Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • THE COMPACTNESS OF A THEORY : PROPERTY Compactness of any theory, is not necessa

    THE COMPACTNESS OF A THEORY : PROPERTY

    Compactness of any theory, is not necessarily a virtue for the purpose of communication. Some theories can only be expressed in the form of a novel, and then via some shorthand reference to the arc of the narrative. Darwin’s evolution is an example of a shorthand that still has not managed to penetrate human cognitive biases: After all, evolution favors complexity within a niche, but not in the direction of anything.

    I am naturally wordy because I am obsessed with a certain kind of perceptive precision as guarantee against misinterpretation. I would rather lose the reader, than marginally move him, albeit in the wrong direction. I am still torn, but my experience is, that people begin to grasp my work this way without making early judgements.

    I started out with Propertarianism in narrative form, as a new parable for conservatism. And I have reduced it to a limited grammar and terminology. And now am engaged in narrowing Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and Politics, into a very small number of rules, based upon the necessity of calculation – where I mean calculation in the broadest sense of defining differences.

    Compactness matters because it reduces your possibility of error. Intelligibility is more a problem for the reader. For the author of any theory, the expression of that theory in terms least open to misinterpretation, and your work most open to testing.

    A compact argument with vast explanatory power is the holy grail.

    Property, and Propertarianism, are that missing grail. And with property under propertarianism, we possess a set of technologies capable of expressing and clarifying, not only logic (reason), but mathematics (relations), physics (causes) and economics (actions).

    I care a bit more about knowing this than I care about anyone else knowing it. But that’s selfish. 🙂 So I will continue to improve it, and publish my work.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-15 12:24:00 UTC

  • Um… Empirical means observable and verifiable. Not numeric. It’s just that we

    Um… Empirical means observable and verifiable. Not numeric. It’s just that we most often need numbers to verify our observations, due to the limits of our perception, cognition, and short term memory.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-12 10:13:00 UTC

  • EMPIRICIAL LANGUAGE VS LINGUISTIC ‘SUPERSTITION’ (Important)(profound) I suppose

    EMPIRICIAL LANGUAGE VS LINGUISTIC ‘SUPERSTITION’

    (Important)(profound)

    I suppose it’s partly that my Americanism is annoying to him, because he really doesn’t pay me any mind, but Hans has only given me I think, three bits of advice. One of them I disagree with. One I have to remind myself every day – how Hayek failed to actually solve the problem . And, one of them was critical: to use established terminology whenever possible.

    I made the same mistake many others do outside of academia, which is, that because existing paradigms are so heavily loaded, it’s tempting to define new terms, in order to load them differently – or in my case, unload them entirely.

    And it turns out that its entirely possible, because philosophy is so littered with frames of reference that one merely must play an intellectual game of conceptual pickup-sticks, and modify the properties of existing concepts to establish an entirely different order.

    I am still troubled by a few problems. The first is that the persistence of the continental model of linguistic ‘superstition’ which uses heavily loaded language, by intention, to

    It is possible that aristoctratic language, that is, the language of science, or ‘truth’ – meaning, unloaded correspondence with observable actions in objective reality, is just more natural to anglos for antiquarian reasons. I am unsure. I do know that ‘duty’ in the anglo metaphysical value system is ‘to each other’ and in the continental system ‘to place in the order’, is quite different. And it is quite different because of ancient land ownership and defense reasons. That this ancient bias served to force the english people into an empirical rather than hierarchical set of conceptual biases, is probably an obvious cause in retrospect. But at this point in time, empiricism, that is, **order independent of hierarchy**, or “unloaded” truth, is embeded into the language so deeply that anglos are indoctrinated into empiricism by simply learning the language.

    This is, of course, after the Absolute Nuclear Family, the next most important reason for forced cultural integration: Language: The Anglo Framework of Ratio Scientific Empiricism.

    And that is why the Postmoderns must undermine the english language here, and not so severely on the continent: Because the language itself prevents loading – either subjective or hierarchical. And without prevention of loading, or without reversing the ability to load the language, it is impossible to obscure inequality of ability and merit.

    One of the reasons I am attempting to reform libertarianism, is because of the German and Jewish fascination with obscurantism in creating pseudosciences: Hegel, Heidegger, Marx, Freud, and Cantor, and I must unfortunately, add Mises and Rothbard to that list. I think for precisely the same reason.

    Unfortunately, the anglo, indo-european fascination with, and intellectual bias toward, space/time and mechanisms, seems to create a vulnerability to pseudoscience created by obscurant and loaded language.

    So, I am taking this german and jewish pattern of obscurant and loaded thought and converting it to RATIO SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE.

    Every month I get closer. If I live long enough I should finish it. Right now I can get most of it across in something on the nature of 5000 words. My expectation, when done, is that I should have reduced this set of complexity down to less than 10K words in its entirety.

    And that reduction has come, because of Hans’ advice, by using and extending the properties of, existing terminology.

    That does not mean that it is trivial to grasp. And mastery of the framework will still require a bit of study. But Propertarianism is, as a philosophy, the most complete and most empirical philosophical system we have yet been able to devise.

    Now, I get a great deal of feedback on my perceived arrogance. But from my extremely skeptical perspective, as someone who has spent a lifetime in pursuit of resolving the problem of political conflict, i’m just speaking as objectively as I can.

    I did not come to libertarianism naturally. I came to libertarianism because I understood that the economic calculation argument, and its obverse, incentives, were the only NECESSARY argument that I could find in all of philosophy. And it was from that initial necessary observation that I was able, with a great deal of work, to express all philosophy in a single consistent framework, by reducing not only all rights, but all of ethics, morals, manners, to the process of voluntary exchange, given the different reproductive strategies of individuals.

    And this is the conflict that I have with both Marxist Dialectic and Rawlsian aggregates: neither are empirical. And they are not empirical, for the sole purpose of forcing cooperation between people who do not wish to involuntarily cooperate, by claiming a commonality of interest on ends, where there is none. And there is only a commonality of interest on means.

    Exchange is observable and empirical.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-12 09:36:00 UTC

  • What Would It Take For The United States To Convert To The Metric System? Is It Reasonable To Think That If A Movement Was Started Among The People And Many Started Showing Support, That This Could Force The Government’s Hand?

    We use both measures.
    The truth is, that for the majority of household and personal functions, “human scale’ measurements are actually superior to metric measurements. At present, human scale measures are used for human scale work, and metric measurements are used for scientific work.  And there is a good argument to make that this is the optimum.

    For example the mercury scale and pound do not require fractional representation in order to represent sensory differences.  In other words, the Celsius scale and the Kilogram are less precise than their human scale competitors, and must resort to fractional representation.   There is no material value to the C scale, that is within human perception.

    https://www.quora.com/What-would-it-take-for-the-United-States-to-convert-to-the-metric-system-Is-it-reasonable-to-think-that-if-a-movement-was-started-among-the-people-and-many-started-showing-support-that-this-could-force-the-government’s-hand

  • What Would It Take For The United States To Convert To The Metric System? Is It Reasonable To Think That If A Movement Was Started Among The People And Many Started Showing Support, That This Could Force The Government’s Hand?

    We use both measures.
    The truth is, that for the majority of household and personal functions, “human scale’ measurements are actually superior to metric measurements. At present, human scale measures are used for human scale work, and metric measurements are used for scientific work.  And there is a good argument to make that this is the optimum.

    For example the mercury scale and pound do not require fractional representation in order to represent sensory differences.  In other words, the Celsius scale and the Kilogram are less precise than their human scale competitors, and must resort to fractional representation.   There is no material value to the C scale, that is within human perception.

    https://www.quora.com/What-would-it-take-for-the-United-States-to-convert-to-the-metric-system-Is-it-reasonable-to-think-that-if-a-movement-was-started-among-the-people-and-many-started-showing-support-that-this-could-force-the-government’s-hand

  • (16-17, 17-21, 17-18, 18-23, 22-42, 40-44, 24-? ) {16:1,17:3,18:3,19:2,20:2,21:1

    (16-17, 17-21, 17-18, 18-23, 22-42, 40-44, 24-? )

    {16:1,17:3,18:3,19:2,20:2,21:1,22:2,23:2,24:2,25:2,26:1-39:1,40:2,41:2,42:2,43:1,44:1,45:0.}

    Hmmm….

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-05 08:24:00 UTC

  • DEFINING BITCOIN AS A MONEY SUBSTITUTE (edited)(cross posted) I’ve worked on thi

    DEFINING BITCOIN AS A MONEY SUBSTITUTE

    (edited)(cross posted)

    I’ve worked on this a bit. And, unfortunately, Bitcoin does not fit within the Misesian definition of money. It does fit within the definition of a money substitute. But it’s hard to articulate because of a weakness in the Misesian definition’s grammar.

    The problem in defining Bitcoins under Misesian categories is that Bitcoins are not a claim against any deposit, yet they retain the fragility of a claim against a deposit, in that they are dependent upon the Bitcoin network and cannot be accepted without it.

    So, Bitcoins, unlike commodity money, do not degrade gracefully into a commodity. Damage to the Bitcoin network is the same as damage to the reserve of a 100% reserve bank. Collapse of the network is the same as collapse of a 100% reserve bank.

    It is more accurate to say that Bitcoins are shares in a corporation whose assets are leased servers used to mine and prove work, and the internet as communications If the Bitcoin corporation ceases to operate, then Bitcoins have no value. If the corporation continues to operate, then they have value.

    So, like stocks, they are a medium of exchange dependent upon a network for the redemption of those exchanges. BItcoins store value as stocks, not as commodities, not as notes, for this reason.

    Others have argued that bitcoins function largely as a clearing house independent of the state. But this is to describe effects, not causes. It doesn’t answer any questions about the durability of bitcoins as a store of value – which is the value of money.

    So, in Misesian terms, bitcoins are a non-redeemable money substitute. They are, quite literally, a stock in a voluntary corporation with an open shareholder agreement, that if demand persists, can be used as a money substitute.

    The reason for confusion is this two-stage process of monetization. Bitcoins are speculative shares, that if universally accepted as a medium of exchange, can function as a money substitute, by virtue of a low cost, low friction, means of clearance, that requires no human intervention and no reserve.

    As a stock, I am not sure yet, whether Bitcoins are the equivalent of an Apple or Facebook stock, or a junk bond. I think they are more likely like buying shares in a non-dividend paying utility. And that current speculation is driving up the price of that stock.

    What I am fairly sure of, is that if the illusion that credit money and fiat money can function as a money substitute, that Bitcoins, can also Function as a money substitute. However, I think Bitcoins are more fragile than blue chip stocks and more fragile than fiat money. This fragility will cease if the model becomes popular enough in that the network effect of Bitcoins (or some heir) is sufficient incentive for the miners and proof-of-workers to stay interested.

    If the SWIFT network analogy can be reduced to commodity transactions by consumers, then I think that as an institution Bitcoin is very hard to criticize. Certainly no harder than the visa/mastercard networks.

    At this point that is the best analysis that I can put forward.

    (EDIT)

    The logic says that the closest analogy for Bitcoin, is a stock that is highly liquid, and can function as a money substitute, cleared without conversion dependent upon a third party inventory, and insulated from regulatory capture and regulatory inflation.

    (EDIT)

    I’ll stick with the stock analogy in that the stock is valuable as long as the fundamentals tell me it is. Otherwise I can’t deduce much else without struggling to determine how much my cognitive biases are influencing my assessment. That would be… unscientific. So to speak.

    I will say instead, that I wold like to see some form of insurance on the persistence of the bitcoin network once the mining windfall (ponzi criticism) is passed. But without that I can find no logical criticism for NOT using bitcoins. I mean, the SWIFT alliance does exactly the same thing but with privately owned hardware. There is really no reason that the bitcoin network could not be privatized the same way as SWIFT. In that sense, the value of bitcoins will be determined by the number of commercial enterprises that accept it. And there is a high incentive for commercial enterprises to accept it if the fee for participation is a fraction of one percent. Which is what I expect it will be.

    In that sense it expands the credit and debit card system. And those systems persist because of the transaction value they provide (lack of necessity to carry cash).

    (EDIT)

    For those lacking in philosophical rigor, there is a vast difference between correspondence with reality and analogistic means of thinking. If you cannot reduce something to human action corresponding to reality then you do not understand it. Unfortunately, most philosophical discourse, because of its religious heritage, is conducted in this nonsensical mode.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-01 21:31:00 UTC

  • The Problem Of Ratio-moral Versus Ratio-scientific Arguments

    (interesting) “Ratio-Scientific vs Ratio-Moral Argument” Historically, Political speech has been structured morally: I) as an expression of positive or negative reaction (IRRATIONAL SELF) II) as an appeal or pleading (RATIONAL BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS) III) as a polemic or criticism (RATIONAL AND ARATIONAL TO AN AUDIENCE) To express one’s feelings or reactions without the structure of reason, is not a debate. It’s just sentimental expression. It’s an opinion poll but not an argument. It’s an expressed reaction without a request for opinion. But it’s not an argument. To enter into debate, one forgoes one’s right of violence. Theoretically in pursuit of the truth, for mutual benefit. That is the purpose of a debate. (This fact, that gets to the problem of why argumentation is correct for deductive purposes but incorrect for causal purposes). To publish one’s arguments in a political context, one conducts oratory, not debate. Oratory falls into the following structural categories: (Forms of Oratory: or ‘publication’)

    • a) RHETORIC / “Rhetorical argument”: A type of argument, spoken or written, between an orator or writer and an audience, that uses reason (logos), appeals to emotion (pathos), and appeals to community norms (ethos), to persuade the listeners to take the side of the argument presented.
    • b) APOLOGIA / “Apologetic Argument” / “Apologist” : A type of argument whereby an individual defends a religious, political, or cultural position or dogma through the systematic use of reason. An “Apologist” refers to authors, writers, editors or academic journals, and public leaders who commonly defend what are usually minority positions that are the subject of consistent or popular scrutiny.
    • c) POLEMIC : A type of speech intended to establish the supremacy of a single point of view by refuting an opposing point of view about a matter of significant public importance in Religion, Philosophy, Politics or Science.
    • d) PHILIPPIC : A type of speech that is emotive, fiery, damning, or a tirade, for the purpose of condemning, discrediting, disempowering, and ostracizing a particular political actor.
    • e) JEREMIAD : A long literary work, usually in prose, but sometimes in poetry, in which the author bitterly laments the state of society and its morals in a serious tone of sustained invective, and which contains a prophecy of society’s imminent downfall.

    (For more, see my guide on DISCOURSE: IRRATIONAL (expression) vs RATIONAL (debate) vs ORATORY (publication) at http://www.propertarianism.com/tools-and-techniques-for-political-debate/a-list-of-terms-for-use-in-evaluating-political-debate/#II ) LIBERTARIANISM IS STRUCTURED RHETORICALLY, and libertarian ethics are structured as an APOLOGIA by Rothbard. Ratio-scientific argument from analytical philosophy, is either true or false, but it is not an appeal for consent. That is non-logical. Contract is consensual, but truth is independent of consent. RATIO SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT IS ABSENT RESPECT FOR CONVENTION. The purpose of the scientific method is to CORRECT our sense, perception, memory, calculation, and narrative (causal relations), habits, norms, traditions, myths and metaphysical assumptions about the structure of reality. Otherwise the discipline of science would not be necessary. The purpose of MORAL speech in the form of RHETORIC and APOLOGIA, is to APPEAL to norms embedded in memory, and narrative, in order to obtain consent. The purpose of RATIO SCIENTIFIC argument is to describe a set of causal relations that produce an outcome. In other words: a formula or recipe. The formula or recipe either works or it doesn’t. But it’s not a matter of consent, or preference. It’s just true or false. One can say that the formula isn’t logically sufficient or solid. But one cannot prefer or object to the conclusion. One doesn’t write these things as appeal, one writes these as positives statements that are open to TESTING, not as appeals that are written to obtain CONSENT. Whether one agrees or not with them must be a matter of the argument, not wither one likes or dislikes it. Formulae and Recipes produce what they do. One can like the product or not, but the formula or recipe works, then it just does. I would like it very much if it was possible to convince people to adopt libertarian ethics and a libertarian morality. As it is currently structured it is not rational to think so. I am not trying to persuade people to adopt libertarianism. I am trying to demonstrate that if one desires LIBERTY, then one must ACT in such fashion that human beings will produce it. That is not a moral question. It is not a rhetorical question. It is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. Either people WILL or WILL NOT, when subject to incentives A, produce behavior B. THE ARGUMENT FOR THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS AND MORALS The argument that demonstrably, we ALL act in our reproductive interests, within the structure of production, structure of reproduction, and structure of property rights which we call ‘norms’, and that ALL our discourse is little more than JUSTIFICATIONARY attempts at resisting against, cooperating with, or thieving from one another within the boundaries of those productive, reproductive, and normative constraints. That is an argument that is extremely difficult to prove. Nothing else is actually logical. If we want liberty then, we must create institutional incentives for liberty. Asking people to ‘believe’ in libertarianism or, marxism is equally ridiculous.

  • The Problem Of Ratio-moral Versus Ratio-scientific Arguments

    (interesting) “Ratio-Scientific vs Ratio-Moral Argument” Historically, Political speech has been structured morally: I) as an expression of positive or negative reaction (IRRATIONAL SELF) II) as an appeal or pleading (RATIONAL BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS) III) as a polemic or criticism (RATIONAL AND ARATIONAL TO AN AUDIENCE) To express one’s feelings or reactions without the structure of reason, is not a debate. It’s just sentimental expression. It’s an opinion poll but not an argument. It’s an expressed reaction without a request for opinion. But it’s not an argument. To enter into debate, one forgoes one’s right of violence. Theoretically in pursuit of the truth, for mutual benefit. That is the purpose of a debate. (This fact, that gets to the problem of why argumentation is correct for deductive purposes but incorrect for causal purposes). To publish one’s arguments in a political context, one conducts oratory, not debate. Oratory falls into the following structural categories: (Forms of Oratory: or ‘publication’)

    • a) RHETORIC / “Rhetorical argument”: A type of argument, spoken or written, between an orator or writer and an audience, that uses reason (logos), appeals to emotion (pathos), and appeals to community norms (ethos), to persuade the listeners to take the side of the argument presented.
    • b) APOLOGIA / “Apologetic Argument” / “Apologist” : A type of argument whereby an individual defends a religious, political, or cultural position or dogma through the systematic use of reason. An “Apologist” refers to authors, writers, editors or academic journals, and public leaders who commonly defend what are usually minority positions that are the subject of consistent or popular scrutiny.
    • c) POLEMIC : A type of speech intended to establish the supremacy of a single point of view by refuting an opposing point of view about a matter of significant public importance in Religion, Philosophy, Politics or Science.
    • d) PHILIPPIC : A type of speech that is emotive, fiery, damning, or a tirade, for the purpose of condemning, discrediting, disempowering, and ostracizing a particular political actor.
    • e) JEREMIAD : A long literary work, usually in prose, but sometimes in poetry, in which the author bitterly laments the state of society and its morals in a serious tone of sustained invective, and which contains a prophecy of society’s imminent downfall.

    (For more, see my guide on DISCOURSE: IRRATIONAL (expression) vs RATIONAL (debate) vs ORATORY (publication) at http://www.propertarianism.com/tools-and-techniques-for-political-debate/a-list-of-terms-for-use-in-evaluating-political-debate/#II ) LIBERTARIANISM IS STRUCTURED RHETORICALLY, and libertarian ethics are structured as an APOLOGIA by Rothbard. Ratio-scientific argument from analytical philosophy, is either true or false, but it is not an appeal for consent. That is non-logical. Contract is consensual, but truth is independent of consent. RATIO SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT IS ABSENT RESPECT FOR CONVENTION. The purpose of the scientific method is to CORRECT our sense, perception, memory, calculation, and narrative (causal relations), habits, norms, traditions, myths and metaphysical assumptions about the structure of reality. Otherwise the discipline of science would not be necessary. The purpose of MORAL speech in the form of RHETORIC and APOLOGIA, is to APPEAL to norms embedded in memory, and narrative, in order to obtain consent. The purpose of RATIO SCIENTIFIC argument is to describe a set of causal relations that produce an outcome. In other words: a formula or recipe. The formula or recipe either works or it doesn’t. But it’s not a matter of consent, or preference. It’s just true or false. One can say that the formula isn’t logically sufficient or solid. But one cannot prefer or object to the conclusion. One doesn’t write these things as appeal, one writes these as positives statements that are open to TESTING, not as appeals that are written to obtain CONSENT. Whether one agrees or not with them must be a matter of the argument, not wither one likes or dislikes it. Formulae and Recipes produce what they do. One can like the product or not, but the formula or recipe works, then it just does. I would like it very much if it was possible to convince people to adopt libertarian ethics and a libertarian morality. As it is currently structured it is not rational to think so. I am not trying to persuade people to adopt libertarianism. I am trying to demonstrate that if one desires LIBERTY, then one must ACT in such fashion that human beings will produce it. That is not a moral question. It is not a rhetorical question. It is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. Either people WILL or WILL NOT, when subject to incentives A, produce behavior B. THE ARGUMENT FOR THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS AND MORALS The argument that demonstrably, we ALL act in our reproductive interests, within the structure of production, structure of reproduction, and structure of property rights which we call ‘norms’, and that ALL our discourse is little more than JUSTIFICATIONARY attempts at resisting against, cooperating with, or thieving from one another within the boundaries of those productive, reproductive, and normative constraints. That is an argument that is extremely difficult to prove. Nothing else is actually logical. If we want liberty then, we must create institutional incentives for liberty. Asking people to ‘believe’ in libertarianism or, marxism is equally ridiculous.

  • Only One….

    1. THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW AND THAT IS PROPERTY. All else is a command given by man. 2. THE ONLY NUMBERS ARE NATURAL NUMBERS. All else is ratio and relation. 3. THERE IS ONLY ONE MEANS OF REASON, AND THAT IS NATURALISM. All else is deception or self deception.