Notice how everything I (we) say consists of series rather than single examples? That’s called disambiguation by serialization. And it prevents errors of conflation and inflation, and subsequent association, induction, and deduction.
We speak in measurements.
It’s math.
Source date (UTC): 2022-09-21 19:41:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572672484289257477
Yes we can write what is effectively a complier that will test whether a statement is generally testifiable. There is no substitute for witnesses for cases of the specifically testifiable.
Source date (UTC): 2022-09-21 19:21:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572667346006712322
Reply addressees: @WalterIII @ThruTheHayes
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572666701468274688
you should be able to write a sentence or sequence of sentences that produce a complete balanced equation from first principles. (This is a great topic for discussion.)
Source date (UTC): 2022-09-20 21:48:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572341845899755527
Reply addressees: @gaiawriter
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572334639733420032
That’s not a dumb question. It’s a smart one. 😉
It’s whether you can write a constructive proof from first principles (laws, axioms). If you can’t you don’t know. If you can you do know. Doing that is f’ing hard. But, for example, contrafabian does it almost every day.
Source date (UTC): 2022-09-20 21:47:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572341617868312579
Reply addressees: @gaiawriter
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572334639733420032
If you learn the Science of Decidability you’re learning to Judge(decide): Negativa. Judges only force cooperation on means – not ends. If you study philosophy – at least any philosophy that survives after the Science of Decidability, you’re learning to choose: Positiva: Ends.
Source date (UTC): 2022-09-13 23:00:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1569823279690440711
RT @LukeWeinhagen: @curtdoolittle Decidability is a superpower.
Where fear (the genuine flavor, not its anticipation or expectation as dre…
Source date (UTC): 2022-09-13 02:28:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1569513422533935106
Decidability = Via Negativa
Authority = Via Positiva
Performative Truth consists of testimony sufficient for satisfaction of demand for decidability given the warranty necessary for the context in question.
Ideal truth consist of the same criteria if our knowledge was complete.
Source date (UTC): 2022-09-13 00:54:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1569489612703154176
Now let’s science this a bit by falsifying the hierarchy of decidability and observing the result. And at the conclusion is the question of why should those who oppose your attempted thefts by political means, not prosecute, imprison, deport, or hang all of you for your crimes? https://t.co/iLqM5zVLIw
Source date (UTC): 2022-09-11 20:00:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1569053336514560008
Reply addressees: @AndIlkley @cavaller_humil @raff_karva @Anoraky4Cymru
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1569047687395442688
That always happens when I win an argument. It’s OK. You aren’t special. AFAIK I’m the authority on the subject matter of the science of decidability applied to scientific government, and I haven’t even published yet.
Source date (UTC): 2022-09-11 13:25:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1568953941819555840
Reply addressees: @DecrimAdvocate @thatdbemethatd @RyanOConnor3
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1568953100236619779
There is no alternative that is not worse.
There is no logical closure
Becuase no knowledge is infinite
And no permutation of existencde limited
The best possible is not a defect, it’s the best possible.
(that’s the fallacy you’re asserting)
Source date (UTC): 2022-09-11 13:06:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1568949178541154306
Reply addressees: @DecrimAdvocate @thatdbemethatd @RyanOConnor3
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1568931501517176832