Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • The Difference Between “Operational” and “Intuitionistic”.

    (important)

    [I] use the term “Operational” in preference to “Intuitionistic” because the term “intuitionistic” is an uncomfortable one (like “rent-seeking”) that is open to easy misinterpretation, and the term “operational” invokes the meaning that I want it to: actions that humans can possibly take.

    But this is a personal act of argumentative license. There is a significant difference between the terms Operational(actions we take to observe and measure) and Intuitionistic(physical and mental operations that it is possible for humans to perform).

    In practice, when speaking tests of existential possibility, macro economic measures must be performed operationally, often using logical and physical instrumentation. But tests of existential possibility, rationality, and voluntary and involuntary transfer, require only sympathetic testing (reducing economic phenomenon to at least loosely rational sequence of actions that are subjectively believable).

    So just as mathematical operations must be mentally possible and logically consistent (maintaining a balance of ratios), so must sequences of human actions be mentally possible (posses information to do so), subjectively consistent (what we often mistakenly call ‘rational’, but meaning preferential), and if physical action required, physically possible.

    Lest someone leap to conclusions, The difference between mathematical systems and real world systems, is the difference between axiomatic(closed) and real (open) in which humans are constantly subject to information by which they can rearrange the priority of preferences in vast overlapping networks, as well as attempt to outwit one another (contrarian opportunism).

    As such, since in an axiomatic system all information is present, and in a real-world(open) system, all information can never be present, our ability to deduce outcomes is dependent on the degree to which the information is closed (invariant): the more open the system is to new information the less predictive it can be – and as Taleb has demonstrated, shocks generate more consequential signals than predictable signals, and the information required to anticipate signals in the tail is many thousands of times higher than the same predictability within the primary distribution. Therefore while we can deduce general trends in economic phenomenon, we cannot deduce all economic phenomenon with any degree predictive success. Yet we can (usually) explain observed phenomenon given time.

    This means that the Austrian program is largely correct: that economic policy will produce deterministic results. But the position of the main stream opposition is that the good achieved by manipulation is greater than the harm caused by economic distortion. (This remains the central subject of contention, since it will be very hard to prove on way or another.)

    The general trend in economics has been one in which we attempt to provide that improvement by disallowing a shortage of money that would impede growth, by targeting various empirical measures of questionable use, and using the maximum borrowing capacity of the state as a means of inter-temporally adjusting investments in infrastructure and commons. But this emphasis has led to ignoring the means by which economies perform: demographics, education policy, industrial policy, rule of law, homogeneity of culture, and trust. In other words: taking human capital for granted under the false assumption of equality and the good of diversity.

    And this is problematic, because the first most important criteria for economic performance in the absence of external inputs of technology, or military conquest, or possession of unique territory, is trust. And the corporeal state, multiculturalism, and universalism appear to erode that trust systematically – with predictable results.

    BACK TO INTUITIONISM AND OPERATIONALISM
    So, while I may switch from Operationalism (broader) to Intuitionism (narrower) at present I prefer the broader term because of its general meaning and broader scope even though in economics the term Intuitionism is probably closer to corresponding with the purpose I intend: a requirement for the existential possibility of operations in order to criticize our assumptions (premises).

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “OPERATIONAL” AND “INTUITIONISTIC” (important) I use the

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “OPERATIONAL” AND “INTUITIONISTIC”

    (important)

    I use the term Operational in preference to Intuitionistic because the term “intuitionistic” is an uncomfortable one (like “rent-seeking”) that is open to easy misinterpretation, and the term “operational” invokes the meaning that I want it to: actions that humans can possibly take.

    But this is a personal act of argumentative license. There is a significant difference between the terms Operational(actions we take to observe and measure) and Intuitionistic(physical and mental operations that it is possible for humans to perform).

    In practice, when speaking tests of existential possibility, macro economic measures must be performed operationally, often using logical and physical instrumentation. But tests of existential possibility, rationality, and voluntary and involuntary transfer, require only sympathetic testing (reducing economic phenomenon to at least loosely rational sequence of actions that are subjectively believable).

    So just as mathematical operations must be mentally possible and logically consistent (maintaining a balance of ratios), so must sequences of human actions be mentally possible (posses information to do so), subjectively consistent (what we often mistakenly call ‘rational’, but meaning preferential), and if physical action required, physically possible.

    Lest someone leap to conclusions, The difference between mathematical systems and real world systems, is the difference between axiomatic(closed) and real (open) in which humans are constantly subject to information by which they can rearrange the priority of preferences in vast overlapping networks, as well as attempt to outwit one another (contrarian opportunism).

    As such, since in an axiomatic system all information is present, and in a real-world(open) system, all information can never be present, our ability to deduce outcomes is dependent on the degree to which the information is closed (invariant): the more open the system is to new information the less predictive it can be – and as Taleb has demonstrated, shocks generate more resultant signals than predictable signals, and the information required to anticipate signals in the tail is many thousands of times higher than the same predictability within the primary distribution. Therefore while we can deduce general trends in economic phenomenon, we cannot deduce all economic phenomenon with any degree predictive success. Yet we can (usually) explain observed phenomenon given time.

    This means that the Austrian program is largely correct: that economic policy will produce deterministic results. But the position of the main stream opposition is that the good achieved by manipulation is greater than the harm caused by economic distortion. (This remains the central subject of contention, since it will be very hard to prove on way or another.)

    The general trend in economics has been one in which we attempt to provide that improvement by disallowing a shortage of money that would impede growth, by targeting various empirical measures of questionable use, and using the maximum borrowing capacity of the state as a means of inter-temporally adjusting investments in infrastructure and commons. But this emphasis has led to ignoring the means by which economies perform: demographics, education policy, industrial policy, rule of law, homogeneity of culture, and trust. In other words: taking human capital for granted under the false assumption of equality and the good of diversity.

    And this is problematic, because the first most important criteria for economic performance in the absence of external inputs of technology, or military conquest, or possession of unique territory, is trust. And the corporeal state, multiculturalism, and universalism appear to erode that trust systematically – with predictable results.

    BACK TO INTUITIONISM AND OPERATIONALISM

    So, while I may switch from Operationalism (broader) to Intuitionism (narrower) at present I prefer the broader term because of its general meaning and broader scope even though in economics the term Intuitionism is probably closer to corresponding with the purpose I intend: a requirement for the existential possibility of operations in order to criticize our assumptions (premises).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-24 04:56:00 UTC

  • you need operational language in politics law and economics

    http://takimag.com/article/jonathan_gruber_honest_liberal_patrick_buchanan#axzz3Li934qk7Why you need operational language in politics law and economics

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-12 13:51:00 UTC

  • THE TRANSFORMATION OF AUTISTIC INTUITION TO OPERATIONAL EXPOSITION. Yes, my work

    THE TRANSFORMATION OF AUTISTIC INTUITION TO OPERATIONAL EXPOSITION.

    Yes, my work is getting clearer. Yes it is getting easier for BOTH you and I to understand. Well, but what’s the reason why I had a lot of trouble articulating my ideas in the past? I could sense the pattern and talk about it with autistic forms of symbolic analogy, but I could not convert it into more accessible language because I hadn’t yet been able to identify and model all the axis I was working from. Today I can. And pretty soon I’ll be able to reduce it to a few simple rules. But going from autistic speech (pattern intuition without rational comprehension of those patterns) is just not a very suitable means of argument. And the art is in patiently and deliberately attempting to state the arguments operationally (using new existentially possible frameworks to build upon) rather than meaningfully (using extant imaginary frameworks to build upon).

    I don’t really ‘think’ of things in any material sense as much as gather information and ‘catch’ intuitions that are usually too subtle and complex to ignore . The difference which has caused me some difficulty in life is that I intuit operationally correspondent (operational) patterns, but I have no intuition for experiential (meaningful) patterns what soever. My brain does not allow me to use empathy as a shortcut. This particular blindness means that I am somewhat limited to ascertainable facts instead of experiences – I just don’t HAVE those experiences to work from. Whereas ordinary people have a problem seeing beyond experiences because they’re so clear, influential and meaningful.

    Autistic worlds are very different. There is a lot LESS in them. So we have less to calculate with. If you look at it that way it’s not so much that people like me are massively smarter than people with similar IQ’s. But it’s that we only see non-experiential signals, and as such are sort of specialized tools – conceptual warrior ants in the human tribal hive.

    I think it’s wrong to express this as a disease or illness rather than a specialization. And I think it’s also wrong to to say autistic thought is ‘more internal’, rather than we are just working with the data we have to work with. In my case it has been emotionally painful but personally fruitful.

    The whole anglo philosophical and political fantasy of equality has been a disaster for mankind. We must be equal in property rights and equal under the law, but that’s so that we may coordinate our actions as specialists, and succeed as specialists – not so that we can act as equals.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-12 04:10:00 UTC

  • Language Evolved To Negotiate – It Wasn’t Suitable for Truth Telling (Science)

    (Profound)

    [I]f language evolved for us to negotiate with, then it’s no wonder that it is so unsuitable for use as an internal language to understand truth with – to think with.

    Language wasn’t invented to lie with. But it was invented to negotiate with.  

     

  • Language Evolved To Negotiate – It Wasn’t Suitable for Truth Telling (Science)

    (Profound)

    [I]f language evolved for us to negotiate with, then it’s no wonder that it is so unsuitable for use as an internal language to understand truth with – to think with.

    Language wasn’t invented to lie with. But it was invented to negotiate with.  

     

  • If language evolved for us to negotiate with, then it’s no wonder that it is so

    If language evolved for us to negotiate with, then it’s no wonder that it is so unsuitable for an internal language to understand truth with.

    (Profound)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-10 04:03:00 UTC

  • ARE DEFINITIONS IMPORTANT? Well that depends upon whether one is discussing expe

    ARE DEFINITIONS IMPORTANT?

    Well that depends upon whether one is discussing experience, meaning or existence, and whether one conflates them.

    I write definitions all the time. It is very hard work.

    The only existentially possible truth is testimonial truth: a proposition that is internally consistent, externally correspondent, and operationally(existentially) possible. all other uses of the term truth are analogies to testimonial truth requiring fewer properties for the purpose of the method in which such statements are made.

    Mathematics (logic of relations) for example constructs proofs, and mathematicians claim that they they are true: internally consistent. Mathematics is an internally consistent system in which both discovery and existence are operationally demonstrated.

    Physics (logic of causation) uses mathematics, and therefore statements in physics also require external correspondence. We can only test the measurements for existence, so we test measures rather than causal properties.

    In human action and human cooperation, we rely on internal consistency of statements, external correspondence, as well as operational definitions – because we must insure that we are not using information supplied by imagination instead of existential information alone.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-04 12:55:00 UTC

  • Sketch on Obverse/Inverse and Positive/Negative as Context/Rule

    (sketch)
    [I] have been working on this idea, and I finally gotten close to expressing it tangibly as measurement.  The examples I give are the golden(positive) vs the silver rule(negative),  property(positive) vs property rights(negative).  And I want to construct a general rule for requiring both positive(contextual precision) and negative(general rule).  Because I feel its necessary to unify the sciences, philosophy morality and law in order to eliminate ‘escape routes’ by various forms of verbalism, that man will try to employ as a means of circumventing the moral constraint of truth-speaking.

    Differences 
    ———-
    IDENTICAL: indistinguishable from one another.
    FUNGIBLE: each unit of a commodity is replaceable other units of the same commodity.
    SUBSTITUTABLE: performs the same utility in the context of a given purpose.

    MARGINALLY INDIFFERENT: insufficiently different to cause a change in state.
    MARGINALLY DIFFERENT: sufficiently different to cause a change in state.
    COMMENSURABLE: measurable by the same standard.
    INCOMMENSURABLE: having no common standard of measurement.

    Propositions
    —————–
    DECIDABLE: A decision can be made without the addition of external information.
    CALCULABLE: An operation can be performed without the addition of external information.
    DEDUCIBLE: A prediction can be made without the need for external information.
    OPERATIONAL: a conclusion can be reached by a series of existentially possible operations.
    STRICTLY OPERATIONAL : the theory is constructible (i)using existentially possible operations, (ii)does not include use of analogy, (iii)does not require inference (deduction), and (iv) survives all argumentative falsification. 
    ORIGINAL INTENTION (CONTEXT / ARBITRARY PRECISION) : in interpreting a text, a court should determine what the authors of the text were trying to achieve, and to give effect to what they intended the statute to accomplish, the actual text of the legislation notwithstanding.

    TEXTUAL / NARROW/ TRUE (Conservative – normative and legislative) vs ALLEGORICAL / WIDE / MEANING(judicial) interpretation.
    In textual/Narrow/True (conservative) legal interpretation, a law is analogous to an operational recipe and changes to the recipe must be enacted by the legislature. In Allegorical / Wide / Meaning (Progressive) interpretation, the judges can invent law if they can justify the extension of the principle of the law into new areas of application not considered by it’s authors. In practice conservative TRUTH and progressive MEANING place the construction of law into the hands of the judiciary rather than the hands of the legislature and people.

    HOLMES’ LIE
    ——————
    The life of the law may have been experience but that is not license for judges to write law at will – it is an admission of the failure of legal theorists to develop propertarianism, and to separate the resolution of disputes according to the law, from the development of contracts (legislative law) on behalf of the citizenry. The separation of functions of government is necessary for the defense of the people against tyranny. Holmes justified tyranny with his deceptive use of rationalism.

    Propertarianism
    ———————
    See Wiki (or legal dictionary) Textualism (the law is only what is written in the text), Originalism(the text must be interpreted as the authors intended it) and Strict Constructionism ( which is weak textualism and is not practiced ).

    In Propertarianism, have attempted to prevent deceptions by requiring law be written to include its precision – original intention – as a preamble for any prohibition, thus requiring both the obverse and inverse propositions, such that when conditions fail (precision is exceeded) then we must revert to strict operationalism to construct new law.

    In history, judges ‘discovered’ law, and asked the people (the legislature) to approve it. This constraint – the request for legislative approval – extends the period of resolution of disputes. (Which I address elsewhere.) But under Propertarian Property rights, it should be possible to construct new precision from first principles – or not. If not, then it is not a matter of law, but a matter of contract. If it is a matter of contractual exchange, then it is a legislative matter, not one for the courts to decide.

    Purpose 
    ———–
    The American constitution was an innovative experiment that nearly achieved law in logical form. However, the problem of contextual precision that we came to understand in the twentieth century was not known at the time.

    The purpose of the law is to (negative or inverse) identify and prohibit involuntary operations, and to (positive or obverse) identify and codify voluntary operations.

    Obverse statements determine precision (conditions), that operational analysis can later demonstrate conditions to have exceeded. Such extensions then require new law (new conditions) constructed as Obverse (positive) statements.

    (Much more … but too much of a headache)

  • Sketch on Obverse/Inverse and Positive/Negative as Context/Rule

    (sketch)
    [I] have been working on this idea, and I finally gotten close to expressing it tangibly as measurement.  The examples I give are the golden(positive) vs the silver rule(negative),  property(positive) vs property rights(negative).  And I want to construct a general rule for requiring both positive(contextual precision) and negative(general rule).  Because I feel its necessary to unify the sciences, philosophy morality and law in order to eliminate ‘escape routes’ by various forms of verbalism, that man will try to employ as a means of circumventing the moral constraint of truth-speaking.

    Differences 
    ———-
    IDENTICAL: indistinguishable from one another.
    FUNGIBLE: each unit of a commodity is replaceable other units of the same commodity.
    SUBSTITUTABLE: performs the same utility in the context of a given purpose.

    MARGINALLY INDIFFERENT: insufficiently different to cause a change in state.
    MARGINALLY DIFFERENT: sufficiently different to cause a change in state.
    COMMENSURABLE: measurable by the same standard.
    INCOMMENSURABLE: having no common standard of measurement.

    Propositions
    —————–
    DECIDABLE: A decision can be made without the addition of external information.
    CALCULABLE: An operation can be performed without the addition of external information.
    DEDUCIBLE: A prediction can be made without the need for external information.
    OPERATIONAL: a conclusion can be reached by a series of existentially possible operations.
    STRICTLY OPERATIONAL : the theory is constructible (i)using existentially possible operations, (ii)does not include use of analogy, (iii)does not require inference (deduction), and (iv) survives all argumentative falsification. 
    ORIGINAL INTENTION (CONTEXT / ARBITRARY PRECISION) : in interpreting a text, a court should determine what the authors of the text were trying to achieve, and to give effect to what they intended the statute to accomplish, the actual text of the legislation notwithstanding.

    TEXTUAL / NARROW/ TRUE (Conservative – normative and legislative) vs ALLEGORICAL / WIDE / MEANING(judicial) interpretation.
    In textual/Narrow/True (conservative) legal interpretation, a law is analogous to an operational recipe and changes to the recipe must be enacted by the legislature. In Allegorical / Wide / Meaning (Progressive) interpretation, the judges can invent law if they can justify the extension of the principle of the law into new areas of application not considered by it’s authors. In practice conservative TRUTH and progressive MEANING place the construction of law into the hands of the judiciary rather than the hands of the legislature and people.

    HOLMES’ LIE
    ——————
    The life of the law may have been experience but that is not license for judges to write law at will – it is an admission of the failure of legal theorists to develop propertarianism, and to separate the resolution of disputes according to the law, from the development of contracts (legislative law) on behalf of the citizenry. The separation of functions of government is necessary for the defense of the people against tyranny. Holmes justified tyranny with his deceptive use of rationalism.

    Propertarianism
    ———————
    See Wiki (or legal dictionary) Textualism (the law is only what is written in the text), Originalism(the text must be interpreted as the authors intended it) and Strict Constructionism ( which is weak textualism and is not practiced ).

    In Propertarianism, have attempted to prevent deceptions by requiring law be written to include its precision – original intention – as a preamble for any prohibition, thus requiring both the obverse and inverse propositions, such that when conditions fail (precision is exceeded) then we must revert to strict operationalism to construct new law.

    In history, judges ‘discovered’ law, and asked the people (the legislature) to approve it. This constraint – the request for legislative approval – extends the period of resolution of disputes. (Which I address elsewhere.) But under Propertarian Property rights, it should be possible to construct new precision from first principles – or not. If not, then it is not a matter of law, but a matter of contract. If it is a matter of contractual exchange, then it is a legislative matter, not one for the courts to decide.

    Purpose 
    ———–
    The American constitution was an innovative experiment that nearly achieved law in logical form. However, the problem of contextual precision that we came to understand in the twentieth century was not known at the time.

    The purpose of the law is to (negative or inverse) identify and prohibit involuntary operations, and to (positive or obverse) identify and codify voluntary operations.

    Obverse statements determine precision (conditions), that operational analysis can later demonstrate conditions to have exceeded. Such extensions then require new law (new conditions) constructed as Obverse (positive) statements.

    (Much more … but too much of a headache)