Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • Any system of decidability that is not explicitly right will, by increment, evol

    Any system of decidability that is not explicitly right will, by increment, evolve into explicitly left, fully discretionary, and fully incalculable.

    Natural law is explicitly right, and non-discretionary, and fully calculable.

    In this sense I see religion as having the permission of the Sovereignty and the Court, but that is all. Religion does not get a pass on lying.

    Via-negativa removes falsehoods that allow us to more cost effectively discover a value system – especially by avoiding those that will fail, and those that are predatory.

    In other words, once you have surpassed human scale it is more beneficial to use via-negativa and markets than via-positiva and concentration of capital.

    Just as we need multiple languages to talk to multiple layers of ability (classes), and just as we need multiple states to serve the interests of multiple layers of tribes; and just as we need multiple sciences to break the world into parts that we can disassemble; and just as we need multiple economies (military (slave), commons (serf), union(unskilled labor), market (producers), and finance (gamblers), we need multiple NARRATIVES just as we always have: the religious for the weak, the philosophical for the able, and the heroic for the superior.

    Those narratives already exist. The problem is thinking Your’re everyone (democracy and equality) rather than the member of a class.

    The universe may be beyond human scale, but the scope of action available to humans of different ability varies dramatically from those who can barely care for themselves, to those that can care for others, to those that can manage others, to those that can organize others, to those that can organize many, to those that can advocate for as many as they can serve.

    Choose the tool that serves the scale that is possible for you.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 00:16:00 UTC

  • THE VIRTUE OF NATURAL LAW – AND ITS COSTS (important) What is my favorite featur

    THE VIRTUE OF NATURAL LAW – AND ITS COSTS

    (important)

    What is my favorite feature of natural law?

    I can tell you what is false. I can tell you what is insufficient make a truth claim. I can tell you what is the most true of the propositions available. But I cannot tell you what is good. Anything that is not false, not insufficient, and the most true proposition available is a candidate good. The determination of a preference is something up to the individual, or the group, or the polity, or the nation, or the civilization to decide by some method of decidability or other. But the determination of a good is ascertained by the measurements of the prior and consequential states of capital, and the transactions that constitute the change in state. If more capital-in-toto exists, then objectively one achieved a good. If less, one did not. And while the measurement of such changes in capital is somewhat challenging, it is not, by any means, impossible – just undesirable by those who do not seek good in truth, but preference regardless of it.

    Because for the stoic and the ascetic, a condition of freedom to work as I desire, within a condition of liberty for others to organize work, within a condition of sovereignty for others to rule, such that the rest may organize, and labor, is all I desire. I wish the fruits of sovereignty, liberty, and freedom made possible by natural law. I do not wish to act parasitically upon others. As such I understand that I must regulate my consumption to that which I can obtain without imposition of costs upon others.

    I prefer the fine arts, fine architecture, fine antiques, exotic cars, good company, beautiful women, money and especially power. But I do not prefer them at the expense of contemplation and production of ideas for which I earn trivial if any compensation. I leave that for others with other preferences.

    the difference is, that I have proven myself capable of any of those achievements. Having done so, I find them hollow compared to coffee shops, writing, and thinking.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 15:15:00 UTC

  • RELIGION AND MEASUREMENTS (important) ( William Butchman writes an OP reconcilin

    RELIGION AND MEASUREMENTS

    (important)

    ( William Butchman writes an OP reconciling supernatural fictionalism, with propertarianism via decidability. It inspired me to write this piece extending one of his paragraphs to explain that religion provided a means of measurement and decidability. )

    When we moved from religion (the immeasurable world – but a world whose ‘measurements’ if we may call ‘wisdom’ that, consisted of the results of trial, error, and observation – a simple science, but a science none the less) to quantitative science: the measurable world, we rightly increased the precision of the measurable world and evicted religion from our discipline of measurement. Unfortunately we evicted religion from the unmeasurable world (cooperation at scale), and replaced it with pseudosciences (aggregates). So instead of instructing men to act morally based upon experience, such that each action would cumulatively produce a measurable good, we measured goods and told me they need not act morally if we produced this abstract measurement of good. It never seems to have occurred to anyone that all this did was increase the number of not-good actions by people. And falsely attribute to the new measurements what was nothing but the product of fiat money (removing the shortage of hard currency) and fossil fuels (removing the cost of physical labor).

    Religion provides decidability in that which can only be measured by individual moral action that results in cumulative goods. Religions, like the common law, evolved incrementally in response to what we had learned. So each religion contains some error as well as some truth. What we call the physical sciences, provide decidability by aggregate changes in sttate even though we do not KNOW the equivalent of moral action in the universe – the first principles of the transformation of energy at small and large scales.)

    The Natural Law (as I understand it) merely states the measurement of individual ‘good’ action, the way mathematic states the measurement of addition and subtraction of the natural numbers. It is very simple. Addition: do undo others only that which you would have done unto you. Subtraction: do nothing unto others that you would not have done unto you. Through simple addition and subtraction all of the descriptions of the physical world can be written in an increasingly complex set of combinations. And likewise, through simple positive moral actions, and negative moral constraints, we can build all of natural law. And then we can use natural law to examine all religions, and to determine if they are, like the physical universe, written in gods laws, of the physical world(Existence), the world of Action(Property), and the world of Speech(Testimony).

    However, the golden and silver rule are reductio in meaning. They assume the christian or aryan edifice provides context. And while Christianity was always balanced by Martial Aryianism in a competition, The Hindu lost that competition, and the Sinic (Chinese), Semitic (Jewish/Muslim), never possessed it. So what one assumes is good good for himself and others by his actions, may answer the question of what is good for himself and others at city-state scale, but fails at national, empire, and global scales.

    For the simple reason that each civilization, and each group within it, uses a slight variation on those rules in order to perpetuate the group’s strategies in the realities in which it exists.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 13:50:00 UTC

  • it’s almost impossible for even the most dedicated of people to switch from thin

    it’s almost impossible for even the most dedicated of people to switch from thinking in terms of good, to thinking in terms of true. If you use natural law as your means of decidability, then that which is true will in fact always be a good. But only the market can decide if it is a preferred good. You can’t. No matter how hard you try. So try to determine if something is true not good. Any ‘good’ you can imagine will be subjectively decided based upon some outcome you prefer. Whereas natural law will merely ensure that we select preferences that produce goods regardless of what we imagine.

    Its all just math at this point.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 18:35:00 UTC

  • Violence has and always will provide decidability. We have tried so desperately

    Violence has and always will provide decidability. We have tried so desperately to accommodate women in government – itself an act of violence – despite their zero value in the exercise of violence.

    Accommodating women’s weakness is not the same as changing the predominance of violence whatsoever. Accommodating the weak, the solipsistic, and the psychotic character of women has been a luxury good. But empirically speaking it has caused the suicide of our civilization, and its vulnerability to invasion, propaganda, and deceit.

    Women have but one power: disapproval. And that power exists only so long as men will tolerate it. And men will tolerate it only so long as it is useful.

    Women have merely replaced the truth of violence, with lying about it in all walks of life.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-26 08:07:00 UTC

  • Western Ying vs Yang = Fiction vs Law

    (profoundly important)FICTION ( possibility – opportunity – productivity ) VS LAW ( decidability – limits – parasitism ) Of the following, which is fiction, which is law? A) Golden Rule : Do unto others as you would have done unto you. B) Silver Rule: Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you. Fiction and Law serve as the western equivalent of Ying and Yang. But our western model innovates, and Ying and Yang stagnates. PETERSON: FICTIONALISM (SELLING), DOOLITTLE: LAW (TELLING)

  • Western Ying vs Yang = Fiction vs Law

    (profoundly important)FICTION ( possibility – opportunity – productivity ) VS LAW ( decidability – limits – parasitism ) Of the following, which is fiction, which is law? A) Golden Rule : Do unto others as you would have done unto you. B) Silver Rule: Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you. Fiction and Law serve as the western equivalent of Ying and Yang. But our western model innovates, and Ying and Yang stagnates. PETERSON: FICTIONALISM (SELLING), DOOLITTLE: LAW (TELLING)

  • FICTION VERSUS LAW (profoundly important) FICTION ( possibility – opportunity –

    FICTION VERSUS LAW

    (profoundly important)

    FICTION ( possibility – opportunity – productivity )

    VS

    LAW ( decidability – limits – parasitism )

    Of the following, which is fiction, which is law?

    A) Golden Rule : Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

    B) Silver Rule: Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you.

    Fiction and Law serve as the western equivalent of Ying and Yang.

    But our western model innovates, and Ying and Yang stagnates.

    PETERSON: FICTIONALISM (SELLING), DOOLITTLE: LAW (TELLING)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 12:50:00 UTC

  • The Foundations of Mathematics Are Simple. (really)

    The foundations of mathematics are so simple. Seriously. The fact that they even phrase the question as such is hysterical. The reason mathematics is so powerful a tool is precisely because its foundations are so trivial. Like discourse on property in ethics and law it is a word game because no one establishes sufficient limits under which the general term obscures a change in state. Math very simple. Correspondence (what remains and what does not), Types, operations, grammar, syntax. Generally we use mathematics for the purpose of scale independence. in other words, we remove the property of scale from the set of correspondences. But we might also pass from physical dimensions to logical dimensions (there are only so many possible physical dimensions). So now we leave dimensional correspondence. In mathematics we remove time correspondence by default, and only add it in when we specifically want to make use of it. In sets we remove temporal and causal correspondence … at least in most cases. So we can add and remove many different correspondences, and work only with reciprocal (self referencing) correspondence (constant relations). But there is nothing magic here at all except for the fields (results) that can be produced by these different definitions as we use them to describe the consequences of using different values in different orders. But if you say “I want to study the parsimony, limits, and full accounting, of this set of types using this set of operations, with the common grammar and syntax” that is pretty much what someone means when they say ‘foundations’. Most of the time. Sometimes they have no clue. There is nothing much more difficult here in the ‘foundations’ so to speak. What’s hard in mathematics is holding operations, grammar and syntax constant, what happens as we use different correspondences (dimensions), types, and values in combination with others and yet others, to produce these various kinds of patterns that represent phenomenon that we want to describe. And what mathematicians find beautiful is that there is a bizaare set of regularities (that they call symmetries or some variation thereof), that emerge once you becomes skilled in these models, just like some games become predictable if you see a certain pattern. But really, math is interesting because by describing regular patterns that produce complex phenomenon, we are able to describe things very accurately that we cannot ‘see’ without math to help us find it. Its seems mystical. It isn’t. Its just the adult version of mommy saying ‘boo’ to the toddler and the joy he gets from the stimulation. There is nothing magical here. it’s creative, and interesting, but it’s just engineering with cheaper tools at lower risk: paper, pencil, and time.

  • The Foundations of Mathematics Are Simple. (really)

    The foundations of mathematics are so simple. Seriously. The fact that they even phrase the question as such is hysterical. The reason mathematics is so powerful a tool is precisely because its foundations are so trivial. Like discourse on property in ethics and law it is a word game because no one establishes sufficient limits under which the general term obscures a change in state. Math very simple. Correspondence (what remains and what does not), Types, operations, grammar, syntax. Generally we use mathematics for the purpose of scale independence. in other words, we remove the property of scale from the set of correspondences. But we might also pass from physical dimensions to logical dimensions (there are only so many possible physical dimensions). So now we leave dimensional correspondence. In mathematics we remove time correspondence by default, and only add it in when we specifically want to make use of it. In sets we remove temporal and causal correspondence … at least in most cases. So we can add and remove many different correspondences, and work only with reciprocal (self referencing) correspondence (constant relations). But there is nothing magic here at all except for the fields (results) that can be produced by these different definitions as we use them to describe the consequences of using different values in different orders. But if you say “I want to study the parsimony, limits, and full accounting, of this set of types using this set of operations, with the common grammar and syntax” that is pretty much what someone means when they say ‘foundations’. Most of the time. Sometimes they have no clue. There is nothing much more difficult here in the ‘foundations’ so to speak. What’s hard in mathematics is holding operations, grammar and syntax constant, what happens as we use different correspondences (dimensions), types, and values in combination with others and yet others, to produce these various kinds of patterns that represent phenomenon that we want to describe. And what mathematicians find beautiful is that there is a bizaare set of regularities (that they call symmetries or some variation thereof), that emerge once you becomes skilled in these models, just like some games become predictable if you see a certain pattern. But really, math is interesting because by describing regular patterns that produce complex phenomenon, we are able to describe things very accurately that we cannot ‘see’ without math to help us find it. Its seems mystical. It isn’t. Its just the adult version of mommy saying ‘boo’ to the toddler and the joy he gets from the stimulation. There is nothing magical here. it’s creative, and interesting, but it’s just engineering with cheaper tools at lower risk: paper, pencil, and time.