Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • So we can truthfully (testify) that the difference between true proper and true

    So we can truthfully (testify) that the difference between true proper and true enough covers the spectrum from science to law to philosophy ideology to theology to the occult, to magic. There is however some empirical value to wisdom literature that survives for centuries

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-22 16:27:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1462820150579716100

    Reply addressees: @JAndrewLauer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1462817865036410885

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JAndrewLauer If we say instead of Truth (testimony), meaning true enough to decide in matters of conflict, that we mean ‘true enough for me to act” then yes we might claim true enough as ‘true’.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1462817865036410885

  • If we say instead of Truth (testimony), meaning true enough to decide in matters

    If we say instead of Truth (testimony), meaning true enough to decide in matters of conflict, that we mean ‘true enough for me to act” then yes we might claim true enough as ‘true’.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-22 16:18:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1462817865036410885

    Reply addressees: @JAndrewLauer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1462817562711011330

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JAndrewLauer That’s false (lie) of course, and it’s evidence of the Abrahamic method of lying (conflation). Truth must be testifiable and the testifiable must be falsifiable. So meaning (felt and imaginary), wisdom (argued and verbal ), science (discovered and physical).
    (more…)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1462817562711011330

  • You know, when I say that falsification by disambiguation is the only means of d

    You know, when I say that falsification by disambiguation is the only means of discovery, that’s no different from Deutch’s argument.That still doesn’t explain why the academy is lost in platonic mathematics instead of theory production using the evidence we already have amassed.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-22 02:52:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1462614851499577348

  • What I think is a better framing is that people need a system of decidability an

    What I think is a better framing is that people need a system of decidability and anthropomorphism is the simplest means of producing it, with philosophy as a means of justifying it, and reason and science only where necessary to reform it.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-19 22:50:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1461829374936764429

    Reply addressees: @cathsophi

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1461825464683667457

  • But again, P-logic, vocabulary, grammar, and law is much like geometry, in that

    But again, P-logic, vocabulary, grammar, and law is much like geometry, in that you have to construct statements sentences and arguments as a sequence of possible operations – not use whatever term you’re most familiar with. And it exposes whether you know what you think you do.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-19 17:51:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1461753989112938501

    Reply addressees: @hoeberian

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1461753462027341826

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @hoeberian So P-Logic, Vocabulary, Grammar, and Law was easier to develop out of the English language by the nature of the English language. But (a) it gets wordy, and (b) terms are unambiguous measurements, not ideal types (c) transactional sentences require some ‘thinking’.
    It’s work.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1461753462027341826

  • DUMB F—KS IN THE WHITE MOVEMENT — “grug, math.” — Math isn’t hard. Knowing w

    DUMB F—KS IN THE WHITE MOVEMENT

    — “grug, math.” —

    Math isn’t hard. Knowing what’s wrong with math (mathiness) is a bit hard. Knowing the difference between math, computation, operations, and cooperative transactions is hard. Knowing how to disambiguate all methods of computation (Grammars) isn’t hard. Knowing how to produce decidability across math, computation, operations, transactions, is fairly hard. Knowing how to construct formal law from that hierarchy is fairly hard. In other words, a single specialization tends to reinforce general ignorance, while comparative disciplines, in particular, comparison across all disciplines is quite hard because one must master every discipline.

    So, If you can’t comprehend it you can’t. Others can. Others do. And in particular, some mathematicians do, and that is why we are reforming mathematics to merge it with computation and operation and reversing counter-revolution against mathematics that began with Cantor and the attempt to unify mathematics and logic by set theory instead of (obviously in retrospect) unifying mathematics, computation, algorithm, operations, and set (verbal logic), with operations devolving into math on one end, and into set logic (verbal) on the other, by the removal of dimensions of subjectively testable reality.

    The reality is that you’re a chimp by comparison. You can’t even imagine that P-Law is as great a leap as empiricism was over theology, or science over empiricism, and is as meaningful as was darwin to biology.

    That’s ok. I wouldn’t expect you to. However, I do understand that others do and do demonstrate that knowledge.

    “You are but a measure of your own ignorance.”

    Cheers. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-15 19:30:23 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282735003581114

  • @WhitesAdvocate Self falsificationary statement. 😉 Math isn’t hard. Knowing wha

    @WhitesAdvocate Self falsificationary statement. 😉

    Math isn’t hard. Knowing what’s wrong with math (mathiness) is a bit hard. Knowing the difference between math, computation, operations, and cooperative transactions is hard. Knowing how to disambiguate all methods of computation (Grammars) isn’t hard. Knowing how to produce decidability across math, computation, operations, transactions, is fairly hard. Knowing how to construct formal law from that hierarchy is fairly hard. In other words, a single specialization tends to reiforce general ignorance, while comparative disciplines, in particular, comparison across all disciplines is quite hard becuase one must master every discipline. So, If you can’t comprehend it you can’t. Others can. Others do. And in particular some mathematicians do, and that is why we are reforming mathematics to merge it with computation and operation and reversing counter-revolution against mathematics that began with Cantor and the attempt to unify mathematics and logic by set theory instead of (obviously in retrospect) unifying mathematics, computation, algorithm, operations, and set (verbal logic), with operations devovling into math on one end, and into set (verbal) on the other, by the removal of dimensions of subjectively testable reality.

    The reality is that you’re a chimp by comparison. You can’t even imagine that P-Law is as great a leap as empiricism was over theology, or science over empiricism, and is as meaningful as was darwin to biology.

    That’s ok. I wouldn’t expect you to. However, I do understand that others do and do demonstrate that knowledge.

    “You are but a measure of your own ignorance.”

    Cheers. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-15 19:11:09 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282659385939047

  • WHY I KEEP USING THE TERM “P-LAW” P-complete – Wikipedia “In computational compl

    WHY I KEEP USING THE TERM “P-LAW”

    P-complete – Wikipedia
    “In computational complexity theory, a decision problem is P-complete (complete for the complexity class P) if it is in P and every problem in P can be reduced to it by an appropriate reduction.”

    Ergo: **All existence can be explained by reduction to the first principles of evolutionary computation. In other words, anything that can exist can be reduced to a formal description in P-Law.**

    I abandoned the term ‘propertarianism’ since it applied only to the original system of measurement in morality. I kept the “P-” for P-Completeness. And because ‘-ism’ implies a p philosophy, and P-Law is a formal logic: a science that unifies the logics and sciences.

    Ergo P-Law is P-Complete.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-15 16:23:40 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282000785842669

  • (Why I keep using the term “P-Law”) P-complete – Wikipedia In computational comp

    (Why I keep using the term “P-Law”)
    P-complete – Wikipedia
    In computational complexity theory, a decision problem is P-complete (complete for the complexity class P) if it is in P and every problem in P can be reduced to it by an appropriate reduction.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-complete

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-15 16:13:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460279879035879424

  • Correct, now we operationalize that and we have the unification of the intuition

    Correct, now we operationalize that and we have the unification of the intuitionistic (classical) and mathematic, achieving a formal operational logic expressible in mathematical, operational, and intuitionistic frames of reference.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-14 04:11:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459735751118274565

    Reply addressees: @MichaelSurrago

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459734029427781635