Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • Democracy Does Not Produce Accountability

    Feb 3, 2020, 1:36 PM Democratic representatives are not accountable in any measurable way other than to throw out the entire party via cyclical dissatisfied with status quo. P-Law constrains them to truthful reciprocal constitutional speech, requires stated terms, subjects them to legal prosecution. So that they are accountable for their party actions; for the commitments they made; liable for the constitutionality of legislation and regulation they sign; and for their display word and deed. That’s accountability.

  • NAXALT

    Feb 4, 2020, 3:24 PM

    —“NAXALT arguments fail when the data is accurate and the weight of the distribution is clear. The smaller part of the distribution is already acknowledged but doesn’t falsify the statement that most x ….”—Scott De Warren

  • NAXALT

    Feb 4, 2020, 3:24 PM

    —“NAXALT arguments fail when the data is accurate and the weight of the distribution is clear. The smaller part of the distribution is already acknowledged but doesn’t falsify the statement that most x ….”—Scott De Warren

  • Why It Is so Difficult to Be Wrong when Making a P-Argument.

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:47 AM Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification). These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.

  • Why It Is so Difficult to Be Wrong when Making a P-Argument.

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:47 AM Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification). These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.

  • Yes P Is a Formal Algorithmic, Operational, Science – It Is the Most Complete S Ci Ence: Law – by Which All Others Are Judged

    Mar 27, 2020, 9:56 AM

    —“You are not a scientist. You are a story teller. Arranging information, data, statistics, iqs into a self-deceptive, bias confirming narrative. As are the majority of scientists generally. Empirical science is inferior. Lacking holism and art. I renounce it.”—Learned Dr. Kantbot, PhD

    SCIENCES:

    1. Formal(Logics: logic, mathematics, algorithmic, operational). 2. Physical (the laws of nature). 3. Psychological (cognitive science), and; 4. Social (Social science: economics, law, politics, group strategy). P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of thought: coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible). Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any present definition P-law is scientific. It is logical, empirical, operational, and under realism, naturalism, rational choice, and reciprocity. Human Faculties (physical process) > Epistemology > Grammar > Vocabulary > Speech > Due Diligence > including Ethics. Faculties:

    1. Sense, Integration by prediction 2. Space-Time Modeling prediction, 3. Auto Association prediction (intuition), Auto Evaluation (emotion), 4. Attention-Recursion, 5. Reason, Planning, Calculation, Computation, 6. Action-Release > Repeat.Epistemology: Observation > Free Association > Hypothesis (reason tested) > Theory (operationally tested), > Surviving Theory (market tested) > Limitation > Falsification > Repeat. In P we use a ‘grammar’ to refer to the Paradigm and Vocabulary, grammar, logic, and syntax of a paradigm. And when we use the term “the Grammars’ we mean the spectrum of those grammars. A Grammar: refers to the Paradigm (permissible dimensions of perception, cognition, and action), the Names, Operations, and Rules of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (morpheme, word, phrase, sentence, story organization) and the LOGIC (constant relations) that limit consistency, correspondence, coherence, and completeness. Vocabulary: Deflation and disambiguation by competition, operationalization, and serialization, ex: Moral: Evil < Bad < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good > Righteous. or Truth: Tautological < Analytic < Idea < Testifiable < Honest < Untested. Speech: Deflation (constraint upon) ordinary language grammar, limited to a single point of view, absent the verb to be, using complete promissory sentences, describing a series of operations (human actions), resulting in testable transactions (sentence),and sets of transactions. Due Diligence: realism, naturalism, sensory, identity (categorical), internal (logical), operational (actions in time), external (empirical), rational (bounded rationality), reciprocal (moral – reciprocal rationality), limited, fully accounted, warranteed, restitutable. Ethics (Morality): Productive, Fully informed, Voluntary Transfer of Demonstrated Interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality, and warrantied, by due diligence against error bias and deceit, within the limits of restitution. No more sophistry. Philosophy is closed. Science has fully replaced it. P-law is complete. Including Metaphysics, Epistemology, Psychology, Ethics, Sociology, Economics, Politics, Law, Group Strategy, and Aesthetics.

  • Yes P Is a Formal Algorithmic, Operational, Science – It Is the Most Complete S Ci Ence: Law – by Which All Others Are Judged

    Mar 27, 2020, 9:56 AM

    —“You are not a scientist. You are a story teller. Arranging information, data, statistics, iqs into a self-deceptive, bias confirming narrative. As are the majority of scientists generally. Empirical science is inferior. Lacking holism and art. I renounce it.”—Learned Dr. Kantbot, PhD

    SCIENCES:

    1. Formal(Logics: logic, mathematics, algorithmic, operational). 2. Physical (the laws of nature). 3. Psychological (cognitive science), and; 4. Social (Social science: economics, law, politics, group strategy). P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of thought: coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible). Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any present definition P-law is scientific. It is logical, empirical, operational, and under realism, naturalism, rational choice, and reciprocity. Human Faculties (physical process) > Epistemology > Grammar > Vocabulary > Speech > Due Diligence > including Ethics. Faculties:

    1. Sense, Integration by prediction 2. Space-Time Modeling prediction, 3. Auto Association prediction (intuition), Auto Evaluation (emotion), 4. Attention-Recursion, 5. Reason, Planning, Calculation, Computation, 6. Action-Release > Repeat.Epistemology: Observation > Free Association > Hypothesis (reason tested) > Theory (operationally tested), > Surviving Theory (market tested) > Limitation > Falsification > Repeat. In P we use a ‘grammar’ to refer to the Paradigm and Vocabulary, grammar, logic, and syntax of a paradigm. And when we use the term “the Grammars’ we mean the spectrum of those grammars. A Grammar: refers to the Paradigm (permissible dimensions of perception, cognition, and action), the Names, Operations, and Rules of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (morpheme, word, phrase, sentence, story organization) and the LOGIC (constant relations) that limit consistency, correspondence, coherence, and completeness. Vocabulary: Deflation and disambiguation by competition, operationalization, and serialization, ex: Moral: Evil < Bad < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good > Righteous. or Truth: Tautological < Analytic < Idea < Testifiable < Honest < Untested. Speech: Deflation (constraint upon) ordinary language grammar, limited to a single point of view, absent the verb to be, using complete promissory sentences, describing a series of operations (human actions), resulting in testable transactions (sentence),and sets of transactions. Due Diligence: realism, naturalism, sensory, identity (categorical), internal (logical), operational (actions in time), external (empirical), rational (bounded rationality), reciprocal (moral – reciprocal rationality), limited, fully accounted, warranteed, restitutable. Ethics (Morality): Productive, Fully informed, Voluntary Transfer of Demonstrated Interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality, and warrantied, by due diligence against error bias and deceit, within the limits of restitution. No more sophistry. Philosophy is closed. Science has fully replaced it. P-law is complete. Including Metaphysics, Epistemology, Psychology, Ethics, Sociology, Economics, Politics, Law, Group Strategy, and Aesthetics.

  • Propertarianism -> Vitruvianism: “Man is the measure of all things to man.”

    Propertarianism -> Vitruvianism: “Man is the measure of all things to man.” https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1263843665006510080

  • The Difficult Idea to Get Across: From Idealism to Realism

    Apr 1, 2020, 2:52 PM (important) When I say “the big problem is switching people from idealism (homogenous bias) under which each person seeks whatever bias fits his, to realism (heterogeneous bias) that is aware of the market competition. In other words, monopoly is endemic in western moral thinking bcause we’ve been homogenous since our beginnings. So we have no means of defense against the LIE of the value of diversity. This is yet another example of the f—king stupidity of libertarian tropes (sophistry). If you build high trust high value commons, then diversity increases transaction costs that all ancestors worked to reduce. So the reason we seek SOME diversity is to increase novelty because we seek to hyper-consume cheap novelty (consumption that destroys commons) rather than expensive novelty (innovation, continued capitalization of commons). I don’t know how to explain this more simply. I would appreciate anyone who could. Leftists spend down inheritance to feed herd instinct for numbers.

  • The Difficult Idea to Get Across: From Idealism to Realism

    Apr 1, 2020, 2:52 PM (important) When I say “the big problem is switching people from idealism (homogenous bias) under which each person seeks whatever bias fits his, to realism (heterogeneous bias) that is aware of the market competition. In other words, monopoly is endemic in western moral thinking bcause we’ve been homogenous since our beginnings. So we have no means of defense against the LIE of the value of diversity. This is yet another example of the f—king stupidity of libertarian tropes (sophistry). If you build high trust high value commons, then diversity increases transaction costs that all ancestors worked to reduce. So the reason we seek SOME diversity is to increase novelty because we seek to hyper-consume cheap novelty (consumption that destroys commons) rather than expensive novelty (innovation, continued capitalization of commons). I don’t know how to explain this more simply. I would appreciate anyone who could. Leftists spend down inheritance to feed herd instinct for numbers.