(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.
Theme: Decidability
-
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.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550674797 Timestamp) TRICKS IN MATH, TEXT …. AND LAW by JWarren Prescott My wife and I have had this conversation several times. Being both electrical engineers we are used to not just regular college level maths, but engineering maths. The first thing we say when we see these internet âmath problemsâ is they are written either wrongly or purposefully to confuse. Many times there may be two answers due to this obfuscation and ideally, this is supposed to lead someone to say, âWait, what is really being asked here? What actual or physical problem is trying to be solved?â Because if all you have is a disembodied equation with no practical application and the parameters are ill defined, then there is no perceived difference between deception and incompetence. Think about this and how our current legal system is written.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550674797 Timestamp) TRICKS IN MATH, TEXT …. AND LAW by JWarren Prescott My wife and I have had this conversation several times. Being both electrical engineers we are used to not just regular college level maths, but engineering maths. The first thing we say when we see these internet âmath problemsâ is they are written either wrongly or purposefully to confuse. Many times there may be two answers due to this obfuscation and ideally, this is supposed to lead someone to say, âWait, what is really being asked here? What actual or physical problem is trying to be solved?â Because if all you have is a disembodied equation with no practical application and the parameters are ill defined, then there is no perceived difference between deception and incompetence. Think about this and how our current legal system is written.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551979095 Timestamp) “TESTIMONIALISM ROCKS!!!” —“Curt: The moment she said “…the thing in itself”, my mind directly answered “can u testify for that thing in itself of yours”. And the answers surely would be no. And if she tried to then she will be bringing, or applying a monopoly demand for consent of the rationalization she will be making, ie, deceit. Testimonialism ROCKS.”— Deus Ex
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552010801 Timestamp) NOPE NOPE —“Curt: What would (….) in a propertarian society?”— PROP IS A METHOD. Propertarianism is a methodology, consisting of a set of methodologies, a set of definitions, and a set of arguments, that produce a commensurable language, complete the scientific method, and embody that scientific method into rule of law. What you do with that law is wide open – it just has to be transparent, and it will prohibit all sorts of lying in public about whatever order you have. P-law is extremely facist out of the box – it is extremely nationalistic, and extremely intolerant, and especially intolerant of our ancient enemy’s means of deceit. And It is very hard to engage in malfeasance under P-Law since it is simply too profitable for individuals to report criminals for fun and profit. It is a ruthless system of government for enemies of the productive people. It has no mercy for enemies foreign or domestic. FOR MY PEOPLE My focus has been on correcting the United states first, and the other european states second. I recommend, for my people, and my people alone, because my people alone appear capable of it: 0 – An independent judiciary of the natural law 1 – A militia of all able bodied men in the regimental model, attached to a ‘church’/’school’. A standing army of professional warriors, and citizen employees of the military who are inducted in emergencies, since an increasing scope of military work is technical and administrative. 2 – A Hereditary Monarchy with a professional cabinet 3 – Virtual Houses of Governors, Industry, Business, Labor, and Family(homeowners). Where house members are selected randomly from the population, to provide assent or dissent to proposals by the monarchy in the raising and use of taxes. And where all houses must ‘pass’ (ascend). 4 – A near prohibition on bureaucracy; all government service “at the pleasure of the monarchy”; and a prohibition on pensions for public servants. 5 – My understanding is that this would provide all the benefits of fascism without the need for a dictator-character and the attendant risk. Even then, there is no reason a monarch cannot appoint such a person as did the romans, in times of crisis or need. FLIPPED INCENTIVES This produces a very different set of incentives since everyone is always and everywhere accountable for everything. MIDDLE CLASS IS HARD TO BEAT Monarchies appear to run better governments until they cannot. They cannot when the commercial complexity reaches the point of choosing limited investments from a host of possible investments. In this case the middle class appears to do well UNTIL they start socializing losses and privatizing the commons or engaging in arbitrage against the long term interests of the people. FEDERATION Any number of these monarchies can be federated under a supreme court of the natural law, just as the church federated the monarchies under church ‘license’ – the principle value of the court and the church being the ‘delegitimization’ of a ruler or a government, there by sanctioning the people and neighbors to replace that ruler, in the european tradition. This would, I expect, be rare, since royal families are extremely intolerant of family members who risk their status – and often make them ‘disappear’. My preference (Fantasy) would be to restore the anglo empire, and the germanic (Holy roman) empire, and to complete the intermarium and end the conflict of the 20th century brought about by ((())) the enemies of our people under the banner of world communism and the destruction of our peoples. FOR OTHER PEOPLES For other peoples I recommend a flexible system of government not terribly different from the Roman and English:
- Fascism (Generalship) for time of war or conflict.
- Monarchies with professional cabinets as long as possible
- Adding Houses of government as via negativa juries when too large. These juries must only approve/deny raising of funds by the monarchy (cabinet).
- If for some reason some semblance of democracy is necessary (it isn’t, but it may be impossible to avoid it for pragmatic reasons) I recommend virtual houses for each of the classes and genders, where classes trade in a market rather than pass legislation by majority rule. Where resources are either equally or proportionally distributed. Then posting proposals for x months, then using a lottery (Greece) rather than politicians to select the juries (houses), then allowing the juries to conduct business (trade)
In other words, there is no ‘propertarian society’ per se other than all those societies run under rule of law by natural law. So…. You can ask me questions of natural law – ‘what would the law say about ????’ You can ask me about different political orders: “what order, or what would you recommend for ????” You can ask me what constitution I’d recommend for america or germany, or england or poland etc. “what would you recommend for????” You can ask me what I’ve put in the working constitution. As long as they are under natural law they are ‘propertarian’. If they are not then they are not.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552523847 Timestamp) RESPONSE TO PILPUL AS CRITICISM OF P-LAW/LOGIC 1) You did not make an argument as to demarcation – meaning you made no argument as to anything other than self opinion. 2) You have not stated any ideologies and certainly no methodologies, (there aren’t any) 3) You have not answered how one would solve the problem of limiting interpretation to application. 4) You misrepresented in your experience offered as evidence as other than an opinion. It is an experience if you describe it (“i don’t know i only know” but an opinion if you offer it as argument (“in my experience… therefore”). 5) You instead practiced one of the techniques of Pilpul (semitic invention of lying via justification via scriptural interpretation) by solving for a presumption of reasonableness (trustworthiness) as a means of baiting into hazard – which is the principle means of deception I am working to dutifully exterminate. 6) And if “in conclusion, I have no issue being held liable for what I say” then you are exactly the target audience, because you just demonstrated the problem of men who think they are honest when they are merely vehicles for the transmission and propagation of the very disease of the mind that travels under the pretense of religion: abrahamism: false promise, baiting in to hazard, pilpul to justify, critique to straw man and undermine, GRRSM to avoid, solving for pragmatism, or consent, or reasonableness rather than truth and reciprocity, and the culmination of all these techniques to profit from the incremental destruction of host civilizations. You are, in your confidence, evidence of the crime I wish to, and hopefully shall, prosecute, and the education I wish to introduce as the completion of the scientific method. So that no more such pretenses may be practiced upon this earth for eternity, and the dark age of the abrahamists – the cancer that has cost us two thousand years, will be finally left behind forever.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552523847 Timestamp) RESPONSE TO PILPUL AS CRITICISM OF P-LAW/LOGIC 1) You did not make an argument as to demarcation – meaning you made no argument as to anything other than self opinion. 2) You have not stated any ideologies and certainly no methodologies, (there aren’t any) 3) You have not answered how one would solve the problem of limiting interpretation to application. 4) You misrepresented in your experience offered as evidence as other than an opinion. It is an experience if you describe it (“i don’t know i only know” but an opinion if you offer it as argument (“in my experience… therefore”). 5) You instead practiced one of the techniques of Pilpul (semitic invention of lying via justification via scriptural interpretation) by solving for a presumption of reasonableness (trustworthiness) as a means of baiting into hazard – which is the principle means of deception I am working to dutifully exterminate. 6) And if “in conclusion, I have no issue being held liable for what I say” then you are exactly the target audience, because you just demonstrated the problem of men who think they are honest when they are merely vehicles for the transmission and propagation of the very disease of the mind that travels under the pretense of religion: abrahamism: false promise, baiting in to hazard, pilpul to justify, critique to straw man and undermine, GRRSM to avoid, solving for pragmatism, or consent, or reasonableness rather than truth and reciprocity, and the culmination of all these techniques to profit from the incremental destruction of host civilizations. You are, in your confidence, evidence of the crime I wish to, and hopefully shall, prosecute, and the education I wish to introduce as the completion of the scientific method. So that no more such pretenses may be practiced upon this earth for eternity, and the dark age of the abrahamists – the cancer that has cost us two thousand years, will be finally left behind forever.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553023005 Timestamp) by Moritz Bierling First massive gain in dealing with your environment comes from making any distinction at all, hence the incredible power of binaries (positive = ideal, negative = inverted ideal). After that, increasing precision becomes important, especially when scale and iteration enter the picture. Undecidable —> Ideals (Binaries) —> Reals (Spectra) —CURTD— See Relation to: … Virtue Ethics > Imitation … … Rule Ethics > General Rules … … … Outcome Ethics > Knowledge
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553023005 Timestamp) by Moritz Bierling First massive gain in dealing with your environment comes from making any distinction at all, hence the incredible power of binaries (positive = ideal, negative = inverted ideal). After that, increasing precision becomes important, especially when scale and iteration enter the picture. Undecidable —> Ideals (Binaries) —> Reals (Spectra) —CURTD— See Relation to: … Virtue Ethics > Imitation … … Rule Ethics > General Rules … … … Outcome Ethics > Knowledge