Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • No. Math Is Trivial. That’s Why Its Useful

    No. Math Is Trivial. That’s Why Its Useful. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/no-math-is-trivial-thats-why-its-useful/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:37:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265502330230910981

  • No. Math Is Trivial. That’s Why Its Useful.

    Dec 1, 2019, 8:51 AM At present, aside from testimony and reciprocity I think I understand this problem (mathematical foundations) better than anyone else, for reasons I’m still … exasperated by. Math is a language. It consists of one dimension: positional names. Positional names consist of one constant relation: position (ordinality). Names are unique. Positional names are unique. Positions are scale independent. Positional names can be assigned to any referent in any dimension. We can assign names to any set of dimensions, just as we assign names to any set of referents within it, and as such we can used dimensional order or name, and position order or name, to describe ANY CONSTANT RELATIONS at any scale or combination of scales relative to the observer, and we can scale this technique of dimensional and positional names to any comprehensible scale. So it’s not that math is unreasonably useful, it’s that it’s fucking OBVIOUSLY useful in describing the natural world, because like the natural world mathematics is SIMPLE (consisting of constant relations). However, like anything else, we learn it’s constitution by it’s failure. And mathematics is terrible at inconstant relations (economics, sentience), and at that point of failure we must move from positional (linear) language (averages) to operations language (discrete operations). So for example, as far as I know, the reason that physics is frozen is Einstein published before Hilbert solved the underlying problem by Einstein NOT solving the problem of the underlying structure, by the presumption that the wave (calculus) was the primitive, rather than the operations that averaged into the wave – demonstrating that Einstein like many mathematicians understood the application of the language of mathematics without understanding it’s construction relative to ALL languages. In fact, if I had my druthers, I would have people learn the abacus, the gear, the computer, and the shape to learn mathematics, not just memorization by wrote repetition. Welcome to continue this but it’s not possible that I’m wrong. Foundations of language of which mathematics is the simplest because it consists of only one property, and our brains evolved to grasp the world as spaces first by very similar (geometric) means, an understanding of which usually awes the audience.

  • No. Math Is Trivial. That’s Why Its Useful.

    Dec 1, 2019, 8:51 AM At present, aside from testimony and reciprocity I think I understand this problem (mathematical foundations) better than anyone else, for reasons I’m still … exasperated by. Math is a language. It consists of one dimension: positional names. Positional names consist of one constant relation: position (ordinality). Names are unique. Positional names are unique. Positions are scale independent. Positional names can be assigned to any referent in any dimension. We can assign names to any set of dimensions, just as we assign names to any set of referents within it, and as such we can used dimensional order or name, and position order or name, to describe ANY CONSTANT RELATIONS at any scale or combination of scales relative to the observer, and we can scale this technique of dimensional and positional names to any comprehensible scale. So it’s not that math is unreasonably useful, it’s that it’s fucking OBVIOUSLY useful in describing the natural world, because like the natural world mathematics is SIMPLE (consisting of constant relations). However, like anything else, we learn it’s constitution by it’s failure. And mathematics is terrible at inconstant relations (economics, sentience), and at that point of failure we must move from positional (linear) language (averages) to operations language (discrete operations). So for example, as far as I know, the reason that physics is frozen is Einstein published before Hilbert solved the underlying problem by Einstein NOT solving the problem of the underlying structure, by the presumption that the wave (calculus) was the primitive, rather than the operations that averaged into the wave – demonstrating that Einstein like many mathematicians understood the application of the language of mathematics without understanding it’s construction relative to ALL languages. In fact, if I had my druthers, I would have people learn the abacus, the gear, the computer, and the shape to learn mathematics, not just memorization by wrote repetition. Welcome to continue this but it’s not possible that I’m wrong. Foundations of language of which mathematics is the simplest because it consists of only one property, and our brains evolved to grasp the world as spaces first by very similar (geometric) means, an understanding of which usually awes the audience.

  • Karl Popper’s Demarcation Problem Is Solved.

    Dec 11, 2019, 9:58 AM As far as I know (and this is my area of specialization), western success in science, technology, medicine, and economics was due to the transfer of our legal tradition (by Aristotle to Bacon to Hume to Hayek), and the failure of our philosophers to understand that transfer. So, the demarcation in law between testifiability and fiction, is legal due diligence (falsification). Man can perform due diligence against every dimension perceivable by man: categorical consistency (identity), internal consistency (logical), operational consistency (existential possibility), external consistency (empirical), rational consistency (rational choice), reciprocal consistency (rational choice between parties in cooperation), completeness (full accounting within stated limits), warrantied by possibility of restitution. In other words, the demarcation between science and non-science is falsificationary, and not only the test of falsifiability, but due diligence against falsehood in all dimensions perceivable by man. And this brings us to where else Popper failed: cost. Philosophers generally work in sets, and the law, engineering in operations, and while sets are largely verbal constructs free of cost, action, operations, engineering, science, law and economics include costs. This is why there is a high correlation between moralizing and philosophy, and a high correlation between science and law. Because moralizing does seeks general rules regardless of cost, and sciences and law seek general rules including costs. Why does this matter? Popper never performed a study of scientific research, he just used reason to state that choices in scientific investigation was undecidable. But it’s demonstrably false. the problem in scientific exploration like any form of action (engineering), is that as distance from human scale increases either smaller or larger, the costs of investigation increases, and as such we pursue the information we can afford to. And this turns out to be the optimum means of investigation. And this corresponds to the physical and human world’s behavior: nature must take the least cost action possible, and humans do as well – as long as we make a full accounting of causes (incentives). Cheers

  • Karl Popper’s Demarcation Problem Is Solved.

    Dec 11, 2019, 9:58 AM As far as I know (and this is my area of specialization), western success in science, technology, medicine, and economics was due to the transfer of our legal tradition (by Aristotle to Bacon to Hume to Hayek), and the failure of our philosophers to understand that transfer. So, the demarcation in law between testifiability and fiction, is legal due diligence (falsification). Man can perform due diligence against every dimension perceivable by man: categorical consistency (identity), internal consistency (logical), operational consistency (existential possibility), external consistency (empirical), rational consistency (rational choice), reciprocal consistency (rational choice between parties in cooperation), completeness (full accounting within stated limits), warrantied by possibility of restitution. In other words, the demarcation between science and non-science is falsificationary, and not only the test of falsifiability, but due diligence against falsehood in all dimensions perceivable by man. And this brings us to where else Popper failed: cost. Philosophers generally work in sets, and the law, engineering in operations, and while sets are largely verbal constructs free of cost, action, operations, engineering, science, law and economics include costs. This is why there is a high correlation between moralizing and philosophy, and a high correlation between science and law. Because moralizing does seeks general rules regardless of cost, and sciences and law seek general rules including costs. Why does this matter? Popper never performed a study of scientific research, he just used reason to state that choices in scientific investigation was undecidable. But it’s demonstrably false. the problem in scientific exploration like any form of action (engineering), is that as distance from human scale increases either smaller or larger, the costs of investigation increases, and as such we pursue the information we can afford to. And this turns out to be the optimum means of investigation. And this corresponds to the physical and human world’s behavior: nature must take the least cost action possible, and humans do as well – as long as we make a full accounting of causes (incentives). Cheers

  • Ternary Logic of Social Science

    Dec 28, 2019, 4:39 PM TERNARY LOGIC OF SOCIAL SCIENCE (core) We focus largely on the law but not on the other innovations in the propertarian program: Yes, Propertarianism consists of a set of innovations

    1. Grammars (metaphysics) 2. Testimonialism (epistemology) 3. Acquisitionism and Propertarianism (ethics) – Together making possible strictly constructed law (ethics) But we also have:

    4: Cooperationism, Compatibilism, Cognitive division of labor Which means that we specialize, largely along lines of gender cognition and age, in a division of perception, cognition, advocacy and negotiation. And then we ‘calculate’ by discovering opportunities to cooperate across the spectrum of population, time, and space. So we function as a neural network that discovers opportunities despite variations in our division of labor in perceiving and comprehending the world. And we also have:

    5. The Ternary Logic of Political Science. Let’s look at this a bit There are three states of logic, in order:

    1. False 2. Truth candidate (actionable) 3. Undecidable (In-actionable) There are three options to cooperation

    1. avoidance (ostracization) 2. exchange (cooperation) 3. predation-parasitism (conflict) There are three means of coercion

    1. Remuneration (deprivation of trade, or benefit from trade) Middle class – Libertarian Meritocratic 2. Force (imposition of harm, defense from harm) Upper class – Conservative Eugenic 3. Undermining (ostracizing/inhibiting opportunity, including/generating opportunity) Under Class – Progressive Dysgenic There are three axis of elites

    1. Scientific, Technical, Entrepreneurial, Financial, Treasury 2. Military, juridical, Police, Sheriff, Militia 3. Priests, Politicians, Public Intellectuals We can organize by three axis of elites (cooperate by)

    1. Production and Evolution (europe) 2. Administration and Stagnation (strong:china, weak:india) 3. Parasitism and Degeneration (semitia, gypsies) We can rule by three axis of decidability

    1. Science and Law (europe) 2. Reason and Command (china india) 3. Sophistry and Propaganda (semitia) We can govern by three axis

    1. Markets,Law,Courts, (europe) Middle Class 2. Bureaucracy (china) Upper class 3. Priesthood (semitia) Underclass The ranking assuming we eradicate the semitic dark ages:

    Europe, China, India, Iran-Assyria-Babylon, Egypt Mesoamerica, Semitia(jewish muslim), S-Pacific, E africa, W africa Africa, S Africa, Austronesia The only hard choice being iran vs india and that choice possible only because the Persians were not able to shake off islam and reassert Persian civlization despite efforts just as the germans can’t sake of Christianity despite their efforts and reassert germanic civilization. If something had not ‘gone wrong’ in India she would have produced the best culture with time. It may be climate and demographic curse. But I don’t quite understand what went wrong yet but I”ll figure it out. I think we undrestand what went wrong with persia and germania. And russia, germania, and china are our fault for not lettting russia retake orthodoxy, not letting germany retake europe, and not letting macarthur and patton finish the job of the second world war with russia and china.

  • Ternary Logic of Social Science

    Dec 28, 2019, 4:39 PM TERNARY LOGIC OF SOCIAL SCIENCE (core) We focus largely on the law but not on the other innovations in the propertarian program: Yes, Propertarianism consists of a set of innovations

    1. Grammars (metaphysics) 2. Testimonialism (epistemology) 3. Acquisitionism and Propertarianism (ethics) – Together making possible strictly constructed law (ethics) But we also have:

    4: Cooperationism, Compatibilism, Cognitive division of labor Which means that we specialize, largely along lines of gender cognition and age, in a division of perception, cognition, advocacy and negotiation. And then we ‘calculate’ by discovering opportunities to cooperate across the spectrum of population, time, and space. So we function as a neural network that discovers opportunities despite variations in our division of labor in perceiving and comprehending the world. And we also have:

    5. The Ternary Logic of Political Science. Let’s look at this a bit There are three states of logic, in order:

    1. False 2. Truth candidate (actionable) 3. Undecidable (In-actionable) There are three options to cooperation

    1. avoidance (ostracization) 2. exchange (cooperation) 3. predation-parasitism (conflict) There are three means of coercion

    1. Remuneration (deprivation of trade, or benefit from trade) Middle class – Libertarian Meritocratic 2. Force (imposition of harm, defense from harm) Upper class – Conservative Eugenic 3. Undermining (ostracizing/inhibiting opportunity, including/generating opportunity) Under Class – Progressive Dysgenic There are three axis of elites

    1. Scientific, Technical, Entrepreneurial, Financial, Treasury 2. Military, juridical, Police, Sheriff, Militia 3. Priests, Politicians, Public Intellectuals We can organize by three axis of elites (cooperate by)

    1. Production and Evolution (europe) 2. Administration and Stagnation (strong:china, weak:india) 3. Parasitism and Degeneration (semitia, gypsies) We can rule by three axis of decidability

    1. Science and Law (europe) 2. Reason and Command (china india) 3. Sophistry and Propaganda (semitia) We can govern by three axis

    1. Markets,Law,Courts, (europe) Middle Class 2. Bureaucracy (china) Upper class 3. Priesthood (semitia) Underclass The ranking assuming we eradicate the semitic dark ages:

    Europe, China, India, Iran-Assyria-Babylon, Egypt Mesoamerica, Semitia(jewish muslim), S-Pacific, E africa, W africa Africa, S Africa, Austronesia The only hard choice being iran vs india and that choice possible only because the Persians were not able to shake off islam and reassert Persian civlization despite efforts just as the germans can’t sake of Christianity despite their efforts and reassert germanic civilization. If something had not ‘gone wrong’ in India she would have produced the best culture with time. It may be climate and demographic curse. But I don’t quite understand what went wrong yet but I”ll figure it out. I think we undrestand what went wrong with persia and germania. And russia, germania, and china are our fault for not lettting russia retake orthodoxy, not letting germany retake europe, and not letting macarthur and patton finish the job of the second world war with russia and china.

  • The Unreasonable Effectiveness of P-Logic(law)

    Jan 4, 2020, 12:01 PM THE UNREASONABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF P-LOGIC(LAW) IN HUMAN SCIENCES: PARADIGMS(METAPHYSICS), PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIOLOGY, ECON, LAW, AND POLITICS P-Logic (Law) is (a) universally commensurable (b) value neutral, ( c) operational logic, of (d) decidability. Read that a few times and make sure you undrestand it. Universally commensurable, value neutral, operational logic, of decidability. The profound depth of that set of properties isn’t at all obvious, but just as saying math has extraordinary explanatory power in the physical sciences of constant temporal relations: P-logic (law) has equally extraordinary explanatory power in the cognitive sciences: paradigms(metaphysics), psychology, sociology, politics, group competitive strategy, ethics, and law. Physical sciences are mathematically predictive because categories and relations at a given resolution are constant both in and across time. The physical world can’t choose. Economic sciences are mathematically un-predictive, and only mathematically descriptive, and only operationally explanatory because relations (categories, weights(values), and operations) are inconstant across time – the consequence of Humans scheming and choosing with fragmentary and asymmetric information. Social Sciences are only operationally explanatory, not mathematically descriptive, nor mathematically predictive because while operations and incentives are constant, subject categories and values are inconstant, and unpredictable because humans scheme and choose using fragmentary and asymmetric information. P-Logic(law) provides universal explanatory power across the disciplines. Predictive power decreases with the inconstancy of relations over time. Many can create arbitrary relations within the limits of his perception, cognition, incentives, negotiation, and action, to plot and scheme against the course of events such that by some action or inaction he captures more caloric gains or opportunity for those gains, or prevents losses of opportunity or gains, than he would by not acting or acting.

  • Could We Falsify All Human Speech in Court?

    Could We Falsify All Human Speech in Court? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/26/could-we-falsify-all-human-speech-in-court/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-26 21:14:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265390966497841154

  • Could We Falsify All Human Speech in Court?

    Jan 5, 2020, 2:48 PM We can, and do, falsify all human action in court. The question was, could we falsify all human speech in court. The answer is yes. The usual problem is that someone wants an ideology(political) philosophy (secular theological), or theology (supernatural theological) solution – which is impossible. Because Science (truthful testimony) is falsificationary. As far as I know, P is complete. And there are no false or ir-reciprocal statements that can survive its falsification. That fact that people can’t get their noggins around the fact that all science (testimony) like markets (competition) is falsificationary is a common problem. But it stems from a failure to understand that science is falsificationary, then demanding P, like philosophy, ideology, or religion be justificationary. It’s not. So they criticize P for not being a science on the one hand by false presumption science is justificationary, and then complain P isn’t justificationary. Kind of silly really, but you can see where they get it from. Most people are stuck in the error of “Mathiness” because they don’t grasp the constitution of, or limits of, mathematics. Math breaks down in all three directions: the very small, the very large, and the very-human (cognitive): economics. If you need a positive theology, philosophy, ideology, sophism, or pseudoscience, then I understand the via-positiva is necessary for simple minds. But grownups are not afraid of via-negativa (skepticism), because we know all non trivial non tautological propositions are contingent, because we may always or nearly always, discover some novel parsimony that allows us to reorganize our paradigms for greater consistency, correspondence, coherence, completeness and parsimony than before.