Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • Nassim. 1) is there any need for more precise rule than exponential dist? 2) Doe

    Nassim. 1) is there any need for more precise rule than exponential dist? 2) Does the data exist to test for a more precise rule?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 15:14:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850366157592952832

    Reply addressees: @nntaleb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/849692842398281729

    IN REPLY TO:

    @nntaleb

    Probability Du Jour:
    The border between thin tails & fat tails resides in exponential distribution.
    Maximum entropy under MAD constraint. https://t.co/cAXWRqVzS9

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/849692842398281729

  • RELIGION = FEEL (fully intuit – absence of measure) RATIONALISM = THINK ( partly

    RELIGION = FEEL (fully intuit – absence of measure)

    RATIONALISM = THINK ( partly intuit – measure internally)

    SCIENCE = CALCULATE (minimally intuit-maximally measure externally)

    (feels, thinks, and reals)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 09:42:00 UTC

  • RELIGION = FEEL RATIONALISM = THINK SCIENCE = CALCULATE (feels, thinks, and real

    RELIGION = FEEL

    RATIONALISM = THINK

    SCIENCE = CALCULATE

    (feels, thinks, and reals)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 09:30:00 UTC

  • “Curt, please explain to me how thinking formally is not using idealism?”—Sira

    —“Curt, please explain to me how thinking formally is not using idealism?”—Siraaj Khandkar

    “Formally” means internally consistently.

    Thinking operationally requires correspondence with reality.

    Thinking operationally is not thinking ideally.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 08:42:00 UTC

  • CAN YOU FIND THE LANGUAGE YOU NEED? At number of people that I am close to, and

    CAN YOU FIND THE LANGUAGE YOU NEED?

    At number of people that I am close to, and who understand propertarianism well enough, have intuited, suggested, complained, or passionately argued, that a negative philosophy is not sufficient for them, because they intuit, want, and need ‘more’ than via-negativa on the one hand, and transcendence on the other. These people feel the need for a narrative that they can use to visualize, empathize with, some intuition or ideal.

    I’ve seen others attempt to appropriate propertarianism to justify their priors only to realize that it helps explain but does not justify, and may ultimately falsify good portions of those priors. (Libertarians).

    I’ve seen others who understand that natural law gives license for us to use violence to overthrow the current order, and restore our aristocratic order – whether or not the understand the epistemology, ethics, or anything else I’ve written.

    I’ve seen others with religious conviction thrilled at the possibility of restoring our ancient order, only to be horrified that in restoring the church I would eradicate all semitic fictionalism (lying), and return to hero worship, of not only saints (submissives-reactors), but innovators (thinkers), and Warriors and Statesmen (dominants-actors). In other words, I would complete the reformation of christianity into a restoration of our native religion (Aryanism) that the Germans had tried to make.

    A very small number of us just wish to understand, and to take power, and if necessary, to rule. I have produced what I want: a method of reforming the government. I

    I’ve tried for the past two years, mostly at Josh’s insistence to solve this problem. And I have remained fairly constant in my intuition that we must supply narratives in multiple languages on top of natural law. And I think this is the challenge for those who understand but must either compose or select which narratives do that for them.

    I believe that the only monopoly is the laws: the laws of nature, the laws of the limits of man, the laws of cooperation, and the law of testimony (truth). And that the only form of social order compatible with those laws is sovereignty, natural law, and markets in everything, as I have stated many times before.

    I believe that we require a division of narrative as much as we have a division of comprehension. I believe that our ancestors were correct and it was their failure to discover natural law that made them vulnerable to the great lies.

    I believe I can suggest a method of reforming the church both financially, institutionally, in doctrine, and in narratives.

    I believe the restoration of that church will require the return to poly-heroism instead of a monopoly on submissiveness by the prophets and saints.

    I believe it is necessary to restore poly-‘literature’ rather than monotheism, or any kind of theism. Although I can understand the need for theistic (supernatural) fiction, just as I myself understand and appreciate moral supernatural fiction (horror stories, scary legends, and myths).

    I believe it is possible (although not by me alone) to select readings that advance narrative solutions that are, aside from their fiction, or fictionalism, compatible with natural law.

    And I believe the simple need authoritarian supernatural, the ordinary need moral narrative, the average need philosophical narrative, and those of us above average need scientific narratives provided by the laws.

    And I believe that these narratives are compatible if compatible by natural law.

    And I believe that I cannot select those narratives by myself. I believe I cannot write them. I believe that in our history others have written all that need be written.

    And I believe it is those who seek those narratives and who understand natural law sufficiently to judge those narratives moral or not, ‘coherently true’ or not, and not false by natural law, that must provide those readings.

    Because I cannot possibly cover those literatures. In no small part because they fall on deaf ears, deaf empathy, deaf joys, and deaf fears. I have none of them

    I will have done my duty to my people by writing the laws in the language that I need and understand. I will have done my duty to my class in providing the rules and method of rule. But I am not able to do serve my people in the survey of occult, supernatural, supernormal, heroic, martial, political, historic, poetic, verse – although I can, and in my age, assuming I live – manage the artistic.

    The literature of our restoration exists. I have made the law. If you want to restore your civilization, and you want to provide those like you with a narrative, a via-positiva, then perhaps it is your duty, and your service, to your ambitions and your people, that you provide those parables.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 21:20:00 UTC

  • RELIGION AND MEASUREMENTS (important) ( William Butchman writes an OP reconcilin

    RELIGION AND MEASUREMENTS

    (important)

    ( William Butchman writes an OP reconciling supernatural fictionalism, with propertarianism via decidability. It inspired me to write this piece extending one of his paragraphs to explain that religion provided a means of measurement and decidability. )

    When we moved from religion (the immeasurable world – but a world whose ‘measurements’ if we may call ‘wisdom’ that, consisted of the results of trial, error, and observation – a simple science, but a science none the less) to quantitative science: the measurable world, we rightly increased the precision of the measurable world and evicted religion from our discipline of measurement. Unfortunately we evicted religion from the unmeasurable world (cooperation at scale), and replaced it with pseudosciences (aggregates). So instead of instructing men to act morally based upon experience, such that each action would cumulatively produce a measurable good, we measured goods and told me they need not act morally if we produced this abstract measurement of good. It never seems to have occurred to anyone that all this did was increase the number of not-good actions by people. And falsely attribute to the new measurements what was nothing but the product of fiat money (removing the shortage of hard currency) and fossil fuels (removing the cost of physical labor).

    Religion provides decidability in that which can only be measured by individual moral action that results in cumulative goods. Religions, like the common law, evolved incrementally in response to what we had learned. So each religion contains some error as well as some truth. What we call the physical sciences, provide decidability by aggregate changes in sttate even though we do not KNOW the equivalent of moral action in the universe – the first principles of the transformation of energy at small and large scales.)

    The Natural Law (as I understand it) merely states the measurement of individual ‘good’ action, the way mathematic states the measurement of addition and subtraction of the natural numbers. It is very simple. Addition: do undo others only that which you would have done unto you. Subtraction: do nothing unto others that you would not have done unto you. Through simple addition and subtraction all of the descriptions of the physical world can be written in an increasingly complex set of combinations. And likewise, through simple positive moral actions, and negative moral constraints, we can build all of natural law. And then we can use natural law to examine all religions, and to determine if they are, like the physical universe, written in gods laws, of the physical world(Existence), the world of Action(Property), and the world of Speech(Testimony).

    However, the golden and silver rule are reductio in meaning. They assume the christian or aryan edifice provides context. And while Christianity was always balanced by Martial Aryianism in a competition, The Hindu lost that competition, and the Sinic (Chinese), Semitic (Jewish/Muslim), never possessed it. So what one assumes is good good for himself and others by his actions, may answer the question of what is good for himself and others at city-state scale, but fails at national, empire, and global scales.

    For the simple reason that each civilization, and each group within it, uses a slight variation on those rules in order to perpetuate the group’s strategies in the realities in which it exists.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 13:50:00 UTC

  • “BEING” IN THE SPECTRUM OF EXISTENCE Grammar. 1 – Existence: Persistence. Existe

    “BEING” IN THE SPECTRUM OF EXISTENCE

    Grammar.

    1 – Existence: Persistence. Existence independent of experience,

    2 – Observing: observation of phenomenon in existence.

    3 – Acting: taking actions limited by existence.

    4 – Imagining: the full set of pre-rational experiences

    5 – Feeling: the full set of pre-cognitive experiences.

    6 – Being(Experiencing): the full set of human experiences of existence. (including dreaming, daydreaming, fantasizing, free association, reasoning, calculating.)

    7 – Reporting: narrating experiences.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 17:19:00 UTC

  • ON PROPERTARIANISM’S COMMENSURABILITY OF MEANING —“Curt: Why is linguistic com

    ON PROPERTARIANISM’S COMMENSURABILITY OF MEANING

    —“Curt: Why is linguistic commensurability most pertinent empirically? Is their evidence to suggest so or is this still purely hypothetical?”— Rik

    Curt Doolittle

    Well, let us take your sentence as an example:

    —“Why is linguistic commensurability most pertinent empirically?”—

    Translated:

    Why do people who desire to communicate and cooperate need the same, and therefore commensurable, definitions if they are to report upon their observations if we are to report without ignorance, error, bias, and deceit?

    Do ya see what I did there? I took all the words that LOOKED like you (people) understood what they mean, and I replaced them with what they mean in the consistent grammar of acting. Once I did that then the question answers itself.

    The vast majority of our arguments in modernity can be reduced to poetry using pseudoscientific rather than moral, literary, or mythological verse.

    I have tried to repair that fact with propertarianism.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 10:35:00 UTC

  • THE REASON FOR ALL THIS AUTISTIC DEFLATIONARY EFFORT It is the nature of an auti

    THE REASON FOR ALL THIS AUTISTIC DEFLATIONARY EFFORT

    It is the nature of an autistic (deflationary, context-independent, norm independent) mind to break everything into the smallest possible constituent parts: where causality is determined (axiomatic or closed causality), and to find comprehensibility at that level of detail. Yet still recognize that normals cannot comprehend at that level of detail. And to be frustrated that no abstraction of that level of detail will convey the information present at that level of detail without the introduction of error.

    I have come to think of that level of detail as ‘context-free’ description; and to think of normie-levels of detail as ‘context-dependent’ levels of detail.

    So this is why, when I have an individual or group to talk to, I can listen to them a bit and determine their frames of reference – their ‘contexts’ – then I can reframe the argument for their context.

    What I am NOT good at (and you and others are much better at) is determining a NORMATIVE CONTEXT to use in lieu of the interpersonal context we obtain during discourse.

    So this is why I require such precise definitions: to create a categorically consistent, an internally consistent, externally correspondent, and existentially consistent, and scope(scale) limited, thereby creating a fully correspondent context.

    And this is why I take so much time and work so hard to produce so many series and lists, and so many aphorisms, that state both via positiva and via negativa such that balance and completeness are contained in a pithy statement of observation.

    The great Chinese philosophers (Confucius and Lao Tzu) probably failed for no other reason than Chinese is a high context low precision language. But they managed to create so many aphorisms and riddles to accomplish by suggestion that which cannot be stated in their language with precision free of context.

    Efficient communication requires context and suggestion and truthful communication requires their absence. Loading communicates one’s value attributions. Framing narrows normative context and can be used to justify one’s decisions or to deceive.

    Or very simply, it takes three points to test a line, a series to test a definition, the combination of via-positiva, and via-negativa assertions to test a statement, and a full accounting using all of the above to test an argument.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 09:44:00 UTC

  • STUFF I WISH I COULD HAVE SAID: —“Propertarianism is ridiculously easy to summ

    STUFF I WISH I COULD HAVE SAID:

    —“Propertarianism is ridiculously easy to summarize: a system [of terms and grammar] that makes what subtle social investments are linguistically possible to make commensurable, commensurable.

    The further simplification of even that: a system of cooperation through mutual understanding.

    The further simplification of even that: “How we can get what we both want.”

    The further simplification of even that: “How we can help each other.”—Josh Jeppson

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 16:35:00 UTC