Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • DEFINITIONS: DETERMINISM VS PROBABILITY Probabilism is an issue of measurement p

    DEFINITIONS: DETERMINISM VS PROBABILITY

    Probabilism is an issue of measurement precision, determinism means only ‘regular pattern’ not precision.

    When we say that something is deterministic all we are saying is that it produces a pattern of regularity – like velocity.

    So something demonstrates velocity, but we must say how much. Something demonstrates determinism but we must say how much.

    All physical phenomenon can be described deterministically. The problem is whether or not they can be probabilistically.

    A lot of phenomenon are deterministic – but not probabilistic (the neutrality of money for example)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 12:29:00 UTC

  • ORDER IN COMMUNICATION Chaos (non-identity) Identity (existence) Tautology(neces

    ORDER IN COMMUNICATION

    Chaos (non-identity)

    Identity (existence)

    Tautology(necessity),

    Proof(possibility),

    Rational(potential),

    Literature(narrative/meaningful)

    Daydreaming -stream of consicusness – (free association )

    COSTS OF TRUTH

    Hierarchy of Truths by internality to externality of costs.:

    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.

    OPERATIONALIZED (by Moritz Bierling)

    1) I recognize that when I try to form a connection between these concepts (follow this recipe), I can make it work.

    2) I recognize that when I think about this recipe, I feel good about my ability to make this connection mentally (follow the sequence/relation).

    3) I recognize that when I do the thing this recipe tells me to, I benefit sufficiently to outweigh the cost of the action.

    4) I recognize that when I do the thing this recipe tells me to, others react negatively to my action and therefore costs me something.

    5) I recognize that when I use this recipe, I can resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6) I recognize that when I use this recipe, I can resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7) I recognize that this recipe works for everyone at all times under all circumstances.

    8) I recognize that this recipe describes completely the thing it produces.

    EXPLANATION (by Moritz Bierling)

    “Recipes unlock opportunities of varying size with respect to the acquisition of energy at lower cost than the actor following the recipe expends, and recipes require the actor applying them to expend different amounts of energy depending on their complexity and the number of steps they contain, and we call those recipes more true that contain fewer errors, and those recipes resulting in the highest energy yield while requiring the least amount of steps we call of high utility.”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 08:30:00 UTC

  • Identity(categories / properties) Mathematics (ratio operations) Logic (language

    Identity(categories / properties)

    Mathematics (ratio operations)

    Logic (language / set operations )

    Programs (decisions)

    Operations (recipes) (actions)

    Science (general rules)

    Literature (associations)

    Religion (conflation)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-16 16:48:00 UTC

  • NOTES FROM THIS MORNING’S REVIEW OF CURRENT STATE 5-Literature 4-Religion 3-Phil

    NOTES FROM THIS MORNING’S REVIEW OF CURRENT STATE

    5-Literature

    4-Religion

    3-Philosophy (Moral Entrepreneurs)

    2-Intellectual History

    1-History

    0-Law

    1-Science

    —Curt

    Tautology(necessary),

    Proof(possible),

    Rational(potential),

    Literature(meaningful) —Curt

    We are all relying upon narratives that provide decidability for the purpose of pursuing allies in the achievement of a condition, not truth. We only rely upon a truthful narrative when it assists us attracting allies in the achievement of a condition. –Curt

    Shinto when we’re born,

    Confucian when we’re adolescent,

    Christian when we’re married,

    Buddhist when we die. — Japanese Saying

    Rationality – in that one consents to be persuaded – is a social virtue not a human faculty. Reason is a human faculty. Rationality is a moral virtue – a property of cooperation. — Rorty restated by Doolittle

    “It’s not a surprise that religion, democracy, and science, are in conflict: power.”–Rorty

    “Another sense of philosophy describes how various ideas fit together.” — Rorty. Well, I would say that philosophy consists of logic (necessity), criticism (science), integration(rationality), advocacy(moral literature), and imagining (fantasy literature). And that religion conflates advocacy, imagining, and Law (force). –Curt

    “if we take care of education and democratic freedom then truth will take care of itself”–Dewey. Well, it turns out that Dewey/Rorty are wrong. Just the opposite. – Curt

    Judaism is, like American pragmatism, a feminine philosophy, in that consequences to the commons are irrelevant. All that matters is the consequences to those collectively extant in the moment. — Curt

    Rorty makes the progressive error of the steady-state. We always fight the red queen. We have lost that under the temporary prosperity of industrialism. But the red queen has shifted just as crime has shifted. We compete against economies and resources and institutions, not against farming and territory and demographics. — Curt

    What objectively right vs objectively better = Survival of your gene pool. It is objectively right, and objectively better. — Curt

    Innovative < —————- > Defensive

    …. …. …. Communism (universalism) (impossible)

    …. …. Socialism (competitively impossible)

    …. Social Democracy (possible as long as competitive)

    Market Government (Trade) …. Anarchism (impossible)

    ….Classical-Liberalism, (

    …. ….Christian Monarchism

    …. …. ….Fascism (particularism)

    Communism

    …. (lower class – short term – consumption – r-selection )

    …. (mandatory consumption)

    …. (reproductive offense – distribution of assets )

    Market Government

    …. (middle class – medium term – production)

    …. (mandatory exchagne)

    …. (productive offense – market eschange of assets)

    Fascism

    …. (upper class – long term – preservation – K-selection)

    …. (mandatory production/contribution)

    …. (organizational offense – concentration of assets)

    We alter between these strategies as our prosperity allows.

    —Curt

    The west is deconflationary. we do not confuse methods of arguments, disciplines that make use of them, institutions that provide and manage them. We maintain a competition, and circumvent a monopoly.

    LIMITS: Law, legal jurisdiction – secular jurisdiction – a discovered science of dispute resolution.

    UTILITY: Trade – practical jurisdiction – a learned craft of pragmatism.

    IDEALS: Matters spiritual – are literary – and an imagined art of aspiration.

    Islam and Judaism are ‘simpler’ methods than western. simpler than Chinese. And suitable for a people less intelligent

    —Curt

    –“The collapse of the ottoman empire (Turks) allows the primitives (Salafis) to determine the authoritarian voice of Islam. Had the Turkish sultan maintained control of Islam, then it is possible that Islam would have reformed and the primitivism might have been suppressed as it was in other civilizations.”— Roger Scruton.

    “There is nothing that a democratic polity is accountable to but itself.”—Rorty But this is false. This says that the majority underclass under majoritarian monopoly rule is unaccountable to the consequences they force upon the middle and upper classes, and the genetic, territorial, normative, institutional, informational, and monumental capital of the civilization.—Curt Doolittle

    —“Truth isn’t correspondence with reality. Truth is just whatever it takes for people to obtain what they want.”–Rorty He is saying nothing matters. My question is why others have any reason or justification for not committing violence against those that oppose our preferences and interests. –Curt

    —“Conservatives are people who are aware of the fact that they’ve inherited something good, and want to conserve what is good. It’s much easier to destroy things than create them. It’s much easier to criticize existing things that are imperfect, than to construct things are better.”—Roger Scruton

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 15:37:00 UTC

  • Forms Of Argument in Retrospect

    Forms of argument evolve just like mathematics did: adding layers of precision Myth (narrative analogy) Religion (Internally consistent myth) Reason ( possibility ) Rationalism. ( justificationism ) Analytic rationalism. ( Consistency ) Existential criticism ( Operationalism)

    You see. In hindsight it’s obvious. It wasn’t though 😉

  • Forms Of Argument in Retrospect

    Forms of argument evolve just like mathematics did: adding layers of precision Myth (narrative analogy) Religion (Internally consistent myth) Reason ( possibility ) Rationalism. ( justificationism ) Analytic rationalism. ( Consistency ) Existential criticism ( Operationalism)

    You see. In hindsight it’s obvious. It wasn’t though 😉

  • The First Property Of Production Is Time. And Money Is Its Commensurable Store.

    In the past ten years I have not been able to defeat the theory that money literally stores time ( saved by or spent in production ) and that our claim that it is a store of value is a mistaken subjective perception given the utility in accounting rather than an objective description of its causality. When we cooperate we save time. When we divide labor we save more. When we exchange productively we save more.

    We are not wealthier in time than our distant ancestors, we have – depending upon how we wish to describe the phenomenon – made everything cheaper in cost of time while at the same time holding caloric expenditure relatively constant. And thanks to the nineteenth And twentieth centuries, dramatically reduced the cost in cellular damage per moment. Even if we have offset it a bit with chemical preservatives, carbohydrates and sugars. So all increases in productivity ( not aggregate productivity, but case specific productivity) reflect time savings. Just as all thefts and frauds its loss. Now we could also restate time saved as time created, or time made available rather than time saved. But I think doing so enters the domain of mathematical Platonism. No matter what we do, money is only able to influence others by paying them in saved time to prefer spending their time on what we desire of them versus the alternatives. Comments
    Mark King —So, to borrow money is to borrow time saved by others (living on borrowed time so to speak.) To default on a loan is to have literally wasted someone’s time.–
     
    Davin Eastley —^That is correct indeed.–
     
    Jason Conway —This almost seems like you’ve described the commoditization of time through the use of commodificaton.–

  • The First Property Of Production Is Time. And Money Is Its Commensurable Store.

    In the past ten years I have not been able to defeat the theory that money literally stores time ( saved by or spent in production ) and that our claim that it is a store of value is a mistaken subjective perception given the utility in accounting rather than an objective description of its causality. When we cooperate we save time. When we divide labor we save more. When we exchange productively we save more.

    We are not wealthier in time than our distant ancestors, we have – depending upon how we wish to describe the phenomenon – made everything cheaper in cost of time while at the same time holding caloric expenditure relatively constant. And thanks to the nineteenth And twentieth centuries, dramatically reduced the cost in cellular damage per moment. Even if we have offset it a bit with chemical preservatives, carbohydrates and sugars. So all increases in productivity ( not aggregate productivity, but case specific productivity) reflect time savings. Just as all thefts and frauds its loss. Now we could also restate time saved as time created, or time made available rather than time saved. But I think doing so enters the domain of mathematical Platonism. No matter what we do, money is only able to influence others by paying them in saved time to prefer spending their time on what we desire of them versus the alternatives. Comments
    Mark King —So, to borrow money is to borrow time saved by others (living on borrowed time so to speak.) To default on a loan is to have literally wasted someone’s time.–
     
    Davin Eastley —^That is correct indeed.–
     
    Jason Conway —This almost seems like you’ve described the commoditization of time through the use of commodificaton.–

  • Infinity, And The Fictional Justificationary Narratives Used In Mathematics

    infinite = **’unknown, because without context of correspondence we cannot determine limits’**, that’s all it means. Because that’s all it *can* mean and not argumentatively convert from mathematics to theology or fictional justification is perhaps a better term. The irony is that mathematicians seek precision in their statements and take pride in the precision of their language, but on this subject they do the opposite: obscure. There is no difference at all between making theological justificationary narratives, and making mathematically platonic justificationary narratives other than in theology and mathematics, theologians and mathematicians both seek to enforce existing dogma, while at the same time obscuring the fact that they have no idea what they’re talking about, and therefore resort to fictional narrative justification. “God gave us the ten commandments” is a fictional justificationary narrative obscuring the lack of causal understanding, and “evolutionary constraints produced natural laws of cooperation at scale” articulates the causal understanding. I can obey those ten commandments and cooperate at scale whether I use the fictional justificationary narrative, or the causal scientific narrative. So the operations I take are identical. What differs is the consequences of using a fictional justificationary narrative and a causally parsimonious narrative – just as what differs in our ability to make consequential deductions from allegorical justificationary narratives, and axiomatic causal properties differs. Mathematics is literally full of holdovers from the greek and Christian eras of mysticism as well as the modern era’s rationalism – and mathematicians have not reformed mathematics as science has been reformed. And so mathematics still contain’s is fictional justificationary narratives. This retention of fictional justificationary narratives (the theology of mathematical platonism), does not necessarily inhibit the practice of mathematics any more than obeying the ten commandments inhibits the art of cooperating at scale. What matters is the consequence of teaching mathematics platonically (theologically) and teaching it scientifically (existentially). Now, in testimonialism we account for the ethics of externality and we require warranty of truthfulness in public speech. Therefore it would be unethical and immoral (and possibly criminal or at least negligent) for mathematicians to continue to teach or publish or speak in public using theological language while at the same time making proof or truth claims – because one cannot warranty due diligence against externality caused by the false statements. So someday we hope we can reform mathematics so that it is taught scientifically not theologically, and as such by superior methods of teaching, we expand the use of mathematics to increasing numbers of people, and export less theology via fictional justificationary narrative into the public domain.

  • Infinity, And The Fictional Justificationary Narratives Used In Mathematics

    infinite = **’unknown, because without context of correspondence we cannot determine limits’**, that’s all it means. Because that’s all it *can* mean and not argumentatively convert from mathematics to theology or fictional justification is perhaps a better term. The irony is that mathematicians seek precision in their statements and take pride in the precision of their language, but on this subject they do the opposite: obscure. There is no difference at all between making theological justificationary narratives, and making mathematically platonic justificationary narratives other than in theology and mathematics, theologians and mathematicians both seek to enforce existing dogma, while at the same time obscuring the fact that they have no idea what they’re talking about, and therefore resort to fictional narrative justification. “God gave us the ten commandments” is a fictional justificationary narrative obscuring the lack of causal understanding, and “evolutionary constraints produced natural laws of cooperation at scale” articulates the causal understanding. I can obey those ten commandments and cooperate at scale whether I use the fictional justificationary narrative, or the causal scientific narrative. So the operations I take are identical. What differs is the consequences of using a fictional justificationary narrative and a causally parsimonious narrative – just as what differs in our ability to make consequential deductions from allegorical justificationary narratives, and axiomatic causal properties differs. Mathematics is literally full of holdovers from the greek and Christian eras of mysticism as well as the modern era’s rationalism – and mathematicians have not reformed mathematics as science has been reformed. And so mathematics still contain’s is fictional justificationary narratives. This retention of fictional justificationary narratives (the theology of mathematical platonism), does not necessarily inhibit the practice of mathematics any more than obeying the ten commandments inhibits the art of cooperating at scale. What matters is the consequence of teaching mathematics platonically (theologically) and teaching it scientifically (existentially). Now, in testimonialism we account for the ethics of externality and we require warranty of truthfulness in public speech. Therefore it would be unethical and immoral (and possibly criminal or at least negligent) for mathematicians to continue to teach or publish or speak in public using theological language while at the same time making proof or truth claims – because one cannot warranty due diligence against externality caused by the false statements. So someday we hope we can reform mathematics so that it is taught scientifically not theologically, and as such by superior methods of teaching, we expand the use of mathematics to increasing numbers of people, and export less theology via fictional justificationary narrative into the public domain.