Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • What Does Truth Mean?

    Jan 5, 2020, 7:31 PM Existence refers to persistence. The universe exists, and the matter in it exists, because it persists – we can identify that it exists because we posses memory. We can identify patterns of constant relations in that persist in that universe – that universe is deterministic at any scale at which we can identify patterns of constant relations. We can generalize those patterns of constant relations. We can identify unique instances of those patterns of constant relations. We can name them. We name states(nouns), substitutes for states (pronouns), and properties of states (adjectives), operations (verbs), and properties of operations (adverbs) and we can agree or disagree (yes/no, agree disagree, approve reject) We can form and speak(display word and deed) transactions(phrases) and transaction sets (sentences), and sets of transaction sets (stories) We can agree with those transactions, transaction sets, and sets of transaction sets (true/false) We can speak in promise, suggestion, question, agreement, opposition, or silence. When we claim we speak truthfully we speak promissorily. One can speak truthfully or untruthfully. When we speak truthfully we speak coherently with categorically, internally (logically), externally (empirically), operationally(sequence of actions) consistency, and use due diligence to disambiguate any possibility of misinterpretation. We can speak untruthfully because of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and denial. We are forever ignorant so while we have discovered how to gradually iterate to the most parsimonious hierarchy of consistent and commensurable paradigms (networks of continuous relations at given scales, and in given contexts), in that set of Grammars we call “science”. Truth can and only can consist of language in some grammar or other, reducible to analogy to experience, testable by human logical facility. So while patterns of constant relations exist in the universe, and we can name those patterns, that thing we call truth consists of language humans discover, organize and iteratively refine through a process of continuous recursive disambiguation as information increases. The human mind works by using sequences of stimuli (patterns) to produce predictions of fragments, object, models, spaces(places), borders, locations, and episodes. The mind then recursively predicts possibilities from those predictions using auto association. We then use attention to choose which auto associations to permute upon. This is how we imagine, and control what we imagine. Because we can imagine, we imagine that truth exists, when only phenomenon exists ,and truth consists of the formula by which we describe it. Man discovers constant relations and creates truthful descriptions of those constant relations. Truthful statements are made by man because only man (so far) speaks. When we say honest we say the speaker promises his words are free of suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit and denial. When we say truthful, we mean, that operational name (description) which is not false, and satisfies market demand for decidability in the given context, given the present knowledge, and free of bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, where the individual uttering it has performed due diligence against ignorance and error. When we claim a statement is true we promise that it satisfies market demand for decidability given the context. When we agree that a statement ‘is true’ that means that we AGREE that it satisfies market demand for decidability given the context. When we say ‘the truth’ we mean either a parsimonious operational name for the constant relations we refer to, or the MOST parsimonious name for the constant relations we refer to. Of the various civilizations which has produced the only method of due diligence with which to speak the most parsimonious categorically consistent, internally consistent, externally correspondent, operational, complete, and fully accounted operational names? Of the various civilizations which has paid the high cost of normalizing truth before face regardless of cost to self, competence, dominance hierarchy? Only man speaks, only man describes, only man describes in operational names, only operational names are complete and commensurable, only complete and commensurable operational names are parsimonious, only parsimony provides minimum difference between the most parsimonious possible and the current state of knowledge. I could work on this further but you get the point. That truth must be discovered, named, and uttered (in some form). Truth is made. Truth is uttered, Truth is promised, Truth satisfies the market demand for decidability. We consent to that decidability by equal means -or we do not. The universe merely exists.

  • The majority determines the means

    Jan 9, 2020, 3:54 PM

    Religion for the -80’s, Moralizing for the 90’s, Rationalization for the 100’s. Platonism for the 110’s Empiricism for the 120’s. Operationalism for the 130’s+ There is a reason for islam in the arab and indonesian worlds, and hinduism in the hindustani worlds. buddhism on se asian. christianity in the south american, secular christianity in the european world, confucianism in the east asian world etc. The majority determines the necessary means of preserving the means of perpetuating metaphysics traditions and norms. The west retains a grammar (method of storytelling) for every standard deviation of ability. We are unified by our law that is via negativa. We are unified by our ethics that are christian via-positiva. Those chrstian ethics are expressible in theological, rational, philosophical, empirical and operational terms.

  • The majority determines the means

    Jan 9, 2020, 3:54 PM

    Religion for the -80’s, Moralizing for the 90’s, Rationalization for the 100’s. Platonism for the 110’s Empiricism for the 120’s. Operationalism for the 130’s+ There is a reason for islam in the arab and indonesian worlds, and hinduism in the hindustani worlds. buddhism on se asian. christianity in the south american, secular christianity in the european world, confucianism in the east asian world etc. The majority determines the necessary means of preserving the means of perpetuating metaphysics traditions and norms. The west retains a grammar (method of storytelling) for every standard deviation of ability. We are unified by our law that is via negativa. We are unified by our ethics that are christian via-positiva. Those chrstian ethics are expressible in theological, rational, philosophical, empirical and operational terms.

  • A Chit Chat on Truth Objective Truth

    Jan 12, 2020, 4:08 PM

    —“Curt Doolittle there is objective truth. Not sure the reasoning to say otherwise.”—Tim Abbott

    Well, that’s ’cause you’re taking advantage of a weakness in english (and most) grammar. This allows you the confidence to claim you understand something when you don’t.

    1) Try to say that without the verb to-be. (is, are, was, were etc). Try it. 2) define truth. This is my area of specialization (falsifying presumptions of knowledge) Its like training people not to think in deities (anthropomorphic fictions). Same for platonisms (non-anthropomorphic fictions).

    —“Curt Doolittle I would be interested to learn where I am wrong. An animal dies. That becomes a fact. To say the animal is not dead is a lie.”—Tim Abbott

    ^which is a tautology. ( And also a reductio simplicity. ) I can speak truthfully. (adverb) You can speak truthfully. (adverb) What does it mean to speak ‘the fast’ (adverb) or ‘the red’ (adverb)? When you say “I promise the animal is dead” under what conditions are you not speaking truthfully? A fact is a promise of a theory of an observation. A theory is a promise of observations yet to be observed. All non tautological, non-trivial claims are forever contingent. One can only satisfy the demand for testimony in a given market (context) which defines limits. There is some most parsimonious vocabulary, paradigm, language, (right now it’s math at the limits of math). But math currently is too limited for the scope of demand for testimony. So, one can speak honestly, truthfully (falsifying with his limits of knowledge and reason), scientifically(testimonially, having done due diligence) on can speak tautologically within a given language, or we can imagine that someday somehow we may produce a most parsimonious language with universal commensurability (paradigm) – which is an ‘ideal’. If we spoke in that paradigm (an ideal) we would speak truthfully – consistently correspondently operationally completely and coherently, in the most parsimonious language (what you call objective). So, like ‘infinity’, ‘the truth’ is simply a variable we attribute to ‘i don’t know’ because I don’t know the limits. So one cannot claim ‘the truth exists’ one can say we can discover a means of speaking truthfully, meaning satisfying the market demand for infallibility in the context at hand. The truth, like infinity, is simply a statement of ‘we dunno that yet’. Ill try to do a better job per advice from Martin Štěpán: WHEREAS; 1. The universe exists. 2. The patterns of constant relations in the universe exist 3. We can correctly identify name and describe those patterns. The question is whether you are defining The Truth as those relations, or whether you are defining truth as the precision of our speech measured by parsimony, consistency, correspondence, completeness and coherence. AND WHEREAS; 1. patterns exist (realism naturalism determinism). 2. The potential for us to describe them perfectly free of error exists. 3. We identify increasingly precise means of naming and describing them. THEREFORE We therefore must invent: (a) a means of naming and describing them, (b) a means of discovering them. (d) discoveries of each of them (b) a means of continuously improving them. AND; 1 -Western man invented truthful speech (realism, naturalism, determinism, operationalism, testimonialism) 2 -Western man invented the means of discovering them (reason, empiricism, science, operationalism) 3 – Western man invented (by far) most of the discoveries using those inventions. THEREFORE; And this is why I’m so … consistent in my pursuit of the truth – so that we don’t revert back to the lies that dominate the rest of mankind.

  • A Chit Chat on Truth Objective Truth

    Jan 12, 2020, 4:08 PM

    —“Curt Doolittle there is objective truth. Not sure the reasoning to say otherwise.”—Tim Abbott

    Well, that’s ’cause you’re taking advantage of a weakness in english (and most) grammar. This allows you the confidence to claim you understand something when you don’t.

    1) Try to say that without the verb to-be. (is, are, was, were etc). Try it. 2) define truth. This is my area of specialization (falsifying presumptions of knowledge) Its like training people not to think in deities (anthropomorphic fictions). Same for platonisms (non-anthropomorphic fictions).

    —“Curt Doolittle I would be interested to learn where I am wrong. An animal dies. That becomes a fact. To say the animal is not dead is a lie.”—Tim Abbott

    ^which is a tautology. ( And also a reductio simplicity. ) I can speak truthfully. (adverb) You can speak truthfully. (adverb) What does it mean to speak ‘the fast’ (adverb) or ‘the red’ (adverb)? When you say “I promise the animal is dead” under what conditions are you not speaking truthfully? A fact is a promise of a theory of an observation. A theory is a promise of observations yet to be observed. All non tautological, non-trivial claims are forever contingent. One can only satisfy the demand for testimony in a given market (context) which defines limits. There is some most parsimonious vocabulary, paradigm, language, (right now it’s math at the limits of math). But math currently is too limited for the scope of demand for testimony. So, one can speak honestly, truthfully (falsifying with his limits of knowledge and reason), scientifically(testimonially, having done due diligence) on can speak tautologically within a given language, or we can imagine that someday somehow we may produce a most parsimonious language with universal commensurability (paradigm) – which is an ‘ideal’. If we spoke in that paradigm (an ideal) we would speak truthfully – consistently correspondently operationally completely and coherently, in the most parsimonious language (what you call objective). So, like ‘infinity’, ‘the truth’ is simply a variable we attribute to ‘i don’t know’ because I don’t know the limits. So one cannot claim ‘the truth exists’ one can say we can discover a means of speaking truthfully, meaning satisfying the market demand for infallibility in the context at hand. The truth, like infinity, is simply a statement of ‘we dunno that yet’. Ill try to do a better job per advice from Martin Štěpán: WHEREAS; 1. The universe exists. 2. The patterns of constant relations in the universe exist 3. We can correctly identify name and describe those patterns. The question is whether you are defining The Truth as those relations, or whether you are defining truth as the precision of our speech measured by parsimony, consistency, correspondence, completeness and coherence. AND WHEREAS; 1. patterns exist (realism naturalism determinism). 2. The potential for us to describe them perfectly free of error exists. 3. We identify increasingly precise means of naming and describing them. THEREFORE We therefore must invent: (a) a means of naming and describing them, (b) a means of discovering them. (d) discoveries of each of them (b) a means of continuously improving them. AND; 1 -Western man invented truthful speech (realism, naturalism, determinism, operationalism, testimonialism) 2 -Western man invented the means of discovering them (reason, empiricism, science, operationalism) 3 – Western man invented (by far) most of the discoveries using those inventions. THEREFORE; And this is why I’m so … consistent in my pursuit of the truth – so that we don’t revert back to the lies that dominate the rest of mankind.

  • Your Basic Lesson on Money (currency) and 99% of Everything You Ever Need to Know

    Jan 15, 2020, 1:04 PM

    —“Could you please explain what you mean by “the problem of hard currency”?”—Niklas Wagner

    0) Money Proper means Commodity Money (a commodity used for monetary purposes in exchange. It must be light and of limited volume, and indexed (with a measurement), and either scarce by it’s limited existence in the natural world or very difficult to replicate and therefore artificially scarce. 1) A money substitute is anything used in place of money proper. Currency is one of the many types of money substitutes. Currency began as ‘Notes’, which were literally tickets that could be redeemed for money proper. 2) Hard currency means a currency(money substitute) backed by, and redeemable for, commodity money (gold, silver, etc). 3) Soft currency means unbacked by or redeemable for, commodity money (gold, silver, etc), or only partly backed by commodity money, or interests in real property (liens). 5) Shares are a tradable commodity backed only by market demand for them – but granting (fictitious) rights in case of liquidity (bankruptcy or sale). 4) Fiat money is a share in the economy (government really), that is used as a soft currency substitute, that like shares, when printed, decreases the value (purchasing power) of other existing shares. In theory we would produce the same amount of new fiat money as we increased value in the country overall. THEREFORE Hard currency runs short whenever economic velocity increases, and so it appreciates, but it appreciates without contribution to production. Interest on lending to business and industry contributes to production. So appreciation on currency is a form of free riding (rent seeking), where interest in production is not. Fiat currency that prohibits currency appreciation but does not create purchasing power depreciation, prevents free riding on currency appreciation but preserves interest returns that contribute to production. This is, in large part, why the government targets interest rates to judge the money supply. However, they also try to target unemployment. this is the mistake. We can push money from consumers to the banking system for free instead of charging consumers and profiting the banking system. —More by William L. Benge— The Road to Commonwealth, Insurer of Last Resort.

    1. We know that gold and other forms of money were not always controlled by secular authorities as (or, in the manner in which) they presently are.

    2. Since we hold (successfully argue for) that government must (and does) satisfy utility as insurer of last resort, we are forced by the same to acknowledge the legitimacy of what is NATIONAL fiat currency and what is fair finance for domestics. This is not strained reasoning, simply more nuanced.

  • Your Basic Lesson on Money (currency) and 99% of Everything You Ever Need to Know

    Jan 15, 2020, 1:04 PM

    —“Could you please explain what you mean by “the problem of hard currency”?”—Niklas Wagner

    0) Money Proper means Commodity Money (a commodity used for monetary purposes in exchange. It must be light and of limited volume, and indexed (with a measurement), and either scarce by it’s limited existence in the natural world or very difficult to replicate and therefore artificially scarce. 1) A money substitute is anything used in place of money proper. Currency is one of the many types of money substitutes. Currency began as ‘Notes’, which were literally tickets that could be redeemed for money proper. 2) Hard currency means a currency(money substitute) backed by, and redeemable for, commodity money (gold, silver, etc). 3) Soft currency means unbacked by or redeemable for, commodity money (gold, silver, etc), or only partly backed by commodity money, or interests in real property (liens). 5) Shares are a tradable commodity backed only by market demand for them – but granting (fictitious) rights in case of liquidity (bankruptcy or sale). 4) Fiat money is a share in the economy (government really), that is used as a soft currency substitute, that like shares, when printed, decreases the value (purchasing power) of other existing shares. In theory we would produce the same amount of new fiat money as we increased value in the country overall. THEREFORE Hard currency runs short whenever economic velocity increases, and so it appreciates, but it appreciates without contribution to production. Interest on lending to business and industry contributes to production. So appreciation on currency is a form of free riding (rent seeking), where interest in production is not. Fiat currency that prohibits currency appreciation but does not create purchasing power depreciation, prevents free riding on currency appreciation but preserves interest returns that contribute to production. This is, in large part, why the government targets interest rates to judge the money supply. However, they also try to target unemployment. this is the mistake. We can push money from consumers to the banking system for free instead of charging consumers and profiting the banking system. —More by William L. Benge— The Road to Commonwealth, Insurer of Last Resort.

    1. We know that gold and other forms of money were not always controlled by secular authorities as (or, in the manner in which) they presently are.

    2. Since we hold (successfully argue for) that government must (and does) satisfy utility as insurer of last resort, we are forced by the same to acknowledge the legitimacy of what is NATIONAL fiat currency and what is fair finance for domestics. This is not strained reasoning, simply more nuanced.

  • Math Is Just a Language with A Very Limited Vocabulary: Position and Operation

    Jan 22, 2020, 8:50 AM Math is just a language like every other, consisting of referents (arbitrary categories), nouns (referrers, names of each instance of that category) verbs (operations) and agreement (true/false), but it has only one subject: positional relations, with only one property of its names (position). Because of this singularity of content (name: position, action: operation) and scale independence (positional names), this ‘language’ we call mathematics, with which we produce statements (sentences), that we call well-formed (unambiguous), using the ‘grammar’ ( rule of continuous recursive disambiguation) of that language of positional names (math), and then modify (change) by operations (transactions) that preserve the constant relations (ratios), and therefore agreement (truth), we can describe any unambiguous set of constant relations humans can reference. As such if we cannot describe a given set of relations with some degree of mathematical precision, by some form of proxy, then we cannot claim to make truth (agreement, agreeable) statements about it. (Working on demarcation between pure mathematics and applied mathematics).

  • Math Is Just a Language with A Very Limited Vocabulary: Position and Operation

    Jan 22, 2020, 8:50 AM Math is just a language like every other, consisting of referents (arbitrary categories), nouns (referrers, names of each instance of that category) verbs (operations) and agreement (true/false), but it has only one subject: positional relations, with only one property of its names (position). Because of this singularity of content (name: position, action: operation) and scale independence (positional names), this ‘language’ we call mathematics, with which we produce statements (sentences), that we call well-formed (unambiguous), using the ‘grammar’ ( rule of continuous recursive disambiguation) of that language of positional names (math), and then modify (change) by operations (transactions) that preserve the constant relations (ratios), and therefore agreement (truth), we can describe any unambiguous set of constant relations humans can reference. As such if we cannot describe a given set of relations with some degree of mathematical precision, by some form of proxy, then we cannot claim to make truth (agreement, agreeable) statements about it. (Working on demarcation between pure mathematics and applied mathematics).

  • It”s Not Just Reciprocity: The Method

    Jan 26, 2020, 4:41 PM IT”S NOT JUST RECIPROCITY: THE METHOD When you’re testing for reciprocity ask: 1 – Is it productive? Do we both have more capital under subjective value after the transfer or not? 2 – Is it fully informed? Meaning, truthful and complete. 3 – Is it voluntary a voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests? 4 – Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? 5 – Is the other party warrantying that it is productive, fully informed, voluntary, and free of externality? 6 – Is it restitutable if it is warrantied? Meaning is is possible to perform restitution, and is the other party capable of paying restitution? For example: WHEREAS; Party A wants to deny party B the right to bear arms. WHERE; 1. Is it productive? Well no. It’s an attempt to reduce some harm at the cost of enabling another harm, but there is a difference in preference over the choice of bearing those harms. 2. Is it fully informed? Well no. It’s an attempt to circumvent accounting for the tradeoff in risks, under the pretense that a preference is equal to a truth. 3. Is it voluntary. Well no, it is involuntary or the question would not arise. 4. Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? Well, no, not limiting the right to bear arms imposes costs (risk) upon those who might be harmed by those with arms, and limiting it imposes costs (risk) upon those who defend self family commons and government from usurpation. 5. Is it warrantied and warrantable. No. Neither side can warrantee the other. 6. Is it restitutable. No life is not restitutable wither in defense of rights or in defense of self. 7. Can an alternate solution be made? Of course. Pay the cost of protecting your interests rather than depriving others of the right to protect their interests. THEREFORE 9. The alternative solution is (a)to have those people who wish to bear the risk of a disarmed public pay for their defense, or (b) for those who wish change to finance and move to a separate geography with different limits. This is a cursory treatment but you get the idea.