Theme: Decidability

  • Syntax no. Grammar yes. Grammar meaning “Rules of continuous disambiguation limi

    Syntax no. Grammar yes. Grammar meaning “Rules of continuous disambiguation limited to given constraints and the vocabulary likewise limited ot such given constraints.”
    In other words science, philosophy, theology (formal) vs opinion, justification, moralizing, psychologizing.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-29 15:35:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167098504214437893

    Reply addressees: @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167097779803447297


    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/1167097779803447297

  • I am not into any such thing. I am into heroism, excellence, truth and reciproci

    I am not into any such thing. I am into heroism, excellence, truth and reciprocity. That means there are only so many criteria of decidability and they are all evolutionary.
    Men have other psychological needs are satisfied by every kind of falsehood, fantasy, and drug is a given.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-28 20:54:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166816275722571776

    Reply addressees: @ClownBa73413423

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166806466201886721


    IN REPLY TO:

    @FullAccountant

    @curtdoolittle You are into all of this transcending human limits and intergalactic space exploration nonsense. The pursuit of immortality. How very INTJ of you. But your arrogance blinds you master Doolittle, that will be your folly.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166806466201886721

  • unless we see the questions posed as specific solutions this survey is meaningle

    unless we see the questions posed as specific solutions this survey is meaningless. Nobody disagrees with a vague concept but they always disagree with specific, testable solutions. It’s like asking Danes if they’re happy. Its rude there to imply otherwise so surveys err widely.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-06 16:24:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1158775898461671425

    Reply addressees: @pewresearch

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1158774989635686402


    IN REPLY TO:

    @pewresearch

    A majority of Americans say gun laws should be stricter. https://t.co/j0hzVVeZYD https://t.co/kawGKLW6WM

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1158774989635686402

  • All peoples need a binding narrative that contains a group strategy, a means of

    All peoples need a binding narrative that contains a group strategy, a means of decidability(morality), a means of ‘mindfulness’ for personal, interpersonal, and social, a means of status equalization (festivals), for what’s reducible to maintaining a neural economy. Why Xianity?


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-25 16:01:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1154421387047723009

    Reply addressees: @TOOEdit

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1154420234201251843


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @TOOEdit Same with Duchesne. He also puts value in Christianity that I don’t see. And it might be because of the radius of corruption that extends out from the Church – especially Italy. Studying Economics and Law produces a very different history from Theo, Phil, and and Literature.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1154420234201251843


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @TOOEdit Same with Duchesne. He also puts value in Christianity that I don’t see. And it might be because of the radius of corruption that extends out from the Church – especially Italy. Studying Economics and Law produces a very different history from Theo, Phil, and and Literature.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1154420234201251843

  • A SIDENOTE ON DISAMBIGUATION OF THE SUBJECT by William L. Benge Suppose I am int

    A SIDENOTE ON DISAMBIGUATION OF THE SUBJECT
    by William L. Benge

    Suppose I am interpreting all of us saying in our own ways:

    —-“We are not finished disambiguating this subject for the purpose of utility (extraction). Maybe, in fact, we have barely begun to do so.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-14 18:54:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1150478673369337861

  • (…) THE METHODOLOGY The methodology consists largely of using algorithmic (lik

    (…)

    THE METHODOLOGY

    The methodology consists largely of using algorithmic (like programming) operational language, the vocabulary and concepts of economics and law, to produce operationally formal arguments, that satisfy all dimensions of human perception (consistency, correspondence, operational (existential) possibility, rational choice, reciprocity, limits, full accounting, parsimony, coherence, and warrantied for due diligence against ignorance error bias and deceit for having done so. If you want to learn the methodology, it’s formal, and its relatively difficult, not because the principles are difficult, but because it exposes whether you know what you’re talking about or not, and forces you to speak and write in terms demonstrating that you have the knowledge to claim what you speak is true.

    This method, produces the long sought after ‘strictly constructed law’ closed to interpretation, on one end and the ability to limit political speech to that which is not false parasitic, predatory.

    So that’s the evidence I can and have summarized the work. It’s not philosophy or ideology so it’s not something you intuit, it’s like the calculus, formal logic, programming, economics, and law, which is something you study and learn by repeated application until it’s a skill.

    This is the most important work being produced in the field at present. nothing else compares. I know. And I know why, and I explain why, and it’s not a good thing that the enemy has been so successful at sophism pseudoscience propaganda and denial.

    Now, if that’s too much for your big boy pants, I’m sorry for you. But learning this if you have studied literary philosophy instead of science, logic, algorithms, economics, and law can be burdensome because you are the equivalent of a theologian in the empirical enlightenment, given that this formal logic of the social sciences deprecates literary philosophy forever to the realm of pseudosciences.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 02:52:34 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426211274373936

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426209481700160


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    (…) 3. A Methodology: i) Epistemology: “The Completion of the Scientific Method and its application to the full scope of human knowledge, resulting in a universal, formal, epistemological method sufficient for adjudication of differences in court.“ ii) Ethics, Law, Politics: “The strict, algorithmic, construction of the natural, common law, of reciprocity (tort);” 4. A Body of Law: ii) Law: “A body of law answering the cannon of questions – providing a common law of equally sovereign men, alternative to Roman, Napoleonic, and Continental law of unequally sovereign men” iii) Constitution: A Constitution of that law, completing the Aristotelian, Roman, British, and American Constitutional Project.” iiii) Policies: “A set of policies under that constitution, solving the otherwise unsolvable problems of the current age.” 5. A Reformation: i) Reformation: “A reformation and unification of all fields” – Language, Logic, and Mathematics – Psychology, Sociology, and Group Strategy – Money, Credit-Finance, and Economics – Ethics, Law, and Politics – Mindfulness-Religion, Education-Academy, and Government-Rule 6. A Solution i) A Solution: “A solution to the political problem of our age.” ii) A Declaration: “A Declaration demanding the implementation of this constitution, as reformations of, by amendments to, the existing American constitution, restoring the historical European, Germanic, English, British, and American rights of equally sovereign men, and a means of successful insurrection to force its adoption if force is required – which it will be.” THE LIST OF IDEAS Too long to list here but the overview lists all of the major themes in order by aristotelian category. From there you have to link to specific articles. ANd then there is the courseware. ANd finally I will ship the book when ready. (…)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426209481700160

  • (…) 3. A Methodology: i) Epistemology: “The Completion of the Scientific Metho

    (…)

    3. A Methodology:
    i) Epistemology: “The Completion of the Scientific Method and its application to the full scope of human knowledge, resulting in a universal, formal, epistemological method sufficient for adjudication of differences in court.“

    ii) Ethics, Law, Politics: “The strict, algorithmic, construction of the natural, common law, of reciprocity (tort);”

    4. A Body of Law:
    ii) Law: “A body of law answering the cannon of questions – providing a common law of equally sovereign men, alternative to Roman, Napoleonic, and Continental law of unequally sovereign men”

    iii) Constitution: A Constitution of that law, completing the Aristotelian, Roman, British, and American Constitutional Project.”

    iiii) Policies: “A set of policies under that constitution, solving the otherwise unsolvable problems of the current age.”

    5. A Reformation:
    i) Reformation: “A reformation and unification of all fields”

    – Language, Logic, and Mathematics
    – Psychology, Sociology, and Group Strategy
    – Money, Credit-Finance, and Economics
    – Ethics, Law, and Politics
    – Mindfulness-Religion, Education-Academy, and Government-Rule

    6. A Solution
    i) A Solution: “A solution to the political problem of our age.”

    ii) A Declaration: “A Declaration demanding the implementation of this constitution, as reformations of, by amendments to, the existing American constitution, restoring the historical European, Germanic, English, British, and American rights of equally sovereign men, and a means of successful insurrection to force its adoption if force is required – which it will be.”

    THE LIST OF IDEAS
    Too long to list here but the overview lists all of the major themes in order by aristotelian category.

    From there you have to link to specific articles.

    ANd then there is the courseware.

    ANd finally I will ship the book when ready.

    (…)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 02:52:05 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426209481700160

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426205598779546


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    —“He needs to state it plainly and stop comparing himself to great philosophers. I’ve read Kant, Hegel, Locke, Darwin, and a lot more. They were far more eloquent and articulate with their ideas. Even Kant, who writes with even more arrogance than this guy, but at least deserved it.”— Frank Anthony Overton Jr. Frank, Summarize any three of aristotle, hume, kant, hegel, (locke and darwin are easy). They were creating paradigm shifts. Frank says (a) he doesn’t understand it, (b) by he can opine on it. If you read those people then read the Overview and comment. Otherwise you’re just jerking off in public. Criticism is a good thing – if it’s in fact criticism. THE VIDEO SUMMARIZES “Propertarianism consists of a collection of ideas. The core insight in that collection of ideas consists in the completion of the scientific method. The remaining body of work consists of the application of the scientific method to the full scope of human disciplines.” THE WEB SITE HOME PAGE, SUMMARIZES: “Propertarianism consists of the completion of the Scientific Method; its application to the totality of human knowledge; a universally commensurable language of all thought; its embodiment in the common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons.” THE OVERVIEW SUMMARIZES An Explanation: i) The Uniqueness of Western Civilization: “The Group Strategy (Philosophy) of Western Civilization in Scientific Terms: Excellence and Heroism, Sovereignty and Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, The Jury and Markets in Everything.” ii) The Failure of the Enlightenment: “The Crisis of the 20th and 21st Centuries as a failure to apply that strategy and adapt to counter the industrialization of pseudoscience, sophism, denial, and deceit; iii) The Second Conquest of the West: The Crisis of the 20th and 21st century as a repetition of the revolt against western civilization, truth, reason, and law, under Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and the dark ages of ignorance and destruction that resulted from them.” 2. A System of Measurement, Logic, Vocabulary, and Grammar: i) System Of Measurement: ( … ) “A system of measurement – Propertarian – that provides universal commensurability in thought, display, word, and deed. (Action, Acquisitionism, Propertarian.)” ii) Vocabulary: “A set of fully commensurable cross-disciplinary definitions in operational language. iii) Grammars: “A reduction of language to the equivalent of a periodic table of the elements, and the underlying geometry of thought.” iiii) Logic: “An Operational Logic using Operational Grammar for using these definitions.” v) Value Neutral Language: “A Value Neutral Language of metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy, suitable for the construction of law, delivery of testimony, and adjudication of differences in court.” (…)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426205598779546

  • If you can’t disambiguate it and operationalize it, you don’t understand it

    If you can’t disambiguate it and operationalize it, you don’t understand it.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-09 15:16:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1148611833357623298

  • The absolute claim is the implied claim that that closure, proof of truth (justi

    The absolute claim is the implied claim that that closure, proof of truth (justification) exist. Same with problem of induction. We can use logic to falsify (test consistency) but we can’t use it to ‘prove’ which is why we never did succeed with it, and why science did.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-06-08 10:05:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1137299716499214336

    Reply addressees: @Prussian_Reborn

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1137123681640026113


    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/1137123681640026113

  • None of these are closed (closure)

    None of these are closed (closure).


    Source date (UTC): 2019-06-07 23:09:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1137134449760583681

    Reply addressees: @Prussian_Reborn

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1137134051448504321


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Prussian_Reborn Proofs tell us only of internal consistency,not whether a claim is true other than a claim of internal consistency. In math we claim only proof not truth. In logic only inference from given contingent premises. In empiricism only correspondence. In Construction only possibility.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1137134051448504321


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Prussian_Reborn Proofs tell us only of internal consistency,not whether a claim is true other than a claim of internal consistency. In math we claim only proof not truth. In logic only inference from given contingent premises. In empiricism only correspondence. In Construction only possibility.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1137134051448504321