Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • I would say that ZFC constitutes a proof of the limits of mathematics. I would s

    I would say that ZFC constitutes a proof of the limits of mathematics.

    I would say that the construction of all of mathematics from operations is trivial. Which is its strength.

    I would say that the the development of techniques of deduction (proofs of possibility) given constant relations made possible by positional names is one of the high points of human intellectual achievement.

    I would say that those that are capable of applied mathematics in the discovery of patterns in reality is an art that never ceases to amaze me. if for no other reason, than like chess, it requires extraordinary state memory (modeling), extraordinary discipline, and the exercise of talent without much chance of material reward.

    I mean, the only people I am absolutely awed by when I meet them are applied and theoretical mathematicians. And I know that in the very least, they have far superior short term memories and modeling capabilities.

    And while I seem to have a talent for deflation (causality), I could never compete with that category of mind.

    I am fairly happy playing second fiddle to their art.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 18:04:00 UTC

  • The “Unreasonable effectiveness” trope annoys the hell out of me. The only reaso

    The “Unreasonable effectiveness” trope annoys the hell out of me. The only reason this ‘magical mathematics’ nonsense perpetuates, and the average person is still afraid of mathematics, is because it’s taught as a superstition.

    Math is trivial. 1 = any unitary measure. By the combination of some number of symbols – in the current case 0123456789, we can create positional names. By adding, subtracting units, and by adding and subtracting sets of units (multiplication and division), we can create positional names (numbers) for an unlimited set of positions. we can create names of positions in an unlimited number of directions (dimensions). We can create positions relative to any other position (relative positions). We can create changes in positions of relative positions. producing numbers, sets, and fields, and topographies (many different fields.

    So the fact that math is ‘unreasonable’ is rather ridiculous. It’s people who are unreasonable. Math is TRIVIAL. Deduction in multiple dimensions is hard because we are not well suited to it.

    I mean, we have 26 letters, and 44 phonemes in the english language. If we were ‘elegant’ we might increase the 26 to 44 letters, so that english was easier to read. but look at what we can say with those 44 phonemes, 26 characters, and 250K words in some including terms, and maybe 200K words that are not archaic.

    There are roughly 100,000 word-families in the English language.

    A native English speaking person knows between 10,000 (uneducated) to 20,000 (educated) word families.

    A person needs to know 8,000-9,000 word families to enjoy reading a book.

    A person with a vocabulary size of 2,500 passive word-families and 2,000 active word-families can speak a language fluently.

    Of those we can pretty much COMMUNICATE anything, although in wordy prose, with only 300 words.

    Now think of how much MORE you can say in language than you can say in mathematics.

    Why should it surprise you that running around with a perfectly scalable yardstick that can measure any distance, allows you to measure and compare anything? It shouldn’t. It’s freaking obvious.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 14:46:00 UTC

  • Observation is limited to reduce our costs. Memory is limited to reduce our cost

    Observation is limited to reduce our costs.

    Memory is limited to reduce our costs, improve our speed of recall, and maximize our storage.

    Reconstruction of experience is limited to that which is necessary for action.

    Reconstruction requires stimuli necessary to access memory – it’s fragmentary.

    Free association (imagination) is useful in searching for opportunities thereby reducing our costs.

    To say that the observed world is a fiction is very hard to agree with since we can sense and perceive pretty much the full range of the universe where actions and reactions are possible for man. It would be a wasted cost (evolutionary drag) for us to sense and perceive that which we cannot act upon.

    To say our values and judgements of that world are INCONSISTENT is evidenced by the effects of different drugs and circumstances on the interpretation of every phenomenon. To say they are false is something else it is hard to agree with. Since we readily reinterpret those perceptions when returning to normal state.

    To say that our MODELS of reality are questionable, is highly variable by individual, and that’s demonstrable in all walks of life. For some people, modeling is exceptional. To say that our imaginations are fantasy, that’s true. To say that some people’s models are but fantasy that’s true.

    To say ‘consciousness’ is an illusion is something I have to deny for the simple reason that I have a multi-decade experience with frequently losing consciousness under the right (not rare) conditions. And each stage of ‘awareness’ is relatively obvious. There is a base ‘you’ which may or may not be in the lower or mid-brain, that awakens slowly as more and more information is available to it as you return to consciousness by full use of your senses and memories, generating some semblance of a model of yourself in the world. Now, that base consciousness doesn’t do much more than wait and feel and react, but in my experience, it is definitely ‘me’ with my memories and current context, continually altering ‘me’ through various stages, which I notice are less happy and more skeptical as each stage begins to fully participate. I assume that ‘me’ is ‘womb me’. So for me, this isn’t a theory. it’s an experience I go through with painful frequency. (I have asthma and allergies and when coughing and changing body position causes me to faint if I don’t manage it. It’s called “Syncope” )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-30 14:21:00 UTC

  • (the purpose of idealism in mathematics is to simplify discourse given the probl

    (the purpose of idealism in mathematics is to simplify discourse given the problem of scale independence. In other words, math has a ‘quaint’ vocabulary the purpose of which is to simplify the problem of prevarication when discussing subjects of scale independence. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-30 10:43:00 UTC

  • CAN WE MEASURE TRUTHFULNESS? (reposted to the main page for others to view) Degr

    CAN WE MEASURE TRUTHFULNESS?

    (reposted to the main page for others to view)

    Degrees of Precision In Truthfulness

    4 – Imagined = we imagine it is possible because we cannot reason that it is impossible.

    3 – Empirical = Correlative, observable, measurable (not quantifiable)

    2 – Narrative = Sympathetic (sequential, brevity).

    1 – Demonstrable = causal (descriptive, operational).

    0 – Perfect (ideal) Parsimony (Name(referrer) of transformation rules (referent). In other words, names of functions, and functions.

    The problem as I see it is that any narrative (form of brevity for the purpose of meaning) must both add information (sympathetic analogy for transfer of meaning by association) and remove information (operational detail overloading sympathetic analogy), thus leaving us with Names that refer to sequences (recipes) of operations (or natural transformations), or the sequences (recipes) for statements of Truthfulness (warrantied by due diligence of knowledge of Truth).

    Since all knowledge is fungible and justification impossible, I do not make the traditional error of categorizing knowledge as justified belief (confidence in knowledge). I treat every opportunity-for-knowledge (hypothesis) from identity through causality as knowledge and truthfulness and falsehood as a measure of it.

    I treat truth candidacy as an estimate by triangulation of the survival from due diligence under testimonialism – which unlike CR includes provides a checklist of due diligences (measures) for each dimension of reality, including costs of transformation – which we can use to compare estimates of truth. This differs from CP in that I am unable to falsify the hypothesis that cost of transformation is a proxy for opportunity cost, and therefore in matters physical(natural) and sentient(human), all other things being equal, appears (empirically and rationally) to inform CP if not solve it. Neither nature nor man refuse optimum opportunities. Nature cannot. Man appears not to. (he does err however.) I can find no existential counter examples. This roughly equates to the scientific method’s rational(logical) use of ‘parsimony’ and provides explanation for it.

    Justification is necessary in matters of the export of ethical and moral risk. So it’s not that justification has no value to man. Justification is how we defend both error (loss), and success (gain). But justification is a moral-ethical question, whereas adjudication (truth) exists independently of consequences.

    The fact that we must struggle to deflate our own behaviors in this way is indicative of our evolution as negotiating and cooperating creatures not tellers-of-truth. We evolved sympathy and utility. And truth is but a consequence of the pragmatism of negotiation.

    So to some degree I tend to think in terms of the truthfulness (survival from due diligence) of our knowledge, not ‘knowledge of truth’ (justification of our knowledge). But in practice they are the same thing from different sides of the coin: survival from due diligence against falsehood. I think I am more sensitive to this matter because CR/CP provide no means of measurement (deflation), whereas I have provided the same deflation in all possible dimensions of knowledge that has been applied to existential and pure relations by mathematics.

    I hope this is interesting for you. I don’t mean to change your mind, but merely to walk through it and see if you have criticisms, as well as to provide others with an education in what seems to be a fairly rare bit of expertise: the transition from justificationary(constructive) to evolutionary(survival) truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 10:17:00 UTC

  • My contribution is that I have incorporated costs, full accounting, and operatio

    My contribution is that I have incorporated costs, full accounting, and operationalism into philosophy, and produced a system of categories by which we can algorithmically ‘calculate’ (not compute) tests of reciprocity – including the reciprocity of truthful speech. This is far harder than logic (set consistency), and far harder than empiricism (external correspondence). But it is just as formal as logic and mathematics.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-24 18:22:00 UTC

  • IQ: THE TIME COST OF ADAPTATION TO INFORMATION IQ is not subjective it is measur

    IQ: THE TIME COST OF ADAPTATION TO INFORMATION

    IQ is not subjective it is measurable across all ages, genders, classes, and culltures. You might say that it is but one input into personality but it will remain the dominant input across all personality traits – period. IQ largely reflects the rate of learning and the scale of the patterns that individuals can identify in each iteration of the brain (about 1/2 second). It therefore represents the time-cost of adaptation to information.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-24 18:17:00 UTC

  • RATIO OF IQ TO TRUST You know, we talk about IQ all the time. But of IQ and trus

    RATIO OF IQ TO TRUST

    You know, we talk about IQ all the time. But of IQ and trust, which is more important? Well, it looks like you need both.

    And that’s the problem. others have produced IQ. We produced both. That’s the issue.

    I mean, I”m sure if I think about it, then it’s something I should be able to find empirical support for.

    In the end the cause of trust is the militia and homogeneity.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-24 17:07:00 UTC

  • ON THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PSEUDOSCIENCE OF ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE (important)(

    ON THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PSEUDOSCIENCE OF ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE

    (important)(i don’t address this often enough)

    —“Curt, why do you say that accounting is fragile?”—

    Great Question.

    Our accounting systems have largely remained a technology of the era of their invention: the Age of Sail and Gold Standard with the production cycles of agrarian and international shipping.

    We still treat fiat money(shares in the state as a money substitute) as if it’s money proper (commodity money).

    If you want to make it simple:

    1) risk is not accounted for in accounting, reporting, or taxation, and is the inverse of reality.

    2) All accounting systems ‘launder’ money by pooling it, rather than tracing it.

    3) The financial system is archaic and predatory.

    4) Multiple audiences require different ‘distortions’ of management (true cash) accounting, yet we have no technical means (now) of producing those reports from a single act of data entry, because money is not traceable but pooled.

    5) Because of this accounting is far behind, terribly complex, and understates fragility (risk) dramatically.

    6) it is incredibly profitable for the state and the financial sector to preserve this universal deception that obscures the truth at the expense of the entrepreneurial, management, professional, craftsmanly, and laboring classes.

    GOVERNMENT DISTORTION

    Interference by Calendar (monthly) rather than Lunar (weekly) measurements.

    Interference and Distortion by Taxation and Double Taxation

    Interference and Distortion by taxes on dividends vs appreciation and loss.

    Interference by Amortization and Depreciation to maximize taxation.

    Lack of taxation by liquidity (personal, small cap, large cap) creates scale and fragility

    THE PROBLEM

    1) Business is volatile, management actions take time to produce results, and so risk is not accounted for in either accounting nor in taxation.

    2) Few capital intensive businesses, more knowledge and talent and customer-relationshp businesses, none of which the company can ‘own’ but the upper 10% of which constitutes its entire competitive difference, and persistence.

    3) R&D off book by small companies, profit by large companies that scale but buy smaller companies that do R&D.

    4) Few inter-decade (inter-generatinoal) companies, and larger networks of increasingly fragile self-organizing companies with less predicable outcomes.

    5) “Pensions” and liabilities (incalculable intergenerational transfers).

    6) Preferential treatment given to landlords and others during liquidation and those that have access to legal teams, on a first come first serve basis rather than by orderly payments. in other words, in financial duress the courts should have no recourse to cause preference in payments, and lender should “beware”.

    7) Vast, unimaginable, thefts on scales unheard of in history by manipulation of courts and financialization of agreements. (lender privilege rather than lender beware).

    8) Distribution of liquidity through the financial system to the benefit of the financial system yet running into the zero bound problem rather than distribution of liquidity directly to consumers to the benefit of the consumer and business sectors.

    9) The asymmetric power of lobbyists in funding political campaigns such that those attempts at reform since the 1980’s when the problems were first accepted, were

    10) Fallacy (and harm) of Common-Shareholder-as-owner which allows large financial interests to takeover companies, extend the risk, take profits and allow failure. (Same for george soros. Violates principle of productive voluntary fully informed and warrantied exchanges).

    What this all means is that the political, financial classes constantly extract money from the SMB space, the entrepreneur, the manager, the craftsman and the laborer by the gradual but constant transfer of risk downward, and the redistribution of gains upward, thereby institutionalizing the socialization of losses and privatization of gains.

    ACCOUNTING DISTORTION

    Management reporting (operating success), vs bank reporting(credit worthiness) vs tax reporting (taxation) vs investor reporting(balance sheet) vs stock market reporting (nonsense).

    The method of recording financial transactions and the work necessary to produce various reports for various audiences, means that accounting does what serves its interests, and the truth of the business is obscured from everyone and the viability of the going concern vastly overstated. There is too little algorithmic processing in accounting. it’s still manual or ‘macros’ (policies).

    Going Concern/Asset (credit) Value/ Tax Value / Liquidation Value. AFAIK the only ‘value’ proper is liquidation value, and that’s empirically the case. (In addition, conflating market CAP with market VALUE should be illegal. I would argue that PE ratio is the only )

    Selective Accounting (not measuring market potential vs debt). It is entirely possible to measure market capture and report it month to month and this is the best indicator of management performance, and management performance is nonsense without it.

    Conflating Operating from Non Operating Performance. Businesses should report on profit and loss from operations and produce separate profit and loss from capital operations, tax, credit, and shareholder reports from the same data.

    Eliminating intergenerational transfers. ie: there can be no post liquidation debts constructed – period, and no debts beyond the operating horizon of the business.

    Pooling (laundering) money – (obscuring) rather than tracing (transparency) There is no reason all financial transactions are not tagged and directed and traceable down to the penny (just as they are with Blockchain(bitcoin) transactions.

    IMPORTANT: My solution to this problem of pooling is to use blockchain ledgers on legally mandated financial categories so that each financial transaction inside an accounting system transfers ledger values, producing perfect transparency. This produces a perfect audit trail not open to ‘fudging’ which is so common.

    GOVERNMENT

    The government for example measures velocity but not capital. That’s what GDP does. Marylin Waring (a horrible feminist) at at least addresses the issue in the production of offspring. Mother’s production of children is a capital good. Yet we don’t account for it.

    Average age is a capital good.

    IQ is a capital good yet we don’t account for it.

    Personalities are a capital good but we don’t account for them.

    Trust is a capital good – perhaps the most important.

    Truth telling is a capital good – perhaps the most important.

    Rule of Law is a capital good – perhaps the most important.

    Monuments, parks, architecture (aesthetics) are a capital good.

    Work to Leisure ratio is a capital good.

    Savings are a capital good.

    Homogeneity of race and culture is a capital good.

    BLAME IT ON ACCOUNTING AS A PSEUDOSCIENCE

    We can easily say that the evils of the 20th century are produced by a combination of mathematical pseudoscience (keynesian economics) and monetary accounting (pseudoscience) because they both cherry pick consumption rather than changes in the state of capital

    Money is no longer money. Accounting no longer accounts. We are flying blind, and fragile, and burning down 1000 years of accumulated cultural capital.

    How do we separate science from pseudoscience?

    FULL INTERTEMPORAL ACCOUNTING OF OPPORTUNITY, COST, RISK, AND CONSEQUENCE.

    Is our accounting a science for the purpose of truth? Or is it a pseudoscience for the purpose of deceit?

    We know the answer.

    And we have known for twenty years how to fix the problem.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 09:01:00 UTC

  • PETERSON’S POSTMODERNISM Peterson is in part a postmodernist because he relies u

    PETERSON’S POSTMODERNISM

    Peterson is in part a postmodernist because he relies upon a postmodern (utilitarian) definition of truth – as if the purpose of truth was choice of good or preference when we are cooperating, rather than decidability in matters of conflict when cooperation fails.

    The more complex the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy, the greater requirement for decidability.

    Peterson (I assume) preserves this postmodernism, in order to preserve his fondness for literature, idealism, and supernaturalism, and especially conflationary idealism and supernaturalism (Fictionalism).

    I can understand why he needs this ‘crutch’ because the monomyth, the list of plots, the archetypes, and the virtues provide our best historical (empirically devolved) and most enduring analysis of psychology, and method of pedagogy.

    However, there is a very great difference between the teaching of meaning so that we may discover and seize opportunities in reality, and the teaching of law so that we may decide conflicts without provoking retaliation cycles.

    So while Peterson COULD say “truth is truth” and “wisdom is wisdom”, and while we can CHOOSE with wisdom, we can only DECIDE with Truth.

    Otherwise, Peterson is on the way to restoring our ancient literary ‘Religion’, but he seems bent on preserving the ‘fictionalism’ (lies) of Abrahamism.

    My question is, why preserve the lies of Abrahamism, if is is the use of the techniques of Abrahamism – fictionalism as a means of deception by suggestion – that the marxists (pseudo-science) and postmodernists (pseudo-rationalism) used to defeat the west in both the ancient (Forcible christianization) and modern (forcible marxism and postmodernism) eras.

    Once Peterson resolves this one question I think he’s not just telling the conservatives what they want to hear. Until then, that’s all he is doing.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    ===RESPONSE TO CRITICISM===

    —“You seem to equate fictionalism, i.e. system that deals in fictitious, imaginary semi-abstract universe and the lies….”—

    No. FIction vs Fictionalism. Fictionalism is a technical term. It means misrepresenting a fiction as existential or true.

    a) Historicize: deflate myth into history and literature for the purpose of decidability in matters of dispute.

    b) Fictionalize: convert into monomyth, plot, archetype, virtues for the purpose of meaning for the self.

    c) Fictionalism: conflate myth, history, literature, law, science, real and ideal for the purpose of deception for political ends.

    Compare 1) Science(measurements that remove error,bias,deceit), Common Law: empirical evidence of disputes. Economics: empirical record of demonstrated preferences. History (narrative of cause and effect), Literature(Fiction), Myth (hyperbole), under anthropomorphic gods, demigods, heroes all subject to the laws of the universe, who represent portfolios of virtues and sins for personal ends with 2) idealism supernaturalism, and conflation: supernatural authoritarianism, for the purpose of communicating POLITICAL ends, in which history, myth, laws, archetypes, ideals, utopias, and false promises of paradise in the present or after death are conflated. The most common examples are monotheistic religion (pseudo-myth) and mathematical platonism, marxist pseudoscience, and postmodern pseudo-rationalism.

    There is a difference between use of deflation by monomyth, plot, archetype and virtue, and use of conflation in matters of wisdom of the self, and the use of deceit in politics. Virtues assist us in maximizing opportunities while limiting negative consequences to ourselves and the polity. The individual can enact his own compromises and exchanges, but politics is not but a proxy for violence and is not a matter of wisdom but DECIDABILITY. If not, then it is not a matter for politics which can only be decidable if it is empirical.

    THis is how the left works: to circumvent the compromises of exchange necessary for the political to consist of moral actions (non parasitism).

    —“The fairy tale – is it a lie to be exterminated? It seems to be an idea so grotesque, that only the complete anti-humanist would dwell on it.”—

    A fairy tale consists of fiction (myth) not fictionalism (virgin birth of a savior).

    —“Well, it does. Because decidability in real world situation has nothing to do in general with verifiable truth in Popperian sense nor with falsifiability of the hypothetical proposition.”–

    Personal decidability does not, But POLITICAL decidability DOES. Because personal choice requires non-imposition, and political decidability requires imposition..

    There is a very good reason why the west, using common law, deflationary truth, deflated institutions, maintained the separation of religion(wisdom) and state(law). And that reason is largely responsible for western rates of development versus their nearest competitor the chinese who also avoided conflation.

    —“Now, I totally open to the idea that the scientific truth one day may tell me a good answer to that dilemma, but I am dealing with not a fictional proposal of a complete ULTIMATE science, but with a real and extremely limited science that does not know much about how an individual functions, nor how the society functions in a sense relevant to a question at hand.”—

    The fact that you cannot imagine that it is possible to create tests of dimensions in natural language the same way we create tests of dimensions in mathematical language is simply due to the very recent solutions to questions of language in philosophy, the development of algorithmic language in computer science, and the scientific method’s inversion of justificationism (intent) with criticism (darwinian survival of ideas in the market for application), and the very recent confirmation of stoic acquisitionism, which I’ve expressed as propertarianism. In other words, locke was close to the stoics: we can in fact reduce not only all moral action to statements of property, but all of psychology and sociology as statements of property – thus, providing the social sciences with the final unit of commensurability: property.

    So the fact that you don’t know those things is simply because it’s taken us from 300AD to the present to vacate enough of Abrahamic Fictionalism to restore our thought to it’s deflationary state 1700 years ago.

    Now if that loss of 1700 years, and the rather obvious fact that by Archimedes greece had started the industrial revolution, is not enough of a criticism of immigration of non-european underclasses, and the cancer of abrahamic fictionalism, I don’t know what is.

    We lost four great civilizations to Abrahamism in the form of judaism, christianity, and islam, and we are currently in the process of being forced into another migratory dark age by the fact that Abrahamic deceptions are so appealing to women and the underclasses.

    Is there a greater moral crime in all of history than Abrahamic Fictionalism? I don’t think anything comes close. Abrahamic fictionalism has no equivalent. It destroyed the ancient world, and it is in the process of destroying the modern.

    1) Zoroastrianism > Judaism > Christianity > Islamism defeated Greek and Roman Reason and destroyed north african, levantine, persian, byzantine and roman civilizations, and brought about the dark age through continuous raiding of the west.

    2) German Rationalism > Jewish Marxism > French Postmodernism > Puritan Feminism are defeating the anglo germanic enlightenment. The same process is being repeated. The only people to resist the abrahamic deceits were the north sea peoples who ‘saved themselves’ from Christianity, and the Chinese who built a wall to keep out the barbarians and preserved their kinship purity even at economic cost to them.

    So there is a very great difference between decidable literature of history, law, and science, and wisdom literature in the form of fiction, and fictionalism, in the form of abrahamic conflation and deception by suggestion.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-21 15:51:00 UTC