Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • Feminine homogeneity requires religion and shaming. Masculine division of labor

    Feminine homogeneity requires religion and shaming. Masculine division of labor requires law and decide ability.

    Women raise children to fit in. Men raise men to perform functions and duties.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 09:08:00 UTC

  • QUESTION OF THE DAY. READY? What is the difference between “preferable”, “ration

    QUESTION OF THE DAY. READY?

    What is the difference between “preferable”, “rational”, “logical”, and “decidable”?

    Have fun. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-05 07:59:00 UTC

  • “tries to show how recursive and constructive mathematics could be employed to e

    “tries to show how recursive and constructive mathematics could be employed to economic problems;” Bingo.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-13 09:42:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/642996727600009216

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/642982818268606468

    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/642982818268606468

  • A FRIEND: RECURSIVE COMPUTABLE MATHEMATICS IN ECONOMICS!!!!! Now, before anyone

    http://www.amazon.com/Computable-Foundations-Economics-Routledge-Experimental-ebook/dp/B008SA2EC6/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&meFROM A FRIEND: RECURSIVE COMPUTABLE MATHEMATICS IN ECONOMICS!!!!!

    Now, before anyone throws silly arguments at me, in testimonialism I argue that all hypothesis is performed by free association, and that operational (computational, recursive, intuitionistic) construction is a test of existential possibility (the reduction of error.) Critical rationalists do not make justificationary truth claims, we make moral claims of due diligence – countering the long standing error which conflates truth and testimony. A Testimonialist will make a claim of TRUTHFULNESS: that he has passed all possible means of criticism, and his theory or description survives that criticism.

    In propertarianism, (as well as praxeology reformed), the application of construction to economics is a moral one: that unless every transfer is constructed from productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of externality of the same criteria, that we are measuring THE ECONOMICS OF THEFT AND LYING rather than ECONOMICS OF COOPERATION.

    I have not read this work yet ( I have no american credit cards right now and can’t buy it from Amazon. But I’ll get to it shortly.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-13 05:51:00 UTC

  • Can you have a competing market in the same territory? You can as long as you ha

    Can you have a competing market in the same territory? You can as long as you have legal decidability.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-11 07:33:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/642239638921445376

    Reply addressees: @mdavilamartinez

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641974893295210496

    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/641974893295210496

  • Economists Start To See The Virtue of Operationalism in Computer Science.

    [M]athematics is a weakness not a strength in the absence of operations. Mathematical logic is dependent upon ‘independence of scale’. But it remains dependent upon existential possibility. And existential possibility is the test provided by operational definitions.  (And yes, despite this bit of brevity I can defend that argument.)

    http://www.env-econ.net/2015/08/coding.html

    Something that is not well understood, even in computer science, is that just as they syllogism, the ratio, the calculus, and statistical relation were innovations in human thought, so was programming an innovation in the process of human thought.

    It is hard to accept the fact that programming may be as important as mathematics, the scientific method, and logical reasoning, grammar and rhetoric.

    For the single reason that unlike statistical relations programs consist of existentially possible operations.

    The 20th century failure of operationalism, intuitionism and praxeology is due to the failure to grasp that justification (confirmation) is not meaningful, and that correlation provides us with a source of inquiry, but only a sequence of operations provide us with evidence of existential possibility. And only parsimony assists us in choosing truth candidates between existentially possible sequences of operations.

    In other words, if statements of social science cannot be reduced to sympathetically testable, rationally decidable sequences of choices, they we have no idea if they CAN be true.

    We train ourselves to be intolerant of inserting information that does not exist, because the entire purpose of science is to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from propositions that we construct by means of free association. And that is what statistical analysis helps us do: extend our senses so that we can construct possible free associations from that which we cannot sense without such technological devices.

    Cheers

  • Economists Start To See The Virtue of Operationalism in Computer Science.

    [M]athematics is a weakness not a strength in the absence of operations. Mathematical logic is dependent upon ‘independence of scale’. But it remains dependent upon existential possibility. And existential possibility is the test provided by operational definitions.  (And yes, despite this bit of brevity I can defend that argument.)

    http://www.env-econ.net/2015/08/coding.html

    Something that is not well understood, even in computer science, is that just as they syllogism, the ratio, the calculus, and statistical relation were innovations in human thought, so was programming an innovation in the process of human thought.

    It is hard to accept the fact that programming may be as important as mathematics, the scientific method, and logical reasoning, grammar and rhetoric.

    For the single reason that unlike statistical relations programs consist of existentially possible operations.

    The 20th century failure of operationalism, intuitionism and praxeology is due to the failure to grasp that justification (confirmation) is not meaningful, and that correlation provides us with a source of inquiry, but only a sequence of operations provide us with evidence of existential possibility. And only parsimony assists us in choosing truth candidates between existentially possible sequences of operations.

    In other words, if statements of social science cannot be reduced to sympathetically testable, rationally decidable sequences of choices, they we have no idea if they CAN be true.

    We train ourselves to be intolerant of inserting information that does not exist, because the entire purpose of science is to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from propositions that we construct by means of free association. And that is what statistical analysis helps us do: extend our senses so that we can construct possible free associations from that which we cannot sense without such technological devices.

    Cheers

  • Yes, But **WHICH** Non-Aggression Principle?

    [N]on Aggression, or the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), is an incomplete concept, and possibly an intentionally incomplete concept, and alone it is an untestable and therefore unscientific) statement. Without stating what one is prohibited from aggressing against, non aggression is a half truth, using a half statement, that hacks western altruism. Its an act of deception by suggestion. The question is the possibility of constructing an anarchic polity using the prohibition on aggression. But aggression against what? A) Rothbardian Non-aggression against Intersubjectively Verifiable Property –VS– B) Aristocratic Non-aggression against Demonstrated Property En Toto? The only means of providing an anarchic polity that is preferable to a non-anarchic polity, is by aristocratic ethics. Otherwise a low trust environment with high transaction costs is not preferable – and particularly not preferable to those with expensive capital to protect, and complex production to engage in. The NAP hacks western altruism by prohibiting aggression, which the westerner intuits as true, but only against intersubjectively verifiable property, which once understood, the westerner rightly deems immoral and irrational. Blackmail is the canary in the ideological coal mine. Blackmail causes retaliation because it imposes an unwanted and unnecessary cost, and breaks the contract for cooperation. Rothbard’s ethics produce ghettos, Mafias, and create demand for authority. The only reason to advance ghetto ethics is to justify parasitism and attempt to outlaw retaliation.

  • Yes, But **WHICH** Non-Aggression Principle?

    [N]on Aggression, or the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), is an incomplete concept, and possibly an intentionally incomplete concept, and alone it is an untestable and therefore unscientific) statement. Without stating what one is prohibited from aggressing against, non aggression is a half truth, using a half statement, that hacks western altruism. Its an act of deception by suggestion. The question is the possibility of constructing an anarchic polity using the prohibition on aggression. But aggression against what? A) Rothbardian Non-aggression against Intersubjectively Verifiable Property –VS– B) Aristocratic Non-aggression against Demonstrated Property En Toto? The only means of providing an anarchic polity that is preferable to a non-anarchic polity, is by aristocratic ethics. Otherwise a low trust environment with high transaction costs is not preferable – and particularly not preferable to those with expensive capital to protect, and complex production to engage in. The NAP hacks western altruism by prohibiting aggression, which the westerner intuits as true, but only against intersubjectively verifiable property, which once understood, the westerner rightly deems immoral and irrational. Blackmail is the canary in the ideological coal mine. Blackmail causes retaliation because it imposes an unwanted and unnecessary cost, and breaks the contract for cooperation. Rothbard’s ethics produce ghettos, Mafias, and create demand for authority. The only reason to advance ghetto ethics is to justify parasitism and attempt to outlaw retaliation.

  • The Value of Truth Increases with the Scale of the Consequences

    [T]he more parsimonious the statement of correspondence the more truth content and decidability. (This is a very loaded sentence.)
     
    As scale increases or decreases, and as consequence increases, and as the number of people affected increase, then the value of truth increases.
     
    Conversely, loose general rules expressed allegorically or in parable of one king or another are equally useful for individual action.
     
    For these reasons we increasingly favor increases in precision (parsimony) as the division of labor and scale of polity have increased.
     
    Because our collective actions are of greater consequences to those external to the decision.
     
    That is the explanation for the value of different systems of thought.
     
    Wisdom can be found many places but truth that survives falsification or criticism is a different thing altogether.
     
    In matters of money or life and death I think most moral men prefer to be adjudicated by truth.