Formal Logic of Jurisprudence (Formal construction of text capturing original intent, closed to interpretation, ending legislation from the bench) and Constitutions.
Think Scalia, Epstein, Hayek, Turing.
Don’t try to dance with me. I’ll be bad for your self-image. 😉
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-08 01:07:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1325243539622682624
Reply addressees: @chesterBirdbath
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1325241139658682368
FORMAL LAW IS JUST LIKE PROGRAMMING OR MATH – YOU WRITE PROOFS.
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-08 00:58:27 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105171983239463560
Because it’s the logical end point of all decidability. “Do you have a right to bear children and export the costs onto others?” It’s the fundamental problem of civilization: to deny or accept regression to the mean, prosperity by mean, and necessity of Pareto distribution.
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-07 20:43:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1325177066166358017
Reply addressees: @hammerwaffen @RainyNightDayz @SarahCassandra0 @edgar_a_bitch @autismcrisis
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1325173305024770050
Formal Law is Just like Programming or Math, You Write Proofs. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/11/06/formal-law-is-just-like-programming-or-math-you-write-proofs/
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-06 19:19:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1324793494708387842
I know y’all can’t grasp this but it’s how I work. Physicists use math, programmers use programs, I use arguments, but it’s the same thing: you run tests. Working on the origins and foundation of western civ has been extremely useful. It doesn’t come from thinking but from experimenting: trying to write proofs. The advantage of aspies is auto-associative depth. So every argument creates more pathways allowing more auto association until it’s possible to identify patterns that before were ‘too distant to intuit’. That’s because human intuition varies but generally is limited by the length of an associative jump it can make. Since P-Law is universally consistent it assists us in making more better jumps. But working on it, well, it’s like math: we learn by trying to write proofs, or programs: they compile, run, and don’t crash. 😉 Same for operational proofs in P-law. Now the word ‘proof’ means ‘test of internal consistency’. It’s just that the ‘internal consistency’ of Formal Natural Law is ‘complete’. In other words, it is consistent and coherent across all fields. So ‘consistent, correspondent, coherent, and operationally possible, is more demanding. I’m searching for that set.
I know y’all can’t grasp this but it’s how I work. Physicists use math, programmers use programs, I use arguments, but it’s the same thing: you run tests. Working on the origins and foundation of western civ has been extremely useful. It doesn’t come from thinking but from experimenting: trying to write proofs. The advantage of aspies is auto-associative depth. So every argument creates more pathways allowing more auto association until it’s possible to identify patterns that before were ‘too distant to intuit’. That’s because human intuition varies but generally is limited by the length of an associative jump it can make. Since P-Law is universally consistent it assists us in making more better jumps. But working on it, well, it’s like math: we learn by trying to write proofs, or programs: they compile, run, and don’t crash. 😉 Same for operational proofs in P-law. Now the word ‘proof’ means ‘test of internal consistency’. It’s just that the ‘internal consistency’ of Formal Natural Law is ‘complete’. In other words, it is consistent and coherent across all fields. So ‘consistent, correspondent, coherent, and operationally possible, is more demanding. I’m searching for that set.
Boost of @BHaze
SOPHISTRY FROM SCRIPTURALISM
By: @curtd
(a) It’s not Godel’s it’s just his most recent restatement.
(c) A proof is a test of internal consistency of its axioms not external correspondence or operational possibility.
(b) Proofs test axioms and words. Theories test premises and actions.
(d) Logic falsifies not justifies
(e) Actions are informationally more complete than words.
(f) And we must falsify BOTH words and actions.
(g) There are no such things as ‘ontological proofs’ in and of themselves that are other than meaningless tautologies.
It’s all just sophistry inherited from scripturalism.
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-03 21:05:59 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105148580089633992
(a) It’s not Godel’s it’s just his most recent restatement.
(c) A proof is a test of internal consistency of its axioms not external correspondence or operational possibility.
(b) Proofs test axioms and words. Theories test premises and actions.
(d) Logic falsifies not justifies
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-03 20:43:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1323727511608561665
Reply addressees: @ArguingFanatic
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1323725180183568385
Syllogisms use set logic. I use strict construction, operational logic (what you would call algorithms). the failure of the set program is probably the most important take of the 20th, and that failure combined with the delay between Babbage and Turing the cause.
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-03 18:31:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1323694398559891457
Reply addressees: @dhmiv
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1323693792818581504
Godel is more important in that he is one of multiple thinkers that falsified the analytic project, and the promise of making philosophy into a science.
The subject deserves a long treatment, but the underlying issue is the limits of set logic vs operational logic. Praxiology is NOT axiomatic(deductive and justificationary) but operational(Constructive and falsificationary) – Mises and Rothbard were punching above their weight.
Robert P. Murphy @BobMurphyEcon
“Gödel’s Incompleteness. I report you decide”
http://bobmurphyshow.com/7
It’s more correct to say that (a) Babbage failed to inspire an operationalist(computational) movement. It took war and Turing. (b) the set-theoretic model of mathematics was a failure, and caused the set-theoretic model of language (philosophy) that was also a failure.
In other words, the logical model of set theory itself is a failure. Information for deduction will emerge in any given system, meaning that the only method of falsifying it (proof) is by construction (reconstruction). Closure is only provided by demonstration in reality.
All this means is that any deduction depends on the available hierarchy of constant relations, so that in any system of increasing complexity there will emerge niche conditions for which the solution (proof) is only by construction.
This is the point of praxeology(operationalism) in both economics and law. The spectrum of decidability in cases (questions) varies from the easily decidable on general rules to the individual accounting of edge cases.
The difference between computer science and humans is that we must be programmed via negativa (law), and computers via positiva (algorithms) because we have a world model, incentives within it (complete), and can always choose. They don’t and can’t. (incomplete)
So this is better said as ‘the philosophical program like the theological program has failed, leaving only the scientific program, and operationalism. Or better, theology was loose wisdom literature, philosophy slightly better, empiricism much better, and operationalism the best.
This is the fundamental insight of the failed programs of Mises, Brouwer, Bridgman, and to some degree Hilbert: operationalism only succeeded in physics and common law. It failed in every other field. With psychology and sociology the most obvious. Leaving room for postmodernism.