Judgement requires organizing a set of constant relations in a narrative for the purpose of decidability: framing (or paradigm). One can however organize constant relations in a narrative for the purpose of framing judgement(decidability).
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 14:06:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017047406268043264
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
Judgement requires organizing a set of constant relations in a narrative for the purpose of decidability: framing (or paradigm). One can however organize constant relations in a narrative for the purpose of framing judgement(decidability).
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 14:05:58 UTC
TEMPORAL VS INTERTEMPORAL DECIDABILITY
The difference between law and science is that in questions of law, individuals in conflict demand a decision from judge and jury in the present where in science we explicitly deny this demand, and in philosophy where we never do so, and in religion we presume it already made.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 10:46:00 UTC
Judgement requires organizing a set of constant relations in a narrative for the purpose of decidability: framing (or paradigm). One can however organize constant relations in a narrative for the purpose of framing judgement(decidability).
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 10:05:00 UTC
The difference between law and science is that in questions of law, individuals in conflict demand a decision from judge and jury in the present where in science we explicitly deny this demand, and in philosophy where we never do so, and in religion we presume it already made.
The difference between law and science is that in questions of law, individuals in conflict demand a decision from judge and jury in the present where in science we explicitly deny this demand, and in philosophy where we never do so, and in religion we presume it already made.
1) I framed the problem as whether you can testify. You cannot. Since you cannot testify, you are in fact fictionalizing (adding information that does not exist). 2) I framed the criteria for decidability as (a) parsimony (b) constant relations between existence, perception, cognition, and action, (c) motive, (d) absence of fictionalism. 3) I can testify to my proposition that all these phenomenon either to exist or can exist, without anything other than an energetic substance seeking an impossible equilibrium. (a pattern which we see throughout the natural world). 4) Your proposition is that fictionalism is different from lying – which it cannot be: you are fabricating information that is not there. The information is either present in reality or you are fabricating it. Note: —“To fabricate information means to assert correspondence between objects which do not correspond; and possibly to suppress the full accounting which proves evident said non-correspondence”— George Hobbs 5) non-temporality (non-time), self organization via entropy, and inter-universe sinusoidal equilibration (the ‘bubble’ universe), requires nothing other than itself. There is no meaning of time outside of such a bubble. 6) We treat all fictionalist arguments as error, and in particular anthropomorphism as an error, because in history we have found *all* instances of that pattern of argument to be error. 7) In summary, there is no difference between your fabrication of a fiction to support your fantasy of comforting anthropomorphism, and the bank robber who tells a story that god told him to do so, and the counterfeiter who says he did nothing wrong. 8) Ergo, you are arguing as if we are discussing a theory when I am arguing that you are engaged in deception (fraud). In other words, you are creating a fictionalism in order to justify a personal psychological, political, or material want (or fear). 9) I *cannot* come to any other conclusion simply because I cannot testify to the untestifiable; cannot fictionalize to compensate; and have before me a rather simple answer that explains the universe, and all that results from it’s entropic transformation. 10) Aristotle was wrong about a great many things. Adults don’t fall back two millennia in order to desperately cherry pick an argument. They work with the totality of information such that they cannot. 11) Propertarianism (my work) cannot be applied by people lacking the agency to serve as judges of truth(speech) and reciprocity(action). The weak need their falsehoods. And they are unfit for rule by rule of law. 12) There are any number of people who have found that they lack the agency to function as judges and prosecutors of truth (speech) and reciprocity(action), and who can compete in markets in everything (natural aristocracy). 13) But their choice is always and everywhere without exception – lack of agency. ie: they are still animals. And as animals must be ruled by those who possess it. (aristocracy).
1) I framed the problem as whether you can testify. You cannot. Since you cannot testify, you are in fact fictionalizing (adding information that does not exist). 2) I framed the criteria for decidability as (a) parsimony (b) constant relations between existence, perception, cognition, and action, (c) motive, (d) absence of fictionalism. 3) I can testify to my proposition that all these phenomenon either to exist or can exist, without anything other than an energetic substance seeking an impossible equilibrium. (a pattern which we see throughout the natural world). 4) Your proposition is that fictionalism is different from lying – which it cannot be: you are fabricating information that is not there. The information is either present in reality or you are fabricating it. Note: —“To fabricate information means to assert correspondence between objects which do not correspond; and possibly to suppress the full accounting which proves evident said non-correspondence”— George Hobbs 5) non-temporality (non-time), self organization via entropy, and inter-universe sinusoidal equilibration (the ‘bubble’ universe), requires nothing other than itself. There is no meaning of time outside of such a bubble. 6) We treat all fictionalist arguments as error, and in particular anthropomorphism as an error, because in history we have found *all* instances of that pattern of argument to be error. 7) In summary, there is no difference between your fabrication of a fiction to support your fantasy of comforting anthropomorphism, and the bank robber who tells a story that god told him to do so, and the counterfeiter who says he did nothing wrong. 8) Ergo, you are arguing as if we are discussing a theory when I am arguing that you are engaged in deception (fraud). In other words, you are creating a fictionalism in order to justify a personal psychological, political, or material want (or fear). 9) I *cannot* come to any other conclusion simply because I cannot testify to the untestifiable; cannot fictionalize to compensate; and have before me a rather simple answer that explains the universe, and all that results from it’s entropic transformation. 10) Aristotle was wrong about a great many things. Adults don’t fall back two millennia in order to desperately cherry pick an argument. They work with the totality of information such that they cannot. 11) Propertarianism (my work) cannot be applied by people lacking the agency to serve as judges of truth(speech) and reciprocity(action). The weak need their falsehoods. And they are unfit for rule by rule of law. 12) There are any number of people who have found that they lack the agency to function as judges and prosecutors of truth (speech) and reciprocity(action), and who can compete in markets in everything (natural aristocracy). 13) But their choice is always and everywhere without exception – lack of agency. ie: they are still animals. And as animals must be ruled by those who possess it. (aristocracy).
There are no paradoxes only grammatical errors. If people err they do not speak the truth they speak only honestly or truthfully. That they conflate honesty with truthfully is merely another version of conflating preference “i like chocolate ice cream” with consensus “chocolate tastes good (to most of us)”, with truth (chocolate may taste good to many people). Truth originated with the term testimony. We merely combine the word True with the copula “is” (meaning “i dont know how it exists”) and conflate the various positions on the truth spectrum out of convenience and ignorance. We eliminate these problems through speaking if full sentences in operational language (testable transactions)> This is why all knowledge in science is forever contingent, and all scientists that have been taught sufficient understanding of their craft, rarely make truth claims, and almost always make contingent truth claims, with prevarications like “as far as we know” or “according to x it appears”, and “it’s hard to imagine otherwise”. Right now my favorite example is the red shift that is hypothetically measuring that the universe is expanding faster than light, when it is just as likely it is a property of space itself that is causing the shift (distortion). We just don’t know. And we can’t observe directly. So we have to triangulate and deduce by some other series of observations. Even then we must eliminate all alternatives before we can make a truth claim – that’s what ‘truth’ means. In the case of the shapes above, what are the observers testifying to? Their observation? Their shape of the shadow? The shape of the object casting the shadow? People conflate observation, effect, and cause. || Observation <- Effect <- Causes One cannot testify to the shape of the object only to the observation of the shape of the shadow being cast (fact). One can hypothesize a shape of the object (hypothesis). One can speak honestly about that shape (honesty). One can perform due diligence that one does not err (theory) but in science all claims are contingent. One cannot testify to the unobservable, until he has eliminated all possible alternatives (due diligence). Since perfect knowledge is almost never possible outside of the reductio, once on has performed tests eliminating all alternatives (due diligence) one can testify he speaks truthfully of his theory. But in general we make only truth claims of an observation of change in state. That people do such a thing regularly is simply a matter of ignorance, and the bad habits accumulated in ordinary language grammer – which any time in court will rapidly correct. The fact that people say “aint” instead of ‘isn’t’, and ‘different than’ rather than ‘different from’, is no different from saying “It’s a shape X” rather than “The shadow I can observe is the shape X”. It’s just ignorance, error, poor education, colloquial speech, or being verbally lazy. SPECTRUM: [T]AUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. [A]NALYTIC 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). [I]DEAL 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.) [T]RUTHFULNESS: 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, 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. [H]ONESTY: 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.
There are no paradoxes only grammatical errors. If people err they do not speak the truth they speak only honestly or truthfully. That they conflate honesty with truthfully is merely another version of conflating preference “i like chocolate ice cream” with consensus “chocolate tastes good (to most of us)”, with truth (chocolate may taste good to many people). Truth originated with the term testimony. We merely combine the word True with the copula “is” (meaning “i dont know how it exists”) and conflate the various positions on the truth spectrum out of convenience and ignorance. We eliminate these problems through speaking if full sentences in operational language (testable transactions)> This is why all knowledge in science is forever contingent, and all scientists that have been taught sufficient understanding of their craft, rarely make truth claims, and almost always make contingent truth claims, with prevarications like “as far as we know” or “according to x it appears”, and “it’s hard to imagine otherwise”. Right now my favorite example is the red shift that is hypothetically measuring that the universe is expanding faster than light, when it is just as likely it is a property of space itself that is causing the shift (distortion). We just don’t know. And we can’t observe directly. So we have to triangulate and deduce by some other series of observations. Even then we must eliminate all alternatives before we can make a truth claim – that’s what ‘truth’ means. In the case of the shapes above, what are the observers testifying to? Their observation? Their shape of the shadow? The shape of the object casting the shadow? People conflate observation, effect, and cause. || Observation <- Effect <- Causes One cannot testify to the shape of the object only to the observation of the shape of the shadow being cast (fact). One can hypothesize a shape of the object (hypothesis). One can speak honestly about that shape (honesty). One can perform due diligence that one does not err (theory) but in science all claims are contingent. One cannot testify to the unobservable, until he has eliminated all possible alternatives (due diligence). Since perfect knowledge is almost never possible outside of the reductio, once on has performed tests eliminating all alternatives (due diligence) one can testify he speaks truthfully of his theory. But in general we make only truth claims of an observation of change in state. That people do such a thing regularly is simply a matter of ignorance, and the bad habits accumulated in ordinary language grammer – which any time in court will rapidly correct. The fact that people say “aint” instead of ‘isn’t’, and ‘different than’ rather than ‘different from’, is no different from saying “It’s a shape X” rather than “The shadow I can observe is the shape X”. It’s just ignorance, error, poor education, colloquial speech, or being verbally lazy. SPECTRUM: [T]AUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. [A]NALYTIC 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). [I]DEAL 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.) [T]RUTHFULNESS: 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, 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. [H]ONESTY: 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.