Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • Gods exist like numbers exist. And they exist for similar purposes: to provide u

    Gods exist like numbers exist. And they exist for similar purposes: to provide us with decidability on matters which we cannot directly sense, perceive, compare, and judge, without such measures.

    Western Law (conflict resolution) is separate from Western Religion (festivals)

    Western civilization like western law, and western politics, and western science, is (was) empirical.

    The meaningful content of western christianity is the extension of kinship trust to non kin.

    This extension of trust requires we teach humility and skepticism.

    This empiricism requires we teach skepticism

    Testimony, jury, judge, natural, common discovered law requires we testify truthfully.

    We developed testimony, jury, senate, debate, reason, rationalism, science and now, ‘complete science’ (testimonialism).

    We developed reason, philosophy, natural law, and science because we spoke truthfully.

    We developed a religion that assisted in the practice of skepticism, humility, and truthfulness.

    Moreover, every time we have a great war, we evolve quickly by reformation after it.

    This is why we do not stagnate like all other civilizations:

    There is no faster way to evolve a people than through truth, science, natural common law, a multitude of independent polities, and the capacity for conflict between them.

    The west was not first, but it is fastest.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-06 17:44:00 UTC

  • So the first act of fraud is framing an argument around an untestable propositio

    So the first act of fraud is framing an argument around an untestable proposition. This is called ‘distraction’. It’s deceit.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 17:37:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/761254834557296640

    Reply addressees: @hostempopuli

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/761253827744034816

    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/761253827744034816

  • We couldn’t require truthful speech in the commons, because we didn’t know how t

    We couldn’t require truthful speech in the commons, because we didn’t know how to test for it. Now we do: Testimonialism. Ergo:No more lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 17:30:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/761253043266609154

  • We couldn’t require truthful speech in the commons, because we didn’t know how t

    We couldn’t require truthful speech in the commons, because we didn’t know how to test for it. Now we do: Testimonialism. Ergo:No more lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 13:30:00 UTC

  • DECIDABILITY: CUNNING, MORAL, SMART, GENIUS I think there is a pretty big differ

    DECIDABILITY: CUNNING, MORAL, SMART, GENIUS

    I think there is a pretty big difference between smartness and genius. I consider quite a few people smarter than I am in this dimension or that – and I think it’s related to their ability to master things like chess, chemistry, and mathematics, using axiomatic systems to permute applications of rules within the limits of the game. In other words, those people that live in a world of proofs I consider smart.

    I suppose I COULD work in that field, but axiomatic thought is a very different way of thinking from theoretic. In my world there are no rules, there is only information and order. To some degree I see all rules as errors, or contrivances, the same way I see legislation and norms.

    The theoretical mind does not work with boundaries at all, but with creating new orders in order to break through the boundaries that limit us.

    This I think, is the difference between deviant and cunning, moral and wise, axiomatic and smart, theoretical and genius. Some of us cunningly circumvent rules, some morally work within them, some us axiomatically think of new ways to apply them, and some of us theoretically think of new organization of rules. All using slightly different methods of decidability.

    Intelligence can be applied using cunning(immoral), moral(wise), axiomatic (smart), and theoretical(genius) methods. I think this is the correct framing of a problem we generally confuse ourselves through conflation.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 06:15:00 UTC

  • THE UNCOMFORTABLE POLITICAL TRUTH WE MUST ADAPT TO IN THIS CENTURY Nationalism,

    THE UNCOMFORTABLE POLITICAL TRUTH WE MUST ADAPT TO IN THIS CENTURY

    Nationalism, Tribalism, Familialism are all the best POLITICAL criteria for decidability in matters of commons, just as individualism is the best criteria for decidability in matters of the individual.

    I don’t like “anti-anyone” other than perhaps I am pretty much against religions that are incompatible with natural law, and are justified by means incompatible with physical law.

    I prefer limiting immigration to the ‘highly’ skilled (I don’t include IT in that category – IT will be analogous to any other trade soon enough). And I am against the importation of calculators, managers, laborers, and underclasses, in all cases. Precisely because they may increase short-term profits at the expense of long-term genetic, institutional, and normative costs.

    But if we retain Nationalism, Tribalism, and Familialism in Political policy (positive production of commons) and Individualism in Legal policy (negative resolution of differences), then this forces groups to pay their own way genetically, institutionally, and normatively. And by doing so raise their family, tribe, and nation to transcendence.

    We do not make better people so much as we eliminate those people who are a detriment to the better people.

    And it is this reality that we must come to terms with in this century.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-27 05:22:00 UTC

  • SEQUENCE: 1 – COMPUTABLE (DETERMINISTIC), 2 – CALCULABLE (NON-COMPUTABLE/DEDUCTI

    SEQUENCE:

    1 – COMPUTABLE (DETERMINISTIC),

    2 – CALCULABLE (NON-COMPUTABLE/DEDUCTIVE/LOGICAL),

    3 – RATIONAL (INDUCTIVE/NON-CONTRADICTORY),

    4 – IMAGINABLE (ABDUCTIVE/VAGUELY ASSOCIABLE).

    5 – IRRATIONAL (UNIMAGINABLE / INASSOCIABLE )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-23 01:04:00 UTC

  • DECIDABILITY AND MORALITY While explanatory power is useful – it isn’t necessari

    DECIDABILITY AND MORALITY

    While explanatory power is useful – it isn’t necessarily a test of truth. Whereas testimonial decidability does serve as a test of truth.

    We tend to confused platonic truth (that arrangement of ideas we might possess if we possessed more information than we currently do) where our model is infinitely intertemporal(extends into the future regardless of problem set, with decidable truth, where our model is a problem we seek to solve with the knowledge available, with analytic truth, where we possess all possible knowledge because our model is axiomatic. But this is a confusion of the information present at different points of the present

    The problem for these philosophers of empty verbalism, is that once a theory provides perfect decidability, it’s true by all possible measures. So natural law is ‘true’ even if you don’t like it. Now if you don’t like it, then I (we) can certainly understand why – you lose all opportunity for parasitism.

    Now you might make claims that reciprocal insurance in which you or others become beneficiaries isn’t parasitism. But then we would have to distinguish between accident and choice. And in that analysis, there are very few acts of god other than catastrophic illness and natural disasters that are not your choice. Even those are largely avoidable if you haven’t chosen poorly.

    This is why so many people prefer to hang on pseudo-moral arguments, and pseudo-moral religious arguments: in order to preserve their parasitism.

    When instead, they could simply offer to be better people in exchange for that which they seek>

    And that is the real issue, isn’t it? Self-discipline is a high cost and one that many of us seek to avoid paying by making false moral and religious claims in order to obtain benefits by acts of deception using appeals to our signals of status and self-worth, charity, and altruism..

    Whereas the moral folk, who build good families, object to the vast difference in payments of self-discipline that they contribute to the commons, as well as the material payments they make to those who fail to exercise that discipline. Why? Because they pay double. whereas they would gladly pay money in return for behavior.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-20 09:21:00 UTC

  • creativity, education, understanding, meaning,vs conflict, decidability, truth:

    creativity, education, understanding, meaning,vs conflict, decidability, truth: differ

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-17 20:10:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754770204610142209

    Reply addressees: @garrettlgray @Wasian_NRx @DonRadolf @jordanbpeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754769135666540544

    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/754769135666540544

  • Meaning(education,analogy) and Decidability(criticism,truth) are different thing

    Meaning(education,analogy) and Decidability(criticism,truth) are different things.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-17 20:07:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754769596679352320

    Reply addressees: @garrettlgray @Wasian_NRx @DonRadolf @jordanbpeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754769135666540544

    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/754769135666540544