Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • Again, The Liar’s Paradox Isn’t A Paradox

    The term is “The Liar’s Paradox”, and its variants. Arthur Prior does a weak job of correctly explaining why it isn’t a paradox. I’ll explain why it’s not a paradox in detail if anyone is interested. The Liar’s Paradox illustrates the difference between math, logic, reason, and science, and difference between platonism vs operationalism, and the difference between well formed and malformed statements in colloquial grammar, ordinary language grammar, vs deflationary grammars. Or stated differently, the grammatical structure of the statement relies on ordinary language grammar, while the question refers to formal, legal,or logical grammar. For example, you can draw the square root of two, you can apply the square root of two in calculation or construction, but you cannot calculate it itself. And for the same reason.

  • Again, The Liar’s Paradox Isn’t A Paradox

    The term is “The Liar’s Paradox”, and its variants. Arthur Prior does a weak job of correctly explaining why it isn’t a paradox. I’ll explain why it’s not a paradox in detail if anyone is interested. The Liar’s Paradox illustrates the difference between math, logic, reason, and science, and difference between platonism vs operationalism, and the difference between well formed and malformed statements in colloquial grammar, ordinary language grammar, vs deflationary grammars. Or stated differently, the grammatical structure of the statement relies on ordinary language grammar, while the question refers to formal, legal,or logical grammar. For example, you can draw the square root of two, you can apply the square root of two in calculation or construction, but you cannot calculate it itself. And for the same reason.

  • THE FIFTH SECRET OF PROPERTARIANISM: WORDS THAT I USE MEAN WHAT I INTEND THEM TO

    THE FIFTH SECRET OF PROPERTARIANISM: WORDS THAT I USE MEAN WHAT I INTEND THEM TO MEAN.

    Yes I must create new terms, redefine existing terms, or clarify existing terms, or use different phrasing to prevent the falsehoods in accumulated semantics, whether fictional(fictionalisms), common(ordinary), professional (disciplinary).

    Moreover, in order to unite Religion, Philosophy (what remains of it), Ethics and Morality, Law, Economics, Science, and Logic, into a single commensurable language that gives no discipline room for deception, I must correct the many ‘fictionalisms’ that plague each of the disciplines no matter how long their traditions.

    So I choose terms from each that are the most common, and you will find that I choose economics, cognitive science, and physics wherever possible, because they are the youngest languages with the least …. traditional falsehoods. I use mathematics but I use it in operational language. Most of our intellectual history is heavily biased by fictionalisms (storytelling analogies with pretense of science, logic, or reason.)

    Words mean what I choose them to mean, and my meanings are less subject to falsehood, since that is the purpose of the deflationary grammar (and semantics) of operationism, acquisitionism, propertarianism.

    TO DEFEAT ABRAHAMISM: THE INVENTION OF LYING.

    And I have an 80K word glossary to explain them.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-28 11:36:00 UTC

  • The Fifth Secret Of Propertarianism: Words That I Use Mean What I Intend Them To Mean.

    Yes I must create new terms, redefine existing terms, or clarify existing terms, or use different phrasing to prevent the falsehoods in accumulated semantics, whether fictional(fictionalisms), common(ordinary), professional (disciplinary). Moreover, in order to unite Religion, Philosophy (what remains of it), Ethics and Morality, Law, Economics, Science, and Logic, into a single commensurable language that gives no discipline room for deception, I must correct the many ‘fictionalisms’ that plague each of the disciplines no matter how long their traditions. So I choose terms from each that are the most common, and you will find that I choose economics, cognitive science, and physics wherever possible, because they are the youngest languages with the least …. traditional falsehoods. I use mathematics but I use it in operational language. Most of our intellectual history is heavily biased by fictionalisms (storytelling analogies with pretense of science, logic, or reason.) Words mean what I choose them to mean, and my meanings are less subject to falsehood, since that is the purpose of the deflationary grammar (and semantics) of operationism, acquisitionism, propertarianism. TO DEFEAT ABRAHAMISM: THE INVENTION OF LYING. And I have an 80K word glossary to explain them. Cheers

  • The Fifth Secret Of Propertarianism: Words That I Use Mean What I Intend Them To Mean.

    Yes I must create new terms, redefine existing terms, or clarify existing terms, or use different phrasing to prevent the falsehoods in accumulated semantics, whether fictional(fictionalisms), common(ordinary), professional (disciplinary). Moreover, in order to unite Religion, Philosophy (what remains of it), Ethics and Morality, Law, Economics, Science, and Logic, into a single commensurable language that gives no discipline room for deception, I must correct the many ‘fictionalisms’ that plague each of the disciplines no matter how long their traditions. So I choose terms from each that are the most common, and you will find that I choose economics, cognitive science, and physics wherever possible, because they are the youngest languages with the least …. traditional falsehoods. I use mathematics but I use it in operational language. Most of our intellectual history is heavily biased by fictionalisms (storytelling analogies with pretense of science, logic, or reason.) Words mean what I choose them to mean, and my meanings are less subject to falsehood, since that is the purpose of the deflationary grammar (and semantics) of operationism, acquisitionism, propertarianism. TO DEFEAT ABRAHAMISM: THE INVENTION OF LYING. And I have an 80K word glossary to explain them. Cheers

  • THE FIRST SECRET OF LEARNING PROPERTARIANISM Operational language in full senten

    THE FIRST SECRET OF LEARNING PROPERTARIANISM

    Operational language in full sentences. All logics consists of some deflationary grammar that limits the structure of phrases, sentences, descriptions, and arguments, as well as the semantics (range of references you can use) to that which is empirical (observable).

    First, prohibit the use of the verb to-be in all forms. The verb to-be allows you to pretend you understand what you do not.

    Compose complete, fully-transactional sentences, in the form:

    —Actor, acts upon X{}, causing changes in states Y{}, and therefore causing these externalities Z{}.—

    This grammar reinforces the grammar of both economics and ethics: accounting for both the seen and unseen from the action to the totality of the consequences.

    Operational language prevents loading, framing, and suggestion – and largely deceit by the use of language.

    (start with reading about e-prime)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-28 11:05:00 UTC

  • The First Secret Of Learning Propertarianism

    Operational language in full sentences. All logics consists of some deflationary grammar that limits the structure of phrases, sentences, descriptions, and arguments, as well as the semantics (range of references you can use) to that which is empirical (observable). First, prohibit the use of the verb to-be in all forms. The verb to-be allows you to pretend you understand what you do not. Compose complete, fully-transactional sentences, in the form: —Actor, acts upon X{}, causing changes in states Y{}, and therefore causing these externalities Z{}.— This grammar reinforces the grammar of both economics and ethics: accounting for both the seen and unseen from the action to the totality of the consequences. Operational language prevents loading, framing, and suggestion – and largely deceit by the use of language. (start with reading about e-prime)

  • The First Secret Of Learning Propertarianism

    Operational language in full sentences. All logics consists of some deflationary grammar that limits the structure of phrases, sentences, descriptions, and arguments, as well as the semantics (range of references you can use) to that which is empirical (observable). First, prohibit the use of the verb to-be in all forms. The verb to-be allows you to pretend you understand what you do not. Compose complete, fully-transactional sentences, in the form: —Actor, acts upon X{}, causing changes in states Y{}, and therefore causing these externalities Z{}.— This grammar reinforces the grammar of both economics and ethics: accounting for both the seen and unseen from the action to the totality of the consequences. Operational language prevents loading, framing, and suggestion – and largely deceit by the use of language. (start with reading about e-prime)

  • WHAT DOES LOGIC MEAN AND WHAT ARE ITS LIMITS? The human facility we call logic c

    WHAT DOES LOGIC MEAN AND WHAT ARE ITS LIMITS?

    The human facility we call logic consists of tests of constant relations between states.

    The Logics consist of deflationary(limiting) grammars(rules of continuous disambiguation) that test via competition (comparison) the preservation of constant relations between states. And must, because that is all our brains(neurons) are capable of: relations.

    All non trivial premises are forever contingent. All non trivial statements are contingent. All non trivial proofs are contingent. And so the formal logics can only falsify the non trivial. No mathematician claims proofs and truths are the same. One does not prove the truth of anything. If not for the simple reason that confirmation does not convey truth – limits do (criteria of falsification).

    One tries to construct a proof of possibility or impossibility, and either can or cannot. One constructs operational proofs of possibility because operational statements are empirical (observable and measurable by the uniform system of measurement we call human action). Empirically, we prove nothing, but disprove much. Hence the world demonstrably operates by science and law.

    The same applies to that discipline we call logic itself. And so the formal logics teach us only how to falsify. One cannot prove a non trivial truth, only eliminate falsehoods.

    Popper was right. The sciences are right. I am right. Its same issue we have with mathematicians and mathematical platonism – infinities do not exit. Its a convention made necessary by scale independence. One cannot prove a truth. A statement survives prosecution or it doesn’t.

    Mathematics by virtue of consisting of nothing but positional names cannot consist of anything other than perfect constant relations.

    Just a matter of getting an authority figure to falsify it, rather than debate it with sophists who create straw men by conflating logic philosophy, law and science and just engage in denial of the first principle upon which their arguments depend: constant relations.

    Like prime numbers, some statements consist of relations so consistent that they cannot be otherwise.

    Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit.

    Pilpul in its original, theological, philosophical, rationalist, pseudorationalist, pseudoscientific forms can be brought to an end by consistent measurements: operational language and grammar. if we speak in complete sentences in operational grammar and semantics then we can put into law the same safeguards against propaganda and deceit in the market for information – particularly political information – that we have in the market for goods and services.

    -Curt Doolittle

    -The Propertarian Institute

    – Kiev Ukraine

    (PS: Trying to reach Catarina Dutilh Novaes to criticize it. She uses similar language so it will stand. (Never let a troll win.))

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-25 05:19:00 UTC

  • What Does Logic Mean And What Are Its Limits?

    The human facility we call logic consists of tests of constant relations between states. The Logics consist of deflationary(limiting) grammars(rules of continuous disambiguation) that test via competition (comparison) the preservation of constant relations between states. And must, because that is all our brains(neurons) are capable of: relations. All non trivial premises are forever contingent. All non trivial statements are contingent. All non trivial proofs are contingent. And so the formal logics can only falsify the non trivial. No mathematician claims proofs and truths are the same. One does not prove the truth of anything. If not for the simple reason that confirmation does not convey truth – limits do (criteria of falsification). One tries to construct a proof of possibility or impossibility, and either can or cannot. One constructs operational proofs of possibility because operational statements are empirical (observable and measurable by the uniform system of measurement we call human action). Empirically, we prove nothing, but disprove much. Hence the world demonstrably operates by science and law. The same applies to that discipline we call logic itself. And so the formal logics teach us only how to falsify. One cannot prove a non trivial truth, only eliminate falsehoods. Popper was right. The sciences are right. I am right. Its same issue we have with mathematicians and mathematical platonism – infinities do not exit. Its a convention made necessary by scale independence. One cannot prove a truth. A statement survives prosecution or it doesn’t. Mathematics by virtue of consisting of nothing but positional names cannot consist of anything other than perfect constant relations. Just a matter of getting an authority figure to falsify it, rather than debate it with sophists who create straw men by conflating logic philosophy, law and science and just engage in denial of the first principle upon which their arguments depend: constant relations. Like prime numbers, some statements consist of relations so consistent that they cannot be otherwise. Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit. Pilpul in its original, theological, philosophical, rationalist, pseudorationalist, pseudoscientific forms can be brought to an end by consistent measurements: operational language and grammar. if we speak in complete sentences in operational grammar and semantics then we can put into law the same safeguards against propaganda and deceit in the market for information – particularly political information – that we have in the market for goods and services. -Curt Doolittle -The Propertarian Institute – Kiev Ukraine (PS: Trying to reach Catarina Dutilh Novaes to criticize it. She uses similar language so it will stand. (Never let a troll win.))