Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549908672 Timestamp) THE MARKET FOR DECIDABILITY When the ordinary person fails he appeals to associates. When associates fail he appeals to superiors When superiors fail he appeals to professionals When professionals fail the appeals to thought leaders. When instincts fail we appeal to familial ethics. When familial ethics fail we appeal to virtue ethics. When virtue ethics fail we appeal to rule ethics When rule ethics fail we appeal to outcome ethics. When intuition fails one must appeal to logic. When logic fails, one must appeal to empiricism. When empiricism fails one must appeal to operationalism. When operationalism fails one must appeal to limits scope and parsimony. When religion fails, one appeals to reason When reason fails one appeals to philosophy When philosophy fails, on appeals to science When science fails, one appeals to testimony. And the opposite is true. Why? We only have so much knowledge, and so much time, to satisfy the market for decidability in time for taking action.

    • Curt Doolittle
    • The Propertarian Institute.

    PS by Bill Joslin Incremental Disambiguation in one direction (from low to high investment)- Graceful failure in the other (from high to low cost) which explains why the later presents stronger incentives than the former.z

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550015417 Timestamp) CHANTING THE CORE 😉 Given: Any statement passes the tests of: – categorically consistent (identity) – internally consistent (Logically consistent) – externally correspondent (empirically consistent) – existentially consistent (operationally stated) – scope consistent (limits and full accounting) – rational (subjectively consistent – incentives ) – reciprocal (reciprocally subjectively consistent – exchanges) – with these warranties of due diligence, – within the limits of possible restitution, Therefore: – Any such display word or deed; – is free of imposition of costs, And Therefore; – free of retaliation. And Therefore; – it is truthful and moral. We can never know if a statement is true (“critical naturalism”). We can only know that we have exhausted due diligence sufficient for the demand for due diligence given the promise, claim, testimony we are making. This is Propertarian Natural Law’s epistemology: … “Testimonialism’: … … “The completion of the scientific method”, … … … or what some call … … … … ‘Critical Naturalism’.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550164796 Timestamp) LET ME MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU: LIES VS TRUTH Metaphysics = Postmodern = Relativism = Undecidability = Lying. Science = Modernism = Consistency = Decidability = Truth. Philosophy is just another fictional literature. It uses ideals rather than supernaturals. Postmodernism is simply sophism. Marxism is simply pseudoscience. Western thought baits you into maintaining high trust at the expense of truth. Semitic thought baits you into moral hazard in order to undermine you and your people. It’s not complicated. It’s not an opinion. If you can’t speak in the language of TESTIMONY (science) then we have to investigate WHY you speak in an language OTHER than Testimony. And when we do so we will discover your fraud – intentional, or as the carrier (victim) of those smarter than you with intent do distribute fraud. Science (Testimony) consists of the universal language of truthful speech for a good reason: it survived in the market for replication, application, and survival.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550157314 Timestamp) I don’t know what a metaphysics is if I have constructed one. I know I have deflated and disambiguated LANGUAGE.

    1. I have enumerated the known grammars used by human beings and the history of their development in each era and why.
    2. I have articulated the dimensions of those grammars and how they all function.
    3. I have articulated the constitution of grammars although this is merely a refinement of chomsky.
    4. I have deflated disambiguated, operationalized, and serialized terms from across the fields, reducing all fields to a common vocabulary absent pretense of knowledge (largely idealism).

    And a lot more. Physical science, cognitive science, and if grammars are separate from cognitive science then the grammars, and as far as I know the rest is just ‘lies’. As far as I know philosophy is dead, just as theology is dead. There is only one testifiable method we have today (and have always had) and that is the law, and science is just an application of the law (due diligence and warranty of the truthfulness of one’s statements.) So as far as I know metaphysics as defined in every source I know of (which includes the SEP section 5, stating it does not exist) does not exist as other than an attempt to do as I stated above: fictionalism and lies. In other words, as far as I know P constitutes a logic of constant relations using actions which are all subjectively testable and marginally indifferent as a system of measurement. And language consists entirely of measurement. the question is only the precision of those measurements. Science has demonstrated parsimony.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550164796 Timestamp) LET ME MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU: LIES VS TRUTH Metaphysics = Postmodern = Relativism = Undecidability = Lying. Science = Modernism = Consistency = Decidability = Truth. Philosophy is just another fictional literature. It uses ideals rather than supernaturals. Postmodernism is simply sophism. Marxism is simply pseudoscience. Western thought baits you into maintaining high trust at the expense of truth. Semitic thought baits you into moral hazard in order to undermine you and your people. It’s not complicated. It’s not an opinion. If you can’t speak in the language of TESTIMONY (science) then we have to investigate WHY you speak in an language OTHER than Testimony. And when we do so we will discover your fraud – intentional, or as the carrier (victim) of those smarter than you with intent do distribute fraud. Science (Testimony) consists of the universal language of truthful speech for a good reason: it survived in the market for replication, application, and survival.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550233498 Timestamp) DO WE POSITIVELY DISAMBIGUATE OR AMBIGUATE IN DEFENSE? —“I think it’s insulting for idealists to be associated with Evola. It’s not primacy of consciousness, it’s not Kant. It’s sword-and-sorcery. People who say that Evola introduced them to philosophy weren’t introduced to it at all; they were just stalled and set up for humiliation if they ever decided to argue with a philosophical opponent. They should read Heidegger instead if they insist on living outside of reality, but even he might prove too profane and earthly for their liking.”—by Göran Dahl CURTD: Correct. But this is the problem tho: unless taught the direct road, people must take what road that is easiest to follow given their experience. And they always and everywhere move from the emotive to the analytic – slowly for reasons anyone familiar with artificial intelligence and neurology can explain: more neural christmas tree lights go on with emotion until you have enough information to light them without it. And there is the rub: do we disambiguate, and suppress conflation between literature (analogy) and thought (philosophy, history) and teach stoicism and the law (which is intuitive). Or do we make a via-positiva claim about philosophy, religion, occult, and maintain conflation and ‘ambiguation’. This is the problem with differences between anglo-scandinavian, franco-german continental, and italian peoples We get better intellectuals out of italy in the south, and england in the north, and better engineers, craftsmen, and citizens in germany. But why? Genetically we are all germanic (european) peoples. So the general argument is that we must ‘program’ good behavior into people (germany good, france bad) by educating their intuition with emotion, teaching them mindfulness, and teaching them the law. purely out of defense against those who lie. Education is just as defensive as it is opportunity generating.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550343211 Timestamp) TRY IT. by Bill Johnson How could one outsmart a reasonable man (like Curt) who is merely pointing at a truth-testing device? A standard of measure with near NIST-Traceable Calibration. 😉 Curt is not saying he is unbeatable. Rather he is subjecting Propertarianism to the crucible. Bring on the heat. To attack Curt, is not to attack Propertarianism. That would be a fool’s errand. Could they say Curt are pointing at Propertarianism with the wrong hand or finger? Could they say you are not pointing at Propertarianism? That might be more irrational than a Christian Scientist saying his cancer and pain are not real.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550343211 Timestamp) TRY IT. by Bill Johnson How could one outsmart a reasonable man (like Curt) who is merely pointing at a truth-testing device? A standard of measure with near NIST-Traceable Calibration. 😉 Curt is not saying he is unbeatable. Rather he is subjecting Propertarianism to the crucible. Bring on the heat. To attack Curt, is not to attack Propertarianism. That would be a fool’s errand. Could they say Curt are pointing at Propertarianism with the wrong hand or finger? Could they say you are not pointing at Propertarianism? That might be more irrational than a Christian Scientist saying his cancer and pain are not real.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550594667 Timestamp) Propertarianism is calculable (possible by humans) but not computable (possible by machines) where calculation consist of transformation of inputs into outputs by means that are subjectively testable (unlimited), open to deduction, inference, and recursion, and computation is the transformation of inputs into outputs given the internal limits of comparison of the computational grammar.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550589901 Timestamp) MORE ON METAPHYSICS ….the idea of ‘proven’ is something I think is meaningless – instead: “remove all reasonable doubt”. Because nothing can be ‘proven’ other than tautologies because nothing is premise-independent other than tautologies. Therefore as far as I know, the question is only one of reasonable doubt. And given that only demonstrated preference shows us what one in fact ‘believes’ rather than ‘signals’ including ‘signaling to the self’, only tests of action with skin in the game tell us – even if we desperately want to be honest – what is in fact ‘true’. Ergo, as far as I know, there is only one physics, and one metaphysics (most parsimonious paradigm) and many false physics(paradigms) and many false metaphysics (paradigms) we can use to describe the physical. And the only metaphysics we can determine we are not signaling (lying) to ourselves and others about is that of ACTION. All else is fiction. Anyway. That’s my understanding.