Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • WE HAD EPISTEMOLOGY BACKWARD Instances of Deduction(informationally sufficient)

    WE HAD EPISTEMOLOGY BACKWARD

    Instances of Deduction(informationally sufficient) like instances of Apriorism(survives non-contradiction) occur only as a special case of hypothesizing. And hypotheses occur as a special case of overlapping ‘search results’ (free association). Once we identify a possible search result we criticize it by trying first to justify it (find a potential route to it), and then try to refine that route (test it). This act of refining sometimes results in questionable, sometimes in reasonable, sometimes rational, sometimes in logical, and sometimes in mathematical justifications (potential routes).

    There is but one universal method and it consists of:

    Free association > Pattern

    Wayfinding mental criticism > Hypothesis,

    Experimental criticism > Theory,

    Practical criticism > Law

    Perfect Parsimony > Name

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-20 04:34:00 UTC

  • Think of it this way: Market Trades = Subjective. Legal Dispute resolution = Obj

    Think of it this way: Market Trades = Subjective. Legal Dispute resolution = Objective.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 11:31:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/777832606176010240

    Reply addressees: @ne0colonial

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/777828172494536704

    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/777828172494536704

  • value is undecidable (subjective) truth is decidable (objective). In matters of

    value is undecidable (subjective) truth is decidable (objective). In matters of conflict resolution (law) we rely on objective.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 11:30:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/777832314483183616

    Reply addressees: @ne0colonial

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/777828172494536704

    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/777828172494536704

  • Philosophy(choice) vs Logic(decidability)

    —“CURT, YOUR CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY IS AN INTERESTING PHILOSOPHY”— Irony appreciated. Even if it’s just a play on words. The question is not whether it’s a personal philosophy (means of PREFERENTIAL or UTILITARIAN choice) but whether its a method of universal DECIDABILITY independent of preferences and utility. (truth). In other words, is it a “Law” of nature, as in a “Natural Law”. Propositions need only be reciprocally decidable . If they are decidable, then the question is why one would attempt to demonstrate that they are not? As in law, which is the origin of western philosophy, not until late conflated with religion, decidability is provided by (a) deception and (b) involuntary transfer. As far as I can tell, this is the purpose of most UNDECIDABLE philosophy, like religious law before it: fraud. Which is not what I expected when I started working on these issues. The philosophers are often circumventing costs, and transfers, and claiming that they’re pursuing truth. What I find, is that they are all too often, engaged in fraud. So instead of testing for truth, I first test for theft. This is the difference between the philosophical search for AGREEMENT and the legal search for theft. Ergo, It is law that is our western philosophy(prohibition, decidability, criticism) and everything else is religion (aspiration, negotiation, justification). The west didn’t conflate truth, law, politics, and religion. We have always preserved competition as means of ongoing calculation, and thereby avoided stagnation. But Egyptian-Judeo-Christian-Muslim totalitarianism did the opposite. They created authority (monopoly) by conflating different disciplines with different purposes. This is why Egypt froze, jews contributed nothing until they were forced by Europeans into the enlightenment, Muslims appear to have taken credit but not developed anything, and certainly, as soon as the common people adopted it, were insulated, and why the west stagnated for a thousand years, albeit under constant onslaught of the commercial Mediterranean by Muslim pirates and war. Seek first fraud, not agreement. Our civic cult is law. We are prosecutors. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non-Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • Philosophy(choice) vs Logic(decidability)

    —“CURT, YOUR CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY IS AN INTERESTING PHILOSOPHY”— Irony appreciated. Even if it’s just a play on words. The question is not whether it’s a personal philosophy (means of PREFERENTIAL or UTILITARIAN choice) but whether its a method of universal DECIDABILITY independent of preferences and utility. (truth). In other words, is it a “Law” of nature, as in a “Natural Law”. Propositions need only be reciprocally decidable . If they are decidable, then the question is why one would attempt to demonstrate that they are not? As in law, which is the origin of western philosophy, not until late conflated with religion, decidability is provided by (a) deception and (b) involuntary transfer. As far as I can tell, this is the purpose of most UNDECIDABLE philosophy, like religious law before it: fraud. Which is not what I expected when I started working on these issues. The philosophers are often circumventing costs, and transfers, and claiming that they’re pursuing truth. What I find, is that they are all too often, engaged in fraud. So instead of testing for truth, I first test for theft. This is the difference between the philosophical search for AGREEMENT and the legal search for theft. Ergo, It is law that is our western philosophy(prohibition, decidability, criticism) and everything else is religion (aspiration, negotiation, justification). The west didn’t conflate truth, law, politics, and religion. We have always preserved competition as means of ongoing calculation, and thereby avoided stagnation. But Egyptian-Judeo-Christian-Muslim totalitarianism did the opposite. They created authority (monopoly) by conflating different disciplines with different purposes. This is why Egypt froze, jews contributed nothing until they were forced by Europeans into the enlightenment, Muslims appear to have taken credit but not developed anything, and certainly, as soon as the common people adopted it, were insulated, and why the west stagnated for a thousand years, albeit under constant onslaught of the commercial Mediterranean by Muslim pirates and war. Seek first fraud, not agreement. Our civic cult is law. We are prosecutors. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non-Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • Q&A: How Is Propertarianism Not Limited As Is Godel’s Incompleteness

    Aug 29, 2016 10:10am ( I hope someone understands this. It will give me joy. lol)(Note: this is a deceptively complicated question, and I”m going to answer it incompletely becuase of that complication, but hopefully thoroughly enough to get the point across)—“I understand that the incompleteness theorem depends on plenty of axioms, which could be rejected if one wishes to do so. Can you explain why Propertarianism is not contained within that range of prohibition?”— (reddit user) Godel refers to computable axiomatic systems, and special cases within those systems. When people here ‘philosophy’ they limit themselves to those tools we call logic, rationalism, and reason, and they tend to eliminate correspondence (science), reciprocal morality, operationalism, and Limits-and-full-accounting. This limitation is caused by the differences between axiomatic, logical, operational systems without correspondence, and theoretical, scientific systems with correspondence to, and therefore constrained by the limits of reality. The irony is that incompleteness exists primarily because (a) we do not know the first principles of the physical universe yet, so we cannot give operational descriptions (true names) to our theories (b) philosophers consider subsets of reality, just as religious considered supersets of reality, whereas scientists consider only reality. Internally consistent systems (axiomatic systems), and symbolic operations within those systems, Godel refers to as incomplete rather than ‘unlimited’. We use the term ‘limit’ in mathematics as an arbitrarily chosen substitution for external (empirical) correspondence with reality. In loose terms, axiomatic systems are unlimited because without external correspondence we encounter many nonsense-concepts like ‘infinity’, which when we use as correspondent (limited) we find cannot exist. In any THEORETICAL system, we speak in terms of correspondence in ADDITION to axiomatic regularity. Scale dependence (external correspondence) produces limits, because all general statements (theories) are limited in application. We no longer have to provide limits and decidability because there are many limits to existential phenomenon. In the case of [everything between these brackets is false] this is a nonsense concept. Precisely because with operational reason (a sequence of events constructing that box) we know it is an intentional construction. Yet within set theory, unlimited by correspondence or operational sequence, this cannot come into being, except as a deception. (which is what it is). So testimonialism and propertarianism and rule of law, and market government, and group competitive strategies are categorically, logically(internally), empirically(externally), existentially(operationally,) morally(reciprocally), and scope (limited) consistent. I can go into much more epistemological detail, but the net is that if you can pass all those tests of consistency (and therefore determinism), it is extremely difficult to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Q&A: How Is Propertarianism Not Limited As Is Godel’s Incompleteness

    Aug 29, 2016 10:10am ( I hope someone understands this. It will give me joy. lol)(Note: this is a deceptively complicated question, and I”m going to answer it incompletely becuase of that complication, but hopefully thoroughly enough to get the point across)—“I understand that the incompleteness theorem depends on plenty of axioms, which could be rejected if one wishes to do so. Can you explain why Propertarianism is not contained within that range of prohibition?”— (reddit user) Godel refers to computable axiomatic systems, and special cases within those systems. When people here ‘philosophy’ they limit themselves to those tools we call logic, rationalism, and reason, and they tend to eliminate correspondence (science), reciprocal morality, operationalism, and Limits-and-full-accounting. This limitation is caused by the differences between axiomatic, logical, operational systems without correspondence, and theoretical, scientific systems with correspondence to, and therefore constrained by the limits of reality. The irony is that incompleteness exists primarily because (a) we do not know the first principles of the physical universe yet, so we cannot give operational descriptions (true names) to our theories (b) philosophers consider subsets of reality, just as religious considered supersets of reality, whereas scientists consider only reality. Internally consistent systems (axiomatic systems), and symbolic operations within those systems, Godel refers to as incomplete rather than ‘unlimited’. We use the term ‘limit’ in mathematics as an arbitrarily chosen substitution for external (empirical) correspondence with reality. In loose terms, axiomatic systems are unlimited because without external correspondence we encounter many nonsense-concepts like ‘infinity’, which when we use as correspondent (limited) we find cannot exist. In any THEORETICAL system, we speak in terms of correspondence in ADDITION to axiomatic regularity. Scale dependence (external correspondence) produces limits, because all general statements (theories) are limited in application. We no longer have to provide limits and decidability because there are many limits to existential phenomenon. In the case of [everything between these brackets is false] this is a nonsense concept. Precisely because with operational reason (a sequence of events constructing that box) we know it is an intentional construction. Yet within set theory, unlimited by correspondence or operational sequence, this cannot come into being, except as a deception. (which is what it is). So testimonialism and propertarianism and rule of law, and market government, and group competitive strategies are categorically, logically(internally), empirically(externally), existentially(operationally,) morally(reciprocally), and scope (limited) consistent. I can go into much more epistemological detail, but the net is that if you can pass all those tests of consistency (and therefore determinism), it is extremely difficult to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Using Propertarian Reasoning (Methodology)

    Sep 05, 2016 8:40am *** PROPERTARIAN REASONING: SPECTRA *** THREE POINTS MAKE A TESTABLE LINE THREE POINTS MAKE A TESTABLE TRIANGLE. THREE BEHAVIORS CREATE A TESTABLE ANALYSIS PROPERTARIAN REASONING: i) TAKE A CONCEPT, iii) “FIND THREE POINTS”. iii) Then FIND LIMITS. iv) Then FILL IN BETWEEN THEM. 1) The Unknown Known is as Problematic as the Unknown Unknown. – Known Known – Known Unknown – Unknown Unknown (things we can’t imagine) – Unkown Known. (Metaphysical assumptions) (Truth Table: Known vs Unknown) 2) Escaping Reality: Humanity Escapes the Present. – Westerner Civ – Heroism, Change, Future. (Aristocracy, Stoicism ) – Eastern Civ – Duty, Harmony, Past. ( Historicism and ritual ) – Magian Civ – Submission, Obeyance, Otherworldly(monotheism) – Denial Civ – Disconnection, Internalism, Excapism. (buddhism) (Truth Table: x=future vs past, y= fantasy vs escapism) 3) Causes of Metaphysical Assumptions (population density and climate hostility vs means of farm production) (Also value of individual human life in north/sparse vs south/dense) (from conversation with johannes meixner)

  • Using Propertarian Reasoning (Methodology)

    Sep 05, 2016 8:40am *** PROPERTARIAN REASONING: SPECTRA *** THREE POINTS MAKE A TESTABLE LINE THREE POINTS MAKE A TESTABLE TRIANGLE. THREE BEHAVIORS CREATE A TESTABLE ANALYSIS PROPERTARIAN REASONING: i) TAKE A CONCEPT, iii) “FIND THREE POINTS”. iii) Then FIND LIMITS. iv) Then FILL IN BETWEEN THEM. 1) The Unknown Known is as Problematic as the Unknown Unknown. – Known Known – Known Unknown – Unknown Unknown (things we can’t imagine) – Unkown Known. (Metaphysical assumptions) (Truth Table: Known vs Unknown) 2) Escaping Reality: Humanity Escapes the Present. – Westerner Civ – Heroism, Change, Future. (Aristocracy, Stoicism ) – Eastern Civ – Duty, Harmony, Past. ( Historicism and ritual ) – Magian Civ – Submission, Obeyance, Otherworldly(monotheism) – Denial Civ – Disconnection, Internalism, Excapism. (buddhism) (Truth Table: x=future vs past, y= fantasy vs escapism) 3) Causes of Metaphysical Assumptions (population density and climate hostility vs means of farm production) (Also value of individual human life in north/sparse vs south/dense) (from conversation with johannes meixner)

  • Asking A Different Question: How Do We Scale Our Ability To Reason?

    Sep 17, 2016 1:43pm So here is the central issue:

    ++Voluntary exchange++vs–Decidability by law–
    ++Positive epistemology++vs–negative epistemology–

    So rather than reason how we might do something as individual thinkers I ask HOW CAN WE CALCULATE SOMETHING by voluntary exchanges within the constraints of natural law. In other words, how do we scale the ability to reason?