Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • (Almost impossible to say anything substantive in operational language free of i

    (Almost impossible to say anything substantive in operational language free of ignorance, error, biases, pretense, (and deceit) in a tweet.A perfect medium for gossip, shaming, rallying, and tit-for-tat – and terrible one for the competition between arguments. But we try anyway.)

  • Evidence

    1) article in military times promoting (falsely) the Tavor (israeli rifle). 2) I post a criticism saying that it’s universally derided around the world as a terrible piece of equipment. And that it appears that the plastic revolution in pistols has been unsuccessful in rifles – and that the black rifle but with higher calibre and 416 plunger has won the day. (The only weapons to come out of the plastic revolution are the P90 because of its feed and ammo, and the AUG, which I still think despite its cost is about as good as it gets. 3) This (((fellow))) deletes the comments https://www.facebook.com/hpinny that falsify the propaganda (false advertising).

  • Evidence

    1) article in military times promoting (falsely) the Tavor (israeli rifle). 2) I post a criticism saying that it’s universally derided around the world as a terrible piece of equipment. And that it appears that the plastic revolution in pistols has been unsuccessful in rifles – and that the black rifle but with higher calibre and 416 plunger has won the day. (The only weapons to come out of the plastic revolution are the P90 because of its feed and ammo, and the AUG, which I still think despite its cost is about as good as it gets. 3) This (((fellow))) deletes the comments https://www.facebook.com/hpinny that falsify the propaganda (false advertising).

  • OLIGARCHY DOESN”T MATTER. ALL DISCRETIONARY RULE IS BAD. NOMOCRACY: the distribu

    OLIGARCHY DOESN”T MATTER. ALL DISCRETIONARY RULE IS BAD. NOMOCRACY: the distributed dictatorship of sovereign warriors. I don’t think a constitutional oligarchy matters – it might be good. it’s not as good as a constitutional monarchy. The problems are (a) democracy (b) freedom of false speech, (c) ability to circumvent of rule of law of reciprocity due to the frailty of the constitution, (d) the loss of universal standing in matters of the commons (we can’t sue politicians and bureaucrats), (e) we have no mechanism for evolving necessary monopoly bureaucracy into competitive private organizations once institutionalized (habituated). (f) the failure to modernize the fiat money system for direct distribution of liquidity to consumers rather than through credit in the financial system. (g) it has been possible to forcibly ‘convert’ the population from the nuclear family and civic responsibility, and immigrate the underclasses the country was designed to escape from (not to mention the civil rights acts, and the civil war) which caused forced integration).

  • OLIGARCHY DOESN”T MATTER. ALL DISCRETIONARY RULE IS BAD. NOMOCRACY: the distribu

    OLIGARCHY DOESN”T MATTER. ALL DISCRETIONARY RULE IS BAD. NOMOCRACY: the distributed dictatorship of sovereign warriors. I don’t think a constitutional oligarchy matters – it might be good. it’s not as good as a constitutional monarchy. The problems are (a) democracy (b) freedom of false speech, (c) ability to circumvent of rule of law of reciprocity due to the frailty of the constitution, (d) the loss of universal standing in matters of the commons (we can’t sue politicians and bureaucrats), (e) we have no mechanism for evolving necessary monopoly bureaucracy into competitive private organizations once institutionalized (habituated). (f) the failure to modernize the fiat money system for direct distribution of liquidity to consumers rather than through credit in the financial system. (g) it has been possible to forcibly ‘convert’ the population from the nuclear family and civic responsibility, and immigrate the underclasses the country was designed to escape from (not to mention the civil rights acts, and the civil war) which caused forced integration).

  • “The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosop

    —“The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosophical text of our times.”— i hadn’t thought about that… but yes, it is on the same level of innovation as Turing, Chomsky and Hayek’s papers. Short and world changing. Although implementation has been weak.

  • “The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosop

    —“The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosophical text of our times.”— i hadn’t thought about that… but yes, it is on the same level of innovation as Turing, Chomsky and Hayek’s papers. Short and world changing. Although implementation has been weak.

  • What Does Logic Mean And What Are Its Limits?

    The human facility we call logic consists of tests of constant relations between states. The Logics consist of deflationary(limiting) grammars(rules of continuous disambiguation) that test via competition (comparison) the preservation of constant relations between states. And must, because that is all our brains(neurons) are capable of: relations. All non trivial premises are forever contingent. All non trivial statements are contingent. All non trivial proofs are contingent. And so the formal logics can only falsify the non trivial. No mathematician claims proofs and truths are the same. One does not prove the truth of anything. If not for the simple reason that confirmation does not convey truth – limits do (criteria of falsification). One tries to construct a proof of possibility or impossibility, and either can or cannot. One constructs operational proofs of possibility because operational statements are empirical (observable and measurable by the uniform system of measurement we call human action). Empirically, we prove nothing, but disprove much. Hence the world demonstrably operates by science and law. The same applies to that discipline we call logic itself. And so the formal logics teach us only how to falsify. One cannot prove a non trivial truth, only eliminate falsehoods. Popper was right. The sciences are right. I am right. Its same issue we have with mathematicians and mathematical platonism – infinities do not exit. Its a convention made necessary by scale independence. One cannot prove a truth. A statement survives prosecution or it doesn’t. Mathematics by virtue of consisting of nothing but positional names cannot consist of anything other than perfect constant relations. Just a matter of getting an authority figure to falsify it, rather than debate it with sophists who create straw men by conflating logic philosophy, law and science and just engage in denial of the first principle upon which their arguments depend: constant relations. Like prime numbers, some statements consist of relations so consistent that they cannot be otherwise. Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit. Pilpul in its original, theological, philosophical, rationalist, pseudorationalist, pseudoscientific forms can be brought to an end by consistent measurements: operational language and grammar. if we speak in complete sentences in operational grammar and semantics then we can put into law the same safeguards against propaganda and deceit in the market for information – particularly political information – that we have in the market for goods and services. -Curt Doolittle -The Propertarian Institute – Kiev Ukraine (PS: Trying to reach Catarina Dutilh Novaes to criticize it. She uses similar language so it will stand. (Never let a troll win.))

  • What Does Logic Mean And What Are Its Limits?

    The human facility we call logic consists of tests of constant relations between states. The Logics consist of deflationary(limiting) grammars(rules of continuous disambiguation) that test via competition (comparison) the preservation of constant relations between states. And must, because that is all our brains(neurons) are capable of: relations. All non trivial premises are forever contingent. All non trivial statements are contingent. All non trivial proofs are contingent. And so the formal logics can only falsify the non trivial. No mathematician claims proofs and truths are the same. One does not prove the truth of anything. If not for the simple reason that confirmation does not convey truth – limits do (criteria of falsification). One tries to construct a proof of possibility or impossibility, and either can or cannot. One constructs operational proofs of possibility because operational statements are empirical (observable and measurable by the uniform system of measurement we call human action). Empirically, we prove nothing, but disprove much. Hence the world demonstrably operates by science and law. The same applies to that discipline we call logic itself. And so the formal logics teach us only how to falsify. One cannot prove a non trivial truth, only eliminate falsehoods. Popper was right. The sciences are right. I am right. Its same issue we have with mathematicians and mathematical platonism – infinities do not exit. Its a convention made necessary by scale independence. One cannot prove a truth. A statement survives prosecution or it doesn’t. Mathematics by virtue of consisting of nothing but positional names cannot consist of anything other than perfect constant relations. Just a matter of getting an authority figure to falsify it, rather than debate it with sophists who create straw men by conflating logic philosophy, law and science and just engage in denial of the first principle upon which their arguments depend: constant relations. Like prime numbers, some statements consist of relations so consistent that they cannot be otherwise. Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit. Pilpul in its original, theological, philosophical, rationalist, pseudorationalist, pseudoscientific forms can be brought to an end by consistent measurements: operational language and grammar. if we speak in complete sentences in operational grammar and semantics then we can put into law the same safeguards against propaganda and deceit in the market for information – particularly political information – that we have in the market for goods and services. -Curt Doolittle -The Propertarian Institute – Kiev Ukraine (PS: Trying to reach Catarina Dutilh Novaes to criticize it. She uses similar language so it will stand. (Never let a troll win.))

  • Not sure where you get your info from but worldwide the tavor is widely consider

    Not sure where you get your info from but worldwide the tavor is widely considered a hunk of junk – and so are it’s clones. The Black Rifle will remain, but with a more powerful calibre still in research. It’s just too easy and comfortable to shoot, and with the 416 plunger it’s reliable. The only bullpups that are worth their weigh in gold are the AUG and the P90. The ‘plastic revoution’ has had very little influence on rifles compared to handguns. And most of the plastic ones (most of which I’ve owned or tried) are junk.