Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Russell’ S Paradox Isnt.

    [R]ussell’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’. 17Serg Gio, Stephen Thoma

  • Russell’ S Paradox Isnt.

    [R]ussell’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’. 17Serg Gio, Stephen Thoma

  • “What theoretical advance does Propertarianism assert for itself?”

    —“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.   ===

    Steven Kolpek From my understanding, Propertarianism is a framework that cross-references European empirical systems with each other. With that cross-referencing framework, manipulation tactics (internal and external) can be identified, defended against, and eliminated. Curt Doolittle Good. well done. Ben Messinger The thing about truth is it always has a familiar ring to it. Because truth is eternal. People who think truth must always be a revolutionary fresh 100% original idea are going to wander all their days never finding what they are looking for. Nick’s Reason The OP sees the summary, the result, not the years of development and the synthesis of numerous disparate fields into one complete work. It’s akin to normies seeing a building and saying, ‘so what, it’s obviously a building’ whilst completely discounting the huge amounts engineering involved. Stephen Wells Who cares if it’s original or not?! 🤦‍♂️ Is it what is required, will it work? Yes! Leif Erickson From my perspective the conceptual understanding is moderately challenging. The lingual aspects however take a little more time to familiarize myself with. Luke Weinhagen A smart man can communicate complex thoughts, ideas and concepts in a manner that makes then understandable. A brilliant man can communicate complex thoughts, ideas and concepts in a manner that makes them seem obvious. In the context of teaching via communication, this is the difference between competence and craftsmanship. Argentius Darkon If we were to fix the law so the law cannot be subverted to whatever label they wish to cast upon it to fit their at need basis, would be an extreme help to ending these criminals reign of treason. If we were to teach our families all about economics, this would help everyone live a much better lifestyle. These criminals have prevented almost everyone from understanding economic and law unless you are one of ‘their’ friends or family. This country wasn’t supposed to be like this, and in my opinion they have stolen most Americans lives and families future by holding them down with a heavy foot. I hate this goddamn government and want to see the Guillotine take their heads off.. No I’m not insane nor evil, this is simply what you do to people that intentionally ruin your life and country. Treason is punishable by death, like it should be..

  • “What theoretical advance does Propertarianism assert for itself?”

    —“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.   ===

    Steven Kolpek From my understanding, Propertarianism is a framework that cross-references European empirical systems with each other. With that cross-referencing framework, manipulation tactics (internal and external) can be identified, defended against, and eliminated. Curt Doolittle Good. well done. Ben Messinger The thing about truth is it always has a familiar ring to it. Because truth is eternal. People who think truth must always be a revolutionary fresh 100% original idea are going to wander all their days never finding what they are looking for. Nick’s Reason The OP sees the summary, the result, not the years of development and the synthesis of numerous disparate fields into one complete work. It’s akin to normies seeing a building and saying, ‘so what, it’s obviously a building’ whilst completely discounting the huge amounts engineering involved. Stephen Wells Who cares if it’s original or not?! 🤦‍♂️ Is it what is required, will it work? Yes! Leif Erickson From my perspective the conceptual understanding is moderately challenging. The lingual aspects however take a little more time to familiarize myself with. Luke Weinhagen A smart man can communicate complex thoughts, ideas and concepts in a manner that makes then understandable. A brilliant man can communicate complex thoughts, ideas and concepts in a manner that makes them seem obvious. In the context of teaching via communication, this is the difference between competence and craftsmanship. Argentius Darkon If we were to fix the law so the law cannot be subverted to whatever label they wish to cast upon it to fit their at need basis, would be an extreme help to ending these criminals reign of treason. If we were to teach our families all about economics, this would help everyone live a much better lifestyle. These criminals have prevented almost everyone from understanding economic and law unless you are one of ‘their’ friends or family. This country wasn’t supposed to be like this, and in my opinion they have stolen most Americans lives and families future by holding them down with a heavy foot. I hate this goddamn government and want to see the Guillotine take their heads off.. No I’m not insane nor evil, this is simply what you do to people that intentionally ruin your life and country. Treason is punishable by death, like it should be..

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Our Natural Law is Sacred.

    P-Law criminalizes (a) bringing a bill to violate the natural law or the constitution before the legislatures, (b) advocating for, (c) even speaking about it in public, to the public. Our Natural Law is sacred. Even speaking of violating it means loss of sovereignty, lost of reciprocity under it, loss of rights under reciprocity, and loss of defense, exposing you to extra judicial punishment within the territory and letter of marque external to it. P-Law is harsher than islamic law.

  • Our Natural Law is Sacred.

    P-Law criminalizes (a) bringing a bill to violate the natural law or the constitution before the legislatures, (b) advocating for, (c) even speaking about it in public, to the public. Our Natural Law is sacred. Even speaking of violating it means loss of sovereignty, lost of reciprocity under it, loss of rights under reciprocity, and loss of defense, exposing you to extra judicial punishment within the territory and letter of marque external to it. P-Law is harsher than islamic law.