Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • We can choose preferences by whatever means we can construct an excuse for that

    We can choose preferences by whatever means we can construct an excuse for that choice, but we can only resolve conflicts by materialist meas.

    This is the difference. Idealists and supernaturalists only see the head of the coin not the tail: a great deal of cooperation between people who have material responsibilities fails.

    People who avoid the materialist rarely if ever have any responsibilities of consequence.

    Their folly is an example of conspicuous consumption: a luxury good mad possible by materialists.

    Or put simply: “silly women can believe silly things, but men who may die in war, hunt, and labor, have no luxury of folly.”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-21 15:39:00 UTC

  • THE DIMENSIONS OF TRUTHFUL SPEECH Existentially Possible Truth in Speech: TRUTH

    THE DIMENSIONS OF TRUTHFUL SPEECH

    Existentially Possible Truth in Speech:

    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.

    TRUTHFULNESS:

    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.

    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.

    DEMAND FOR TRUTH

    Categories of Demand for Truth:

    1 – True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship.

    2 – True enough for me to feel good about myself.

    3 – True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    4 – True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    5 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7 – True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    8 – Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    FALSEHOOD

    Categories of Falsehood:

    1 – ignorance,

    2 – error,

    3 – bias,

    4 – wishful thinking,

    5 – suggestion,

    6 – obscurantism,

    7 – fictionalism, and

    8 – deceit:

    DUE DILIGENCE

    Dimensions of Due Diligence by which we eliminate falsehoods:

    1 – categorical consistency (identity)

    2 – logical consistency (internal correspondence)

    3 – empirical consistency (external correspondence)

    4 – existential consistency (operational correspondence)

    5 – rational consistency ( correspondence to incentives )

    6 – moral consistency ( reciprocity – reciprocal correspondence)

    7 – scope consistency (limits, parsimony, and full accounting – scope correspondence)

    CRITICISM

    Categories of Incremental Demand for Criticism (Survival):

    1 – hypothesis,

    2 – theory(falsification), and;

    3 – law (market application).

    KNOWLEDGE

    Because Justificationism is false – a misapplication of mathematical proof, moral observation, and legal observation – and only survival from criticism can produce a truth candidate, the knowledge cannot consist of justified belief, but of survival from the incremental markets for criticism: hypothesis, theory(falsification), and law (market application).

    TRUTH, TRUTHFUL, HONEST

    1 – because our demand for Truth varies greatly. (1-8 above), and;

    2 – because our efforts at due diligence in different dimensions (1-7 above) varies greatly;

    3 – because our efforts at due diligence in the markets (hypothesis, theory, and law, above), varies greatly (1-3 above), and;

    The best we can do is speak truthfully. To speak truthfully we must:

    1) Test our speech against the degree of Demand for Truth.

    2) Test our speech against the applicable dimensions for that form of truth.

    3) Test our speech against the scope of markets sufficient for the Demand for Truth.

    (Everyone tries to escape due diligence, and warranty of their speech)

    WORKING WITH SCIENCE, NOT PLATONISM

    You are making the error of set comparisons that is so common in rationalist ‘pseudoscience’, by which you use framing to create false dichotomies.

    DEFINITIONS

    —“Thus, if you try to define the concept of “truth” by appeal to the concept of “knowledge”,”—

    I don’t. I define the concept of TRUTH by the spectrum of survival from due diligence.

    I define KNOWLEDGE as anything from awareness to perfectly informed.

    INFORMATION CONTENT UNDER CONSIDERATION

    We work, I work, not with ideal types, but with series (a spectrum).

    We work, I work, not with sets but with supply demand curves.

    We work, I work, not with set operations, but with algorithmic (existential) operations.

    We work, I work, with the information content of reality, not a subset of reality.

    Ergo We work, I work, with actions(reality) not just language(ideals).

    In other words, I work with science, not platonism.

    SPECTRUM OF KNOWLEDGE

    1) True (decidable) in the given context of a given question. (truth candidate)(law)

    2) Truthful (actionable) in the given context of a given question. (truth candidate)(theory)

    3) Undecidable (inactionable) in the given context of a given question. (non-truth)(hypothesis)

    4) Suspect (undecidable) in the given context of a given question.(non-truth)(theory)

    5) False (decidable) in the given context of the given question.(non-truth)(law)

    WHAT DOES THIS RESULT IN?

    Truth by Triangulation

    One can only estimate by triangulation.

    Truth is a process of incremental improvement of estimations.

    And in fact. If you were to study all facets of man (I have) this is how truth is determined in all disciplines wherein men act upon their statements (‘Skin in the Game’), and those disciplines that are ‘just talk’ do not.

    Hence the similarity in nonsense between rationalism and religious law (Hermenutics) that it evolved from.

    Hence the similarity in not-nonsense between sciences, and the common empirical law that they evolved from.

    CLOSING

    If you understand the past two long posts I have made you will understand the entire history of philosophy in those few words.

    The Iranian laws evolved to prevent retaliation cycles.

    Abrahamic religion was invented to lie.

    Greek philosophy to reform greek law – more reason.

    Stoic philosophy evolved out off greek law to speak the truth.

    Roman law evolved out of stoic philosophy.

    Western law evolved out of roman law and germanic pagan law.

    English law evolved more out of anglo saxon pagan law.

    Empiricism evolved out of germanic and anglo saxon law.

    Nothing else to be understood.

    In other words, if you’re practicing ‘cherry-picking’ using set operations on language, you’re engaging in pseudoscience.

    No dimension of reason’s subsets of reality is capable of proving itself without appeal to the next dimension of reality.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 20:23:00 UTC

  • TRUTH: A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES (worth repeating) [D]EFINITIONS OF TRUTH.

    TRUTH: A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES

    (worth repeating)

    [D]EFINITIONS OF TRUTH.

    [T]RUTH: 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.

    [T]RUTHFULNESS: 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.

    [H]ONESTY: 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.

    [I]ntuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).

    [P]reference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants).

    [O]pinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.

    [P]osition: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.

    [D]emonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.

    TRUTH CONSISTS IN A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES.

    True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship.

    True enough for me to feel good about myself.

    True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 15:20:00 UTC

  • PLEASE TRY TO BE SMARTER ABOUT APPLIED MATHEMATICS THAN I AM. IT’S EASY. I AM GL

    PLEASE TRY TO BE SMARTER ABOUT APPLIED MATHEMATICS THAN I AM. IT’S EASY. I AM GLAD PEOPLE DO THAT SO I DON”T HAVE TO. BUT DO NOT TRY TO BE SMARTER ABOUT THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATH (OR TRUTH) THAN I AM. OK?

    > Curt Doolittle :

    A priori consist of trivial examples of hypotheses. The deductive consist of trivial examples of the a priori.

    There exists only one epistemic method:

    observation > free association > wayfinding > hypothesis > self criticism > theory > market criticism > law.

    The non-contradictory, the a priori and the deductive are simply trivial cases.

    ===

    >Robert Mosimann :

    If such a simplistic view of the a priori and epistemic methods were true then

    Provide the observational evidence to establish the axioms of mathematics such as

    The axiom of infinity

    The Power set axiom

    The Generalized Continuum Hypothesis.

    How about the law of Contradiction itself

    Etc

    Only someone not knowing much science or mathematics would consider the a priori and deductive cases to be trivial.

    ====

    Curt Doolittle:

    You’re kidding me.

    Let’s just take the first one.

    “I promise that I observe that the method of constructing positional names that we commonly refer to as ‘natural numbers’, can be performed without limit, other than practical limit, and as such I can deduce that at least that single set of positional names satisfies the criteria of limitlessness independent of applied context that we commonly represent with the symbol *infinity*.”

    Ergo: “I can truthfully claim, as a general rule of scale independence – meaning that by removing the dimensions of time, space, operations, and cost, at least one condition of infinity is possible.”

    This is a trivial observation.

    The Continuum Hypothesis is the most interesting because it’s stated pseudo-scientifically and appears profound. But if stated scientifically (meaning informationally complete) then it’s also trivial:

    “I promise that I observe that the method of constructing position names beginning with the natural numbers all ratios thereof, that the rate of production of some positional names (numbers) will vary per operation.”

    Or the law of contradiction.

    “I promise that I observe that when I name a set of properties, relations, and values (category), that if I refer to (testify) a different set of properties, relations and values(category) by the same name I engage in either error or deception (falsehood).”

    These are trivial statements dressed upon pseudo-scientific garb, because of the remnants of archaic platonism in the field.

    The foundation of mathematics is trivial: correspondence and non-correspondence. Dimensions included, or dimensions ignored. The only challenge in mathematics is in applied math: like chess, the learning of observable patterns of transformations.

    Each dimension of reality we can speak of (identity, logical, empirical, operational(existential), rational, reciprocal, and fully accounted), and each dimension of constant relations (mathematics) we can speak of (identity, number(name), arithmetic(quantity), geometry(space), calculus(motion), and algebraic geometry (pure relations), can only be tested (proved) by appeal to the subsequent dimension. (No system of logic can prove itself). Hence the necessity of axiom of choice..

    Anyway. If there is anyone living who understands these matters better than I do, I would love to know. But as far as I know, there isn’t.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 14:53:00 UTC

  • COMPARING TESTIMONIALISM AND MATHEMATICS AS TESTS OF DESCRIPTIONS OF INCREASING

    COMPARING TESTIMONIALISM AND MATHEMATICS AS TESTS OF DESCRIPTIONS OF INCREASING DIMENSIONS OF REALITY

    (more very important ideas in here for serious philosophy students)

    Testimonialism = test all possible dimensions of reality.

    categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, and fully accounted (scope and limits).

    Just like math: identity, correspondence, positional name, arithmetic (quantity) operations, geometric (space) operations, Algebra (change) operations, Calculus (relative change) operations, algebraic geometry (pure relations) operations.

    So in both mathematics and testimony we test all possible dimensions of reality. The difference is that in mathematics we are familiar with the choice of which level of math is necessary to describe a problem, whereas in Testimony we are not yet familiar enough to understand which level of reasoning is necessary to describe a problem.

    So think of Testimonialism as differing from math in that mathematical objects consists of identical categories of constant relations in relation to the possible dimensions of reality. Whereas Testimonialism consists of any set of categories and any set of relations, in relation to the possible dimensions of reality.

    Or another way, mathematics and logic and empirical science and law are subsets of testimonialism. (truthful testimony)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 18:53:00 UTC

  • THE STATES OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY (very important ideas in here for serious p

    THE STATES OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY

    (very important ideas in here for serious philosophy students)

    If we define ‘science’ as ‘the invention of instruments by which we produce measurements, with which to reduce the imperceptible and incomparable to the perceptible and comparable, such that it is accessible to reason’ and that ‘the scientific method’ is the process by which we do that, then ‘science’ succeeds in applied science, (chemistry, biology, engineering, programming, mathematics) and is stalled in physics, and has been an utter failure in the social pseudo-sciences, and was an utter failure in ( the pseudoscience of ) psychology – although, in the past two decades, thanks to advances in imaging, have attempted to rectify psychology to some degree.

    So the problem is better stated as “science does well in the use of instruments’ and not so well in the use of reason.

    Philosophy has faced a worse decline than science, if for the simple reason that separating truth, goodness, preference, utility, and possibility in the discipline of philosophy in the same way that physics, chemistry, biology, and cognitive science has been separated in the sciences, has been almost impossible.

    Worse, the continental tradition continues to practice Abrahamic (religious) invention of conflating both point of view (experience, intention, action, observation) as well as the utility (true, good, preferable, useful, and possible), and even worse, the existential dimensions (real, hyperbolic, ideal-platonic, and supernatural-impossible). So the entire continental program is engaged in secular theology and nothing more.

    Worse, despite the (wasted century) culminating in Frege/Kripke, and the knowledge that set operations cannot result in meaningful truth propositions and that ‘all logic is but a test of tautology’ the discipline of philosophy still relies on language and set membership rather than operations and existential possibility (and if necessary, external correspondence).

    Worse, philosophy continues (to talk nonsense) to practice the long tradition of ignoring costs, or full accounting. And while, via negativa, this made sense in the ancient world, where all virtues require little more than refraining from imposing costs upon others – in the modern world, where we can use the vote as a proxy for violence by which to impose costs upon others, this is far less “honest and truthful” a tactic -and instead, is a means of self, and other-deception.

    If your discipline cannot fully account for all dimensions of reality in its propositions ABOUT reality. Particularly in the Possible, GOOD and the TRUE, then the entire purpose of the discipline is nothing more than evading reality (religion) and a means by which to produce falsehoods for the purpose of justifying parasitism on the left, and predation on the right.

    I am one of the harshest anti-philosophy philosophers, precisely because I do not practice ‘cherry picking’ of what I account for, nor do I tolerate conflations in any of the common dimensions.

    The excuse that philosophy is philosophizing is about as honest as religion’s claims – including the entirely falsifiable claim that philosophy ‘does good’.

    Either philosophy is the means by which we develop methods of decidability in possibility, utility, preference, good, and true, where the ‘true’ is that which is decidable independent of goodness, preference, utility, and possibility, or it is, like religion, a method by which – at best – dilettantes produce witticisms with which to deceive honest and moral people, and – at worst – the means by which the crimes of marketers, frauds, priests, academics, politicians, prey upon others for fun and profit.

    So, I don’t see much serious philosophy going on in this world outside of a few individuals who work in the sciences. What I see instead, is a vast number of dilettantes virtue signalling their cunning, while advocating their preferred version of self-rewarding immorality over that preferred vision of self-rewarding immorality of others.

    And that’s probably the most accurate description of philosophy today you will find.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 18:34:00 UTC

  • THE UNIVERSE OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION IN SIMPLE TERMS —“All of logic and reason

    THE UNIVERSE OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION IN SIMPLE TERMS

    —“All of logic and reason is inherently unfalsifiable. You can take any purely physical theory and I can tell you how just changing one of the primary assumptions of it would give exactly the same results but say something totally different about how reality works.” – What do you say to this statement?”— A Friend

    Reasonable arguments are falsifiable, that’s what logic assists us in achieving.

    Logical argument is falsifiable, that’s what empirical arguments are for. That’s what Kripke, Frege, and Godel help us understand.

    Reasoned, Logical and empirical arguments are falsifiable, that’s what operational arguments are for.

    Reasoned, logical, empirical,and operational arguments are falsifiable, that’s what full accounting is for.

    Reasoned, logical, empirical, operational, and fully accounted arguments are falsifiable. That’s what reciprocity is for.

    It is extremely difficult to make a false statement that is reasoned, logical, empirical, operationally, fully accounted, and reciprocal, since to do so requires we reduce all such statements to a series of subjectively decidable statements.

    The fact that we do NOT state these things by our evolutionary nature, is simply a matter of brevity, life’s tolerance for error, and the division of perception, cognition, and knowledge in combination with communication that allows us each to operate with fragmentary and largely false information and still survive.

    The fact that we can understand all this and therefore speak truthfully, means that we can reduce the ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit both individually and interpersonally, and therefore increase our successes primarily by decreasing our failures.

    The fact that we rely on our falsehoods, is a matter of the cost of retraining ourselves. And this is the principle problem we face. We all want everyone else to pay the cost of retraining, but not us.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 16:02:00 UTC

  • COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY: ACTUALLY ITS EASY (from elsewhere) ALL HUMAN PHENOMENON

    COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY: ACTUALLY ITS EASY

    (from elsewhere)

    ALL HUMAN PHENOMENON IS COMMENSURABLE, and ALL HUMAN DIFFERENCES ARE DECIDABLE.

    METHODOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL

    Chinese: create ‘woo’ with humbling riddles about the world.(inaction) Westerners: create ‘woo’ with power over the world (action)

    –“Daoism and Confucianism, at least after a certain stage in the development of these schools, exemplify the way that a set of interests intertwine with beliefs about the world. Both schools exemplify in different ways a conception of understanding the world that is inseparable from the interest in coming into “attunement” with it, to use a felicitous word from Charles Taylor (1982). To become attuned to the world is to see its goodness and to know one’s place in the order of the world. “—

    The west: transform the world for the better for having lived in it (evolve). The east: live in harmony with it (stagnate). Or worse, islam there is no new knowledge (devolve).

    Extremely poor civilizations adopt a mono-philosophy. The east and west adopted class philosophies. The west even developed methods and languages for those philosophies. We tolerate nearly infinite challenges to the dominance hierarchy and lionize creativity that increases group competition.

    IMO: the present problem remains monopoly: that people are not only unequal but vastly unequal. People are not only not equal in worth to one another, but a large number force others to pay a painful cost for their existence. Not only are capitalism and socialism both failures, but so is the median: social democracy. Why? Because just as we need different philosophies we need different economies. And so far, we have tried ‘all aristocracy’ in the west and failed, ‘all middle class’ in europe and failed, ‘all family in china and failed’, all commoners under the communists, and failed. When the more obvious solution is military (slavery), ‘WPA’, (serfdom/labor), guilds(unions/craftsmen), managers(small business/inventors), professionals(calculators/investors), and jurists (deciders).

    So far, the attempt to create monopolies instead of the church, state, burgher, laborer, serf/slave/prisoner system has been a temporary luxury good made possible by a rare technological leap primarily the result of the harnessing of fossil fuels.

    EPISTEMIC

    chinese language is quite primitive, relying on high context, and low precision. their wisdom literature is likewise, high context, low precision. they insert ‘woo’ into their wisdom literature through contradiction. the monotheists inserts ‘woo’ through supernaturalism. The west inserts ‘woo’ through extension of perception – power over nature. Explanatory power.

    The difference in our virtues is limited. however the difference in truthfulness, disruption of the dominance hierarchy, and dominating the universe couldn’t be any more opposite. In other words, ‘all high trust cultures are the same, all other cultures are different. All happy families are the same, all dysfunctional families are different. All domesticable animals are the same, all un-domesticable animals are different. All intelligent people are similar, all unintelligent people are different. All desirable people are the same, all undesirable people are different. The reason being that any number of criteria must coincide to produce excellence, but if any one fails, not so. The chinese insularism was smart in retrospect. the western threat to the dominance hierarchy was smart in retrospect. had each of us chosen that one property from the other we would both have been safer. the west from conquest, the east from stagnation.

    IS COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY HARD?

    Not at all. You just have to stop denying (a) costs, (b) darwinian consequences over time (c) vast inequality of people, and (d) the fact that every person at the bottom is six times as costly as your most productive person. (e) we cannot create social economic and political orders for people we wish we had, but those for whom we do have.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 13:03:00 UTC

  • OPERATIONAL PROPERTARIAN TESTIMONIAL GRAMMAR There is a basic logic of all commu

    OPERATIONAL PROPERTARIAN TESTIMONIAL GRAMMAR

    There is a basic logic of all communication that is reducible to a set of ‘measurements’ that allows us to construct a language (terms) and grammar that make it very difficult to state falsehoods. (this is primarily what Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism provide)

    And given that we understand this grammar, we can also show how suggestion can be created by a series of related statements through unstated but intermediary consequences (suggestive deductions).

    It is very hard to construct lies via that intermediary means of suggestion. I suspect people will try to invent some method, but I think it’s going to be as easy to defeat as religious arguments are today.

    There is a limit to human cognitive ability which is why game theory is of such limited value beyond the second or third order. Just as there is a limit to the number of chess moves a human seems to be able to rationally consider in advance of play.

    So to translate that, it means it is extremely difficult to construct a lie that ordinary people can be fooled by if we make it difficult to do so beyond the third order.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 01:39:00 UTC

  • Superstition for the very weak. Myth for the less weak, Literature for the less

    Superstition for the very weak. Myth for the less weak, Literature for the less weak. And measurement for the not-weak.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 23:41:00 UTC