Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • “CURT: IS YOUR LANGUAGE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC?” (no, but it’s a very good question t

    “CURT: IS YOUR LANGUAGE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC?”

    (no, but it’s a very good question that deserves an answer)

    —-“I enjoy your humanist stance Curt Doolittle and with most of your ideas I find myself in concordance. My only caveat with your performance is this psuedo-scientific language – almost every other word is some phrase or term of references, especially from the realm of psychology. “— Christian Kalafut

    Christian,

    Excellent (not unique, but rare) and worthy criticism. Well done.

    This (vocabulary) is always a problem when trying to provide the only non-nonsensical model of philosophy, which is to reorganize properties, categories, relations, and values in response to advances in knowledge.

    Every theorist (‘Reformer’ is my prefer term) who attempts to increase the coherence between science and vernacular, across the fields is faced with the challenge of new terms (neologisms), redefining terms, and preserving terms, and doing so sufficiently that he’s free of criticism.

    To unite all the fields I had to create a common language, and so I appropriated the terms from each that were the ‘least wrong’ and created definitions in series to deflate them.

    I rely on one spectrum from cognitive science (psychosis <-> autism) by Baron Cohen, and I map demonstrated interests (that which we demonstrate we treat as property by defending), -> to moral bias (Hadit), -> to stages of the prey drive, -> to reward systems, -> to personality traits, -> to gender differences in brain structure resulting in that spectrum.

    This changes the content (model) of the behavioral vocabulary in ‘psychology’ from projection(imagination via sympathy and conformity) to demonstration (observation: science, and a division of cognitive labor). Thereby reforming psychology from projection to demonstration to physical construction and operation (neural economy)

    This cognitive division of labor is what I use as the basis of reforming ‘sociology’ under what I call Compatibilism(market) rather than Equality(monopoly) – and the competition between the classes, which serves as a further extension of perception and cognition to the group, wherein the group performs ‘calculation’ of ‘the good (the interest of the polity)’ by continuous tests of voluntary cooperation (reciprocity) – thereby EXPANDING the neural economy from the individual to the group, tribe, nation, civilization, mankind.

    And to ameliorate this competition between individuals and groups at all scales i use international law (demonstrated means of voluntary cooperation) under reciprocity as the ‘equals sign’ of human action. This results in ‘Natural Law’ as the means of assisting in calculation (cooperation at scale).

    And it changes from the via positiva of conformity and suppression of individual preference to preserve costly cooperation (antiquity) to the via negativa of conflict suppression and increase in individual preference to take advantage of cheap cooperation (modernity).

    This changes the discipline we call sociology to observation of agents with partial information thereby uniting psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy – providing a single language and model of all human behavior from the neurological to the international.

    As far as I know, further increases in the precision of this model will have no impact on decidability provided by it just as newtonian physics is sufficient for all human scale decidability despite increases in precision provided by einstein physics at prior and post human scale. And this is sufficient because humans can only act at human scale, regardless of their perceptions.

    So, while it is takes a HUGE vocabulary reformation (models of properties, categories, relations, and values) to change from the projections to demonstrations, and from monopoly to markets of behavior, and from static consensus to evolutionary calculation – thereby altering our ENTIRE body of knowledge to reflect the model of ECONOMICS(darwin/markets/equilibrium) that is true, rather than MATHEMATICS (christian/monopolies/equalities) that is false.

    So yes, as always, in every era (rational(Greek), empirical(early british), scientific(Darwin – european), technological(Turing-Chomsky-anglo american), and now ‘economic-neurological’ (me)), we require a reformation of our network of ideas, and yes it is a costly reformation, because it requires a lot of re-learning.

    I don’t claim to be a great communicator. I just claim to be correct.

    —“My only complaint aside, you’re very interesting and I would love to chat with you!”—

    Any time.

    —“Final ?: Have you read Barzun?”—

    I don’t’ find essayists interesting, because i am painfully empirical, and while I can absorb information endlessly I get very ‘tired’ with sentimental prose including value judgements loading and framing. So while I know of some of his ideas, I don’t find them helpful at my level of inquiry (free association, reason, calculation, and computation).

    In general I just read science and history and unfortunately not only have I lost the ability to suspend disbelief in fiction, I have lost the ability to suspend judgement in essay form, and in both cases, I find it tedious and painful (like listening to gossip.) That isn’t a good thing but it’s a consequence of doing my work for so many years.

    So that’s why I tell people, I do science, write law, using the rhetorical structure of philosophy and do so to end deceit by pseudoscience (sophism of the technical), philosophy(sophism of the rational) and theology (sophism of the mythological),

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 11:25:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM: OUR DEFINITION OF ‘GRAMMAR’ (very important) –“Curt, How do yo

    PROPERTARIANISM: OUR DEFINITION OF ‘GRAMMAR’

    (very important)

    –“Curt, How do you use grammar differently from the norm?”– A Friend.

    CURRENT:

    – Chomsky’s Grammar Facility (biological) of “Recursive Disambiguation”

    …. – Languages

    …. …. – Vocabulary

    …. …. …. – Semantics

    …. …. – Grammar

    …. …. …. – Phonology, Morphology, Syntax …

    This is the traditional undrestanding of grammar, even though the original term referred to a book containing the rules of the given language.

    PROPERTARIANISM

    “The Grammars” as I use them:

    – Chomsky’s Grammar Facility (biological) of “CONTINUOUS Recursive Disambiguation”.

    …. – The DIMENSIONAL Grammars (spectrum of dimensions allowed)

    …. …. – Languages

    …. …. …. – Vocabulary LIMITED by dimensional grammar.

    …. …. …. …. – Paradigm (network of constant relations)

    …. …. …. …. …. – Semantics LIMITED by dimensional grammar

    …. …. …. – TRANSACTIONAL Grammar

    …. …. …. …. – Phonology, Morphology, Syntax … etc.

    WHERE

    The DIMENSIONAL GRAMMARS Consist of no less than:

    – identity (property), logic (consistency)

    – arithmetic and accounting

    – mathematics, geometry, calculus, statistics

    – algorithm, computation, transaction, sentience, consciousness, reason, calculation

    – physics , chemistry, biology-ecology

    – contract, testimony, law

    – psychology, sociology, politics, economics

    – ordinary language (conversation)

    – narration,

    – story telling (plot)

    – myth, parable, (lesson)

    – fictionalisms (ideal-mental, magical-physical, supernatural-emotional)

    – Deceits (loading, framing, obscurantism … etc.)

    AND WHERE

    Each ‘grammar’ consist of the means of testing internal consistency (decidability) in the process of speech (continuous recursive disambiguation) while producing transactions (descriptions of changes in state).

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 11:12:00 UTC

  • WHY WILL PEOPLE WILL RESIST PROPERTARIANISM? (defense of investment in fraud) Pr

    WHY WILL PEOPLE WILL RESIST PROPERTARIANISM?

    (defense of investment in fraud)

    Propertarianism: All words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and arguments consist of measurements accumulating in transactions. Most importantly, propertarian argument makes visible ALL pretense of knowledge – falsifying any claim made with pretense of knowledge.

    Reciprocity is a value independent test of decidability. With these two tools we can falsify all fraudulent speech (argument).

    That’s why people FEAR propertarianism. Propertarianism serves its purpose as a formal logic of social science from metaphysics, through epistemology through psychology, sociology, ethics, law, politics group evolutionary strategy and aesthetics.

    Propertarianism is ‘frightening’ to the ‘frauds’ precisely because it will restore the market for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs by externality upon others.

    This will deny those who use false language to obtain status and therefore organize non-market action and restore all means of theft. Worse (for the frauds), it eliminates their ability to create false self image and false status signaling thereby ending the competition in the signal (status) economy by fraud.

    This is why people will resist propertarianism. Because it suppresses lies. Unlike abrahamism, marxism, postmodernism and feminism which enable lies – particularly when industrialized lying was made possible by media and the academy, which could then be used by the state to deceive in order to obtain POWER.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 10:19:00 UTC

  • IT’S NOT COMPLICATED: Law(Science)…………….. = Testimony (Measurements) P

    IT’S NOT COMPLICATED:

    Law(Science)…………….. = Testimony (Measurements)

    Philosophy(Rationalism) = Excuse (Justifications)

    Theology(Fictionalism).. = Fiction ( Deception)

    The Grammar Used Tells You Everything About The Argument Used.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 10:07:00 UTC

  • (Which doesn’t matter in a signal economy, right? And, outside of Venezuela and

    (Which doesn’t matter in a signal economy, right? And, outside of Venezuela and Mexico that’s the problem. Certainly is in the USA. Perception – meaning perception of relative condition in the face of signal uncertainty – is reality. it’s all people have to measure by.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-29 21:32:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057022376859312128

    Reply addressees: @GeolibGeorge @Septeus7 @Slysneak @Lord_Keynes2 @jappleby123 @Noahpinion @ProfSteveKeen

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057020582649364482

    IN REPLY TO:

    @GonzoGeorgism

    @curtdoolittle @Septeus7 @Slysneak @Lord_Keynes2 @jappleby123 @Noahpinion @ProfSteveKeen …. doing is an economic and therefore unavoidably empirical one. And especially if the question at hand is how well policy is affecting said correlating variables.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057020582649364482

  • well, as we have seen, predictability in finance, economics, political economy e

    … well, as we have seen, predictability in finance, economics, political economy exist only when it is meaningless.Outliers cause nearly all activity.The rest is just noise as shocks ripple through the pattern of sustainable specialization and trade, amplified by discount rate.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-29 21:25:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057020532594524161

    Reply addressees: @GeolibGeorge @Septeus7 @Slysneak @Lord_Keynes2 @jappleby123 @Noahpinion @ProfSteveKeen

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057020056561950722

    IN REPLY TO:

    @GonzoGeorgism

    @curtdoolittle @Septeus7 @Slysneak @Lord_Keynes2 @jappleby123 @Noahpinion @ProfSteveKeen …. have to make a few simplifying but reasonable assumptions about what tends to at least correlate with the perception that people have of how well they are doing for the purposes of discussion, especially since the context in which we are discussing how well they are….

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057020056561950722

  • The measure of doing well is a measure of perception not aggregation

    The measure of doing well is a measure of perception not aggregation.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-29 21:14:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057017976254279681

    Reply addressees: @GeolibGeorge @Septeus7 @Slysneak @Lord_Keynes2 @jappleby123 @Noahpinion @ProfSteveKeen

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1000866370551189506

    IN REPLY TO:

    @GonzoGeorgism

    @Septeus7 @Slysneak @Lord_Keynes2 @Voltaire1778__8 @LambsRegret @jappleby123 @Noahpinion @curtdoolittle @ProfSteveKeen This is such a ridiculously hyperbolic portrayal of the average American &amp; their standard of living. It isn‘t the Rust Belt, New England, or Appalachia. Things could be a lot better, and serious reforms need to be made; but the average American is doing far better than you claim

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1000866370551189506

  • Operations (real) vs Sets (ideal)

    October 28th, 2018 8:43 AM AGAIN: OPERATIONS (REAL) VS SETS (IDEAL) – CANTOR AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM IN MATHEMATICS AND BY EXTENSION EVERYTHING.

    —“Ok but Cantor’s work is specifically set-theoretic, not analytical. Also, an infinite sum is by definition a sum over a countable set. So cantor’s notions are in fact relevant for this.”—Alex Pareto

    [Y]es it is a sacred cow because people who are (knowingly or unknowingly) mathematical platonists are just as indoctrinated into superstitious nonsense as people who are indoctrinated into platonism proper, and people indoctrinated into theology. They know how to DO what they do (meaning make arguments with the objects, relations, and values of their vocabulary and grammar) but they don’t know how and why what they do functions. Frequencies are the scientific description and infinities (sizes) the fictional (imaginary) description. The difference is that those of us who work in the sciences, where we CANNOT engage in Platonism, because that is the purpose of science: to prevent such ‘magical’ speech, and instead force us to undrestand the causal relations between reality and our speech. So in this case a number consists of nothing more than the name of a position. That’s it. Mathematics consists of the vocabulary and grammar of positional names. Nothing more. Period. We generate positional names by the process of positional naming. We can scientifically describe that process as did Babbage, Turing, and Computer Science (consisting of nothing but addition), with gears, or the positional equivalent of gears (positional names), or the electronic-switch(memory) of positional names, and use these gears to produce positional names and operations on positional names at varying speeds. We can also tell a ‘story’ about those things (a fiction) which is what we do with literary, symbolic, and set mathematics. And then we can tell a fairy tale about sets, as if they are an equivalent to red riding hood. But no matter what we do, operationally, (scientifically) all we can do is produce a series of positional names faster or slower than another series of positional names. Ergo, there exists only one name “infinity” for “unknown limit of operations” and different rates (frequencies) by which we generate positional names, using any set of operations with which we produce positional names. This is why mathematics ‘went off the rails’ into fictionalism despite Poincare’s and others efforts at the beginning of the 20th century. Math is just the use of positional names which have only one property: position, and therefore only ONE constant relation: position. All logic consists of the study of constant relations, and as such mathematics provides the most commensurable language of constant relations, since it has only ONE constant relation: position.

  • Grammars Matter

    October 28th, 2018 8:38 AM GRAMMARS MATTER: COMPACT MONOPOLY CONFLATIONARY STAGNANT DYSGENIC VS DIFFERENTIATED MARKET DEFLATIONARY EVOLUTIONARY, EUGENIC SOCIAL ORDERS (important concepts)

    —“You might want to take a look at Eric Voegelin’s distinction between “compact” and “differentiated” symbolic systems.”– Chip Sills

    [I] understand it but it’s psychological not scientific and I work with the scientific model instead. In the end we face problems of computational cost (neural economy), and the grammars (models, objects, relations, values) that allow us to calculate (make comparisons, judgements, plans), offset by the frictions of status(face), and our order’s demand for either status(public/economic) or face (familial/personal), and local competition (homogeneity vs heterogeneity) and the institutions(norms, traditions, values, formal institutions) that arise from those conditions in the geography we sustain ourselves within. Simple people need simple anthropomorphic means of computation by free association (dream state, imagination, intuition) and more sophisticated people require means of calculation and computation that are increasingly more precise than the limits of human scale present in anthropomorphic models(grammars). So simple people and civilizations use high context/low precision grammars, and more complex civilizations use low context/high precision grammars. And our languages slowly evolve into “pidgins’ for high context, and large vocabulary nouns in low context for lower cognitive load, and for higher precision at the cost of higher cognitive load. So what Vogelin refers to as compact vs differentiated is an insightful version, rendering the choice psychological or arbitrary, where I use more precise, higher precision, terms and definitions, that expose the causes and consequences, and the non-arbitrariness of the relationship. Moreover, the CONFLATIONARY structure of MONOPOLY (monotheistic) religions and the MARKET structure of western civilization (poly grammatical) provides some of the best evidence of how monotheism (compact, monopoly, conflationary) models are easier to understand, but produce of necessity ignorance , stagnation, decline, and dysgenia. I hope this helps.

  • Operations (real) vs Sets (ideal)

    October 28th, 2018 8:43 AM AGAIN: OPERATIONS (REAL) VS SETS (IDEAL) – CANTOR AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM IN MATHEMATICS AND BY EXTENSION EVERYTHING.

    —“Ok but Cantor’s work is specifically set-theoretic, not analytical. Also, an infinite sum is by definition a sum over a countable set. So cantor’s notions are in fact relevant for this.”—Alex Pareto

    [Y]es it is a sacred cow because people who are (knowingly or unknowingly) mathematical platonists are just as indoctrinated into superstitious nonsense as people who are indoctrinated into platonism proper, and people indoctrinated into theology. They know how to DO what they do (meaning make arguments with the objects, relations, and values of their vocabulary and grammar) but they don’t know how and why what they do functions. Frequencies are the scientific description and infinities (sizes) the fictional (imaginary) description. The difference is that those of us who work in the sciences, where we CANNOT engage in Platonism, because that is the purpose of science: to prevent such ‘magical’ speech, and instead force us to undrestand the causal relations between reality and our speech. So in this case a number consists of nothing more than the name of a position. That’s it. Mathematics consists of the vocabulary and grammar of positional names. Nothing more. Period. We generate positional names by the process of positional naming. We can scientifically describe that process as did Babbage, Turing, and Computer Science (consisting of nothing but addition), with gears, or the positional equivalent of gears (positional names), or the electronic-switch(memory) of positional names, and use these gears to produce positional names and operations on positional names at varying speeds. We can also tell a ‘story’ about those things (a fiction) which is what we do with literary, symbolic, and set mathematics. And then we can tell a fairy tale about sets, as if they are an equivalent to red riding hood. But no matter what we do, operationally, (scientifically) all we can do is produce a series of positional names faster or slower than another series of positional names. Ergo, there exists only one name “infinity” for “unknown limit of operations” and different rates (frequencies) by which we generate positional names, using any set of operations with which we produce positional names. This is why mathematics ‘went off the rails’ into fictionalism despite Poincare’s and others efforts at the beginning of the 20th century. Math is just the use of positional names which have only one property: position, and therefore only ONE constant relation: position. All logic consists of the study of constant relations, and as such mathematics provides the most commensurable language of constant relations, since it has only ONE constant relation: position.