@Deplorme@alternative_right If, in the end, we require a means of decidability, in matters of conflict, whether positive or negative, how then shall such decisions be made, and conflict whether due to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, or deceit be avoided?
Source date (UTC): 2021-09-09 16:37:21 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106902679794946952
How do I prosecute cases? How do ‘we’ prosecute cases? We prosecute to produce testimony, then prosecute what is untestifiable.
Source date (UTC): 2021-08-31 00:04:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1432494383224573955
If you’re wondering why I’m picking on (poking) all these fringe thinkers, it’s because i”m testing P against all the edge cases i can find to verify whether or not I can indeed discover what’s untestifiable in each case.
Source date (UTC): 2021-08-31 00:02:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1432494029053247492
Since P-Law solves the liar’s paradox (and that entire logical category, including in set theory) there are no paradoxes in P-Law. If so, then we are just engaging in error, sophistry, or deceit, usually using bad grammar, violating the law of continuous recursive disambiguation. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1431252313394622471
Source date (UTC): 2021-08-27 13:51:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1431253026388561921
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1431252313394622471
Paradox (n): (i) we get different contradictory answers using logic (ii) we appear to get different contradictory answers using logic and (iii) we observe something that defies common sense. Sciences uses paradox in this third sense. There is never a logic paradox in science.
Source date (UTC): 2021-08-27 13:48:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1431252313394622471
4) To make a claim or accusation of skepticism then or to explore naiveties then, is equivalent to not knowing arithmetic and being unable to count. Because the methodology for falsifying claims turns out to be relatively simple – just as is the one simple law of the universe.
Source date (UTC): 2021-08-25 20:14:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1430624549448691716
Reply addressees: @BuddhaMouthy @Imperius__13 @WorMartiN
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1430624172242350088
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@BuddhaMouthy @Imperius__13 @WorMartiN 3) So I discover, use, and teach this particular method of ignorance, error, bias, deceit, and fraud reduction, leaving only truth candidates remaining. This is because the number of ignorant, erroneous, biased, deceitful, and fraudulent concepts is vast, and true, few.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1430624172242350088
Charles(5) The evolutionary ‘edge case’ is the one that cannot be computed or calculated but only predicted by increases in intuition that have not been reducible to irregularities expressible by language, calculation, or computation.
Source date (UTC): 2021-08-25 13:55:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1430529320330596359
Reply addressees: @charlesmurray
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1430528938967699458
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@charlesmurray Charles(4) This consequence emerges because evolutionary differences in competitiveness are due to differences in sex, race, and class. And those differences are not computational, nor calculative, but predictive beyond the limits of computation and calculation.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1430528938967699458
‘Solving’ in mathematics consists of a process of continuous recursive disambiguation just like ‘solving’ in every other hierarchy of the grammars of language.
Source date (UTC): 2021-08-21 19:31:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1429164320383029256
Notice a subtle point of intuitionistic decidability common to all of us somewhere on the spectrum – the subconscious drive to leave others behind. That’s the pattern. I don’t think he’s on that mission. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2021-08-21 01:10:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1428887168609628160
Reply addressees: @aldafa_ir @EricLiford
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1428883051958833156
1) witness isn’t proof. Witness is testimony. Testimony is either undecidable, possibly true, or definitely false. The problem is that all such testimony has been false because of the original scam run by the original middle east priests when organized religion evolved.
Source date (UTC): 2021-08-19 23:13:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1428495290529615872
Reply addressees: @FedorLives1889 @Lord__Sousa @joeldavisx
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1428492701834440707