Algorithmic Natural Law is a New Form of Measurement and Calculation. It’s Hard.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 11:43:00 UTC
Algorithmic Natural Law is a New Form of Measurement and Calculation. It’s Hard.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 11:43:00 UTC
ON WORDINESS
– Analytic Philosophy is WORDY.
– Operational Language is WORDY.
– Programming Algorithms is WORDY.
– Algorithmic Natural Law is gonna be WORDY.
Technical Languages evolve to speak precisely.
Precise language containing technical terms is wordy.
Why if all the other sciences require technical language, to you think that speaking scientifically – meaning TRUTHFULLY – about the the science of cooperation is not going to be wordy?
Grow the f–k up. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 10:55:00 UTC
WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU DOING DOOLITTLE????
Um. You don’t get it.
1 – The reason I have done so much work is that by my own definition, ***I cannot make a truth claim without producing a full accounting*** of internal consistency and external consequences. (That’s why you write books about theories and, not papers. And why you write papers about experiments not books.)
2 – The vast majority of what I do online is explore a single theory consisting of three questions: i) Can we extend the involuntary warranty of due diligence in the commons (the market) from products and services to speech? ii) If we do extend it, what will be the consequences? iii) How can we provide institutions that provide the institutions that satisfy market demands and do so truthfully? iv) is truth enough? The answer to those question so far, is yes, we can do it; the consequences will be profoundly beneficial on the scale of the scientific and industrial revolutions; we can provide those institutions my relatively minor changes to the constitution; and yes, truth is enough to restore the west *AND* to maintain the west’s traditional advantage: no other people seem to be able to create a truth speaking high trust society.
3 – I can make my policy recommendations understood by common folk. I can make the general theory of the cycles of history as one of lies-vs-truth between the west/east, and center. I can give activists moral arguments. I can make my general theory understood by people with sufficient education in economics and politics. I can sometimes make very smart people able to understand how to construct arguments in propertarian and operational language. I can as yet make very few people understand the epistemology of testimonialism and why it completes the scientific method and unites science, biology, morality, philosophy, politics, and law into a single field of ‘testimony’. This distribution of ability and narrative is what we should expect. I probably am not a good person to talk with ordinary folk about technical issues. I simply can’t do the translation. I really love it on the few occasions where people understand most of the scope of work. But in a division of knowledge and labor my job, our job, is to produce a distribution of people who understand each level of sophistication. That’s all.
4 – However, I do enjoy talking to ordinary guys about the things they are concerned with. And the truth is I wish I could ‘reach’ them better than I do. Because it is ordinary guys who have been most screwed over by the 20th century scams, and it’s they who I feel most need to be saved from the destruction of the west via our women and our underclasses. So I want to care for my brothers in arms most of all. But most of all, because I believe these ordinary guys will be the warriors that change from the current order to the restoration of western civilization. if for no other reason than they have the most to gain from our doing so.
5) We do not need millions in the streets to produce a revolution. We need a solution to demand, and a small number of people to raise the cost of the status quo until we obtain our objectives. In that sense I care about a few intellectuals, a few leaders, a few advocates, and enough warriors to conduct revolution. The majority of the people once they understand the policy demands and how greatly they will benefit from them, will gladly burn the parasitic classes and reap the rewards of doing it for purely practical reasons. So they will not *resist* the transition. The only people who will resist it are the (immoral) academic, (immoral) political, and (immoral) financial classes, and the left that despises all meritocracy for good reason: they are dysgenic peoples who are but parasites upon the rest. So we do not need a mass movement. We need simply to eliminate the middle and working class’ desire to resist.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 09:45:00 UTC
WHY? : OUR AUTISTIC USE OF TERMS AND “-ISMS”
1) Every philosopher does and must add or alter the properties of terms. Otherwise reorganization of categories, relations and values is impossible. The question is only whether we are increasing precision or decreasing precision. In our case we are increasing precision in order to prevent deception by ‘loose language’.
2) We are removing misrepresentation from terminology by the use of deflation, series, and operational definitions. This means that many terms, when placed in series with related terms, can only ‘fit’ (avoid conflation and misrepresentation) if properties that cause conflation are attributed to one term and not another. By the combination of deflation, isolation of properties, and operational language we all but remove fungibility (use in deception) from terms. Moreover, we eliminate the ability to use deception in the most common manner it is used: the pretense of knowledge where the speaker lacks the knowledge to make the claims he does. Or where he has identified and is making use of a loose relation for the purpose of argument or deduction that does not hold under scrutiny.
3) All pretense of knowledge and deception is caused by partial or incorrect information causing demand for substitution on the part of the audience, and thereby causing suggestion in the audience.
4) Suggestion can be used to transfer meaning, which we can then deflate (limit) to truthful propositions. Or suggestion can be used to transfer partial meaning, which we let perform suggestion, or which we expand into falsehood. In other words, we can communicate then limit or we can communication and let the audience expand an idea to unlimited form. Or we can communicate and suggest other limits. And various permutations thereof. So we cannot communicate truthfully without supplying both via positiva (meaning) and via-negativa (limits) so that the competition between meaning and limits allows only potentially true information to survive.
5) The most successful methods of deception are caused by increasingly *indirect* means of suggestion that cause the audience to perform substitution (fill in the blanks). Advertising (commercial), propaganda(political), and theology(religious) saturation of the environment produces suggestion by deception by the use of overloading the environment. And humans are not able even intentionally to insulate themselves from the free association caused by experiential phenomenon (information). So Advertising, Propaganda, and Theology are methods of deception through deception and overloading.
6) The use of “-isms”. An “-ism” refers to a portfolio of categories, values, relations that provide decidability within a domain. So an ism is a ‘name’ for an algorithm providing some form of decidability. This ism can be very narrow (platonism) or very broad (marxism). The decidability offered can be true, undecidable, or false, or moral, amoral or immoral. But without referring to ‘-ism’s’ one must list the sometimes long sets of arguments (categories, values, and relations) within them. So it is ‘shorthand’ to use those terms, just like it is shorthand to use math, logic, geometry, calculus, or family, genus, species, race. And yes, it is burdensome on the reader who is ignorant of the subject but comfortable for both the author and the reader who are knowledgeable. The strange question is, why do people read other technical literature, which they must look up and understand terms, yet people who will read technical literature – analytic philosophy, making use of law, economics, science, and mathematics – and expect NOT to look up a lot of terms.
I find most people rather stupid really. And the world has many more stupid people in it than smart people. But I still love stupid people as long as they desire to be moral. I just get frustrated when stupid but moral people think that the world of information should be built for their consumption like children’s cartoons. That’s not my job. My job is to be right. Not easy.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 09:34:00 UTC
“Our current and recent past elites are “the best” by immoral measures- the best liars, tricksters, manipulators. We need to change the standards by which we measure merit.” – Bill Joslin
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-02 12:07:00 UTC
—“Curt, to what extent do you agree with this quote? “[W]e mean by any concept nothing more than a set of operations; the concept is synonymous with the corresponding set of operations””—Bob Robertson
Um. Great question. I understand what the author means but it’s not stated correctly.
“We mean that any concept that one understands enough to make a truth claim can be described as a set of testable operations – and if one doesn’t describe it as such, or if it cannot be expressed as such, then either one cannot claim one understands his claim enough to speak truthfully, or one is in fact speaking untruthfully.”
After saying that,
“We use very precise ‘meanings’ by translating into and working with concepts that consist of nothing more than a set of operations expressed in an operational grammar – wherein the concept is synonymous with the corresponding set of operations stated in that grammar.”
So yes, as the author means it, it’s correct. As the author STATES it, it’s not sufficient. As not sufficient it’s not quite true.
But this was a good opportunity to correct it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-02 02:12:00 UTC
GOAL: EMPOWERING YOU
Just to hammer home the point, my original intention was to create a value neutral language for the articulation and comparison of group, political, moral and ethical differences.
So that I try to do by *defining series* – to articulate causal relations that are not possible with using terminological *ideal types*.
So I hope to be able to arm you and the many like you with terms, series, and their relations (concepts), so that those ideas you ‘intuit but have difficulty expressing’ can be expressed with greater ease.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 19:07:00 UTC
DIMENSIONS: CONSTANT RELATIONS
Physical vs Logical (pure) Constant Relations.
So think more of the various ‘polyhedrons’, where the number of dimensions equals the number of sides, and that each side relates to both it’s own sides and some other polyhedron’s sides.
So there is a difference between spatial relations (limited to 3/4d) physical relations (like the branches of a tree and its roots), and informational relations (like the internet nodes, or brain structures).
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 12:14:00 UTC
Full Accounting.
Does full accounting need to be fully expanded (articulated) as full limits, full internal, full external, full inter-temporal, and full opportunity cost?
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-29 13:43:00 UTC
HOW DO YOU DECIDE?
Science (measurement),
Reason (triangulation),
Moral Intuition(feeling),
Superstition (conflation)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 09:59:00 UTC