Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • No. There Aren’t “Too Many Notes”. 😉

    May 26, 2020, 3:05 PM

    —“lotta words here”—Greg Allen

    what do you think i should say in response to your “lotta words” which is a classic example of “too many notes”.

    —“can u just be less gobbledegook and more concise? aren’t you trying to educate ppl?”—Greg Allen

    Not everyone can learn economics and calculus, but most can learn the general rules produced by economics and calculus. Similarly, not everyone can learn P-logic since it is a combination of programming, economics, and law, but most people can learn the general rules produced by P-logic and it’s combination of programming, economics, and law. I am trying to educate people who can be educated in a technical discipline like P-logic that is as hard as any other STEM education. I leave teaching the general rules produced by P-logic to those who specialize in it: John Mark and In Truth Victorious Most of P-law (operational logic) makes use of SERIES of fully disambiguated definitions). Those series of definitions are consistent and coherent with other definitions. Those definitions can be used to construct arguments in operational grammar that looks like programming accounting transactions of human actions. Together they produce a precise system of measurement. That system of measurement serves to render commensurable all cognitive, metaphysical-linguistic, psychological and social sciences. In this case, someone asked for the meaning of calculation, and then Brandon Hayes correctly suggested that I complete the explanation by providing the relationship between calculation and decidability. This is a technical question. Most very very smart people take six months to understand P. Others take years. its not all that difficult to understand. It is fairly difficult to DO. Although Martin, Brandon and others will help you if you need it.

  • No. There Aren’t “Too Many Notes”. 😉

    May 26, 2020, 3:05 PM

    —“lotta words here”—Greg Allen

    what do you think i should say in response to your “lotta words” which is a classic example of “too many notes”.

    —“can u just be less gobbledegook and more concise? aren’t you trying to educate ppl?”—Greg Allen

    Not everyone can learn economics and calculus, but most can learn the general rules produced by economics and calculus. Similarly, not everyone can learn P-logic since it is a combination of programming, economics, and law, but most people can learn the general rules produced by P-logic and it’s combination of programming, economics, and law. I am trying to educate people who can be educated in a technical discipline like P-logic that is as hard as any other STEM education. I leave teaching the general rules produced by P-logic to those who specialize in it: John Mark and In Truth Victorious Most of P-law (operational logic) makes use of SERIES of fully disambiguated definitions). Those series of definitions are consistent and coherent with other definitions. Those definitions can be used to construct arguments in operational grammar that looks like programming accounting transactions of human actions. Together they produce a precise system of measurement. That system of measurement serves to render commensurable all cognitive, metaphysical-linguistic, psychological and social sciences. In this case, someone asked for the meaning of calculation, and then Brandon Hayes correctly suggested that I complete the explanation by providing the relationship between calculation and decidability. This is a technical question. Most very very smart people take six months to understand P. Others take years. its not all that difficult to understand. It is fairly difficult to DO. Although Martin, Brandon and others will help you if you need it.

  • Counsel: Philosophy vs Sophism

    Oct 1, 2019, 11:55 AM Given any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Example: Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil constant relations: 1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative 2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest 3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.) Most sophistry in philosophy consists of: 1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence; 3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; 4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more. ORIGINS Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics. Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority. The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.). Edit

  • Counsel: Philosophy vs Sophism

    Oct 1, 2019, 11:55 AM Given any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Example: Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil constant relations: 1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative 2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest 3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.) Most sophistry in philosophy consists of: 1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence; 3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; 4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more. ORIGINS Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics. Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority. The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.). Edit

  • Numeric (ideal, verbal, aggregates), vs Spatial (real, measurements, components)

    Numeric (ideal, verbal, aggregates), vs Spatial (real, measurements, components).This is a reference to the Foundations Course on the geometry of thought on one hand and a reminder that descartes restored greek thought in math (geometry) from it’s infection by semitic(astrology).

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 23:58:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265794566768209922

    Reply addressees: @_Indirection

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265789282834436101

  • Yes You Are Unfit for Truth Regardless of Cost.

    Oct 8, 2019, 3:04 PM (reply to a hostile christian) Gunther; We are working on the development of a value free language of the human sciences, psychological, social, economic, political and strategic; articulating the western group evolutionary strategy in those terms; and producing a constitution in those terms, imposing that strategy, against the second abrahamic attack on civilization – the cause of the dark ages of ignorance in the past, and the cause of the coming dark ages in the present. You are an Abrahamist, trained by Abrahamists, to avoid the truth, by employing the female system of competition by undermining demanding that others agree with you, demonstrating disapproval rather than truth or falsehood, using disapproval, ridicule, moralizing; threatening to gossip and rally others, in defense of a superstition. You are cognitively feminine in a masculine body and addicted to the sedation provided by falsehood. You lack agency, and truth regardless of cost, and respect for our sovereignty, and are not a european male – and are rather unfit for this level of discourse for the same reason all but a few women are unfit for truthful masculine discourse. You need someone to confirm your comforting lies. To preserve your feeling of safety in the herd. You need to find that person. Others will provide you with that sedation. There are psychological drug dealers everywhere. You will eventually find some psychological drug dealer that proposes a possible solution for reformation of the country on terms you can tolerate because they don’t threaten the supply of sedation your addiction demands. When you are a man, if it is still possible, then join the conversation of men. Until then you are unfit. Addicts have no place in the world because it exists to prevent reality. Fictional Religion, alcohol, drugs are all forms of escape and sedation. We are men. We solve problems. You can’t. Reality does not exist for you.

  • Yes You Are Unfit for Truth Regardless of Cost.

    Oct 8, 2019, 3:04 PM (reply to a hostile christian) Gunther; We are working on the development of a value free language of the human sciences, psychological, social, economic, political and strategic; articulating the western group evolutionary strategy in those terms; and producing a constitution in those terms, imposing that strategy, against the second abrahamic attack on civilization – the cause of the dark ages of ignorance in the past, and the cause of the coming dark ages in the present. You are an Abrahamist, trained by Abrahamists, to avoid the truth, by employing the female system of competition by undermining demanding that others agree with you, demonstrating disapproval rather than truth or falsehood, using disapproval, ridicule, moralizing; threatening to gossip and rally others, in defense of a superstition. You are cognitively feminine in a masculine body and addicted to the sedation provided by falsehood. You lack agency, and truth regardless of cost, and respect for our sovereignty, and are not a european male – and are rather unfit for this level of discourse for the same reason all but a few women are unfit for truthful masculine discourse. You need someone to confirm your comforting lies. To preserve your feeling of safety in the herd. You need to find that person. Others will provide you with that sedation. There are psychological drug dealers everywhere. You will eventually find some psychological drug dealer that proposes a possible solution for reformation of the country on terms you can tolerate because they don’t threaten the supply of sedation your addiction demands. When you are a man, if it is still possible, then join the conversation of men. Until then you are unfit. Addicts have no place in the world because it exists to prevent reality. Fictional Religion, alcohol, drugs are all forms of escape and sedation. We are men. We solve problems. You can’t. Reality does not exist for you.

  • Mathematics is trivial.

    Oct 10, 2019, 11:19 AM

    —“Sometimes I wonder about mathematics. Why is there deeper structure?”—

    1 – The opposite. Mathematics is trivial. It consists entirely of positional names, and nothing else. Positional naming provides scale independence b/c positions are all ratios; arbitrary naming (correspondence), and invariable constant relations because of that single dimension. 2 – Just as the nautilus produce patterns because of ratios or previous ratios, all other ratios of ratios (mathematics) produce patterns. So mathematics consist of a language (grammar and semantics) of constant relation using positional names. 3 -The physical universe makes use of a more complex grammar we call the fundamental forces. Those fundamental forces consist of constant relations to one another, and are expressible in the language of constant relations using unique names by positional naming. 4 – So we see patterns in the universe (forces, particles, elements, molecules, biological molecules, proteins, cell walls etc because the available ratios of those fundamental forces are limited in permutation. However, the permutations of each level of permutation increase. 5 – So the fundamental patterns of the universe are simply the consequence of different ratios of the constant relations between different fundamental forces, which we can name with positional names, that we call numbers, and describe by changes in position in or across time. 6 – Math isn’t complicated, it’s trivial. More trivial than the foundations of the universe, which is why we can measure the foundations of the universe and all that results from it until we approach sentience at which point the purpose of memory is to outwit those constant relations … … and to capture the difference to defeat entropy, in a process we call ‘life’.

  • Mathematics is trivial.

    Oct 10, 2019, 11:19 AM

    —“Sometimes I wonder about mathematics. Why is there deeper structure?”—

    1 – The opposite. Mathematics is trivial. It consists entirely of positional names, and nothing else. Positional naming provides scale independence b/c positions are all ratios; arbitrary naming (correspondence), and invariable constant relations because of that single dimension. 2 – Just as the nautilus produce patterns because of ratios or previous ratios, all other ratios of ratios (mathematics) produce patterns. So mathematics consist of a language (grammar and semantics) of constant relation using positional names. 3 -The physical universe makes use of a more complex grammar we call the fundamental forces. Those fundamental forces consist of constant relations to one another, and are expressible in the language of constant relations using unique names by positional naming. 4 – So we see patterns in the universe (forces, particles, elements, molecules, biological molecules, proteins, cell walls etc because the available ratios of those fundamental forces are limited in permutation. However, the permutations of each level of permutation increase. 5 – So the fundamental patterns of the universe are simply the consequence of different ratios of the constant relations between different fundamental forces, which we can name with positional names, that we call numbers, and describe by changes in position in or across time. 6 – Math isn’t complicated, it’s trivial. More trivial than the foundations of the universe, which is why we can measure the foundations of the universe and all that results from it until we approach sentience at which point the purpose of memory is to outwit those constant relations … … and to capture the difference to defeat entropy, in a process we call ‘life’.

  • Math was made mysterious so that the people could treat it like a mystery cult

    Math was made mysterious so that the people could treat it like a mystery cult https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/math-was-made-mysterious-so-that-the-people-could-treat-it-like-a-mystery-cult/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:52:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265702493499133958