Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • THE DIFFERENCE IN GRAMMARS IS A DIFFERENCE IN METHOD BTW: Regarding Greg, Richar

    THE DIFFERENCE IN GRAMMARS IS A DIFFERENCE IN METHOD

    BTW: Regarding Greg, Richard, (and many others): I respect both of them (and those less well known) and their heroic efforts – and I won’t speak other than in support of them.

    But I will ask you to notice in them the study of philosophy and their advocacy by moral and sentimental appeal to generate understanding and consent.

    The spectrum of argumentative methods:

    1) Religion and Theology to agree on a means of resistance for the collective good.

    2) Philosophy and Morality to create understanding and to obtain consent on a collective good.

    3) Science, Economics, Law, and War to impose a collective good regardless of resistance, understanding, and consent.

    We are and always have been the minority.

    We drag mankind behind us on a heavy sled.

    There is no sovereignty by undrestanding or consent, only the organized application of violence to deny anyone and everyone the alternative. If they understand and consent all the better. But understanding an consent are not necessary.

    This is the difference in my message.

    War.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-20 09:18:00 UTC

  • GRAMMARS IN TESTIMONIALISM I use a definition of grammar that limits semantic co

    GRAMMARS IN TESTIMONIALISM

    I use a definition of grammar that limits semantic content to the grammatical operations available.

    0) Universal Grammar: (serial, continuous, recursive, disambiguation)

    1) Grammar: Limited to dimensions of reality.

    2) Semantics: Vocabulary within the limits of the Grammar

    So you can look at language the old way: semantics on up. Or you can look at language the new way, grammars on down.

    So when I use ‘grammar’ it is closer to ‘means of communication, advocacy, persuasion, argument, and rejection’.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-17 08:39:00 UTC

  • SECOND BIT OF CLARITY FOR THE DAY: DIMENSIONS OF DUE DILIGENCE Dimensions of Nec

    SECOND BIT OF CLARITY FOR THE DAY: DIMENSIONS OF DUE DILIGENCE

    Dimensions of Necessary Warranty of Due Diligence:

    + 0 identity

    + 1 internal consistency (logical) (verbal)

    + 2 external correspondence (empirical) (existential)

    + 3 existential possibility (operational) (actionable)

    + 4 rational choice (voluntary and rational) (choice)

    + 5 reciprocity (reciprocally voluntary and rational)(morality)

    —–

    + limits, full accounting, and parsimony (complete)

    —–

    = Coherence (complete consistency)

    (a) I sometimes don’t separate out rational choice and reciprocity and simply use Morality for the combination.

    (b) I sometimes don’t enumerate limits, full accounting, and parsimony, but just use full accounting.

    (c) I sometimes don’t mention coherence because it only seems to confuse people that it’s the consistency across all of the dimensions

    (d )All of these are simply tests of consistency within or across (coherence) dimensions that it is possible for man to test.

    (e) Limits, Full Accounting, Parsimony, are tests of every individual dimension The rest of the tests, only the given dimension.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-13 13:03:00 UTC

  • “Things like motivation can only be measured in the outcomes they produce. You c

    —“Things like motivation can only be measured in the outcomes they produce. You can claim to be as motivated as you like; but with not fruits, you’d only be demonstrating/ expressing a lie {a claim to motivation you don’t demonstrate}.”–Brandon Hayes

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-12 14:53:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072867143178305541

  • “Things like motivation can only be measured in the outcomes they produce. You c

    —“Things like motivation can only be measured in the outcomes they produce. You can claim to be as motivated as you like; but with not fruits, you’d only be demonstrating/ expressing a lie {a claim to motivation you don’t demonstrate}.”–Brandon Hayes

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-12 09:53:00 UTC

  • “Inferences can’t be measured, property-en-toto (a demonstrated definition – i.e

    —“Inferences can’t be measured, property-en-toto (a demonstrated definition – i.e. demonstrated interests) can. so no, couching agency isn’t a meta-frame for cults, nor a result of ignorance of the agency-structure interdependence, but rather a matter of calculating agency by its resulting output. (the key point of confusion is the presumption that property is restricted to tangible stuff [materialism] where as property-en-toto includes the intangibles, things like, relationships, goals, identity – anything we invest our time, effort and care into [demonstrated investment])”— Bill Joslin

    Perfect. No one will defeat Bill now.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-12 09:52:00 UTC

  • Completeness and closure are two concepts I understand. But it is simpler to sta

    Completeness and closure are two concepts I understand. But it is simpler to state that mathematics is a very simple language of one dimension: positional relations. And as a one dimensional language of positional relations it maintains perfect constant relations. but like any…

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-09 18:46:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1071838613615374337

    Reply addressees: @RaduBT

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1071791089651208195

    IN REPLY TO:

    @RaduBT

    @curtdoolittle Math is not complete (Godel theorems – he proved that for any axiomatic system). It would have to do that with tools from “inside” an axiomatic system. The only way not to deceive ourselves is to rely on Physics, as in Universe / Experiment. Any theory is just an hypothesis. https://t.co/F8trNGXKtx

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1071791089651208195

  • OLOGY VS ISM by Bill Joslin New corrected dichotomy” *-ology vs *-ism. *-Ologies

    OLOGY VS ISM
    by Bill Joslin

    New corrected dichotomy” *-ology vs *-ism.

    *-Ologies exist as mean of measurement and utility; *-isms as rationalizations for doxia and opinion.

    ( ouch I’m gonna have to do some work because of that one ..)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-07 02:09:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070862822362546178

  • Even if the illustration is a poor analogy, it does get the point across that co

    Even if the illustration is a poor analogy, it does get the point across that constant relations may remain constant across inconstant (inconsistent, incompatible, incommensurable) theories, paradigms, sciences(frames). (The illustration is consistent, compatible, commensurable.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-07 01:14:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070848941804175360

    Reply addressees: @Nationalist7346 @SteveStuWill

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070845608477507589

    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/1070845608477507589

  • WHAT TEACHING METHOD ARE YOU SEEING HERE? (‘one room schoolhouse’, ‘scraps of yo

    WHAT TEACHING METHOD ARE YOU SEEING HERE?

    (‘one room schoolhouse’, ‘scraps of your attention’, ‘games’)

    I write series, tables, definitions, aphorisms, arguments, expositions. (See ‘Koans’.) For color (breaks) I write essays, opinion, nonsense, and diary entries.

    Why? best way to teach complexity by using scraps of your attention. a book (which i am still editing) would crush all but the few. These “games” allow a lot of people to learn a little at a time at their pace, with new people coming on board all the time. people go away and return when the are ready. some spin off. some quickly master.

    i cant control the classroom so i control the content. very much like running a big one room schoolhouse: repetition at different levels of complexity while asking some students to help others.

    it is the old, pre-industrial method of teaching and it is more suitable for teaching where the industrial method is good only for sorting people and filtering them into occupational groups.

    IMO we should work and socialize more, exercise more, read more, and run classes like this instead of how we do today.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-06 21:31:00 UTC