Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • IVAN TRIES AND FAILS – HOT TO SPOT A SOPHIST (people not grasping closure) P-law

    IVAN TRIES AND FAILS – HOT TO SPOT A SOPHIST

    (people not grasping closure)

    P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible) thought. … Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any definition P-law is scientific.

    —“Let’s suppose all that is true, then how could you make a case for “P-law” in anything but P-law? The fact that you consistently engage in bog-standard rhetoric to “prove” P-law puts the lie to the whole thing.”—Ivan the Above Average @AboveIvan

    How can you make a case for logic in anything other than logic?

    The fact that you counter signal closure when there is none w/o the full spectrum of falsifications (in P) puts a lie to the whole thing you call ‘rationalism’.

    You never seek to understand. That’s why you fail.

    You see, I understand your theological substitution. I always have. I just haven’t taken the time to fully entrap you in demonstrating it.

    The only way to falsify P is to run cases: tests. All you will discover is undecidability (testimony), where you find falsehood (inference).

    The fact that you’re still stuck in the early 20th c because philosophy was a dead end for truth, and limited to choice (or deceit) is simply that you’ve overinvested in a malinvestment. Reformation is extremely expensive. And humans protect investments (loss aversion).

    Either statements are testifiable or they are not. If they are not testifiable one cannot make a truth claim. For a statement to be testifiable requires it survive the tests of all dimensions, because the only closure available is falsification of all dimensions.

    Sorry. Just is.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 10:42:00 UTC

  • YES P IS A FORMAL ALGORITHMIC, OPERATIONAL, SCIENCE – IT IS THE MOST COMPLETE SC

    YES P IS A FORMAL ALGORITHMIC, OPERATIONAL, SCIENCE – IT IS THE MOST COMPLETE SCiENCE: LAW – BY WHICH ALL OTHERS ARE JUDGED

    —“You are not a scientist. You are a story teller. Arranging information, data, statistics, iqs into a self-deceptive, bias confirming narrative. As are the majority of scientists generally. Empirical science is inferior. Lacking holism and art. I renounce it.”—Learned Dr. Kantbot, PhD

    SCIENCES: 1. Formal(Logics: logic, mathematics, algorithmic, operational). 2. Physical (the laws of nature). 3. Psychological (cognitive science), and 4. Social (Social science: economics, law, politics, group strategy).

    P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of thought: coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible).

    Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any present definition P-law is scientific. It is logical, empirical, operational, and under realism, naturalism, rational choice, and reciprocity.

    Human Faculties (physical process) > Epistemology > Grammar > Vocabulary > Speech > Due Diligence > including Ethics.

    Faculties: 1. Sense, Integration by prediction 2. Space-Time Modeling prediction, 3. Auto Association prediction (intuition), Auto Evaluation (emotion), 4. Attention-Recursion, 5. Reason, Planning, Calculation, Computation, 6. Action-Release > Repeat.

    Epistemology: Observation > Free Association > Hypothesis (reason tested) > Theory (operationally tested), > Surviving Theory (market tested) > Limitation > Falsification > Repeat.

    In P we use a ‘grammar’ to refer to the Paradigm and Vocabulary, grammar, logic, and syntax of a paradigm. And when we use the term “the Grammars’ we mean the spectrum of those grammars.

    A Grammar refers to the Paradigm (permissible dimensions of perception, cognition, and action), the Names, Operations, and Rules of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (morpheme, word, phrase, sentence, story organization) and the LOGIC (constant relations) that limit consistency, correspondence, coherence, and completeness.

    Vocabulary: Deflation and disambiguation by competition, operationalization, and serialization, ex: Moral: Evil < Bad < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good > Righteous. or Truth: Tautological < Analytic < Idea < Testifiable < Honest < Untested.

    Speech: Deflation (constraint upon) ordinary language grammar, limited to a single point of view, absent the verb to be, using complete promissory sentences, describing a series of operations (human actions), resulting in testable transactions (sentence),and sets of transactions.

    Due Diligence: realism, naturalism, sensory, identity (categorical), internal (logical), operational (actions in time), external (empirical), rational (bounded rationality), reciprocal (moral – reciprocal rationality), limited, fully accounted, warranteed, restitutable.

    Ethics (Morality): Productive, Fully informed, Voluntary Transfer of Demonstrated Interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality, and warrantied, by due diligence against error bias and deceit, within the limits of restitution.

    No more sophistry. Philosophy is closed. Science has fully replaced it. P-law is complete. Including Metaphysics, Epistemology, Psychology, Ethics, Sociology, Economics, Politics, Law, Group Strategy, and Aesthetics.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 09:56:00 UTC

  • Reciprocity is decidable, just as bounded rationality is decidable. you can’t fa

    Reciprocity is decidable, just as bounded rationality is decidable. you can’t falsify reciprocity any more than you can falsify bounded rationality. why? They’re synonyms. Now, that’s a logical necessity. Now we test the logical necessity and it holds up in across all civs.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-24 21:01:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1242557083729506304

    Reply addressees: @PaulKnowsBest2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1242556495709028352

  • I understand moral theory and when moral claims are true, false, or undecidable

    I understand moral theory and when moral claims are true, false, or undecidable – yes. If you gave me some context I could give you a more complete answer.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-23 04:19:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1241942502145429504

    Reply addressees: @VolkischWeeb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1241933541950124033

  • And it’s far easier than you’d think. Because we don’t need to know if a claim i

    And it’s far easier than you’d think. Because we don’t need to know if a claim is true or not, just whether it is testifiable, reciprocal, evolutionary, warrantable, restitutable or not.

    P-Law, The Formal, Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity of the European Peoples.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-16 17:14:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239601002728300546

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239601001658822662

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    We can end the century and a half of pseudoscience, sophistry, and lies by the false promise of freedom from physical laws of nature, the natural law of cooperation, and the evolutionary law of transcendence: marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1239601001658822662

  • Explaining Anti-Abrahamism

    EXPLAINING ANTI-ABRAHAMISM (controversial post warning) (explanation of social bias) 1) P-Law and its Logic are universally decidable, because testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence) are universally decidable. (Let that sink in a moment.) 2) Any people can eventually enjoy the benefits of a high trust civlization like europeans if they adopt P-Law, Logic, and Constitution – including market (via-negativa) soft eugenics. 3) While ethnocentrism is the optimum strategy at the local, state and civilizational level – because it decreases genetic, kinship, social, economic and political competition and decreases resistance to trust, reciprocity, and mutual insurance and care; so is heterogeneity polities, producing a market of commons because it allows moral and cognitive biases to play out at the cost, and to the benefit, of those who do it. 4) But groups whose competitive strategy requires successful practice of deceit, irreciprocity, and devolution(demographic decline), must convert from predatory and parasitic means of survival and competition to productive means of survival and competition. And groups that practice any and every strategy habituate, specialize in, and transfer between generations, the strategy, mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits, means of education, and especially means of communication, collaboration and argument that advances that strategy. 5) As such groups need incentives to adapt from destructive, predatory, and parasitic means of survival and competition to productive means. To do so requires reformation of mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits , means of education, communication, collaboration, and argument, to suit new the new productive strategy. 6) To produce those incentives we can outlaw the expression of those strategies, and use social, economic, and political alienation to cause deprivation of opportunity – and cause them to adapt their mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits , means of education, communication, collaboration, and argument. 7) The Purpose of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish religious monopoly monotheism and religious identitarianism; and of Boasianism-and-Freudianism ( pseudo-sociology and psychology), marxism(pseudo-economics), neo-marxism (cultural marxism, undermining), postmodernism (relativism), feminism (undermining the family), and human biodiversity denialism (science denial), were constructed by design to deny and undermine the universal decidability of testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence).

    —“In response to the post of the Institute regarding Jewish participants [in the Propertarian Movement], I understand the desire to have universal appeal across all groups, but… A feminine argumentative strategy paired with a parasitic evolutionary strategy knowingly employed to the detriment of European-descended peoples is the Jewish Group strategy, to which anti-Semitism is therefore a logical and natural reaction. The frame of anti-Semitism in my judgement provides the greatest immunity from resistance to, reversal of, and prevention of, the threats mentioned in the post, all of which originate primarily from those of Jewish descent.”— Reece Haynes via Facebook

    Correct. Complaints of anti-semitism, whether that semitism is in jewish, christian, or muslim group strategies, are expressions of the attempt to prevent the use of testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence), in universal decidability, and to preserve the competitive strategy requires successful practice of deceit, irreciprocity, and devolution(demographic decline), against people who practice testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence), and the high trust, productive, evolutionarily successful nations that they parasitically depend upon. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Thus Endeth The Lesson

  • Explaining Anti-Abrahamism

    EXPLAINING ANTI-ABRAHAMISM (controversial post warning) (explanation of social bias) 1) P-Law and its Logic are universally decidable, because testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence) are universally decidable. (Let that sink in a moment.) 2) Any people can eventually enjoy the benefits of a high trust civlization like europeans if they adopt P-Law, Logic, and Constitution – including market (via-negativa) soft eugenics. 3) While ethnocentrism is the optimum strategy at the local, state and civilizational level – because it decreases genetic, kinship, social, economic and political competition and decreases resistance to trust, reciprocity, and mutual insurance and care; so is heterogeneity polities, producing a market of commons because it allows moral and cognitive biases to play out at the cost, and to the benefit, of those who do it. 4) But groups whose competitive strategy requires successful practice of deceit, irreciprocity, and devolution(demographic decline), must convert from predatory and parasitic means of survival and competition to productive means of survival and competition. And groups that practice any and every strategy habituate, specialize in, and transfer between generations, the strategy, mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits, means of education, and especially means of communication, collaboration and argument that advances that strategy. 5) As such groups need incentives to adapt from destructive, predatory, and parasitic means of survival and competition to productive means. To do so requires reformation of mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits , means of education, communication, collaboration, and argument, to suit new the new productive strategy. 6) To produce those incentives we can outlaw the expression of those strategies, and use social, economic, and political alienation to cause deprivation of opportunity – and cause them to adapt their mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits , means of education, communication, collaboration, and argument. 7) The Purpose of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish religious monopoly monotheism and religious identitarianism; and of Boasianism-and-Freudianism ( pseudo-sociology and psychology), marxism(pseudo-economics), neo-marxism (cultural marxism, undermining), postmodernism (relativism), feminism (undermining the family), and human biodiversity denialism (science denial), were constructed by design to deny and undermine the universal decidability of testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence).

    —“In response to the post of the Institute regarding Jewish participants [in the Propertarian Movement], I understand the desire to have universal appeal across all groups, but… A feminine argumentative strategy paired with a parasitic evolutionary strategy knowingly employed to the detriment of European-descended peoples is the Jewish Group strategy, to which anti-Semitism is therefore a logical and natural reaction. The frame of anti-Semitism in my judgement provides the greatest immunity from resistance to, reversal of, and prevention of, the threats mentioned in the post, all of which originate primarily from those of Jewish descent.”— Reece Haynes via Facebook

    Correct. Complaints of anti-semitism, whether that semitism is in jewish, christian, or muslim group strategies, are expressions of the attempt to prevent the use of testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence), in universal decidability, and to preserve the competitive strategy requires successful practice of deceit, irreciprocity, and devolution(demographic decline), against people who practice testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence), and the high trust, productive, evolutionarily successful nations that they parasitically depend upon. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Thus Endeth The Lesson

  • Sorry but Science Solved Morality – Morality Is Closed,.

    —“so yes, science can tell us what is but not what we ought to do.”—

    This is a justificationary position (sophism). |Decidability| = That which is not irreciprocal or false (negatively consequential) -> Value (personal strategy -> Positively Consequential) -> Preference (Inconsequential) Science (law) tells us what we may not do (irreciprocity) – that which is unethical, and immoral. Anything that is not unethical and immoral is merely a PREFERENCE to be settled in the market competition for means and ends. What we ‘ought’ to do is anything we CAN organize voluntarily TO DO that which is not false or irreciprocal. Even so, we can just as equally test positive moral claims by the investments that you make, the externalities caused, and desired outcomes produced. All truth propositions are falsificationary. All moral claims are merely claims that one acts not immorally. All moral propositions, means, and outcomes are testable by reciprocity. All moral propositions are open to triangulation of the returns on investments (compare by ordinality if not cardinality). All moral propositions are decidable by adversarial competition in markets for voluntary production of moral outcomes, given scarcity and competition for means and outcomes. All markets produce empirical results, and as such are scientific. All epistemological questions are the result of falsification by adversarial competition. All moral questions are epistemological questions. All not-evil-immoral-unethical propositions are amoral, ethical, or good, depending upon the means of organizing their production, the structure of their production, and the returns on that production. We can make a claim to means, externalities, or ends, or all three. We can measure the claim, the means, the ends – all three, and do so scientifically. There is nothing in metaphysics, language, psychology, or sociology that cannot be expressed scientifically in these terms. That is a purely scientific statement. Conversely you cannot deny or falsify this statement. Period. If you don’t use these terms one can claim ignorance, on can claim expediency(cost), but one cannot claim anything else. As far as I know, The question of Morality is closed. You can try to create test after test but you will find no test that fails this test.

  • Sorry but Science Solved Morality – Morality Is Closed,.

    —“so yes, science can tell us what is but not what we ought to do.”—

    This is a justificationary position (sophism). |Decidability| = That which is not irreciprocal or false (negatively consequential) -> Value (personal strategy -> Positively Consequential) -> Preference (Inconsequential) Science (law) tells us what we may not do (irreciprocity) – that which is unethical, and immoral. Anything that is not unethical and immoral is merely a PREFERENCE to be settled in the market competition for means and ends. What we ‘ought’ to do is anything we CAN organize voluntarily TO DO that which is not false or irreciprocal. Even so, we can just as equally test positive moral claims by the investments that you make, the externalities caused, and desired outcomes produced. All truth propositions are falsificationary. All moral claims are merely claims that one acts not immorally. All moral propositions, means, and outcomes are testable by reciprocity. All moral propositions are open to triangulation of the returns on investments (compare by ordinality if not cardinality). All moral propositions are decidable by adversarial competition in markets for voluntary production of moral outcomes, given scarcity and competition for means and outcomes. All markets produce empirical results, and as such are scientific. All epistemological questions are the result of falsification by adversarial competition. All moral questions are epistemological questions. All not-evil-immoral-unethical propositions are amoral, ethical, or good, depending upon the means of organizing their production, the structure of their production, and the returns on that production. We can make a claim to means, externalities, or ends, or all three. We can measure the claim, the means, the ends – all three, and do so scientifically. There is nothing in metaphysics, language, psychology, or sociology that cannot be expressed scientifically in these terms. That is a purely scientific statement. Conversely you cannot deny or falsify this statement. Period. If you don’t use these terms one can claim ignorance, on can claim expediency(cost), but one cannot claim anything else. As far as I know, The question of Morality is closed. You can try to create test after test but you will find no test that fails this test.

  • Russell’ S Paradox Isnt

    Russell’ S Paradox Isnt. https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/26/russell-s-paradox-isnt/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 19:47:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232753986677153793