Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • CRITICISMS OF THOSE UNABLE TO MANAGE FALSIFICATIONISM (MARKETS) —-“AFAIK, righ

    CRITICISMS OF THOSE UNABLE TO MANAGE FALSIFICATIONISM (MARKETS)

    —-“AFAIK, right now, you need more than motive (“incentive to deceive or defraud”) to prosecute.”—B Quimby

    You need harm and motive (incentive). You need an involuntary imposition of costs against a demonstrated investment of another(others) – harm. You need means, motive, opportunity. The current argument in legal reform, is that you also need intent or failure of due diligence in order to prevent the police, prosecutors, and judges from driving you to self incrimination.

    —“Your position would sound a lot stronger to me if you demonstrated awareness that your epistemological standard might be incomplete, and in spite of this, that you are willing to sacrifice truths that don’t fit said standard.”—B Quimby

    ***As far as I know propertarianism (in total) is epistemologically complete.***

    That is in no small part because it is falsificationary (via negativa) not (false) justificationary (via positiva), and as such all via positiva (possibilities) are the result of free association and all ‘truth’s survival from competition. In other words, you dont need to excuse your possible worlds (imaginings) just warranty that you have performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, and deceit.

    —“Or, just demonstrate awareness that dogma can be harmful too, but that you are making a conscious choice to be dogmatic, b/c anything less will breed more harm.”— B Quimby

    Dogma requires a via positiva. Science and law are only via-negativas. Like many people, y’all want a religion or a philosophy instead of a science, logic, and law. I don’t do via-positivas like philosophy and religion. I just do via negativa: what is false and immoral. That leaves universes of non-false, non-immoral possibilities. The question is, why do you want false and immoral possibilities?

    Science(actions), logic(words), and mathematics (measurements) are not dogmas. THEY FALSIFY THEM.

    Propertarianism (vitruvianism, acquisitionism, propertarianism, testimonialism, and the algorithmic natural law) is not a religion, a philosophy, or an ideology or a but a science, logic, system of measurement, and body of law – and not a dogma. IT FALSIFIES THEM.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-20 11:58:00 UTC

  • “I have a law degree and i still don’t understand.”–Shane Mark If it wasn’t exc

    —“I have a law degree and i still don’t understand.”–Shane Mark

    If it wasn’t excruciatingly difficult, someone would have done it before me. Instead, a host of intellectuals during the late 19th through mid 20th tried and failed. But since that time we’ve had computer science (existential) instead of mathematics (ideal), and cognitive science (existential) instead of psychology (pseudoscience), and economics (real) instead of sociology (pseudoscience). There are lots of shoulders of giants to stand upon in the late 20th and early 21st when I’m working.

    It’s possible to create strictly constructed law on one hand that is testable by computer software, and a chain of dependency that is testable by computer, and to provide the law, prosecutors, lawyers, judges, and the jury with a set of tests for truthful speech – which cannot be performed by computer.

    Law of tort is quite good really. Legislation and regulation are reasonably good in the anglo (common law) tradition. We just need these tools, universal standing in matters of the commons, thereby ending disintermediation by the state, and providing a via negativa means of competition (court) in addition to the via-positiva means of competition (markets).

    Now, increase the definition and scope of property (see property-in-toto) to the full suite of things that people act to invest in producing whether by expenditure of forgone opportunity, or expenditure of time, effort, or resources, (including manners, ethics, morals, norms, commons, capital et all) and it is very hard for special interests (and usurpers) to survive. And even more so, nearly impossible to seek rents (more on that another time.)

    – Eradicate false and ir-reciprocal commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational speech in the commons.

    – Restore libel and slander.

    – Prohibit baiting into moral hazard in the law.

    – Replace copyright with creative commons.

    – Eliminate consumer interest (yes, really, and it’s not hard).

    – Privatize (contract out) all bureaucratic functions.

    – Replace private pensions with public (they aren’t possible anyway in current and future economies)…. meaning adopt the singapore model of ‘involuntarily buying insurance to protect your peers from your late age poverty’.

    Much, more detail, but all of it is rather ordinary.

    I can’t write twenty pages here but just take it for granted that I’ve worked through these ideas in painful detail.

    We can depoliticize, de-propagandize, eliminate fraud and deceit in every aspect of public life, restore the civic society, halve the time people must work to pay off homes, drastically reduce the cost of education, and dozens of other great improvements and all it will do is end parasitism by the political, bureaucratic, and financial classes.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-19 09:04:00 UTC

  • DEFLATING TERMS BY THE MEANS OF CONSISTENCY IN THE DIMENSIONS THAT THEY MEASURE.

    DEFLATING TERMS BY THE MEANS OF CONSISTENCY IN THE DIMENSIONS THAT THEY MEASURE.

    (important)

    DIMENSIONS AND MEANS OF CONSISTENCY-TESTING

    1. Axioms = Logic (words) : internal consistency : Declared.

    2. Theories (‘laws’) = Science (actions) : external correspondence : Discovered

    3. Algorithms (operations) = Testimony : Constructed.

    4. Rational Choice (incentives) = Preference or Good : intuited.

    5. Law (Reciprocity) = Decidability: Demonstrated.

    COHERENCE REQUIRES CLOSURE

    1. No means of consistency-testing within any dimension provides CLOSURE. (‘incompleteness’).

    2. Closure is increased only by appeal to the next higher dimension.

    3. Closure is impossible for other than tautologies, but warranty of due diligence is producible by test of COHERENCE, which is CONSISTENCY in all dimensions.

    PROOFS?

    1. A proof is a test of internal consistency.

    2. A proof is therefore a test of possibility.

    3. All proofs are open to falsification by appeal COHERENCE, meaning the due diligence of testing every dimension for consistency.

    4. Ergo the function of logic and axioms is only to falsify the false, not prove the true. This is the ‘difficult’ part of ‘relearning’ that mathematics (positional naming) and the attempt to have logic (language) mirror one another, has led to the near universal fallacy that proof provides truth rather than due diligence against error, bias, and deceit.

    5. Egro, logics FALSIFY but they do not convey truth content – except in the minority and reductio set of cases – in logic which are akin to prime numbers in mathematics: rare.

    (This is what Curtus Maximus is explaining via Godel).

    In the sense of Rothbard/Mises/Hoppe the (((fraud))) of kantian logic combined with the (((fraud))) of CONFLATION, mises attempted to conflate logic, empiricism, science, morality, and law into one ‘monopoly ‘ akin to jewish law, or kant’s attempt at secular restatement of the church’s faith – and failed.

    Rothbard attempted to conflate liberty with jewish libertinism. Freedom with libertinism. and thereby to license parasitism upon the commons, which is the group evolutionary strategy of his ancestors as well as women. Whether his ancestral group strategy of parasitism is genetic or cultural or a combination is something we do not know. We do however know that all his kin exhibit this behavior just as all women exhibit this behavior.

    Ergo, everything rothbard says is a lie. Mises might be rescued from his sophisms and pseudoscience if it were not for Rothbard and Hoppe’s defense of rothbard. But the (((Mises institute))) has done profound harm to our civilization by preserving and promoting Rothbard (rand)’s justification of libertinism, rather than the anglo saxon rights of anglo saxons: sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, charity, and every (enfranchised) man a sheriff.

    As far as I know, the only epistemological framework is free association > hypothesis > theory > law > Failure > Repeat to revise (refine).

    All of the vocabulary of ‘logic’ and proof, all of which is justificationary and false, is now reduced to superstitious language. And all attempts to say ‘prove it’ are also justificationary and false. One cannot prove a truth, one can only ask for sufficient information to falsify it. And contrary to the entire history of philosophy, the principle means of falsification is deconfliction, completing scope and limits, accounting for cost, testing the possibility of action, rationality of action, and reciprocity of display word and deed.

    The people who invented lying are as good at lying as the people who invented truth are good at truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 12:45:00 UTC

  • GA tells us nothing that we don’t already know. So, what is it that GA brings to

    GA tells us nothing that we don’t already know. So, what is it that GA brings to the table? What can we deduce from it? What application can we put it to? What purpose does this theory solve?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 22:34:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083854785990848513

    Reply addressees: @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996 All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996 All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738

  • THE LANGUAGE OF MATHEMATICS AND MAN Mathematics is just the most SIMPLE possible

    THE LANGUAGE OF MATHEMATICS AND MAN

    Mathematics is just the most SIMPLE possible language since it has only one property: positional name. And positional names are unique and perfectly deflationary (non-conflationary) and as such very difficult to subject to our principal category of error: conflation.

    LET’S TAKE A JOURNEY:

    A CHANGE IN STATE (TIME) consists of entropy at the local rate of entropy.

    An INTERVAL (CHANGE) of time consists of a change in state.

    EXPERIENCE(PERCEPTION) consists of the conflation of sense-perception, memory, and neural prediction with that memory, over some interval of time.

    A set of CONSTANT RELATIONS (CATEGORY) consists of a set of properties reducible to analogy to experience, and commensurable (differentiable) by human experience.

    A REFERENCE (ASSOCIATION) consists of a set of constant relations.

    CORRESPONDENCE (NAMES) consists of a name (INDEX) of a comparison of indifference between a name (referrer) and a reference.

    NUMBERS (NOUNS) consists of positional names, and the correspondence of positional names with some referent.

    ARITHMETIC (VERBS) consists in the study of the grammar of numbers, and the properties possible operations upon and between them (addition, subtraction, and their iterations in multiplication, and division).

    ALGEBRA (GRAMMAR) consists in the study of the grammar of mathematical language: the production of well form statements in mathematical language, and the manipulation of symbols (words, phrases, sentences) in that mathematical language, allowing for the deduction, induction, abduction, and guessing of the missing content of those statements, or range of possible content of those statements.

    A DIMENSION (PHRASES) consist of a set of constant internal relations, and each additional dimension consists of a shared dependency between dimensions the accumulation of which produces a chain, hierarchy, or network of dependencies.

    A dimension can refer to any difference reducible to analogy to perception by the human mind, and therefore capable of commensurability, comparison, and decidability.

    GEOMETRY (SENTENCES) consists in the study of dimensions of STATEFUL shapes described by positional relations we call numbers, in n-number of dimensions (although most commonly in four), and the use of triangles to measure area and volume.

    CALCULUS (MEANING) (from Latin calculus, literally ‘small pebble’, used for counting and calculations, as on an abacus) is the mathematical study of continuous change.

    It has two major branches:

    a) Curves: differential calculus (concerning instantaneous rates of change and slopes of curves), and;

    b) Curved Areas: integral calculus (concerning accumulation of quantities and the areas under and between curves).

    –“These two branches are related to each other by the fundamental theorem of calculus. Both branches make use of the fundamental notions of convergence of infinite sequences and infinite series to a well-defined limit. (marginal indifference).”–

    This paragraph consists of nonsense-speech.

    Calculus, like geometry, uses a very large number of approximations of the area under a curve, where we choose some arbitrary degree of precision to determine the smallness of each approximation. This means that all measurements must specify some point of marginal indifference, (scale dependence, ‘limit’).

    HIGHER MATHEMATICS (DEDUCTION, INDUCTION, ABDUCTION, GUESSING), (most analysis) consists in using the available set of constant relations, and some combination of negative (deduction) and positive (construction) to engage in trial and error, to narrow the range of possible solutions.

    EMERGENT PATTERNS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS

    Any and all networks produce patterns of constant relations (‘symmetries’) of that which is frequent and possible and that which is infrequent or impossible. We then can name these symmetries, assign them positional names, and repeat the descriptive language we call the process all over again.

    This is how the universe functions from its yet unknown time-space substance, to the quantum level of behavior upon it, to the atomic level of behavior upon that, to the carbon level beyond that, to the life, the complex life, to the sentience beyond that. One level of operations produces some maximum set of operations which is then results in some maximum set of operations until we have reason, and mathematics, and sufficient knowledge to forecast (imagine, predict) potential alternative ‘sentences’ and act upon them to change state ourselves, and to capture the energy from having done so, so that we ourselves continue to defeat entropy.

    All Reason consists of this using this series, all of which are simply statements of available information:

    1. Identity

    2. Equality

    3. Deduction

    4. Induction

    5. Abduction

    6. Guessing

    7. Free Association

    8. Intuition.

    9. Unobservable.

    In reasoning we can either:

    1. construct (justify),

    2. test (falsify)

    3. continuously recursively disambiguate.(analyze with language)

    4. eliminate by trial and error in construction, falsification, and analysis.

    5. eliminate by trial and error in the market for application.

    We can deceive by:

    1. Failure of due diligence

    2. Denial

    3. Obscurantism, loading, framing

    4. Conflation

    5. Inflation

    6. fictionalization

    7. Deceit

    8. Environmental deceit (saturation, popaganda)

    EVERYTHING WE DO FOLLOWS THE SAME EPISTEMIC PROCESS

    The competition between:

    1. construction by continuous recursive disambiguation (free association), and;

    2. continuous prediction (anticipation), and;

    3. continuous falsification (elimination).

    In this order:

    1. Experience (market for association in memory) >

    2. Free Association (prediction/falsification in reason) >

    3. Hypothesis (criticism/falsification in testing) >

    4. Theory (criticism/falsification in application ) >

    5. Law(survival) >

    6. Habituation (presumption) >

    7. Revision (iterate)

    Philosophizing only tells us if something is false. Nothing more

    The only means of due diligence is falsifying each dimension of possible human perception:

    1. survival from falsification of identity

    2. survival from falsification of internal consistency (logic)

    3. survival from falsification by external correspondence (empiricism).

    4. survival from falsification by operationalization and operational description.

    5. survival from falsification by subjective test of rational choice

    7. survival from falsification by reciprocal test of rational choice.

    8. survival from falsification by tests of limits and full accounting (scope).

    9. survival from falsification by of internal consistency across all of these methods of due diligence (coherence).

    In summary, operational grammar is the same as mathematical grammar: extremely difficult to circumvent tests of deflation and disambiguation in that hierarchy of real world dimensions.

    The human body, intuition, and mind, is a standard of measurement because of the marginal indifference of perception cognition and action, and the ‘grammar’ of operations, provides continuous consistency from the subatomic universe to the experiential.

    Once you understand this, the demand for ePrime (operational language), in complete sentences will be rather obvious.

    – Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-09 13:37:00 UTC

  • Those civil orders do not survive. Why is it that all attempts at those civil or

    Those civil orders do not survive. Why is it that all attempts at those civil orders fail to survive. If you cannot make an operational argument (produce a model that survives falsification) then you’re just talking fantasies. Libertarianism is just communism of the commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-06 20:48:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1082016186760642561

    Reply addressees: @csuwildcat @GloboHomoCorp @jcjray @paulg

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1082014290440159232

    IN REPLY TO:

    @csuwildcat

    @GloboHomoCorp @jcjray @paulg @curtdoolittle That is incorrect: we advocate property or community living contract relationships, which feature direct funding for services rendered, vs authoritarian structures that centralize power in honeypots and bureaucratic, lossy agencies.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1082014290440159232

  • In science there is always one decidable answer – that’s the point of it. That’s

    In science there is always one decidable answer – that’s the point of it. That’s why we call it science, and we call everything else false, sophism, pseudoscience and occult. If an answer is decidable then it is. The Law of Gravity may increase in precision but it isn’t false.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-02 22:52:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080597681268015105

    Reply addressees: @torinmccabe @Imperius__13 @JohnMarkSays @DataDistribute @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080587213786808324

    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/1080587213786808324

  • DEFINING QUALITY OF THE WEST’S SUCCESS Increasing precision, resolution and conc

    DEFINING QUALITY OF THE WEST’S SUCCESS

    Increasing precision, resolution and conciseness results in packed terms which when understood provide decidibility.

    Increasing ambiguity, obfuscation and verbosity results in overloaded terms which when unpacked contain little substance.

    The former an investment with dividends, the later malinvestment which causes damage.

    Western civ = disambiguation across domains, scales and orders of complexity

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-31 14:20:00 UTC

  • Grammar: Rules of continuous disambiguation producing a well formed statement fu

    Grammar: Rules of continuous disambiguation producing a well formed statement functioning as a series of transactions in a contract for meaning.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-23 15:27:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076861788061356032

  • Grammar: Rules of continuous disambiguation producing a well formed statement fu

    Grammar: Rules of continuous disambiguation producing a well formed statement functioning as a series of transactions in a contract for meaning.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-23 10:27:00 UTC