Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • Those civil orders do not survive. Why is it that all attempts at those civil or

    Those civil orders do not survive. Why is it that all attempts at those civil orders fail to survive. If you cannot make an operational argument (produce a model that survives falsification) then you’re just talking fantasies. Libertarianism is just communism of the commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-06 20:48:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1082016186760642561

    Reply addressees: @csuwildcat @GloboHomoCorp @jcjray @paulg

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1082014290440159232

    IN REPLY TO:

    @csuwildcat

    @GloboHomoCorp @jcjray @paulg @curtdoolittle That is incorrect: we advocate property or community living contract relationships, which feature direct funding for services rendered, vs authoritarian structures that centralize power in honeypots and bureaucratic, lossy agencies.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1082014290440159232

  • But likewise, just as it has taken you many years to migrate from the positivist

    But likewise, just as it has taken you many years to migrate from the positivist search for mathematical discovery of units of informational prediction, to the demand for warranty of due diligence (falsification), you too are vulnerable to innumeracy, pseudoscience, ‘literature’.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-27 20:33:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078388408278499329

    Reply addressees: @nntaleb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076845397795065856

    IN REPLY TO:

    @nntaleb

    “IQ” THREAD

    “IQ” measures an inferior form of intelligence, stripped of 2nd order effects, meant to select paper shufflers, obedient IYIs.

    1- When someone asks you a question in REAL LIFE, you focus first on “WHY is he asking me that?”, which slows down. (Fat Tony vs Dr John)

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076845397795065856

  • “Yes, we need more drinking from the skulls of our enemies. Sadly my enemies sku

    —“Yes, we need more drinking from the skulls of our enemies. Sadly my enemies skulls still have brains in them. One thing at a time I guess.”—Noah J Revoy

    (operationalism in everything… lol)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-22 07:43:00 UTC

  • Close, but It’s Not Math, but Algorithmic

    CLOSE, BUT IT”S NOT JUST MATH, BUT ALGORITHMIC (OPERATIONAL).

    —“My sense is that Curt is more mathematically and scientifically oriented than he is literarily oriented. His syntax is almost algebraic at times.”— Joel Harvey

    That’s correct. I actually write in programmatic statements just like we write software. So

    |PARADIGMS(GRAMMARS)| Fictional (inflationary) > Literary(Meaningful) > testimonial(descriptive) > Algorithmic (programmatic, operations) > Scientific (correlative, statistical) > Logical (sets) > Mathematical (units).

    In fact, my writing looks almost identical to my pseudocode. I was taught in the era where we wrote pseudocode (outline in english) first to think through the logic, and in doing so write documentation, then to write the code itself (transactions). So yes, that is why you see what you see. And it is why I understood the possibility of algorithmic language of law…. So there you go. Like I said. The reason I was able to complete Hayek’s program i is because I was born AFTER Turing and hayek was born BEFORE Turing. Now if I could just explain to all Austrians that austrian econ is the LAW of Economics rather than economics proper, they would understand both their discipline and what I have done with it.

  • Close, but It’s Not Math, but Algorithmic

    CLOSE, BUT IT”S NOT JUST MATH, BUT ALGORITHMIC (OPERATIONAL).

    —“My sense is that Curt is more mathematically and scientifically oriented than he is literarily oriented. His syntax is almost algebraic at times.”— Joel Harvey

    That’s correct. I actually write in programmatic statements just like we write software. So

    |PARADIGMS(GRAMMARS)| Fictional (inflationary) > Literary(Meaningful) > testimonial(descriptive) > Algorithmic (programmatic, operations) > Scientific (correlative, statistical) > Logical (sets) > Mathematical (units).

    In fact, my writing looks almost identical to my pseudocode. I was taught in the era where we wrote pseudocode (outline in english) first to think through the logic, and in doing so write documentation, then to write the code itself (transactions). So yes, that is why you see what you see. And it is why I understood the possibility of algorithmic language of law…. So there you go. Like I said. The reason I was able to complete Hayek’s program i is because I was born AFTER Turing and hayek was born BEFORE Turing. Now if I could just explain to all Austrians that austrian econ is the LAW of Economics rather than economics proper, they would understand both their discipline and what I have done with it.

  • by Luan Raphael Via Positiva: Provide us with a precise description so that we c

    by Luan Raphael

    Via Positiva: Provide us with a precise description so that we can construct the experience you seek to communicate.

    Via Negativa: Provide us with a description so that we can constrain our imagination to that which you seek to communicate.

    Identity allows us to constrain our imagination so that we can construct the experience.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-30 10:29:00 UTC

  • you cannot learn anything at from verbalism(meaning), only operations (actions).

    you cannot learn anything at from verbalism(meaning), only operations (actions). startat the beginning. its a long journey to understanding. https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-15 22:55:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063203799169404928

    Reply addressees: @UtopiumTinkerer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063068437793173504

    IN REPLY TO:

    @UtopiumTinkerer

    @curtdoolittle Sounds like an interesting conversation was had. I have a question regarding a concept I was mulling over yesterday: Would it be right to separate the term “Law” and “Rules”, to strengthen both in terms and use?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063068437793173504

  • Because science consists of the acts of due diligence in those categories of dim

    Because science consists of the acts of due diligence in those categories of dimensions available to man in his cognition: identity, consistency, correspondence, operational possibility, completeness, and in human affairs, rational choice, and in legal affairs reciprocity.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 23:49:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062130416033898496

    Reply addressees: @Race__Realist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062128888011280384

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Race__Realist

    @curtdoolittle Do historians claim that history is a science?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062128888011280384

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/45567018_10156760640957264_962323843

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/45567018_10156760640957264_96232384399147008_o_10156760640947264.jpg OPERATIONALIZE MEANS ANTI-IDEALIZEOPERATIONALIZE MEANS ANTI-IDEALIZE

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 16:59:00 UTC

  • CLOSE, BUT IT”S NOT JUST MATH, BUT ALGORITHMIC (OPERATIONAL). —“My sense is th

    CLOSE, BUT IT”S NOT JUST MATH, BUT ALGORITHMIC (OPERATIONAL).

    —“My sense is that Curt is more mathematically and scientifically oriented than he is literarily oriented. His syntax is almost algebraic at times.”— Joel Harvey

    That’s correct. I actually write in programmatic statements just like we write software. So

    |PARADIGMS(GRAMMARS)| Fictional (inflationary) > Literary(Meaningful) > testimonial(descriptive) > Algorithmic (programmatic, operations) > Scientific (correlative, statistical) > Logical (sets) > Mathematical (units).

    In fact, my writing looks almost identical to my pseudocode.

    I was taught in the era where we wrote pseudocode (outline in english) first to think through the logic, and in doing so write documentation, then to write the code itself (transactions).

    So yes, that is why you see what you see.

    And it is why I understood the possibility of algorithmic language of law….

    So there you go. Like I said. The reason I was able to complete Hayek’s program i is because I was born AFTER Turing and hayek was born BEFORE Turing.

    Now if I could just explain to all Austrians that austrian econ is the LAW of Economics rather than economics proper, they would understand both their discipline and what I have done with it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-01 08:22:00 UTC