Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Quote

  • Quote

  • P Law Expressed in Mathematics

    Apr 14, 2020, 4:37 PM A very smart guy understands how to express P-Law in Mathematics. (I think in geometry, but he’s got it right). — Billy Law-Bregan — In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics where the radix point separates integers from fractionals, would you say in Natural Law the radix point exists between ordinary language and opining? — CurtD — Smart. Good thinking. Good question. In mathematics the radix is the base set of names of positions (nouns), before restoring to positional naming (multipliers of the base: phrases). The grammar of mathematics adds the possible operations (verbs), all of which are variations on addition or its reverse, subtraction (transformations), and the only possible tests of positional comparison, less, equal, or greater (equilibria), an the only possible test of agreement (truth, false, undecidable) In law, the equivalent of radix (base nouns) consist of the vocabulary of actionable references given human facility for sensation, perception, intuition (nouns, names, referents), the vocabulary of operations (verbs, thought word and deed), and the possible changes in state (transformations), and the and the only possible tests comparison (possibility) and only possible test of agreement (empiricism-observation-action, logic-consistency-intuition-word, and experience-sense-perception-autoassociation ). So yes the human grammatical facility, and the structure of grammar, the structure of transactions with that grammar(journal), and the epistemology of the story(ledger) is the same across every one of the grammars from deflationary (math) to functional (programming) to operational (natural law) to ordinary language to the inflationary grammars of narratives, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits. MATH: Actor (presumed), associated reference (object named by positional name), name of referent – number (positional name), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. LAW: Actor, Action (name of human action), associated reference (object), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. STORY: name of referent – actor, action, transformation, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total All grammars are the same and accounting, finance, and economics are the least error prone methods of describing human action. In this sense, law asks us for a full accounting of human actions so that we can test whether the statements are testifiable (fully accounted) or not, and if not, then how they are not fully accounted, and by deduction, why they aren’t. (ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-farming, suggestion-obscurantism-overloading, the fictionalisms of sophistry, pseudoscience, or the occult, or outright deceit. Ergo P-law fits in the sequence: arithmetic, accounting, programming, natural law, economics, group strategy. — Billy Law-Bregan — I get it, I think. In law, the radix exists as actionable references. Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required (radix economy) required express it in that particular base (in this case, actionable references. So continuous recursive disambiguation exists as the tool to teach that efficiency. Something else fell into place for me. I said that the radix exists as actionable references. And, Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required to express it in that particular base (actionable references). I think it does something else, too. The radix determines the magnitude of a particular system and represents the value of that system. Moreover, it determines the maximum value of the referents used in the system. E.g. Octagonal base type. Radix (r) = 8. Maximum value of referent exists as 0 to (r)-1. Therefore, maximum value of referent = 7. So, in octagonal base, 428 exceeds the limit of (r), which makes it ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false? (I think). So, I think that In Natural Law, as in mathematics, the radix (accountable references) determine the maximum value/limits of the operations, transformations, positional comparison, test of agreement, and Testimony. Anything that exceeds the limit of (r) exists as inflationary/ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false. I think this also explains why the verb “to be” creates problems in reporting. The various conjugations of the verb violate the magnitude/value/limit determined by the radix. –CurtD– Well done. 😉 You know you have a phd subject right there that unites philosophy mathematics and law. 😉 ===NOTE=== This exchange is in response to this post: MATH VERSUS NATURAL LAW — THE SAME? Math is a logic of positional naming, and Natural law a logic of Property Naming. The grammar of both Math and Law consists of operations on names. So in math we use operations to maintain balance (equilibrium) on both sides of an equal’s sign, and in natural law we use operations to maintain balance between individuals. See? Here: Human Logical Facility (constant relations) > …. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) > …. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) > …. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) > …. …. …. …. Math (positional names) > …. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) > …. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence (Notice: Note how I left out verbal logic, rationalism, and philosophy because they’re included in sophistry.)

  • P Law Expressed in Mathematics

    Apr 14, 2020, 4:37 PM A very smart guy understands how to express P-Law in Mathematics. (I think in geometry, but he’s got it right). — Billy Law-Bregan — In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics where the radix point separates integers from fractionals, would you say in Natural Law the radix point exists between ordinary language and opining? — CurtD — Smart. Good thinking. Good question. In mathematics the radix is the base set of names of positions (nouns), before restoring to positional naming (multipliers of the base: phrases). The grammar of mathematics adds the possible operations (verbs), all of which are variations on addition or its reverse, subtraction (transformations), and the only possible tests of positional comparison, less, equal, or greater (equilibria), an the only possible test of agreement (truth, false, undecidable) In law, the equivalent of radix (base nouns) consist of the vocabulary of actionable references given human facility for sensation, perception, intuition (nouns, names, referents), the vocabulary of operations (verbs, thought word and deed), and the possible changes in state (transformations), and the and the only possible tests comparison (possibility) and only possible test of agreement (empiricism-observation-action, logic-consistency-intuition-word, and experience-sense-perception-autoassociation ). So yes the human grammatical facility, and the structure of grammar, the structure of transactions with that grammar(journal), and the epistemology of the story(ledger) is the same across every one of the grammars from deflationary (math) to functional (programming) to operational (natural law) to ordinary language to the inflationary grammars of narratives, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits. MATH: Actor (presumed), associated reference (object named by positional name), name of referent – number (positional name), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. LAW: Actor, Action (name of human action), associated reference (object), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. STORY: name of referent – actor, action, transformation, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total All grammars are the same and accounting, finance, and economics are the least error prone methods of describing human action. In this sense, law asks us for a full accounting of human actions so that we can test whether the statements are testifiable (fully accounted) or not, and if not, then how they are not fully accounted, and by deduction, why they aren’t. (ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-farming, suggestion-obscurantism-overloading, the fictionalisms of sophistry, pseudoscience, or the occult, or outright deceit. Ergo P-law fits in the sequence: arithmetic, accounting, programming, natural law, economics, group strategy. — Billy Law-Bregan — I get it, I think. In law, the radix exists as actionable references. Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required (radix economy) required express it in that particular base (in this case, actionable references. So continuous recursive disambiguation exists as the tool to teach that efficiency. Something else fell into place for me. I said that the radix exists as actionable references. And, Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required to express it in that particular base (actionable references). I think it does something else, too. The radix determines the magnitude of a particular system and represents the value of that system. Moreover, it determines the maximum value of the referents used in the system. E.g. Octagonal base type. Radix (r) = 8. Maximum value of referent exists as 0 to (r)-1. Therefore, maximum value of referent = 7. So, in octagonal base, 428 exceeds the limit of (r), which makes it ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false? (I think). So, I think that In Natural Law, as in mathematics, the radix (accountable references) determine the maximum value/limits of the operations, transformations, positional comparison, test of agreement, and Testimony. Anything that exceeds the limit of (r) exists as inflationary/ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false. I think this also explains why the verb “to be” creates problems in reporting. The various conjugations of the verb violate the magnitude/value/limit determined by the radix. –CurtD– Well done. 😉 You know you have a phd subject right there that unites philosophy mathematics and law. 😉 ===NOTE=== This exchange is in response to this post: MATH VERSUS NATURAL LAW — THE SAME? Math is a logic of positional naming, and Natural law a logic of Property Naming. The grammar of both Math and Law consists of operations on names. So in math we use operations to maintain balance (equilibrium) on both sides of an equal’s sign, and in natural law we use operations to maintain balance between individuals. See? Here: Human Logical Facility (constant relations) > …. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) > …. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) > …. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) > …. …. …. …. Math (positional names) > …. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) > …. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence (Notice: Note how I left out verbal logic, rationalism, and philosophy because they’re included in sophistry.)

  • Avast Ye Landlubbers, Tis Time to Hoist the Black Flag, Spit on Ye Hands and Begin Slitting Throats!

      “Naval strategists are struggling to find ways to counter a rising Chinese Navy. The easiest and most comfortable course is to ask for more ships and aircraft, but with a defense budget that may have reached its peak, that may not be a viable strategy. Privateering, authorized by letters of marque, could offer a low-cost tool to enhance deterrence in peacetime and gain advantage in wartime. It would attack an asymmetric vulnerability of China, which has a much larger merchant fleet than the United States. Indeed, an attack on Chinese global trade would undermine China’s entire economy and threaten the regime’s stability. Finally, despite pervasive myths to the contrary, U.S. privateering is not prohibited by U.S. or international law.” https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/april/unleash-privateers born too late to explore the high seas 🙁 born too early to explore the solar system 🙁 born just in time for the revival of piracy

  • Avast Ye Landlubbers, Tis Time to Hoist the Black Flag, Spit on Ye Hands and Begin Slitting Throats!

      “Naval strategists are struggling to find ways to counter a rising Chinese Navy. The easiest and most comfortable course is to ask for more ships and aircraft, but with a defense budget that may have reached its peak, that may not be a viable strategy. Privateering, authorized by letters of marque, could offer a low-cost tool to enhance deterrence in peacetime and gain advantage in wartime. It would attack an asymmetric vulnerability of China, which has a much larger merchant fleet than the United States. Indeed, an attack on Chinese global trade would undermine China’s entire economy and threaten the regime’s stability. Finally, despite pervasive myths to the contrary, U.S. privateering is not prohibited by U.S. or international law.” https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/april/unleash-privateers born too late to explore the high seas 🙁 born too early to explore the solar system 🙁 born just in time for the revival of piracy

  • The Point of Demarcation Is Individual vs Political

    Apr 22, 2020, 2:15 PM There are good people in every group. There are bad people in every group. What matters is whether the good or the bad people in every group advance their, and their group’s interest to integrate into our natural law – or whether they resist integration in to our Natural law; or use resistance movements to seek bribes to conform to our natural law; or seek parasitism by taking advantage of our vulnerability – our tolerance – under our natural law. Our Natural Law is empirical and it tells us we aren’t intolerant enough. If it’s interpersonal then exhaust tolerance (christianity). If it’s political then zero tolerance (Doolittle). It’s not a difficult disambiguation, demarcation, distinction, difference. 😉 Be intolerant. Otherwise you’re committing fraud by not paying to cost of maintaining the commons, under pretense your convenience is a conviction. It’s not. It’s fraud. Be intolerant.

  • The Point of Demarcation Is Individual vs Political

    Apr 22, 2020, 2:15 PM There are good people in every group. There are bad people in every group. What matters is whether the good or the bad people in every group advance their, and their group’s interest to integrate into our natural law – or whether they resist integration in to our Natural law; or use resistance movements to seek bribes to conform to our natural law; or seek parasitism by taking advantage of our vulnerability – our tolerance – under our natural law. Our Natural Law is empirical and it tells us we aren’t intolerant enough. If it’s interpersonal then exhaust tolerance (christianity). If it’s political then zero tolerance (Doolittle). It’s not a difficult disambiguation, demarcation, distinction, difference. 😉 Be intolerant. Otherwise you’re committing fraud by not paying to cost of maintaining the commons, under pretense your convenience is a conviction. It’s not. It’s fraud. Be intolerant.

  • Military as Source of Our Strategy vs Being Undermined to Destroy Our Strategy

    May 5, 2020, 11:01 AM by Alex Hill 1.) 4GW makes support personnel primary targets. In fact, that’s the entire basis of it. Militias need to have as much self sufficiency and as little logistical needs as possible. The regular military is bogged down as soon as insurgents lay IEDs aimed at logistics convoys. 2.) a militia is not regular military. We can’t afford dedicated specialization in the same fashion as the regular military’s MOS system. Everyone has to be generally skilled much in the same was a Green Beret ODA team works with specific team roles. This also echoes the urban specialized labor versus the rural generalized labor divide. 3.) there is a direct correlation between the rise of feminism and the rise of women in the military, and the military has repeatedly been used as a social experiment because of its top-down nature. Then they’ll want to be able to exercise political suffrage because of service, which then jeopardizes the polity with the politics of Feels. That would be repeating the same mistakes we’ve made and I won’t have any of it.

  • Military as Source of Our Strategy vs Being Undermined to Destroy Our Strategy

    May 5, 2020, 11:01 AM by Alex Hill 1.) 4GW makes support personnel primary targets. In fact, that’s the entire basis of it. Militias need to have as much self sufficiency and as little logistical needs as possible. The regular military is bogged down as soon as insurgents lay IEDs aimed at logistics convoys. 2.) a militia is not regular military. We can’t afford dedicated specialization in the same fashion as the regular military’s MOS system. Everyone has to be generally skilled much in the same was a Green Beret ODA team works with specific team roles. This also echoes the urban specialized labor versus the rural generalized labor divide. 3.) there is a direct correlation between the rise of feminism and the rise of women in the military, and the military has repeatedly been used as a social experiment because of its top-down nature. Then they’ll want to be able to exercise political suffrage because of service, which then jeopardizes the polity with the politics of Feels. That would be repeating the same mistakes we’ve made and I won’t have any of it.