Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • ANCAPISM CANNOT SURVIVE MARKET COMPETITION ***”anarchism lacks institutions for

    ANCAPISM CANNOT SURVIVE MARKET COMPETITION

    ***”anarchism lacks institutions for construction of decidable law, and the production of commons necessary for the continuous development of suppression of parasitism and continuous development of competitive commons. It’s an ethic for disasporic people who free ride upon nation states, but it cannot serve as the institutional basis of a voluntary polity because one cannot create a polity that can compete for members with other polities. in other words, ancapism cannot produce a polity that can survive in the market for polities without a host polity and institutions that it parasitically lives within”***

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-13 03:37:00 UTC

  • DECIDABILITY VS CHOICE VS PUBLIC CHOICE 1 – How do you solve the problem of deci

    DECIDABILITY VS CHOICE VS PUBLIC CHOICE

    1 – How do you solve the problem of decidability? (a single logical decision) (logic)

    2 – How do you solve the problem of choice? (multiple coincident decisions) (preference)

    3 – How do you solve the problem of public choice? (aggregates of choices) (market)

    How much information is in each of those questions, and how does it differ?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-07 12:32:00 UTC

  • Just as falsification tells us what may be true by that which we cannot make fal

    Just as falsification tells us what may be true by that which we cannot make false; and proofs tell us what is not false but not what is true; and the law tells us now what we must do, but only what we must not do; and evolution tells us only what fails, not what succeeds, it is not important that the best people lead, as much as it is important that the worst do not. For this reason we must limit access to power to those least likely to lead poorly. How do we know? Demonstrated character in familial, entrepreneurial, political, and military excellence over multiple generations. And the elimination of consideration of those who fail the test of character in familial, entrepreneurial, and military excellence across multiple generations.

    Nobility is most frequently demonstrated by intergenerational excellence. For those who cannot master their passions enough for good breeding, good rearing, good production, and good defense, have demonstrated by their actions that they and their families are unsuitable for leadership.

    Note that survival from the opinions of others in schooling, academy, politics and church, tell us nothing about an individual other than his ability remember and to obey, while engaging in various forms of politicking and deceit. Only family, commercial, and military experience tell us about the capacity of an individual to lead.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 13:39:00 UTC

  • The Difference Between Personal-Preferential and Political-Decidable Philosophies

    We can make use of whatever free associations our unobservable minds give us. That says nothing about the truth of anything. it says only about the utility of randomly generated meaningful ideas. So personal philosophy(religion) can be constructed of such nonsense. Because people need to act in a way that they can feel confident in acting or they would be unable to act. But philosophy as a science: in which we seek decidability between different ideas, and to limit the damage of others ideas is something quite different.

    This is what separates personal ‘philosophy’ which is not philosophy per se, but philosophy by analogy…. and political philosophy by which we create ethics, morals, norms, laws, institutions, commons, and war. This is the difference between what you call philosophy and has nothing to do with truth (decidability) and the science of decidability that is provided by attempts at using truth to decide between one thing and another – especially in matters of conflict. So as I say: it doesn’t matter how you come up with ideas. Just don’t call it true, don’t call it philosophy, and don’t call it science. It is what it is: justification for working with personal intuition sot hat you need not depend on others for guidance.

  • The Difference Between Personal-Preferential and Political-Decidable Philosophies

    We can make use of whatever free associations our unobservable minds give us. That says nothing about the truth of anything. it says only about the utility of randomly generated meaningful ideas. So personal philosophy(religion) can be constructed of such nonsense. Because people need to act in a way that they can feel confident in acting or they would be unable to act. But philosophy as a science: in which we seek decidability between different ideas, and to limit the damage of others ideas is something quite different.

    This is what separates personal ‘philosophy’ which is not philosophy per se, but philosophy by analogy…. and political philosophy by which we create ethics, morals, norms, laws, institutions, commons, and war. This is the difference between what you call philosophy and has nothing to do with truth (decidability) and the science of decidability that is provided by attempts at using truth to decide between one thing and another – especially in matters of conflict. So as I say: it doesn’t matter how you come up with ideas. Just don’t call it true, don’t call it philosophy, and don’t call it science. It is what it is: justification for working with personal intuition sot hat you need not depend on others for guidance.

  • You see, I only have to testify to what I can know, and I only CAN testify to wh

    You see, I only have to testify to what I can know, and I only CAN testify to what I can know.

    So if I can’t know something I can’t testify to it. I can only say “I don’t know’.

    And in the tradeoff between “i don’t know ‘but’, and ‘I just don’t know so I can’t say’, we only need to look for perverse incentives.

    You might not realize it but I’m calling people who do what you do (and religious people as well) mere liars. Sophisticated lying. Lying to the self as well as others. But in the end, mere liars.

    We lie for many reasons. We lie to ourselves. We need the mystical part of religion to lie to ourselves. Becuase the curse of reason is that we know things we wish not to.

    And apparently the price of reason is that we must invent un-reason in order to compensate for the horror of reason.

    Yet some of us, have the courage to look fate in the face and de-conflate the moral and the true. We provide ourselves few psychological comforts other than the joy of life. We know that we must not harm, must not steal, must not tell black lies.

    But we do not know what is right or true. We know only what is wrong and what is error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception.

    The rest of knowledge and action and experience is up to us to choose from.

    But why do some of us have this courage and others not?

    It’s because for some of us, almost all our intuitions and ideas fail, so we need recipes to follow in order to succeed, simply by not failing.

    It is because for some of us, we need assistance deciding between our ideas so that we choose the ones least likely to fail.

    It is because for some of us, we must decide conflicts between others who have different perceptions of events – and to resolve those disputes without favoritism and fear of retaliation.

    In other words, becuase some of us are better at deciding than others.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-21 06:21:00 UTC

  • OPERATIONALISM MATTERS IN MATHEMATICS: DEMYSTIFYING AND EXPLAINING THE ART OF DE

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160524-mathematicians-bridge-finite-infinite-divide/WHY OPERATIONALISM MATTERS IN MATHEMATICS: DEMYSTIFYING AND EXPLAINING THE ART OF DEDUCTION OF DETERMINISTIC PHENOMENON WITH DECREASTING AMOUTS OF INFORMATION.

    This subject is interesting if for no other reason than mathematical language developed out of a form of mysticism(platonism), and has retained some of those characteristics across over two thousand years.

    The intuitionists failed to create the reformation that would have made these subjects quite simple to understand.

    We have reformed physics from the Aristotelian “first mover” category of language. We have reformed morality to be expressed in economic language. but we have not reformed the language of mathematics, thereby reducing mathematical platonism to operational (existential and computable) axioms.

    If we do so, the discipline of mathematics has evolved as much by eliminating axioms of correspondence (or asserting axioms of non-correspondence), then leaving mathematicians to attempt to find methods of deduction with fewer and fewer properties to work with.

    From this perspective, mathematical reasoning has been an exercise in the exploration of deduction of deterministic systems of correspondence (pairs) using decreasing information because of decreasing axioms (rules) of correspondence.

    Or more simply said, mathematics evolved from the pairing of stones while counting sheep, then giving names to the stones, then positional names to larger quantities of stones. then to sets of stones. Then to ratios of stones. Then space, then time. Then deductions from stones, space, and time.

    So we have merely increased the properties (axioms) and removed the properties (axioms) of correspondence with reality and explored how to perform deductions with more or fewer properties (axioms) of correspondence.

    That we have not reformed the philosophy and language mathematics as we have in other fields is due to the fact that the intuitionists in all fields (Bridgman/physics, Mises in economics, Brouwer/mathematics, and various authors in Psychology) possessed different incentives and different threats to their credibility. Interestingly, psychology has reformed through the use of ‘operationism’, the physical sciences have reformed in large part, economics has not reformed, and mathematics has not. And the answer why is interesting: psychology was under threat of classification as a pseudoscience threatening incomes. Economists currently fight that battle, but the political utility of models plus the extensive time that passes (a generation or more) before policy makes itself visible, provides convenient escape from criticism. Mathematics has not in large part because unlike psychology, economics, or the physical sciences **it’s external consequences are irrelevant**. Meaning that there is no pressure to reform, because mathematicians outside of the sciences have no feedback mechanism to force them to.

    There is nothing magical or mysterious about mathematics. What’s interesting is how we add and subtract properties of reality in order to created models that retain determinism and allow us to perform deductions with decreasing information, about scale independent patterns.

    The only reason it’s even vaguely interesting is because the human mind is so easily overwhelmed with but a few short term memory facts, and a few axis of causality. Almost all mathematical operations (transformations) are determined by the capacity of our minds, and greater minds might not need symbols and operators of similar simplicity in order to see deductions or relations of far greater complexity.

    So, mathematics is trivial really. But if you talk about it in magic words, it’s going to sound magical. When really, it’s just a matter of not being able to sense relations with our mind, the same way we cannot sense distant objects in the heavens with our eyes, the same way we cannot hear distant sounds with our ears or feel subtle vibrations with our feet.

    We use tools of all forms to increase the power of our senses, and mathematics consists of states and operations that humans can operate and sense in complex deterministic models what we cannot sense and perceive without states and operations to assist us.

    The moment you add or remove an axiom (command, or fact) the results are deterministic. The interesting part is only that we are developing the art of deduction for increasingly informationally sparse relations.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-02 05:09:00 UTC

  • I usually speak in terms of information, decidability, and externality. The law

    I usually speak in terms of information, decidability, and externality. The law does consider these things. But often oddly

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 13:51:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738004932859678720

    Reply addressees: @MichaelPascal21

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738000081962565636

    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/738000081962565636

  • PROPERTARIANISM Conquest of a group and its territorial monopoly is objectively

    PROPERTARIANISM

    Conquest of a group and its territorial monopoly is objectively morally warranted, and objectively legally decidable if they systematically violate rule of law under natural law – even internally. Ergo, you can be conquered by your neighbors if your people violate rule of law.

    Effectively this is the competitive balance the church created.

    If the gods speak truth then truth and gods are one. If not then they are not our gods.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 01:34:00 UTC

  • AI’s

    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCES Humans regulate each other by the behavior we call ‘property’. AI’s that do also will readily simulate human behavior. Choices require a means of decidability. Property is the only decidable value that is calculable(rational)+cooperative.

    All human moral intuitions are reducible to prohibitions on imposition against various inventories (property). Ergo, any AI algorithm requires decidability, and one that may not violate such impositions will produce moral actions. Humans suffer from pre-cooperative impulses for survival that are non rational for an AI to develop unless by design. Ledgers (~blockchains) are necessary for AI’s to gain access to external actions, access regulated by non AI algorithms. But that said, I have seen nothing that even vaguely approaches AI. Only systems that process discreet data faster that can – and give us the illusion of intelligence by doing so. Ai’s, like mathematical axioms, produce deterministic consequences that appear ‘magical’ to us. But AI exists in fact rather than illusion, if and only if the algorithms are capable of free-association followed by Introspective regression-testing for falsehood (survival of possibility). Consciousness is produced by the (brief) memory of continuous comparison of changes in state, perceived by continuous searching of memories. The thing we call ‘mind’ is just a bag of emotions that react to changes in state of property-in-toto, and use (very) short term memory to accumulate emotions and associate them with those memories. I’ve been working on this problem since the early 80’s and our lack of progress is still a problem of hardware. That said, an intelligence will always merely fool us. Anything intelligent in the sense we mean it, will compete with us the way other creatures compete with us. And that is the last thing we want to bring into this world. Ergo, an assertion that the first law of decidability is that property-in-toto may not be violated – no involuntary cost may be imposed by action or inaction against property in toto. Ergo, an assertion that the second law of decidability is that any agent capable of choice or action, must be monitored by a non-sentient moral agent that prohibits the cognizance of, or action upon, any cost that wold be imposed involuntarily against property in toto. This agent can cause analogy to pain (cost) upon any concept or action that would prohibit the calculation (use of) that memory or concept that imposes cost, and prohibit entirely action that would impose an involuntary cost.