Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • CONVERTING KANT’S APRIORISM TO SCIENCE(TESTIMONY) A Priori: “independent of obse

    CONVERTING KANT’S APRIORISM TO SCIENCE(TESTIMONY)

    A Priori: “independent of observation.”

    There are three dimensions to a priori truth claims:

    i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori,

    ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and

    iii) Necessity vs Contingency

    Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims.

    (a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.

    (c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: Childless women will have no grandchildren.

    (b) “General” Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation.

    (d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.”

    This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision:

    (a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori

    (b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori

    (c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori

    (d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori

    Nothing more to be said. We now have converted kantian apriorism to scientific and testimonial prose and in doing so explained the relationship between Testimonials and Kantian apriorism, and in doing so the increase in precision under P, increase in testability under P, and ended Kant’s attempt to undermine our ability to falsify and his attempt at preservation of christian and church authority.

    You may not yet grasp why that paragraph is so, but you will.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 15:15:00 UTC

  • DUKE NEWCOMB EXPLAINS DECIDABILITY by Duke Newcomb (important) This notion of de

    DUKE NEWCOMB EXPLAINS DECIDABILITY

    by Duke Newcomb (important)

    This notion of decidability, as you say, strikes me as one of your most important contributions. By decidability, I take it you mean a diffuse decision architecture that allows people at various levels to make decisions that are consistent with the intent of the program. It is a kind of information architectonics.

    If you could develop a geometry for decidability, that REALLY allows for analytically testing which notions are decidable by the human agent before deployment, THAT is the pathway to power. Or at least part of it. It doesn’t do the work of building an organization. You have to do that with ideas, influence, charisma, &tc. But once you have an organization and a defined and consistent decidability architecture you can quickly transform organization into institution. And those economy of scale efficiency gains (everyone doing their right proper part rowing the boat) would allow you to outcompete institutional rivals.

    I think I’m starting to see the core logic of your analytic system. It is this Darwinian metaphor for selection of information that Dawkins uses. By invoking this kind of post-Popperian notion of falsification as key lever of the epistemology, you are using competitive falsification as an evolutionary selection mechanism to get to better phenotypes of truth.

    How progressive!

    Basically, you aim to create multilayered sieves for truth out of all of these different layers of thought: geometry, philosophy, law, economics; with each doing its part to. Operational analysis as sieving process. T

    he biggest problem I see is that each of these disciplines is at different levels of technical maturity. Many disciplines are in a pre-Copernican Revolution state, so they’re immature and will give you variable performance.

    I suppose the best you can do is put more mature disciplines at more fundamental levels so they do more of the work filtering out falsehoods and the less mature disciplines, like economics, can just kind of pick the fat off the bones.

    (OMG. Thank you. yes. Thats far better than I can say it. -CD )

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 15:14:00 UTC

  • Updated Oct 25, 2019, 2:51 PM

    Updated Oct 25, 2019, 2:51 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 14:51:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/73044449_492666161330279_56047954535

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/73044449_492666161330279_5604795453557178368_o_492666154663613.jpg THE GODS WILL IT!!!! THEY DEMAND A SACRIFICE!!! 🙂 lolzTHE GODS WILL IT!!!! THEY DEMAND A SACRIFICE!!! 🙂 lolz

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 14:50:00 UTC

  • THE PROBLEM OF LEFT EGALITARIAN THOUGHT —“That is the problem with the egalita

    THE PROBLEM OF LEFT EGALITARIAN THOUGHT

    —“That is the problem with the egalitarian program in a state of post-industrial revolution production. A uniform level of income distribution is unnecessary in order for everyone to have an adequate level of consumption for necessary goods. I think the naive intuition of the leftist is that any hierarchy built based on relative performance in the market is illegitimate and must be based on exploitation. This is to deny the existence of human capital, in spite of the fact that many leftists spend years at university to develop their personal human capital.

    (Ah, the internal contradictions of Marxism!)

    This dissonance, of course, leads them to propose schemes that focus on redistributivity, like tax and transfer payments, that reduce the effectiveness of the competition for luxury consumption and the efficiency-producing decision-making hierarchies that result from them.

    This creates malinvestment or, even worse, an insufficient level of capital production and deployment. This is a dangerous, immediate evil that rightists must combat. On this score, the white right is quite right.”—Duke Newcomb

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 14:32:00 UTC

  • SET MATH, OPERATIONS, AND QUANTUM MECHANICS —“I suspect because in set theory

    SET MATH, OPERATIONS, AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

    —“I suspect because in set theory and calculus infinities are the bleeding edge of the discipline, in the same way that paradoxes are the bleeding edge of logics and, to put it more operationally, black holes are the bleeding edge of astrophysics. That makes them the more interesting structures of analysis for participants. It’s an artifact of human psychology and its natural salience ranking.”–Duke Newcomb

    Sure. They’re the bleeding edges in post sense-perception phenomenon, and a misapplication of that method of investigation within sense- perception-phenomenon. 😉

    Just as logic is only falsificationary within simple verbal and conceptual terms, and operations within simple actable terms, and empiricism within post-actionable terms, so what you’re really saying is the bleeding edge of the application of mathematical physics to questions that re not solvable with mathematical physics. 😉

    It’s how we claim something is a science via positiva. Except they have it backwards. testimony is the top of the epistemological pyramid and everything else – every other system of calculation no matter how we perform it before reducing it to subjectively testiable differences in constant relations.

    For example, as far as I know the reason we’re blocked at the quantum level with particle-wave duality is because we haven’t an operational geometric model for the representation of front of the wave (particle location) in some underlying geometric form.

    So, for example, We did get Minsky to make the point that operational logic was a new method of thought; we got chomsky to sort of make the loose expression of continuous recursive disambiguation – I’m not really sure (I think not) that he understood or understand the implications – that all speech is falsificationary (disambiguation: carving away stone of ambiguity, not building with clay of meaning). And we did get Mandelbrot to demonstrate it with post-human-computability; And we did get Wolfram out there trying (poorly) to achieve it in mathematics, and biologists trying to achieve it in protein folding.

    But I have yet to see anyone trying use operations, and geometry, to explain how tetrahedrons (the smallest possible three dimensional set of fields) can rearrange in some combination that produces charged strings of tetrahedrons in some combination, that would in fact explain the wave particle duality.

    I have on the other hand seen people discuss it but they’re trying mathematically instead of learning from Turing, Mandelbrot, and Wolfrom that ‘averages’ produce in formula do not produce forking states other than ‘string’s (waves of changes in state through a network of tetrahedrons) that in turn would produce both waves and momentary particles. Now this is rather obvious to me as an operationalist, but every time you get someone talking about quantum mechanics they’re using averages which cannot express causes only consequences.

    String theory does not require 11 dimensions, it requires some underlying structure in which forces accumulate into 11 axis of causation (positive or negative charge or pressure) dependent upon the possible means of organizing a network of three dimensionally constrained charges.

    Lisi’s work is interesting because he’s identified the problem of the charges missing, but it might simply be that those combinations are’t possible to construct with available organizations of the underlying tetrahedrons (or some other triangular shape, even if they are circular charges that can only be arranged in triangular relations etc. Circles (spheres) of charges also solve the problem of three dimensions, the tetrahedral (or hexagonal or whatever) organization of the charges may only be an effect of the directions of spin.

    Whatever the underlying geometry is we already know it’s set expression (quantum fields) but we do not know its existential expression – geometry and operations possible on geometry.

    And as far as I know we can’t possibly measure such a thing so the only way of coming up with it is finding some set of geometric relations that through a limited grammar of possible organization, either temporary or consistent, produce what we call strings, which constitute the charged (altered) state of the underlying geometry, which we observe as a probability distribution in quantum mechanics, and which as a consequence of our ignorance is preventing us from explaining the relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity – I suspect, because, we are looking for particles or fields that produce gravity when instead, it’s just distortion of the underlying geometry, in which there is no evidentiary change expressed in detectable particles because all gravity is the negative expression of charges that distort the underlying geometry.

    ANd it is very hard to think like this if you have had your entire cognitive structure trained to think of sets (verbal averages), and mathematics (verbal averages) rather than geometry(reality).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 14:28:00 UTC

  • CONVERTING KANT’S APRIORISM TO SCIENCE(TESTIMONY) A Priori: “independent of obse

    CONVERTING KANT’S APRIORISM TO SCIENCE(TESTIMONY)

    A Priori: “independent of observation.”

    There are three dimensions to a priori truth claims:

    i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori,

    ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and

    iii) Necessity vs Contingency

    Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims.

    (a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.

    (c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: Childless women will have no grandchildren.

    (b) “General” Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation.

    (d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.”

    This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision:

    (a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori

    (b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori

    (c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori

    (d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori

    Nothing more to be said. We now have converted kantian apriorism to scientific and testimonial prose and in doing so explained the relationship between Testimonials and Kantian apriorism, and in doing so the increase in precision under P, increase in testability under P, and ended Kant’s attempt to undermine our ability to falsify and his attempt at preservation of christian and church authority.

    You may not yet grasp why that paragraph is so, but you will.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 13:44:00 UTC

  • THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATH, SET LOGIC, P-LOGIC (important)(core)(learning opp

    THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATH, SET LOGIC, P-LOGIC

    (important)(core)(learning opportunity)

    —“So, [propertarianism uses] a fixed grammar which diagrams or “measures,” as you say, how far a use of a particular word is from the precise meaning of the term in propertarian parlance. I’m guessing there has to be a reason to do this rather than give a straightforward definition like all non-initial words in a good math textbook. I’m guessing it has to do with the fact the same term takes on slightly different meaning, in essence less proximity to the initial described point on the grammar number line, as it ventures through different layers of the analytical process of operationalization. Rather than outright avoid some multiplicity of meaning, this schema just keeps track of it. To me, in my set theoretic way of thinking, this makes a word a set of definitions, and context indexes on it to determines the cardinality of the set, with each element being mapped to the number line used.”— Duke Newcomb

    We have a set of common P-definitions, all in series, and a glossary of individual terms as well as series – and there aren’t that many of the core definitions. (i was surprised) But that doesn’t mean we don’t need to explain how to do it to ANY term in order to FALSIFY others errors, biases, and deceits.

    So in keeping with the migration from verbalisms (associations), to mathematics (sets), to operations (actions), P is written like a PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE not like mathematics (sets). And so we produce functions in operational prose, not scale independent logic in symbolic prose – and I do it for a very good reason: the catastrophic failure of mathematics in economics, and in particular the divergence of mathematics and economics, rather than convergence. And that is because economics of consumption has replace morality in politics, and because it is possible to restore consumption with tests of changes in the state of capital vs consumption, thereby ending hyperconsumption, including of genetic, social, institutional, cultural and civilizational capital.

    I think you are trying to generalize into symbolics (sets) and I’m trying to reverse that ‘error’ by return to geometry similarly to how descartes restored aristotelian thought to europe by restoring mathematics to ‘geometry’ from ‘sets’ and scriptural and textual interpretation. For example, in cantor(sets) there are multiple infinities (impossible). However under babbage(gears) there are only different rates of production of positional names (operations). Why did mathematicians choose cantor over babbage? Why do we call the square root of two a number, when it is but the name of a function?

    And to take that forward, I think you are still trying prove (construct, justify) an argument under law, and my emphasis is falsification of the platonic sophisms in all fields, including mathematics, as well as more importantly, the abrahamic deceits of judaism, christianity, islam, Boasian, Freudian, Marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and the general feminine and semitic technique of disempowerment of those with agency by the continuous toppling of apple carts for no other reason than undermining the production of order (meaning any form of judgement by measurement) that would deny them the use of interpersonal persuasion and sexual temptation, and false promise to obtain good, services, information, opportunity, and status, without engaging in reciprocity.

    As such I know you’re deep into these subjects and you’re (omg thank you) smart, but it is far harder to move from construction with clay to make an argument, to sculpting of stone to reveal what’s inside it than you’d think. It is very hard. If it wasn’t very hard – because justification using appeal to moral intuition and habit, norm, tradition, and metaphysical presumption is natural, ancient, and saturated in the environment – someone would have done it earlier. I just spend a lot of time on both programming, artificial intelligence, economics, and law. And I (correctly as did Minsky) saw programming as an evolutionary leap in logics for that reason, moving logics out of language and restoring them to actions.

    The reality is that justification is cheap. Falsification is expensive. And not only have we only had a few centuries to adapt to our development of instrumentation and record keeping that is beyond human scale,

    So P Isn’t just an improved means of doing what we do today in more strictly constructed form, it allows us to take the common law system and to extended it to ALL false and irreciprocal speech made in public, to the public, in matters public.

    In other words, P allows us to outlaw every single aspect of leftism because it is all dependent upon fraud in order to obscure their thefts, necessitated by their moral envy, of higher status (sexual, social, economic, political military market value), and the cost of suppressing their impulses in order to develop agency in order to raise those market values that can be raised by one’s development of agency thru training.

    In other words, they must engage in fraud to obscure thefts, and prevent order, which creates measurement and accountability, so that they can compensate for their bad luck in the genetic lottery whose possibilities were created by the rather poor judgement of their ancestors – at least over no less than the past six generations.

    P allows us to convert from free speech to free truthful and reciprocal speech, where truthful means ‘what I can testify to’. This cuts the industrialization of lying made possible by the industrial revolution’s discount on production of information, and the mass distribution of false promise, undermining, and deceit by sophistry and pseudoscience by the marxists, postmodernists, and feminists.

    So while you are correct that there is temporally complete vocabulary available it is only temporally complete. And while we can adhere to that, we cannot operationalize and expose the thefts of the enemy, without the tools of doing so.

    So it’s more like mathematics, in that we continuously evolve new means of proof (tests of the possibility of measurement given scale independence (generalization of rules of measurement), limits (to compensate for undecidability of precision in scale independence) and the ‘presumption’ of the excluded middle necessary under scale independence – yet we keep discovering patterns and new means of deduction, so that we can never state mathematics is ‘complete’ (other than at some primitive dimensional scale).

    Math is just a very simple language of only one constant relation (position). All other languages from the first order logic on up contain more than one constant relation. But all languages are the same – the construction of a set of constant relations that another understands (agrees to, contracts to) and due diligence removing the possible associations, inferences, and deductions that the contracting party might be misled by.

    I mean in similar vernacular, we contract with our intuition which must, like another person, be trained by our reason.

    (God I hope people can learn from this discussion because I haven’t found anyone else knowledgeable enough to have it with, where I have the opportunity to discuss it in discursive terms. You are making it possible to discuss the big ideas rather than how to lay individual bricks. Thank you. )

    DEVELOPMENT OF RELEVANT GRAMMARS

    Platonic Mathematics = Sets and Ideals independent of time and cost. Written in balanced symbols.

    Operational Mathematics = Demonstrable Operations in time at cost. Written in programmatic language, where the verbs are some variation of addition.

    Operational Prose = writing programmatic algorithms where the verbs are human actions (additions to reality).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 13:24:00 UTC

  • “CURT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ‘SERIALIZATION’?” (important) —“What is serializati

    “CURT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ‘SERIALIZATION’?”

    (important)

    —“What is serialization?”—Duke Newcomb

    (From the P-Method of “Disambiguation, Serialization, and Operationalization”)

    Before using a term, define the term, by researching the etymology of the term (history), then collecting all synonyms and antonyms (and etymology) and organizing them into one or more series by common properties. We use serialization to force disambiguation between terms that appear similar but are not. This is how we converted common language into a system of measurement, and expose our errors, and our ignorance, and most sophisms whether a deceit-fallacy, ideal-verbal, pseudoscientific-magical, or supernatural-occult

    Examples using ‘True’:

    DUE DILIGENCE AS CONSTANT RELATION

    tautologically true, idealistically true, testimonially(really) true, honestly true, impulsively true.

    and:

    DECIDABILITY AS CONSTANT RELATION

    incomprehensible, comprehensible(understandable), agreement(on understanding), preferential(for me), good(mutually preferential), testimonially true (decidable); ideally true(logically), or tautologically true(identical).

    Some Other Examples on our site, particularly after item seven:

    https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/the-cheat-sheet/

    It’s sort of like (exactly like) creating a number line, or a series of points on a line. The number line creates a system of measurement by some underlying constant relation (in the case of numbers, position), and then points on a line which test conformity to the constant relation (constant positional relation between n-dimensional positions.

    Operationalism is a bit harder: writing complete sentences as transactions with a consistent point of view, in ePrime.

    Testimonial Operationalism is a bit harder: writing those same complete sentences as promissory observations,

    Operationalism into Acquisition, Property-in-toto, and Reciprocity is a bit harder. This requires you start using economics of human behavior.

    But once you get there by combining serialization, operationalism, and acquisitionism, you have the formal logic of all human language – a universal commensurable system of measurement for human speech.

    The Grammars just provide a sort of equivalent to the table of fundamental particles, the periodic table of the elements, the dimensions of geometry, for language, and with the Grammars you can learn rather easily

    This is why I usually refer to the P-Method as the ‘Geometry of Thought”. Because just as Descartes restored mathematics to geometry, I’m restoring language to geometry: real (aristotle), constant relations(engineering), instead of ideal (platonic) constant relations, or supernatural(semitic) constant relations (astrology).

    However this big picture of the differences caused by the civilizational origins of their thought and it’s incorporation into the their rationalizations and language, and metaphycis,a nd habits, is invisible to almost everyone. I just write it here so the few who might want to see that pattern can discover it.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 12:30:00 UTC

  • (Close friends: Please thank my lovely, brilliant, daughter Caitlin for having ‘

    (Close friends: Please thank my lovely, brilliant, daughter Caitlin for having ‘the talk’ with her dad about migrating from mediating his autistic tunneling with OCD medication to ADHD medication, because it has solved the problem of my productivity that’s been plaguing me since my return to the states. I mean, if you thought I couldn’t shut up before, I’m as prolific over the past week as I was living in Ukraine and maybe more so – despite my current environment. I don’t need hours to get into the zone in order to work on a problem. And if interrupted I can return to it. It’s miraculous really. Although apparently I’ve returned to primarily CEO-Curt behavior a bit more than family appreciates. 😉 Thank you Caitie. I don’t deserve you really. I’m a useless father. But I certainly lucked out in the daughter department. 😉 )

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 11:59:00 UTC