Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • Where Does The Idea Of Infinity Come From?

    Kane, Mathematics consists in a deflationary vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, with some conflationary vocabulary for the purposes of verbal convenience. The content of that vocabulary consists of names of positions (Nouns), and Operations (verbs). The grammar provides a very limited means of organizing those nouns and verbs. The syntax provides hints for organizing operations and vocabulary within the grammar. We use glyphs to represent a positional names. We use decimal systems (or other bases) to generate positional names. All numbers(positional names) consist entirely of names of positions with constant relations. Using names for positions to pair off any item of any category, creates categorical independence. Using names for positions forces constant relations, and scale independence,. Using positional name then yields correspondence under categorical independence, and scale independence while preserving constant relations. Positional names provide perfect commensurability. All operations on numbers (positional names) are reducible to addition or subtraction of positions. All positional names other than the natural numbers (base positional names) must be produced through functions. We use inflationary grammar (conflation) to label reducible and non-reducible functions to numbers – a verbal convenience. We use the deflationary grammar of mathematics to remove scale dependence – thereby creating the requirement for limits. We use the deflationary grammar of mathematics removes time-to-perform any operation (Function) – thereby creating the requirement for infinity. We restore scale dependence and eliminate infinity in any and every application of mathematics. By restoring pairing off (context) we eliminate both limits (minimums) and infinity (maximums) In other words, as Babbage demonstrated, all computation can be produced through gears. If you were to use gears to discuss infinity, you would find that different gear ratios produce new positional names at different rates. All mathematical platonism is false (magic). If mathematics were taught operationally, and as a sequence of technical problems of measurement that we needed to solve as we increased the scales of our perception and action, we would not lose so many people who become confused at the apparent ‘magic’ of the discipline. This is the curse of mathematics profession. It is still operating with ‘magical’ or ‘priestly’ language. When its a terribly simple discipline. The art of composing sentences (expressions) that describe phenomenon in the language of constant relations (mathematics), should be no more difficult than learning any other language. Most of it is learning nuance. Just as learning all other languages requires a bit of nuance.

  • Where Does The Idea Of Infinity Come From?

    Kane, Mathematics consists in a deflationary vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, with some conflationary vocabulary for the purposes of verbal convenience. The content of that vocabulary consists of names of positions (Nouns), and Operations (verbs). The grammar provides a very limited means of organizing those nouns and verbs. The syntax provides hints for organizing operations and vocabulary within the grammar. We use glyphs to represent a positional names. We use decimal systems (or other bases) to generate positional names. All numbers(positional names) consist entirely of names of positions with constant relations. Using names for positions to pair off any item of any category, creates categorical independence. Using names for positions forces constant relations, and scale independence,. Using positional name then yields correspondence under categorical independence, and scale independence while preserving constant relations. Positional names provide perfect commensurability. All operations on numbers (positional names) are reducible to addition or subtraction of positions. All positional names other than the natural numbers (base positional names) must be produced through functions. We use inflationary grammar (conflation) to label reducible and non-reducible functions to numbers – a verbal convenience. We use the deflationary grammar of mathematics to remove scale dependence – thereby creating the requirement for limits. We use the deflationary grammar of mathematics removes time-to-perform any operation (Function) – thereby creating the requirement for infinity. We restore scale dependence and eliminate infinity in any and every application of mathematics. By restoring pairing off (context) we eliminate both limits (minimums) and infinity (maximums) In other words, as Babbage demonstrated, all computation can be produced through gears. If you were to use gears to discuss infinity, you would find that different gear ratios produce new positional names at different rates. All mathematical platonism is false (magic). If mathematics were taught operationally, and as a sequence of technical problems of measurement that we needed to solve as we increased the scales of our perception and action, we would not lose so many people who become confused at the apparent ‘magic’ of the discipline. This is the curse of mathematics profession. It is still operating with ‘magical’ or ‘priestly’ language. When its a terribly simple discipline. The art of composing sentences (expressions) that describe phenomenon in the language of constant relations (mathematics), should be no more difficult than learning any other language. Most of it is learning nuance. Just as learning all other languages requires a bit of nuance.

  • WHERE DOES THE IDEA OF INFINITY COME FROM? Kane, Mathematics consists in a defla

    WHERE DOES THE IDEA OF INFINITY COME FROM?

    Kane,

    Mathematics consists in a deflationary vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, with some conflationary vocabulary for the purposes of verbal convenience.

    The content of that vocabulary consists of names of positions (Nouns), and Operations (verbs). The grammar provides a very limited means of organizing those nouns and verbs. The syntax provides hints for organizing operations and vocabulary within the grammar.

    We use glyphs to represent a positional names.

    We use decimal systems (or other bases) to generate positional names.

    All numbers(positional names) consist entirely of names of positions with constant relations.

    Using names for positions to pair off any item of any category, creates categorical independence.

    Using names for positions forces constant relations, and scale independence,.

    Using positional name then yields correspondence under categorical independence, and scale independence while preserving constant relations.

    Positional names provide perfect commensurability.

    All operations on numbers (positional names) are reducible to addition or subtraction of positions.

    All positional names other than the natural numbers (base positional names) must be produced through functions.

    We use inflationary grammar (conflation) to label reducible and non-reducible functions to numbers – a verbal convenience.

    We use the deflationary grammar of mathematics to remove scale dependence – thereby creating the requirement for limits.

    We use the deflationary grammar of mathematics removes time-to-perform any operation (Function) – thereby creating the requirement for infinity.

    We restore scale dependence and eliminate infinity in any and every application of mathematics. By restoring pairing off (context) we eliminate both limits (minimums) and infinity (maximums)

    In other words, as Babbage demonstrated, all computation can be produced through gears.

    If you were to use gears to discuss infinity, you would find that different gear ratios produce new positional names at different rates.

    All mathematical platonism is false (magic).

    If mathematics were taught operationally, and as a sequence of technical problems of measurement that we needed to solve as we increased the scales of our perception and action, we would not lose so many people who become confused at the apparent ‘magic’ of the discipline.

    This is the curse of mathematics profession. It is still operating with ‘magical’ or ‘priestly’ language.

    When its a terribly simple discipline. The art of composing sentences (expressions) that describe phenomenon in the language of constant relations (mathematics), should be no more difficult than learning any other language. Most of it is learning nuance. Just as learning all other languages requires a bit of nuance.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-16 15:47:00 UTC

  • Alexis O’Toole Maddox Philosophy Investigates the Nature of Reality The Method o

    Alexis O’Toole Maddox Philosophy Investigates the Nature of Reality The Method of Philosophy can be applied to Any Topic. The first thing to consider when looking at the overall purpose of a post, is whether it would serve as a good premise. Premises are philosophy prompts meant to elicit rational argumentation and induce critical thinking. The overall purpose of an investigative philosophy premise might be: To Evaluate (Logic/Objectivity) To Analyze (Describe Concept/Theory/Phenomena) To Explore (Hypothesize) To Inform or Explain (Exhibition) To Define (Stipulation/Description/Function/Essence/Meaning) To Draw Comparisons and Distinguish Differences To Criticize (Identify Faulty Logic or Imprecise Criterion) To Discover (New Justified Knowledge) To Debunk (Eliminate Disinformation) To Draw Syllogisms and Analogies (Deduct) To Highlight Relationships/Connections between ideas To Report Scientific Observations To Confirm or Dispute (Support/Challenge) To Present Evidence (Proof/Bibliography) To Argue (Validate or Invalidate the truth of a premise) Conversely, some overall purposes of non-philosophy might be: To Emote (Display or Cause Emotion) To Amuse or Entertain (Satire/Trivia/Poetry) To Persuade or Urge To Act (Religious/Politcal) To Interpret or Suggest (Opinion/Editorial/Biased Belief) To Take a Stand (Politcal/Religious) To Speculate, Predict, or Warn (Propoganda/Rumors) To Reflect (Ranting/Personal/Social testimony) To Reassure (Arbitrary Greetings and Salutations)

  • Alexis O’Toole Maddox Philosophy Investigates the Nature of Reality The Method o

    Alexis O’Toole Maddox Philosophy Investigates the Nature of Reality The Method of Philosophy can be applied to Any Topic. The first thing to consider when looking at the overall purpose of a post, is whether it would serve as a good premise. Premises are philosophy prompts meant to elicit rational argumentation and induce critical thinking. The overall purpose of an investigative philosophy premise might be: To Evaluate (Logic/Objectivity) To Analyze (Describe Concept/Theory/Phenomena) To Explore (Hypothesize) To Inform or Explain (Exhibition) To Define (Stipulation/Description/Function/Essence/Meaning) To Draw Comparisons and Distinguish Differences To Criticize (Identify Faulty Logic or Imprecise Criterion) To Discover (New Justified Knowledge) To Debunk (Eliminate Disinformation) To Draw Syllogisms and Analogies (Deduct) To Highlight Relationships/Connections between ideas To Report Scientific Observations To Confirm or Dispute (Support/Challenge) To Present Evidence (Proof/Bibliography) To Argue (Validate or Invalidate the truth of a premise) Conversely, some overall purposes of non-philosophy might be: To Emote (Display or Cause Emotion) To Amuse or Entertain (Satire/Trivia/Poetry) To Persuade or Urge To Act (Religious/Politcal) To Interpret or Suggest (Opinion/Editorial/Biased Belief) To Take a Stand (Politcal/Religious) To Speculate, Predict, or Warn (Propoganda/Rumors) To Reflect (Ranting/Personal/Social testimony) To Reassure (Arbitrary Greetings and Salutations)

  • Alexis O’Toole Maddox Philosophy Investigates the Nature of Reality The Method o

    Alexis O’Toole Maddox

    Philosophy Investigates the Nature of Reality

    The Method of Philosophy can be applied to Any Topic.

    The first thing to consider when looking at the overall purpose of a post, is whether it would serve as a good premise.

    Premises are philosophy prompts meant to elicit rational argumentation and induce critical thinking.

    The overall purpose of an investigative philosophy premise might be:

    To Evaluate (Logic/Objectivity)

    To Analyze (Describe Concept/Theory/Phenomena)

    To Explore (Hypothesize)

    To Inform or Explain (Exhibition)

    To Define (Stipulation/Description/Function/Essence/Meaning)

    To Draw Comparisons and Distinguish Differences

    To Criticize (Identify Faulty Logic or Imprecise Criterion)

    To Discover (New Justified Knowledge)

    To Debunk (Eliminate Disinformation)

    To Draw Syllogisms and Analogies (Deduct)

    To Highlight Relationships/Connections between ideas

    To Report Scientific Observations

    To Confirm or Dispute (Support/Challenge)

    To Present Evidence (Proof/Bibliography)

    To Argue (Validate or Invalidate the truth of a premise)

    Conversely, some overall purposes of non-philosophy might be:

    To Emote (Display or Cause Emotion)

    To Amuse or Entertain (Satire/Trivia/Poetry)

    To Persuade or Urge To Act (Religious/Politcal)

    To Interpret or Suggest (Opinion/Editorial/Biased Belief)

    To Take a Stand (Politcal/Religious)

    To Speculate, Predict, or Warn (Propoganda/Rumors)

    To Reflect (Ranting/Personal/Social testimony)

    To Reassure (Arbitrary Greetings and Salutations)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-16 11:25:00 UTC

  • Defining “Philosophy”

    DEFINING “PHILOSOPHY” I define philosophy as the search for decidability given an objective or set of objectives. (preferences and goods) I define truth as the search for decidability independent of objective or set of objectives. (truth) I define science as the use of instrumentation both logical and physical to create measurements and systems of measurement, that reduce reality to that which we can perceive, compare, decide, and act upon: reduce the imperceptible to to analogy to experience. In practice philosophers have done as much bad (marx, plato, buddha, kant, Abraham, Muhammed) as they have done good (Confucius, Aristotle, bacon, newton, smith, hume). So it is possible to separate the techniques of those philosophers who have caused harm from those who have created good. And that difference is in conflationary prose(fiction) vs deflationary prose (measurement). Or put differently, those people who write literature, and those people who write religion(conflating law and wisdom lit), from those people who and those people who write science – that which is simply true whether we like it or not. If we launder philosophy of fictions and deceits, then philosophy and science differ only in that science via negative tells us what can and cannot be done, and philosophy via positive suggests how to integrate new knowledge into the current network of truths, goods, preferences, and the decidability of each, by reorganization of categories (Names), relations, and values to take advantage of that new knowledge. Unfortunately, truth is beneficial for all indirectly, but falsehood is beneficial for many directly. In other words, we all love our comforting fallacies. (90% of people think they are in the top 10% of employees for example.) We all love to think we are good people but the truth is that a very large percentage of people are detrimental to the society that they live in regardless of their genetic, social, and economic classes. So there will always exist a demand for religion (comforting lies), and literary philosophy (comforting fiction), as well as for scientific truth (decidability whether comfortable or not). Because there will always be a market demand for self deception, merely comforting utility, and decidability in matters of conflict. One of the most disturbing behaviors I find among all of us who are interested in philosophy, is the attempt to find a substitute for the deceits of religion – but in rational (kantian) instead of supernatural (abrahamic) prose. So I suspect that while religion (mythology/abrahamism-zoroastrianism), literary philosophy (reasoning/plato), logic(justificationism/law), and science (measurement/decidability) are all included under the blanket of ‘philosophy’ (portfolio of decidability), that philosophy will forever forward be the subject of intellectual ridicule just as religion has now become the subject of intellectual ridicule. (And has become categorized with theology and unfunded by universities). But this is because philosophers have not defended the term or the discipline from religion and literature, and preserved it as a domain of logic, science, and law. So how does one define Philosophy? The use of a set of inflationary, ordinary, and deflationary vocabularies and grammars (I combine them into ‘grammars’) including magic, myth, literature, law(rationalism), science, logic, and mathematics, to provide decidability in the satisfaction of preferences, goods, and truths, such that we may act in furtherance of our wants and needs in a universe the causal density of which is beyond our intuition’s abilities to provide us with choice.

  • DEFINING “PHILOSOPHY” I define philosophy as the search for decidability given a

    DEFINING “PHILOSOPHY”

    I define philosophy as the search for decidability given an objective or set of objectives. (preferences and goods)

    I define truth as the search for decidability independent of objective or set of objectives. (truth)

    I define science as the use of instrumentation both logical and physical to create measurements and systems of measurement, that reduce reality to that which we can perceive, compare, decide, and act upon: reduce the imperceptible to to analogy to experience.

    In practice philosophers have done as much bad (marx, plato, buddha, kant, Abraham, Muhammed) as they have done good (Confucius, Aristotle, bacon, newton, smith, hume).

    So it is possible to separate the techniques of those philosophers who have caused harm from those who have created good. And that difference is in conflationary prose(fiction) vs deflationary prose (measurement). Or put differently, those people who write literature, and those people who write religion(conflating law and wisdom lit), from those people who and those people who write science – that which is simply true whether we like it or not.

    If we launder philosophy of fictions and deceits, then philosophy and science differ only in that science via negative tells us what can and cannot be done, and philosophy via positive suggests how to integrate new knowledge into the current network of truths, goods, preferences, and the decidability of each, by reorganization of categories (Names), relations, and values to take advantage of that new knowledge.

    Unfortunately, truth is beneficial for all indirectly, but falsehood is beneficial for many directly. In other words, we all love our comforting fallacies. (90% of people think they are in the top 10% of employees for example.) We all love to think we are good people but the truth is that a very large percentage of people are detrimental to the society that they live in regardless of their genetic, social, and economic classes.

    So there will always exist a demand for religion (comforting lies), and literary philosophy (comforting fiction), as well as for scientific truth (decidability whether comfortable or not).

    Because there will always be a market demand for self deception, merely comforting utility, and decidability in matters of conflict.

    One of the most disturbing behaviors I find among all of us who are interested in philosophy, is the attempt to find a substitute for the deceits of religion – but in rational (kantian) instead of supernatural (abrahamic) prose.

    So I suspect that while religion (mythology/abrahamism-zoroastrianism), literary philosophy (reasoning/plato), logic(justificationism/law), and science (measurement/decidability) are all included under the blanket of ‘philosophy’ (portfolio of decidability), that philosophy will forever forward be the subject of intellectual ridicule just as religion has now become the subject of intellectual ridicule. (And has become categorized with theology and unfunded by universities).

    But this is because philosophers have not defended the term or the discipline from religion and literature, and preserved it as a domain of logic, science, and law.

    So how does one define Philosophy? The use of a set of inflationary, ordinary, and deflationary vocabularies and grammars (I combine them into ‘grammars’) including magic, myth, literature, law(rationalism), science, logic, and mathematics, to provide decidability in the satisfaction of preferences, goods, and truths, such that we may act in furtherance of our wants and needs in a universe the causal density of which is beyond our intuition’s abilities to provide us with choice.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-16 10:24:00 UTC

  • Defining “Philosophy”

    DEFINING “PHILOSOPHY” I define philosophy as the search for decidability given an objective or set of objectives. (preferences and goods) I define truth as the search for decidability independent of objective or set of objectives. (truth) I define science as the use of instrumentation both logical and physical to create measurements and systems of measurement, that reduce reality to that which we can perceive, compare, decide, and act upon: reduce the imperceptible to to analogy to experience. In practice philosophers have done as much bad (marx, plato, buddha, kant, Abraham, Muhammed) as they have done good (Confucius, Aristotle, bacon, newton, smith, hume). So it is possible to separate the techniques of those philosophers who have caused harm from those who have created good. And that difference is in conflationary prose(fiction) vs deflationary prose (measurement). Or put differently, those people who write literature, and those people who write religion(conflating law and wisdom lit), from those people who and those people who write science – that which is simply true whether we like it or not. If we launder philosophy of fictions and deceits, then philosophy and science differ only in that science via negative tells us what can and cannot be done, and philosophy via positive suggests how to integrate new knowledge into the current network of truths, goods, preferences, and the decidability of each, by reorganization of categories (Names), relations, and values to take advantage of that new knowledge. Unfortunately, truth is beneficial for all indirectly, but falsehood is beneficial for many directly. In other words, we all love our comforting fallacies. (90% of people think they are in the top 10% of employees for example.) We all love to think we are good people but the truth is that a very large percentage of people are detrimental to the society that they live in regardless of their genetic, social, and economic classes. So there will always exist a demand for religion (comforting lies), and literary philosophy (comforting fiction), as well as for scientific truth (decidability whether comfortable or not). Because there will always be a market demand for self deception, merely comforting utility, and decidability in matters of conflict. One of the most disturbing behaviors I find among all of us who are interested in philosophy, is the attempt to find a substitute for the deceits of religion – but in rational (kantian) instead of supernatural (abrahamic) prose. So I suspect that while religion (mythology/abrahamism-zoroastrianism), literary philosophy (reasoning/plato), logic(justificationism/law), and science (measurement/decidability) are all included under the blanket of ‘philosophy’ (portfolio of decidability), that philosophy will forever forward be the subject of intellectual ridicule just as religion has now become the subject of intellectual ridicule. (And has become categorized with theology and unfunded by universities). But this is because philosophers have not defended the term or the discipline from religion and literature, and preserved it as a domain of logic, science, and law. So how does one define Philosophy? The use of a set of inflationary, ordinary, and deflationary vocabularies and grammars (I combine them into ‘grammars’) including magic, myth, literature, law(rationalism), science, logic, and mathematics, to provide decidability in the satisfaction of preferences, goods, and truths, such that we may act in furtherance of our wants and needs in a universe the causal density of which is beyond our intuition’s abilities to provide us with choice.

  • I Know This Phase Of The Work Isn”t That Interesting

    I KNOW THIS PHASE OF THE WORK ISN”T THAT INTERESTING (From Curt Doolittle: via VK.com) I know that working on “Grammars of Commensurability and therefore Decidability- both Inflationary, and Deflationary” is not terribly interesting to most followers. Any more so than the period I was working on Testimonial Truth was. Unfortunately, the edifice depends upon the logic and grammar of truthful speech. It’s this truthful speech, and the method of analysis that is required to produce it, that is the foundation of propertarianism. Testimonialism provides the grammar, property-in-toto provides the vocabulary, and acquisitionism provides the logic. So while I appreciate everyone’s interest when I’m talking about either psychology, sociology, western uniqueness, religion, market fascism, and revolution, the ability to understand these ideas, and to demand them in practice, is predicated upon the ability to put the arguments forward truthfully: meaning in deflationary, commensurable prose. But the rest of the work is not so technical, and should be more accessible – and more interesting. 😉 Hugs all.