Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • MATH IS DEAD SIMPLE. (Even if applying it gets increasingly difficult) Math is s

    MATH IS DEAD SIMPLE. (Even if applying it gets increasingly difficult)

    Math is stated as a form of idealism (mathematical platonism, specifically), and that’s the problem.

    Mathematics consists (scientifically) of the use of measurement, by using positional naming, serving as scale independent constant relations, to describe constant relations in the universe, and to deduce constant relations from those constant relations, or fragments of constant relations.

    I mean. Math could not be more simple. It’s trivial. That’s why its so powerful. We can use one of anything to describe any constant relation.

    Where math has a problem is inconstant relations (economics and law).

    Even there, we can identify some constant relations through the commensurability provided by property and money.

    Property and money themselves being empirical measures of the time saved through acts of voluntary cooperation.

    Math is really simple. Constant relations of position names provide scale independence.

    Unlike reality, we can construct numbers (positional names) in an infinite number of ‘dimensions’. So that not only can we represent countings, but one dimensional (lengths) two dimensional (geometric) three dimensional (spatial), four dimensional (change) – but we can also represent all sorts of pure relations ( ‘types, or classes’). For example, spreadsheets that reference each other’s pages form additional dimensions. But there is no limit to pure relations we can represent with positional names (topologies).

    Math is trivial. Just like binary number systems are trivial.

    Thats why they’re so powerful.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 20:50:00 UTC

  • ANALYTIC VS CONTINENTAL AND ABRAHAMIC IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT Analytic philosophy

    ANALYTIC VS CONTINENTAL AND ABRAHAMIC IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

    Analytic philosophy struggles to speak (testify) in measurements each of which is testable. An attempt to limit error and deceit. Because analytic philosophy rose out of the anglo system (empirical) which arose out of the anglo legal (bacon).

    The consequence is that by deflation (opposite of the continental method) truth can be tested by the ‘market’ for those with a wide set of norms, traditions, and values.

    The advantage (and purpose) of the continental (and abrahamic) models, is to conflate rather than deflate measurements with values such that one must submit to sympathy (consent to the values) in order to test the measure (if possible).

    In other words, the purpose of the analytic model is deflationary to prevent the very suggestion and monopoly of values that continental tradition seeks to enforce, and to prevent the suggestion and monopoly of facts and values that religions seek to enforce.

    In other words, the analytic tradition seeks to insulate us from the sympathetic coercion of the continental program of philosophy, and the authoritarian deception of the abrahamic program of philosophy.

    The problem then is the same as faced by the ancients. One must retain correspondence and coherence between one’s method of pedagogy(group evolutionary strategy) and method of law (dispute resolution). The roman’s mistake was in tolerating the introduction of deception into the empire in the jewish, christian, and islamic forms. As well as tolerating the retention of Greek idealism. They had solved the problem of roman law, stoic ritual and virtue, and public religion and festival.

    The germans have conflated religion and philosophy while preserving the deflation of law – although not as strongly as the common law prior to Napoleon.

    And I have learned a great deal from the difference between the anglo method and the german and the jewish.

    The more deflation the more innovation and adaptation and trust. The problem is, one must increase the prosecution of recidivism in one’s religion and education along with every increase in deflation of philosophy and law.

    This explains most of history really as a battle between underclass deceit and conflation against the aristocracy and aristocratic truth and deflation against the underclass.

    Or more simply, aristocratic eugenics vs underclass dysgenics.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 19:19:00 UTC

  • METAPHYSICS, SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY ? I my view the purpose of science is to constr

    METAPHYSICS, SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY ?

    I my view the purpose of science is to construct measurements where we provide a means of sensing the otherwise unsensable such that we render it commensurable and judgeable. So Propertarianism is a method of measurement, where man is used as the unit of measure. In other words, perfect commensurably provided by the limits of human action within each dimension of actionable reality.

    Now given that we are marginally indifferent in our senses, we can then testify to one another in each of those dimensions (testimonially) and test one another’s statements for (as Joel says ) both correspondence and coherence. So it’s just very hard to construct a falsehood ‘testimonially’ that we cannot sense. Since everything is reduced to that which we can commensurably (marginally indifferently) sense.

    So I view science as the art of constructing measurements in logical and physical forms. I view philosophy as the means of decidability within a domain. I view truth as the means of decidability across domains, or independent of domain.

    So whether you want to take those three things and represent them as a triangle, or a hierarchy, I guess I have taken the position that there is a hierarchy, and it is Time > Life > Necessity of Action > Truth > Philosophy > Science. But I might be wrong about that relationship. I am almost certain I am wrong. But I can think about it a bit.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 18:58:00 UTC

  • OUR METAPHYSICS by Bill Joslin Metaphysics and claims of metaphysical privilege

    OUR METAPHYSICS

    by Bill Joslin

    Metaphysics and claims of metaphysical privilege (like platonists) I find aggravating.

    Building from the simplistic trivium method – metaphysics distills down to grammar and dataset – the answer to what (object) when (what time), who (what person), where (what place)… The constellation of facts under-girding the claim.

    But but metaphysics is about HOW things (whats) exists.

    Now fast forward to Joel ‘s “operationalizing Kant”, where by observation cohere according to conceptual frames (Kant’s categories). Operationalism ensures existential coherence between the frame and observation – ensures the facts are reported accurately in relation to the frame. (Reporting corresponds to the coherence with observation).

    This solves, or rather closes the door, to one of the most sophisticated means of deception ever – fucking around with grammar to predetermine logical outputs and defining grammar by a presupposed logic. It bridges a little notice but crucial gap between metaphysics and epistemology… Gunna upset some thomistic Aristotelians cause they can’t lean on their metaphysical claims anymore… But I suspect they will shout ‘niave realist” (which they seem to not understand) or “reductionary materialism” from atop of their ivory ruins, Ignoring (or not comprehending) that the above does not presume or presuppose materialism, reduction or realism – only relational consistency to any type of metaphysical presumptions and claims. In doing so only some metaphysical presumptions and clams can survive (ones which retain coherence from observation through frame to claim) which theirs don’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 18:37:00 UTC

  • METAPHYSICS I am pretty sure that there exist no branches of anything in philoso

    METAPHYSICS

    I am pretty sure that there exist no branches of anything in philosophy per se, but simply dimensions of reality, and the methods we invent for testing those dimensions.

    Those methods either succeed in providing means of testing the dimensions of reality or not.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 15:07:00 UTC

  • THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE. —“Curt Doolittle’s ‘Natural Law of Reciprocity’ operati

    THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE.

    —“Curt Doolittle’s ‘Natural Law of Reciprocity’ operationalizes Kant’s categorical imperative as a functional measurement of interpersonal relations.”— Joel Davis

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 08:42:00 UTC

  • INTERTEMPORAL DIVISION OF ABILITY AND BIAS (NOT LABOR) We should try to kill off

    INTERTEMPORAL DIVISION OF ABILITY AND BIAS (NOT LABOR)

    We should try to kill off the term ‘division of labor’. Principally because it implies the labor theory of value and relative equality of individuals in laboring.

    The problem is, labor – meaning transformation of physical state – is of little value (and we are of little difference to one another), where as the organizing people into networks of production, distribution, trade, using incentives, where those incentives require the application of credit, money, and reward, is extremely difficult – and we differ in our ability to form networks of trust to do that, dramatically.

    So I use the series: the intertemporal division of perception, ability, bias, cognition, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy. Which is quite wordy. But the short version might be reducible to “the intertemporal division of bias and ability”.

    This is one of those memory devices that might take me six months or six hours. I have no idea.

    But the intertemporal division of ability and bias, draws our attention to our marginal differences, where the division of labor draws attention to our marginal indifferences.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-03 10:12:00 UTC

  • It is *soooo* much easier to discuss philosophical ideas using mathematics than

    It is *soooo* much easier to discuss philosophical ideas using mathematics than it is language. The problem is, ordinary folk don’t know enough of mathematics, so you can’t reach them.

    Thankfully Property is a good enough proxy. It’s the unit of commensurability in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor.

    The problem with property is you can try to guild rally and shame using it. And that’s almost impossible with positional numbering. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-03 10:06:00 UTC

  • MATHEMATICAL PLATONISM IN THE BROADER INTELLECTUAL CONTEXT, AND THE CURRENT STAT

    MATHEMATICAL PLATONISM IN THE BROADER INTELLECTUAL CONTEXT, AND THE CURRENT STATE OF DEVELOPMENT IN MATHEMATICS (the study of measurement using constant relations via positional naming)

    (continuing discussion)

    Converting statements of mathematical platonism:

    If we say: “Can we say a subset…?” rather than “All is/are…” we eliminate a great deal of mathematical platonism, that requires us to use terminological special pleading.

    This eliminates the cultism (fictionalism) of mathematical platonism and ensures that the speaker knows of what he speaks, rather than simply performing operations he does not understand, but is still capable of constructing proofs of possibility.

    In other words, there is a difference between an idiot savant who masters pattern recognition and the individual who explains why the patterns can exist in the first place.

    As the intuitionists discovered, (and authors of proof software have taken advantage of), a proof must be falsified, and the two dimensions of doing so are via negativa (application tests), and via positiva (construction from operations)

    Unfortunately it seems that Wolfram is trying to cast operationalism as a separate science, rather than restoring mathematics to operations AND deductions, and it seems theoreticians are still describing symmetries (lie groups), it appears we are stuck with fictionalisms in each sub discipline rather than the rather obvious: that by free association we can either identify or search for patterns, and by a competition between construction and deduction we can test them, in any number of dimensions. And that our topography is largely little more than puzzles, while the problem of N-dimensional permutations producing consistent intermediary symmetries whose change in state is measurable, and lends prediction to heretofore unimaginable outcomes of n-dimensional high causal density is the holy grail of mathematics at which point we will be able to produce semantic intelligences rather than mere computations and algorithms.

    This is a perhaps more articulate explanation of the pseudoscience and pseudo-rationalism of the 20th (and now 21st century) that Hayek chastened us would be remembered in history as a second age of ‘mysticism’.

    Unfortunately, the great wars interfered wth the second enlightenment and the second industrial revolution, and gave the common man economic and political influence by which to distribute that new mysticism (Boaz/marx/freud/cantor/frankfurt school/postmodernism) when poincare, hayek, popper, brouwer, bridgman, and mises all failed to complete the operational revolution.

    (I’m doing my best to pick up the pieces.)

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-03 10:03:00 UTC

  • by Joel Davis I would add, that “defining the relative variance/convergence betw

    by Joel Davis

    I would add, that “defining the relative variance/convergence between concepts incommensurably” seems to “expand the definition of the experiential context beyond commensurable relativity between its components”.

    So, I guess I am rendering the whole correspondence vs. coherence epistemological dichotomy as mutual failure to establish commensurable context.

    All you need to do is operationalize their refutations of one another relative to the perciever, and then the conclusion that correspondence is merely coherence with experience becomes apparent. Which I guess leaves Hegelians with the dubious honour of discovering the most sophisticated articulation of coherence with non-experience 😂

    Curt Doolittle I think I have figured out what you have achieved as a philosopher on an even more profound level..

    You operationalized Kant.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-03 04:03:00 UTC