Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • Q: “WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?” What is Propertarianism? A scientific, meaning des

    Q: “WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?”

    What is Propertarianism?

    A scientific, meaning descriptive, statement of Natural Law.

    What is Natural Law?

    A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics.

    What do you mean by ethics?

    The law of cooperation and conflict resolution.

    What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution?

    Reciprocity.

    WHAT IS RECIPROCITY?

    In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in.

    In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means.

    As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.

    —“All of ethics can be reduced to [is a subset/special application of] the degree of reciprocity & the the accounting thereof.— James Augustus

    WHY DOES RECIPROCITY SERVE AS NATURAL LAW?

    Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions.

    WHERE IS THE NAME PROPERTARIANISM FROM?

    why didn’t we use Natural Law or Reciprocity, or Sovereignty, and why did we use Propertarianism?

    We used propertarianism because property, like money, provides the unit of measurement – the test – of changes in state caused by our actions. Property in toto, (that which others have born costs to obtain an interest without imposing costs upon the interests of others) like money, like any standard of measure in any field, provides a perfect test of reciprocity: cooperation.

    Natural Law has been ‘tainted’ by various authors, so we had to differentiate ourselves from those previous authors.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-15 16:32:00 UTC

  • A LESSON IN ARGUMENT (your important thought of the day) Defeat inferior technol

    A LESSON IN ARGUMENT

    (your important thought of the day)

    Defeat inferior technology with superior technology. Or if you understand logic: no closed system is sufficient for proofs of that system. (if you have to ask, you won’t understand.)

    So that said, when debating:

    You don’t refute mysticism with mysticism but with reason.

    Not reason with reason but rationalism.

    Not rationalism with rationalism but empiricism.

    Not empiricism with empiricism but Testimonialism.

    Refutation requires the expansion of the scope of information and testing, and by restating ‘simpler’ arguments in ‘more precise’ arguments using that additional scope of information.

    Internal Contradiction does not falsify meaning.

    The purpose of meaning is to allow choices that produce consequences.

    Consequences do.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 08:17:00 UTC

  • Points of Demarcation – Analog and Sets.

    Apr 10, 2017 9:50am (very advanced stuff) —“The former are concerned with impossibility, whilst the latter are concerned with impermissibility”— 1) Are they possible? In other words, are you creating a point of demarcation (the error of sets and digital/binary thinking) rather than continuous/analog causes and effect? (yes) 2) physical reality provides decidability (possibility), but does not human behavior provide decidability (possibility), with the distinction that humans can ‘recall’ as well as ‘forecast’ and therefore we can take on debts and make investments in cooperation. But can we in fact, state that humans will tolerate free riding, parasitism, predation and genocide? and if so where is some evidence of that? (there isn’t any, because it isn’t possible, it’s just SLOWer than physical phenomenon because of the ‘capacitance’ and ‘resistance’ provided by our ability to remember and forecast.) ( Tip: you’ve studied enough philosophy to fall into the trap of 20th century thought inherited from mathematics: set theory, and non contradiction. This is rationalism and includes only a subset of information about reality. Once you include the additional – missing – dimensions of reality you will no longer be able to make use of ‘the error of rationalism’: sets. … which is a very long discussion outside of the context of this topic.) —“Could you unpack this a bit? My statement is directed more towards the limits of empiricism, so I am unclear as to what you mean by unlimited and insufficient.”— 3 – The positivism/empiricism debate, especially those who were unfortunately poisoned by first Kantian, and second Jewish (so called austrian, but not austrian) thought, as well as all cosmopolitan thought (freud, marx, boaz, cantor, frankfurt) is, like all late 19th and 20th century philosophy, a failed program. So, to deflate this set of fallacies, let’s start over with the dimensions of reality: a) identity (categorical consistency) ie: point b) logic (internal consistency) ie: line c) empiricism (external consistency / external correspondence) ie: space d) operationalism (existential consistency ) ie: time (change) f) morality (reciprocal consistency / reciprocity ) ie: cooperation (volition) g) limits (full-accounting, limits, and parsimony) ie: consequence. And to speak of reality we can also use terms that correspond to those dimensions, and thereby avoid errors of the past. a) Operational Definitions, therefore deflating experience, intention, assumption, and analogy. (identity, point) b) Operational Definitions in a series, therefore deflating the natural conflation of ideal types, by describing any concept on a scale – usually a scale of quantity (or population) on one axis, and time on the other axis. (identity, logic, line) c) Supply Demand Curves (competition) (identity, logic, line, space) d) Multiple Supply Demand Curves (equilibria) (identity, logic, line, space, time ) e) Models consisting of all discernably causal equilibrating forces (identity, logic, line, space, competition) SUMMARY So like we cannot predict the location of a molecule of gas released in a vacuum, and we cannot predict subatomic phenomenon, because we cannot measure the states without affecting them; and like we cannot measure certain economic phenomenon at the individual level for the same reason, (we simply lack the information on the one hand, and attempting to obtain it would change the state), and just as we cannot determine the future competition between civilizations, that does not meant that there are not universal and necessary rules to these phenomenon whehther conditionaly invariant (physical), heuristically variant (interpersonal), or exogenously invariant (civilizational). The reason being that there are limits to human perception, cognition, retention, forecast, trust, ethics/morality, and action. Man is his own measure.

  • Points of Demarcation – Analog and Sets.

    Apr 10, 2017 9:50am (very advanced stuff) —“The former are concerned with impossibility, whilst the latter are concerned with impermissibility”— 1) Are they possible? In other words, are you creating a point of demarcation (the error of sets and digital/binary thinking) rather than continuous/analog causes and effect? (yes) 2) physical reality provides decidability (possibility), but does not human behavior provide decidability (possibility), with the distinction that humans can ‘recall’ as well as ‘forecast’ and therefore we can take on debts and make investments in cooperation. But can we in fact, state that humans will tolerate free riding, parasitism, predation and genocide? and if so where is some evidence of that? (there isn’t any, because it isn’t possible, it’s just SLOWer than physical phenomenon because of the ‘capacitance’ and ‘resistance’ provided by our ability to remember and forecast.) ( Tip: you’ve studied enough philosophy to fall into the trap of 20th century thought inherited from mathematics: set theory, and non contradiction. This is rationalism and includes only a subset of information about reality. Once you include the additional – missing – dimensions of reality you will no longer be able to make use of ‘the error of rationalism’: sets. … which is a very long discussion outside of the context of this topic.) —“Could you unpack this a bit? My statement is directed more towards the limits of empiricism, so I am unclear as to what you mean by unlimited and insufficient.”— 3 – The positivism/empiricism debate, especially those who were unfortunately poisoned by first Kantian, and second Jewish (so called austrian, but not austrian) thought, as well as all cosmopolitan thought (freud, marx, boaz, cantor, frankfurt) is, like all late 19th and 20th century philosophy, a failed program. So, to deflate this set of fallacies, let’s start over with the dimensions of reality: a) identity (categorical consistency) ie: point b) logic (internal consistency) ie: line c) empiricism (external consistency / external correspondence) ie: space d) operationalism (existential consistency ) ie: time (change) f) morality (reciprocal consistency / reciprocity ) ie: cooperation (volition) g) limits (full-accounting, limits, and parsimony) ie: consequence. And to speak of reality we can also use terms that correspond to those dimensions, and thereby avoid errors of the past. a) Operational Definitions, therefore deflating experience, intention, assumption, and analogy. (identity, point) b) Operational Definitions in a series, therefore deflating the natural conflation of ideal types, by describing any concept on a scale – usually a scale of quantity (or population) on one axis, and time on the other axis. (identity, logic, line) c) Supply Demand Curves (competition) (identity, logic, line, space) d) Multiple Supply Demand Curves (equilibria) (identity, logic, line, space, time ) e) Models consisting of all discernably causal equilibrating forces (identity, logic, line, space, competition) SUMMARY So like we cannot predict the location of a molecule of gas released in a vacuum, and we cannot predict subatomic phenomenon, because we cannot measure the states without affecting them; and like we cannot measure certain economic phenomenon at the individual level for the same reason, (we simply lack the information on the one hand, and attempting to obtain it would change the state), and just as we cannot determine the future competition between civilizations, that does not meant that there are not universal and necessary rules to these phenomenon whehther conditionaly invariant (physical), heuristically variant (interpersonal), or exogenously invariant (civilizational). The reason being that there are limits to human perception, cognition, retention, forecast, trust, ethics/morality, and action. Man is his own measure.

  • (very advanced stuff) —“The former are concerned with impossibility, whilst th

    (very advanced stuff)

    —“The former are concerned with impossibility, whilst the latter are concerned with impermissibility”—

    1) Are they possible? In other words, are you creating a point of demarcation (the error of sets and digital/binary thinking) rather than continuous/analog causes and effect? (yes)

    2) physical reality provides decidability (possibility), but does not human behavior provide decidability (possibility), with the distinction that humans can ‘recall’ as well as ‘forecast’ and therefore we can take on debts and make investments in cooperation. But can we in fact, state that humans will tolerate free riding, parasitism, predation and genocide? and if so where is some evidence of that? (there isn’t any, because it isn’t possible, it’s just SLOWer than physical phenomenon because of the ‘capacitance’ and ‘resistance’ provided by our ability to remember and forecast.)

    ( Tip: you’ve studied enough philosophy to fall into the trap of 20th century thought inherited from mathematics: set theory, and non contradiction. This is rationalism and includes only a subset of information about reality. Once you include the additional – missing – dimensions of reality you will no longer be able to make use of ‘the error of rationalism’: sets. … which is a very long discussion outside of the context of this topic.)

    —“Could you unpack this a bit? My statement is directed more towards the limits of empiricism, so I am unclear as to what you mean by unlimited and insufficient.”—

    3 – The positivism/empiricism debate, especially those who were unfortunately poisoned by first Kantian, and second Jewish (so called austrian, but not austrian) thought, as well as all cosmopolitan thought (freud, marx, boaz, cantor, frankfurt) is, like all late 19th and 20th century philosophy, a failed program.

    So, to deflate this set of fallacies, let’s start over with the dimensions of reality:

    a) identity (categorical consistency) ie: point

    b) logic (internal consistency) ie: line

    c) empiricism (external consistency / external correspondence) ie: space

    d) operationalism (existential consistency ) ie: time (change)

    f) morality (reciprocal consistency / reciprocity ) ie: cooperation (volition)

    g) limits (full-accounting, limits, and parsimony) ie: consequence.

    And to speak of reality we can also use terms that correspond to those dimensions, and thereby avoid errors of the past.

    a) Operational Definitions, therefore deflating experience, intention, assumption, and analogy. (identity, point)

    b) Operational Definitions in a series, therefore deflating the natural conflation of ideal types, by describing any concept on a scale – usually a scale of quantity (or population) on one axis, and time on the other axis. (identity, logic, line)

    c) Supply Demand Curves (competition) (identity, logic, line, space)

    d) Multiple Supply Demand Curves (equilibria) (identity, logic, line, space, time )

    e) Models consisting of all discernably causal equilibrating forces (identity, logic, line, space, competition)

    SUMMARY

    So like we cannot predict the location of a molecule of gas released in a vacuum, and we cannot predict subatomic phenomenon, because we cannot measure the states without affecting them; and like we cannot measure certain economic phenomenon at the individual level for the same reason, (we simply lack the information on the one hand, and attempting to obtain it would change the state), and just as we cannot determine the future competition between civilizations, that does not meant that there are not universal and necessary rules to these phenomenon whehther conditionaly invariant (physical), heuristically variant (interpersonal), or exogenously invariant (civilizational). The reason being that there are limits to human perception, cognition, retention, forecast, trust, ethics/morality, and action.

    Man is his own measure.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-10 09:50:00 UTC

  • “You can’t understand decidability without computer science.—Propertarian Fran

    —“You can’t understand decidability without computer science.—Propertarian Frank

    That’s the conclusion I came to. I can read all those thinkers at the turn of the 20th century. And then I read … just ONE paper by Turing, and .. I get it. It wasn’t until I got to Mises and I understood he had it wrong somehow, but right somehow. It just took me a long time to put it all together.

    Computers are a different way of thinking – a NEW way of thinking. They are as different as empiricism was from reason, and as different as rationalism was from reason, and as different as geometry was from arithmetic.

    We burned a century because babbage couldn’t get his machine into production on a meaningful (military) problem.

    We burned almost 2000 years because Achimedes was his era’s Babbage, and Athens and Sparta were our era’s Germany and Britain.

    We could have dragged humanity out of ignorance and poverty 2000 years ago.

    I know why now. I know what we do wrong.

    And we, in our generation, must fix it forever.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 22:28:00 UTC

  • “Doolittle’s Chainsaw: What is the particular decision problem this concept solv

    —“Doolittle’s Chainsaw: What is the particular decision problem this concept solves, and what are the particular actions and transformations we use to achieve decidability?”— @Propertarian Frank

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 22:11:00 UTC

  • DOOLITTLE’S CHAINSAW: WHY WE USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE by @Propertarian Frank (be

    DOOLITTLE’S CHAINSAW: WHY WE USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE

    by @Propertarian Frank

    (better than I can say it)(this man is an artist)

    We use consistent naming with consistent and unique delineation.

    And we start constructing our language by naming actions and transformations, rather than using names for ‘ideals’ or ‘essences’ or ‘ontological’ primitives, which are characterized by their inaccessibility to observation (discerning through measurement).

    You can tell if a language employs idealist concepts by subjecting them to Curt Doolittle’s Chainsaw (lol) : “what is the particular decision problem this concept solves, and what are the particular actions and transformations we use to achieve decidability?”

    For instance, the concept ‘mass’, provides commensurability among physical objects of similar scale, and is used to decide a wide variety of questions from mechanics to pricing groceries.

    The specific way in which we construct and use instruments to measure ‘mass’ constitute the particular actions and transformations that are named by the symbol ‘mass’ and its unit of measurement. (Just as standard library functions in programming languages compile to specific machine instructions, so do operational names compile to specific actions and transformations )

    Thus, there’s no single concept ‘mass’, but rather a spectrum of it, determined, and limited by tools of measurement at different scales.

    You can idealize ‘mass’ by treating it as if it isn’t limited and determined by measurement (action), but that doesn’t mean ‘mass’ in formal operational grammar deploys that idealism.

    Doolittle’s Chainsaw lets you know if an idealism is completely devoid of operationalizable content or not. For instance, while ideal ‘mass’ can be salvaged (operationally defined), things like infinity, continuum are not.

    This idealist approach to language (also called Platonism), as opposed to operational language, is the single largest source of error in all domains of human knowledge. From mathematics (infinity, uncomputable numbers), to physics, to economics, to law (e.g. property rights as unconstructed ideal attributes, equality), to philosophy (lol almost all of it), across all levels of intellect, thinkers evidently fall for it.

    This is why Curt says widespread adoption of operationalism will be at least as large a leap as empiricism over rationalism, and rationalism over mysticism were.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 21:14:00 UTC

  • FOR FANS OF AUSTRIAN ECON (worth repeating) ***There is a very great similarity

    FOR FANS OF AUSTRIAN ECON

    (worth repeating)

    ***There is a very great similarity between the economic calculation debate against classical economics and the intuitionist-constructivist against classical mathematics. Once you see the parallel you will see how this is not a problem of math or economics but of epistemology that popper suggested: it is increasingly difficult to make truth propositions that are dependent upon deductions, unless we can also construct the result we have deduced without the need for deduction.***

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 10:56:00 UTC

  • CTHULU SWIMS LEFT WITHOUT A CURRENT OF NATURAL LAW Any system of decidability th

    CTHULU SWIMS LEFT WITHOUT A CURRENT OF NATURAL LAW

    Any system of decidability that is not explicitly right, meaning meritocratic, non-discretionary, and fully calculable, will, by increment, evolve into explicitly left, meaning corrupt, fully discretionary, and fully incalculable.

    Natural law is explicitly right, meaning, meritocratic, non-discretionary, and fully calculable. It cannot swim left. And as far as I know it is the only institutional means of preventing Cthulu swimming left.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 08:37:00 UTC