Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • Dimensions of reality on Y axis from upper right to bottom. Minimum to Ordinary

    Dimensions of reality on Y axis from upper right to bottom. Minimum to Ordinary Language grammars on X upper right to left. Truth criteria along the bottom. Right most column ordinary language. So I have a lot of revision to do with this but in general, the idea is that in every deflationary ‘grammar’ we find the same sequence of constructs, and those constructs correspond to dimensions of reality.

  • Dimensions of reality on Y axis from upper right to bottom. Minimum to Ordinary

    Dimensions of reality on Y axis from upper right to bottom. Minimum to Ordinary Language grammars on X upper right to left. Truth criteria along the bottom. Right most column ordinary language. So I have a lot of revision to do with this but in general, the idea is that in every deflationary ‘grammar’ we find the same sequence of constructs, and those constructs correspond to dimensions of reality.
  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/23333930_10155862946252264_30316962

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/23333930_10155862946252264_30316962

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/23333930_10155862946252264_3031696271668975324_o_10155862946252264.jpg Ok. I did it. Unfortunately, linguistics and logic use the term ‘mode’ rather than ‘dimension’ – the term that is used in all other fields. So correcting that term, and completing the hierarchy, we see this organization. And now we get to ‘wow’ people with the meaning of universal grammar and its relation to the physical, experiential, and imaginary dimensions of our reality.

    I have almost completed the data structure for language but I am not sure that this is a good investment of my time – since all I want to demonstrate is that all grammatical dimensions in all disciplines use different terms but mirror reality.

    From that point I can more easily demonstrate that operational grammar limits semantic and therefore dimensional content to the existential – and why.

    I was originally struggling because I was not separating the semantic (set of paradigms) in any langauge, from the dimensional grammars that can be constructed regardless of language, using different deflationary and inflationary grammars of universal grammar.

    Unfortunately we will have to wait for artificial intelligence to discover the metric we need for quantitative expression of these relations. Either that or some scientist will stumble on it by puzzling it enough. So just as we compare IQ to the center of the white distribution, we will compare the x-factor of universal grammar as a relationship between a 100IQ and our first general intelligence.Bill JoslinI suspected measurement and commensurability were going to be key.

    I’m now convinced that the universe is relational.

    Time – relation between changes in the state of affairs of the universe

    Space – positional relations of mass/matter

    Matter – constant relations of forces (persistent roperty of a relation) in proximity

    Phenomena – relations which occured constantly within set limits

    Operational language – centers language on relations, and measures of relations opposed to identity.

    Identity – boundaries (limits) where constant relations occur

    Math – nearly perfect relational language (models based on analogy of quantity and relationships of quantity.

    Blah blah blah

    A relational paradigm may provide commensurability between languages ( a meta measure of language and linguistic models) and a spectra from languages which afford the most explicit measure (accounting) of relations to the most obscure accounting for relations.Nov 07, 2017 11:12amCurt DoolittleyepNov 07, 2017 11:19amCurt Doolittle;)Nov 07, 2017 11:19amCurt Doolittlewhen I built the grammar-table it kind of freaked me out for a bit. Sort of de-humanizing in a way…..Nov 07, 2017 11:20amBill JoslinSpoken language couples to persception. Persception is a piss poor measure of relations (unless at personal human scale). Math couples to measure and is nearly perfect relational model but doesn’t couple to persception very well. Analogies and metaphors take a piss-poor measure (persception) and try to high light a relation, but in doing so further obscures measurement – it fakes commensurability.

    Then relying on coherence theories of truth (does the assertion cohere to experience) proclaims authority on universal truths – when it has actually taken steps away from measure and commensurability.Nov 07, 2017 11:28amTimo RohnerJust don’t follow Leibniz and his relationalism too long lest you don’t mind ending up with idealism. That’s where Leibniz arrived at some point.Nov 07, 2017 12:28pmBryan Nova Brey@[1255416290:2048:Blake Southwood] is a programmer tennis coach friend of mine with a pretty high IQ who will be blown away by this. He was working on a “plain language” programming language years ago. Looks like you cracked the code!

    Congrats dude.

    Atlas level effort!Nov 08, 2017 1:36amBlake SouthwoodIt’s a fun problem. It’s masking conplexity with simplicity with managed order. Semantics is taste and upbringing and is tainted by the first programming language someone is exposed too.

    Machine learning and expert systems using fuzzy logic with accumulating human knowledge, wisdom, information will prevail. It’s a Holy Grail problem that is a quest difficult to manage and represent in one dimension. For i sight read Chomsky Linguistics and Dijkstra’s Turing speech. Everything is mathematical and there is order in chaotic systems. Chaos theory is everywhere. Watson at IBM is fluent in 12 human languages now including all the hard ones. Hal is the wrong direction. An interface between man and code that is more palatable will be the bridge.

    The universe is unfathomable and incomprehensibly deep and vast.

    My question is where does the universe reside within and how does the gravity fabric of time and space have structure in a vaccume? As a friend of my brother told me that works at Space X the problem wuth languages is ambiguity and assumptions which is why the boolean logic level and sparce language keyword size and the syntax is cryptic due to tradition (and the mathematical evolution of coding) and to make compilers simpler to write. These were all constraints that were inherited thru the slow evolution of cs. The language I am designing is Strawberry based on Don Knuth’s Literate programming at Stanford.Nov 08, 2017 2:21amCurt DoolittleThe universe is entirely fathomable, the only problem being the discovery of constant relations across limits of prior sets of constant relations.

    I’m working on commensurability of speech in order to prevent various forms of fictionalism (deceit).

    Mathematics, as a system of positional names, provides scale independence (constant relations regardless of scale), but it’s dependent on commensurability.

    So the question is, how do we provide commensurability across paradigms where relations are not constant, and only intermediary phenomenon are constant.

    Logics have tried to do this but they are somewhat lost having nothing but internal consistency as a measure, just as mathematics has only scale independence, and constant relations in n-dimensions.

    Now, if we can develop the mathematics of operational symmetries ( what should emerge out of what today we call lie groups) then I think we have the kind of mathematics that we are looking for.

    But operations are algorithmic just as mathematics is operational in construction. The difference is that it mathematics can only describe the consequence of operations

    In other words, we have to have something to measure, and something commensurable to compare it to.Nov 08, 2017 12:28pmOk. I did it. Unfortunately, linguistics and logic use the term ‘mode’ rather than ‘dimension’ – the term that is used in all other fields. So correcting that term, and completing the hierarchy, we see this organization. And now we get to ‘wow’ people with the meaning of universal grammar and its relation to the physical, experiential, and imaginary dimensions of our reality.

    I have almost completed the data structure for language but I am not sure that this is a good investment of my time – since all I want to demonstrate is that all grammatical dimensions in all disciplines use different terms but mirror reality.

    From that point I can more easily demonstrate that operational grammar limits semantic and therefore dimensional content to the existential – and why.

    I was originally struggling because I was not separating the semantic (set of paradigms) in any langauge, from the dimensional grammars that can be constructed regardless of language, using different deflationary and inflationary grammars of universal grammar.

    Unfortunately we will have to wait for artificial intelligence to discover the metric we need for quantitative expression of these relations. Either that or some scientist will stumble on it by puzzling it enough. So just as we compare IQ to the center of the white distribution, we will compare the x-factor of universal grammar as a relationship between a 100IQ and our first general intelligence.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-07 10:38:00 UTC

  • I am struggling so hard with trying to simplify operational epistemology. To com

    I am struggling so hard with trying to simplify operational epistemology. To communicate such an idea you have to tell a story. And that story is like an onion, with layers from the historical trends, to the available ‘technologies’ (forms of argument), to the the logics, to the three categories of epistemology, to the structure and limits of human mind, emotion, and action. And I am having such a hard time figuring out how to tell that story. Originally I told it as a battle between the english, french, german/italian, and jewish/russian. Then I decided to take it back to the ancient world as sparta, rome, athens, byzantium, Baghdad, Jerusalem, and Egypt. Then I decided to take it back to the dawn of the indo-european (aryan) expansion. (the pre-soviet russians being the closest culture to original aryanism that we can vaguely understand). Although it appears, that the original culture dissipated by ‘softening’ in the west – brecause we largely rule our own kin – and ‘integrating’ elsewhere, and then dying off everywhere else. The opposite strategy of the chinese, which was to wall off their end of eurasia as we probably should have walled off our end of eurasia at the Urals. … And I had to do this historical restatement because it allows me to demonstrate how we have been defeated in the bronze, iron, and steel ages by the same means. At that point I can discuss the failure of the enlightenment due to the multiple waves of counter-enlightenment. The french-puritan, german-italian-catholic-socialist, and jewish-russian-marxist, all trying to defeat the empirical, darwinian revolutions. … But then I have to get very serious and deal with the differences between religion, ideology, philosophy, logic, and science; then how the logics map to either necessary and scientific or arbitrary and meaningful systems (Paradigms, theories, logics, operations, grammars, vocabulary ), then the difference between axiomatic, algorithmic, and theoretic systems of argument. then the various spectrums of decidability we call ‘truth’. And then the various uses of fictionalism. And then how falsehoods are constructed through various methods of suggestion. And I have to continuously defeat our tendency to drop into the black hole of idealism – the enemy – along the way.

    Then I have to address grammars, vocabularies, as abstractions of logics, and then … start with operational grammar, and its applications. And then work my way through all the stuff people want answers to.

    And … ugh. No matter what I do I feel like I will lose the audience on that journey. Even if I start with “here is where we are going, and its a long way there”.

    I mean. Damn. The whole month of October on this. And one frustrating and exhausted day after another….

    And no FB friends to vent to… lol. Sigh.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-06 11:51:00 UTC

  • I am struggling so hard with trying to simplify operational epistemology. To com

    I am struggling so hard with trying to simplify operational epistemology. To communicate such an idea you have to tell a story. And that story is like an onion, with layers from the historical trends, to the available ‘technologies’ (forms of argument), to the the logics, to the three categories of epistemology, to the structure and limits of human mind, emotion, and action. And I am having such a hard time figuring out how to tell that story. Originally I told it as a battle between the english, french, german/italian, and jewish/russian. Then I decided to take it back to the ancient world as sparta, rome, athens, byzantium, Baghdad, Jerusalem, and Egypt. Then I decided to take it back to the dawn of the indo-european (aryan) expansion. (the pre-soviet russians being the closest culture to original aryanism that we can vaguely understand). Although it appears, that the original culture dissipated by ‘softening’ in the west – brecause we largely rule our own kin – and ‘integrating’ elsewhere, and then dying off everywhere else. The opposite strategy of the chinese, which was to wall off their end of eurasia as we probably should have walled off our end of eurasia at the Urals. … And I had to do this historical restatement because it allows me to demonstrate how we have been defeated in the bronze, iron, and steel ages by the same means. At that point I can discuss the failure of the enlightenment due to the multiple waves of counter-enlightenment. The french-puritan, german-italian-catholic-socialist, and jewish-russian-marxist, all trying to defeat the empirical, darwinian revolutions. … But then I have to get very serious and deal with the differences between religion, ideology, philosophy, logic, and science; then how the logics map to either necessary and scientific or arbitrary and meaningful systems (Paradigms, theories, logics, operations, grammars, vocabulary ), then the difference between axiomatic, algorithmic, and theoretic systems of argument. then the various spectrums of decidability we call ‘truth’. And then the various uses of fictionalism. And then how falsehoods are constructed through various methods of suggestion. And I have to continuously defeat our tendency to drop into the black hole of idealism – the enemy – along the way. Then I have to address grammars, vocabularies, as abstractions of logics, and then … start with operational grammar, and its applications. And then work my way through all the stuff people want answers to. And … ugh. No matter what I do I feel like I will lose the audience on that journey. Even if I start with “here is where we are going, and its a long way there”. I mean. Damn. The whole month of October on this. And one frustrating and exhausted day after another…. And no FB friends to vent to… lol. Sigh.

  • I am struggling so hard with trying to simplify operational epistemology. To com

    I am struggling so hard with trying to simplify operational epistemology. To communicate such an idea you have to tell a story. And that story is like an onion, with layers from the historical trends, to the available ‘technologies’ (forms of argument), to the the logics, to the three categories of epistemology, to the structure and limits of human mind, emotion, and action. And I am having such a hard time figuring out how to tell that story. Originally I told it as a battle between the english, french, german/italian, and jewish/russian. Then I decided to take it back to the ancient world as sparta, rome, athens, byzantium, Baghdad, Jerusalem, and Egypt. Then I decided to take it back to the dawn of the indo-european (aryan) expansion. (the pre-soviet russians being the closest culture to original aryanism that we can vaguely understand). Although it appears, that the original culture dissipated by ‘softening’ in the west – brecause we largely rule our own kin – and ‘integrating’ elsewhere, and then dying off everywhere else. The opposite strategy of the chinese, which was to wall off their end of eurasia as we probably should have walled off our end of eurasia at the Urals. … And I had to do this historical restatement because it allows me to demonstrate how we have been defeated in the bronze, iron, and steel ages by the same means. At that point I can discuss the failure of the enlightenment due to the multiple waves of counter-enlightenment. The french-puritan, german-italian-catholic-socialist, and jewish-russian-marxist, all trying to defeat the empirical, darwinian revolutions. … But then I have to get very serious and deal with the differences between religion, ideology, philosophy, logic, and science; then how the logics map to either necessary and scientific or arbitrary and meaningful systems (Paradigms, theories, logics, operations, grammars, vocabulary ), then the difference between axiomatic, algorithmic, and theoretic systems of argument. then the various spectrums of decidability we call ‘truth’. And then the various uses of fictionalism. And then how falsehoods are constructed through various methods of suggestion. And I have to continuously defeat our tendency to drop into the black hole of idealism – the enemy – along the way. Then I have to address grammars, vocabularies, as abstractions of logics, and then … start with operational grammar, and its applications. And then work my way through all the stuff people want answers to. And … ugh. No matter what I do I feel like I will lose the audience on that journey. Even if I start with “here is where we are going, and its a long way there”. I mean. Damn. The whole month of October on this. And one frustrating and exhausted day after another…. And no FB friends to vent to… lol. Sigh.

  • TYING IT ALL TOGETHER SCIENCE: Taking action in order to discover, through the p

    TYING IT ALL TOGETHER

    SCIENCE: Taking action in order to discover, through the process of elimination, operations with which we can, as a consequence, conduct our reasoning – and where the principle objective of science consists in removing ignorance, error, bias and deceit from free association, we call hypothesizing.

    MATHEMATICS: the use of positional names to describe averages of operations that result in constant relations, themselves resulting in different symmetries at different scales.

    Consequently we can use mathematics to discover patterns which we then seek to reduce to operations. And within the human world we can know these operations thorugh subjective testing (sympathy/empathy/self-experience) whether internal (above the intuitive) or external (physical world).

    Once we have discovered that set of operations, we can seek the set of operations beneath it – and so on, until we find the lowest possible set of operations from which the universe is constructed.

    The physical universe, at its lowest level, consists of a market, just like our own markets, wherein humans are just a very complex (high) scale, across multiple hierarchical markets, each of which consists of symmetries, produced by the limits of operations – just as man is limited by his physical, emotional, and intellectual operations that we call ‘actions’.

    When we operate by markets we operate in harmony with the physical universe – meaning the lowest possible friction – and we fulfill life’s purpose at the highest extant level of symmetry, wherein all life serves the purpose of defeating entropy. As such we defeat entropy by the incrementally fastest means possible.

    Western man was not first, but he was fastest. Because through truth and eugenics (domestication) he lived in the greatest harmony with the universe.

    The explanatory power of (number of philosophical problems this model solves) is profound. In metaphysics we often discuss levels of reality, but again that is another ideal, where operations are actions.

    There. I have done it. I have figured out how to say it in simple terms.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-02 09:39:00 UTC

  • Tying It All Together

    SCIENCE: Taking action in order to discover, through the process of elimination, operations with which we can, as a consequence, conduct our reasoning – and where the principle objective of science consists in removing ignorance, error, bias and deceit from free association, we call hypothesizing. MATHEMATICS: the use of positional names to describe averages of operations that result in constant relations, themselves resulting in different symmetries at different scales. Consequently we can use mathematics to discover patterns which we then seek to reduce to operations. And within the human world we can know these operations thorugh subjective testing (sympathy/empathy/self-experience) whether internal (above the intuitive) or external (physical world). Once we have discovered that set of operations, we can seek the set of operations beneath it – and so on, until we find the lowest possible set of operations from which the universe is constructed. The physical universe, at its lowest level, consists of a market, just like our own markets, wherein humans are just a very complex (high) scale, across multiple hierarchical markets, each of which consists of symmetries, produced by the limits of operations – just as man is limited by his physical, emotional, and intellectual operations that we call ‘actions’. When we operate by markets we operate in harmony with the physical universe – meaning the lowest possible friction – and we fulfill life’s purpose at the highest extant level of symmetry, wherein all life serves the purpose of defeating entropy. As such we defeat entropy by the incrementally fastest means possible. Western man was not first, but he was fastest. Because through truth and eugenics (domestication) he lived in the greatest harmony with the universe. The explanatory power of (number of philosophical problems this model solves) is profound. In metaphysics we often discuss levels of reality, but again that is another ideal, where operations are actions. There. I have done it. I have figured out how to say it in simple terms.

  • Tying It All Together

    SCIENCE: Taking action in order to discover, through the process of elimination, operations with which we can, as a consequence, conduct our reasoning – and where the principle objective of science consists in removing ignorance, error, bias and deceit from free association, we call hypothesizing. MATHEMATICS: the use of positional names to describe averages of operations that result in constant relations, themselves resulting in different symmetries at different scales. Consequently we can use mathematics to discover patterns which we then seek to reduce to operations. And within the human world we can know these operations thorugh subjective testing (sympathy/empathy/self-experience) whether internal (above the intuitive) or external (physical world). Once we have discovered that set of operations, we can seek the set of operations beneath it – and so on, until we find the lowest possible set of operations from which the universe is constructed. The physical universe, at its lowest level, consists of a market, just like our own markets, wherein humans are just a very complex (high) scale, across multiple hierarchical markets, each of which consists of symmetries, produced by the limits of operations – just as man is limited by his physical, emotional, and intellectual operations that we call ‘actions’. When we operate by markets we operate in harmony with the physical universe – meaning the lowest possible friction – and we fulfill life’s purpose at the highest extant level of symmetry, wherein all life serves the purpose of defeating entropy. As such we defeat entropy by the incrementally fastest means possible. Western man was not first, but he was fastest. Because through truth and eugenics (domestication) he lived in the greatest harmony with the universe. The explanatory power of (number of philosophical problems this model solves) is profound. In metaphysics we often discuss levels of reality, but again that is another ideal, where operations are actions. There. I have done it. I have figured out how to say it in simple terms.

  • Doolittle’s Law Of Market Limits

    The limit to the evolutionary value markets, is measurable by changes in genetic capital, and genetic capital is measureable by differences in total number of population and distribution(superiority) of traits. Likewise, the limit to genetic capital is competitive speciation (transcendence). Again, if you cannot state the limit to a theory(‘good’) then you do not understand of what you speak.