Curt Doolittle

Theme: Causality

  • 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.

  • The Ony Authority Is Totality Of Consequence

      ***There is no authority but totality of consequence*** Forever ignorant, forever ill-informed, forever limited by reason, we have increasingly general rules to rely upon when we must make the dozens if not hundreds of decisions we make daily. To make those decisions, we rely upon those methods of decision making we call manners, ethics, morals, traditions, history, natural laws, and formulae, consist entirely of theories that have survived over time, through a multitude of uses. Infrequently in human history, these theories change along with the great shifts in our geography, economy, technology, and knowledge and cause changes to manners, ethics, morals, traditions, our interpretation of and value of historical examples, and the set of formulae that we use most frequently. And we demonstrate those changes by altering our family structure, property allocations, and means of commons production: the structure of reproduction, the structure of production of goods and services, and the structure of production of commons. We can, from this history, given enough ‘shifts’ to compare with each other, derive basic rules of human cooperation that remain unchanged regardless of the weights and values and decision criteria we use in each era. These general rules are what we refer to as “natural law”. And that Natural Law is reducible to this principle: In any given structure of reproduction, production, and production of commons, all normative manners, ethics, morals, traditions, histories, myths, and institutions will adapt such that we produce the least imposition of costs upon one another’s expended efforts -parasitism- necessary to preserve that structure of reproduction, production, and production of commons. We seem, in each era, to produce some variation between Nash and Pareto optimums to until all possible rents at all possible levels are consumed. This maximization of rents (efficiency) creates both efficiency and fragility. And then when the necessary shocks arrive to trade routes, disease, climate, populations, war, immigration, conversion, the society cannot be reordered under the existing system of production and rents. This is why small nations are superior to large: they experiment small, and they fail small, and are subject to constant competition that forces early failure. This is the secret to western civilization. Because we cooperate better than other peoples by the near total suppression of free riding, and the inescapability of contract, we can create networks instead of hierarchies, and remain flexible at the cost of constant competition which gainst us constant adaptation. The USA will fail, just as Europe will fail – and we must make them fail. Because scale merely misleads us with visible efficiencies at the cost of invisible fragilities by maximizing rents along with maximizing redistribution. This is the law of nature. This is the law of man. Thus endeth the lesson. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Ony Authority Is Totality Of Consequence

      ***There is no authority but totality of consequence*** Forever ignorant, forever ill-informed, forever limited by reason, we have increasingly general rules to rely upon when we must make the dozens if not hundreds of decisions we make daily. To make those decisions, we rely upon those methods of decision making we call manners, ethics, morals, traditions, history, natural laws, and formulae, consist entirely of theories that have survived over time, through a multitude of uses. Infrequently in human history, these theories change along with the great shifts in our geography, economy, technology, and knowledge and cause changes to manners, ethics, morals, traditions, our interpretation of and value of historical examples, and the set of formulae that we use most frequently. And we demonstrate those changes by altering our family structure, property allocations, and means of commons production: the structure of reproduction, the structure of production of goods and services, and the structure of production of commons. We can, from this history, given enough ‘shifts’ to compare with each other, derive basic rules of human cooperation that remain unchanged regardless of the weights and values and decision criteria we use in each era. These general rules are what we refer to as “natural law”. And that Natural Law is reducible to this principle: In any given structure of reproduction, production, and production of commons, all normative manners, ethics, morals, traditions, histories, myths, and institutions will adapt such that we produce the least imposition of costs upon one another’s expended efforts -parasitism- necessary to preserve that structure of reproduction, production, and production of commons. We seem, in each era, to produce some variation between Nash and Pareto optimums to until all possible rents at all possible levels are consumed. This maximization of rents (efficiency) creates both efficiency and fragility. And then when the necessary shocks arrive to trade routes, disease, climate, populations, war, immigration, conversion, the society cannot be reordered under the existing system of production and rents. This is why small nations are superior to large: they experiment small, and they fail small, and are subject to constant competition that forces early failure. This is the secret to western civilization. Because we cooperate better than other peoples by the near total suppression of free riding, and the inescapability of contract, we can create networks instead of hierarchies, and remain flexible at the cost of constant competition which gainst us constant adaptation. The USA will fail, just as Europe will fail – and we must make them fail. Because scale merely misleads us with visible efficiencies at the cost of invisible fragilities by maximizing rents along with maximizing redistribution. This is the law of nature. This is the law of man. Thus endeth the lesson. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Divine, Supernatural, Moral, And Scientific

    —“Is the universe open for free actions or divine interventions or other special divine actions? Are there reasons for the impossibility claims?”— We have not yet eliminated the possibility. We certainly cannot seem to construct any test of such things. All tests we run that would require human control of outcomes have failed – spectacularly. We cannot even find one instance. But what if only the unintended can be caused by collective imagination? In other words, if you were a divinity why would you allow access to the resource? You wouldn’t. Ever. So the reason for the claim of impossibility is not because we know it’s impossible, it’s because we want to stop charlatans, magicians, pseudoscientists, and liars from distracting us from that divine action that we can take if we are acting in full subconscious honesty (pure faith). It is becoming increasingly possible to imagine that by some very, very, very subtle method, we can cause a ‘god’ to form out of the information we possess, our memories, our speech, our actions, and even our imaginings. And that this god like all such gods, is not in control of the physical universe, but that it does influence our actions and ambitions in the same sense that a super-intelligent but non-sentient mind would. –“What is a free action? Which definitions of ‘free action’ are useful and adequate? What is a divine intervention? What other kinds of divine action are there?”— Divine intervention can be explained if and only if it is demonstrated by human behavior. Free action is necessary for the simple reason that the information necessary to make a decision in a deterministic universe, isn’t possible for a person to possess, plus given the human propensity to err bias etc, means that all choice involves quite a bit of choice. The constraint on most human action however is resources and people with whom to cooperate, more than our own desire to act. –“Which evidence is there for the existence of free actions (of a certain kind) and of divine interventions? (An evidence-based approach.)”— What we call synchronicity does not seem, in all cases, to be explicable. It may be that some of us are just better at picking up subtle physical markers by accident (subconsciously) but that we cannot do anything when trying (consciously). It may be that those of us exposed to similar information deterministically will pursue similar objectives and take similar actions producing similar intuitions, producing similar imaginary content, and sensing similar extremely subtle information. I am currently stuck on the problems we find in physical science at the very lowest level, and that we seem to be only aware of a subset of the universe that’s open to inspection by our senses. But this is a very small percentage of the energy and mass in the universe. When I combine this with the silence in space, I am troubled that we are just very primitive in our understanding of space-time and transit through it by other than EMR and crude mass. So (a) the reason we push back on mysticism and divinity is to protect against charlatanism not because we cannot eliminate the possibility of either. In other words it is a moral imperative that we do not have another era of ignorance and mysticism. (b) any existent (conscious or not) divinity would prevent us from conducting conscious experiments to take advantage of the resource he made available for us. (c) We don’t know enough to eliminate the possibility of such an information system (god). And it looks like it is possible (despite the simplicity of the universe that we do understand) that there are phenomenon that transcend the limits of the physical world as we know it – at least to the extent of providing us some information. (d) We can’t seem to find a single case despite trying (very hard) of any divine action that is not explicable by other means. (e) We can’t disprove, and it is more likely, that any information system (god) would not evidence itself in the physical world except through our actions, imaginations, or hallucinations. And that we are looking for the wrong kind of evidence (physical) rather than the only kind that would be possible (experiential). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • The Divine, Supernatural, Moral, And Scientific

    —“Is the universe open for free actions or divine interventions or other special divine actions? Are there reasons for the impossibility claims?”— We have not yet eliminated the possibility. We certainly cannot seem to construct any test of such things. All tests we run that would require human control of outcomes have failed – spectacularly. We cannot even find one instance. But what if only the unintended can be caused by collective imagination? In other words, if you were a divinity why would you allow access to the resource? You wouldn’t. Ever. So the reason for the claim of impossibility is not because we know it’s impossible, it’s because we want to stop charlatans, magicians, pseudoscientists, and liars from distracting us from that divine action that we can take if we are acting in full subconscious honesty (pure faith). It is becoming increasingly possible to imagine that by some very, very, very subtle method, we can cause a ‘god’ to form out of the information we possess, our memories, our speech, our actions, and even our imaginings. And that this god like all such gods, is not in control of the physical universe, but that it does influence our actions and ambitions in the same sense that a super-intelligent but non-sentient mind would. –“What is a free action? Which definitions of ‘free action’ are useful and adequate? What is a divine intervention? What other kinds of divine action are there?”— Divine intervention can be explained if and only if it is demonstrated by human behavior. Free action is necessary for the simple reason that the information necessary to make a decision in a deterministic universe, isn’t possible for a person to possess, plus given the human propensity to err bias etc, means that all choice involves quite a bit of choice. The constraint on most human action however is resources and people with whom to cooperate, more than our own desire to act. –“Which evidence is there for the existence of free actions (of a certain kind) and of divine interventions? (An evidence-based approach.)”— What we call synchronicity does not seem, in all cases, to be explicable. It may be that some of us are just better at picking up subtle physical markers by accident (subconsciously) but that we cannot do anything when trying (consciously). It may be that those of us exposed to similar information deterministically will pursue similar objectives and take similar actions producing similar intuitions, producing similar imaginary content, and sensing similar extremely subtle information. I am currently stuck on the problems we find in physical science at the very lowest level, and that we seem to be only aware of a subset of the universe that’s open to inspection by our senses. But this is a very small percentage of the energy and mass in the universe. When I combine this with the silence in space, I am troubled that we are just very primitive in our understanding of space-time and transit through it by other than EMR and crude mass. So (a) the reason we push back on mysticism and divinity is to protect against charlatanism not because we cannot eliminate the possibility of either. In other words it is a moral imperative that we do not have another era of ignorance and mysticism. (b) any existent (conscious or not) divinity would prevent us from conducting conscious experiments to take advantage of the resource he made available for us. (c) We don’t know enough to eliminate the possibility of such an information system (god). And it looks like it is possible (despite the simplicity of the universe that we do understand) that there are phenomenon that transcend the limits of the physical world as we know it – at least to the extent of providing us some information. (d) We can’t seem to find a single case despite trying (very hard) of any divine action that is not explicable by other means. (e) We can’t disprove, and it is more likely, that any information system (god) would not evidence itself in the physical world except through our actions, imaginations, or hallucinations. And that we are looking for the wrong kind of evidence (physical) rather than the only kind that would be possible (experiential). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Current Topic: Clarity On Metaphysics Of Time, Rather Than Just Action

    Metaphysics: Time The most effective conservation of energy is to save time. We expend energy to alter events in new state we would not have in current state. In this sense we’d not produce but we save. And inventory what we save. We can understand that as farmers we would adapt our thinking to production an d inventory rather than as hunters to capture and save. But it is the mental concept of hunters that is correct. We act to reorganize and save. We capture this difference between expenditure of energy and capture of energy We expend some of that energy as heat and the rest as action, and attempt against nature to inventory the rest, and invest it in more of the same actions as possible. And the reason we have been so insanely good at everything we do is that cooperation (Organizing) is so disproportionately rewarding because the concentration of energy is so rewarding. And because the use of information via cooperation, trade, and money and now post-money substitutes has assisted us in ever larger concentrations of energy/effort. Man transcends to god hood by outwitting the universe’s course of events Our ultimate expression of this strategy is to effectively stop time for all but the energy we consume. ***So just as truth exists in the greatest informational parsimony short of tautology, perfect transcendence exists in perfect energy parsimony short of the stopping of time***. We are no longer farmers and no longer need be subject to the metaphysics of farmers. Savers of time. And as such the savers of energy. For humans, time and energy and mass are synonyms.

  • Current Topic: Clarity On Metaphysics Of Time, Rather Than Just Action

    Metaphysics: Time The most effective conservation of energy is to save time. We expend energy to alter events in new state we would not have in current state. In this sense we’d not produce but we save. And inventory what we save. We can understand that as farmers we would adapt our thinking to production an d inventory rather than as hunters to capture and save. But it is the mental concept of hunters that is correct. We act to reorganize and save. We capture this difference between expenditure of energy and capture of energy We expend some of that energy as heat and the rest as action, and attempt against nature to inventory the rest, and invest it in more of the same actions as possible. And the reason we have been so insanely good at everything we do is that cooperation (Organizing) is so disproportionately rewarding because the concentration of energy is so rewarding. And because the use of information via cooperation, trade, and money and now post-money substitutes has assisted us in ever larger concentrations of energy/effort. Man transcends to god hood by outwitting the universe’s course of events Our ultimate expression of this strategy is to effectively stop time for all but the energy we consume. ***So just as truth exists in the greatest informational parsimony short of tautology, perfect transcendence exists in perfect energy parsimony short of the stopping of time***. We are no longer farmers and no longer need be subject to the metaphysics of farmers. Savers of time. And as such the savers of energy. For humans, time and energy and mass are synonyms.

  • THE DIVINE, SUPERNATURAL, MORAL, AND SCIENTIFIC —“Is the universe open for fre

    THE DIVINE, SUPERNATURAL, MORAL, AND SCIENTIFIC

    —“Is the universe open for free actions or divine interventions or other special divine actions? Are there reasons for the impossibility claims?”—

    We have not yet eliminated the possibility. We certainly cannot seem to construct any test of such things. All tests we run that would require human control of outcomes have failed – spectacularly. We cannot even find one instance. But what if only the unintended can be caused by collective imagination? In other words, if you were a divinity why would you allow access to the resource? You wouldn’t. Ever.

    So the reason for the claim of impossibility is not because we know it’s impossible, it’s because we want to stop charlatans, magicians, pseudoscientists, and liars from distracting us from that divine action that we can take if we are acting in full subconsious honesty (pure faith).

    It is becoming increasingly possible to imagine that by some very, very, very subtle method, we can cause a ‘god’ to form out of the information we possess, our memories, our speech, our actions, and even our imaginings. And that this god like all such gods, is not in control of the physical universe, but that it does influence our actions and ambitions in the same sense that a super-intelligent but non-sentient mind would.

    –“What is a free action? Which definitions of ‘free action’ are useful and adequate? What is a divine intervention? What other kinds of divine action are there?”—

    Divine intervention can be explained if and only if it is demonstrated by human behavior. Free action is necessary for the simple reason that the information necessary to make a decision in a deterministic universe, isn’t possible for a person to possess, plus given the human propensity to err bias etc, means that all choice involves quite a bit of choice. The constraint on most human action however is resources and people with whom to cooperate, more than our own desire to act.

    –“Which evidence is there for the existence of free actions (of a certain kind) and of divine interventions? (An evidence-based approach.)”—

    What we call synchronicity does not seem, in all cases, to be explicable. It may be that some of us are just better at picking up subtle physical markers by accident (subconsciously) but that we cannot do anything when trying (consciously). It may be that those of us exposed to similar information deterministically will pursue similar objectives and take similar actions producing similar intuitions, producing similar imaginary content, and sensing similar extremely subtle information.

    I am currently stuck on the problems we find in physical science at the very lowest level, and that we seem to be only aware of a subset of the universe that’s open to inspection by our senses. But this is a very small percentage of the energy and mass in the universe.

    When I combine this with the silence in space, I am troubled that we are just very primitive in our understanding of space-time and transit through it by other than EMR and crude mass.

    So

    (a) the reason we push back on mysticism and divinity is to protect against charlatanism not because we cannot eliminate the possibility of either. In other words it is a moral imperative that we do not have another era of ignorance and mysticism.

    (b) any existent (conscious or not) divinity would prevent us from conducting conscious experiments to take advantage of the resource he made available for us.

    (c) We don’t know enough to eliminate the possibility of such an information system (god). And it looks like it is possible (despite the simplicity of the universe that we do understand) that there are phenomenon that transcend the limits of the physical world as we know it – at least to the extent of providing us some information.

    (d) We can’t seem to find a single case despite trying (very hard) of any divine action that is not explicable by other means.

    (e) We can’t disprove, and it is more likely, that any information system (god) would not evidence itself in the physical world except through our actions, imaginations, or hallucinations. And that we are looing for the wrong kind of evidence (physical) rather than the only kind that would be possible (experiential).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 08:32:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “CURT: WHAT DOES TALEB’S ANTI-FRAGILE MEAN?” It means very simply the follo

    Q&A: “CURT: WHAT DOES TALEB’S ANTI-FRAGILE MEAN?”

    It means very simply the following:

    Unlike physical objects, organisms and networks of organisms, strengthen themselves by allocating resources to different systems when they are subject to a variety of stresses and shocks, but does not devote resources when subject to continuous stimuli in the absence of stresses and shocks – the regularity we have produced and desire to produce in industrial-era modernity creates disinformation in biological systems, and as a consequence, fragility, and worse, fragility-cascades.

    This applies to individual organisms (cells), communities of organisms (organs), entities (living creatures), Communities (schools, flocks, packs, herds, tribes etc), the organizations(people) we build together, the institutions(human processes) we build together, and the information(knowledge) we build together.

    Unfortunately, we humans seek to computationally (rationally) make life easier for ourselves by creating regularity (predictability) for ourselves – but it is regularity that weakens us.

    Over the past century, in all the social ‘sciences’ including finance, economics, politics, and law, we have been practicing pseudoscience by calculating probabilities instead of calculating fragilities – when it is unpredictable, large, irregularities or events that cause fragile systems to fail catastrophically causing cascades of externalities.

    Instead of, or in addition to, calculating probabilities (optimistic bias), we could calculate fragility(pessimistic bias). And expend resources on ensuring against fragility-cascades in the face of black swan events.

    In my work among other things, I argue that truthfulness demands that we do both: “full accounting” (full disclosure). And that we can and should use the law to protect the informational commons from pollution (legal “Abusus”) just as we protect the air, sea, land, flora, fauna, and our arts and monuments.

    The “Leftist” counter proposition is that as long as one has the ability to print money then all shocks can be overcome. And that the good done in the interim compensates for the bad produced later on, and that we are wealthier later on and can fix those consequences. (I agree with Taleb in particular regarding the mainstream left economists he criticizes. Although I think I probably say so in different terms.)

    But this has turned out to be false in finance and economics since 2008. The Austrian’s were right. All we do is kick the can further down the road. In my work, I try to show that we have done the same to genetic, normative, institutional, monumental, and territorial capital. And that while our financial system is fragile, and it will break first, the rest of the systems are equally fragile now.

    Which is why I argue we civil or international war is both easy to envision because of the fear caused by fragility, and the consequences unimaginable enough to be just ‘terrifying’.

    Cheers

    (More on similarities between Taleb and Doolittle here:)

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10154574171777264

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-27 07:59:00 UTC

  • Infinities don’t exist. Some limits are unknown, some sets can be produced faste

    Infinities don’t exist. Some limits are unknown, some sets can be produced faster than others.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-24 18:17:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779746477514121217

    Reply addressees: @JimmyTrussels @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779718728615428096

    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/779718728615428096