Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • WHY DIDN’T WE PREVENT CANTOR’S INFINITIES? (Ghosts?) by Propertarian Frank The e

    WHY DIDN’T WE PREVENT CANTOR’S INFINITIES? (Ghosts?)

    by Propertarian Frank

    The exact same argument we use to stop believing in ghosts should have prevented Cantor’s infinities. But it didn’t.

    (1) People familiar with Diagonal Argument and understand it is epistemic cancer.

    (2) People familiar with advanced Platonist trickery like the Diagonal Argument and buy it even though they avoid falling for Platonism in other domains.

    (3) People that are unfamiliar with advanced Platonist trickery, but intuitively understand truth is ultimately about actionable reality.

    (4) People that are unfamiliar with advanced Platonist trickery, and believe in primitive forms of Platonism (theism, dualism).

    Type (1) people will get testimonialism immediately.

    Type (2) people could be persuaded. Trick is to prompt them to explain what differentiates the type of reasoning Cantor uses from the type of reasoning that tries to determine how many angels can dance simultaneously on the head of a pin. Induce cognitive dissonance by making explicit that wishful thinking is only possible when you use non-constructed names.

    Type (3) people lack the information necessary to judge constructionism in philosophy of mathematics. Understanding Testimonialism requires a bare minimum of familiarity with philosophy of science. Absolute key concept is ‘decidability’. How does a type (3) person ascertain that he ‘gets’ operationalism? Through demonstration in something like the ‘line exercise’ from the other day. So, unfortunately, this type of person will miss the profundity and importance of operationalism. (Seeing the importance of operationalism was the reason I kept reading your corpus). We need to see concrete instances of a method failing so that we can eventually incorporate the solution to that failure into our epistemological method. Without the concretes, it’s impossible. Unfortunately, adding lessons on the Diagonal Argument, operationalism in psychology, instrumentalism and measurement in physics etc, would not be feasible methods for familiarizing the uninitiated. In other words, if you haven’t spent considerable time thinking about philosophy of science already, courses in Propertarianism will not convince you, because you lack the means of judging them.

    Type (4) people are the hardest to persuade. You have to show them a domain in which Idealism fails, and prompt them to think about why they think it doesn’t fail in this other domain. If you can’t crush their Platonist belief in a certain domain (due to emotional blocks for instance), they can’t consistently apply operationalism. The fact that they haven’t already given up on simpler forms of Platonism indicates that they may have psychological blocks. Ergo, I think this type of person is the least amenable to learn Testimonialism through video lectures.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 07:43:00 UTC

  • ( damn. I know that first is principal, and decidability is principle, but you k

    ( damn. I know that first is principal, and decidability is principle, but you know, my fingers always have this terrible desire to type principle rather than principal. sigh.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-10 11:15:00 UTC

  • Why Is The Koran Open To Interpretation?

    WHY HAS THE KORAN NOT BEEN CONVERTED INTO HISTORICAL AND LEGAL VERSE – TESTABLE STATEMENTS NOT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION? If the Koran can be converted to law – a sequence of operationally testable statements, as has all of christendom then why has it not been? If the koran can be converted into law so that it cannot be interpreted, why has it not been? To preserve interpretation rather than decidability?

    If the koran can be interpreted, then how can anyone claim it is law? Laws are decidable. Opinions are not. Until you can reduce literature to laws that are decidable, then one has no claim other than that all DEDUCTIONS FROM IT are in fact REPRESENTATIVE OF IT. In other words, if you can’t DECIDE because of operationally testable statements, then the DECISION is to leave open interpretation. Therefore the decision is to leave open interpretation, and justification of it is just making excuses for licensing interpretation. Therefore all actions derived from interpretation are the result of the decision NOT to eradicate interpretation. In other words, jihadists, in all their flavors, and islamists in all their flavors, are specifically licensed by all other muslims because they have not DENIED them the ability to interpret the Koran, by stating the Koran in decidable verse: a sequence of operationally testable statements. In other words, muslims accommodate terrorist ideologies by not regulating their religion such that it is FREE of terrorist ideologies. Jews and Christians have both historicized and legalized their literature. Islam has NOT historicized and legalized its literature, and resists it at every opportunity. With every denial we see only confirmation: islam licenses jihadis, terrorism, and interpretation. The truth is,that the Koran *CAN* be converted into law. At which point it will be untenable. Which is why it has not been done.

  • Why Is The Koran Open To Interpretation?

    WHY HAS THE KORAN NOT BEEN CONVERTED INTO HISTORICAL AND LEGAL VERSE – TESTABLE STATEMENTS NOT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION? If the Koran can be converted to law – a sequence of operationally testable statements, as has all of christendom then why has it not been? If the koran can be converted into law so that it cannot be interpreted, why has it not been? To preserve interpretation rather than decidability?

    If the koran can be interpreted, then how can anyone claim it is law? Laws are decidable. Opinions are not. Until you can reduce literature to laws that are decidable, then one has no claim other than that all DEDUCTIONS FROM IT are in fact REPRESENTATIVE OF IT. In other words, if you can’t DECIDE because of operationally testable statements, then the DECISION is to leave open interpretation. Therefore the decision is to leave open interpretation, and justification of it is just making excuses for licensing interpretation. Therefore all actions derived from interpretation are the result of the decision NOT to eradicate interpretation. In other words, jihadists, in all their flavors, and islamists in all their flavors, are specifically licensed by all other muslims because they have not DENIED them the ability to interpret the Koran, by stating the Koran in decidable verse: a sequence of operationally testable statements. In other words, muslims accommodate terrorist ideologies by not regulating their religion such that it is FREE of terrorist ideologies. Jews and Christians have both historicized and legalized their literature. Islam has NOT historicized and legalized its literature, and resists it at every opportunity. With every denial we see only confirmation: islam licenses jihadis, terrorism, and interpretation. The truth is,that the Koran *CAN* be converted into law. At which point it will be untenable. Which is why it has not been done.

  • THE PROBLEM WITH THE US LAW (THE LEFT’S ATTACK) Interesting. Was searching for c

    THE PROBLEM WITH THE US LAW (THE LEFT’S ATTACK)

    Interesting. Was searching for colloquial opinions on “legislating from the bench” and found this page.

    DECIDABILITY (LOGIC) VS JUDGEMENT (OPINION)

    1) If the Natural Law of reciprocity exists, all questions of law should be decidable by a test of reciprocity. (They are.)

    2) If the constitution was intended as an implementation of Natural Law, then all question of law under natural law should be decidable. (It was, They are).

    3) In those cases of contracts of the commons (legislation, and regulation) that consist of contract provisions (trades) constructed under Natural Law, the terms of the contract may be undecidable given the terms specified in the contract. (painfully common)

    4) In those cases that are undecidable by the Court, because of the insufficiency of the terms of the Contract of the Commons (legislation and regulation) the court has the obligation, (as was intended by the constitution) to return the decision to the legislature rather than to ARBITRARILY provide decidability by subjective preference.

    5) In those cases that are undecidable by the court because the terms of the Contract of the Commons conflict with Natural Law, then the Court has the OBLIGATION to return the decision to the Legislature to correct the contract of the commons (legislation, and regulation) so that conflicts under the contract are decidable.

    6) In those cases that the legislature cannot construct legislation that is decidable by the judiciary because the terms of the contract for the commons is undecidable under the terms of the constitution, the legislature may propose to the legislature of the states (Congress) an amendment to the constitution that would permit decidability of such matters as cannot be decided under natural law, and the contracts of the commons we call legislation and regulation.

    FAILINGS OF THE CONSTITUTION’S AUTHORS

    1) The founders (Principally, Adams) understood natural law, and understood Locke, and understood the development of Contractualism of the Anglo Saxons (North Sea Civilization), in which all men are sovereign, and that all cooperation under any crown was limited to sovereign contract. They had fought civil wars over it.

    But they lacked the knowledge with which to require decidability in the law. It wasn’t until the last decade of the 19th and the first half of the twentieth century that we developed an understanding of the limits of language in philosophy and logic, and developed Operational Language in the Physical Sciences. It has taken us until the late twentieth century (for reasons I won’t go into here) to develop Operational Grammar, Functional authoring of Contracts (Legislation, Regulation, and Findings of the Law), and the requirement for strict construction of the law from the first principle of Reciprocity (Natural Law), the codifications of the tests of Reciprocity (Property in person, family, private, and common forms), and finally the measurement of changes in capital produced by advances in our ability to enact policy in Monetary, Fiscal, Trade, Institutional, Cultural – and now genetic – forms.

    2) While the provision by which to modify the constitution was put in place, it has been aggressively circumvented such that the 14th amendment has eradicated the 9th and 10th. But while modification of the constitution was encoded (even if ignored) the legislatures were not bound in the Constitution to pay the consequences of the poor quality of their legislation, by a limit on the time to revise legislation that was returned to them by the Court before it was nullified as undecidable by the court, or the court reverted to natural law as a means of deciding a conflict despite nullifying the legislation.

    3) Requirement for Positive Intent of the law (Scope). While the constitution states intentions (Scope) in the form of ‘whereas…(intent)’, followed by prohibition.

    THE ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION AND NATURAL LAW OF RECIPROCITY BY THE LEFT

    The Function of the court of Natural Law is not to interpret the law, but to apply the law to cases before it, and determine if the case is decidable or not. And if it is not decidable is it not so because the parties are not believable, the evidence is insufficient, the terms of the private contract are insufficient, or the legislation and regulation are insufficient, or the constitution is insufficient.

    1) The destruction of the constitution during and after the civil war, which, as a means of preventing the extension of slavery to the western territories, and therefore the domination of the continent by the South and its agrarian allies, and the containment of the northeast – a conflcit which still separates our peoples today. Not over slavery but over dominance by the few urban immigrant centers over the suburban, rural, and agrarian peoples. It may have been correct to go to war and kill 500,000 people over slavery, and even to turn the south into a possession, but not to conquer the south and then to destroy the constitution with amendments that violate the natural law of reciprocity under which the constitution and its experiment in meritocracy was created.

    2) the conflation of natural law of reciprocity, common law evolved from it, legislation that usurped it.

    3) the attempt by the activist left to ascend majority tyranny to precedence over that of natural law, thereby reversing the full history of anglo saxon law.

    4) the attempt by the activist left to extend necessary and possible natural rights under natural law, consisting entirely of negative rights, to ideal, and positive claims upon the actions of others, under the misnomer “positive rights” (which cannot logically exist as rights).

    5) The attempt by the communist left to extend natural rights that are necessary for the decidability of conflicts under the natural law of reciprocity, to Human Rights, which both (a) demand positive claims (rights) upon others, and demand (b) these rights be granted universally rather than within the citizenry, *despite* lack of reciprocity by foreign states.

    THE RIGHT HAS FAILED UNTIL NOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORING FUNCTIONAL LAW

    Until this century the right has failed to (a) articulate the western tradition in ratio scientific terms, and (b) produce a means of requiring strictly constructed law (in the logical sense not the colloquial sense), textualism, and limited to original intent (scope). But that does not mean the right has not understood the nature of the problem.

    The problem is however now solvable. (although I won’t go into that painful detail here).

    The method and reasons and excuses the left has made to restore the tyranny of the majority over that of reciprocity and meritocracy is well understood. The problem is, do we have to have a revolution to fix this issue and return to negotiating legislation truthfully by contract, or will we continue the charade that we do anything other than deceive the common man in order to obtain power for our factions?

    The question is, why would you not want to engage in honest reciprocal exchanges rather than lobby for predations upon others by propaganda and deceit?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 14:53:00 UTC

  • ANY LAW THAT IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION LICENSES INTERPRETATIONS (the koran licen

    ANY LAW THAT IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION LICENSES INTERPRETATIONS

    (the koran licenses terrorists)

    Christians and Jews went through the enlightenment and the reformation, and the legal and scientific revolutions. The evil in the west has been caused by the re-introduction of abrahamism (christianity, judaism, and islam) in the forms of Jewish Marxism, and French Postmodernism, and less so by Anglo Egalitarianism. And now we’re dealing with the only people who have failed to go through the enlightenment, and historicize, rationalize, and legalize their customs.

    So the point I’m making is that if you DON’T convert the Koran into uninterpretable (Decidable) propositions, then DE FACTO, all interpretation of the Koran IS IN FACT licensed by the Book, the religion, and all muslims.

    In other words, the jihadis and terrorists are in fact practicing Islam because it is possible to interpret islam from the book as such, because the inability to interpret islam in that way is not restated in a new version of the Book.

    And my argument is, that if it was restated, then it would be untenable for western authors.

    Which is why I suspect western authors will, as some of them have begun to, state the Koran in legal verse.

    We know that the book is a fabrication just as was the Jewish Bible, and the Christian Bible. We know the Koran was only Codified a century ago. We have begun producing an historical literature demonstrating that Mohammed is no more real a character than Jesus, Arthur, or Siegfried.

    We have not however converted it to a set of statements of law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 12:16:00 UTC

  • WHY HAS THE KORAN NOT BEEN CONVERTED INTO HISTORICAL AND LEGAL VERSE – TESTABLE

    WHY HAS THE KORAN NOT BEEN CONVERTED INTO HISTORICAL AND LEGAL VERSE – TESTABLE STATEMENTS NOT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION?

    If the Koran can be converted to law – a sequence of operationally testable statements, as has all of christendom then why has it not been?

    If the koran can be converted into law so that it cannot be interpreted, why has it not been? To preserve interpretation rather than decidability?

    If the koran can be interpreted, then how can anyone claim it is law?

    Laws are decidable. Opinions are not. Until you can reduce literature to laws that are decidable, then one has no claim other than that all DEDUCTIONS FROM IT are in fact REPRESENTATIVE OF IT.

    In other words, if you can’t DECIDE because of operationally testable statements, then the DECISION is to leave open interpretation. Therefore the decision is to leave open interpretation, and justification of it is just making excuses for licensing interpretation.

    Therefore all actions derived from interpretation are the result of the decision NOT to eradicate interpretation.

    In other words, jihadists, in all their flavors, and islamists in all their flavors, are specifically licensed by all other muslims because they have not DENIED them the ability to interpret the Koran, by stating the Koran in decidable verse: a sequence of operationally testable statements.

    In other words, muslims accommodate terrorist ideologies by not regulating their religion such that it is FREE of terrorist ideologies.

    Jews and Christians have both historicized and legalized their literature. Islam has NOT historicized and legalized its literature, and resists it at every opportunity.

    With every denial we see only confirmation: islam licenses jihadis, terrorism, and interpretation.

    The truth is,that the Koran *CAN* be converted into law.

    At which point it will be untenable.

    Which is why it has not been done.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 11:41:00 UTC

  • THE ARGUMENT FOR NORMATIVE DECIDABILITY IN NON-OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE (CD: for tho

    THE ARGUMENT FOR NORMATIVE DECIDABILITY IN NON-OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE

    (CD: for those that cannot make the leap to operationalism, joel does a wonderful job of using traditional language to make the point.)

    —

    by Joel Davis

    A social structure emerges from the conceptual structures held by the participants which have relevance to interpersonal interaction.

    These conceptual structures emerge from conceptual valuation, and conceptual valuation functions via relative conceptual hierarchies of valuation.

    These hierarchies of values then become the criteria from which a social structure formulates its interpersonal hierarchies.

    To peacefully preserve a particular social structure, a society must have at least a significant convergence (or ideally, a consensus) between its participants in regard to conceptual valuation relevant to interpersonal interaction.

    Without this convergence, participants in the social structure who hold competing conceptual hierarchies will support competing interpersonal hierarchies, rendering conceptual divergence doomed to social chaos and violence only resolvable via the tyrannical imposition of a victorious conceptual structure.

    In the West, we addressed this problem with markets via the superordinate metavaluation of the twin concepts of rationality and honor during antiquity and reason and liberty during modernity.

    However, rationalism and honor were defeated by Catholic (and Islamic) conceptual tyranny, and now reason and liberty are on the brink of complete disintegration via a regression to chaotic conceptual divergence as a result of the counter-enlightenment.

    The only wall that can truly protect our society is the revived convergent, superordinate metavaluations of reason and liberty. Physical walls to keep out those who challenge their superordinance would then be merely a natural consequence.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 08:17:00 UTC

  • SMALLER IS BETTER (this is profoundly powerful) Or in technical terms, questions

    SMALLER IS BETTER

    (this is profoundly powerful)

    Or in technical terms, questions are decidable because costs and returns are calculable, because coincidences of want are marginal, and consequences are perceivable.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-30 18:17:00 UTC

  • DOUBLE STANDARDS VIOLATE RECIPROCITY A double standard in reciprocity is the equ

    DOUBLE STANDARDS VIOLATE RECIPROCITY

    A double standard in reciprocity is the equivalent of a contradiction in logic. Or conversely, is equivalent to a violation of the test of non-contradiction.

    In other words, there is no difference between a double standard,a fraud and a lie: they are all punishable as violations of Reciprocity.

    Punish the wicked.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-29 11:25:00 UTC