–“I’m a philosopher and you can’t prove that [insert random anti-religious statement]”— Some Well Meaning Fool. Well, let us play a game then. Because while you state are a philosopher, I state that I am a scientist specializing in testimony (Truth). And that means that proofs (tests of internal consistency in axiomatic and therefore declaratives systems) only assist us in falsification outside of reductio (trivial) conditions. And that justificationism in philosophy and theology in all its forms is a sophism for the purpose of deception. And that tests of truth in existential systems (hypothesis, theory, law) require due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. And that fablsificationism in all its forms (science and law) evolved for the purpose of defeating deceptions. And that the possible dimensions of criticism we are aware of are consistency, correspondence, existential(operational) possibility, rational choice (volition), reciprocity, completeness, parsimony, and coherence. In other words, while in textual interpretation, scriptural argument, and application of extant law, one justifies a proposition, one does not and cannot prove a statement – instead we seek to falsify propositions and test whether it survives criticism. My assertion is: (a) that one cannot testify to the existence of a creator; (b) that one cannot testify that the works attributed to a creator are not fictions and fictionalisms (lies); (c) that those who created and perpetuated those lies had motives for spreading those lies, and; (d) that the consequences of spreading those lies has been the cause of the thousand year dark age, the destruction of the five great civilizations of the ancient world, and the death of somewhere between half a billion and a billion people; (e) that the argumentative technique invented in order to perpetuate those lies (sophisms), in both via positiva (pilpul and justificationism, using idealism and supernaturalism, with promise of reward/thread of lost opportunity) and via negativa (critique using loading, framing, obscurantism, overloading, suggestion, straw manning, and heaping of undue praise) are open to scientific measurement which defines them as successful methods of deception, (f) that Boazian anthropology, Freudian psychology, Cantorian Infinities, Marxist History, Economics, and Sociology, Scientific socialism, Feminism, and postmodernism, all make use of this same technique, this time with pseudoscience as a substitute for supernaturalism, and economic and political reward as a substitute for reward in current or afterlife. (g) And that only warranty of due diligence under the available dimensions of human action: consistency, correspondence, existential(operational) possibility, rational choice (volition), reciprocity, completeness, parsimony, and coherence (Testimony), can defend an assertion (proposition, argument) against ignorance, error, bias, fraud, and deceit, and the spread of consequences thereof.
Theme: Decidability
-
—“you can’t prove that [insert random anti-religious statement]”—
–“I’m a philosopher and you can’t prove that [insert random anti-religious statement]”— Some Well Meaning Fool. Well, let us play a game then. Because while you state are a philosopher, I state that I am a scientist specializing in testimony (Truth). And that means that proofs (tests of internal consistency in axiomatic and therefore declaratives systems) only assist us in falsification outside of reductio (trivial) conditions. And that justificationism in philosophy and theology in all its forms is a sophism for the purpose of deception. And that tests of truth in existential systems (hypothesis, theory, law) require due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. And that fablsificationism in all its forms (science and law) evolved for the purpose of defeating deceptions. And that the possible dimensions of criticism we are aware of are consistency, correspondence, existential(operational) possibility, rational choice (volition), reciprocity, completeness, parsimony, and coherence. In other words, while in textual interpretation, scriptural argument, and application of extant law, one justifies a proposition, one does not and cannot prove a statement – instead we seek to falsify propositions and test whether it survives criticism. My assertion is: (a) that one cannot testify to the existence of a creator; (b) that one cannot testify that the works attributed to a creator are not fictions and fictionalisms (lies); (c) that those who created and perpetuated those lies had motives for spreading those lies, and; (d) that the consequences of spreading those lies has been the cause of the thousand year dark age, the destruction of the five great civilizations of the ancient world, and the death of somewhere between half a billion and a billion people; (e) that the argumentative technique invented in order to perpetuate those lies (sophisms), in both via positiva (pilpul and justificationism, using idealism and supernaturalism, with promise of reward/thread of lost opportunity) and via negativa (critique using loading, framing, obscurantism, overloading, suggestion, straw manning, and heaping of undue praise) are open to scientific measurement which defines them as successful methods of deception, (f) that Boazian anthropology, Freudian psychology, Cantorian Infinities, Marxist History, Economics, and Sociology, Scientific socialism, Feminism, and postmodernism, all make use of this same technique, this time with pseudoscience as a substitute for supernaturalism, and economic and political reward as a substitute for reward in current or afterlife. (g) And that only warranty of due diligence under the available dimensions of human action: consistency, correspondence, existential(operational) possibility, rational choice (volition), reciprocity, completeness, parsimony, and coherence (Testimony), can defend an assertion (proposition, argument) against ignorance, error, bias, fraud, and deceit, and the spread of consequences thereof.
-
Propertarianism Is Falsifiable but Very Difficult to Falsify
—“Since you pride yourself in being honest, may I ask what exactly one would have to prove in order to fully refute Propertarianism?”—Josef Kalinin —(Quoting Curt): “And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.”— Nick Zito —“Property En-Toto & Acquisitionism is quite central to the entire Propertarian framework. Provide a substantive refute of these and you may cause a dent. You can find the full scoped definitions of these at Propertarianism.com”—Nick Zito ^ What he said. In addition, add reciprocity and reasonableness(rationality) of choice. both of which i think are nearly impossible to refute. The reason it’s falsifiable but difficult to falsify is that it’s not so much a model as a description of constant relations from physics through sentience. Three points test a line so to speak, and the more points the more certain the line. 1) The Grammars(metaphysics), 2) Acquisitionism + Property in Toto (psychology), 3) Propertarianism (Sociology), and 4) Natural Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) are falsifiable but extremely difficult to falsify. Even if we state how it can be done by stating the premises(dependencies) those premises are extremely difficult to falsify. The reason being that they are continuously consistent, correspondent, possible, and coherent with everything we know to date. I mean… that was my objective. A scientific language of cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, group strategy)
-
Propertarianism Is Falsifiable but Very Difficult to Falsify
—“Since you pride yourself in being honest, may I ask what exactly one would have to prove in order to fully refute Propertarianism?”—Josef Kalinin —(Quoting Curt): “And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.”— Nick Zito —“Property En-Toto & Acquisitionism is quite central to the entire Propertarian framework. Provide a substantive refute of these and you may cause a dent. You can find the full scoped definitions of these at Propertarianism.com”—Nick Zito ^ What he said. In addition, add reciprocity and reasonableness(rationality) of choice. both of which i think are nearly impossible to refute. The reason it’s falsifiable but difficult to falsify is that it’s not so much a model as a description of constant relations from physics through sentience. Three points test a line so to speak, and the more points the more certain the line. 1) The Grammars(metaphysics), 2) Acquisitionism + Property in Toto (psychology), 3) Propertarianism (Sociology), and 4) Natural Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) are falsifiable but extremely difficult to falsify. Even if we state how it can be done by stating the premises(dependencies) those premises are extremely difficult to falsify. The reason being that they are continuously consistent, correspondent, possible, and coherent with everything we know to date. I mean… that was my objective. A scientific language of cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, group strategy)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. PROPERTARIANISM IS FALSIFIABLE BUT VERY DIFFI
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
PROPERTARIANISM IS FALSIFIABLE BUT VERY DIFFICULT TO FALSIFY
—“Since you pride yourself in being honest, may I ask what exactly one would have to prove in order to fully refute Propertarianism?”—Josef Kalinin
—(Quoting Curt): “And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.”— Nick Zito
—“Property En-Toto & Acquisitionism is quite central to the entire Propertarian framework. Provide a substantive refute of these and you may cause a dent. You can find the full scoped definitions of these at Propertarianism.com”—Nick Zito
^ What he said. In addition, add reciprocity and reasonableness(rationality) of choice. both of which i think are nearly impossible to refute.
The reason it’s falsifiable but difficult to falsify is that it’s not so much a model as a description of constant relations from physics through sentience. Three points test a line so to speak, and the more points the more certain the line.
1) The Grammars(metaphysics), 2) Acquisitionism + Property in Toto (psychology), 3) Propertarianism (Sociology), and 4) Natural Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) are falsifiable but extremely difficult to falsify.
Even if we state how it can be done by stating the premises(dependencies) those premises are extremely difficult to falsify. The reason being that they are continuously consistent, correspondent, possible, and coherent with everything we know to date.
I mean… that was my objective. A scientific language of cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, group strategy)
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 17:20:58 UTC
-
Transcendence (Evolution) provides the penultimate decidability
Transcendence (Evolution) provides the penultimate decidability.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 15:54:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016349876861456384
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. Transcendence (Evolution) provides the penult
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
Transcendence (Evolution) provides the penultimate decidability.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 15:54:16 UTC
-
5) and an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters would
5) and an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters would do so in the time it it takes to type the number of characters that constitute the works of shakespeare. In other words, the time such a thing would take would be rather short.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 15:13:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016339649395032064
Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016291695359676416
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/1016291695359676416
-
4) that said, in the ideal model, some set of characters (~50), randomly generat
4) that said, in the ideal model, some set of characters (~50), randomly generated (randomness is actually a hard problem in itself) will eventually produce the works of shakepeare…
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 15:12:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016339330556743681
Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016291695359676416
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/1016291695359676416
-
PROPERTARIANISM IS FALSIFIABLE BUT VERY DIFFICULT TO FALSIFY —“Since you pride
PROPERTARIANISM IS FALSIFIABLE BUT VERY DIFFICULT TO FALSIFY
—“Since you pride yourself in being honest, may I ask what exactly one would have to prove in order to fully refute Propertarianism?”—Josef Kalinin
—(Quoting Curt): “And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.”— Nick Zito
—“Property En-Toto & Acquisitionism is quite central to the entire Propertarian framework. Provide a substantive refute of these and you may cause a dent. You can find the full scoped definitions of these at Propertarianism.com”—Nick Zito
^ What he said. In addition, add reciprocity and reasonableness(rationality) of choice. both of which i think are nearly impossible to refute.
The reason it’s falsifiable but difficult to falsify is that it’s not so much a model as a description of constant relations from physics through sentience. Three points test a line so to speak, and the more points the more certain the line.
1) The Grammars(metaphysics), 2) Acquisitionism + Property in Toto (psychology), 3) Propertarianism (Sociology), and 4) Natural Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) are falsifiable but extremely difficult to falsify.
Even if we state how it can be done by stating the premises(dependencies) those premises are extremely difficult to falsify. The reason being that they are continuously consistent, correspondent, possible, and coherent with everything we know to date.
I mean… that was my objective. A scientific language of cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, group strategy)
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 13:20:00 UTC