The number of people who use the word proof without knowing ‘proof of what?’ The number of people who use the term NAP without knowing the answer to “aggression against what?’ The number of people who use the term ‘moral’ without knowing the answer to ‘define moral’. These are term of convention – half truths. We use as if we have even the vaguest idea what they men other than to justify a prior.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-13 09:25:00 UTC
So I can testify to something or not. I can perform an action or not. I can test your statement as testifiable and actionable or not. I am not sure what you are asking. And you cannot answer without giving me definitions, the result of which would demonstrate my argument. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-26 19:58:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100485284645478402
Reply addressees: @Constantinus331 @Societisms
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100482528857731082
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/1100482528857731082
I’m saying I don’t ‘accept’ anything. I’m saying I can’t falsify them, and ergo I can’t testify to anything otherwise. (a) you’re relying on justification, (b) presumption of closure in language and ‘claim’ and I’m on action and testimony. You excuse me due diligence. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-26 18:28:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100462598628302849
Reply addressees: @Constantinus331 @Societisms
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100461849479446528
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/1100461849479446528
ON TRUTH (Complete)
(core)
GIVEN DEMAND FOR DECIDABILITY:
a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the “system”(ie: grammar).
b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary).
Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm).
GIVEN THESE DIMENSIONS:
1. Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable).
2. Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable )
3. Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable)
4. Population (Self, Others, All, Universal)
YIELDS THE SERIES:
1. Indistinguishable(perception) >
2. Distinguishable(cognition) >
3. Memorable(categorical-referrable) >
4. Possible(material) >
5. Actionable(physical) >
6. Choosable(for use) >
7. Preferable(Personal) >
8. Good(interpersonal) >
9. Decidable(political) >
10. True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) >
11. Analytic >
12. Tautological.
WHERE TRUTHFUL SPEECH THAT SATISFIES THE DEMAND FOR INCREASING INFALLIBILITY OF DECIDABILITY YIELDS THE SERIES:
1. Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
2. Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.
3. Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.
4. Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.
5. Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
6. Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values.
7. Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (‘True’)
8. Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity
9. Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.
WHERE TRUTH CONSISTS IN THE SERIES
1. Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
2. Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
3. Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
4. Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
4. Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
WHERE THE CRITERIA FOR TRUTHFUL SPEECH IS COHERENCE ACROSS THE DIMENSIONS TESTIFIABLE BY MAN, IN THE SERIES:
1. Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)
2. Internally Consistent (Logical)
3. Externally Correspondent (Empirical)
4. Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)
5. Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)
6. Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)
7. With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation)
8. Warrantied
… (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
… (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
… (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.
AS A DEFENSE AGAINST THE SERIES:
1. Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;
2. Error and failure of Due Diligence;
3. Bias and Wishful Thinking;
4. And the many Deceits of:
… (a) Loading and Framing;
… (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda;
… (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;
… (d) and outright Fabrications.
IN DEFENSE OR ADVOCACY OF:
1. Any transfer that is not:
… (a) productive
… (b) fully informed
… (c) warrantied
… (d) voluntary
… (e) free of externality of the same criteria
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE SERIES OF THOSE CATEGORIES OF:
1. murder,
2. harm, damage, theft,
3. fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,
4. free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons,
5. rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism,
6. conversion(religion/pseudoscience),
7. displacement(immigration/overbreeding),
8. conquest (war).
(End)
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-23 13:04:00 UTC
I can make stuff up out of thin air too. Give me a case of something that could go before the court. I will exhaust every case.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 22:50:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098354158606974979
Reply addressees: @NotCarKing @KingCrocoduck
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098352698766827525
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/1098352698766827525
He’s making general arguments not models. P survives case-testing. Best strategy is to ask for examples. But usually they avoid case testing because it will falsify critiques.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 22:40:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098351634835562496
Reply addressees: @WorMartiN @NotCarKing @ReiMurasame
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097140334281269248
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/1097140334281269248
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.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-19 11:44:00 UTC
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.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-19 10:25:00 UTC
We all need generaal rules of cooperation, and we need a hierarchy of graceful increase in precision and graceful failure given our ability, knowledge, and available time and resources – from parables, to histories, to sciences, to calculations.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-18 13:47:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097492787455508480
Reply addressees: @laurthecatholic @spatiumleo
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097469121250369542
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/1097469121250369542
LOOKS LIKE WE DISCOVERED A NEW PROPERTARIAN 😉
—“A very good article. A few things came to mind. The boy who cried wolf is an excellent exercise in type I and type II logic errors. The variation of the villagers conflating “wolf” with stray dogs reminded me of how overused the term “racist” is or “white supremacist”. They have no meaning.
They at one time were used as a magic spell to whites to cough up money and resources. A real racist is not phased by the title and now, few that are accused of it are not as well – damage done.
The worst of all is gaslighting because it works it’s way into the mind of the victim and they end up living in a perpetual stockholm syndrome – well, if done correctly. If not, it just drives a person mad.”—JWarren Prescott
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-14 13:59:00 UTC