Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • Propertarianism isn’t a panacea. It’s not an ideology. It’s not even a philosoph

    Propertarianism isn’t a panacea. It’s not an ideology. It’s not even a philosophy per se. It’s just “Here is the completed scientific method. If I apply the completed scientific method to the full scope of human knowledge, organized by combining categories of philosophy and social science into a single hierarchy, the result is *all of these ideas*.”

    Everything else I do is just (a) generating conflict so that I can (b) test it in argument, (c) identify a few smart people with long term potential, (d) generate marketing interest for the published work and courses. With the ambition of funding the institute and teaching natural law as a discipline. (and creating a revolution if possible).

    Right now I’m just in book mode. Although every day or so I come up with some little nuance that I have to peck away at. But it’s going really fast and it’s beautiful (at least, from my nerdy perspective.)

    And as michael said, the word-to-idea ratio is really low, so there is a lot of bang in every chapter so to speak.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-01 13:46:00 UTC

  • “Even if we start from merely logic, if you wish to describe how something actua

    —“Even if we start from merely logic, if you wish to describe how something actually functions, you must speak operationally about it, as if you speak non-operationally about it, you by definition cannot describe the actual change that functionally occurs.

    Now, if you want to describe something to me that doesn’t function, that doesn’t change, and therefore doesn’t influence anything that does (as influence itself operates as a function).. Then sure, you don’t need to speak operationally, but you also aren’t talking about anything relevant to anything else, and you definitely aren’t describing anything you perceive, as perception itself operates as a function.”—Jöl Davis

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-01 08:57:00 UTC

  • OPERATIONALISM VS LOGIC. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES? —“Is your truth criteria of

    OPERATIONALISM VS LOGIC. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES?

    —“Is your truth criteria of mere pragmatic nature? It’s not like you can even talk about binary truth without formal logic, first predicate logic and some notion of a formal system.”—Timo Rohner

    Great question.

    Is decidability binary or ternary? Well, its ternary. True, Undecidable, False.

    Why rely on binary logic? Deducibility.

    Why Deducibility? (self reference) Logic is only a test of internal consistency.

    What problems were Frege and Pierce trying to solve? Mathematics.

    What problems did it not solve? Paradoxes.

    What minor problems does operationalism solve? There are no paradoxes.

    What major problems does operationalism solve? Lying. Fraud. Pretense of knowledge. (problems not present in mathematics).

    What is the difference between mathematics and law? Action.

    How can we test without self reference? existential possibility.

    How does formal logic perform its function? Symbolic parsimony and self reference.

    How does operationalism perform its function? Full expansion, and reference to the full set of dimensions of reality, (The opposite approach)

    How do the logics differ? Justificationary versus Critical (survival from falsification).

    What is the difference between analytic truth ( 2+2=4) and testimonial truth (I promise that the cat will appear black)? Logical versus Scientific.

    Can everything expressible in operationalism be expressed in predicate logic? No. Just as mathematics cannot express law.

    Can everything expressible in predicate logic be expressed in operationalism? Yes. Just as law can express more than mathematics.

    Is operationalism a formal grammar? Of course. All language consists of formal grammar, the problem is removing the untestable statements from the language. In the case of english, that’s the verb ‘to-be’ (the copula).

    Which has more explanatory power? Operationalism.

    Mathematics and logic do not produce truth statements, but proofs of internal consistency.

    Science and testimony in operational language produce truth statements: proofs of consistency in all dimensions: categorical, logical, empirical, operational (action algorithmic), rational (choice), reciprocal (moral), and scope complete (parsimony,limits, and full accounting ).

    But the more practical answer is, (a) why are the foundations of mathematics expressed in ideal rather than real (operational) terms? (b) Why do people study predicate logic if it merely ‘trains’ you to think rigorously, but not rationally or morally in the full scope of questions?

    My position remains that cantor and Frege caused a century of nonsense in mathematics (as predicted by poincare) equal to the damage caused by Marx, Boaz, Freud, and Adorno.

    Mathematics is a trivial discipline in construction if stated in operational language. So is logic. So is argument. So is law. They differ only in the scope of grammar we include in order to reference the subset of dimensions of reality we include in our argument.

    So… why would we EVER include only a subset of reality?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-29 06:21:00 UTC

  • You know, I thought completing science was enough, but now I have to defeat 20th

    You know, I thought completing science was enough, but now I have to defeat 20th century Logic as a sh-t-replacement for law – a hangover from hermeneutic interpretation of scripture.

    1) Imagination(Ideation – Free Association) ->

    2) …. Science(Deflation – Hypothesis) >

    3) …. …. Algorithmic Natural Law(Construction – Theory) >

    4) …. …. …. Mathematics( Description – Law) >

    There is nothing in formal logic that is not better provided with algorithmic law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-28 13:57:00 UTC

  • Formal Logic preserves Idealism. Operationalism prohibits it, leaving only reali

    Formal Logic preserves Idealism. Operationalism prohibits it, leaving only realism.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-28 13:10:00 UTC

  • My god? My god is the god of my people. His name? He has many names. But all Tru

    My god? My god is the god of my people. His name? He has many names. But all True Names must be stated in operational language. As such, the true name of my god, is The God Who Works to Transcend My People. Does he exist? Existence requires persistence. He does not persist without my people. He exists as heroes, gods, myths, laws of nature, and numbers exist, by living eternally in the minds of our people – some part here, some part there, some parts everywhere – together creating the whole. So, I know my god’s true name. And I know his gift: transcendence, and I know his compensation: that we speak the truth and demand it of others, that we take nothing not paid for, and demand it of others, that cause others no loss, and demand it of others. These are high costs. He is the most costly of gods. That is why so few can choose to trade with him.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-24 11:29:00 UTC

  • REMOVING MATHEMATICS FROM PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY AND RETURNING IT TO THE SCIENC

    REMOVING MATHEMATICS FROM PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY AND RETURNING IT TO THE SCIENCE OF MEASUREMENT.

    In mathematics, construction must be operationally possible (computable), even if the descriptions (proofs) are only deducible.

    Others only provide an IDEAL (logical) justification of why cantor is wrong, and not a REAL (scientific and operational) explanation of why he was wrong: that the technique (like gears) demonstrated something valuable: that the rate of production of positional names produces different sized sets regardless of the point of termination (scale or limit). Cantor is one step removed from theology(ideal by design), and speaking in philosophy (ideals), instead of speaking in mathematics (measurement) and science (operations).

    The depth of this statement allows us to repair mathematics and return it to a science of measurement, rather than this nonsensical platonism used today – a remnant of the ancient greeks.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-17 08:06:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) I do my job. I do it with rigorous discipline and consistency.

    (from elsewhere)

    I do my job. I do it with rigorous discipline and consistency. Even if I think I intuit the outcome, i ignore my intuition and continue my investigation through aggressive falsification. When the investigation is exhausted, and I can find nothing left to falsify I construct a solution out of what remains. Christianity must die, but jesus-ness is a good thing – as long as it is limited to *personal actions on those within the polity*.

    If you can find many other thinkers with this degree of commitment to falsification of everything they believe, I’d like to meet them. Because as far as I know, we happy few are painfully rare.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-13 17:46:00 UTC

  • MAKE MODELS NOT ARGUMENTS. That’s the difference between Real (model), Ideal (ar

    MAKE MODELS NOT ARGUMENTS.

    That’s the difference between Real (model), Ideal (argument), Supernatural (excuse).

    Operationalism requires you to create a model.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-11 09:34:00 UTC

  • SO ARE YOU A PHILOSOPHER OR A SCIENTIST? —“So you are a philosopher and your h

    SO ARE YOU A PHILOSOPHER OR A SCIENTIST?

    —“So you are a philosopher and your hypothesis is that you have perfected the scientific method / empiricism?”— Rik Storey

    Hmmm …

    EMPIRICISM TESTS BUT ON DIMENSION OF REALITY

    1 – Empiricism is only one property of the scientific method, that only falsifies external correspondence.

    PHILOSOPHER OR SCIENTIST?

    2 – I do not know if I am a philosopher or a scientist who specializes in truthful speech. I do not know if the philosopher/scientist dichotomy exists any longer, or if sciences are now specialized disciplines for the discovery of truthful speech, and philosophy is reduced to the study of the decidability of preferences.

    HYPOTHESIS? COMPLETED MAX USE OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD

    3 – My hypothesis is that I have completed the scientific method within the dimensions of reality humans are capable of thinking and acting within.

    FUTURE CONSEQUENCES

    4 – My expectation is that invention will produce the same degree of progress as did the development of european common law of property, aristotelian reason, baconian empiricism, newtonian/darwinian/mengerian competition (falsification). And that it will allow us to both complete the eradication of the counter-revolution against reason by the Abrahamists, and assist us in transitioning to extremely mixed economies as we continue to reduce the demand for labor that produces multiples of returns on time, and continue to produce temporal increases in productivity using smaller and smaller numbers of people.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-08 15:57:00 UTC