(FB 1547315158 Timestamp) DEFLATING TERMS BY THE MEANS OF CONSISTENCY IN THE DIMENSIONS THAT THEY MEASURE. (important) DIMENSIONS AND MEANS OF CONSISTENCY-TESTING 1. Axioms = Logic (words) : internal consistency : Declared. 2. Theories (‘laws’) = Science (actions) : external correspondence : Discovered 3. Algorithms (operations) = Testimony : Constructed. 4. Rational Choice (incentives) = Preference or Good : intuited. 5. Law (Reciprocity) = Decidability: Demonstrated. COHERENCE REQUIRES CLOSURE 1. No means of consistency-testing within any dimension provides CLOSURE. (‘incompleteness’). 2. Closure is increased only by appeal to the next higher dimension. 3. Closure is impossible for other than tautologies, but warranty of due diligence is producible by test of COHERENCE, which is CONSISTENCY in all dimensions. PROOFS? 1. A proof is a test of internal consistency. 2. A proof is therefore a test of possibility. 3. All proofs are open to falsification by appeal COHERENCE, meaning the due diligence of testing every dimension for consistency. 4. Ergo the function of logic and axioms is only to falsify the false, not prove the true. This is the ‘difficult’ part of ‘relearning’ that mathematics (positional naming) and the attempt to have logic (language) mirror one another, has led to the near universal fallacy that proof provides truth rather than due diligence against error, bias, and deceit. 5. Egro, logics FALSIFY but they do not convey truth content – except in the minority and reductio set of cases – in logic which are akin to prime numbers in mathematics: rare. (This is what Curtus Maximus is explaining via Godel). In the sense of Rothbard/Mises/Hoppe the (((fraud))) of kantian logic combined with the (((fraud))) of CONFLATION, mises attempted to conflate logic, empiricism, science, morality, and law into one ‘monopoly ‘ akin to jewish law, or kant’s attempt at secular restatement of the church’s faith – and failed. Rothbard attempted to conflate liberty with jewish libertinism. Freedom with libertinism. and thereby to license parasitism upon the commons, which is the group evolutionary strategy of his ancestors as well as women. Whether his ancestral group strategy of parasitism is genetic or cultural or a combination is something we do not know. We do however know that all his kin exhibit this behavior just as all women exhibit this behavior. Ergo, everything rothbard says is a lie. Mises might be rescued from his sophisms and pseudoscience if it were not for Rothbard and Hoppe’s defense of rothbard. But the (((Mises institute))) has done profound harm to our civilization by preserving and promoting Rothbard (rand)’s justification of libertinism, rather than the anglo saxon rights of anglo saxons: sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, charity, and every (enfranchised) man a sheriff. As far as I know, the only epistemological framework is free association > hypothesis > theory > law > Failure > Repeat to revise (refine). All of the vocabulary of ‘logic’ and proof, all of which is justificationary and false, is now reduced to superstitious language. And all attempts to say ‘prove it’ are also justificationary and false. One cannot prove a truth, one can only ask for sufficient information to falsify it. And contrary to the entire history of philosophy, the principle means of falsification is deconfliction, completing scope and limits, accounting for cost, testing the possibility of action, rationality of action, and reciprocity of display word and deed. The people who invented lying are as good at lying as the people who invented truth are good at truth.
Theme: Measurement
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547315158 Timestamp) DEFLATING TERMS BY THE MEANS OF CONSISTENCY IN THE DIMENSIONS THAT THEY MEASURE. (important) DIMENSIONS AND MEANS OF CONSISTENCY-TESTING 1. Axioms = Logic (words) : internal consistency : Declared. 2. Theories (‘laws’) = Science (actions) : external correspondence : Discovered 3. Algorithms (operations) = Testimony : Constructed. 4. Rational Choice (incentives) = Preference or Good : intuited. 5. Law (Reciprocity) = Decidability: Demonstrated. COHERENCE REQUIRES CLOSURE 1. No means of consistency-testing within any dimension provides CLOSURE. (‘incompleteness’). 2. Closure is increased only by appeal to the next higher dimension. 3. Closure is impossible for other than tautologies, but warranty of due diligence is producible by test of COHERENCE, which is CONSISTENCY in all dimensions. PROOFS? 1. A proof is a test of internal consistency. 2. A proof is therefore a test of possibility. 3. All proofs are open to falsification by appeal COHERENCE, meaning the due diligence of testing every dimension for consistency. 4. Ergo the function of logic and axioms is only to falsify the false, not prove the true. This is the ‘difficult’ part of ‘relearning’ that mathematics (positional naming) and the attempt to have logic (language) mirror one another, has led to the near universal fallacy that proof provides truth rather than due diligence against error, bias, and deceit. 5. Egro, logics FALSIFY but they do not convey truth content – except in the minority and reductio set of cases – in logic which are akin to prime numbers in mathematics: rare. (This is what Curtus Maximus is explaining via Godel). In the sense of Rothbard/Mises/Hoppe the (((fraud))) of kantian logic combined with the (((fraud))) of CONFLATION, mises attempted to conflate logic, empiricism, science, morality, and law into one ‘monopoly ‘ akin to jewish law, or kant’s attempt at secular restatement of the church’s faith – and failed. Rothbard attempted to conflate liberty with jewish libertinism. Freedom with libertinism. and thereby to license parasitism upon the commons, which is the group evolutionary strategy of his ancestors as well as women. Whether his ancestral group strategy of parasitism is genetic or cultural or a combination is something we do not know. We do however know that all his kin exhibit this behavior just as all women exhibit this behavior. Ergo, everything rothbard says is a lie. Mises might be rescued from his sophisms and pseudoscience if it were not for Rothbard and Hoppe’s defense of rothbard. But the (((Mises institute))) has done profound harm to our civilization by preserving and promoting Rothbard (rand)’s justification of libertinism, rather than the anglo saxon rights of anglo saxons: sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, charity, and every (enfranchised) man a sheriff. As far as I know, the only epistemological framework is free association > hypothesis > theory > law > Failure > Repeat to revise (refine). All of the vocabulary of ‘logic’ and proof, all of which is justificationary and false, is now reduced to superstitious language. And all attempts to say ‘prove it’ are also justificationary and false. One cannot prove a truth, one can only ask for sufficient information to falsify it. And contrary to the entire history of philosophy, the principle means of falsification is deconfliction, completing scope and limits, accounting for cost, testing the possibility of action, rationality of action, and reciprocity of display word and deed. The people who invented lying are as good at lying as the people who invented truth are good at truth.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547577090 Timestamp) HOW CAN PEOPLE USING THE SAME METHOD MAKE DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS? —“Iâve noticed some followers have slight disagreements. Is this because they are getting it wrong? Or what? Example, Iâve heard Eli explain that he disagrees that Christianity is the optimum cooperative strategy. I mean, either it is or isnât, right? How can different people using the method ever disagree or contradict?”– by Curtus Maximus Short answer: First, People who should know better, still get Darwin and Einstein wrong – every day. And second, we are all arguing a field of possibilities rather than just the central proposition – that field is a means of providing due diligence against your misunderstanding by deduction, inference, and free association. In other words we differ largely in which error we are trying to stop you from making (many), not in the central thesis (one). Long answer: we are in that phase where we are applying the method to everything, but have not yet covered all the cases nor examined the consequence of the application of our judgements. At this point we will naturally have some ‘calculating’ to do. In the example you gave, I say that christianity teaches (contains, not is) the optimum cooperative strategy WITHIN a group. This is just a general rule and it’s not possible to debate it. We can say that (a) it is a very bad way of teaching that rule, (b) teaching it that bad way produces terrible consequences, (c) teaching that rule without limiting to kin is suicidal. Eli is the most sophisticated person we have at the economic analysis of cooperative behaviors. There just isn’t anyone better at it. And he has such a head start that it will be hard for anyone to catch up with him. But, when he’s making those statements I don’t know the context so I don’t know which of the points (a,b,c) he’s making. Eli’s method is extremely pejorative. He uses that method to render extremely intolerant (weasel-proof) judgements because he’s not letting you come to your own ‘weasel-word’ conclusion. I tend to want you to come to your own conclusion so that you ‘own it’. So I will leave the doorway for weasel-words open in order to iteratively trap you so that you come to the conclusion on your own. (it’s socratic – and as you can see over the past few days, it’s what I’m doing with you.) Usually, when reading Eli, I can simply look at the context (argument he’s refuting) and define what he’s saying. But I don’t know if I’ve ever disagreed with him. It’s pretty hard to. So in the sense of judgement, Eli will give the LIMIT test of the argument. Where I will tend to describe the general rule. I suspect that any difference we have is in this difference between medians and limits. Bill will use a more sensitive approach. and if you watch john mark he’s probably becoming the best of us so far in completely answering the question. So you know, in ‘manly terms’ eli=well done, curt=medium, bill-medium rare, and John Mark = Rare. 😉
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548089782 Timestamp) PRACTICE TRAINS THE MIND —“I actually like forcing myself to write operationally. Over time, when practicing it, you come to understand what you attempt to say before you say it and then translate it to make it more accurate to what you originally wanted to say. The practice provides people with a great clarity of intention and thought while writing, through close examination of what they want to say, they work to eliminate the obscurity out of their thought and communication, and this demonstrates evidence of the methods power.”— Curtus Maximus
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548089782 Timestamp) PRACTICE TRAINS THE MIND —“I actually like forcing myself to write operationally. Over time, when practicing it, you come to understand what you attempt to say before you say it and then translate it to make it more accurate to what you originally wanted to say. The practice provides people with a great clarity of intention and thought while writing, through close examination of what they want to say, they work to eliminate the obscurity out of their thought and communication, and this demonstrates evidence of the methods power.”— Curtus Maximus
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548349724 Timestamp) TERMINOLOGICAL SUBTLETY I use the spectra: Display (visible signals) … Word (sound/speech) … … Deed (action) Sense (stimuli) … Perception (stimuli with memory) … … Prediction (imagine) … … … Experience … … … … Memory (result) … … … … … Recursion … … … … … … Intuition … … … … … … … Free Association … … … … … … … … Thinking … … … … … … … … … Reasoning … … … … … … … … … … Calculating … … … … … … … … … … … Computing Imitation (physical) > … Empathy (emotional) > … … Sympathy (thought) >
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548349724 Timestamp) TERMINOLOGICAL SUBTLETY I use the spectra: Display (visible signals) … Word (sound/speech) … … Deed (action) Sense (stimuli) … Perception (stimuli with memory) … … Prediction (imagine) … … … Experience … … … … Memory (result) … … … … … Recursion … … … … … … Intuition … … … … … … … Free Association … … … … … … … … Thinking … … … … … … … … … Reasoning … … … … … … … … … … Calculating … … … … … … … … … … … Computing Imitation (physical) > … Empathy (emotional) > … … Sympathy (thought) >
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548679656 Timestamp) THE “ENTIRELY REASONABLE” UTILITY OF MATHEMATICS —“…Russell and Frege …”– Sorry but mathematics is so useful because it consists of precisely one constant relation: position, for which we have invented a naming scheme of positional names. Therefore every reference in any set of constant relations of any scale, at any scale, can be named (in as many as n-dimensions), and with that name all other relations ascertainable. Mathematics consists of the assignment of, and operations upon, positional names names, and the various techniques for constructing or deducing constant relations with others names. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is nothing more than its dependence upon a single immutable constant relation: positional name. This simplicity makes the error to which all other names (other logics) are subject effectively impossible, and limits error to errors of operation and deduction.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548678844 Timestamp) THAT THING WE CALL ‘LOGIC” We can observe our use of logic, math, geometry, just fine, the way we can observe every other one of our senses. But, until the present era would could not inspect the mechanism by which logic, math, geometry function: the detection of differences in constant relations between recursive neural networks. In other words, we lacked instrumentation for observation and measurement at such scales, and a paradigm (logic) for modeling them instrumental (computer science). it also is the most complex phenomenon we have examined which, because it’s heuristic (adaptive). But the fundamentally ability of us to sense differences, particularly in something so informationally dense (concentrated) as speech, is produced by differences in degree and distribution of excitement of neural networks. In other words we sense both constant and inconstant relations, in what babbage correctly called ‘a difference engine’. The logical facility consists in our ability to detect differences in constant relations between a nearly infinite hierarchy of forever-contingent associations. The discipline we call logic attempts to tests whether we ‘speak’ in constant relations. The discipline of formal logic attempts to produce a grammar of categories of constant relations in an effort to test for inconstant relations, claimed to be constant. —“Long before the twentieth century the prevailing opinion was that Euclidean geometry, standard mathematics, and logic did not rest on experience in any obvious way. They were largely presupposed in our empirical work, and it was difficult to see what if anything might disconfirm them. Geometry was a special case and might be handled in different ways that we shall not discuss here. That leaves logic and mathematics.”—S.E.P.
- Curt
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548679656 Timestamp) THE “ENTIRELY REASONABLE” UTILITY OF MATHEMATICS —“…Russell and Frege …”– Sorry but mathematics is so useful because it consists of precisely one constant relation: position, for which we have invented a naming scheme of positional names. Therefore every reference in any set of constant relations of any scale, at any scale, can be named (in as many as n-dimensions), and with that name all other relations ascertainable. Mathematics consists of the assignment of, and operations upon, positional names names, and the various techniques for constructing or deducing constant relations with others names. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is nothing more than its dependence upon a single immutable constant relation: positional name. This simplicity makes the error to which all other names (other logics) are subject effectively impossible, and limits error to errors of operation and deduction.