Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • “What do you use as a basis for your research?”— A Friend Maybe I don’t unders

    —“What do you use as a basis for your research?”— A Friend

    Maybe I don’t understand the question….

    I mean. I have a very deliberate methodology.

    Mostly the history of (a) group competitive strategies, (b) geography (c) economics, (d) political orders, (e) laws, (f) methods of argument (grammars). And I use propertarianism (Vitruvianism, Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, Testimonialism, and Natural Law) to perform the analysis.

    The difficult part of the work is deflating history into Propertarian terms so that all group actions are commensurable.

    This often requires attacking a proposition until only the truth (in Testimonial terms) remains. And in particular attacking most sacred presumptions and values. And that takes a great deal of time. I have to work long enough that I’ve defeated my own biases as best I can as well.

    In other words I look at the actions ( inputs, operations, and outputs) not the excuses (what people say about them), and explain the world as the different tactics we use to acquire.

    The methodology is something I understand very well. Unfortunately it is rather difficult to possess sufficient knowledge to employ it. As such it’s just as hard as any of the other sciences.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 09:05:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. TOO DENSE BUT ANY MATHEMATICIAN WILL GROK IT

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    TOO DENSE BUT ANY MATHEMATICIAN WILL GROK IT

    As far as I know all truth refers to testimony (correspondence) and we use the term ‘loosely’ for many purposes. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0).

    We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations).

    We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false.

    As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify.

    In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass).

    Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination.

    Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality.

    This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 00:20:38 UTC

  • 1) Wait, wait. Don’t give me that bullshit. I made four arguments, (a) cherry pi

    1) Wait, wait. Don’t give me that bullshit. I made four arguments, (a) cherry picking capital measurements, (b) converting pseudoscience to innumeracy, (c) changing the debate from rule of law to arbitrary rule (d) Chicago tried to compensate.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 22:45:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020077206846963712

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020040028704002048

    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/1020040028704002048

  • Keynes, Marx vs Classical: The Art of Lying

    Once you look at his notes, and understand Keynes converted Marx’s ‘dialectic’ (sophism) into Keynesian ‘innumeracy’ (ludic fallacy), you suspect his malincentives. But once you learn Rule of Law(Classical) vs Arbitrary Rule (Keynes), you realize that pseudoscience (Marx) and innumeracy (Keynes) are the only two methods by which to distract you from the underlying conflict: Rule of Law and Arbitrary Rule. Just as the marxists and the postmoderns have distracted us with Capitalism (Rule of Law) versus Socialism (Arbitrary Rule). The success of the Keynesian method is predicated on dialectic (loading, framing, and obscuring) rather than measurement. Why? What capital (that which we forgo opportunities or expend the results of opportunities to) invest in. So what Keynesianism achieves by innumeracy (fraud) is what Marx achieves by dialectic (sophism): the intentional distraction from the measurement of changes in capital to the measurement of the results of the consumption of it: including genetic, normative, traditional, knowledge, and institutional capital. And why did we (Hayek and others) fail? Because under democracy one cannot stop the mob from raiding the accumulated capital of millennia, nor the pseudo-intellectual class, and the political class from profiting from the sale. The Chicago school attempted to preserve rule of law and markets but the left has been too successful, the economists too well rewarded, and the financial industry, academy, and the state too well rewarded for doing so. Hence why Athens spent all the silver from the mine they discovered; and why Spain spent all the gold it took from the new world in failed wars against the Netherlands; and why Americans spent all the income from conquest of a continent and selling it off to genetic middle classes from Europe. … Until they ran out of middle classes. SOPHISM IS EVERYWHERE.

  • Too Dense but Any Mathematician Will Grok It

    As far as I know all truth refers to testimony (correspondence) and we use the term ‘loosely’ for many purposes. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0). We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations). We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false. As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify. In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass). Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination. Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality. This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics).

  • Too Dense but Any Mathematician Will Grok It

    As far as I know all truth refers to testimony (correspondence) and we use the term ‘loosely’ for many purposes. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0). We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations). We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false. As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify. In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass). Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination. Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality. This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics).

  • TOO DENSE BUT ANY MATHEMATICIAN WILL GROK IT As far as I know all truth refers t

    TOO DENSE BUT ANY MATHEMATICIAN WILL GROK IT

    As far as I know all truth refers to testimony (correspondence) and we use the term ‘loosely’ for many purposes. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0).

    We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations).

    We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false.

    As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify.

    In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass).

    Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination.

    Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality.

    This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 20:20:00 UTC

  • Thats not a measurement of before and after. That said, then in 1970’s what happ

    Thats not a measurement of before and after. That said, then in 1970’s what happened and why?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 20:13:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020038991855439877

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020038547938525184

    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/1020038547938525184

  • I don’t know what ‘essence’ means, but the failure to measure the full set of ca

    I don’t know what ‘essence’ means, but the failure to measure the full set of capital (cherry picking), and the violation of reciprocity is endemic. IOW, Aggregations(Correlations) vs Operations(Causations) to obscure measurement of capital transfers. I can’t be wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 18:15:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020009356274864128

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020001034574258176

    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/1020001034574258176

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. The grammars help a great deal. If you could

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    The grammars help a great deal. If you could see teh world as I do, which is far closer to a computing system than an experiential and fictional one we traditionally have relied upon you’d feel as I do like Neo when he can finally see the matrix. Now, unlike neo we can’t intervene in that system, but at least we can understand it for what it is. one continuous stream of causation from the fundamental forces of the universe to human cognition.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 13:37:21 UTC