Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • Why Is Russia, With This Great Potential (140 Million Intelligent People, Large Country With Natural Resources, Great Geography And Climate Etc.) Still Relatively Poor?

    A) Um, all aggregate measurements are misleading. If in a country of 1M people, they make $1 a day and I make $1B a day, the GDP/Population will be 365M + 365B/1M, giving the impression that everyone in the country is making more than $300K per year.
    B) Resources are a curse, because they lead to corruption, rent seeking, subsidy, and a lack of innovation.
    C) Putin does not get credit for his expansion of rule of law. But corruption is pervasive. It is not like corruption in the states – which is invisible – it’s visible. And in some ways that’s more tolerable. But it is very hard to start and keep a business running, and it’s middle class and business that drives a people out of low income.
    B) Russia is a VERY big place. I mean, the USA is big. But Russia is 11 time zones big, and like canada, the population is largely along the borders. Imagine the cost of infrastructure in Belgium or Denmark vs the cost of infrastructure in Russia? For example, I spent some time with the founder and ‘president’ of one of the popular mega sports store chains. And what do you do when you run a business across that many time zones, and telephone, internet, and power, are often unreliable? What do you do when you must pay (bribe) people in the government just to get basic things done – not even privileges, but just to do their job? I tried to buy a company in moscow, and i literally couldn’t find one to buy. Not because there weren’t any. But because you can’t keep ‘legit’ books and survive. And it’s never clear who owns anything. Until the past few years it was difficult to trust the courts so contracts were difficult, and cash rather than credit slows the economy. So all of these ‘frictions’ add up.
    C) Moscow is a VERY expensive city (I wish I lived there, I love it and I love russian people). But people outside the major cities are still quite poor. (And Belarus and Ukraine are even worse.)
    D) Russians were virtually slaves 150 years ago. Under the soviets it varied quite a bit from murderous, to horrible to comfortable, to exceptionally good. And then they had a catastrophic event (collapse), and then dragged themselves out of it.

    The only difference I have found between ‘white’ russians and ‘white’ americans is that americans are foolishly optimistic and trusting, and russians are foolishly pessimistic and untrusting. The rest of the western world has turned effeminate in the french(postmodern) and jewish(marxist) and outside of Australians, White americans, and White Russians, Christendom is in a catastrophe.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Russia-with-this-great-potential-140-million-intelligent-people-large-country-with-natural-resources-great-geography-and-climate-etc-still-relatively-poor

  • What Races Are The Most Racist?

    We actually have quite a bit of data. The data I have seen is cross compiled from a number of surveys and has something just under 100K samples – which is about what you need for something of this size. (No studies of less than 1000 are meaningful, and at 10,000 we begin to see some value

    The top ten most racist and bigoted countries, in descending order, are the following:

    1. India,
    2. Lebanon,
    3. Bahrain,
    4. Libya,
    5. Egypt,
    6. Philippines,
    7. Kuwait,
    8. Palestine,
    9. South Africa, and
    10. South Korea.

    In american, the most racist people are

    1. Blacks
    2. Jews
    3. Hispanics
    4. Asians
    5. Whites

    White people are the most tolerant and accepting – in the world.

    White people are just the most likely to be INVADED because they produce the best *Commons* in the world, and therefore the best life experience.

    So whites experience the PROBLEM of racial conflict more often. So the question arises more frequently.

    Anyway. It’s the opposite of what you’d think.

    https://www.quora.com/What-races-are-the-most-racist

  • What Can You Do With A Phd In Political Philosophy (with Some Grasp On Economy And Ethics)?

    Work at Starbucks, Mcdonald’s, or the shipping department at Amazon.

    If you can’t calculate it, it’s just fiction.
    The only political sciences I know of are War, Law, and Economics. Everything else (philosophy) is just excuse making to justify priors.
    War, Law, and Economics are empirical (and unforgiving).
    There is no skin in the game in argument.

    https://www.quora.com/What-can-you-do-with-a-PhD-in-political-philosophy-with-some-grasp-on-economy-and-ethics

  • Why Are People So Sure The Current Experts In Science Can’t Be Wrong, When History Has Shown They Have Been Wrong Many Times Before?

    GOOD QUESTION, BUT NOT QUITE RIGHT.

    Because by and large, use of the scientific method (using observation and measurement to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit, eventually, incrementally, provides more and more precise descriptions of the universe – even if it is very often, two steps forward and one step back.

    Psychology was entirely pseudoscience. Social science is largely pseudoscience – and those findings that are not, are ‘unpleasant’, and avoided by the field. Much of mainstream economics is very close to pseudoscience, even if it is empirical. Most of political science is pseudoscientific nonsense. Most if not all of philosophy is pseudoscientific nonsense. However, if we look at the hard sciences, meaning physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, computer science, and mathematics, those fields (particularly physics) have been best at not claiming falsehoods. Whereas all other disciplines excel at claiming falsehoods. We are primarily constrained at this point by the fact that we cannot produce tools to test those things we wish to – they’re too expensive or require too much energy, and we don’t have the technology yet.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-people-so-sure-the-current-experts-in-science-cant-be-wrong-when-history-has-shown-they-have-been-wrong-many-times-before

  • What Can You Do With A Phd In Political Philosophy (with Some Grasp On Economy And Ethics)?

    Work at Starbucks, Mcdonald’s, or the shipping department at Amazon.

    If you can’t calculate it, it’s just fiction.
    The only political sciences I know of are War, Law, and Economics. Everything else (philosophy) is just excuse making to justify priors.
    War, Law, and Economics are empirical (and unforgiving).
    There is no skin in the game in argument.

    https://www.quora.com/What-can-you-do-with-a-PhD-in-political-philosophy-with-some-grasp-on-economy-and-ethics

  • Why Are People So Sure The Current Experts In Science Can’t Be Wrong, When History Has Shown They Have Been Wrong Many Times Before?

    GOOD QUESTION, BUT NOT QUITE RIGHT.

    Because by and large, use of the scientific method (using observation and measurement to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit, eventually, incrementally, provides more and more precise descriptions of the universe – even if it is very often, two steps forward and one step back.

    Psychology was entirely pseudoscience. Social science is largely pseudoscience – and those findings that are not, are ‘unpleasant’, and avoided by the field. Much of mainstream economics is very close to pseudoscience, even if it is empirical. Most of political science is pseudoscientific nonsense. Most if not all of philosophy is pseudoscientific nonsense. However, if we look at the hard sciences, meaning physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, computer science, and mathematics, those fields (particularly physics) have been best at not claiming falsehoods. Whereas all other disciplines excel at claiming falsehoods. We are primarily constrained at this point by the fact that we cannot produce tools to test those things we wish to – they’re too expensive or require too much energy, and we don’t have the technology yet.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-people-so-sure-the-current-experts-in-science-cant-be-wrong-when-history-has-shown-they-have-been-wrong-many-times-before

  • What’s The Difference? 1) Differences

    a) Competition: Without competition (comparison, differences) we have no means of distinction and without distinction we cannot make a choice. Forms of competition: b) Constant Relations: Referrers, Properties, relations, and values are determined by marginally indifferent, comparable, or commensurable Constant Relations vs Inconstant Relations between states. |Comparable|: Identical > Indifferent(in context/limits) > Marginally Indifferent > comparable > commensurable(via intermediary measure) > incommensurable (different) 2) DECIDABILITY DECIDABLE: a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the “system”(ie: grammar). b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary). Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm). Given these Dimensions: a) Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable). b) Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable ) c) Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable) d) Population (Self, Others, All, Universal) Yields: a) Indistinguishable(perception) > Distinguishable(cognition) > Memorable(categorical-referrable) > Possible(material) > Actionable(physical) > Choosable(for use) > Preferable(Personal) > Good(interpersonal) > Decidable(political) > True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) > Analytic > Tautological. 3) DEMAND FOR DECIDABILITY Demand for Truth (Decidability): a) True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship (mental) b) True enough for me to feel good about myself (psychological) c) True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results (actionable) d) True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. (Moral) e) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. (Normative or legislative) f) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. (Natural Law) g) True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. (True (Proper)) h) True for the purposes of internal consistency. (Analytic) h) Tautologically true: in that the two referrers consist of sets (networks) of marginally indifferent in properties in the given context (limits). 4) TRUTH: INFORMATION SUFFICIENT FOR DECIDABILITY IN CONTEXT |TESTIMONY|: IMPULSE > HONESTY > TRUTHFULNESS(Contingent) > TRUTH (Idea) > TRUE (Analytic) > TAUTOLOGY HONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. TRUTHFULNESS (TRUE): that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. IDEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. ANALYTIC TRUTH: Internally consistent, independent of external correspondence. In the construction of proofs, open to substitution and independent of context, we produce tests of internal consistency (generally speaking, the preservation of ratios). Or more simply, the preservation of constant relations. TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: Marginally indifferent description expressing constant relations between referrers. 4) POSSIBILITY 5) ACTIONABILITY 6) CONTINGENCY (DEPENDENCY) Free-Association( Guess(Uncritical)) > Hypothesis(Critical) > Premise(Assumption)) > Axiom(Declaration) > Identity(tautology) > Differences(consistent and inconsistent relations) ? 7) JUSTIFICATION (MATH, LAW, SCRIPTURE, LITERATURE – UN-INTERROGATABLE.) Thinking > Imagining > Reasoning(external competition) > Argument (Informal Logics)(argumentative competition) > Justification(Formal Logics)(internal competition) > Math(Positional Logics) > category > identity > differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)? 8) JUSTIFICATIONARY OPERATIONS Free Association > Guess > Abduction > Induction > Deduction > Identity(tautology) > differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)? Decidability under Justification: Uses of Justification: 9) LIMITS OF JUSTIFICATION Dependency and Deducibility: Evidence, Argument: No accumulation of justifications (confirmations) can a Closure in any dimension is impossible without appeal to the consequent dimension. 10) REPLACEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION WITH PROSECUTION (FALSIFICATION) 11) PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE)ATION – INTERROGATABLE) Free association > idea(survives) > hypothesis(survives) > theory(survives) > law(survives) > Identity(tautology)(survives) > differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)(evolves) > [Loop]. 12) PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE) Falsification(Survival) by Measurement (cardinal, ordinal, decidable)) Dimensions of survival. a) Categorical Consistency (identity) (competition between properties, relations and values and some reference consisting of properties relations and values) b) Internal consistency (logical) c) Observable Consistency (empirical) d) Existential Consistency (operational) e) Rational Consistency (praxeological (rational choice)) f) Moral Consistency (reciprocal) g) Scope Consistency (limits and full accounting) h) Coherence (dimensional consistency). Decidability under Prosecution: ||Incomprehensible > Comprehensible(Decidable) > Possible(Decidable) > Contingent(True, Decidable) > False (Decidable) ……………………….. FALSE……..TRUE(CONTINGENT)……UNDECIDABLE ———————————————————————- FALSE ……………..|..FALSE…….FALSE………………………..UNDECIDABLE TRUE……………….|..FALSE…….TRUE………………………….UNDECIDABLE UNDECIDABLE….|..FALSE…….TRUE………………………….UNDECIDABLE Uses for Prosecution: TABLE OF JUSTIFICATION VS FALSIFICATION JUSTIFICATION (CONSTRUCTION) (“PHILOSOPHY”) Think…Imagine..Reason………InformalLogic…FormalLogic…Identity…Diff F-A ….Statmt….Statement…..Premise…………Axiom………….Identity…Diff. F-A…..Guess…..Abduction…..Induction……….Deduction……Identity…Diff. *F-A = Free Association —vs.— PROSECUTION (SURVIVAL FROM FALSIFICATION) (SCIENCE) F-A……Idea……..Hypoth………Theory……………Law…………..Identity……Diff. F-A……Falsify…..Falsify……….Falsify…………….Falsify………Parsimony…Diff. ….Internal……. ..Internal………External………….Market………Survival…. ‘True’. *True in science – true within scope. RATIONAL Productive…..Fully Informed…… Voluntary…..Warrantied…. Contained. MORAL(RECIPROCAL) Productive ….. Fully Informed …. Voluntary …. Warrantied… Contained … Reciprocal. *Contained = Free from imposition of costs by externality. TESTIMONY A warranty of due diligence in the test of consistency of the categorical, internal, external, existential, reasonable(action), reciprocal (moral), limits, full accounting, and of coherence. We often use the test of consistent(internal), correspondent(External), and coherent (commensurable between dimensions). And we either assume or skip limited and fully accounted, because those are most often supplied by context – however, context fails at non-trivial causal density (economics in particular), but our vulnerability to cherry picking appears endemic, such that without specific demands for limits and full accounting, we are easily suggestible (vulnerable to fraud). DEMAND FOR WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE Mathematics Mathematics constant relations due to composition of all referrers using the single dimension of position (mathematics consists of the constant relation of position, due to the use of what we call ‘Numbers’ but which consist of positional names.) By use of positional names, all relations are reduced to positions in n dimensions. Thus enforcing constant relations. Logics ( Algorithms Empiricism Science [F]alsehood Techniques. 1) Ignorance (of information) 2) Error (in reasoning) 3) Overconfidence 4) Bias, and Wishful thinking 5) Loading, Framing, Suggestion, Obscurantism, 6) Fiction, Inflation, Conflation 7) Fictionalism (idealism, pseudoscience, supernaturalism, (primary means of overloading) 8) Deceit. (full fiction) 9) (Conspiracy – Scale 2) 10) (Propagandism – Scale 3) 11) (Institutionalization – Scale 4) If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception. EVIL < IMMORAL < UNETHICAL < |AMORAL| > ETHICAL > MORAL > GOOD. MORAL (USAGE) The term “Moral” can be used in a specific sense or a general sense. Either as behavior that imposes costs anonymously and indirectly, or as a general term to refer to all moral, ethical, and criminal behavior. Specific: 0) In the series criminal, ethical, and moral, criminal refers to overt crimes, ethical to crimes of interpersonal informational asymmetry (crimes against a person you deal with), and moral to indirect crimes of informational asymmetry (crimes against the social order). General: 1) Objective (decidable) morality: non imposition / reciprocity (Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against demonstrated investments by externality.) 2) Normative morality: that portfolio of norms that in the aggregate produce a group evolutionary strategy, and therefore immoral and moral actions may be judged objectively or normatively. 3) Subjective moral intuitions: that moral intuition we possess because of the combination of genetics, environment and training, and our attempt to survive genetic , social, and economic competition. These may be judged normatively and objectively. 4) Fictional Morality: those wishful arguments we make.. etc. These may be judged subjectively, normatively, and objectively. CLOSING The question is, how can we speak in a manner that limits the semantics, grammar, and syntax to constant relations that are invulnerable to, resistant to, or which expose, the various falsehoods that skew, eliminate, or replace, existing constant relations?

  • What’s The Difference? 1) Differences

    a) Competition: Without competition (comparison, differences) we have no means of distinction and without distinction we cannot make a choice. Forms of competition: b) Constant Relations: Referrers, Properties, relations, and values are determined by marginally indifferent, comparable, or commensurable Constant Relations vs Inconstant Relations between states. |Comparable|: Identical > Indifferent(in context/limits) > Marginally Indifferent > comparable > commensurable(via intermediary measure) > incommensurable (different) 2) DECIDABILITY DECIDABLE: a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the “system”(ie: grammar). b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary). Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm). Given these Dimensions: a) Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable). b) Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable ) c) Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable) d) Population (Self, Others, All, Universal) Yields: a) Indistinguishable(perception) > Distinguishable(cognition) > Memorable(categorical-referrable) > Possible(material) > Actionable(physical) > Choosable(for use) > Preferable(Personal) > Good(interpersonal) > Decidable(political) > True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) > Analytic > Tautological. 3) DEMAND FOR DECIDABILITY Demand for Truth (Decidability): a) True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship (mental) b) True enough for me to feel good about myself (psychological) c) True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results (actionable) d) True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. (Moral) e) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. (Normative or legislative) f) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. (Natural Law) g) True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. (True (Proper)) h) True for the purposes of internal consistency. (Analytic) h) Tautologically true: in that the two referrers consist of sets (networks) of marginally indifferent in properties in the given context (limits). 4) TRUTH: INFORMATION SUFFICIENT FOR DECIDABILITY IN CONTEXT |TESTIMONY|: IMPULSE > HONESTY > TRUTHFULNESS(Contingent) > TRUTH (Idea) > TRUE (Analytic) > TAUTOLOGY HONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. TRUTHFULNESS (TRUE): that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. IDEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. ANALYTIC TRUTH: Internally consistent, independent of external correspondence. In the construction of proofs, open to substitution and independent of context, we produce tests of internal consistency (generally speaking, the preservation of ratios). Or more simply, the preservation of constant relations. TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: Marginally indifferent description expressing constant relations between referrers. 4) POSSIBILITY 5) ACTIONABILITY 6) CONTINGENCY (DEPENDENCY) Free-Association( Guess(Uncritical)) > Hypothesis(Critical) > Premise(Assumption)) > Axiom(Declaration) > Identity(tautology) > Differences(consistent and inconsistent relations) ? 7) JUSTIFICATION (MATH, LAW, SCRIPTURE, LITERATURE – UN-INTERROGATABLE.) Thinking > Imagining > Reasoning(external competition) > Argument (Informal Logics)(argumentative competition) > Justification(Formal Logics)(internal competition) > Math(Positional Logics) > category > identity > differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)? 8) JUSTIFICATIONARY OPERATIONS Free Association > Guess > Abduction > Induction > Deduction > Identity(tautology) > differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)? Decidability under Justification: Uses of Justification: 9) LIMITS OF JUSTIFICATION Dependency and Deducibility: Evidence, Argument: No accumulation of justifications (confirmations) can a Closure in any dimension is impossible without appeal to the consequent dimension. 10) REPLACEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION WITH PROSECUTION (FALSIFICATION) 11) PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE)ATION – INTERROGATABLE) Free association > idea(survives) > hypothesis(survives) > theory(survives) > law(survives) > Identity(tautology)(survives) > differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)(evolves) > [Loop]. 12) PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE) Falsification(Survival) by Measurement (cardinal, ordinal, decidable)) Dimensions of survival. a) Categorical Consistency (identity) (competition between properties, relations and values and some reference consisting of properties relations and values) b) Internal consistency (logical) c) Observable Consistency (empirical) d) Existential Consistency (operational) e) Rational Consistency (praxeological (rational choice)) f) Moral Consistency (reciprocal) g) Scope Consistency (limits and full accounting) h) Coherence (dimensional consistency). Decidability under Prosecution: ||Incomprehensible > Comprehensible(Decidable) > Possible(Decidable) > Contingent(True, Decidable) > False (Decidable) ……………………….. FALSE……..TRUE(CONTINGENT)……UNDECIDABLE ———————————————————————- FALSE ……………..|..FALSE…….FALSE………………………..UNDECIDABLE TRUE……………….|..FALSE…….TRUE………………………….UNDECIDABLE UNDECIDABLE….|..FALSE…….TRUE………………………….UNDECIDABLE Uses for Prosecution: TABLE OF JUSTIFICATION VS FALSIFICATION JUSTIFICATION (CONSTRUCTION) (“PHILOSOPHY”) Think…Imagine..Reason………InformalLogic…FormalLogic…Identity…Diff F-A ….Statmt….Statement…..Premise…………Axiom………….Identity…Diff. F-A…..Guess…..Abduction…..Induction……….Deduction……Identity…Diff. *F-A = Free Association —vs.— PROSECUTION (SURVIVAL FROM FALSIFICATION) (SCIENCE) F-A……Idea……..Hypoth………Theory……………Law…………..Identity……Diff. F-A……Falsify…..Falsify……….Falsify…………….Falsify………Parsimony…Diff. ….Internal……. ..Internal………External………….Market………Survival…. ‘True’. *True in science – true within scope. RATIONAL Productive…..Fully Informed…… Voluntary…..Warrantied…. Contained. MORAL(RECIPROCAL) Productive ….. Fully Informed …. Voluntary …. Warrantied… Contained … Reciprocal. *Contained = Free from imposition of costs by externality. TESTIMONY A warranty of due diligence in the test of consistency of the categorical, internal, external, existential, reasonable(action), reciprocal (moral), limits, full accounting, and of coherence. We often use the test of consistent(internal), correspondent(External), and coherent (commensurable between dimensions). And we either assume or skip limited and fully accounted, because those are most often supplied by context – however, context fails at non-trivial causal density (economics in particular), but our vulnerability to cherry picking appears endemic, such that without specific demands for limits and full accounting, we are easily suggestible (vulnerable to fraud). DEMAND FOR WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE Mathematics Mathematics constant relations due to composition of all referrers using the single dimension of position (mathematics consists of the constant relation of position, due to the use of what we call ‘Numbers’ but which consist of positional names.) By use of positional names, all relations are reduced to positions in n dimensions. Thus enforcing constant relations. Logics ( Algorithms Empiricism Science [F]alsehood Techniques. 1) Ignorance (of information) 2) Error (in reasoning) 3) Overconfidence 4) Bias, and Wishful thinking 5) Loading, Framing, Suggestion, Obscurantism, 6) Fiction, Inflation, Conflation 7) Fictionalism (idealism, pseudoscience, supernaturalism, (primary means of overloading) 8) Deceit. (full fiction) 9) (Conspiracy – Scale 2) 10) (Propagandism – Scale 3) 11) (Institutionalization – Scale 4) If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception. EVIL < IMMORAL < UNETHICAL < |AMORAL| > ETHICAL > MORAL > GOOD. MORAL (USAGE) The term “Moral” can be used in a specific sense or a general sense. Either as behavior that imposes costs anonymously and indirectly, or as a general term to refer to all moral, ethical, and criminal behavior. Specific: 0) In the series criminal, ethical, and moral, criminal refers to overt crimes, ethical to crimes of interpersonal informational asymmetry (crimes against a person you deal with), and moral to indirect crimes of informational asymmetry (crimes against the social order). General: 1) Objective (decidable) morality: non imposition / reciprocity (Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against demonstrated investments by externality.) 2) Normative morality: that portfolio of norms that in the aggregate produce a group evolutionary strategy, and therefore immoral and moral actions may be judged objectively or normatively. 3) Subjective moral intuitions: that moral intuition we possess because of the combination of genetics, environment and training, and our attempt to survive genetic , social, and economic competition. These may be judged normatively and objectively. 4) Fictional Morality: those wishful arguments we make.. etc. These may be judged subjectively, normatively, and objectively. CLOSING The question is, how can we speak in a manner that limits the semantics, grammar, and syntax to constant relations that are invulnerable to, resistant to, or which expose, the various falsehoods that skew, eliminate, or replace, existing constant relations?

  • WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? 1) DIFFERENCES a) Competition: Without competition (compa

    WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

    1) DIFFERENCES

    a) Competition: Without competition (comparison, differences) we have no means of distinction and without distinction we cannot make a choice.

    Forms of competition:

    b) Constant Relations: Referrers, Properties, relations, and values are determined by marginally indifferent, comparable, or commensurable Constant Relations vs Inconstant Relations between states.

    |Comparable|: Identical > Indifferent(in context/limits) > Marginally Indifferent > comparable > commensurable(via intermediary measure) > incommensurable (different)

    2) DECIDABILITY

    DECIDABLE:

    a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the “system”(ie: grammar).

    b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary).

    Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm).

    Given these Dimensions:

    a) Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable).

    b) Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable )

    c) Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable)

    d) Population (Self, Others, All, Universal)

    Yields:

    a) Indistinguishable(perception) > Distinguishable(cognition) > Memorable(categorical-referrable) > Possible(material) > Actionable(physical) > Choosable(for use) > Preferable(Personal) > Good(interpersonal) > Decidable(political) > True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) > Analytic > Tautological.

    3) DEMAND FOR DECIDABILITY

    Demand for Truth (Decidability):

    a) True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship (mental)

    b) True enough for me to feel good about myself (psychological)

    c) True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results (actionable)

    d) True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. (Moral)

    e) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. (Normative or legislative)

    f) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. (Natural Law)

    g) True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. (True (Proper))

    h) True for the purposes of internal consistency. (Analytic)

    h) Tautologically true: in that the two referrers consist of sets (networks) of marginally indifferent in properties in the given context (limits).

    4) TRUTH: INFORMATION SUFFICIENT FOR DECIDABILITY IN CONTEXT

    |TESTIMONY|: IMPULSE > HONESTY > TRUTHFULNESS(Contingent) > TRUTH (Idea) > TRUE (Analytic) > TAUTOLOGY

    HONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    TRUTHFULNESS (TRUE): that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    IDEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    ANALYTIC TRUTH: Internally consistent, independent of external correspondence. In the construction of proofs, open to substitution and independent of context, we produce tests of internal consistency (generally speaking, the preservation of ratios). Or more simply, the preservation of constant relations.

    TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: Marginally indifferent description expressing constant relations between referrers.

    4) POSSIBILITY

    5) ACTIONABILITY

    6) CONTINGENCY (DEPENDENCY)

    Free-Association( Guess(Uncritical)) > Hypothesis(Critical) > Premise(Assumption)) > Axiom(Declaration) > Identity(tautology) > Differences(consistent and inconsistent relations) ?

    7) JUSTIFICATION (MATH, LAW, SCRIPTURE, LITERATURE – UN-INTERROGATABLE.)

    Thinking > Imagining > Reasoning(external competition) > Argument (Informal Logics)(argumentative competition) > Justification(Formal Logics)(internal competition) > Math(Positional Logics) > category > identity > differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)?

    8) JUSTIFICATIONARY OPERATIONS

    Free Association > Guess > Abduction > Induction > Deduction > Identity(tautology) > differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)?

    Decidability under Justification:

    Uses of Justification:

    9) LIMITS OF JUSTIFICATION

    Dependency and Deducibility:

    Evidence, Argument: No accumulation of justifications (confirmations) can a

    Closure in any dimension is impossible without appeal to the consequent dimension.

    10) REPLACEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION WITH PROSECUTION (FALSIFICATION)

    11) PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE)ATION – INTERROGATABLE)

    Free association > idea(survives) > hypothesis(survives) > theory(survives) > law(survives) > Identity(tautology)(survives) > differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)(evolves) > [Loop].

    12) PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE)

    Falsification(Survival) by Measurement (cardinal, ordinal, decidable))

    Dimensions of survival.

    a) Categorical Consistency (identity) (competition between properties, relations and values and some reference consisting of properties relations and values)

    b) Internal consistency (logical)

    c) Observable Consistency (empirical)

    d) Existential Consistency (operational)

    e) Rational Consistency (praxeological (rational choice))

    f) Moral Consistency (reciprocal)

    g) Scope Consistency (limits and full accounting)

    h) Coherence (dimensional consistency).

    Decidability under Prosecution:

    ||Incomprehensible > Comprehensible(Decidable) > Possible(Decidable) > Contingent(True, Decidable) > False (Decidable)

    ……………………….. FALSE……..TRUE(CONTINGENT)……UNDECIDABLE

    ———————————————————————-

    FALSE ……………..|..FALSE…….FALSE………………………..UNDECIDABLE

    TRUE……………….|..FALSE…….TRUE………………………….UNDECIDABLE

    UNDECIDABLE….|..FALSE…….TRUE………………………….UNDECIDABLE

    Uses for Prosecution:

    TABLE OF JUSTIFICATION VS FALSIFICATION

    JUSTIFICATION (CONSTRUCTION) (“PHILOSOPHY”)

    Think…Imagine..Reason………InformalLogic…FormalLogic…Identity…Diff

    F-A ….Statmt….Statement…..Premise…………Axiom………….Identity…Diff.

    F-A…..Guess…..Abduction…..Induction……….Deduction……Identity…Diff.

    *F-A = Free Association

    —vs.—

    PROSECUTION (SURVIVAL FROM FALSIFICATION) (SCIENCE)

    F-A……Idea……..Hypoth………Theory……………Law…………..Identity……Diff.

    F-A……Falsify…..Falsify……….Falsify…………….Falsify………Parsimony…Diff.

    ….Internal……. ..Internal………External………….Market………Survival…. ‘True’.

    *True in science – true within scope.

    RATIONAL

    Productive…..Fully Informed…… Voluntary…..Warrantied…. Contained.

    MORAL(RECIPROCAL)

    Productive ….. Fully Informed …. Voluntary …. Warrantied… Contained … Reciprocal.

    *Contained = Free from imposition of costs by externality.

    TESTIMONY

    A warranty of due diligence in the test of consistency of the categorical, internal, external, existential, reasonable(action), reciprocal (moral), limits, full accounting, and of coherence.

    We often use the test of consistent(internal), correspondent(External), and coherent (commensurable between dimensions). And we either assume or skip limited and fully accounted, because those are most often supplied by context – however, context fails at non-trivial causal density (economics in particular), but our vulnerability to cherry picking appears endemic, such that without specific demands for limits and full accounting, we are easily suggestible (vulnerable to fraud).

    DEMAND FOR WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE

    Mathematics

    Mathematics constant relations due to composition of all referrers using the single dimension of position (mathematics consists of the constant relation of position, due to the use of what we call ‘Numbers’ but which consist of positional names.) By use of positional names, all relations are reduced to positions in n dimensions. Thus enforcing constant relations.

    Logics (

    Algorithms

    Empiricism

    Science

    [F]alsehood Techniques.

    1) Ignorance (of information)

    2) Error (in reasoning)

    3) Overconfidence

    4) Bias, and Wishful thinking

    5) Loading, Framing, Suggestion, Obscurantism,

    6) Fiction, Inflation, Conflation

    7) Fictionalism (idealism, pseudoscience, supernaturalism, (primary means of overloading)

    8) Deceit. (full fiction)

    9) (Conspiracy – Scale 2)

    10) (Propagandism – Scale 3)

    11) (Institutionalization – Scale 4)

    If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception.

    EVIL < IMMORAL < UNETHICAL < |AMORAL| > ETHICAL > MORAL > GOOD.

    MORAL (USAGE)

    The term “Moral” can be used in a specific sense or a general sense. Either as behavior that imposes costs anonymously and indirectly, or as a general term to refer to all moral, ethical, and criminal behavior.

    Specific:

    0) In the series criminal, ethical, and moral, criminal refers to overt crimes, ethical to crimes of interpersonal informational asymmetry (crimes against a person you deal with), and moral to indirect crimes of informational asymmetry (crimes against the social order).

    General:

    1) Objective (decidable) morality: non imposition / reciprocity (Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against demonstrated investments by externality.)

    2) Normative morality: that portfolio of norms that in the aggregate produce a group evolutionary strategy, and therefore immoral and moral actions may be judged objectively or normatively.

    3) Subjective moral intuitions: that moral intuition we possess because of the combination of genetics, environment and training, and our attempt to survive genetic , social, and economic competition. These may be judged normatively and objectively.

    4) Fictional Morality: those wishful arguments we make.. etc. These may be judged subjectively, normatively, and objectively.

    CLOSING

    The question is, how can we speak in a manner that limits the semantics, grammar, and syntax to constant relations that are invulnerable to, resistant to, or which expose, the various falsehoods that skew, eliminate, or replace, existing constant relations?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-11 16:39:00 UTC

  • Many thinkers produce meaningful methods of categorization. Few thinkers produce

    Many thinkers produce meaningful methods of categorization. Few thinkers produce those that are continuously correspondent (causal) and meaningful. It isn’t something that I want to look into, but just as I was able to explain meyers briggs in terms of big five, I am pretty sure I could do the same with Wilber. In other words, there are many systems with explanatory power, but few if any that survive use in DEDUCTION. Any ‘true’ model must survive deduction. When we say a statement is either true or false, that is itself false. A statement is either true or false for the purpose of deduction in the comparison of two or more statements. The “TRUTH” is that statements are either false (certain), true(contingent), undecidable, incoherent, or unknown(Null). Logical ‘means’ that constant relations are preserved between the two states. The problem is, we must deflate quite a bit to isolate and understand the constant relations that we are measuring.