Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Retweeted NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb): The strike has ~0 military impact. Rus

    Retweeted NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb):

    The strike has ~0 military impact. Russians were informed & Syrians could clear area.

    All it says: no Chem Weapons even if it wasn’t you.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 10:58:00 UTC

  • FOR FANS OF AUSTRIAN ECON (worth repeating) ***There is a very great similarity

    FOR FANS OF AUSTRIAN ECON

    (worth repeating)

    ***There is a very great similarity between the economic calculation debate against classical economics and the intuitionist-constructivist against classical mathematics. Once you see the parallel you will see how this is not a problem of math or economics but of epistemology that popper suggested: it is increasingly difficult to make truth propositions that are dependent upon deductions, unless we can also construct the result we have deduced without the need for deduction.***

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 10:56:00 UTC

  • SHOULD I READ POINCARE OR ABOUT POINCARE, OR ABOUT THE DEBATES POINCARE WAS ACTI

    SHOULD I READ POINCARE OR ABOUT POINCARE, OR ABOUT THE DEBATES POINCARE WAS ACTIVE IN??? 😉

    —“Hey Curt – here’s a question for you: what of Poincare’s should I read? Since I know you like him!”—Davin Eastley

    Great question. Although, Poincare was, like Hilbert, so successful, that we live in a mathematics that you probably know of so thoroughly it is really old hat to you. So reading about his biography might be interesting. Reading about his philosophy might be interesting. But reading about his math? You’ve already learned it all.

    Poincare is interesting in the debate on the foundations of mathematics and against that of Cantor. I view him along with Menger (marginalism), Mises(praxeological constructivism), Brouwer (Mathematical intuitionism and later, Constructivism), Bridgman (scientific operationalism), and Popper (Scientific falsificationism – his attempt at completing the scientific method, as part of the tribe attempting to solve the problem of pseudoscience that arose out of the excessive use of statistical analysis in the 19th century, and in particular, the use of probability by Keynes to circumvent moral (reciprocity) testing of each action in a network of transactions.

    So that said, I would suggest reading the SEP articles on Constructive Mathematics and Intuitionism first, in the context of the struggle to define the foundations of mathematics. Then to read the SEP articles on all the rest of theh players above for the same reason. Then to read Poincare’s book …. (wait… I’ll look it up, it’s escaping me)… “Science and Hypothesis”.

    There is a very great similarity between the economic calculation debate against classical economics and the intuitionist-constructivist against classical mathematics.

    Once you see the parallel you will see how this is not a problem of math or economics but of epistemology that popper suggested: it is increasinly difficult to make truth propositions that are dependent upon deductions, unless we can also construct the result we have deduced without the need for deduction.

    Stated in those terms I think its understandable. Particularly because we tend to work today in high causal density fields, with far greater categorical variation than classical mathematics operated under.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 10:54:00 UTC

  • You know, I’m pretty disappointed, but I’m not sure that whacking someone’s airf

    You know, I’m pretty disappointed, but I’m not sure that whacking someone’s airfield for using chemical weapons is the same thing as getting involved.

    Hell, I talk tough to my wife when she crosses the line, my business partners, my friends, and the guy on the street, and I’m willing to get into fights over it.

    How much did Rothbard lie to create libertarianism?

    We have no idea what we’re doing we just do the best we can. Is trump better than Obama? Probably much better. Is he better than clinton? Certainly. Is he as good as we can get? In the current era maybe. Is he as good as we would like or need? No. Is it possible to create a polity without a decider-of-last resort? Um, the gypsies, jews, and muslims shure make it look like the answer is ‘no’, and the chinese and the westerners sure make it look like the answer is ‘yes’

    Mises Institute has a ridiculously long and deep reputation for “heaping undue praise” on its heroes, and “constructing elaborate strawmen” by which to attack its enemies. And the Jewish Economic and Political strategy advanced under the (False) adoption of western terms liberty and austrian economics is just ‘gypsy separatism’, ‘jewish separatism’, and ‘muslim tribal separatism’ sold to the disenfranchised beta males, as a hope for their own minority separatism.

    Let us see, empirically, whether the best we can get in the current era moves the condition of liberty for us forward or not. My view is that he has bought us time to organize and create a revolution. And that if we conduct the revolution under his administration it will not be met with the same suppressive violence that it would have under Clinton’s.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 10:37:00 UTC

  • MY COMMENTS RELY UPON A BIG BACKSTORY 😉 So I’m sorry that it’s hard to follow m

    MY COMMENTS RELY UPON A BIG BACKSTORY 😉

    So I’m sorry that it’s hard to follow my intentions a lot of the time. And I know that in the absence of following my intentions we all tend to revert to our moral intuitions, rather than to disassemble what I’m saying as a reflection of one of the tenets of propertarianism.

    But I don’t really have the time or inclination to type 5000 words of prevarications every time I make a comment about something or other. I have to just cross my fingers and hope most people understand the backstory.

    And as we have seen, a lot of people simply can’t absorb the entire back story.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 10:28:00 UTC

  • You know, the british did all the same s—t that you’re accusing the Jews of. I

    You know, the british did all the same s—t that you’re accusing the Jews of. It’s the natural consequence of diasporic capitalists. The only honest people are the germans. they tell you what they’re gonna do. Violence is truth. If at any point your incentive is to circumvent national capital for international profit, you’re going to adopt the strategy of the gypsies, jews, british and now americans. and it’s suicide.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 09:15:00 UTC

  • SUMMARY There is no source of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and the luxury of s

    SUMMARY

    There is no source of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and the luxury of subsidy of the weak, other than a monarchy, martial aristocracy, and militia of the enfranchised. Because there is no method of decidability, no method of insurance, and no process other than violence: threat, punishment, murder, and revolt. And the method of licensing violence and revolt early and often is a constitution of natural law that provides the incentive to prosecute individuals at all levels by anyone with the information to do so – such that no power can ever accumulate sufficiently to deny a group, the militia, the aristocracy, or the monarchy the license to first prosecute by juridical means, then by martial means. This institution is self perpetuating if for no other reason than the universality, the status, and the high cost of obtaining that status and responsibility. Expensive rituals endure. Every man a sheriff. A warrior. A Judge.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 09:06:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) I’m trying to decide whether ridicule, rallying, and shaming by

    (from elsewhere)

    I’m trying to decide whether ridicule, rallying, and shaming by the peasantry, is more desirable under the rubric of ‘mystery cult’, or ‘autistics’, or ‘red flag program’. All of which have been levied at me.

    The utility of all three of these criticisms is that they obviate the speaker from creating an argument. I love this kind of criticism because it just makes my point for me: they have nothing left to argue with – I have won.

    I know how hard it is to have your favorite cult (rothbardian libertinism) cast in the sewer of pseudoscience and pseudo-rationalism, and as a follower to feel betrayed and misled. So I understand the need for psychological defense mechanisms.

    But in the end. Neocon = Rothbardian = Marxist. It’s all a false promise of salvation through separatism, and failure to pay the high cost of defense. And we can see how well that has worked out for the jews and gypsies….

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 08:32:00 UTC

  • I want Ryan’s head. On a pike. On my Lawn

    I want Ryan’s head. On a pike. On my Lawn.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 13:31:00 UTC

  • “The lesson of the 20th century is that domination by Oratores (priests, public

    —“The lesson of the 20th century is that domination by Oratores (priests, public intellectuals, politicians) without integration of Bellatores (Warriors, Sheriff’s, Judges) is suicide.”–William Butchman

    And that was the oratores (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Frankfurt, French Postmodernists, Feminists) intended you know. They did it on purpose.

    Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Menger, Spencer, Nietzsche, and the Romantics were right – and the Cosmpolitans were terrified of them.

    So they lied, often, and with vigour, and aggressively seized the academy, the media, and entertainment, in order to lie as frequently and as vigorously as possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 11:07:00 UTC