Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth

    [T]he Question:
    How do we warranty that we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality? Testimonial truth is a promise, a warranty.  But a warranty of what?  All knowledge is theoretical; and all non-tautological, non-trivial premises and propositions are theoretical.  Therefore how to we know our theories can be warrantied?

    We can warranty that our statement somewhere in this spectrum:

    And we can state what criteria any proposition tested on this spectrum satisfied. And we can conversely state whether a proposition is required to satisfy each criteria. 

    All disciplines are subject to this list, and to testimony.  All that differs is whether the properties are necessary for application of the theory to the context (scale) at hand.

    Only such statements made under this warranty, are classifiable as moral: consisting of Truthful, fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.

    The Warranty that we give is that:

    • I. A statement is stated *TRUTHFULLY*: satisfying the criteria for such a warranty to be made.
    • II. A statement is *TRUE*: Assuming that we eliminated the barriers of time, space, scale, and observability, we warranty that one would come to the same conclusion if equally truthful in his actions.

    We can never state whether a statement is “Absolutely True”, as in satisfying Platonic truth. And rarely can we state that we have satisfied analytic truth, and only at human scale can we testify that we have satisfied Perceivable Truth – original experience.  But we can always state whether we have stated something truthfully.

    The question is only *whether we truly desire to*.

    Criticism of Intellectual History:
    We have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.

    (Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth

    [T]he Question:
    How do we warranty that we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality? Testimonial truth is a promise, a warranty.  But a warranty of what?  All knowledge is theoretical; and all non-tautological, non-trivial premises and propositions are theoretical.  Therefore how to we know our theories can be warrantied?

    We can warranty that our statement somewhere in this spectrum:

    And we can state what criteria any proposition tested on this spectrum satisfied. And we can conversely state whether a proposition is required to satisfy each criteria. 

    All disciplines are subject to this list, and to testimony.  All that differs is whether the properties are necessary for application of the theory to the context (scale) at hand.

    Only such statements made under this warranty, are classifiable as moral: consisting of Truthful, fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.

    The Warranty that we give is that:

    • I. A statement is stated *TRUTHFULLY*: satisfying the criteria for such a warranty to be made.
    • II. A statement is *TRUE*: Assuming that we eliminated the barriers of time, space, scale, and observability, we warranty that one would come to the same conclusion if equally truthful in his actions.

    We can never state whether a statement is “Absolutely True”, as in satisfying Platonic truth. And rarely can we state that we have satisfied analytic truth, and only at human scale can we testify that we have satisfied Perceivable Truth – original experience.  But we can always state whether we have stated something truthfully.

    The question is only *whether we truly desire to*.

    Criticism of Intellectual History:
    We have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.

    (Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • TRUTH The question: how do we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of

    TRUTH

    The question: how do we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality?

    “Truthful” – Testimonial Truth – A Warranty, but of what?

    1) meaningfully expressible ( hypothesis )

    2) internally consistent (logically consistent)

    3) externally correspondent ( physically testable )

    4) existentially possible (operational construction)

    5) voluntarily choose-able (voluntary exchange)

    6) market-survivable (criticism – theory )

    7) market irrefutable (law)

    8) irrefutable under original experience (True)

    The Warranty:

    I. *TRUE*: Assuming elimination of the barriers of time, space, scale, and observability, a promise that one would come to the same conclusion if equally truthful in his actions.

    II. *TRUTHFUL*: the criteria for such a warranty to be made.

    Criticism of Intellectual History:

    we have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.

    (Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 03:17:00 UTC

  • THE TRANSFORMATION OF AUTISTIC INTUITION TO OPERATIONAL EXPOSITION. Yes, my work

    THE TRANSFORMATION OF AUTISTIC INTUITION TO OPERATIONAL EXPOSITION.

    Yes, my work is getting clearer. Yes it is getting easier for BOTH you and I to understand. Well, but what’s the reason why I had a lot of trouble articulating my ideas in the past? I could sense the pattern and talk about it with autistic forms of symbolic analogy, but I could not convert it into more accessible language because I hadn’t yet been able to identify and model all the axis I was working from. Today I can. And pretty soon I’ll be able to reduce it to a few simple rules. But going from autistic speech (pattern intuition without rational comprehension of those patterns) is just not a very suitable means of argument. And the art is in patiently and deliberately attempting to state the arguments operationally (using new existentially possible frameworks to build upon) rather than meaningfully (using extant imaginary frameworks to build upon).

    I don’t really ‘think’ of things in any material sense as much as gather information and ‘catch’ intuitions that are usually too subtle and complex to ignore . The difference which has caused me some difficulty in life is that I intuit operationally correspondent (operational) patterns, but I have no intuition for experiential (meaningful) patterns what soever. My brain does not allow me to use empathy as a shortcut. This particular blindness means that I am somewhat limited to ascertainable facts instead of experiences – I just don’t HAVE those experiences to work from. Whereas ordinary people have a problem seeing beyond experiences because they’re so clear, influential and meaningful.

    Autistic worlds are very different. There is a lot LESS in them. So we have less to calculate with. If you look at it that way it’s not so much that people like me are massively smarter than people with similar IQ’s. But it’s that we only see non-experiential signals, and as such are sort of specialized tools – conceptual warrior ants in the human tribal hive.

    I think it’s wrong to express this as a disease or illness rather than a specialization. And I think it’s also wrong to to say autistic thought is ‘more internal’, rather than we are just working with the data we have to work with. In my case it has been emotionally painful but personally fruitful.

    The whole anglo philosophical and political fantasy of equality has been a disaster for mankind. We must be equal in property rights and equal under the law, but that’s so that we may coordinate our actions as specialists, and succeed as specialists – not so that we can act as equals.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-12 04:10:00 UTC

  • Using Hayekian Triangles for the Production of Moral Law? Hell… since the prod

    Using Hayekian Triangles for the Production of Moral Law?

    Hell… since the production of means of suppression (law) is in fact, a production cycle, then, why should I just not represent innovation of free riding and the suppression of it by law as a supply demand curve satisfied by a production cycle – using Hayekian Triangles?

    I need more time in my life.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-11 03:09:00 UTC

  • THOUGHTS: ON TEACHING PROPERTARIANISM. (currently editing) SPEAKING THE TRUTH 1)

    THOUGHTS: ON TEACHING PROPERTARIANISM.

    (currently editing)

    SPEAKING THE TRUTH

    1) Conceptual comparisons by: unique instances, ideal types, golden means(spectra), multi-axis (supply-demand), multi-axis-intertemporal(incentive models),

    2) The hierarchy of arguments and how to identify each: emotional reaction, moral reaction, rational argument, historical analogy, empirical analogy, scientific-experimental analogy, economic-empirical analogy, operational description.

    3) The Points of view: Imaginary, Experiential, Rational, Observational, Operational.

    4) Testimonial truth – what it means to speak truthfully (morally-scientifically)

    5) The logical instruments: identity, naming and numbering, relations (mathematics), logic, causality(physics), exchange (cooperation)

    6) the requirements for speaking truthfully: Internal consistency(logic), external correspondence (correlation),existential possibility(operations)

    7) The application of the requirements to the spectrum of logics.

    8) The explanation of the errors of mysticism, mythology, narrative, rationalism, pseudoscience and scientism and how to avoid them.

    This I can do. It’s the hardest part. But this I can do.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-07 06:55:00 UTC

  • (choice words) –“As far as I know, in my work, I have … restated the Austrian

    (choice words)

    –“As far as I know, in my work, I have … restated the Austrian position in ratio scientific terms as a economic operationalism: the extension of analysis beyond human scales of perception and as such the need to add the requirement for operational tests of existential possibility to ensure that verbal expressions reflect existentially possible phenomenon, and not imaginary content or assumptions.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-06 06:38:00 UTC

  • IS IT A CONTRADICTION TO ACCEPT BOTH AUSTRIAN OPERATIONAL, AND EMPIRICAL CORRELA

    IS IT A CONTRADICTION TO ACCEPT BOTH AUSTRIAN OPERATIONAL, AND EMPIRICAL CORRELATIONAL METHODOLOGIES?

    QUESTION: –“Is it a contradiction to accept Austrian theories (ie. business cycle theory) but to also accept empirical methodology?”– Robert Beattie

    ANSWER:

    Argh. No!

    Austrian Economics is best understood as a higher scientific standard, wherein any instrumental observation (regular correlation), must also be operationally constructed (existentially possible) in order to be testified as truthful. (In common vernacular:true).

    A sequence of sympathetically testable human operations in economics are identical in class to a sequence of possible mathematical operations in mathematics: they determine existential possibility.

    In mathematics we explore using the same operations as instruments as we do to construct our proofs: the analogy to truth in math. We use the same descriptions to explore with and demonstrate with. But that coincidence is unique to mathematics.

    In the study of human activity that we call economics we explore using many different instruments to arrive at a theory – most of which are the evidence of demonstrated preference recored as monetary transactions – but unless we can explain that theory as the RESULT of a sequence of sympathetically testable human operations, then it is not existentially possible, and as such the theory cannot be truthfully testified to be ‘true’. The impossible cannot be true.

    But unlike mathematical operations in the construction of proofs, or physical transformations in physical science – a violation of which are merely an error in understanding, recording, measuring, testing, which may cause others to bear costs in order to refute – when we make untrue statements in economic policy, WE CAUSE THEFTS.

    Unfortunately Mises intuits this approximate way to articulate the difference in disciplines, but as a German rationalist and Jewish hermeneuticist, rather than anglo analytic and empiricist, he made a pseudoscientific proposal instead: praxeology.

    As far as I know, in my work I have corrected this error and restated the Austrian position in ratio scientific terms.

    EINSTEIN, BRIDGMAN, BROUWER, HOPPE,

    Hoppe came very close to figuring it out but was too committed to imprecision of aprioism and rationalism – both of which are of limited use and only of use at human scale, just as Newtonian physics is limited in scale.

    Poincare was the most vocal critic of analogistic pseudosciences (correlation is just a form of empirical analogy not an operational description). It was Einstein who demonstrated that apriorism was dead by showing that if we cannot depend upon such basic premises as time and length then we can depend upon no premises, and Bridgman, Brouwer, and Bishop that explained why we cannot depend upon premises: because only operations expose changes in the properties of premises that analogies (words) obscure and imply are constant.

    So for those of us that correctly intuit that something is immoral and wrong with Keyesian and New-Keynesian macro, we are partly right: correlative economics was expressly invented to obscure the systems of redistribution and theft that such policies perpetuate. Analogies, even if they are empirical or rational, are still merely analogies, and only operations can be demonstrated to be true. Analogies are good for the transfer of meaning – and to some degree they are necessary for the purpose of condensing into the verbal and mental equivalent of functions that which is too complex to understand as a series of operations (counting numbers and the square root of two are the most obvious examples). But analogies are not the same as truths, any more than adding colorful and illustrious details to on a witness stand is telling the truth.

    CLOSING

    Austrian economics then is a higher constraint upon truth telling: it is the study of moral economics and Keynesian macro is the study of immoral economics. This is a simple unavoidably proposition without possibility of refutation. The question of economic science is instead- how can w increase the volume of economic activity without committing immoral acts? This is what separates moral Austrian Economics from immoral correlative economics.

    Truth and volition are central to western civilization and unique to western political systems. Marxist, Keynesian, Freudian, Cantorian, Misesian pseudosciences are violations of the central competitive strategy of western civilization: truth before the jury of ones peers, the hight trust that evolves from pervasive truth telling, and the velocity of economy that develops from trust.

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute,

    Kiev

    See Horowitz for more colloquial language

    http://www.cato-unbound.org/…/empirics-austrian-economics

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-05 03:46:00 UTC

  • ARE DEFINITIONS IMPORTANT? Well that depends upon whether one is discussing expe

    ARE DEFINITIONS IMPORTANT?

    Well that depends upon whether one is discussing experience, meaning or existence, and whether one conflates them.

    I write definitions all the time. It is very hard work.

    The only existentially possible truth is testimonial truth: a proposition that is internally consistent, externally correspondent, and operationally(existentially) possible. all other uses of the term truth are analogies to testimonial truth requiring fewer properties for the purpose of the method in which such statements are made.

    Mathematics (logic of relations) for example constructs proofs, and mathematicians claim that they they are true: internally consistent. Mathematics is an internally consistent system in which both discovery and existence are operationally demonstrated.

    Physics (logic of causation) uses mathematics, and therefore statements in physics also require external correspondence. We can only test the measurements for existence, so we test measures rather than causal properties.

    In human action and human cooperation, we rely on internal consistency of statements, external correspondence, as well as operational definitions – because we must insure that we are not using information supplied by imagination instead of existential information alone.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-04 12:55:00 UTC

  • APRIORISM VS CONSISTENT, CORRESPONDENT, AND EXISTENTIAL –“It is not that we can

    APRIORISM VS CONSISTENT, CORRESPONDENT, AND EXISTENTIAL

    –“It is not that we cannot USE aprioristically deduced concepts. It’s that they are not deductive certainties”–

    Michael Phillip:

    Interesting. This sounds like something Einstein said a while back about concepts

    Curt Doolittle:

    Yes, it was his fundamental insight: he had to eliminate the frame.

    And it is why Bridgman was adamant that physics must remain experimental and science operational.

    ALSO

    In Math it is why Brouwer (and Poincare) and Bishop have been adamant about constructivism and intuitionism in mathematics.

    ALSO

    In Economics, it’s what Mises was trying but failed to do with praxeology – he was too buried in german and jewish rationalism. He confused truth and morality – which is a very german thing to do.

    ALSO

    And it is close to what popper (inarticulately) argues

    And so it’s what I’m trying to find a way to articulate: that since we think in terms of meaning and with words, we can use very loose associations to investigate phenomenon in any discipline.

    ***However, once we develop a theory we must demonstrate that it is internally consistent (our words or symbols are reasonably free of error), externally correspondent (testable in reality), and operationally possible (existentially possible).***

    Even then we are not sure it cannot be falsified – only that we testify that it is internally consistent, externally correspondent, and existentially possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-04 10:58:00 UTC