Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • DEFLATING TERMS BY THE MEANS OF CONSISTENCY IN THE DIMENSIONS THAT THEY MEASURE.

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 12:45:00 UTC

  • TERMINOLOGY: NO SHORTCUT TO UNDERSTANDING worth repeating One does not criticize

    TERMINOLOGY: NO SHORTCUT TO UNDERSTANDING

    worth repeating

    One does not criticize either terminology or deviation from normative definitions, but instead, the precision of the definitions, such that we are free of opportunity for conflation, and subsequent error.

    Each field uses terminology particular to it, and propertarianism (law) uses universals (operational names in series) across all fields. In either case we define terms that eliminate the error and potential for error in colloquial speech (“ordinary language”).

    In other words no field is, can be, reduced to ordinary language without the introduction of the vast ignorance and error that separates ordinary language from scientific language.

    That is because the existence of, and market demands for science and scientific prose evolved precisely to compensate for the ignorance, error, bias, fictionalism, and deceit in ordinary language.

    And moreover, since propertarianism serves as the scientific language of social science – including history, economics, law, sociology, morality, ethics, psychology, and language itself – we are forcing into the political discourse the same adaptation as did the revolution in physical science: and with equally disruptive consequences to normative language, ideas, ideology, religion, and language of those disciplines.

    So the criticism that we should use the colloquial speech in our effort to change social sciences from sophisms and pseudoscience dependent upon intuition and projection, and monopoly and conformity, into a form of calculation as is used in the other sciences, and divisions of cognition and labor, and conditions of cooperation, competition, and war, is rather … ridiculous really.

    All systems of symbolic calculation whether they be the small difference between spoken language and written language, or great differences between spoken language, written language, arithmetic, accounting, geometry, the calculus, relativity, chemistry, biology, ecology, economics, require training.

    The great difference is that we are all more invested in our daily use of the psychological, social, and political, such that we defend those investments no matter how bad they are.

    Unfortunately the average idiot who will readily say he understands neither advanced mathematics, economics, or subatomic physics will not similarly question his understanding of ethics, morality, and politics – thereby demonstrating his lack of agency due to malinvestment and ignorance, and genetic, gender, class, cultural bias.

    Ergo, there is no shortcut to knowledge. Calculation is counter intuitive – particularly in intuitionistic subjects.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 00:18:00 UTC

  • There is no wisdom literature that is not false, that cannot be broken in to ope

    There is no wisdom literature that is not false, that cannot be broken in to operational, fully accounted language.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 22:44:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083857083131408384

  • So what? That means we can tell truth and lie. It means that competitive ability

    So what? That means we can tell truth and lie. It means that competitive ability highly reflects linguistic precision. It means that competitive ability provides competitive advantage. Because otherwise physical marginal indifference provides too little competitive advantage.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 22:38:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083855625480744960

    Reply addressees: @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996 All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996 All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738

  • The central problem is one of computational costs in that production versus time

    The central problem is one of computational costs in that production versus time and energy costs of that production. In other words, language tends to be pragmatically adjusted for precision over time, given the context.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 22:37:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083855381246423040

    Reply addressees: @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996 All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996 All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738

  • I understand language as consisting of continuous recursive production of transa

    I understand language as consisting of continuous recursive production of transactional measurements and linguistic competition for demonstrated results as improving measurements (truth) and biasing measurements (frauds and deceits). Whether a cliff or a climb is irrelevant.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 22:36:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083855203999322113

    Reply addressees: @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996 All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996 All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738

  • “PHILOSOPHY MUST BE DRAGGED OUT OF THE IVORY TOWER AND INTO THE MARKETPLACE OF I

    –“PHILOSOPHY MUST BE DRAGGED OUT OF THE IVORY TOWER AND INTO THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS”–

    Um. I don’t think so. Unless it has a dramatic reformation.

    via negativa, measurement, science, economics, and law, versus via positiva, philosophy, theology, occult, daydreaming.

    While I find no difference between theorizing and philosophizing that is because I do not engage in empty verbalisms or sophisms, pseudosciences, nor the magic of ignoring costs.

    Philosophy can be laundered such that philosophizing(imaginary and verbal) and theorizing (existential and actionable) are essentially identical by the use of operational language, the full accounting of costs, and a preface of the choice of goods as those of the equalitarian herd, or the hierarchical pack.

    But as practiced, and as the demotion of the discipline to a peer to theology has evidenced, measuring, theorizing, philosophizing, and theologizing are simply analogous to description, deduction, induction, abduction, and guessing, using increasingly specious excuses for one’s guesswork.

    The athenian tradition did not account for costs. There are two principle reasons for it:

    (1) the peerage was small and wealthy with common interests – and costs were as rude then as today

    (2) discussion of costs immediately changes from ideals to reals thereby self selecting into class interests

    (3) mathematical idealism influenced greco-roman thought so heavily, giving such sophism an unearned legitimacy.

    (4) historically religion spoke in these ideal terms, philosophy an improvement upon them, and empiricism an improvement upon philosophy, and science an improvement upon empiricism, just as ‘Testimonialism’ is an improvement upon science. (empiricism vs science distinguished by the 20th’s implementation of operational language, and testimonialism by the completion of the scientific method).

    It is time for philosophy to either abandon idealism, sophism, and the ignorance of costs, or to be further demoted into the theology of ideals.

    Otherwise, like theology, it cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas.

    That is what the evidence shows us.

    People ask me every single day what philosophy to read and I tell them ‘none of it’ other than perhaps the bookends of Aristotle and Nietzsche. The rest is all measurement, science, economics, Law, and history.

    There are no crimes equal to those of abraham, saul, and mohammed in the ancient world, and marx, freud, boas, in the 19th, and adorno, derrida and foucault in the 20th. We can complain about Augustine and Aquinas as apologists, but by them the damage was done.

    It is very hard to criticize archimedes, democritus, aristotle, epicurus, zeno in the ancient world, and bacon, newton, hobbes, lock, smith, hume in the modern, or poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, pareto, spencer, nietzsche and many others in the 19th, and einstein, watson-crick, and the many others in the 20th.

    Precision of our knowledge increases thereby justifying the pack, offset by counter-revolutions in denial, sophism, pseudoscience, and supernaturalism expanding the herd. And the war between neolithic feminine dysgenic herd strategy of the levant, and the bronze age masculine eugenic pack strategy of indo europeans.

    Truth is undesirable to the many.

    —

    https://www.newstatesman.com/2019/01/philosophy-must-be-dragged-out-ivory-tower-and-marketplace-ideas?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 09:42:00 UTC

  • THE LANGUAGE OF MATHEMATICS AND MAN Mathematics is just the most SIMPLE possible

    THE LANGUAGE OF MATHEMATICS AND MAN

    Mathematics is just the most SIMPLE possible language since it has only one property: positional name. And positional names are unique and perfectly deflationary (non-conflationary) and as such very difficult to subject to our principal category of error: conflation.

    LET’S TAKE A JOURNEY:

    A CHANGE IN STATE (TIME) consists of entropy at the local rate of entropy.

    An INTERVAL (CHANGE) of time consists of a change in state.

    EXPERIENCE(PERCEPTION) consists of the conflation of sense-perception, memory, and neural prediction with that memory, over some interval of time.

    A set of CONSTANT RELATIONS (CATEGORY) consists of a set of properties reducible to analogy to experience, and commensurable (differentiable) by human experience.

    A REFERENCE (ASSOCIATION) consists of a set of constant relations.

    CORRESPONDENCE (NAMES) consists of a name (INDEX) of a comparison of indifference between a name (referrer) and a reference.

    NUMBERS (NOUNS) consists of positional names, and the correspondence of positional names with some referent.

    ARITHMETIC (VERBS) consists in the study of the grammar of numbers, and the properties possible operations upon and between them (addition, subtraction, and their iterations in multiplication, and division).

    ALGEBRA (GRAMMAR) consists in the study of the grammar of mathematical language: the production of well form statements in mathematical language, and the manipulation of symbols (words, phrases, sentences) in that mathematical language, allowing for the deduction, induction, abduction, and guessing of the missing content of those statements, or range of possible content of those statements.

    A DIMENSION (PHRASES) consist of a set of constant internal relations, and each additional dimension consists of a shared dependency between dimensions the accumulation of which produces a chain, hierarchy, or network of dependencies.

    A dimension can refer to any difference reducible to analogy to perception by the human mind, and therefore capable of commensurability, comparison, and decidability.

    GEOMETRY (SENTENCES) consists in the study of dimensions of STATEFUL shapes described by positional relations we call numbers, in n-number of dimensions (although most commonly in four), and the use of triangles to measure area and volume.

    CALCULUS (MEANING) (from Latin calculus, literally ‘small pebble’, used for counting and calculations, as on an abacus) is the mathematical study of continuous change.

    It has two major branches:

    a) Curves: differential calculus (concerning instantaneous rates of change and slopes of curves), and;

    b) Curved Areas: integral calculus (concerning accumulation of quantities and the areas under and between curves).

    –“These two branches are related to each other by the fundamental theorem of calculus. Both branches make use of the fundamental notions of convergence of infinite sequences and infinite series to a well-defined limit. (marginal indifference).”–

    This paragraph consists of nonsense-speech.

    Calculus, like geometry, uses a very large number of approximations of the area under a curve, where we choose some arbitrary degree of precision to determine the smallness of each approximation. This means that all measurements must specify some point of marginal indifference, (scale dependence, ‘limit’).

    HIGHER MATHEMATICS (DEDUCTION, INDUCTION, ABDUCTION, GUESSING), (most analysis) consists in using the available set of constant relations, and some combination of negative (deduction) and positive (construction) to engage in trial and error, to narrow the range of possible solutions.

    EMERGENT PATTERNS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS

    Any and all networks produce patterns of constant relations (‘symmetries’) of that which is frequent and possible and that which is infrequent or impossible. We then can name these symmetries, assign them positional names, and repeat the descriptive language we call the process all over again.

    This is how the universe functions from its yet unknown time-space substance, to the quantum level of behavior upon it, to the atomic level of behavior upon that, to the carbon level beyond that, to the life, the complex life, to the sentience beyond that. One level of operations produces some maximum set of operations which is then results in some maximum set of operations until we have reason, and mathematics, and sufficient knowledge to forecast (imagine, predict) potential alternative ‘sentences’ and act upon them to change state ourselves, and to capture the energy from having done so, so that we ourselves continue to defeat entropy.

    All Reason consists of this using this series, all of which are simply statements of available information:

    1. Identity

    2. Equality

    3. Deduction

    4. Induction

    5. Abduction

    6. Guessing

    7. Free Association

    8. Intuition.

    9. Unobservable.

    In reasoning we can either:

    1. construct (justify),

    2. test (falsify)

    3. continuously recursively disambiguate.(analyze with language)

    4. eliminate by trial and error in construction, falsification, and analysis.

    5. eliminate by trial and error in the market for application.

    We can deceive by:

    1. Failure of due diligence

    2. Denial

    3. Obscurantism, loading, framing

    4. Conflation

    5. Inflation

    6. fictionalization

    7. Deceit

    8. Environmental deceit (saturation, popaganda)

    EVERYTHING WE DO FOLLOWS THE SAME EPISTEMIC PROCESS

    The competition between:

    1. construction by continuous recursive disambiguation (free association), and;

    2. continuous prediction (anticipation), and;

    3. continuous falsification (elimination).

    In this order:

    1. Experience (market for association in memory) >

    2. Free Association (prediction/falsification in reason) >

    3. Hypothesis (criticism/falsification in testing) >

    4. Theory (criticism/falsification in application ) >

    5. Law(survival) >

    6. Habituation (presumption) >

    7. Revision (iterate)

    Philosophizing only tells us if something is false. Nothing more

    The only means of due diligence is falsifying each dimension of possible human perception:

    1. survival from falsification of identity

    2. survival from falsification of internal consistency (logic)

    3. survival from falsification by external correspondence (empiricism).

    4. survival from falsification by operationalization and operational description.

    5. survival from falsification by subjective test of rational choice

    7. survival from falsification by reciprocal test of rational choice.

    8. survival from falsification by tests of limits and full accounting (scope).

    9. survival from falsification by of internal consistency across all of these methods of due diligence (coherence).

    In summary, operational grammar is the same as mathematical grammar: extremely difficult to circumvent tests of deflation and disambiguation in that hierarchy of real world dimensions.

    The human body, intuition, and mind, is a standard of measurement because of the marginal indifference of perception cognition and action, and the ‘grammar’ of operations, provides continuous consistency from the subatomic universe to the experiential.

    Once you understand this, the demand for ePrime (operational language), in complete sentences will be rather obvious.

    – Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-09 13:37:00 UTC

  • ARE THE MOST ACCURATE MEASURE IN SOCIAL SCIENCE via Brandon Hayes, via Rosenborg

    http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response?fbclid=IwAR02Jlx5CLeUKLE4ovolOnAI3UMKZCxwAjVfBayrt1UKCvlhBoiDuu_hpTsSTEREOTYPES ARE THE MOST ACCURATE MEASURE IN SOCIAL SCIENCE

    via Brandon Hayes, via Rosenborg Predmetsky

    (worth repeating) (just like IQ the most accurate measure in psychology).

    from: http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response/

    THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

    This blog is not the place to review the overwhelming evidence of stereotype accuracy, though interested readers are directed to SPSR and our updated reviews that have appeared in Current Directions in Psychological Science (Jussim et al, 2015) and Todd Nelson’s Handbook of Stereotypes, Prejudice and Discrimination (Jussim et al, 2016). Summarizing those reviews:

    Over 50 studies have now been performed assessing the accuracy of demographic, national, political, and other stereotypes.

    Stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. Richard et al (2003) found that fewer than 5% of all effects in social psychology exceeded r’s of .50. In contrast, nearly all consensual stereotype accuracy correlations and about half of all personal stereotype accuracy correlations exceed .50.[1]

    The evidence from both experimental and naturalistic studies indicates that people apply their stereotypes when judging others approximately rationally. When individuating information is absent or ambiguous, stereotypes often influence person perception. When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are “massive” (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent.

    This puts the lie to longstanding claims that “stereotypes lead people to ignore individual differences.”

    There are only a handful of studies that have examined whether the situations in which people rely on stereotypes when judging individuals increases or reduces person perception accuracy. Although those studies typically show that doing so increases person perception accuracy, there are too few to reach any general conclusion. Nonetheless, that body of research provides no support whatsoever for the common presumption that the ways and conditions under which people rely on stereotypes routinely reduces person perception accuracy.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-06 14:41:00 UTC

  • it is more than industry, but yes that is close. it is a metric for governance

    it is more than industry, but yes that is close. it is a metric for governance.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-03 14:42:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080836734798217216

    Reply addressees: @BrownTsuga @tritzerfanitzer @nntaleb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080819893405020160

    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/1080819893405020160