Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • The Struggle Between Science And Myth

    Mythical decidability is more influential at the bottom and scientific more at the top. —“And it is the view, or, at least Curt’s view, because I do not know your views, that Abrahamism has been harmful to Europe. I suppose the palingenetic undercurrent here is that a new history of European greatness must be crafted independently of Ahraminic influences.”— This is what I struggle with. While (a) the propertarian program is quite simple: truth produces trust and prosperity (b) one encounters a cavalcade of JUSTIFICATIONARY historical narratives to make excuses for fictionalisms. So how does one combat a justificationary narrative that claims to be empirical, without an equal empirical narrative. European excellence and east asian excellence are simply facts as far as I can tell. But as I’ve stated repeatedly, they are facts that are the product of geographical advantage and insulation from the competition in the ‘center’. But we cannot choose those things. We can choose between truth and fiction. We can choose the next era’s narrative. But – the age old question – how do you teach people during a time of transition that novel truth is better than traditional fictionalism without a history or mythology to contain it? Unconscious decidability (is necessary the larger the population grows). The grammar of story (analogy, mythology) is the broadest grammar and semantics available to us. Is the tragedy of achilles (the aristocratic warrior masculine hero defending property over the chaos of reality) or the tragedy of jesus (the underclass priestly feminine hero in reaction to the control of property by the aristocracy) a better monopoly myth, or are they faces of the “Janus” of the eternal competition between the strategies of the sexes? And then how does each limit the other? Are these the faces last archetypes, and is competition as calculation (compromise by trade) the ultimate archetype instead? (which is my view). Or is the individual actor (Achilles, Jesus) a problem in itself, and are FAMILIES the superior archetypal narrative that provides us with unconscious decidability? In my view families rather than the individual serve as the instrument of policy, while law serves as the instrument of individual limitation. So I prefer a hierarchical pagan world (saints and kings) for the simple reason that it avoids the problems of monopoly. Now, add to the problem, that every group has an evolutionary strategy, and uses it to work together whether moral or not. Every group has a ‘superiority’ wing. And must for it to survive competition with other group. Science has advanced, and social science not, for the simple reason that juridical (scientific) truth would punish the underclasses, women and the priests, to the benefit of the burgers, engineers, and the warriors. and we are in an era (democracy) where gossip – the weapon of women and priests, is powerful – powerful enough to bring about another dark age. For no other reason than that we have not yet suppressed falsehood in information as we have in goods and services. Anyway. I feel caught between Law and Truth on one hand and Myth and HIstory on the other, and it always seems like transcendence between stages requires both.

  • Actually, I Can’t Be Wrong (About This). Sorry.

    (Note: this version is updated to correctly include operations/actions) Information. Decidability. Due Diligence. Testimony. TRUTH 4) Tautology exists (and can only exist) two statements that are identical in informational content for a given precision (context). Meaning closure of the constant relations between states (statements). 3) Truth (Analytic Truth) exists (and can only exist) as a definition of a Truthful statement that is informationally complete (closed). Analytic truths are tautological, with the difference between tautological, and tautology, being deductive necessity. (due to constant relations between states). 2) Truthfulness (Scientific) exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one has performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit in one’s testimony in all the dimensions of possible constant relations. 1) Honesty exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit – but not free of imagination, ignorance, bias, and error. DIMENSIONS WE CAN PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST 1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point) 2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line) 3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object) 4 – operational possibility – (equivalent of change [operations]) 5 – rational choice (volition) – (equivalent of time) 6 – reciprocity (ethics, morality) (equivalent of equilibrium) 7 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof) MATHEMATICAL DEFINITIONS OF DIMENSIONS 1 – point, (identity, or correspondence) 2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points) 3 – area (defined by constant relations) 4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations) 5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations) 6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas)) 7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations) 8 – reality (or totality) (full causal density) GRAMMARS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS (LOGICS) FOR THE DIMENSIONS We can speak in descriptions including (at least): 1 – operational (true) names 2 – mathematics (ratios) 3 – logic (sets) 4 – operations (actions) 4 – physics (action-limiting forces) 5 – Law (reciprocity) 6 – History (memory) 7 – Literature (allegory (possible)) 8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible ) 8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory) 8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory) 8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature) 8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory) 8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory ) INFORMATION Sets of constant relations between states (all facts must exist within the context of a theory (rules of states). CONSTANT RELATIONS Constant Change and Constant persistence, of Constant relations between states (time). RELATIONS Memory, and mind consists of a hierarchy of neurons that constitute a neural economy, that rewards constant relations, and starves inconstant relations. In other words, given that all testimony depends upon incomplete knowledge (a subset of reality), and that all general rules of arbitrary precision are of necessity incomplete, then testimony and therefore law is flasificationary, logics are falsificationary, not justificationary. Truth exists only as performative via-negativa warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias and deceit. However, a proof constitutes nothing other than possibility (survival from verbal prosecution). Too much for this audience but maybe it will give you ideas. ie: constant relations > logic(internal consistency) > math science(measurement -ratio-consistency) > physics(empiricism) > law(testimony) > economics (resources) > group evolutionary strategy (utility) > Philosophy (choice) You don’t understand. I CAN’T BE WRONG. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • ACTUALLY, I CAN’T BE WRONG (ABOUT THIS). SORRY. Information. Decidability. Due D

    ACTUALLY, I CAN’T BE WRONG (ABOUT THIS). SORRY.

    Information. Decidability. Due Diligence. Testimony.

    TRUTH

    4) Tautology exists (and can only exist) two statements that are identical in informational content for a given precision (context). Meaning closure of the constant relations between states (statements).

    3) Truth (Analytic Truth) exists (and can only exist) as a definition of a Truthful statement that is informationally complete (closed). Analytic truths are tautological, with the difference between tautological, and tautology, being deductive necessity. (due to constant relations between states).

    2) Truthfulness (Scientific) exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one has performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit in one’s testimony in all the dimensions of possible constant relations.

    1) Honesty exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit – but not free of imagination, ignorance, bias, and error.

    DIMENSIONS WE CAN PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST

    1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point)

    2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line)

    3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object)

    4 – operational possibility – (equivalent of change [operations])

    5 – rational choice (volition) – (equivalent of time)

    6 – reciprocity (ethics, morality) (equivalent of equilibrium)

    7 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof)

    MATHEMATICAL DEFINITIONS OF DIMENSIONS

    1 – point, (identity, or correspondence)

    2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points)

    3 – area (defined by constant relations)

    4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations)

    5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations)

    6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas))

    7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations)

    8 – reality (or totality) (full causal density)

    GRAMMARS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS (LOGICS) FOR THE DIMENSIONS

    We can speak in descriptions including (at least):

    1 – operational (true) names

    2 – mathematics (ratios)

    3 – logic (sets)

    4 – physics (operations)

    5 – Law (reciprocity)

    6 – History (memory)

    7 – Literature (allegory (possible))

    8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible )

    8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory)

    8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory)

    8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature)

    8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory)

    8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory )

    INFORMATION

    Sets of constant relations between states (all facts must exist within the context of a theory (rules of states).

    CONSTANT RELATIONS

    Constant Change and Constant persistence, of Constant relations between states (time).

    RELATIONS

    Memory, and mind consists of a hierarchy of neurons that constitute a neural economy, that rewards constant relations, and starves inconstant relations.

    In other words, given that all testimony depends upon incomplete knowledge (a subset of reality), and that all general rules of arbitrary precision are of necessity incomplete, then testimony and therefore law is flasificationary, logics are falsificationary, not justificationary.

    Truth exists only as performative via-negativa warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias and deceit. However, a proof constitutes nothing other than possibility (survival from verbal prosecution).

    Too much for this audience but maybe it will give you ideas.

    ie: constant relations > logic(internal consistency) > math science(measurement -ratio-consistency) > physics(empiricism) > law(testimony) > economics (resources) > group evolutionary strategy (utility) > Philosophy (choice)

    You don’t understand. I CAN’T BE WRONG.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-14 10:01:00 UTC

  • Actually, I Can’t Be Wrong (About This). Sorry.

    (Note: this version is updated to correctly include operations/actions) Information. Decidability. Due Diligence. Testimony. TRUTH 4) Tautology exists (and can only exist) two statements that are identical in informational content for a given precision (context). Meaning closure of the constant relations between states (statements). 3) Truth (Analytic Truth) exists (and can only exist) as a definition of a Truthful statement that is informationally complete (closed). Analytic truths are tautological, with the difference between tautological, and tautology, being deductive necessity. (due to constant relations between states). 2) Truthfulness (Scientific) exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one has performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit in one’s testimony in all the dimensions of possible constant relations. 1) Honesty exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit – but not free of imagination, ignorance, bias, and error. DIMENSIONS WE CAN PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST 1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point) 2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line) 3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object) 4 – operational possibility – (equivalent of change [operations]) 5 – rational choice (volition) – (equivalent of time) 6 – reciprocity (ethics, morality) (equivalent of equilibrium) 7 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof) MATHEMATICAL DEFINITIONS OF DIMENSIONS 1 – point, (identity, or correspondence) 2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points) 3 – area (defined by constant relations) 4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations) 5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations) 6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas)) 7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations) 8 – reality (or totality) (full causal density) GRAMMARS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS (LOGICS) FOR THE DIMENSIONS We can speak in descriptions including (at least): 1 – operational (true) names 2 – mathematics (ratios) 3 – logic (sets) 4 – operations (actions) 4 – physics (action-limiting forces) 5 – Law (reciprocity) 6 – History (memory) 7 – Literature (allegory (possible)) 8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible ) 8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory) 8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory) 8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature) 8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory) 8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory ) INFORMATION Sets of constant relations between states (all facts must exist within the context of a theory (rules of states). CONSTANT RELATIONS Constant Change and Constant persistence, of Constant relations between states (time). RELATIONS Memory, and mind consists of a hierarchy of neurons that constitute a neural economy, that rewards constant relations, and starves inconstant relations. In other words, given that all testimony depends upon incomplete knowledge (a subset of reality), and that all general rules of arbitrary precision are of necessity incomplete, then testimony and therefore law is flasificationary, logics are falsificationary, not justificationary. Truth exists only as performative via-negativa warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias and deceit. However, a proof constitutes nothing other than possibility (survival from verbal prosecution). Too much for this audience but maybe it will give you ideas. ie: constant relations > logic(internal consistency) > math science(measurement -ratio-consistency) > physics(empiricism) > law(testimony) > economics (resources) > group evolutionary strategy (utility) > Philosophy (choice) You don’t understand. I CAN’T BE WRONG. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Does Wittgenstein’s Conclusion On The Omnipotence Paradoxes Put An End To Them?

    Wittgenstein did not solve the problem that he sought to, Frege thru Kripke and the followers of Turing (meaning Chomsky) did.

    (a) there exist no paradoxes, only the application of the rules of formal (deflationary) grammars to colloquial (suggestive) and inflationary (fictional) speech. In other words, there exist no paradoxes that are not simply incomplete sentences (transactions).

    (b) wittgenstein and russell are correct: in the end, the investment in logic has been a waste of time. It’s nothing but tautology. Because we cannot use the logic of constant semantic relations (language) as we do the logic of constant positional relations (mathematics) to produce proofs. And the Intuitionists were correct: We cannot even do so in mathematics. So what the logics allow us to do is falsify statements, but not prove statements.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-Wittgensteins-conclusion-on-the-omnipotence-paradoxes-put-an-end-to-them

  • Does Wittgenstein’s Conclusion On The Omnipotence Paradoxes Put An End To Them?

    Wittgenstein did not solve the problem that he sought to, Frege thru Kripke and the followers of Turing (meaning Chomsky) did.

    (a) there exist no paradoxes, only the application of the rules of formal (deflationary) grammars to colloquial (suggestive) and inflationary (fictional) speech. In other words, there exist no paradoxes that are not simply incomplete sentences (transactions).

    (b) wittgenstein and russell are correct: in the end, the investment in logic has been a waste of time. It’s nothing but tautology. Because we cannot use the logic of constant semantic relations (language) as we do the logic of constant positional relations (mathematics) to produce proofs. And the Intuitionists were correct: We cannot even do so in mathematics. So what the logics allow us to do is falsify statements, but not prove statements.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-Wittgensteins-conclusion-on-the-omnipotence-paradoxes-put-an-end-to-them

  • Again, The Liar’s Paradox Isn’t A Paradox

    The term is “The Liar’s Paradox”, and its variants. Arthur Prior does a weak job of correctly explaining why it isn’t a paradox. I’ll explain why it’s not a paradox in detail if anyone is interested. The Liar’s Paradox illustrates the difference between math, logic, reason, and science, and difference between platonism vs operationalism, and the difference between well formed and malformed statements in colloquial grammar, ordinary language grammar, vs deflationary grammars. Or stated differently, the grammatical structure of the statement relies on ordinary language grammar, while the question refers to formal, legal,or logical grammar. For example, you can draw the square root of two, you can apply the square root of two in calculation or construction, but you cannot calculate it itself. And for the same reason.

  • AGAIN, THE LIAR’S PARADOX ISN’T A PARADOX The term is “The Liar’s Paradox”, and

    AGAIN, THE LIAR’S PARADOX ISN’T A PARADOX

    The term is “The Liar’s Paradox”, and its variants.

    Arthur Prior does a weak job of correctly explaining why it isn’t a paradox. I’ll explain why it’s not a paradox in detail if anyone is interested.

    The Liar’s Paradox illustrates the difference between math, logic, reason, and science, and difference between platonism vs operationalism, and the difference between well formed and malformed statements in colloquial grammar, ordinary language grammar, vs deflationary grammars.

    Or stated differently, the grammatical structure of the statement relies on ordinary language grammar, while the question refers to formal, legal,or logical grammar.

    For example, you can draw the square root of two, you can apply the square root of two in calculation or construction, but you cannot calculate it itself.

    And for the same reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-02 06:08:00 UTC

  • Again, The Liar’s Paradox Isn’t A Paradox

    The term is “The Liar’s Paradox”, and its variants. Arthur Prior does a weak job of correctly explaining why it isn’t a paradox. I’ll explain why it’s not a paradox in detail if anyone is interested. The Liar’s Paradox illustrates the difference between math, logic, reason, and science, and difference between platonism vs operationalism, and the difference between well formed and malformed statements in colloquial grammar, ordinary language grammar, vs deflationary grammars. Or stated differently, the grammatical structure of the statement relies on ordinary language grammar, while the question refers to formal, legal,or logical grammar. For example, you can draw the square root of two, you can apply the square root of two in calculation or construction, but you cannot calculate it itself. And for the same reason.

  • What Does Logic Mean And What Are Its Limits?

    The human facility we call logic consists of tests of constant relations between states. The Logics consist of deflationary(limiting) grammars(rules of continuous disambiguation) that test via competition (comparison) the preservation of constant relations between states. And must, because that is all our brains(neurons) are capable of: relations. All non trivial premises are forever contingent. All non trivial statements are contingent. All non trivial proofs are contingent. And so the formal logics can only falsify the non trivial. No mathematician claims proofs and truths are the same. One does not prove the truth of anything. If not for the simple reason that confirmation does not convey truth – limits do (criteria of falsification). One tries to construct a proof of possibility or impossibility, and either can or cannot. One constructs operational proofs of possibility because operational statements are empirical (observable and measurable by the uniform system of measurement we call human action). Empirically, we prove nothing, but disprove much. Hence the world demonstrably operates by science and law. The same applies to that discipline we call logic itself. And so the formal logics teach us only how to falsify. One cannot prove a non trivial truth, only eliminate falsehoods. Popper was right. The sciences are right. I am right. Its same issue we have with mathematicians and mathematical platonism – infinities do not exit. Its a convention made necessary by scale independence. One cannot prove a truth. A statement survives prosecution or it doesn’t. Mathematics by virtue of consisting of nothing but positional names cannot consist of anything other than perfect constant relations. Just a matter of getting an authority figure to falsify it, rather than debate it with sophists who create straw men by conflating logic philosophy, law and science and just engage in denial of the first principle upon which their arguments depend: constant relations. Like prime numbers, some statements consist of relations so consistent that they cannot be otherwise. Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit. Pilpul in its original, theological, philosophical, rationalist, pseudorationalist, pseudoscientific forms can be brought to an end by consistent measurements: operational language and grammar. if we speak in complete sentences in operational grammar and semantics then we can put into law the same safeguards against propaganda and deceit in the market for information – particularly political information – that we have in the market for goods and services. -Curt Doolittle -The Propertarian Institute – Kiev Ukraine (PS: Trying to reach Catarina Dutilh Novaes to criticize it. She uses similar language so it will stand. (Never let a troll win.))