deny or falsify this statement.

    Period.

    If you don’t use these terms one can claim ignorance, on can claim expediency(cost), but one cannot claim anything else.

    As far as I know, The question of Morality is closed.

    You can try to create test after test but you will find no test that fails this test.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 12:36:00 UTC

  • Michael Bloomberg and George Soros “Conspiracy to violate the Constitution of th

    Michael Bloomberg and George Soros “Conspiracy to violate the Constitution of the United States”

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 12:10:00 UTC

  • Red flag law will be thrown out by the supreme court. We just need to get a case

    Red flag law will be thrown out by the supreme court. We just need to get a case to the court. That will happen. However, I think we are going to have either a revolution or civil war start before that happens.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 12:09:00 UTC

  • THE NATURAL LAW OF EUROPEAN PEOPLE IN MOST REDUCTIVE FORM (getting close to most

    THE NATURAL LAW OF EUROPEAN PEOPLE IN MOST REDUCTIVE FORM

    (getting close to most reductive and complete form)

    SOVEREIGNTY REQUIRES RECIPROCITY

    Reciprocity in Nature: …cooperation and consciousness ( … )

    Reciprocity in Deed(Actions): Due Diligence in tests of productive, fully informed[6], voluntary transfer[7] of demonstrated interests[2] within the limits of proportionality[4], free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality[8]; and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability[5].

    Reciprocity in Word(Speech): Due Diligence in categorical and internal consistency within the limits of human faculties; operationally possible within the limits of human abilities, empirically correspondent within the limits of realism, naturalism and operationalism, rational within the limits of bounded rationality[1], reciprocal in rational choice, and fully accounted within stated limits.

    If you cannot pass those tests you cannot claim to engage in reciprocity in display, word, or deed. If you cannot engage in reciprocity you are either ignorant or ir-reciprocal. Even if you are ignorant, once informed, and continue you are ir-reciprocal.

    DECIDABILITY

    We may boycott(separate) if not a threat, cooperate(cohabitate) if we can, or prey(war) upon one another if we must.

    Since all irreciprocity constitutes free riding, parasitism, or predation, the only reason to let another individual or group exist, is reciprocity – all others are not only enemies, but devolutionary, and prohibiting the transcendence of man into the gods we imagined.

    This is the Natural Law.

    EUROPEAN GROUP STRATEGY:

    An Entrepreneurial Militia,

    Using Technology, Adaptability, Maneuver, and Speed

    Under Contractual Warfare, Oath, Duty, Loyalty

    Status in exchange for Heroism, Wealth, Excellence, Beauty

    With Differences adjudicated by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth,

    Under Natural Law of Reciprocity, Jury, Thang or Senate, King as judge of last resort.

    Leaving only survival in markets for everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polity, defense, and war.

    Causing suppression of the reproduction of the less able, and the devotion of the savings in surplus to the production of commons, and the disproportionate returns on the commons.

    And devoting high investment to the raising of our offspring to produce and defend the commons.

    (…)

    Transcendence of man into gods the gods we imagined.

    THE LAW OF OPTIMUM POLITIES

    A Power distribution of the Natural law(Suppression of Parasitism); A Pareto Distribution of Assets (organize voluntary production); A Nash Distribution of Rewards

    (Market Income); An Egalitarian Distribution of Commons (Earnings); At the cost of A Suppression of Reproduction of the Demonstrated Underclasses (Eugenics); Equal Distribution of Defense of all of the above. And Zero Tolerance for Violation of any of the above (Intolerance).

    EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION

    The history of western civilization consists of the incremental suppression of parasitism from all walks of life by use of the west’s unique, empirical, common, judge discovered natural law. Western Man domesticated himself just as he had plants and animals before. And both our aristocracy our people profited from the process. But, man was not exploited — he was domesticated from a animal to a human through generations of cultural selection pressure and aggressive culling of malcontents and free riders.

    OPTIMUM HUMAN ORDER

    There is no more coherent or successful nor possibly superior means for humans to evolve into the gods we imagine, with each generation living in the optimum conditions while doing so.

    ENFORCEMENT

    “So perhaps you don’t understand. This isn’t a negotiation. This isn’t a compromise. These are demands. We will restore our sovereignty, and leave you in peace, or we will conquer, enslave, or kill you – and all like you – until your consent is no longer required.“

    ===

    Definitions:

    1. Bounded Rationality: man is not omniscient, omnipotent, or free or error, and seeks practical action in satisfaction of wants within his limits rather than optimums.

    2. Demonstrated Interest: man demonstrates continuous consumption, acquisition, preservation. Anything man demonstrates an interest in consuming, acquiring, preserving, whether by action or refraining from action, constitutes a demonstrated interest. In P law we categories demonstrated interest as Property-in-toto when referring to individuals or Capital-in-toto when referring to commons and we enumerate all categories of both under the definition of property-in-toto.

    3. Operational, Operationalism: possible to perform and speak of performing, a sequence of subjectively testable human actions. where subjectively testable means by imitating (physical), sympathizing (thinking), empathizing (feeling).

    4. Limits of Proportionality: incentive to defect given predictable future given accumulated results of reciprocal display word and deed. (Defense against systemic undermining).

    5. Restitutability: the possibility of restitution, and sufficient resources to perform restitution.

    6. Fully Informed: Reciprocal in Speech (testimony).

    7. Voluntary Transfer: loss, consumption, transfer of possession, right, or title

    8. Externality: involuntary transfer against the demonstrated intersets of those not involved in the action or exchange.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 11:26:00 UTC

  • “He’s failing at answering the foundation of the problem: the decrease in cost o

    —“He’s failing at answering the foundation of the problem: the decrease in cost of producing ignorance, error, bias, deceit, and the corresponding increase in cost of falsification – which is always higher in the first place.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 11:00:00 UTC