Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • 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.

    1. Formal Grammar (logics)
    2. Laws of Nature Grammar (Natural/physical Sciences)
    3. 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.

  • P-Law for Dummies

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:53 AM

    1. Learn the dimensions of consistency necessary for claims one has performed the due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit that are necessary for claims of testimonial truth: categorical, logical, operational, empirical, rational, reciprocal consistency, limits, completeness, and coherence.

    2. Learn how to disambiguate by operationalization and serialization of terms into series (types) so that conflation and subsequent errors and deceits of conflation and inference are impossible. This will unite the different fields into a common vocabulary.

    3. Learn how to write in complete, promissory, operational vocabulary, free of the verb to be (eliminate pretense of knowledge) – this will unite the fields into a common grammar.

    4. Write definitions in that operational vocabulary and grammar that describe man and mankind from the individual to the species to prevent misrepresentation.

    5. Take the natural law of tort (demonstrated interest), the demand for reciprocity as a test of decidability in matters of conflict (productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality, warrantied, and within limits of restitution possible by the actors.)

    6. Write all constitution, legislation, regulation, and finding of the courts in this language, grammar, and programmatic structure

    7. Restate the constitution, and in particular the bill of rights in these strictly constructed terms, closed to arbitrary interpretation, to fully enumerate all rights, obligations, and inalienability of those rights and obligations.

    8. Expand the law of fraud from commercial speech to political (and academic) speech, in public, in matters public, to the public, and grant universal standing in matters of the commons. (Reduce the barrier to class actions against false, and irreciprocal speech

    9. Plug the primary hole in western law of tort that was exploited during the twentieth century: Criminalize baiting into hazard using false and unwarrantable promise. The effect of this will be to suppress lying by the state, the financial sector, the commercial sector, the media, the academy,

    10. Restore universal applicability so that those issuing legislation, regulation, and findings of the court, are liable for their actions, prohibiting violation of the constitution and strict construction.

    11. Require the court assent all legislation and regulation. Provide means by which the undecidable is returned to the legislature for settlement – rather than the court.

    This sequence will outlaw the entire postwar attempt to reverse the Darwinian revolution that explained, and justified western civilizations’ thousands of years of self domestication with criteria for reproduction, and aggressive hanging of criminals, dragging mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, starvation, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature by the false promises of french socialism, german secular theology, jewish marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and human-biodiversity-denialism, that are positioned as a war against european supremacy – but is nothing more than the attempt to end the reason for the west (and east asia’s) success: Self domestication through negative eugenics (limiting underclass reproduction and survival) are more important than even education and literacy and the primary diver for raising mankind to its current condition. The anti-semitism in Propertarianism is not a genetic criticism, but anti-abrahamic: the use of the abrahamic method of deceit that institutionalized as a group strategy the female means of warfare by undermining from within by the fomentation of conflict between men. Judaism, christianity, and islam, in the old world, and marxism(class warfare to undermine formal institutions), postmodernism (social construction to undermine soft institutions), feminism (to undermine familial institutions), and human science denialism (to undermine the optimum group strategy of ethnocentrism for developing high trust, high investment commons, and high redistribution).

    —“I categorize P as describing the intellectual foundations of western civlization that the populists are currently demanding, but don’t know how to express in rational and scientific terms.”—

    P-law completes the scientific method as one of due diligence; completes the darwinian revolution of decision by competition in evolution; and unites the physical, cognitive, psychological, social, political and economic sciences into one discipline: testimony by realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, rational choice, reciprocity, within limits, completeness, and restitutability. This is why we think y’all (Critics) are rather dimwits. You latch onto what you grasp. You do not seek to understand. And in doing so maintain ignorance and immorality and the destruction of western civlization and its benefits to mankind, out of your own laziness and arrogance. P completes the Aristotelian project. Doolittle is not special. Like Aristotle, Smith, Hume, and Darwin, he is just living at a point in time where cognitive science, Turing’s revolution, economics, and evidence of the past century have combined with the internet’s discount on the acquisition and access to research publications, making possible the completion of the synthesis of disciplines to reform the laws we live under such that we prevent another semitic dark age brought about by the the most advanced system of deception invented by man: the weaponization and institutionalization of the female means of undermining by false promise (seduction) from within.

  • How Does P-Law Differ from Philosophy?

    Apr 1, 2020, 2:11 PM (core) You could call P-Law Operational Philosophy in the sequence of syllogistic reason > rationalism > set logic > operational logic > equilibrial logic (economic logic) 0) uses series (supply demand) vs ideals. 1) uses operational vs set logic 2) users ternary logic not binary (undecidable, truthful, false) 3) uses satisfaction of demand for infallibility not ideal truth 4) tests for deceits not just errors 5) tests for irreciprocity not just ‘good’ 6) tests for costs not just internal consistency 7) tests for closure by reality instead of just non-contradiction 8) tests for limits and full accounting. 9) tests for warranty of due diligence, liability, restitutability.

  • How Does P-Law Differ from Philosophy?

    Apr 1, 2020, 2:11 PM (core) You could call P-Law Operational Philosophy in the sequence of syllogistic reason > rationalism > set logic > operational logic > equilibrial logic (economic logic) 0) uses series (supply demand) vs ideals. 1) uses operational vs set logic 2) users ternary logic not binary (undecidable, truthful, false) 3) uses satisfaction of demand for infallibility not ideal truth 4) tests for deceits not just errors 5) tests for irreciprocity not just ‘good’ 6) tests for costs not just internal consistency 7) tests for closure by reality instead of just non-contradiction 8) tests for limits and full accounting. 9) tests for warranty of due diligence, liability, restitutability.

  • Math versus Natural Law — the Same?

    Apr 11, 2020, 2:30 PM Math is a logic of positional naming, and Natural law a logic of Property Naming. The grammar of both Math and Law consists of operations on names. So in math we use operations to maintain balance (equilibrium) on both sides of an equal’s sign, and in natural law we use operations to maintain balance between individuals. See? Here: Human Logical Facility (constant relations) > …. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) > …. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) > …. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) > …. …. …. …. Math (positional names) > …. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) > …. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence (Notice: Note how I left out verbal logic, rationalism, and philosophy because they’re included in sophistry.) Edit

  • P Law Expressed in Mathematics

    Apr 14, 2020, 4:37 PM A very smart guy understands how to express P-Law in Mathematics. (I think in geometry, but he’s got it right). — Billy Law-Bregan — In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics where the radix point separates integers from fractionals, would you say in Natural Law the radix point exists between ordinary language and opining? — CurtD — Smart. Good thinking. Good question. In mathematics the radix is the base set of names of positions (nouns), before restoring to positional naming (multipliers of the base: phrases). The grammar of mathematics adds the possible operations (verbs), all of which are variations on addition or its reverse, subtraction (transformations), and the only possible tests of positional comparison, less, equal, or greater (equilibria), an the only possible test of agreement (truth, false, undecidable) In law, the equivalent of radix (base nouns) consist of the vocabulary of actionable references given human facility for sensation, perception, intuition (nouns, names, referents), the vocabulary of operations (verbs, thought word and deed), and the possible changes in state (transformations), and the and the only possible tests comparison (possibility) and only possible test of agreement (empiricism-observation-action, logic-consistency-intuition-word, and experience-sense-perception-autoassociation ). So yes the human grammatical facility, and the structure of grammar, the structure of transactions with that grammar(journal), and the epistemology of the story(ledger) is the same across every one of the grammars from deflationary (math) to functional (programming) to operational (natural law) to ordinary language to the inflationary grammars of narratives, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits. MATH: Actor (presumed), associated reference (object named by positional name), name of referent – number (positional name), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. LAW: Actor, Action (name of human action), associated reference (object), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. STORY: name of referent – actor, action, transformation, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total All grammars are the same and accounting, finance, and economics are the least error prone methods of describing human action. In this sense, law asks us for a full accounting of human actions so that we can test whether the statements are testifiable (fully accounted) or not, and if not, then how they are not fully accounted, and by deduction, why they aren’t. (ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-farming, suggestion-obscurantism-overloading, the fictionalisms of sophistry, pseudoscience, or the occult, or outright deceit. Ergo P-law fits in the sequence: arithmetic, accounting, programming, natural law, economics, group strategy. — Billy Law-Bregan — I get it, I think. In law, the radix exists as actionable references. Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required (radix economy) required express it in that particular base (in this case, actionable references. So continuous recursive disambiguation exists as the tool to teach that efficiency. Something else fell into place for me. I said that the radix exists as actionable references. And, Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required to express it in that particular base (actionable references). I think it does something else, too. The radix determines the magnitude of a particular system and represents the value of that system. Moreover, it determines the maximum value of the referents used in the system. E.g. Octagonal base type. Radix (r) = 8. Maximum value of referent exists as 0 to (r)-1. Therefore, maximum value of referent = 7. So, in octagonal base, 428 exceeds the limit of (r), which makes it ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false? (I think). So, I think that In Natural Law, as in mathematics, the radix (accountable references) determine the maximum value/limits of the operations, transformations, positional comparison, test of agreement, and Testimony. Anything that exceeds the limit of (r) exists as inflationary/ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false. I think this also explains why the verb “to be” creates problems in reporting. The various conjugations of the verb violate the magnitude/value/limit determined by the radix. –CurtD– Well done. 😉 You know you have a phd subject right there that unites philosophy mathematics and law. 😉 ===NOTE=== This exchange is in response to this post: MATH VERSUS NATURAL LAW — THE SAME? Math is a logic of positional naming, and Natural law a logic of Property Naming. The grammar of both Math and Law consists of operations on names. So in math we use operations to maintain balance (equilibrium) on both sides of an equal’s sign, and in natural law we use operations to maintain balance between individuals. See? Here: Human Logical Facility (constant relations) > …. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) > …. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) > …. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) > …. …. …. …. Math (positional names) > …. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) > …. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence (Notice: Note how I left out verbal logic, rationalism, and philosophy because they’re included in sophistry.)

  • P Law Expressed in Mathematics

    Apr 14, 2020, 4:37 PM A very smart guy understands how to express P-Law in Mathematics. (I think in geometry, but he’s got it right). — Billy Law-Bregan — In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics where the radix point separates integers from fractionals, would you say in Natural Law the radix point exists between ordinary language and opining? — CurtD — Smart. Good thinking. Good question. In mathematics the radix is the base set of names of positions (nouns), before restoring to positional naming (multipliers of the base: phrases). The grammar of mathematics adds the possible operations (verbs), all of which are variations on addition or its reverse, subtraction (transformations), and the only possible tests of positional comparison, less, equal, or greater (equilibria), an the only possible test of agreement (truth, false, undecidable) In law, the equivalent of radix (base nouns) consist of the vocabulary of actionable references given human facility for sensation, perception, intuition (nouns, names, referents), the vocabulary of operations (verbs, thought word and deed), and the possible changes in state (transformations), and the and the only possible tests comparison (possibility) and only possible test of agreement (empiricism-observation-action, logic-consistency-intuition-word, and experience-sense-perception-autoassociation ). So yes the human grammatical facility, and the structure of grammar, the structure of transactions with that grammar(journal), and the epistemology of the story(ledger) is the same across every one of the grammars from deflationary (math) to functional (programming) to operational (natural law) to ordinary language to the inflationary grammars of narratives, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits. MATH: Actor (presumed), associated reference (object named by positional name), name of referent – number (positional name), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. LAW: Actor, Action (name of human action), associated reference (object), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. STORY: name of referent – actor, action, transformation, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total All grammars are the same and accounting, finance, and economics are the least error prone methods of describing human action. In this sense, law asks us for a full accounting of human actions so that we can test whether the statements are testifiable (fully accounted) or not, and if not, then how they are not fully accounted, and by deduction, why they aren’t. (ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-farming, suggestion-obscurantism-overloading, the fictionalisms of sophistry, pseudoscience, or the occult, or outright deceit. Ergo P-law fits in the sequence: arithmetic, accounting, programming, natural law, economics, group strategy. — Billy Law-Bregan — I get it, I think. In law, the radix exists as actionable references. Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required (radix economy) required express it in that particular base (in this case, actionable references. So continuous recursive disambiguation exists as the tool to teach that efficiency. Something else fell into place for me. I said that the radix exists as actionable references. And, Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required to express it in that particular base (actionable references). I think it does something else, too. The radix determines the magnitude of a particular system and represents the value of that system. Moreover, it determines the maximum value of the referents used in the system. E.g. Octagonal base type. Radix (r) = 8. Maximum value of referent exists as 0 to (r)-1. Therefore, maximum value of referent = 7. So, in octagonal base, 428 exceeds the limit of (r), which makes it ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false? (I think). So, I think that In Natural Law, as in mathematics, the radix (accountable references) determine the maximum value/limits of the operations, transformations, positional comparison, test of agreement, and Testimony. Anything that exceeds the limit of (r) exists as inflationary/ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false. I think this also explains why the verb “to be” creates problems in reporting. The various conjugations of the verb violate the magnitude/value/limit determined by the radix. –CurtD– Well done. 😉 You know you have a phd subject right there that unites philosophy mathematics and law. 😉 ===NOTE=== This exchange is in response to this post: MATH VERSUS NATURAL LAW — THE SAME? Math is a logic of positional naming, and Natural law a logic of Property Naming. The grammar of both Math and Law consists of operations on names. So in math we use operations to maintain balance (equilibrium) on both sides of an equal’s sign, and in natural law we use operations to maintain balance between individuals. See? Here: Human Logical Facility (constant relations) > …. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) > …. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) > …. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) > …. …. …. …. Math (positional names) > …. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) > …. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence (Notice: Note how I left out verbal logic, rationalism, and philosophy because they’re included in sophistry.)

  • Curt: The Use of Arrows?

    May 5, 2020, 11:08 AM

    —“Can you clarify for me your use of the greater than symbol “>” in the lists you often use? So “Human logical facility > …Operations > … … Counting” etc Am I to read such lists with the words “is greater than” between them? Or does it have another meaning from computer code language or some other operational system that I’m unfamiliar with? Or am I attaching meaning where I shouldn’t?”— Stephen Wells

    HIERARCHY OF PURPOSE 1. Logical: The Direction of Serialization, 2. Dependency: Hierarchy of Dependency, 3. Evolution: Evolution of Development 4. Physical Causality: Sequence of Operations. EXAMPLES: Hierarchy less to more |FALSEHOOD|: Ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking > obscurantism > fictionalism > deceit > denial. Direction Less to more in both directions |MORAL|: Evil < immoral < unethical < amoral > ethical > moral > Righteous. Process less to more |EPISTEMOLOGY| Observation > Auto-Association > Free Association > hypothesis > (mind-test) > theory > (action-test) > established theory or law (market-test) > limit discovery (falsification) > repeat (revision)

  • Curt: The Use of Arrows?

    May 5, 2020, 11:08 AM

    —“Can you clarify for me your use of the greater than symbol “>” in the lists you often use? So “Human logical facility > …Operations > … … Counting” etc Am I to read such lists with the words “is greater than” between them? Or does it have another meaning from computer code language or some other operational system that I’m unfamiliar with? Or am I attaching meaning where I shouldn’t?”— Stephen Wells

    HIERARCHY OF PURPOSE 1. Logical: The Direction of Serialization, 2. Dependency: Hierarchy of Dependency, 3. Evolution: Evolution of Development 4. Physical Causality: Sequence of Operations. EXAMPLES: Hierarchy less to more |FALSEHOOD|: Ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking > obscurantism > fictionalism > deceit > denial. Direction Less to more in both directions |MORAL|: Evil < immoral < unethical < amoral > ethical > moral > Righteous. Process less to more |EPISTEMOLOGY| Observation > Auto-Association > Free Association > hypothesis > (mind-test) > theory > (action-test) > established theory or law (market-test) > limit discovery (falsification) > repeat (revision)

  • Disambiguation, Operationalization, Serialization

    Disambiguation, Operationalization, Serialization, https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/disambiguation-operationalization-serialization/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 03:56:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265854454101954560