Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • The Law of Policy

    Whenever political decidability is no longer empirical it must of necessity rely on ideology, because empiricism tests reciprocity(equilibrium), and ideology tests extremes(disequilibrium). Ergo, either one lives by rule of law, markets, empiricism, and equilibrium, or one lives by rule by discretion, bureaucracy, ideology, and disequilibrium. At present our compromise solution is discretion from the use of proceeds of cooperation (taxation), and rule of law (non discretion) for all activity. But without nationalism we cannot test nor preserve reciprocity between groups with heterogeneous demands due to heterogeneous distributions. Apr 18, 2018 7:50am

  • The Law of Policy

    Whenever political decidability is no longer empirical it must of necessity rely on ideology, because empiricism tests reciprocity(equilibrium), and ideology tests extremes(disequilibrium). Ergo, either one lives by rule of law, markets, empiricism, and equilibrium, or one lives by rule by discretion, bureaucracy, ideology, and disequilibrium. At present our compromise solution is discretion from the use of proceeds of cooperation (taxation), and rule of law (non discretion) for all activity. But without nationalism we cannot test nor preserve reciprocity between groups with heterogeneous demands due to heterogeneous distributions. Apr 18, 2018 7:50am

  • Any “general rule of arbitrary precision” must include a limit (time delineation

    Any “general rule of arbitrary precision” must include a limit (time delineation) in order to categorize and test an outcome(consequence), since we may categorize consequences at any point in the time line in which actionable or deducible constant relations are identifiable. In other words, searches for prediction of futures are change (state) dependent.

    This may be heavy but it means that your prediction of future events from any state may vary by the utility you prefer.

    We must operate by general rules (categories) because that is all we can act upon (a concentration of constant relations during which we can effect a change in state.)

    We all bias our utility (judgements) on similar timelines if not only due to ability, but also on commensurability. Ergo, we develop out of necessity time preferences and the more expertise we develop in any time frame the more related (dependent) associations we develop in concert.

    This isn’t just choice it’s the economics of neural networks, and that economics is no different from the ‘economics’ of physics, biology, and sentience.

    (for Andy Curzon)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 09:59:00 UTC

  • THE LAW OF POLICY Whenever political decidability is no longer empirical it must

    THE LAW OF POLICY

    Whenever political decidability is no longer empirical it must of necessity rely on ideology, because empiricism tests reciprocity(equilibrium), and ideology tests extremes(disequilibrium).

    Ergo, either one lives by rule of law, markets, empiricism, and equilibrium, or one lives by rule by discretion, bureaucracy, ideology, and disequilibrium.

    At present our compromise solution is discretion from the use of proceeds of cooperation (taxation), and rule of law (non discretion) for all activity.

    But without nationalism we cannot test nor preserve reciprocity between groups with heterogeneous demands due to heterogeneous distributions.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 07:50:00 UTC

  • Provide the Necessary Services of Religions in A Manner Not Constituted by Lies

    (a) as ability declines demand for intuitionistic fictions increases, and conversely as ability increases demand for rationally decidable criteria increases. Meaning those of lesser ability require we appeal to intuitions, and those of greater ability require we appeal to reason. This is because those of lower ability have not been sufficiently domesticated (produced agency) by those of greater ability. (b) literary analogy using archetypes and archetypal story lines (we can list both archetypes and story lines) can be decomposed into rational terms and tested. Literary analogy allows loading and framing so that individuals can learn by intuition rather than reason (ie: by suggestion). But if we cannot decompose these analogies to scientific statements we do not know if they are false, or harmful or ‘evil’ as abrahamism has been. (d) people require a means of calculating (reasoning, thinking) in the broadest sense, and the most simple units of measure are anthropological. In the absence of tribal feedback they need what we call mindfulness but is better thought of a means of selecting and ignoring impulses (some of us call this agency). and in the absence of tribal community and dependence we need festivals and feasts. And to establish the limits we need an oath. All civilizations address this spectrum of mindfulness to oath, to feast, to festival to compensate for the competition produced by production, and the hierarchy that evolves form that division of knowledge, labor, and advocacy involved in the production of private, commercial, and public goods. This is because too few of us are evolved enough to survive without institutions that provide help to our remaining animal intuitions. We teach certain skills but what we do not teach is ‘sacredness of the commons’ that churches did, and we do not teach mindfulness or norms in a rational fashion. Religion is dying everywhere. ANd it is being replaced with things that are almost as bad. The question is how we provide the necessary services of religions in a manner not constituted by lies that do not decompose in to scientifically testable, and therefore indisputable prose.

  • Provide the Necessary Services of Religions in A Manner Not Constituted by Lies

    (a) as ability declines demand for intuitionistic fictions increases, and conversely as ability increases demand for rationally decidable criteria increases. Meaning those of lesser ability require we appeal to intuitions, and those of greater ability require we appeal to reason. This is because those of lower ability have not been sufficiently domesticated (produced agency) by those of greater ability. (b) literary analogy using archetypes and archetypal story lines (we can list both archetypes and story lines) can be decomposed into rational terms and tested. Literary analogy allows loading and framing so that individuals can learn by intuition rather than reason (ie: by suggestion). But if we cannot decompose these analogies to scientific statements we do not know if they are false, or harmful or ‘evil’ as abrahamism has been. (d) people require a means of calculating (reasoning, thinking) in the broadest sense, and the most simple units of measure are anthropological. In the absence of tribal feedback they need what we call mindfulness but is better thought of a means of selecting and ignoring impulses (some of us call this agency). and in the absence of tribal community and dependence we need festivals and feasts. And to establish the limits we need an oath. All civilizations address this spectrum of mindfulness to oath, to feast, to festival to compensate for the competition produced by production, and the hierarchy that evolves form that division of knowledge, labor, and advocacy involved in the production of private, commercial, and public goods. This is because too few of us are evolved enough to survive without institutions that provide help to our remaining animal intuitions. We teach certain skills but what we do not teach is ‘sacredness of the commons’ that churches did, and we do not teach mindfulness or norms in a rational fashion. Religion is dying everywhere. ANd it is being replaced with things that are almost as bad. The question is how we provide the necessary services of religions in a manner not constituted by lies that do not decompose in to scientifically testable, and therefore indisputable prose.

  • Intuitionistic (Logical), Categorical (Mathematical), and Type (Operational)

    —-”there exists a triangular equivalence in theory of computation between fields. We have philosophy that gives us intuitionistic logic. We have mathematics that gives us category theory. Then in computer science we have type theory”—- The scope of content in those few sentences is priceless. I’m trying to think of how I can deflate it into operational (scientific) language. (ie: Whenever you use the word ‘is’ – the verb-to-be in any of its forms – you don’t understand the causal relations.) a) constant relations (intuition) b) positional relations. (categories) c) dimensional relations. (types) d) symmetric relations (symmetries, externalities, consequences) (models) e) and then repeat at the next level of hierarchy. All we are ever discussing is constant relations in some number of dimensions until we produce new identities (a) that we can define relations between (b) so that we can construct descriptions (c) so that we can model outcomes (d). “Constant relations all the way down’. Apr 15, 2018 6:21pm

  • Intuitionistic (Logical), Categorical (Mathematical), and Type (Operational)

    —-”there exists a triangular equivalence in theory of computation between fields. We have philosophy that gives us intuitionistic logic. We have mathematics that gives us category theory. Then in computer science we have type theory”—- The scope of content in those few sentences is priceless. I’m trying to think of how I can deflate it into operational (scientific) language. (ie: Whenever you use the word ‘is’ – the verb-to-be in any of its forms – you don’t understand the causal relations.) a) constant relations (intuition) b) positional relations. (categories) c) dimensional relations. (types) d) symmetric relations (symmetries, externalities, consequences) (models) e) and then repeat at the next level of hierarchy. All we are ever discussing is constant relations in some number of dimensions until we produce new identities (a) that we can define relations between (b) so that we can construct descriptions (c) so that we can model outcomes (d). “Constant relations all the way down’. Apr 15, 2018 6:21pm

  • —-”there exists a triangular equivalence in theory of computation between fields

    —-”there exists a triangular equivalence in theory of computation between fields. We have philosophy that gives us intuitionistic logic. We have mathematics that gives us category theory. Then in computer science we have type theory”—-

    The scope of content in those few sentences is priceless. I’m trying to think of how I can deflate it into operational (scientific) language. (ie: Whenever you use the word ‘is’ – the verb-to-be in any of its forms – you don’t understand the causal relations.)

    a) constant relations (intuition)

    b) positional relations. (categories)

    c) dimensional relations. (types)

    d) symmetric relations (symmetries, externalities, consequences) (models)

    e) and then repeat at the next level of hierarchy.

    All we are ever discussing is constant relations in some number of dimensions until we produce new identities (a) that we can define relations between (b) so that we can construct descriptions (c) so that we can model outcomes (d).

    “Constant relations all the way down’.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 18:21:00 UTC

  • Well my take is that the brain structure evolved for graceful improvement and gr

    Well my take is that the brain structure evolved for graceful improvement and graceful failure of decidability. Our problem is we cannot introspectively observe this process below the emotional threshold.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-14 10:26:00 UTC