Curt Doolittle

Theme: Causality

  • THE REASONS FOR DECREASING CRIME – IN ORDER FYI: Reasons for the decrease in cri

    THE REASONS FOR DECREASING CRIME – IN ORDER

    FYI: Reasons for the decrease in crime. 1) widespread availability of cheap, high calorie, fast food, laden with monosodium glutamate, and/or consisting of carbohydrates, and/or high fructose corn syrup sugars. 2) widespread use of cheap marijuana, 3) widespread availability of cheap digital entertainment products. 4) widespread availability of free pornography, 5) widespread overweight underclass population lacking physical energy and speed, 6) widespread broken-window zero-tolerance policies by the police, courts, and legislatures – reversing motherly and progressive policies, 7) widespread increase in incarcerated population, 8) aggressive feminization of males from early childhood in the school system. 9) limited expansion of stand-your-ground laws, restoration of self-defense policies, and increase in home gun ownership.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 08:11:00 UTC

  • To rationalize is to make excuses. To tell children’s stories is to rationalize

    To rationalize is to make excuses. To tell children’s stories is to rationalize by imitation rather than reason. To analogize in history is to offer evidence. To argue in physical and natural law is to offer proof. The truth is forever unknown to us even if we speak it. The best we can do is offer proof that we have performed due diligence against all known alternatives.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 12:35:00 UTC

  • Definition: Law

    DEFINITION: LAW (‘inescapable’). 1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature or man(polity, or government). 2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality, 3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law) 4 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government). 5 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort. 6 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance). 7 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance. Of these seven, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, unenforcible, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insure

  • Definition: Law

    DEFINITION: LAW (‘inescapable’). 1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature or man(polity, or government). 2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality, 3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law) 4 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government). 5 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort. 6 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance). 7 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance. Of these seven, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, unenforcible, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insure

  • It’s A Function of the Right Place At The Right Time

    (to others) I would say that I was able to complete the program – the completion of the scientific enlightenment because I was lucky enough to live in an era of software programming, and lucky enough to understand how the philosophers of the nineteenth and twentieth century failed, because of that ‘odd’ exposure. If I had to say who was most influential it would be popper’s inability to complete his program, mises error in miscasting praxeology, hoppe’s success in using property as a unit of commensurability despite the error in his dependence upon kantian rationalism; and the observation that hayek came very close in his work on the law, but for his reliance ( like so many others) upon is perception of psychology rather than the computability and cognitive science that we have today. But that I was most able to articulate the argument clearly by combining those failures with the near successes of Hilbert,Brouwer, Bridgman in other fields. I think aside from (a) programming, (b) we have sufficient information about the failings of mathematics in modeling (Not describing) economic phenomenon, (c) we have exceptional information on cognitive science and genetics (d) we have enough evidence of voting patterns under democracy, and (e) it is finally possible because of the internet to access information rapidly enough that if one works very hard it is possible to master multiple fields in one human lifetime. So my ability to complete the program and provide the Wilsonian Synthesis ( solve the unification of science, biology, philosophy, ethics, law, economics, and politics,) was due largely to existing at the right point in time, with so many men who ca me so close just one or two or three generations before me. Unfortunately, this is going to be one of those issues just like reason (aristotle) , rationalism (Descartes) and epiricism (Bacon, locke smith hume, darwin, menger, maxwell, spencer etc ) that is going to be as unpleasant to adapt to.

  • It’s A Function of the Right Place At The Right Time

    (to others) I would say that I was able to complete the program – the completion of the scientific enlightenment because I was lucky enough to live in an era of software programming, and lucky enough to understand how the philosophers of the nineteenth and twentieth century failed, because of that ‘odd’ exposure. If I had to say who was most influential it would be popper’s inability to complete his program, mises error in miscasting praxeology, hoppe’s success in using property as a unit of commensurability despite the error in his dependence upon kantian rationalism; and the observation that hayek came very close in his work on the law, but for his reliance ( like so many others) upon is perception of psychology rather than the computability and cognitive science that we have today. But that I was most able to articulate the argument clearly by combining those failures with the near successes of Hilbert,Brouwer, Bridgman in other fields. I think aside from (a) programming, (b) we have sufficient information about the failings of mathematics in modeling (Not describing) economic phenomenon, (c) we have exceptional information on cognitive science and genetics (d) we have enough evidence of voting patterns under democracy, and (e) it is finally possible because of the internet to access information rapidly enough that if one works very hard it is possible to master multiple fields in one human lifetime. So my ability to complete the program and provide the Wilsonian Synthesis ( solve the unification of science, biology, philosophy, ethics, law, economics, and politics,) was due largely to existing at the right point in time, with so many men who ca me so close just one or two or three generations before me. Unfortunately, this is going to be one of those issues just like reason (aristotle) , rationalism (Descartes) and epiricism (Bacon, locke smith hume, darwin, menger, maxwell, spencer etc ) that is going to be as unpleasant to adapt to.

  • Or we can just simplify Taleb and say that we evolved to identify opportunities

    Or we can just simplify Taleb and say that we evolved to identify opportunities using very little available information, but it takes an absurd – meaning voluminous and expensive – amount of information before we know enough to determine whether the effect of an outlier cancels out all the possible opportunity that can result from our identification of opportunity using little information. Or to put Taleb’s rule of thumb to it: canceling outliers require logarithmic increases in information before we have any idea of the consequences. Ergo, it is better to be against people act opportunistically in the short term under the assumption of the stability of a long term.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-08 15:53:00 UTC

  • genes favor evidential superiority over evidential commonality. why? survival do

    genes favor evidential superiority over evidential commonality.

    why? survival does not depend upon the comfort of the parent.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 10:31:00 UTC

  • Don’t get it backwards. Math is so powerful precisely ’cause it’s so simple (dum

    Don’t get it backwards. Math is so powerful precisely ’cause it’s so simple (dumb). It’s easy to be correct when you choose your own causal density. It’s far harder to be correct when you can’t.

    Math is pretty simple for that reason, and we can delve into great complexity because of simplicity.

    But we are having problems in physics at higher causal density.

    And mathematics is all but useless in social science (say, in economics) because of causal density.

    And we can’t even figure out a unit of measure for sentience yet, which is an even higher causal density.

    So when people make statements like you just did, it sounds a little bit like someone saying chess is complicated. Actually it’s not. It’s a closed (ludic) game. It’s just hard for humans. There is math that is hard for humans for the same reason: mere scale of permutations. But it’s still trivial.

    Tell me how to measure the market value of a brand.

    Tell me how to measure the future rate of decline of iphone appeal.

    Tell me how to measure how much information it takes to change state from one idea to another?

    Doing puzzles is simple.

    Problems have high causal density.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-28 12:57:00 UTC

  • Free Will

    FREE WILL? —“Up until now everybody has gotten it completely backwards: free will is not rebelling against nature and escaping natural cause-and-effect, but it is exactly the opposite. By becoming part of the cause-and-effect chains and inserting ourselves into them, we gain agency.”—Moritz Bierling