Theme: Decidability

  • “ONCE YOU GET ERRORS ON CANTOR’S LEVEL YOU NEED TO INVENT COMPUTABILITY TO RID Y

    “ONCE YOU GET ERRORS ON CANTOR’S LEVEL YOU NEED TO INVENT COMPUTABILITY TO RID YOURSELF OF THEM”

    ( by frank sock leibowitz)

    —“Humans have this deep-rooted tendency to imagine things have platonic essences, which stems from our imperative to use lossy compression efficiently manage our limited cognitive power. Once we invent a good compression algorithm (a heuristic) to encode information, we start mistaking the heuristic for reality, which convinces us that there are amazingly expressive elegant objects that describe reality to the fullest extent. We start believing π exists, circles are real, continuum exists, space-time is continuous. Thus we start believing reality is comprised of ideal objects that don’t require to be strictly constructible. Power of heuristics seduces us, if you will.

    Elaborate and extremely clever conjurations of non-constructible objects like infinite cardinalities seal the deal. Once you get errors on Cantor’s level, you probably need to invent computability theory to rid yourself of the lies.

    I suspect, mistaking pithy heuristics for reality, has to afflict every computer that’s not aware of being one—and that concordantly doesn’t understand the implications of computability. It probably really takes a programmer that’s also proficient in history, philosophy of law, philosophy of math, and philosophy of science to invent Testimonialism.

    Thanks for your amazing work Curt.”— Frank (Sock) Leibowitz


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 12:53:00 UTC

  • ELIMINATING PLATONIST ERROR —“Programming and more specifically computability

    ELIMINATING PLATONIST ERROR

    —“Programming and more specifically computability rids us of the platonist error to which we have an extreme predisposition”— Frank (Sock) Leibowitz.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 12:47:00 UTC

  • YES, IT APPEARS THAT WE NEEDED TO INVENT PROGRAMMING IN ORDER TO SOLVE THE PROBL

    YES, IT APPEARS THAT WE NEEDED TO INVENT PROGRAMMING IN ORDER TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES.

    —“Such clarity! Why has it taken this long for man to state this? Did we really need computers to tell truth this lucidly?”— Frank Leibowitz

    Excellent Question

    Actually, we needed strictly constructed law, and we discovered to strictly constructed programming first – it seems – by accident.

    The difference is that in the discipline of programming, the test of computability is stricter than in the discipline of law’s test of existential possibility.

    And that the range of problems we test for with computability is broader than the range of programs we test with law.

    -Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 11:11:00 UTC

  • EQUALITY IS AN ANTI-HUMAN METHOD OF DECIDABILITY (some argumentative weaponry) (

    EQUALITY IS AN ANTI-HUMAN METHOD OF DECIDABILITY

    (some argumentative weaponry) (important)

    Yes, men mature more slowly. Yes, in utero, mens minds are less ‘complete’ at birth. Yes, as less complete men’s minds are more compartmentalised. But it is this slower maturity from a position of fragmentation, that allows men to develop specializations and lower impulsivity necessary to form a hierarchical army of adaptive hunter-warrior-tool-makers, while early maturity allows women to develop a larger number of general skills earlier for the more similar role of gathering, child, and tribe-caring.

    All talk of equality is anti-human, since it is our division of labor and means of cooperation across specializations that demarcate us from animals dependent upon nature, to gods who transform nature to our will.

    We evolved to divide perception, cognition, advocacy, labor, and damage accumulation. Equality is for creatures that are food for other creatures. Predators that Cooperate gain extraordinary competitive ability by specialization in a division of perception, cognition, advocacy, labor, and damage accumulation.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-05 08:22:00 UTC

  • THE SPECTRUM OF PHILOSOPHICAL METHODS Philosophy = Decidability (choice) Truth (

    THE SPECTRUM OF PHILOSOPHICAL METHODS

    Philosophy = Decidability (choice)

    Truth (Perfect Testimony)

    …. Physical Science (the physical world)

    …. …. Social Science (human behavior)

    …. …. …. Natural Law (Philosophy)

    …. …. …. …. Moral Argument ( Philosophy )

    …. …. …. …. …. Religious Parable (Religion)

    …. …. …. …. …. …. Fantasy Literature ( experimental Imagination)

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Dream States ( experiential introsp.+ quietude )

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Dreams (random/free association)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-03 14:48:00 UTC

  • If one states moral decidability by experiential rather than intertemporal, he d

    If one states moral decidability by experiential rather than intertemporal, he demonstrates incompetence.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-31 15:28:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793112405572218884

    Reply addressees: @LilDocCollins @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793078994413510657


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793078994413510657

  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION = SOVEREIGNTY = MARKET FASCISM It’s just not obvious. If yo

    WESTERN CIVILIZATION = SOVEREIGNTY = MARKET FASCISM

    It’s just not obvious.

    If you start with Sovereignty as your method of decidability then the only possible method of human interaction is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange. And if you’re limited to that form of human interaction, then the only possible method of negotiating is truthfully, and the only method of cooperating at any scale is to create markets in everything: consumption, reproduction (marriage), production, commons, dispute resolution, and rule.

    Whether you call this construction and preservation of sovereignty or a mandatory market closed to alternative methods of rule or even criticism of this method of rule, the difference between method of decidability, or the institutions of decidability under that method of decidability, is merely tautological.

    Sovereignty deterministically produces markets in everything. And as a consequence we produce conditions of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy or Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-28 10:47:00 UTC

  • DECENTRALIZED DECISIONS ARE BEST WITH AUTHORITY ONLY HELPFUL WHEN QUESTIONS ARE

    DECENTRALIZED DECISIONS ARE BEST WITH AUTHORITY ONLY HELPFUL WHEN QUESTIONS ARE OTHERWISE UDECIDEABLE.

    (from Eli Harman )(worth repeating)

    I like markets and all – if suitably tempered by prohibition on what is demonstrably harmful.

    Offers and prices are the way of communicating positive values in the marketplace, with payment the authentication made that such communication is accurate.

    Threats are the means of communicating negative values in the marketplace with initiation of violent hostilities the authentication that such communication is accurate.

    Prices may be reckoned in money, or in blood.

    But either way, decentralized methods of decision making are generally best, with authority only better in select cases, and those too, vetted and delimited by decentralized means.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-28 10:42:00 UTC

  • DECIDABILITY PROVIDES POWER The never-ending problem of sentience, is choice. Kn

    DECIDABILITY PROVIDES POWER

    The never-ending problem of sentience, is choice.

    Knowledge provides decidability.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 18:04:00 UTC

  • “Tell me Dolores. If you could choose a bigger role for yourself, would you choo

    –“Tell me Dolores. If you could choose a bigger role for yourself, would you choose to be the hero? Or the villain?”—

    To an AI this question is undecidable. Only man can make this decision – one way or the other. An AI can answer is, is possible, and advisable questions. But it cannot answer preferential questions unless man gives it that ability.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-12 18:15:00 UTC