Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • Yet do economists measure the loss of all those forms of capital? No. They’re al

    Yet do economists measure the loss of all those forms of capital? No. They’re all leftists. They’re all contributing to the destruction of our civilization.

    We need rule of law, reciprocity, sovereignty, and charity to produce our commons – and to police them constantly.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-29 16:33:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1178347142022340613

    Reply addressees: @HarmlessYardDog @trutsle

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1178346794713001985

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @HarmlessYardDog @trutsle … our entrepreneurship, our technology, our medicine? That price is self denial, the most important of which is soft eugenics: limiting reproduction to that which one can support while producing offspring likewise capable of support without parasitism upon others.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1178346794713001985

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @HarmlessYardDog @trutsle … our entrepreneurship, our technology, our medicine? That price is self denial, the most important of which is soft eugenics: limiting reproduction to that which one can support while producing offspring likewise capable of support without parasitism upon others.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1178346794713001985

  • So economists (all of whom are leftists) only measure individual consumer goods,

    So economists (all of whom are leftists) only measure individual consumer goods, not the production of commons: truth, honesty, integrity, contract, quality, civility, responsibility – which is what makes western civilization unique.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-29 16:23:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1178344511573037062

    Reply addressees: @HarmlessYardDog @trutsle

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1178344252113391617

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @HarmlessYardDog @trutsle To reinforce your observation with a bit more edge: westerners produce commons that other people cannot produce, and we do by NOT DOING evil: lying, misleading, cheating, stealing, free riding, corruption, as much as what we DO: Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Heroism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1178344252113391617

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @HarmlessYardDog @trutsle To reinforce your observation with a bit more edge: westerners produce commons that other people cannot produce, and we do by NOT DOING evil: lying, misleading, cheating, stealing, free riding, corruption, as much as what we DO: Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Heroism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1178344252113391617

  • P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence) —-“You

    P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence)

    —-“Your proclamation as being scientific is also interesting considering the most interesting of your formulations are extrapolations (grammar “word->word”, non-operational, but well condensed.”— Twitter

    (That’s a great question. Very few people have the insight to ask it.)

    The Methodology:

    Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization.

    Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a given language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements.

    So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous).

    Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement.

    The question is only the precision of the measures.

    P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-29 11:29:00 UTC

  • P uses testimony, not just internal consistency, or external correspondence (emp

    P uses testimony, not just internal consistency, or external correspondence (empiricism). All 8 dimensions of possible human sense perception. P is ‘complete’ where logic and empiricism are not: Tests: identity, logic, correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice …

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-28 13:10:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177933698144047106

    Reply addressees: @LLaddon @TheRajput8

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177932963876614144

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @LLaddon @TheRajput8 It’s science (operational logic) not set logic, and so yes, I can’t falsify it -nor can anyone else. Also, I don’t think a proof means what you think it does. It’s a test of internal consistency (of words). So axioms (arbitrary verbal rules) vs Laws (necessary actions). …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1177932963876614144

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @LLaddon @TheRajput8 It’s science (operational logic) not set logic, and so yes, I can’t falsify it -nor can anyone else. Also, I don’t think a proof means what you think it does. It’s a test of internal consistency (of words). So axioms (arbitrary verbal rules) vs Laws (necessary actions). …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1177932963876614144

  • P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence) —-“You

    P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence)

    —-“Your proclamation as being scientific is also interesting considering the most interesting of your formulations… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=474234919840070&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-28 12:31:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177923887960592384

  • The question is only the precision of the measures. P is the most precise n-dime

    The question is only the precision of the measures.

    P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-28 12:26:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177922564758343680

    Reply addressees: @LLaddon @TheRajput8

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177922424291115008

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @LLaddon @TheRajput8 Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1177922424291115008

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @LLaddon @TheRajput8 Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1177922424291115008

  • Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambigu

    Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-28 12:26:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177922424291115008

    Reply addressees: @LLaddon @TheRajput8

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177921985508249600

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @LLaddon @TheRajput8 But that’s a great question because very few people have the insight to ask it. So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1177921985508249600

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @LLaddon @TheRajput8 But that’s a great question because very few people have the insight to ask it. So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1177921985508249600

  • P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence) —-“You

    P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence)

    —-“Your proclamation as being scientific is also interesting considering the most interesting of your formulations are extrapolations (grammar “word->word”, non-operational, but well condensed.”— Twitter

    (That’s a great question. Very few people have the insight to ask it.)

    The Methodology:

    Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization.

    Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a given language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements.

    So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous).

    Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement.

    The question is only the precision of the measures.

    P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-28 08:31:00 UTC

  • P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence) —-“You

    P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence)

    —-“Your proclamation as being scientific is also interesting considering the most interesting of your formulations are extrapolations (grammar “word->word”, non-operational, but well condensed.”— Twitter

    (That’s a great question. Very few people have the insight to ask it.)

    The Methodology:

    Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization.

    Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a given language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements.

    So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous).

    Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement.

    The question is only the precision of the measures.

    P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-28 08:30:00 UTC

  • You just stated a number of straw men, when the evidence is demonstrated by stan

    You just stated a number of straw men, when the evidence is demonstrated by standard of living, expressions of trust, degree of corruption, technological production, external imitation and pressures of migration. People may make excuses for their norm but production is empirical.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 23:20:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177362231400574976

    Reply addressees: @roytapel @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177357970268508165

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177357970268508165