Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • Definitions: Philosophy, Truth, Methods of Argument (Worth Repeating)

    PHILOSOPHY The search for internally consistent means of decidability within a domain or context. TRUTH (PROPER) The most parsimonious most universal method of decidability regardless of context. SOME FORMS OF ARGUMENT

    • Analogy – a justification by shared constant relations.
    • Reason – a criticized and justified argument from experience.
    • Rational – an internally consistent, non contradictory argument from experience
    • Empirical – a correlative externally correspondent argument for the purpose of limiting human error bias and deceit.
    • Logical – an internally consistent, non contradictory, argument from set membership.
    • Analytic (Logical+Empirical) – an internally consistent, non contradictory, verbally parsimonious, argument from set membership incorporating the methods of the physical sciences.
    • Operational (Current Scientific) – an internally consistent, existentially possible, subjectively testable, causal, argument from possibility.

  • Definitions: Philosophy, Truth, Methods of Argument (Worth Repeating)

    PHILOSOPHY The search for internally consistent means of decidability within a domain or context. TRUTH (PROPER) The most parsimonious most universal method of decidability regardless of context. SOME FORMS OF ARGUMENT

    • Analogy – a justification by shared constant relations.
    • Reason – a criticized and justified argument from experience.
    • Rational – an internally consistent, non contradictory argument from experience
    • Empirical – a correlative externally correspondent argument for the purpose of limiting human error bias and deceit.
    • Logical – an internally consistent, non contradictory, argument from set membership.
    • Analytic (Logical+Empirical) – an internally consistent, non contradictory, verbally parsimonious, argument from set membership incorporating the methods of the physical sciences.
    • Operational (Current Scientific) – an internally consistent, existentially possible, subjectively testable, causal, argument from possibility.

  • The Operational Name of Infinity Is “Limit Supplied by Contextual Application” Because of Scale Independence.

      Defenders of infinity are simply saying that mathematical platonism is a useful mental shortcut to provide decidability for you in the absence of understanding, the way religion is a useful mental shortcut for decidability for others in the absence of understanding. Authority (decidability) in platonic mathematics and authority (decidability) in religion are provided by the same error: empty verbalisms. If mathematical decidability is constrained to correspondence with reality, we do not need the concept of limits because limits are determined by that which we measure. Yet as we use mathematics to create general theories of scale independence, we intentionally abandon scale dependence substituting arbitrarily definable *limits*. By applying mathematics of general rules under scale independence to some real world phenomenon, we merely substitute limit for precision necessary to achieve our ends (marginal indifference). As we add the dimension of movement to our measurements we add time to our general rules, which like distance we define as a constant. (though it is not, per relativity). As the universe consists entirely of curves, yet our deduction from measurements requires lines, and angles (geometry) with which we perform measurements of curves by the measurement of very small lines, we must define limits at which the marginal difference in the application of mathematics to a real world problem is below the margin of error in the prediction of any movement. (where we have reached the *limit* of the measurement necessary for correspondence. While measurement requires both time, and a sequence of operations, and while mathematical deduction requires time and a sequence of operations, cantor removed time and a sequence of operations. So instead of operationally creating *positional names* (numbers) at different RATES, as do gears, and therefore creating sets larger or smaller than one another at different rates, he said, platonically that they created different ‘infinities’. Despite the fact that no infinity is existentially possible, just that at scale independence we use infinity to mean *limited only by context of correspondence: quantity, operations, and time. This is just like using superman as an analogy for scale independence in the measurement of man. Literally, that’s all it is: supernaturalism. All mathematical statements must be constructable (operationally possible), just as all mathematical assertions must be logically deducible. (and you can see this in proof tools being developed in mathematics). Mathematics always was, and always will be, and only can be, the science of creating general rules of MEASUREMENT at scale independence. And the fact that math still, like logic was in the late 19th and all of the 20th century, lost in platonism is equivalent to government still being lost in religion. The only reason math is challenging is that it is not taught to people *truthfully*, but platonically. Otherwise the basis of math is very simple: this pebble corresponds to any constant category we can imagine, and each positional name we give to each additional pebble represents a ratio of the initial unit of measure: a pebble, and as such corresponds to reality. Hence why I consider mathematical platonism, philosophical platonism, and supernatural religion crimes against humanity: the manufacture of ignorance in the masses in order to create privileged priesthoods of the few through mere obscurantist language. Another authoritarian lie. Another priesthood. Yet I understand. I understand that heavy investment in comforting shortcuts is indeed an investment and that the cost of relearning to speak truthfully is just as painful for mathematicians, as it is for philosophers, and theologists. Curt Doolittle (Ps: oddly, my sister is sitting next to me working on common core standards designed to improve math skills) === Addendum by Frank === 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.

  • The Operational Name of Infinity Is “Limit Supplied by Contextual Application” Because of Scale Independence.

      Defenders of infinity are simply saying that mathematical platonism is a useful mental shortcut to provide decidability for you in the absence of understanding, the way religion is a useful mental shortcut for decidability for others in the absence of understanding. Authority (decidability) in platonic mathematics and authority (decidability) in religion are provided by the same error: empty verbalisms. If mathematical decidability is constrained to correspondence with reality, we do not need the concept of limits because limits are determined by that which we measure. Yet as we use mathematics to create general theories of scale independence, we intentionally abandon scale dependence substituting arbitrarily definable *limits*. By applying mathematics of general rules under scale independence to some real world phenomenon, we merely substitute limit for precision necessary to achieve our ends (marginal indifference). As we add the dimension of movement to our measurements we add time to our general rules, which like distance we define as a constant. (though it is not, per relativity). As the universe consists entirely of curves, yet our deduction from measurements requires lines, and angles (geometry) with which we perform measurements of curves by the measurement of very small lines, we must define limits at which the marginal difference in the application of mathematics to a real world problem is below the margin of error in the prediction of any movement. (where we have reached the *limit* of the measurement necessary for correspondence. While measurement requires both time, and a sequence of operations, and while mathematical deduction requires time and a sequence of operations, cantor removed time and a sequence of operations. So instead of operationally creating *positional names* (numbers) at different RATES, as do gears, and therefore creating sets larger or smaller than one another at different rates, he said, platonically that they created different ‘infinities’. Despite the fact that no infinity is existentially possible, just that at scale independence we use infinity to mean *limited only by context of correspondence: quantity, operations, and time. This is just like using superman as an analogy for scale independence in the measurement of man. Literally, that’s all it is: supernaturalism. All mathematical statements must be constructable (operationally possible), just as all mathematical assertions must be logically deducible. (and you can see this in proof tools being developed in mathematics). Mathematics always was, and always will be, and only can be, the science of creating general rules of MEASUREMENT at scale independence. And the fact that math still, like logic was in the late 19th and all of the 20th century, lost in platonism is equivalent to government still being lost in religion. The only reason math is challenging is that it is not taught to people *truthfully*, but platonically. Otherwise the basis of math is very simple: this pebble corresponds to any constant category we can imagine, and each positional name we give to each additional pebble represents a ratio of the initial unit of measure: a pebble, and as such corresponds to reality. Hence why I consider mathematical platonism, philosophical platonism, and supernatural religion crimes against humanity: the manufacture of ignorance in the masses in order to create privileged priesthoods of the few through mere obscurantist language. Another authoritarian lie. Another priesthood. Yet I understand. I understand that heavy investment in comforting shortcuts is indeed an investment and that the cost of relearning to speak truthfully is just as painful for mathematicians, as it is for philosophers, and theologists. Curt Doolittle (Ps: oddly, my sister is sitting next to me working on common core standards designed to improve math skills) === Addendum by Frank === 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.

  • The Good of Gods and Mythology in Decidability

    If truth is the language of the gods, as it must be, then why is not bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit blasphemy? —“There might be a god archetype, in some pantheon, for almost every significant human behavioral pattern. I think that’s a helpful learning utility.”—Adam Houseman Exactly. But that is Myth and literature, for purpose of teaching by analogy. And it is not only important but necessary. Why? Because the western man uses HYPERBOLE to exaggerate, in order to show the consequence of ‘if everyone did this then..’. Kant restates this as the categorical imperative. But it is just the western method of using exaggeration of traits of individuals in order to force every living soul to ask “what if everyone did this” or “what are the consequences of this behavior over time”. Gods help us create general rules of decidability within a context by means of hyperbole (isolation of causal properties.) This is why we need myths, stated hyperbolically, and literature stated analogically: to create general rules, easily employed in a wide variety of circumstances, so that we may, through the thousands of little decisions every day, guide our civilization into that which we seek: parity with the gods.

  • The Good of Gods and Mythology in Decidability

    If truth is the language of the gods, as it must be, then why is not bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit blasphemy? —“There might be a god archetype, in some pantheon, for almost every significant human behavioral pattern. I think that’s a helpful learning utility.”—Adam Houseman Exactly. But that is Myth and literature, for purpose of teaching by analogy. And it is not only important but necessary. Why? Because the western man uses HYPERBOLE to exaggerate, in order to show the consequence of ‘if everyone did this then..’. Kant restates this as the categorical imperative. But it is just the western method of using exaggeration of traits of individuals in order to force every living soul to ask “what if everyone did this” or “what are the consequences of this behavior over time”. Gods help us create general rules of decidability within a context by means of hyperbole (isolation of causal properties.) This is why we need myths, stated hyperbolically, and literature stated analogically: to create general rules, easily employed in a wide variety of circumstances, so that we may, through the thousands of little decisions every day, guide our civilization into that which we seek: parity with the gods.

  • Philosophy: Decision Within Context, vs Truth: Decision Across Contexts

    Chris, Well, I can understand, but when we make aggregate expressions of any group, say men, women, class, civilization, we are by definition speaking of distributions, right? (And did you know we can tell a great deal about a person if he or she assumes that or jumps to NAXALT?) And when you work at the level of aggregation that we call the the cultural enlightenments, we can in fact, make truthful statements about aggregates. We can do that by analyzing the method of argument, and costs demanded by that argument, and the transfer of capital (in its broadest) sense, and from that state the group evolutionary strategy. (it may not seem so but under analysis that is what we can easily discover). Now, if you work in those topics you work on moral literature, right? what is the purpose of moral literature? To provide intuitionistic general rules of decidability within a given context for one to a portfolio of objectives -stated or otherwise. You can, within the study of those moral literatures make your own assumption of what costs and returns are moral or immoral. I would have to ask you a series of questions about a subject you understood well in order to ascertain your moral accounting so to speak. But we can assess this of everyone this way. Or we can assess it by current political inclination as does say, Haidt. Now, I do not work in literature, but in measurement. In mathematics we measure constant relations of constant categories. In economics we can measure changes in capital. In law we can measure conflict over property. In war we can measure conflict over interests. In group evolutionary strategies we can measure conflict by all of the above. Now, this is somewhat problematic because while in math we hold constant categories. in physics we hold constant intermediary categories (patterns, or as mathematicians say, symmetries or geometries). In economics we hold constant categories only in capital changes (of all kinds), and in some very tenuous intermediary categories (commodities for example) thanks to the commensurability of prices. In matters of conflict we can measure constant categories of torts using property of various allocations. And we can then tie the degree of precision in legal disputes to the costs and velocity of capital and study changes in capital as a consequence. In other words it is quite possible to make aggregated statements of group evolutionary strategies just as we do nations and states. Now if we work in moral literature, we can, as I stated above, assume our own experiential measure, our own intermediary measure, our own capital measure, or our own long term capital measure (evolution competition). And we produce our own decidability at some degree along that spectrum. Where do you do so? What is your method of measurement, and what reproductive or group evolutionary strategy do you employ in that means of decidability? I can’t guess yours but we know that people in academia self-select subject matter by intuitionistic agreement. Just as I would select something measurable rather than experiential. Well, I do it at each point, and then compare. There exist three methods of coercion (means of influence). Gossip/ostracization/inclusion, remuneration/bribery/exchange, violence/threat/punishment. There exist corresponding methods of rule by those methods of coercion: religion and narrative, law and punishment, exchange and credit. And they evolve in that order due to the increasing demand for precision means of influence as the division of perception, knowledge, labor,and advocacy increases. We need more precise organizational tools just as we need more precise tools at below and beyond human scale. We need different precisions of decidability. So it is possible to write in occult, religious, mythic, literary, historical, legal, ‘scientific’, and ‘testimonial’ terms. Just as it is possible to measure in increasing levels of precision. And meanwhile, although most prophets theologians, philosophers, public intellectuals, and politicians (and marketers), want to distribute means of obtaining discounts or premiums in exchange for cooperation: providing means of decidability in various contexts – some of us have a very different job: providing means of decidability across contexts. That is the difference between philosophy and truth. Philosophy within a context to rally cooperation, and truth across contexts to (a) preserve cooperation in matters of failure through restitution (b) preserve cooperation because the most useful means of predation is *words*: Ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism ( Theology, Pseudo-rationalism, Pseudoscience), and outright deceit. And we can distribute those falsehoods interpersonaly, to groups, by simple media, or by mass media. So my job is natural law: decidability in matters of conflict within context, and truth, the means of decidability regardless of context. The word requires janitors and grave diggers, and the world requires those who create tests of truth. Of violence, remuneration, and words, which is the most visible? which is the most prevalent? And by what methods did those in the enlightenment attempt to obtain their ends – continuation of their group evolutionary strategy, using the means of coercion and rule at their habituated disposal? Next, how do we test truthful speech? Well, there are only so many dimensions to reality that humans can act within: identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, reciprocity (morality), full accounting (limits, parsimony, and scope). So just as we can create mathematical expressions, logical expressions, we can create what I might call legal expressions, in a certain grammar that prohibit our ability to engage in conflation. This method of truth is often referred to as deflationary, promissory, or ‘scientific’. So then what is that discipline we call science? The creation of instruments of measurement by which we reduce to analogy to perception, that which we cannot perceive, or that which we perceive with bias, error, and wishful thinking. And then we must launder that measurement by warranties of due diligence in all six dimensions of reality that humans can speak of. Have we done so we do not necessarily speak the truth – the most parsimonious description humanly possible – but we speak as truthfully as is humanly possible with the language at our disposal. But in the end, we can always measure if not quantitatively but qualitatively, the changes in capital produced by our actions, norms, traditions, religions, laws, institutions, and wars. And violence is only the most visible means of preying upon one another. It is the verbal justification various pseudosciences under rule of credit that have taken the place of physical theft and harm. Now, back to your original reaction: for various reasons the second scientific revolution taking place largely in Germany failed because of the war. But the combination of the industrial revolution, the great depression, over immigration, fiat money, speculative credit, and expanded political enfranchisement, plus the advent of mass media, made it easier to distribute the pseudoscience of Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, and the Frankfurt school, to a new consumer class under the unchecked assumption of constant economic growth, and readily taken up by political parties, the academy, financial institutions, and business and industry. The great question of this experiment (which took place int eh 20’s) was whether we were accumulating risks for short term gains, or whether we would spend down accumulated western capital in all its forms by doing so. And as of 2008 we know the answer. And as every economist and central bank in the world knows – we are out of the ability to survive the next shock. So if, in my work, I must render a judgement I can offer a great deal of criticism of the anglos (I do daily), a little of the germans – although for relying on poetry and moral literature they seem to have done just fine; or the french, who are currently experiencing the consequences of their folly. The Russians who understand theirs – painfully. Or should I spend most of my time criticizing the victors whose thinkers brought about the current state of affairs? I criticize everyone. The great war was equivalent to the bronze age collapse, and the Justinian plague. It’s just that the benefits of the incomplete german second enlightenment fell in our laps when Truth is enough. It is just, like law, via negativa – uncomfortable. The question is, what do we do about it? And that is what I work on. I know one thing though. That it is possible to complete the scientific revolution, and the consequences of truth in social science will be even greater than the consequences in physical science. And hopefully that is enough. Cheers Curt Doolittle

  • Philosophy: Decision Within Context, vs Truth: Decision Across Contexts

    Chris, Well, I can understand, but when we make aggregate expressions of any group, say men, women, class, civilization, we are by definition speaking of distributions, right? (And did you know we can tell a great deal about a person if he or she assumes that or jumps to NAXALT?) And when you work at the level of aggregation that we call the the cultural enlightenments, we can in fact, make truthful statements about aggregates. We can do that by analyzing the method of argument, and costs demanded by that argument, and the transfer of capital (in its broadest) sense, and from that state the group evolutionary strategy. (it may not seem so but under analysis that is what we can easily discover). Now, if you work in those topics you work on moral literature, right? what is the purpose of moral literature? To provide intuitionistic general rules of decidability within a given context for one to a portfolio of objectives -stated or otherwise. You can, within the study of those moral literatures make your own assumption of what costs and returns are moral or immoral. I would have to ask you a series of questions about a subject you understood well in order to ascertain your moral accounting so to speak. But we can assess this of everyone this way. Or we can assess it by current political inclination as does say, Haidt. Now, I do not work in literature, but in measurement. In mathematics we measure constant relations of constant categories. In economics we can measure changes in capital. In law we can measure conflict over property. In war we can measure conflict over interests. In group evolutionary strategies we can measure conflict by all of the above. Now, this is somewhat problematic because while in math we hold constant categories. in physics we hold constant intermediary categories (patterns, or as mathematicians say, symmetries or geometries). In economics we hold constant categories only in capital changes (of all kinds), and in some very tenuous intermediary categories (commodities for example) thanks to the commensurability of prices. In matters of conflict we can measure constant categories of torts using property of various allocations. And we can then tie the degree of precision in legal disputes to the costs and velocity of capital and study changes in capital as a consequence. In other words it is quite possible to make aggregated statements of group evolutionary strategies just as we do nations and states. Now if we work in moral literature, we can, as I stated above, assume our own experiential measure, our own intermediary measure, our own capital measure, or our own long term capital measure (evolution competition). And we produce our own decidability at some degree along that spectrum. Where do you do so? What is your method of measurement, and what reproductive or group evolutionary strategy do you employ in that means of decidability? I can’t guess yours but we know that people in academia self-select subject matter by intuitionistic agreement. Just as I would select something measurable rather than experiential. Well, I do it at each point, and then compare. There exist three methods of coercion (means of influence). Gossip/ostracization/inclusion, remuneration/bribery/exchange, violence/threat/punishment. There exist corresponding methods of rule by those methods of coercion: religion and narrative, law and punishment, exchange and credit. And they evolve in that order due to the increasing demand for precision means of influence as the division of perception, knowledge, labor,and advocacy increases. We need more precise organizational tools just as we need more precise tools at below and beyond human scale. We need different precisions of decidability. So it is possible to write in occult, religious, mythic, literary, historical, legal, ‘scientific’, and ‘testimonial’ terms. Just as it is possible to measure in increasing levels of precision. And meanwhile, although most prophets theologians, philosophers, public intellectuals, and politicians (and marketers), want to distribute means of obtaining discounts or premiums in exchange for cooperation: providing means of decidability in various contexts – some of us have a very different job: providing means of decidability across contexts. That is the difference between philosophy and truth. Philosophy within a context to rally cooperation, and truth across contexts to (a) preserve cooperation in matters of failure through restitution (b) preserve cooperation because the most useful means of predation is *words*: Ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism ( Theology, Pseudo-rationalism, Pseudoscience), and outright deceit. And we can distribute those falsehoods interpersonaly, to groups, by simple media, or by mass media. So my job is natural law: decidability in matters of conflict within context, and truth, the means of decidability regardless of context. The word requires janitors and grave diggers, and the world requires those who create tests of truth. Of violence, remuneration, and words, which is the most visible? which is the most prevalent? And by what methods did those in the enlightenment attempt to obtain their ends – continuation of their group evolutionary strategy, using the means of coercion and rule at their habituated disposal? Next, how do we test truthful speech? Well, there are only so many dimensions to reality that humans can act within: identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, reciprocity (morality), full accounting (limits, parsimony, and scope). So just as we can create mathematical expressions, logical expressions, we can create what I might call legal expressions, in a certain grammar that prohibit our ability to engage in conflation. This method of truth is often referred to as deflationary, promissory, or ‘scientific’. So then what is that discipline we call science? The creation of instruments of measurement by which we reduce to analogy to perception, that which we cannot perceive, or that which we perceive with bias, error, and wishful thinking. And then we must launder that measurement by warranties of due diligence in all six dimensions of reality that humans can speak of. Have we done so we do not necessarily speak the truth – the most parsimonious description humanly possible – but we speak as truthfully as is humanly possible with the language at our disposal. But in the end, we can always measure if not quantitatively but qualitatively, the changes in capital produced by our actions, norms, traditions, religions, laws, institutions, and wars. And violence is only the most visible means of preying upon one another. It is the verbal justification various pseudosciences under rule of credit that have taken the place of physical theft and harm. Now, back to your original reaction: for various reasons the second scientific revolution taking place largely in Germany failed because of the war. But the combination of the industrial revolution, the great depression, over immigration, fiat money, speculative credit, and expanded political enfranchisement, plus the advent of mass media, made it easier to distribute the pseudoscience of Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, and the Frankfurt school, to a new consumer class under the unchecked assumption of constant economic growth, and readily taken up by political parties, the academy, financial institutions, and business and industry. The great question of this experiment (which took place int eh 20’s) was whether we were accumulating risks for short term gains, or whether we would spend down accumulated western capital in all its forms by doing so. And as of 2008 we know the answer. And as every economist and central bank in the world knows – we are out of the ability to survive the next shock. So if, in my work, I must render a judgement I can offer a great deal of criticism of the anglos (I do daily), a little of the germans – although for relying on poetry and moral literature they seem to have done just fine; or the french, who are currently experiencing the consequences of their folly. The Russians who understand theirs – painfully. Or should I spend most of my time criticizing the victors whose thinkers brought about the current state of affairs? I criticize everyone. The great war was equivalent to the bronze age collapse, and the Justinian plague. It’s just that the benefits of the incomplete german second enlightenment fell in our laps when Truth is enough. It is just, like law, via negativa – uncomfortable. The question is, what do we do about it? And that is what I work on. I know one thing though. That it is possible to complete the scientific revolution, and the consequences of truth in social science will be even greater than the consequences in physical science. And hopefully that is enough. Cheers Curt Doolittle

  • THE GOOD OF GODS AND MYTHOLOGY IN DECIDABILITY If truth is the language of the g

    THE GOOD OF GODS AND MYTHOLOGY IN DECIDABILITY

    If truth is the language of the gods, as it must be, then why is not bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit blasphemy?

    —“There might be a god archetype, in some pantheon, for almost every significant human behavioral pattern. I think that’s a helpful learning utility.”—Alex Houchens

    Exactly. But that is Myth and literature, for purpose of teaching by analogy. And it is not only important but necessary. Why? Because the western man uses HYPERBOLE to exaggerate, in order to show the consequence of ‘if everyone did this then..’. Kant restates this as the categorical imperative. But it is just the western method of using exaggeration of traits of individuals in order to force every living soul to ask “what if everyone did this” or “what are the consequences of this behavior over time”.

    Gods help us create general rules of decidability within a context by means of hyperbole (isolation of causal properties.)

    This is why we need myths, stated hyperbolically, and literature stated analogically: to create general rules, easily employed in a wide variety of circumstances, so that we may, through the thousands of little decisions every day, guide our civilization into that which we seek: parity with the gods.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 19:44:00 UTC

  • KNOWING WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. We use law (common law of torts) to decide ma

    KNOWING WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.

    We use law (common law of torts) to decide matters of conflict. That is the total function of the law. (Yes, that’s just the fact of it)

    The practice of law evolved to standardize punishments in order to reduce retaliation cycles between groups that had evolved different punishments (yes, that’s just a fact of it)z

    The reason for the standardization was to prevent conflict was to preserve the income from taxation, and the cost of policing the territory and economy, including market for productive populations.

    Law exists as a set of records. Those records consist of decisions. Those decisions include reasons for those decisions. Those decisions are necessary to resolve conflicts between individuals.

    While we use the term ‘law’ for many purposes, the term can only mean common law – (post action). Command of dictators (direction to act or not to), command of legislatures(legislation) – direction to act or not to, and command of regulators (administration of insurance by the state) – (prior constraint), do not constitute law. They merely are enforced as if they are law.

    Whenever someone says something is like something else, it means he does not know what constitutes the thing in the first place.

    WHile it is possible to use analogies for the purpose of establishing definitions, one cannot treat an analogy as a premise for the purpose of deductions from the analogy.

    Instead, one can use analogies to establish understanding (definitions) then to clarify that understanding (definition) through operational construction (proof of possibility, test of parsimony).

    From that parsimonious definition it may be possible to continue to produce constructions that define operations that change state between that which we have defined.

    But analogies are the primary reason that people overestimate their understanding, and it is the primary means of deceit.

    The word ‘is’ and all variations of it (the verb to-be) can only mean ‘exists as’. Otherwise it is equivalent to using the word ‘thing’: meaning ‘i dont know or understand this reference.’

    So, no. If you understand what you speak, then you can speak it and argue with it. If you cannot understand it you may speak it, but you cannot argue it.

    It’s not complicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-18 14:48:00 UTC