Theme: Decidability

  • PHILOSOPHY FOR GROWN UPS 1. The only truths we know for certain are falsehoods.

    PHILOSOPHY FOR GROWN UPS

    1. The only truths we know for certain are falsehoods. Everything that is not false is a truth candidate. This is the inverse of the fallacy of justificationism and the central insight of the sciences: the means by which we invent or grasp an idea contribute nothing to whether or not it is true or false. Only exhaustive falsification and survival from criticism deliver confidence that actions produce anticipated outcomes due to our comprehension of cause, effect, and the operations that are possible. Otherwise we are forever justifying whatever it is we seek to justify by any set of excuses we can imagine. This is why astrology, numerology, theology, philosophy, and the pseudosciences are so common – justification means absolutely nothing.

    2. The only preference we know is the one we demonstrate. The only good we know is the one we mutually demonstrate by acting upon. People report very differently from what they demonstrate. The only morality we know that is we must avoid criminal(material), ethical(direct), and moral (indirect) imposition of costs upon one another. The only moral actions then are those that are not criminal, unethical, and immoral, and that means the only moral actions consiste of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. Ergo, all moral actions are those that are not immoral. There is no recipe for moral action other than that which is not immoral.

    3. People always and everywhere demonstrate that they are neither moral or immoral but amoral and rational, doing what they must in all circumstances that they exist in. it is just disproportionately advantageous to act morally for the simple reason that the returns of cooperation always and everywhere defeat the returns on individual action. This is why exhaustive forgiveness of ‘cheaters’ in all walks of life will generally reform them. Because it is in their self interest. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment also (high cost of punishing cheaters), because the returns on cooperation are so valuable that we evolved to pay the high cost of punishment in order to preserve the high value of cooperation.

    4. People notoriously think they are right and in the right, and acting morally, which is why we have courts of one kind or another among all peoples at all stages of development. And while rules of decidability in courts in matters of conflict vary from the poor and underdeveloped where interests in things, kin, and relationships are rare and collectively owned, to the wealthy and developed where things, interests, kin, relationships, and contracts are universally allocated to individuals and individually owned, the means of decidability in every single civilization is RECIPROCITY.

    5. There exist then only one negative moral rule and one universal test of morality: “Do not unto others as they would not have done unto them”. There is only one positive moral rule: the extension of trust to non kin that we extend to kin, until it is no longer empirically possible to trust. – this optimizes cooperation by continuously training malcontents that it is in their interest to cooperate, and ostracizes (punishes) those who do not.

    6. There are no conflicts that are not decidable by tests of reciprocity. None. This is why all international law is limited exclusively to the test of reciprocity. So logically(rational choice) and empirically (demonstrated action), and universally (all laws domestica and international at all scales) morality is anything that is not immoral unethical or criminal in that it imposes costs upon the efforts already expended to obtain a non-conflicting interest, in a good, relationship, or opportunity.

    As far as I know no argument can defeat this that is not in and of itself an attempt at reciprocity (theft, freeriding, parasitism, conspiracy).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 11:20:00 UTC

  • Philosophy For Grown Ups

    1. The only truths we know for certain are falsehoods. Everything that is not false is a truth candidate. This is the inverse of the fallacy of justificationism and the central insight of the sciences: the means by which we invent or grasp an idea contribute nothing to whether or not it is true or false. Only exhaustive falsification and survival from criticism deliver confidence that actions produce anticipated outcomes due to our comprehension of cause, effect, and the operations that are possible. Otherwise we are forever justifying whatever it is we seek to justify by any set of excuses we can imagine. This is why astrology, numerology, theology, philosophy, and the pseudosciences are so common – justification means absolutely nothing. 2. The only preference we know is the one we demonstrate. The only good we know is the one we mutually demonstrate by acting upon. People report very differently from what they demonstrate. The only morality we know that is we must avoid criminal(material), ethical(direct), and moral (indirect) imposition of costs upon one another. The only moral actions then are those that are not criminal, unethical, and immoral, and that means the only moral actions consiste of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. Ergo, all moral actions are those that are not immoral. There is no recipe for moral action other than that which is not immoral. 3. People always and everywhere demonstrate that they are neither moral or immoral but amoral and rational, doing what they must in all circumstances that they exist in. it is just disproportionately advantageous to act morally for the simple reason that the returns of cooperation always and everywhere defeat the returns on individual action. This is why exhaustive forgiveness of ‘cheaters’ in all walks of life will generally reform them. Because it is in their self interest. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment also (high cost of punishing cheaters), because the returns on cooperation are so valuable that we evolved to pay the high cost of punishment in order to preserve the high value of cooperation. 4. People notoriously think they are right and in the right, and acting morally, which is why we have courts of one kind or another among all peoples at all stages of development. And while rules of decidability in courts in matters of conflict vary from the poor and underdeveloped where interests in things, kin, and relationships are rare and collectively owned, to the wealthy and developed where things, interests, kin, relationships, and contracts are universally allocated to individuals and individually owned, the means of decidability in every single civilization is RECIPROCITY. 5. There exist then only one negative moral rule and one universal test of morality: “Do not unto others as they would not have done unto them”. There is only one positive moral rule: the extension of trust to non kin that we extend to kin, until it is no longer empirically possible to trust. – this optimizes cooperation by continuously training malcontents that it is in their interest to cooperate, and ostracizes (punishes) those who do not. 6. There are no conflicts that are not decidable by tests of reciprocity. None. This is why all international law is limited exclusively to the test of reciprocity. So logically(rational choice) and empirically (demonstrated action), and universally (all laws domestica and international at all scales) morality is anything that is not immoral unethical or criminal in that it imposes costs upon the efforts already expended to obtain a non-conflicting interest, in a good, relationship, or opportunity. As far as I know no argument can defeat this that is not in and of itself an attempt at reciprocity (theft, freeriding, parasitism, conspiracy). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
  • 3) Hence why wisdom literature of which you are enamored by correlation with the

    3) Hence why wisdom literature of which you are enamored by correlation with the truth, but which is open to falsehood, differs so much from calculation that limits us to truth, and is closed to those falsehoods. The Abrahamic, Platonic and Continentals failed. @jordanbpeterson


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 13:48:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975368263516467200

  • BTW, I do science(testimony) and law(Decidability). As far as I know, philosophy

    BTW, I do science(testimony) and law(Decidability). As far as I know, philosophy is limited to the determination of personal choice, and interpersonal good. And that is probably all that is left for philosophers to judge.

    Truth is now in the domain of science – as it should have been all along.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 13:29:00 UTC

  • BTW, I do science(testimony) and law(Decidability). As far as I know, philosophy

    BTW, I do science(testimony) and law(Decidability). As far as I know, philosophy is limited to the determination of personal choice, and interpersonal good. And that is probably all that is left for philosophers to judge. Truth is now in the domain of science – as it should have been all along.
  • BTW, I do science(testimony) and law(Decidability). As far as I know, philosophy

    BTW, I do science(testimony) and law(Decidability). As far as I know, philosophy is limited to the determination of personal choice, and interpersonal good. And that is probably all that is left for philosophers to judge. Truth is now in the domain of science – as it should have been all along.
  • That’s pretty ridiculous right? “Gravity exists, we are not yet sure why gravity

    That’s pretty ridiculous right? “Gravity exists, we are not yet sure why gravity exists.” was a question for all human history. So, we know because we can measure people’s demonstrated (vs reported) behavior. Usually (a) familial/tribalism, (b) lack of rule of law, (c) poverty.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-15 12:10:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974256587492773890

    Reply addressees: @THEESILVERTHORN @OppressorBot @jordanbpeterson @sonshi_com

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974238891627696129


    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/974238891627696129

  • the position of which cannot be named by positional naming. This means that whil

    … the position of which cannot be named by positional naming. This means that while some operations (changes by addition or subtraction) have no positional name, and as such can only be represented by a function. Ergo, there exists no square root of two, only the function.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 17:28:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973974064791478274

    Reply addressees: @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973973981341593602


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman … And because they have only one property of position, they have one unavoidable deductive property: ratio to the referent. … Now, some operations yield another positional name (a ratio), some yield a partial name (a fraction), and some yield an indivisible ratio ….

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973973981341593602


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman … And because they have only one property of position, they have one unavoidable deductive property: ratio to the referent. … Now, some operations yield another positional name (a ratio), some yield a partial name (a fraction), and some yield an indivisible ratio ….

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973973981341593602

  • RUSSEL’S TEAPOT AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD One of the great falsehoods of philosop

    RUSSEL’S TEAPOT AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

    One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof.

    You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception.

    The questions are unfalsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable.

    Justifiabl(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured)

    Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise.

    There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers.

    But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar.

    Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(tempmoral), or insure (intertemporal)

    As soon as you admit the criteria of …

    – deception and fraud

    – incentive

    – cost

    – warranty

    …. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-11 12:13:00 UTC

  • Russel’s Teapot And The Existence Of God

    One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof. You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception. The questions are unfalsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable. Justifiabl(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured) Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise. There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers. But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar. Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(tempmoral), or insure (intertemporal) As soon as you admit the criteria of … – deception and fraud – incentive – cost – warranty …. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy.