What Can the Average Person Grasp? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/what-can-the-average-person-grasp/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 20:48:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266108995724550148
Theme: Grammar
-
What Can the Average Person Grasp?
Mar 20, 2020, 1:04 PM By John Mark
—“So moral-reasoning in P is not hard. But what about the Grammars, Testimonial Truth, Operational Language, Strictly Constructed Laws, and the Abrahamic Method of Deceit?”– CD
What can the avg person grasp, and/or what do we need to give them a glimpse of out of necessity? Strictly Constructed Laws – even if they don’t understand the details, this can be sold as solution to activist judges and undermining of the constitution. (You did a great job explaining it on most recent P-constitition video interview.) Abrahamic Method – the term itself triggers Christians, but the basic concept of “don’t say anything that excuses a violation of reciprocity” is understandable by the avg person. Testimonial Truth – details a bit much for avg person, but concept that there’s a checklist courts use to figure out whether a public figure is lying, I think is understandable, and may be necessary to “sell” free truthful speech vs free speech. And the avg person may be able to understand certain aspects of it, such as the concept of lying by omission or lying by mixing 2 concepts/definitions together.
-
What Can the Average Person Grasp?
Mar 20, 2020, 1:04 PM By John Mark
—“So moral-reasoning in P is not hard. But what about the Grammars, Testimonial Truth, Operational Language, Strictly Constructed Laws, and the Abrahamic Method of Deceit?”– CD
What can the avg person grasp, and/or what do we need to give them a glimpse of out of necessity? Strictly Constructed Laws – even if they don’t understand the details, this can be sold as solution to activist judges and undermining of the constitution. (You did a great job explaining it on most recent P-constitition video interview.) Abrahamic Method – the term itself triggers Christians, but the basic concept of “don’t say anything that excuses a violation of reciprocity” is understandable by the avg person. Testimonial Truth – details a bit much for avg person, but concept that there’s a checklist courts use to figure out whether a public figure is lying, I think is understandable, and may be necessary to “sell” free truthful speech vs free speech. And the avg person may be able to understand certain aspects of it, such as the concept of lying by omission or lying by mixing 2 concepts/definitions together.
-
The Nuance of Improved Inputs
Mar 22, 2020, 1:42 AM by Luke Weinhagen P often looks like a competing interpretation of philosophy or a competing ideology. When what is really offers is fidelity and disambiguity to the underlying concepts of all philosophy and ideology (at differing costs to each). In the case of UPB this clarity comes from discovery of a superior definition of property. In the case of NAP this clarity comes in the form of identification of full-accounting. So, counter-reaction is usually misaligned nuance I think. The nuance is in being able to see these simply as improved inputs and not as just making the original work wrong.
-
The Nuance of Improved Inputs
Mar 22, 2020, 1:42 AM by Luke Weinhagen P often looks like a competing interpretation of philosophy or a competing ideology. When what is really offers is fidelity and disambiguity to the underlying concepts of all philosophy and ideology (at differing costs to each). In the case of UPB this clarity comes from discovery of a superior definition of property. In the case of NAP this clarity comes in the form of identification of full-accounting. So, counter-reaction is usually misaligned nuance I think. The nuance is in being able to see these simply as improved inputs and not as just making the original work wrong.
-
No. It’s that Math Is the Reductio Example of Grammar.
Mar 22, 2020, 3:34 PM Math? … It’s not so much math. I don’t really think that way. Instead, I understand the grammars. I understand math is the most simple possible Formal grammar. That programming the next grammar, and that law the next grammar. And so I illustrate concepts with the most simple possible grammar: math. The more I do this the more ‘trivial’ or “simple’ the language of mathematics is, and how mathematical rues (proofs) or deductions are just the simplest possible theory -with the added benefit that since math is scale independent, we don’t have to think about limits.
- Formal Grammar (logics)
- Laws of Nature Grammar (Natural/physical Sciences)
- Natural Laws Grammar (Cognitive, Behavioral, and Social Science)
Identity (category) Sets (multiple categories) Association (pairing off, pebbles etc.) Ordering (positional naming, numbers) Counting(Arithmetic) Balances (Accounting) Ratios (Math) Lines (Geometry) Curves (Calculus (change)) Waves ( Wave Functions (competition) ) Models (Manifolds, topology, geometries, n-dimesional geometries) Simulation (…) All grammars follow this same evolution. All language is open to geometric representation.
-
No. It’s that Math Is the Reductio Example of Grammar.
Mar 22, 2020, 3:34 PM Math? … It’s not so much math. I don’t really think that way. Instead, I understand the grammars. I understand math is the most simple possible Formal grammar. That programming the next grammar, and that law the next grammar. And so I illustrate concepts with the most simple possible grammar: math. The more I do this the more ‘trivial’ or “simple’ the language of mathematics is, and how mathematical rues (proofs) or deductions are just the simplest possible theory -with the added benefit that since math is scale independent, we don’t have to think about limits.
- Formal Grammar (logics)
- Laws of Nature Grammar (Natural/physical Sciences)
- Natural Laws Grammar (Cognitive, Behavioral, and Social Science)
Identity (category) Sets (multiple categories) Association (pairing off, pebbles etc.) Ordering (positional naming, numbers) Counting(Arithmetic) Balances (Accounting) Ratios (Math) Lines (Geometry) Curves (Calculus (change)) Waves ( Wave Functions (competition) ) Models (Manifolds, topology, geometries, n-dimesional geometries) Simulation (…) All grammars follow this same evolution. All language is open to geometric representation.
-
Learning “Curt Speak” (P-Logic) is a Process
Learning “Curt Speak” (P-Logic) is a Process. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/learning-curt-speak-p-logic-is-a-process/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 12:33:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265984651451158528
-
Learning “Curt Speak” (P-Logic) is a Process.
Apr 2, 2020, 6:00 PM
—“When I started following Curt years back (how long has it been???) I used to get in fights with him over his fucking neologisms. I didn’t know I actually agreed with him at first—mostly. There’s enough to disagree with as it is for a new guy—and learning Curt speak is a process.”—Daniel Roland Anderson
-
Learning “Curt Speak” (P-Logic) is a Process.
Apr 2, 2020, 6:00 PM
—“When I started following Curt years back (how long has it been???) I used to get in fights with him over his fucking neologisms. I didn’t know I actually agreed with him at first—mostly. There’s enough to disagree with as it is for a new guy—and learning Curt speak is a process.”—Daniel Roland Anderson