Curt Doolittle

Theme: Causality

  • All talk of principles are lies – frauds. And that the only measure of the truth

    All talk of principles are lies – frauds. And that the only measure of the truth or falsehood, good or bad, morality or immorality is the full accounting of the consequences of an action. It is an inescapable irony of libertine thought that on one had one uses the broken window parable to illustrate the necessity of accounting for all costs, then on the other hand to rely upon ‘ principles’ the very purpose of which is to circumvent the requirement for the full accounting of costs. It’s this form of selective lying that permeates all libertine (rothbardian) thought.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-15 17:30:00 UTC

  • Western philosophy, for historical reasons, avoids all mention of costs.Yet it i

    Western philosophy, for historical reasons, avoids all mention of costs.Yet it is costs upon which all human, esp. moral decisions are made.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 13:55:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797075213330612224

  • Western philosophy, for historical reasons, avoids all mention of costs.Yet it i

    Western philosophy, for historical reasons, avoids all mention of costs.Yet it is costs upon which all human, esp. moral decisions are made.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 08:55:00 UTC

  • THE FIRST QUESTIONS OF SENTIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS, POLITICS: BUYING OPTIONS (

    THE FIRST QUESTIONS OF SENTIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS, POLITICS: BUYING OPTIONS

    (important)

    —“I agree with Camus that suicide is the pre-eminent philosophical question. On a macro scale, the question is whether or not you realize the paradox of the unproductive needing the productive, the productive not needing the unproductive, yet the unproductive seeking the demise of the productive, and ultimately themselves. The left has chosen suicide. For both themselves, and us, if we allow it.”—Ryan Montague

    Excellent way of positioning it. I need to play with this a bit. Because I’ve used the first two, and talked about the third, but not taken your jump and merged it with Camus’.

    THE FIRST QUESTION OF SENTIENCE

    why and how do we think? – we select the option that produces the most options, meaning the largest number of associations. And at each moment we repeat. then we remember our option buying as planning. so we save memory. and we can repeat the process.

    THE FIRST QUESTION OF PHILOSOPHY

    why do I not commit suicide? – we are buying more options on reproduction, and that of our kin.

    THE FIRST QUESTION OF ETHICS

    why do we not kill you and take your stuff? – we are buying more options on survival from the discounts of cooperation.

    THE FIRST QUESTION OF POLITICS

    Why do we let the parasitic reproduce? – they are buying options on survival in some form with greater numbers, and we are buying discounts on current expenditures of effort. And in turn buying more options.

    Religion and philosophy start with an optimistic bias out of the in-group assumption of the benefits of cooperation. But that optimistic benefit of cooperation is in service of the unforgiving process of reproduction and evolution.

    Evolution (Kinship) isn’t an optimistic bias. It’s as physical an accounting system as is entropy in physics.

    Curt Doolittle,

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy,

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-04 06:29:00 UTC

  • TALEB AND DOOLITTLE ( by James Augustus Berens ) The problem: the scalability/sc

    TALEB AND DOOLITTLE

    ( by James Augustus Berens )

    The problem: the scalability/scope of cognition

    Methodology in identifying the problem: Causative (Curt) vs Mathematical (Taleb)

    Solution:

    Curt

    Anglo-empirical (tests/criticism + warranty)

    Force transactions to be fully informed, productive, warrantied, and voluntary. (This applies to information production as much as it does to trade)

    Vs

    Taleeb

    Aphoristic/Institutionalized Skepticism

    As far as I can tell, Taleeb understands the danger (negative externalities) of Scientism (pseudoscience), but he isn’t trying to reform the (social) sciences so that we can produce and act on warrantied information. Instead he wants to make institutions “idiot proof”/antifragile. He advocates implementing skin-in-the-game policies because he has skepticism of our ability to calculate at modern scale (who can blame him?), but he knows that will intuit their self-interest and act accordingly.

    In a way he is arguing that we create law so that we have a pre-modern experience and act-accordingly. This can be observed not only in his politics, but also in his diet and exercise program. Like many people on the right, he wants to go back to what we have observed to work.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-26 21:33:00 UTC

  • Apparently physics is included in those things that you dont know. Like life con

    Apparently physics is included in those things that you dont know. Like life converting molecules and expending waste heat.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-24 08:13:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/790466325739077632

    Reply addressees: @SnapPopCrackle

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/790438619940958208

    IN REPLY TO:

    @SnapPopCrackle

    @curtdoolittle “Acting allows us to obtain the difference between our expenditure and capture of energy.” I can’t even.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/790438619940958208

  • DEFINITION: CAUSAL DETERMINISM Determinism in Philosophy vs Causal Determinism i

    DEFINITION: CAUSAL DETERMINISM

    Determinism in Philosophy vs Causal Determinism in Science.

    In philosophy, determinism refers to predestination. It’s an extreme pretension. And philosophical determinism does not survive scrutiny because physical determinism does not survive scrutiny.

    So what we have left once we eliminate philosophical determinism, is scientific determinism. Which we often distinguish using the clarification of ‘causal determinism’

    Scientific determinism says that the universe operates by regular rules that we can discover, and that indeterminism arises out of complexity we cannot possess the information to measure, nor is there regularity to the universe in practical (actionable) terms, below and above certain levels.

    For example, we can describe how gasses expand but we cannot determine where any given molecule will end up. A common example in simple physics is filling a barrel with numbered marbles, and tipping it over. Regardless of the initial position of the marbles, and assuming we do not ‘cheat’ by organizing them in some sort of structure, no matter how precisely we repeat the process of pouring the marbles on the floor, we will never predict the resulting position of an individual marble. Yet we will be able to define patterns of behavior. What we will do is determine the *limits* of our ability to describe where a given marble will end up. Hence our ability to create reasonably, but not quite believable, software simulations of such phenomenon.

    It may be possible that we simply lack measurement tools and information stores and machines capable of measuring such things. But as far as we know at present, the universe is only probabilistic at the lowest level, not deterministic.

    So in science, causal determinism refers to regularity within limits. And we use deterministic as a an adjective. Like ‘fast’: something can be slightly or highly deterministic.

    If the universe was not deterministic we could not conduct science.

    But it is, so we can.

    This does not mean that there is no room for free will. And it does not mean that there are precisely determinable formula for everything.

    It means only that we can define general rules to some degree of precision for all phenomenon. In other words “all general rules must specify a limit”.

    For example, it is logical that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment. On the other hand it has proven incredibly difficult to prove one way or another. Same for the neutrality of money. In both these cases we cannot really state anything more precise than that in any meaningful way.

    But it is this concept of limit – and its accompanying requirement for full accounting – that has been missing from our philosophical, scientific, economic, and political discourse.

    Newtonian physics were not false. We use them every day. They are less precise than Einsteinian physics. And undoubtably, when we discover the theory of everything, it will be more precise than Einsteinian physics. Does that mean that Newtonian physics fails at human scale, or that Einsteinian Physics fails at observable-universe scale? No. Not at all.

    It means that to some degree, all science requires that we discover our current limits, and seek solutions to those beyond them, extending the limits of our perception and understanding.

    Does that mean we will not discover some greater but unfortunately unmeasurable regularity to the subatomic universe with the ‘theory of everything’? Perhaps, and perhaps not. I suspect that the problem of measurement will remain with us forever, and that our ability to ACT to change the course of the universe for our benefit will forever be a matter of energy and cost, not one of understanding.

    And as is expected, if we cannot act upon it, then it is not material for human beings. We are bound by the same rules of the universe as is everything else in it.

    Everything costs.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-21 08:08:00 UTC

  • DEFINITIONS: DETERMINISM VS PROBABILITY Probabilism is an issue of measurement p

    DEFINITIONS: DETERMINISM VS PROBABILITY

    Probabilism is an issue of measurement precision, determinism means only ‘regular pattern’ not precision.

    When we say that something is deterministic all we are saying is that it produces a pattern of regularity – like velocity.

    So something demonstrates velocity, but we must say how much. Something demonstrates determinism but we must say how much.

    All physical phenomenon can be described deterministically. The problem is whether or not they can be probabilistically.

    A lot of phenomenon are deterministic – but not probabilistic (the neutrality of money for example)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 12:29:00 UTC

  • So now we have a full sequence of causal relations between reproductive necessit

    So now we have a full sequence of causal relations between reproductive necessity and property rights in law. bio>moral>law.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 15:41:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787317519120031744

    Reply addressees: @danielcraigb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787116258990911489

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787116258990911489

  • The Fallacy of Libertarian ‘Principles’.

    ( recorded here ) This is such a great question. And I can answer it from several or all points of view.

    • First: any argument to principle is not argument to causality and can be generally interpreted as an attempt at deceit by the use of half truths in order to cause the individual to rely on intuition and therefore be the victim of suggestion.
    • Second: the full sentence would be that man acts in his rational self interest at all times given his available information and his available means of understanding.
    • Third: mises epistemology is a derivation of the kantian fallacy. Because while we can use free association to construct hypotheses, in the form of deduction, induction, and abduction (guessing), we cannot claim these to be truth propositions like we can in geometry, ( nor can we in geometry at scale either) because the information in reality is more causally dense than the ideal world of perfect imaginary mathematical categories. So for truth propositions we must ensure to perform due diligence that our discovery of a free association remains a truth candidate.
      This is what the scientific method accomplished: due diligence against falsehood. That is all. And our success arises from eliminating many errors so that our free associations are increasingly superior.

    What does this mean? It means that economic observations remain empirical – beyond direct perception. But that we must be able to explain any empirical observation as a sequence of subjectively testable voluntary operations in order for it to be a truth candidate. So Mises had it backward. All sciences require empirical observation to capture imperceptible phenomenon, but all truth claims must be warranted against error bias wishful thinking, suggestion and error, by acts of due diligence. The test of existential possibility and objective morality is performed praxeologically: by subjectively testing the sequence of operations necessary to produce the empirically observed phenomenon. I could go on at length here but this should be enough. IN CLOSING: It is obvious to me that just as anglos used martial empiricism and contractualism in their enlightenment. And just as Germans used hierarchical duty and rationalism as a restatement of Germanic Christianity. The Jews used the authoritarianism of Jewish law as a reformation of their religion. We can see mises like Freud, Marx, and Boaz as attempting to create an authoritarian pseudoscience using half truth and suggestion because Jewish law and religion is constructed by this method. My rather uncomfortable observation is that this technique like Jewish ghetto financing, is a pattern under which suggestion can be use to use temporal language to create seductive moral hazards from which they and profit. That mises had like Rothbard adopted this strategy metaphysically and involuntarily is obvious. Both men, like Marx, went to their graves knowing they were wrong but not knowing yet what assumptions in their cultural heritage caused them to err.