(economics, philosophy) I’ve been working with framing the debate against naive mathematics as similar to the debate against naive empiricism, because economics makes use of both naive empiricism and naive mathematics. For a very long time – since at least the greeks – we have advanced the fallacy that the universe is written in mathematical language. And we have advanced the fallacy that mathematics provides the gold standard by which to test our observations and theories. But, skipping ahead a bit, mathematics consists of a set of operations with which we maintain constant relations, and where we describe aggregates OF UNDERLYING OPERATIONS (transformations), without knowing the constitution of those underlying operations. So: 4) Conceptually identifiable phenomenon. 3) Empirically measurable phenomenon. 2) Mathematical description of patterns of those phenomenon. 1) Operational construction of those phenomenon. 0) Information In much of human inquiry we have been incorrectly categorizing the problem as the discovery of patterns we observe, rather than the problem of operations that constitute them. 0) Information 1) Operations 2) Mathematics 3) Computers 4) “Recipes” 5) “Language” Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.
Source: Original Site Post
-
If You Want To Knock Me, This Isn’t The Way To Do It.
(Curt Doolittle December 23 at 10:12am · Doniphan, NE · ) —“You’re a 50 something autist who lives in a backwater European country. You studied art history in college, you’ve never been published, and you spend your whole time espousing your ideas on reddit and Facebook. Who is going to ever take you seriously? “— Liberty Owl Ad hominem of the day. Apparently can’t google my bio. Let me help you. The correct criticism of me is that I am a ruthless and ethically questionable competitor in business and life who single-mindedly pursues his messianic calling nearly regardless of consequence to myself or others, and the outcome of which is as yet unfinished and untested – yet shows profound promise. I know who and what I am. My mirror doesn’t lie. It’s far more critical than you would have the courage to stare into. I have not the courage either. It is fear for my people and mankind not courage that drives me. I do not judge myself a good person. I judge myself a warrior and there are no ethical and moral constraints in wars of extermination.
From a man who kicks my backside on a regular basis: —” “it took you two hours to basically say that ethical systems throughout history where man made, and not necessarily compatible with what I suspect you consider to be the Darwinian nature of man. “–liberty owl The premise is that all of these human behaviors are different evolutionary strategies. The parasitic methods are no less an evolutionary strategy than the one that utilizes testimonialism to a higher degree. “On Red Ice radio you said that the legal process and the scientific method are “the same!”. Why, of course they are, at a superficial enough level.” What’s the deeper level?”— Josh Jeppson —“I don’t understand how ostensibly intelligent people can’t pause and ask themselves whether they’re merely signaling their weakness. There’s a way to kick Curt’s ass. It’s not through telegraphing you have a lower verbal IQ. “Vague language” is not a complaint. Hit the books. Ask questions. Don’t be a little bitch. He’s on our side, so you picking a fight with him of all people screams feminine gossipy insecurity.”— Josh Jeppson
-
If You Want To Knock Me, This Isn’t The Way To Do It.
(Curt Doolittle December 23 at 10:12am · Doniphan, NE · ) —“You’re a 50 something autist who lives in a backwater European country. You studied art history in college, you’ve never been published, and you spend your whole time espousing your ideas on reddit and Facebook. Who is going to ever take you seriously? “— Liberty Owl Ad hominem of the day. Apparently can’t google my bio. Let me help you. The correct criticism of me is that I am a ruthless and ethically questionable competitor in business and life who single-mindedly pursues his messianic calling nearly regardless of consequence to myself or others, and the outcome of which is as yet unfinished and untested – yet shows profound promise. I know who and what I am. My mirror doesn’t lie. It’s far more critical than you would have the courage to stare into. I have not the courage either. It is fear for my people and mankind not courage that drives me. I do not judge myself a good person. I judge myself a warrior and there are no ethical and moral constraints in wars of extermination.
From a man who kicks my backside on a regular basis: —” “it took you two hours to basically say that ethical systems throughout history where man made, and not necessarily compatible with what I suspect you consider to be the Darwinian nature of man. “–liberty owl The premise is that all of these human behaviors are different evolutionary strategies. The parasitic methods are no less an evolutionary strategy than the one that utilizes testimonialism to a higher degree. “On Red Ice radio you said that the legal process and the scientific method are “the same!”. Why, of course they are, at a superficial enough level.” What’s the deeper level?”— Josh Jeppson —“I don’t understand how ostensibly intelligent people can’t pause and ask themselves whether they’re merely signaling their weakness. There’s a way to kick Curt’s ass. It’s not through telegraphing you have a lower verbal IQ. “Vague language” is not a complaint. Hit the books. Ask questions. Don’t be a little bitch. He’s on our side, so you picking a fight with him of all people screams feminine gossipy insecurity.”— Josh Jeppson
-
A Sentence isn’t false. The Speaker States a Falsehood.
(Bill Joslin – December 17 at 9:38pm) There is sooo much in this small conversation!:
Curt Doolittle: A sentence does not speak. A speaker speaks a sentence. A sentence is not false. the speaker’s statement is false. Curt Doolittle: now you understand why we say ‘is true’ rather than “i promise” – to deceive. Moritz Bierling: Yeah, you’re borrowing objectivity for your personal statement. Curt Doolittle: I tend to, and I try to encourage others to, think about the information that is present and the information that is missing, and the incentives to remove information. or claim information exists that does not. We are somewhat vulnerable because the means by which we transfer meaning (substitution) is also the means by which we deceive (false substitution)
-
A Sentence isn’t false. The Speaker States a Falsehood.
(Bill Joslin – December 17 at 9:38pm) There is sooo much in this small conversation!:
Curt Doolittle: A sentence does not speak. A speaker speaks a sentence. A sentence is not false. the speaker’s statement is false. Curt Doolittle: now you understand why we say ‘is true’ rather than “i promise” – to deceive. Moritz Bierling: Yeah, you’re borrowing objectivity for your personal statement. Curt Doolittle: I tend to, and I try to encourage others to, think about the information that is present and the information that is missing, and the incentives to remove information. or claim information exists that does not. We are somewhat vulnerable because the means by which we transfer meaning (substitution) is also the means by which we deceive (false substitution)
-
Why Do Rationalists Avoid Testing via the Empirical, Operational, and Reciprocity?
1) if we CAN fully expand a sentence, before we test it for internal consistency, and we do not do so, then why? In other words, what is the informational content between an unexpanded sentence, and an expanded sentence? And why would we fail to expand a sentence that can be expanded? What is the difference between the order of terms in mathematics, the order of terms in set statements, and the order of terms in operational language, and the order of terms in fully expanded natural language, and the order of terms in colloquial natural language?So if we start with a statement in colloquial language then fully expand it in natural language, then fully expand it in operational language, then it is almost impossible to construct the vast majority of sophomoric pseudo-philosophical questions. 2) The necessity of the prohibition on the verb to-be, (another category of expansion) evolved to prevent stating authoritatively that which is merely subjective opinion. But in addition, it also prevents conflating intention, experience, interpretations, and actions. Of which we can only test actions. 3) Promissory expansion of statements (sentences) evolved to prevent forms of suggestion and conflation. (Instead of Strawson’s light version of performative truth, use promissory – strict -construction that precedes each statement ” I promise that….” 4) In the sequence: 1 – identity (categorically consistent) 2 – logical (internally consistent) 3 – empirical (externally consistent) 4 – operational (existentially consistent) 5 – moral (reciprocally consistent) 6 – fully accounted (scope consistent) 7 – limits and parsimony (limit consistent); each dimension of which increases the informational content we are testing …. we have the choice of choosing to increase the dimensions that we test, using the methodology capable of testing that dimension, or limiting ourselves to the current dimension’s means of testing. Now, when we increase the dimensions, we gain new knowledge which we can then use to recursively test each prior dimension by its method. So why would one choose to test a question by internal consistency rather than external correspondence followed by another test of internal consistency? 5) When testing for internal consistency, we eventually run into the problem of completeness. And while we can construct relatively complete statements axiomatically we cannot do so theoretically (against reality) because of causal density, except in the special cases (reductio). -
Why Do Rationalists Avoid Testing via the Empirical, Operational, and Reciprocity?
1) if we CAN fully expand a sentence, before we test it for internal consistency, and we do not do so, then why? In other words, what is the informational content between an unexpanded sentence, and an expanded sentence? And why would we fail to expand a sentence that can be expanded? What is the difference between the order of terms in mathematics, the order of terms in set statements, and the order of terms in operational language, and the order of terms in fully expanded natural language, and the order of terms in colloquial natural language?So if we start with a statement in colloquial language then fully expand it in natural language, then fully expand it in operational language, then it is almost impossible to construct the vast majority of sophomoric pseudo-philosophical questions. 2) The necessity of the prohibition on the verb to-be, (another category of expansion) evolved to prevent stating authoritatively that which is merely subjective opinion. But in addition, it also prevents conflating intention, experience, interpretations, and actions. Of which we can only test actions. 3) Promissory expansion of statements (sentences) evolved to prevent forms of suggestion and conflation. (Instead of Strawson’s light version of performative truth, use promissory – strict -construction that precedes each statement ” I promise that….” 4) In the sequence: 1 – identity (categorically consistent) 2 – logical (internally consistent) 3 – empirical (externally consistent) 4 – operational (existentially consistent) 5 – moral (reciprocally consistent) 6 – fully accounted (scope consistent) 7 – limits and parsimony (limit consistent); each dimension of which increases the informational content we are testing …. we have the choice of choosing to increase the dimensions that we test, using the methodology capable of testing that dimension, or limiting ourselves to the current dimension’s means of testing. Now, when we increase the dimensions, we gain new knowledge which we can then use to recursively test each prior dimension by its method. So why would one choose to test a question by internal consistency rather than external correspondence followed by another test of internal consistency? 5) When testing for internal consistency, we eventually run into the problem of completeness. And while we can construct relatively complete statements axiomatically we cannot do so theoretically (against reality) because of causal density, except in the special cases (reductio). -
Open Borders Produce Forceful Redistribution.
—“Property norms define superior and inferior claims. The current condition of the “unused” land is subsidized at gun point by victims of tax theft. Those victims therefore have the best objective link to its use. An open border policy is therefore the forceful redistribution of resources from those with superior property claims to those with inferior property claims.”—Jared Howe -
Open Borders Produce Forceful Redistribution.
—“Property norms define superior and inferior claims. The current condition of the “unused” land is subsidized at gun point by victims of tax theft. Those victims therefore have the best objective link to its use. An open border policy is therefore the forceful redistribution of resources from those with superior property claims to those with inferior property claims.”—Jared Howe -
Complexity That Assists in Truth Telling
—-“Complexity is often employed to deceive, obfuscate, and evade the simplest of truths. The proper function of complexity is in the increased precision of truth telling, rather than the enhancement of lying.”—-Adam Houseman