—“Very possibly classical mathematics will cease to exist as an independent discipline”— (Bishop, 1970, p. 54)
[I] can translate this into something scary:
“Very possibly, classical philosophy and science will cease to exist as independent disciplines.”
That is precisely what I am up to – although I didn’t know it when I started. 🙂
[W]E JUSTIFY:
(a) To convey meaning – to provide a path by which we incrementally transfer properties by analogy to achieve conclusions.
(b) To convey honesty – to demonstrate that we are telling the truth to the best of our understanding.
(c) To demonstrate the we adhere to NORMS in our reasoning – that we have not violated the social contract. (This is how we get into all sorts of interesting problems. Because truth is only truth in the sense that we mean it, in the west.)
AND CONVERSELY:
(d) To lie – to lead others to false conclusions by design.
(e) To vector a lie for pragmatic purposes – to lead others to conclusions we prefer using the arguments of others as a matter of practical action.
AND HOW DO WE ACHIEVE THE FORMER WITHOUT THE LATTER?
(f) separate the route by which we establish meaning, from the route by which we demonstrate truth. It is possible to construct a theory by any means, but it is only possible to testify to the truth of it by operational means – existentially possible means, and in matters of human action, SUBJECTIVELY TESTABLE means. (rationality of incentives).
MATH CONFUSED US.
In mathematics, at least, for the most part, the means of conducting operations to solve a problem is nearly identical to the means of demonstrating the construction of a solution using existentially possible operations.
We sought to copy mathematics – starting with the Greeks. But we lacked the understanding of why math was so effective at the ascertaining truth of relations: because there is very little difference between the process of theorizing and the process of construction.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
[W]E JUSTIFY:
(a) To convey meaning – to provide a path by which we incrementally transfer properties by analogy to achieve conclusions.
(b) To convey honesty – to demonstrate that we are telling the truth to the best of our understanding.
(c) To demonstrate the we adhere to NORMS in our reasoning – that we have not violated the social contract. (This is how we get into all sorts of interesting problems. Because truth is only truth in the sense that we mean it, in the west.)
AND CONVERSELY:
(d) To lie – to lead others to false conclusions by design.
(e) To vector a lie for pragmatic purposes – to lead others to conclusions we prefer using the arguments of others as a matter of practical action.
AND HOW DO WE ACHIEVE THE FORMER WITHOUT THE LATTER?
(f) separate the route by which we establish meaning, from the route by which we demonstrate truth. It is possible to construct a theory by any means, but it is only possible to testify to the truth of it by operational means – existentially possible means, and in matters of human action, SUBJECTIVELY TESTABLE means. (rationality of incentives).
MATH CONFUSED US.
In mathematics, at least, for the most part, the means of conducting operations to solve a problem is nearly identical to the means of demonstrating the construction of a solution using existentially possible operations.
We sought to copy mathematics – starting with the Greeks. But we lacked the understanding of why math was so effective at the ascertaining truth of relations: because there is very little difference between the process of theorizing and the process of construction.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
[W]e can construct libertarianism as a (a) sentimental, (b) ratio-moral, or (c) ratio-legal, or (d) legal-empirical framework – a body of interdependent arguments.
But if we rely upon sentimental, and ratio-moral construction, then statements are not decidable, and opinion still influences the decision – we leave open not only the possibility of, but the preference for the addition of subjective preference into any decision. That is why we cannot construct rule of law upon ratio-moral arguments – revisionism and evolutionary corruption.
This is why libertarianism in the anglo tradition has been constructed as a legal framework rather than moral framework of the cosmopolitan and continental traditions – by using strict construction and original intent.
However, while this construction – as a system of calculation, which prohibits, unlike rationalism, the introduction of information not present in the original construction – still leaves open the question as to what determines the scope and limits to property upon which a ratio-legal law is calculated.
Empirical-legal evidence tells us that if we wish to construct a libertarian society, that we must define property as that which people treat as property by defense of it, and retaliation for violations of it.
Without this knowledge we cannot eliminate demand for the state as an imposer of arbitrary norms, and suppressor of retaliation for violations of property that humans demonstrate they intuit as their property.
There is only one way to eliminate the state, and that is to eliminate demand for it, by providing a sufficient body of property rights law, that all disputes are rationally decidable without the addition of subjective information.
[W]e can construct libertarianism as a (a) sentimental, (b) ratio-moral, or (c) ratio-legal, or (d) legal-empirical framework – a body of interdependent arguments.
But if we rely upon sentimental, and ratio-moral construction, then statements are not decidable, and opinion still influences the decision – we leave open not only the possibility of, but the preference for the addition of subjective preference into any decision. That is why we cannot construct rule of law upon ratio-moral arguments – revisionism and evolutionary corruption.
This is why libertarianism in the anglo tradition has been constructed as a legal framework rather than moral framework of the cosmopolitan and continental traditions – by using strict construction and original intent.
However, while this construction – as a system of calculation, which prohibits, unlike rationalism, the introduction of information not present in the original construction – still leaves open the question as to what determines the scope and limits to property upon which a ratio-legal law is calculated.
Empirical-legal evidence tells us that if we wish to construct a libertarian society, that we must define property as that which people treat as property by defense of it, and retaliation for violations of it.
Without this knowledge we cannot eliminate demand for the state as an imposer of arbitrary norms, and suppressor of retaliation for violations of property that humans demonstrate they intuit as their property.
There is only one way to eliminate the state, and that is to eliminate demand for it, by providing a sufficient body of property rights law, that all disputes are rationally decidable without the addition of subjective information.
[H]urry! Today, you can cleanse yourself of Anglo enlightenment universalism, German Rationalism, Jewish Pseudoscience, Christian Superstition, and whatever other other intellectual disease the ails you. (Members of the Cathedral, Islamism and Buddhism may require higher doses and longer treatment periods.) Save humanity from all variants of the Levantine Plague.
Sorry. No discounts. It’s against our principles.
-The Management
[H]urry! Today, you can cleanse yourself of Anglo enlightenment universalism, German Rationalism, Jewish Pseudoscience, Christian Superstition, and whatever other other intellectual disease the ails you. (Members of the Cathedral, Islamism and Buddhism may require higher doses and longer treatment periods.) Save humanity from all variants of the Levantine Plague.
Sorry. No discounts. It’s against our principles.
-The Management
de.aristocratia
—When asked what form of instruction was most in vogue in Sparta, he said, “Knowledge of how to rule and to be ruled.”—
[R]eform the academy with violence, not words: Testimonial Truth, Ethics, Law, Politics, Economics, Engineering and War.
One does not rule those who are immoral with their permission – but expressly without it.
Otherwise they would not need to be ruled.
de.aristocratia
—When asked what form of instruction was most in vogue in Sparta, he said, “Knowledge of how to rule and to be ruled.”—
[R]eform the academy with violence, not words: Testimonial Truth, Ethics, Law, Politics, Economics, Engineering and War.
One does not rule those who are immoral with their permission – but expressly without it.
Otherwise they would not need to be ruled.
de.aristocratia
[M]oral judgement is not open to question any more than mathematical formulae are open to question. Either equations balance, and proofs can be constructed or they cannot. Either fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externality was performed, or it was not. And in both cases, either information exists sufficient for decidability, or it does not. But no questions are undecidable if the information is present.