Theme: Operationalism

  • PHILOSOPHY FOR GROWN UPS PART ONE AND PART TWO 1. The only truths we know for ce

    PHILOSOPHY FOR GROWN UPS PART ONE AND PART TWO

    1. The only truths we know for certain are falsehoods. Everything that is not false is a truth candidate. This is the inverse of the fallacy of justificationism and the central insight of the sciences: the means by which we invent or grasp an idea contribute nothing to whether or not it is true or false. Only exhaustive falsification and survival from criticism deliver confidence that actions produce anticipated outcomes due to our comprehension of cause, effect, and the operations that are possible. Otherwise we are forever justifying whatever it is we seek to justify by any set of excuses we can imagine. This is why astrology, numerology, theology, philosophy, and the pseudosciences are so common – justification means absolutely nothing.

    2. The only preference we know is the one we demonstrate. The only good we know is the one we mutually demonstrate by acting upon. People report very differently from what they demonstrate. The only morality we know that is we must avoid criminal(material), ethical(direct), and moral (indirect) imposition of costs upon one another. The only moral actions then are those that are not criminal, unethical, and immoral, and that means the only moral actions consiste of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. Ergo, all moral actions are those that are not immoral. There is no recipe for moral action other than that which is not immoral.

    3. People always and everywhere demonstrate that they are neither moral or immoral but amoral and rational, doing what they must in all circumstances that they exist in. it is just disproportionately advantageous to act morally for the simple reason that the returns of cooperation always and everywhere defeat the returns on individual action. This is why exhaustive forgiveness of ‘cheaters’ in all walks of life will generally reform them. Because it is in their self interest. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment also (high cost of punishing cheaters), because the returns on cooperation are so valuable that we evolved to pay the high cost of punishment in order to preserve the high value of cooperation.

    4. People notoriously think they are right and in the right, and acting morally, which is why we have courts of one kind or another among all peoples at all stages of development. And while rules of decidability in courts in matters of conflict vary from the poor and underdeveloped where interests in things, kin, and relationships are rare and collectively owned, to the wealthy and developed where things, interests, kin, relationships, and contracts are universally allocated to individuals and individually owned, the means of decidability in every single civilization is RECIPROCITY.

    5. There exist then only one negative moral rule and one universal test of morality: “Do not unto others as they would not have done unto them”. There is only one positive moral rule: the extension of trust to non kin that we extend to kin, until it is no longer empirically possible to trust. – this optimizes cooperation by continuously training malcontents that it is in their interest to cooperate, and ostracizes (punishes) those who do not.

    6. There are no conflicts that are not decidable by tests of reciprocity. None. This is why all international law is limited exclusively to the test of reciprocity. So logically(rational choice) and empirically (demonstrated action), and universally (all laws domestica and international at all scales) morality is anything that is not immoral unethical or criminal in that it imposes costs upon the efforts already expended to obtain a non-conflicting interest, in a good, relationship, or opportunity.

    As far as I know no argument can defeat this that is not in and of itself an attempt at reciprocity (theft, freeriding, parasitism, conspiracy).

    PHILOSOPHY FOR GROWNUPS PART TWO

    This is not so much a philosophy as the results of science that I can no longer deny, and so I live according to the science – in large part because it is advantageous.

    1. We are an expensive life form. Particularly our brains.

    2. We must acquire, and we acquire at cost to ourselves. we acquire experiences, things, kin, relations, interests, opportunities.

    3. All our emotions are nothing but reflections in state of that which we plan to, are in the process of, or have acquired an interest.

    4. Cooperation is logarithmically more productive than any action an individual can take, and therefore we must cooperate to survive -or at least not encourage retaliation against us. (Possibly as much as ten thousand times as productive.)

    5. People are purely rational, not moral or immoral but amoral: they cheat and try to acquire disproportionately from cooperation, they free ride, steal from, and prey upon others. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment of cheaters in all walks of life, even at high personal cost: to prevent defectors from cheating.

    6. The optimum algorithm (really) for developing cooperation is to exhaust every opportunity for cooperation even from cheaters. They almost always come around, because it is always an advantage to come around. This was the entire message of christianity which was lost in the dogma. But it’s just science.

    7. All our speech is merely a dance of negotiation so that we may create opportunities to acquire, do acquire, or preserve what we acquire. All of it is just signaling.

    8. We are entirely incognizant of these behaviors because it is evolutionarily disadvantageous for us to be intuitively honest, honest with ourselves, and honest with others. This is the same reason we have many cognitive, social, and probabilistic biases in our genes. To keep us going when evidence would overwhelm us.

    9. Most of the joy in life is playing this set of word games, cooperative games, and acquisition games with others so that we all acquire what we want as best we can without making others avoid us so that we can’t acquire what we want and need. This is why people commit suicide when they are lonely, and do not commit suicide when they are not.

    10. Therefor the only rule of cooperation, of morality, and of law, is reciprocity: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary cooperation with each other, and the only immoral actions are those that violate that moral rule by free riding, parasitism, theft, or predation. And that is why reciprocity is the basis of all traditional laws (and why it is not the basis of legislation).

    This little list is the answer to nearly all of metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, sociology, ethics, and politics.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-20 13:02:00 UTC

  • I can teach a large percentage of people operational grammar and semantics – the

    I can teach a large percentage of people operational grammar and semantics – the formal logic of natural law, and the language of scientific testimony. Its easier than teaching Programming. But beware “You may not like what you find.” Truth is empowering, but humiliating too.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 19:32:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975454813226926081

  • MATHINESS, SCIENTISM, AND IDEALISM vs OPERATIONALISM Many people here scientism

    MATHINESS, SCIENTISM, AND IDEALISM vs OPERATIONALISM

    Many people here scientism or mathiness and hear profundity. I hear a pseudoscientific priesthood talking just like you hear theologians or rationalists (or continental philosophers) speaking.

    Mathiness is actually the origin of the failing of western philosophy until the stoics. Pythagoras, Aristotle, Zeno’s genius was undermined by Plato’s catastrophe and Augustine and Pauls’ crime against western civilization, and abraham and muhammad’s transformation of persian and egyptian mythology into a false history and immoral laws – a crime against humanity. Unequalled until Rousseau, Kant, Boaz, Marx, Freud, cantor, mises, rothbard, and Strauss all repeated the process of fictionalism – this time in pseudoscientific, pseudo rational(philosophical), and pseudo historical prose.

    I spend most of my time criticizing economics as a means of restoring empirical law.

    But yesterday I happened across an interesting bit of ‘scientism’ that was ‘scienticsm’ rather than science, because it is dependent upon mathiness.

    Most of what I see in physics today, and most of what I see in frankly all the sciences, whenever someone explains relationships rather than explains transformations – is mathiness.

    Idealism, mathiness, scientism are all failures to speak in the language of truth:

    Operations.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 13:57:00 UTC

  • MATHINESS, SCIENTISM, AND IDEALISM vs OPERATIONALISM Many people here scientism

    MATHINESS, SCIENTISM, AND IDEALISM vs OPERATIONALISM Many people here scientism or mathiness and hear profundity. I hear a pseudoscientific priesthood talking just like you hear theologians or rationalists (or continental philosophers) speaking. Mathiness is actually the origin of the failing of western philosophy until the stoics. Pythagoras, Aristotle, Zeno’s genius was undermined by Plato’s catastrophe and Augustine and Pauls’ crime against western civilization, and abraham and muhammad’s transformation of persian and egyptian mythology into a false history and immoral laws – a crime against humanity. Unequalled until Rousseau, Kant, Boaz, Marx, Freud, cantor, mises, rothbard, and Strauss all repeated the process of fictionalism – this time in pseudoscientific, pseudo rational(philosophical), and pseudo historical prose. I spend most of my time criticizing economics as a means of restoring empirical law. But yesterday I happened across an interesting bit of ‘scientism’ that was ‘scienticsm’ rather than science, because it is dependent upon mathiness. Most of what I see in physics today, and most of what I see in frankly all the sciences, whenever someone explains relationships rather than explains transformations – is mathiness. Idealism, mathiness, scientism are all failures to speak in the language of truth: Operations.
  • MATHINESS, SCIENTISM, AND IDEALISM vs OPERATIONALISM Many people here scientism

    MATHINESS, SCIENTISM, AND IDEALISM vs OPERATIONALISM Many people here scientism or mathiness and hear profundity. I hear a pseudoscientific priesthood talking just like you hear theologians or rationalists (or continental philosophers) speaking. Mathiness is actually the origin of the failing of western philosophy until the stoics. Pythagoras, Aristotle, Zeno’s genius was undermined by Plato’s catastrophe and Augustine and Pauls’ crime against western civilization, and abraham and muhammad’s transformation of persian and egyptian mythology into a false history and immoral laws – a crime against humanity. Unequalled until Rousseau, Kant, Boaz, Marx, Freud, cantor, mises, rothbard, and Strauss all repeated the process of fictionalism – this time in pseudoscientific, pseudo rational(philosophical), and pseudo historical prose. I spend most of my time criticizing economics as a means of restoring empirical law. But yesterday I happened across an interesting bit of ‘scientism’ that was ‘scienticsm’ rather than science, because it is dependent upon mathiness. Most of what I see in physics today, and most of what I see in frankly all the sciences, whenever someone explains relationships rather than explains transformations – is mathiness. Idealism, mathiness, scientism are all failures to speak in the language of truth: Operations.
  • by pseudoscientific propaganda. We solve social science in a century when no one

    …by pseudoscientific propaganda. We solve social science in a century when no one else did: Mises discovered operationalism in economics, rothbard and hoppe reduced all social science to reciprocity (property), and it is possible to construct a formal logic of LAW.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 14:37:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975018335963373568

    Reply addressees: @BobMurphyEcon @FriedrichHayek

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974794304769200134


    IN REPLY TO:

    @BobMurphyEcon

    @curtdoolittle @FriedrichHayek What are you talking about? Mises talks e.g. about building a railroad connecting two points, and how the planner can’t know which route is most economical.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974794304769200134

  • Why? Because measuring stuff is actually pretty simple. All you need to do is kn

    Why? Because measuring stuff is actually pretty simple. All you need to do is know the dimensions and create a means of measurement. Everything else is just a byproduct of the simplicity of a positional names as an infungible category by which all is somehow commensurable.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 17:52:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973980284495585280

    Reply addressees: @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973979690972131336


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman So in closing, think of mathematical terminology like a language of theology referencing a heaven that doesn’t exist. That does not however stop the monks from growing food, fermenting beer, performing clerical services, and generally pretending that they have sacred knowledge.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973979690972131336


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman So in closing, think of mathematical terminology like a language of theology referencing a heaven that doesn’t exist. That does not however stop the monks from growing food, fermenting beer, performing clerical services, and generally pretending that they have sacred knowledge.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973979690972131336

  • divisible(positional name/number) = entities, divisible to divisible ratio (frac

    … divisible(positional name/number) = entities, divisible to divisible ratio (fraction) = measurements, and divisible to indivisible ratio (function) = general rules requiring context to provide limits, and directional spatial (and all that results from directions), and …


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 17:35:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973975937179103234

    Reply addressees: @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973975022678224897


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman So mathematicians have spent a very long time inventing very creative means by which to conflate number (positional name produced by the operation of positional naming) with the categories of results of the operations of addition and subtraction: …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973975022678224897


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman So mathematicians have spent a very long time inventing very creative means by which to conflate number (positional name produced by the operation of positional naming) with the categories of results of the operations of addition and subtraction: …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973975022678224897

  • So mathematicians have spent a very long time inventing very creative means by w

    So mathematicians have spent a very long time inventing very creative means by which to conflate number (positional name produced by the operation of positional naming) with the categories of results of the operations of addition and subtraction: …


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 17:31:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973975022678224897

    Reply addressees: @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973974064791478274


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman … the position of which cannot be named by positional naming. This means that while some operations (changes by addition or subtraction) have no positional name, and as such can only be represented by a function. Ergo, there exists no square root of two, only the function.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973974064791478274


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman … the position of which cannot be named by positional naming. This means that while some operations (changes by addition or subtraction) have no positional name, and as such can only be represented by a function. Ergo, there exists no square root of two, only the function.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973974064791478274

  • But since anything we refer to that is “countable’ (and some references are not

    But since anything we refer to that is “countable’ (and some references are not directly countable – water and air, must be divided in to volumetric units for example before we can count them), can be measured using the ratios provided by positional names …


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 17:16:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973971157681655809

    Reply addressees: @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973970434566868993


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman All mathematical operations consist of addition or subtraction of positions. But because the only property positional names possess is position, then the positional names (numbers) all constitute ratios to (scales of) the reference.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973970434566868993


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman All mathematical operations consist of addition or subtraction of positions. But because the only property positional names possess is position, then the positional names (numbers) all constitute ratios to (scales of) the reference.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973970434566868993