Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • PHILOSOPHY The search for internally consistent means of decidability within a d

    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 similarity.

    Reason – a criticized and justified argument from experience.

    Rational – an internally consistent, non contradictory argument from experience

    Logical – an internally consistent, non contradictory, argument from set membership.

    Analytic – an internally consistent, non contradictory, verbally parsimonious, argument from set membership incorporating the methods of the physical sciences.

    Empirical – a correlative externally correspondent argument for the purpose of limiting human error bias and deceit.

    Operational – an internally consistent, existentially possible, subjectively testable, causal, argument from possibility.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-04 09:11:00 UTC

  • Your narrative is exceptional – as wisdom. But wisdom cannot be converted into l

    Your narrative is exceptional – as wisdom. But wisdom cannot be converted into law unless in a formal, deflationary argument.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-02 21:32:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/837415441706418176

    Reply addressees: @nntaleb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/837123578634125312

    IN REPLY TO:

    @nntaleb

    Skin in the game, almost finished https://t.co/6sEm1JDeWg

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/837123578634125312

  • James Augustus I suspect one of the factors contributing to deflationary languag

    James Augustus

    I suspect one of the factors contributing to deflationary language in ethics, law and science is that we needed a rational, empirical means of decidability in matters concerning rule, organization and extra-familial cooperation.

    (Note that legal realism, contractualism and truth telling (science and it’s precursors) coincided with conquest and colonization of non-kin groups. Myth (context driven means of decidability) doesn’t scale past regulating/adjudicating tribal and familia affairs; Natural Law does because it serves as the only universally decidable means of adjudication between heterogeneous peoples.)

    On the institutional level, the West was blessed with a geography that produced a high frequency of warfare in a manner that made institutional monopolies evolutionarily disadvantageous. An institution was able to survive if it wasn’t conflated with the current power structure (think of the Church and it’s relation to political power during the Middle Ages). In othewords, the incentive for institutions was to secure their existence by remaining autonomous/separated from the institutions of rule scince there was constant and frequent shifts in political power—the opposite of China.

    These are just loose thoughts. I’ve been mulling this over in hopes that I can write a more formal evolutionary argument for Western Dynamism.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-01 18:51:00 UTC

  • The foundations of mathematics are so simple. Seriously. The fact that they even

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-01 15:22:00 UTC

  • It would be interesting to debate some of the terms Stephen uses. As far as I kn

    It would be interesting to debate some of the terms Stephen uses.

    As far as I know, only natural numbers exist. Only one mathematics exists. Many operational logics exist – limited only by the axiomatic limits we place upon them by Types (constant relations), Operations (transformations), and Grammar (structure of operations). Stephen is almost always talking of operational logics of arbitrary categories, not mathematics of correspondent and constant relations.

    This difference is one of the two principle reasons why people are awed by mathematics – which is quite simple. The first is the apparent mystery of the limits of our prediction from constant relations. The second, illustrated above, is the misrepresentation of the real, correspondent, constant relations of mathematics, and the ideal, arbitrary, constant relations, of operational logic.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-26 14:35:00 UTC

  • Should Propertarians Be Considered Libertarians? Why Or Why Not?

    ”Propertarian” was originally used in a derogatory sense to refer to the those people for whom all questions of social decidability were reduced to questions of property. Over time this has evolved into an accurate description of the libertarians of various stripes.

    Today we have a branch of political theory (to which I’m one of the major contributors), we specifically call ‘Propertarianism”, where we have used the reduction of all questions of ethics, morality, politics, economics, to questions of property, and as a consequence created a formal grammar of Natural Law – which while wordy and terminologically rigorous is very hard for courts to interpret or legislators to construct dishonestly.

    However, in the process of doing so we discovered that the two branches of libertarianism were irreconcilably opposed.

    1) the first of which we would consider jeffersonian constitutionalism – the attempt to create a written constitution derived from natural law (an inclusive law) – with the retention of the enlightenment demand for the production of commons; And so we use the term “Propertarian” and not libertarian.

    and;

    2) the second of which we would consider the attempt to apply eastern european Jewish law (a separatist law) to natural law absent commons – such that each branch contained an entirely different ethical and moral basis. This group varies between the use of the terms anarcho-capitalism and libertarian.

    So we now separate high trust anglo saxon natural law of the classical liberal period (Anglo common law), from the low trust eastern european law of the borderland period (Ukraine/Russia).

    This same division applies to the term Austrian Economics, which we separate into the Christian Mengerian attempt to bring the calculus to economics, and the Jewish and Misesian attempt to state economics as an axiomatic system – effectively as law.

    We can view the Anglo Empirical, German Rationalist, and Jewish Hermeneutic traditions as conceptual boxes each culture has a very hard time eliminating its dependence upon.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Should-propertarians-be-considered-libertarians-Why-or-why-not

  • Should Propertarians Be Considered Libertarians? Why Or Why Not?

    ”Propertarian” was originally used in a derogatory sense to refer to the those people for whom all questions of social decidability were reduced to questions of property. Over time this has evolved into an accurate description of the libertarians of various stripes.

    Today we have a branch of political theory (to which I’m one of the major contributors), we specifically call ‘Propertarianism”, where we have used the reduction of all questions of ethics, morality, politics, economics, to questions of property, and as a consequence created a formal grammar of Natural Law – which while wordy and terminologically rigorous is very hard for courts to interpret or legislators to construct dishonestly.

    However, in the process of doing so we discovered that the two branches of libertarianism were irreconcilably opposed.

    1) the first of which we would consider jeffersonian constitutionalism – the attempt to create a written constitution derived from natural law (an inclusive law) – with the retention of the enlightenment demand for the production of commons; And so we use the term “Propertarian” and not libertarian.

    and;

    2) the second of which we would consider the attempt to apply eastern european Jewish law (a separatist law) to natural law absent commons – such that each branch contained an entirely different ethical and moral basis. This group varies between the use of the terms anarcho-capitalism and libertarian.

    So we now separate high trust anglo saxon natural law of the classical liberal period (Anglo common law), from the low trust eastern european law of the borderland period (Ukraine/Russia).

    This same division applies to the term Austrian Economics, which we separate into the Christian Mengerian attempt to bring the calculus to economics, and the Jewish and Misesian attempt to state economics as an axiomatic system – effectively as law.

    We can view the Anglo Empirical, German Rationalist, and Jewish Hermeneutic traditions as conceptual boxes each culture has a very hard time eliminating its dependence upon.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Should-propertarians-be-considered-libertarians-Why-or-why-not

  • IMPORTANT- ON TERMS In 2009 when I both sensed that I’d come up with a solution

    IMPORTANT- ON TERMS

    In 2009 when I both sensed that I’d come up with a solution to government, but needed to improve my understanding, the first thing I did was write a glossary.

    I combed every glossary of terms from economics, politics, social science, and philosophy, and substantially refined many of them, so that I could be sure I was speaking from definitions not assumptoins of meaning.

    My glossary alone is something like 80k words. And while I probably could cut some of it, I can also expand it substantially with the terminology that I use today.

    It reminds me of reading encyclopedias. It’s not so much that I remember everything in the encyclopedia (although honestly, I largely do) but it’s that the act of reading all those different topics forces you mind to form a series of associations, and counter associations, such that … like the use of Series i use in propertarianism, or like ‘fields’ in mathematics, or like any ‘one of these things is not like the others’ games. It is very hard for falsehoods to survive without at least questioning them.

    Most people, when they engage in any discourse on cooperation: ethics, morals, politics, economics, group strategy, do so from a position of ignorance of the terms they use, and their use is terribly conflationary. This means that they generally are making a very simple statement with pretentious words that they don’t understand.

    Our ‘grammar’ (our proofs) make that very hard to get away with.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-23 13:11:00 UTC

  • Dear Miseducated World: Logic is at Least Ternary – not Binary

    DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD: Logic is at least ternary, not binary. (Meaning three states, not two) …………… FALSE…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE FALSE…..FALSE…….FALSE……UNDECIDABLE TRUE……FALES…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE UNDEC…FALSE…….UNDEC…..UNDECIDABLE MATHEMATICS In mathematics, which for millennia was unfortunately the gold standard of logic, we use the word true when we mean either “balanced” (retaining constant relations), or we mean “proven” (possible to demonstrate), because in mathematics we create proofs of possibility rather than statements of truth. We may claim that we speak truthfully that we have constructed a proof. But mathematics consists of operations, deductions, inferences and guesswork, by which we identify means of demonstrating the possibility and necessity of a series of constant relations (ratios). COMPUTER SCIENCE In the gold standard of reasoning: computer science – when we refer to values, we call this same sequence true, false, and null (unknown). So in computer science, we either possess sufficient information to state something is provable (true or false), or unprovable (false), or undecidable (lacking the information). FORMAL LOGIC I’ll avoid deep discussion of  formal logic (sets) because in my view, like all game theory, beyond use in very simple human perceivable scales, it’s been a waste of a century. I mean. I can dismantle the liars paradox in five minutes or less. it was a wasted century. PHYSICAL SCIENCE In sciences we use the terms False, Possibly True (an hypothesis, theory, or law), and Undecidable. Between the choice of true and false, it is false that we know with certainty. Truth always remains uncertain in all but the most simple of questions. EPISTEMOLOGY In epistemology we say something is knowingly false, possibly true, and undecidable, or unknown. In epistemology, just as in science, we must determine if an argument survives attempts to falsify it. If it is true, then we can decide if it is possible. I it is possible then we can decide if it is preferable. If it is preferable without causing harm to others, then we have determined that it is good. MORALITY, PHILOSOPHY, AND THEOLOGY In morality, philosophy, theology, we say (lie) that if we can find an excuse for something (a justification) it is true, or moral, or good. When that only means that according to the established norms, scriptures, and laws. in other words, one is free of blame if he can justify his actions as permissible, moral or good. In morality philosophy and theology, we attempt to survive justification. LAW When we encounter LAW we use the jury, and debate between two parties, and moderated by a judge, to test both whether we are justified under law, and whether our testimony and our arguments are believable. In law we attempt to survive the battle between three forces: the law as written, the standards of rational behavior of the jury, the logical testing of your statements by the judge, and the subjective testing of your truthfulness by the jury. And in case you don’t know this, most cases are decided by the test of truthfulness, which is why american courts are so useful for commerce. The first sin of american law is failure of informational reciprocity. Failure and error are forgivable. Violation of reciprocity is not. HIERARCHY OF CERTAINTY … FALSE, that which does not survive tests of falsification. … … TRUE, that which survives all tests of falsification … … … PROVEN, that which survives tests of possibility. … … … … UNDECIDABLE that which cannot be decided. THE TRUTH TABLE OF CERTAINTY F:False, T:True, P:Provable, U:Undecidable …..F…..T…..P…..U F…F…..F…..F…..U T…F….*T*…P…..U P…F…..P…..P…..U U..F…..U….U…..U

  • Dear Miseducated World: Logic is at Least Ternary – not Binary

    DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD: Logic is at least ternary, not binary. (Meaning three states, not two) …………… FALSE…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE FALSE…..FALSE…….FALSE……UNDECIDABLE TRUE……FALES…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE UNDEC…FALSE…….UNDEC…..UNDECIDABLE MATHEMATICS In mathematics, which for millennia was unfortunately the gold standard of logic, we use the word true when we mean either “balanced” (retaining constant relations), or we mean “proven” (possible to demonstrate), because in mathematics we create proofs of possibility rather than statements of truth. We may claim that we speak truthfully that we have constructed a proof. But mathematics consists of operations, deductions, inferences and guesswork, by which we identify means of demonstrating the possibility and necessity of a series of constant relations (ratios). COMPUTER SCIENCE In the gold standard of reasoning: computer science – when we refer to values, we call this same sequence true, false, and null (unknown). So in computer science, we either possess sufficient information to state something is provable (true or false), or unprovable (false), or undecidable (lacking the information). FORMAL LOGIC I’ll avoid deep discussion of  formal logic (sets) because in my view, like all game theory, beyond use in very simple human perceivable scales, it’s been a waste of a century. I mean. I can dismantle the liars paradox in five minutes or less. it was a wasted century. PHYSICAL SCIENCE In sciences we use the terms False, Possibly True (an hypothesis, theory, or law), and Undecidable. Between the choice of true and false, it is false that we know with certainty. Truth always remains uncertain in all but the most simple of questions. EPISTEMOLOGY In epistemology we say something is knowingly false, possibly true, and undecidable, or unknown. In epistemology, just as in science, we must determine if an argument survives attempts to falsify it. If it is true, then we can decide if it is possible. I it is possible then we can decide if it is preferable. If it is preferable without causing harm to others, then we have determined that it is good. MORALITY, PHILOSOPHY, AND THEOLOGY In morality, philosophy, theology, we say (lie) that if we can find an excuse for something (a justification) it is true, or moral, or good. When that only means that according to the established norms, scriptures, and laws. in other words, one is free of blame if he can justify his actions as permissible, moral or good. In morality philosophy and theology, we attempt to survive justification. LAW When we encounter LAW we use the jury, and debate between two parties, and moderated by a judge, to test both whether we are justified under law, and whether our testimony and our arguments are believable. In law we attempt to survive the battle between three forces: the law as written, the standards of rational behavior of the jury, the logical testing of your statements by the judge, and the subjective testing of your truthfulness by the jury. And in case you don’t know this, most cases are decided by the test of truthfulness, which is why american courts are so useful for commerce. The first sin of american law is failure of informational reciprocity. Failure and error are forgivable. Violation of reciprocity is not. HIERARCHY OF CERTAINTY … FALSE, that which does not survive tests of falsification. … … TRUE, that which survives all tests of falsification … … … PROVEN, that which survives tests of possibility. … … … … UNDECIDABLE that which cannot be decided. THE TRUTH TABLE OF CERTAINTY F:False, T:True, P:Provable, U:Undecidable …..F…..T…..P…..U F…F…..F…..F…..U T…F….*T*…P…..U P…F…..P…..P…..U U..F…..U….U…..U