THE END OF APRIORISM VS EMPIRICISM (read it and weep) š PROPOSITIONS 1) All domesticatable animals are domesticatable for five reasons. All undomesticatable animals are undomesticatable for any one of them. 2) All human personalities are highly functional for five or six reasons. All dysfunctional families are dysfunctional for any one of those six reasons. 3) All happy families are happy for the same five or six reasons. All unhappy families are unhappy any one of those five or six reasons. 4) All TRUE statements are true because of consistency in six dimensions. All FALSE statements are false because of inconsistency in any ONE of those six dimensions. 5) All analytically true (mathematically true) statements correspondingly model reality because of consistency of correspondence of six dimensions. All analytically false statements are false because they fail to correspond to reality in any one of those six dimensions. 6) Existential(actionable) reality is composed of only so many ACTIONABLE dimensions, followed by only so many CAUSALLY RELATABLE dimensions. 7) The ‘True Name’ (Most Parsimonious Truth) of any phenomenon (set of consistent relations at some scale of actionable utility), can be described by the number, scope, limits, relations, relative change, and ACTIONABLE change, of those dimensions. THEREFORE 1) There exist fundamental laws of existentially possible action and comprehension in the existing universe as it is constructed (and likely must be constructed). 2) These laws can be described theoretically until known, and by analogy, axiomatically once they ARE known. By convention (by honesty and truthfulness) we distinguish between declarative axiomatic systems (analytic), and existential theoretic (existing) systems in order to NOT claim that axiomatic and declarative, and theoretical(laws), are equal in empirical content. They are not. To do so is to conduct either an analogy for the purpose of communication, or an error of understanding, or a fraud for the purpose of deception. We can determine whether ignorance, error, or deception by analysis of the speaker’s argument(error or ignorance) and incentives (fraud), including unconscious fraud (justification). 3) We can theorize from observation and imagination, to understanding (top down) or from understanding to imagination and observation (bottom up). But unless we can both construct (operationally and therefore existentially) as well as observe (empirically, and therefore existential) then we cannot say we possess the knowledge to make a truth claim about a theoretic system or an axiomatic system – although we must keep in mind that axiomatic systems are ‘complete and tautological’ and theoretic statements ‘incomplete and descriptive’. 4) To warranty against falsehood of any Statement, we must perform due diligence upon our free associations, ensuring that we have established consistent limits(invariant descriptions) for each of the dimensions: i) categorical consistency (identity consistency) ii) logical consistency (internal consistency) iii) empirical consistency (external correspondence) iv) existential consistency (operational correspondence) v) moral consistency (voluntarily reciprocal) vi) Scope, Limits and Parsimony (scope consistency) 5) The empirical measurement that Taleb, artificial intelligence researchers, and myself are seeking is how to quantify the information necessary for the human mind to form a free association (a pattern). This unit, if discovered, will be analogous to calories of heat, as the basic unit of state change in information. My theory is that this number, as Taleb has suggested is extremely large (logarithmically so) which accounts for the rarity of intelligence: the amount of memory, and the evolutionary and biological cost of memory, necessary to form even basic relations (free associations) appears to be extraordinarily high. THEREFORE 1) Mises epistemology is false. MIses, Popper, Hayek, Bridgman, Brouwer all had a piece of the problem but they all failed to synthesize their findings into a complete reformation of the scientific method (the method of stating truthful propositions. – economics is a scientific, not logical discipline. – the categories mises uses to determine human action are insufficient (and constructed in my opinion as a justificationary fraud just as is Jewish law – which is my interpretation – only causal axis I can find – of why he failed.) WHAT DID MISES ERR REGARDING? 1) Apriorism is but a special case of Empiricism, just as Prime Numbers are a special case in mathematics, and just as is any set of operations that returns a natural number; and again, is a special case, just as contradiction is a special case in logic.The laws of triangles form a particularly useful set of special cases. (But we must understand that it is because they possess the minimum dimensions necessary for spatial descriptions,) Note: The human mind evolved to prey upon other creatures. Unlike frogs and cockroaches that just seek the closest dark spot, humans must prey. To prey we must anticipate velocity in time. This is why we can chase something, and we can throw rocks, spears, and arrows at moving things. And why we and canines can model the destination of a thrown or fallen object. But we also evolved the ability to choose. To model one set of conditions and compare it to another set of conditions. And to model the conditions of OTHERS (intentions), and to compare it to other conditions. So this is why we can hold about five things in mind at once before resorting to breaking a ‘vision’ into patterns. (I have elaborated on each of the dimensions elsewhere). 2) Few (possibly no non-tautological, or at least non-reductio) aprioristic statements survive scope consistency (I can find none in economics that are actionable). 3) We can establish free associations(hypotheses) empirically (top down) or constructively (bottom up). But the method of discovery places no truth constraint on the statement. All must survive the full test of dimensions. 4) This does NOT mean that we cannot use a ‘partial truth’ (an hypothesis that does not survive all six dimensions) to search for further associations (partial search criteria). It is this UTILITY IN SEARCHING that we have converted first into reason, second into rationalism, third into empiricism, fourth in to operationalism, and fifth into scope consistency, and sixth into ‘natural law’ or morality or ‘voluntary cooperation’ – volition which is necessary to ensure the information quality in small groups, just as norms and laws are necessary methods of establishing limits in larger groups, just as money is necessary for producing actionable information in very large groups. 5) there is but one epistemological method: accumulate information, identify pattern, search for hypothesis, criticize hypothesis to produce a theory, distribute the theory (speak), let others criticize the theory until it fails, or we create a conceptual norm of it (law), and finally until we habituate it entirely (metaphysical judgment). 6) There is nothing special about physical science other than philosophy was free of COST constraints but held by moral constraints, and science was free of MORAL constraints as well as cost constraints, and judicial law was bound by both. So by these three disciplines: the imaginary and mental, the cooperative and existential, and the physical – we managed to slowly assemble a sufficient understanding of truth in each of those disciplines, that together we can establish tests for ANY PROPOSITION in ANY DISCIPLINE: Mental, Cooperative, and PHYSICAL by the due diligence of consistency in the dimensions that apply to that instance. i) Categorical and Logical (mental) ii) Operational and Existential (physical) iii) Morality and Scope (cooperative) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Theme: Operationalism
-
The End of Justificationary APriorism vs Critical Empiricism
THE END OF APRIORISM VS EMPIRICISM (read it and weep) š PROPOSITIONS 1) All domesticatable animals are domesticatable for five reasons. All undomesticatable animals are undomesticatable for any one of them. 2) All human personalities are highly functional for five or six reasons. All dysfunctional families are dysfunctional for any one of those six reasons. 3) All happy families are happy for the same five or six reasons. All unhappy families are unhappy any one of those five or six reasons. 4) All TRUE statements are true because of consistency in six dimensions. All FALSE statements are false because of inconsistency in any ONE of those six dimensions. 5) All analytically true (mathematically true) statements correspondingly model reality because of consistency of correspondence of six dimensions. All analytically false statements are false because they fail to correspond to reality in any one of those six dimensions. 6) Existential(actionable) reality is composed of only so many ACTIONABLE dimensions, followed by only so many CAUSALLY RELATABLE dimensions. 7) The ‘True Name’ (Most Parsimonious Truth) of any phenomenon (set of consistent relations at some scale of actionable utility), can be described by the number, scope, limits, relations, relative change, and ACTIONABLE change, of those dimensions. THEREFORE 1) There exist fundamental laws of existentially possible action and comprehension in the existing universe as it is constructed (and likely must be constructed). 2) These laws can be described theoretically until known, and by analogy, axiomatically once they ARE known. By convention (by honesty and truthfulness) we distinguish between declarative axiomatic systems (analytic), and existential theoretic (existing) systems in order to NOT claim that axiomatic and declarative, and theoretical(laws), are equal in empirical content. They are not. To do so is to conduct either an analogy for the purpose of communication, or an error of understanding, or a fraud for the purpose of deception. We can determine whether ignorance, error, or deception by analysis of the speaker’s argument(error or ignorance) and incentives (fraud), including unconscious fraud (justification). 3) We can theorize from observation and imagination, to understanding (top down) or from understanding to imagination and observation (bottom up). But unless we can both construct (operationally and therefore existentially) as well as observe (empirically, and therefore existential) then we cannot say we possess the knowledge to make a truth claim about a theoretic system or an axiomatic system – although we must keep in mind that axiomatic systems are ‘complete and tautological’ and theoretic statements ‘incomplete and descriptive’. 4) To warranty against falsehood of any Statement, we must perform due diligence upon our free associations, ensuring that we have established consistent limits(invariant descriptions) for each of the dimensions: i) categorical consistency (identity consistency) ii) logical consistency (internal consistency) iii) empirical consistency (external correspondence) iv) existential consistency (operational correspondence) v) moral consistency (voluntarily reciprocal) vi) Scope, Limits and Parsimony (scope consistency) 5) The empirical measurement that Taleb, artificial intelligence researchers, and myself are seeking is how to quantify the information necessary for the human mind to form a free association (a pattern). This unit, if discovered, will be analogous to calories of heat, as the basic unit of state change in information. My theory is that this number, as Taleb has suggested is extremely large (logarithmically so) which accounts for the rarity of intelligence: the amount of memory, and the evolutionary and biological cost of memory, necessary to form even basic relations (free associations) appears to be extraordinarily high. THEREFORE 1) Mises epistemology is false. MIses, Popper, Hayek, Bridgman, Brouwer all had a piece of the problem but they all failed to synthesize their findings into a complete reformation of the scientific method (the method of stating truthful propositions. – economics is a scientific, not logical discipline. – the categories mises uses to determine human action are insufficient (and constructed in my opinion as a justificationary fraud just as is Jewish law – which is my interpretation – only causal axis I can find – of why he failed.) WHAT DID MISES ERR REGARDING? 1) Apriorism is but a special case of Empiricism, just as Prime Numbers are a special case in mathematics, and just as is any set of operations that returns a natural number; and again, is a special case, just as contradiction is a special case in logic.The laws of triangles form a particularly useful set of special cases. (But we must understand that it is because they possess the minimum dimensions necessary for spatial descriptions,) Note: The human mind evolved to prey upon other creatures. Unlike frogs and cockroaches that just seek the closest dark spot, humans must prey. To prey we must anticipate velocity in time. This is why we can chase something, and we can throw rocks, spears, and arrows at moving things. And why we and canines can model the destination of a thrown or fallen object. But we also evolved the ability to choose. To model one set of conditions and compare it to another set of conditions. And to model the conditions of OTHERS (intentions), and to compare it to other conditions. So this is why we can hold about five things in mind at once before resorting to breaking a ‘vision’ into patterns. (I have elaborated on each of the dimensions elsewhere). 2) Few (possibly no non-tautological, or at least non-reductio) aprioristic statements survive scope consistency (I can find none in economics that are actionable). 3) We can establish free associations(hypotheses) empirically (top down) or constructively (bottom up). But the method of discovery places no truth constraint on the statement. All must survive the full test of dimensions. 4) This does NOT mean that we cannot use a ‘partial truth’ (an hypothesis that does not survive all six dimensions) to search for further associations (partial search criteria). It is this UTILITY IN SEARCHING that we have converted first into reason, second into rationalism, third into empiricism, fourth in to operationalism, and fifth into scope consistency, and sixth into ‘natural law’ or morality or ‘voluntary cooperation’ – volition which is necessary to ensure the information quality in small groups, just as norms and laws are necessary methods of establishing limits in larger groups, just as money is necessary for producing actionable information in very large groups. 5) there is but one epistemological method: accumulate information, identify pattern, search for hypothesis, criticize hypothesis to produce a theory, distribute the theory (speak), let others criticize the theory until it fails, or we create a conceptual norm of it (law), and finally until we habituate it entirely (metaphysical judgment). 6) There is nothing special about physical science other than philosophy was free of COST constraints but held by moral constraints, and science was free of MORAL constraints as well as cost constraints, and judicial law was bound by both. So by these three disciplines: the imaginary and mental, the cooperative and existential, and the physical – we managed to slowly assemble a sufficient understanding of truth in each of those disciplines, that together we can establish tests for ANY PROPOSITION in ANY DISCIPLINE: Mental, Cooperative, and PHYSICAL by the due diligence of consistency in the dimensions that apply to that instance. i) Categorical and Logical (mental) ii) Operational and Existential (physical) iii) Morality and Scope (cooperative) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Using Propertarian Reasoning (Methodology)
Sep 05, 2016 8:40am *** PROPERTARIAN REASONING: SPECTRA *** THREE POINTS MAKE A TESTABLE LINE THREE POINTS MAKE A TESTABLE TRIANGLE. THREE BEHAVIORS CREATE A TESTABLE ANALYSIS PROPERTARIAN REASONING: i) TAKE A CONCEPT, iii) “FIND THREE POINTS”. iii) Then FIND LIMITS. iv) Then FILL IN BETWEEN THEM. 1) The Unknown Known is as Problematic as the Unknown Unknown. – Known Known – Known Unknown – Unknown Unknown (things we can’t imagine) – Unkown Known. (Metaphysical assumptions) (Truth Table: Known vs Unknown) 2) Escaping Reality: Humanity Escapes the Present. – Westerner Civ – Heroism, Change, Future. (Aristocracy, Stoicism ) – Eastern Civ – Duty, Harmony, Past. ( Historicism and ritual ) – Magian Civ – Submission, Obeyance, Otherworldly(monotheism) – Denial Civ – Disconnection, Internalism, Excapism. (buddhism) (Truth Table: x=future vs past, y= fantasy vs escapism) 3) Causes of Metaphysical Assumptions (population density and climate hostility vs means of farm production) (Also value of individual human life in north/sparse vs south/dense) (from conversation with johannes meixner)
-
Using Propertarian Reasoning (Methodology)
Sep 05, 2016 8:40am *** PROPERTARIAN REASONING: SPECTRA *** THREE POINTS MAKE A TESTABLE LINE THREE POINTS MAKE A TESTABLE TRIANGLE. THREE BEHAVIORS CREATE A TESTABLE ANALYSIS PROPERTARIAN REASONING: i) TAKE A CONCEPT, iii) “FIND THREE POINTS”. iii) Then FIND LIMITS. iv) Then FILL IN BETWEEN THEM. 1) The Unknown Known is as Problematic as the Unknown Unknown. – Known Known – Known Unknown – Unknown Unknown (things we can’t imagine) – Unkown Known. (Metaphysical assumptions) (Truth Table: Known vs Unknown) 2) Escaping Reality: Humanity Escapes the Present. – Westerner Civ – Heroism, Change, Future. (Aristocracy, Stoicism ) – Eastern Civ – Duty, Harmony, Past. ( Historicism and ritual ) – Magian Civ – Submission, Obeyance, Otherworldly(monotheism) – Denial Civ – Disconnection, Internalism, Excapism. (buddhism) (Truth Table: x=future vs past, y= fantasy vs escapism) 3) Causes of Metaphysical Assumptions (population density and climate hostility vs means of farm production) (Also value of individual human life in north/sparse vs south/dense) (from conversation with johannes meixner)
-
The Competition Between Truth And Lies
EUGENIC (truth) vs DYSGENIC (lies) Reasonable Philosophy Rational Philosophy Analytic Philosophy Scientific (Operational) Philosophy Tradition and Mysticism Theological Philosophy Pseudoscience and Postmodernism (What lie will they invent next?) -
The Competition Between Truth And Lies
EUGENIC (truth) vs DYSGENIC (lies) Reasonable Philosophy Rational Philosophy Analytic Philosophy Scientific (Operational) Philosophy Tradition and Mysticism Theological Philosophy Pseudoscience and Postmodernism (What lie will they invent next?) -
What Does Doolittle Think About Pseudoscience?
–“Brian Gant: I’ve had this internal argument for years. Which is why certain folks we know who argue economic metaphysics is the only way of creating a predictive reality are batshit crazy š“––“Michael DeMond: LOL you mean folks like Curt Doolittle???? I would LOVE to hear his thoughts on this! š“–http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb Hi Michael. Be careful when you call the devil, because sometimes he comes. lol š DR HOFFMAN 1) OVERSTATES THE CASE, 2) CONFUSES THE OBSERVER EFFECT AND THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE AND 3) MAKES A PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT – IN OTHER WORDS, HE’S TALKING MOSTLY NONSENSE I call this, ‘new age mysticism’. —“Hoffman: Weāve been shaped to have perceptions that keep us alive, so we have to take them seriously. If I see something that I think of as a snake, I donāt pick it up. If I see a train, I donāt step in front of it. Iāve evolved these symbols to keep me alive, so I have to take them seriously. But itās a logical flaw to think that if we have to take it seriously, we also have to take it literally. Gefter: If snakes arenāt snakes and trains arenāt trains, what are they? Hoffman: Snakes and trains, like the particles of physics, have no objective, observer-independent features. The snake I see is a description created by my sensory system to inform me of the fitness consequences of my actions. Evolution shapes acceptable solutions, not optimal ones. A snake is an acceptable solution to the problem of telling me how to act in a situation. My snakes and trains are my mental representations; your snakes and trains are your mental representations.”— A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: COST 1 – the value of memory is in outwitting the current course of events by acting in response to stimuli (information). 2 – to act in response to stimuli we must process information quickly enough to act to change the course of events. information processing takes time, and more information takes more time and less information takes less time – if we remember or sense too much information (more than we can process in sufficient time to act – usually from 100ms to 2kms) then it inhibits our actions.) Information processing takes time, and more information takes more time and less information takes less time – if we remember or sense too much information (more than we can process in sufficient time to act – usually from 100ms to 2kms) then it inhibits our actions.) 3 – information processing is very expensive – our human brains are very, very, very expensive organs. The more expensive the information processing the more calories required to support information processing. (Humans have sacrificed strength for the ability to run long distances – longer than any other land creature – and to think.) 4 – we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, what we need to in order to act. We don’t see hear, smell, taste, feel what we do not need to in order to act – because it would be an unnecessary cost. 5 – Information carried by Electromagnetic Radiation (light) is cheap vs action-distance and energy required. But increases cost of processing. Same is true for hearing and smell (dogs), or vibration (spiders). Of these, light requires the least energy output by the entity that can be acted upon, over the longest actionable distance. Vibration the opposite. opponents and prey can control vibration and sound. sometimes they can control smell. and sometimes they can hide. They can only control light by hiding or darkness. It is hard to control all of them. 7 – we remember only the minimum information necessary to identify opportunities to act – because more so would be an unnecessary cost, or take unnecessary time. ANALOGY:PUZZLES Now, imagine you have a series of black and white photos of snakes.Put each of them (a lot of them) on panes of glass. Cut the images (not the glass) into small puzzle pieces. remove all the pieces that are not necessary to define the outline of the snake. We evolved to fear in snakes is their means of movement even more so than the shape. so now imagine that instead of photos we have 1 second animated gifs and we make all the pixels transparent that aren’t necessary to create a vague shape of this snake. Next, our eyes have lots of sensors in the very center of our focus and many fewer as we radiate outward. So take a picture of two ‘marker’ features like the pattern on the back, and the head and eyes. Now that’s just the visual component. This will also store a sort of color map of the snake. (There is a huge similarity to how we compress video and how the brain stores information, except there is more information in the video than our memories ) So when we see a snake we find those very small sets of puzzle pieces in many different memories, and we sort of experience them as a very fast movie, blended together. Then as we watch the snake, every 1000th of a second we add more and more visual detail to those memories. so we start out with a very simple picture, using substitution of memories to fill in what we glimpse, and increasingly we fill in with observations rather than just substitutions from memory. When this happens we start predicting the future by the difference between the substitutions and the vision we experience in real time. It is better to think of the brain as a producer of continuous, iterative search results with a two second afterglow(a half-second half-life). So a memory stay’s ‘on’ if it’s continuously activated and dim’s if it’s not. If we are lucky, we can create a model(space) from it, and so between shape and model and color and sound, and continuous excitement of the same we can imagine pretty ‘complete’ information about this thing. (I started working as a delivery runner for my dad at age 7. it was a small city. within a few years, i could draw a map of the city to scale by hand, and a rough outline of all the houses in it. Just from memory. By the time I was twelve or fourteen I could draw the interior wood frame of a house by looking at it from the outside and drew dozens of houses in perspective showing their interior frames. We are capable of creating complex models. Even today I can generally diagnose what’s wrong with a car from just the sounds I hear. The point being that the map and the diagnosis are ‘accurate enough’ to act upon. Which is the author’s underlying argument.) (yet I cannot often read facial expressions which leads to the nest point: sensory differences) A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: SENSORY DIFFERENCES So some of us have highly attuned auditory (musical) senses. Some of us have perfect pitch and many of us do not. Some of us see different color densities and certainly the genders do. Some of us are more sensitive to vibrations. Some of us to ‘level’ (i can judge the level of a building and it bothers me terribly if it’s off.) Some of us cannot notice or do not notice at all. A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: VALUE JUDGEMENTS We know men, younger men, and females value differently. We know some cultures percieve similarities differently. THE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR, AND ADVOCACY So while any single human possesses only so many cognitive puzzle pieces about any topic, a band, a tribe, a nation, and a civilization possess a phenomenal amount of information about reality. By communicating and testing each other’s communications. By cooperating (or not), and by exchanging (or not), or by investing (or not), or by boycotting (or not), or by fighing (or not) we transfer information between individuals, groups, and super-groups. The evidence is that over time our actions increasingly corresponde with reality – as long as we use (a) scientific truth (b) rule of law, (c) markets, (d) many small competing polities that produce commons. If we do not, use a-d, then we will at some point stagnate if not regress. If we do use a-d, then we will continue to advance. Ergo, the west evolves faster than the rest. SUBSET AND SUBSTITUTION AND VALUE IS DIFFERENT FROM FALSE So we don’t have an ‘erroneous’ understanding of reality. we have a limited understanding of reality. And together we gain increasingly accurate understanding of reality. So much so that we have near total dominion over everything but each other. WHY WE NEED SCIENCE AND TESTIMONIALISM In my work I am trying to correct not only pseudoscientific statements by rather silly scientists, but to counter 150 years of pseudoscience of egalitarianism brought about by the cosmopolitan enlightemnent (counter-enlightenment) by Boaz, Freud, Marx, Adorno,Cantor, Rothbard, Strauss, and hundreds of others who have sought to replace utopian christian mysticism with utopian egalitarian pseudoscience. We have incrementally suppressed all forms of crime through expansion of the common natural law. And I am attempting (i think successfully) to demonstrate how we can outlaw pseudoscience by demanding the same due diligence in public speech in the market for information that we do in the production of goods and services for the market for consumption of goods and services. We used to teach grammar, logic, and rhetoric. If we taught grammar, logic, rhetoric and testimony (how to warranty against falsehood), basic accounting, and micro-economics, rather than social-pseudoscience we would have as great a revolution in human achievement as we had under the development of empiricism. THE OBSERVER EFFECT (WIKI) Now, the good professor does not understand the Observer Effect. It’s not that the universe cares if we’re watching. It’s that we only seem to be able to inspect via the electromagnetic spectrum in one way or another (at present) and anything we do to make an observation (take a measurement) changes the state of the thing we measure. That’s all it means. But it seems that we cannot kill this falsehood any more than we can kill some conspiracy theories. Here is wikipedia: —“In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics and can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques. In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that causes the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function Ļ and the quantum measurement process. According to standard quantum mechanics, however, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic[3] measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process.[4] The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement. As Richard Feynman put it: “Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.” Historically, the observer effect has also been confused with the uncertainty principle.”— Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
What Does Doolittle Think About Pseudoscience?
–“Brian Gant: I’ve had this internal argument for years. Which is why certain folks we know who argue economic metaphysics is the only way of creating a predictive reality are batshit crazy š“––“Michael DeMond: LOL you mean folks like Curt Doolittle???? I would LOVE to hear his thoughts on this! š“–http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb Hi Michael. Be careful when you call the devil, because sometimes he comes. lol š DR HOFFMAN 1) OVERSTATES THE CASE, 2) CONFUSES THE OBSERVER EFFECT AND THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE AND 3) MAKES A PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT – IN OTHER WORDS, HE’S TALKING MOSTLY NONSENSE I call this, ‘new age mysticism’. —“Hoffman: Weāve been shaped to have perceptions that keep us alive, so we have to take them seriously. If I see something that I think of as a snake, I donāt pick it up. If I see a train, I donāt step in front of it. Iāve evolved these symbols to keep me alive, so I have to take them seriously. But itās a logical flaw to think that if we have to take it seriously, we also have to take it literally. Gefter: If snakes arenāt snakes and trains arenāt trains, what are they? Hoffman: Snakes and trains, like the particles of physics, have no objective, observer-independent features. The snake I see is a description created by my sensory system to inform me of the fitness consequences of my actions. Evolution shapes acceptable solutions, not optimal ones. A snake is an acceptable solution to the problem of telling me how to act in a situation. My snakes and trains are my mental representations; your snakes and trains are your mental representations.”— A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: COST 1 – the value of memory is in outwitting the current course of events by acting in response to stimuli (information). 2 – to act in response to stimuli we must process information quickly enough to act to change the course of events. information processing takes time, and more information takes more time and less information takes less time – if we remember or sense too much information (more than we can process in sufficient time to act – usually from 100ms to 2kms) then it inhibits our actions.) Information processing takes time, and more information takes more time and less information takes less time – if we remember or sense too much information (more than we can process in sufficient time to act – usually from 100ms to 2kms) then it inhibits our actions.) 3 – information processing is very expensive – our human brains are very, very, very expensive organs. The more expensive the information processing the more calories required to support information processing. (Humans have sacrificed strength for the ability to run long distances – longer than any other land creature – and to think.) 4 – we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, what we need to in order to act. We don’t see hear, smell, taste, feel what we do not need to in order to act – because it would be an unnecessary cost. 5 – Information carried by Electromagnetic Radiation (light) is cheap vs action-distance and energy required. But increases cost of processing. Same is true for hearing and smell (dogs), or vibration (spiders). Of these, light requires the least energy output by the entity that can be acted upon, over the longest actionable distance. Vibration the opposite. opponents and prey can control vibration and sound. sometimes they can control smell. and sometimes they can hide. They can only control light by hiding or darkness. It is hard to control all of them. 7 – we remember only the minimum information necessary to identify opportunities to act – because more so would be an unnecessary cost, or take unnecessary time. ANALOGY:PUZZLES Now, imagine you have a series of black and white photos of snakes.Put each of them (a lot of them) on panes of glass. Cut the images (not the glass) into small puzzle pieces. remove all the pieces that are not necessary to define the outline of the snake. We evolved to fear in snakes is their means of movement even more so than the shape. so now imagine that instead of photos we have 1 second animated gifs and we make all the pixels transparent that aren’t necessary to create a vague shape of this snake. Next, our eyes have lots of sensors in the very center of our focus and many fewer as we radiate outward. So take a picture of two ‘marker’ features like the pattern on the back, and the head and eyes. Now that’s just the visual component. This will also store a sort of color map of the snake. (There is a huge similarity to how we compress video and how the brain stores information, except there is more information in the video than our memories ) So when we see a snake we find those very small sets of puzzle pieces in many different memories, and we sort of experience them as a very fast movie, blended together. Then as we watch the snake, every 1000th of a second we add more and more visual detail to those memories. so we start out with a very simple picture, using substitution of memories to fill in what we glimpse, and increasingly we fill in with observations rather than just substitutions from memory. When this happens we start predicting the future by the difference between the substitutions and the vision we experience in real time. It is better to think of the brain as a producer of continuous, iterative search results with a two second afterglow(a half-second half-life). So a memory stay’s ‘on’ if it’s continuously activated and dim’s if it’s not. If we are lucky, we can create a model(space) from it, and so between shape and model and color and sound, and continuous excitement of the same we can imagine pretty ‘complete’ information about this thing. (I started working as a delivery runner for my dad at age 7. it was a small city. within a few years, i could draw a map of the city to scale by hand, and a rough outline of all the houses in it. Just from memory. By the time I was twelve or fourteen I could draw the interior wood frame of a house by looking at it from the outside and drew dozens of houses in perspective showing their interior frames. We are capable of creating complex models. Even today I can generally diagnose what’s wrong with a car from just the sounds I hear. The point being that the map and the diagnosis are ‘accurate enough’ to act upon. Which is the author’s underlying argument.) (yet I cannot often read facial expressions which leads to the nest point: sensory differences) A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: SENSORY DIFFERENCES So some of us have highly attuned auditory (musical) senses. Some of us have perfect pitch and many of us do not. Some of us see different color densities and certainly the genders do. Some of us are more sensitive to vibrations. Some of us to ‘level’ (i can judge the level of a building and it bothers me terribly if it’s off.) Some of us cannot notice or do not notice at all. A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: VALUE JUDGEMENTS We know men, younger men, and females value differently. We know some cultures percieve similarities differently. THE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR, AND ADVOCACY So while any single human possesses only so many cognitive puzzle pieces about any topic, a band, a tribe, a nation, and a civilization possess a phenomenal amount of information about reality. By communicating and testing each other’s communications. By cooperating (or not), and by exchanging (or not), or by investing (or not), or by boycotting (or not), or by fighing (or not) we transfer information between individuals, groups, and super-groups. The evidence is that over time our actions increasingly corresponde with reality – as long as we use (a) scientific truth (b) rule of law, (c) markets, (d) many small competing polities that produce commons. If we do not, use a-d, then we will at some point stagnate if not regress. If we do use a-d, then we will continue to advance. Ergo, the west evolves faster than the rest. SUBSET AND SUBSTITUTION AND VALUE IS DIFFERENT FROM FALSE So we don’t have an ‘erroneous’ understanding of reality. we have a limited understanding of reality. And together we gain increasingly accurate understanding of reality. So much so that we have near total dominion over everything but each other. WHY WE NEED SCIENCE AND TESTIMONIALISM In my work I am trying to correct not only pseudoscientific statements by rather silly scientists, but to counter 150 years of pseudoscience of egalitarianism brought about by the cosmopolitan enlightemnent (counter-enlightenment) by Boaz, Freud, Marx, Adorno,Cantor, Rothbard, Strauss, and hundreds of others who have sought to replace utopian christian mysticism with utopian egalitarian pseudoscience. We have incrementally suppressed all forms of crime through expansion of the common natural law. And I am attempting (i think successfully) to demonstrate how we can outlaw pseudoscience by demanding the same due diligence in public speech in the market for information that we do in the production of goods and services for the market for consumption of goods and services. We used to teach grammar, logic, and rhetoric. If we taught grammar, logic, rhetoric and testimony (how to warranty against falsehood), basic accounting, and micro-economics, rather than social-pseudoscience we would have as great a revolution in human achievement as we had under the development of empiricism. THE OBSERVER EFFECT (WIKI) Now, the good professor does not understand the Observer Effect. It’s not that the universe cares if we’re watching. It’s that we only seem to be able to inspect via the electromagnetic spectrum in one way or another (at present) and anything we do to make an observation (take a measurement) changes the state of the thing we measure. That’s all it means. But it seems that we cannot kill this falsehood any more than we can kill some conspiracy theories. Here is wikipedia: —“In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics and can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques. In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that causes the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function Ļ and the quantum measurement process. According to standard quantum mechanics, however, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic[3] measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process.[4] The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement. As Richard Feynman put it: “Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.” Historically, the observer effect has also been confused with the uncertainty principle.”— Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
When We Say āScientificā What Operations Are We Referring To?
WHEN WE SAY “SCIENTIFIC” WHAT OPERATIONS ARE WE REFERRING TO?(important) (scientific method) (informational commons) It’s not the subject matter, nor the method of inquiry, nor the method of hypothesizing that’s classifiably scientific or that places any limits on what we call scientific investigation. ORIGINATION OF HYPOTHESIS: INCREASED INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO PERCEPTION We can produce an hypothesis through free association, or random selection. The method of arrival doesn’t tell us anything. In general we must increase the amount of information that we possess either by concentrating time, expanding time, expanding scale, decreasing scale, increasing precision of physical instrumentation, increasing precision of logical instrumentation, increasing precision of institutional instrumentation. Once we have increased information by reducing it to an analogy to experience that we CAN perceive, we can then compare and make judgments and offer hypotheses that transcend the limitations of perception, time, scale, and instrumentation. The function of the discipline of science – and that which we call the scientific method – is to test each dimension of a hypothesis to determine whether it survives. And by survival increase the burden that we place on the testing; and by failure discover new potential ideas (avenues) for inquiry (free association). Because of this, the discipline of science, with which we practice the scientific method, functions (like its origins in law), as a warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion(and substitution), overloading(pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda), and deceit. In the process of due diligence, we search (a process of wayfinding), for possible causal explanations. INVESTIGATION: CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENTATION The act of scientific *investigation* consists not in the warranties, but in developing categorical, logical, physical, and institutional instrumentation with which to reduce what we cannot directly experience, to that which we can experience, so that we can detect marginal differences, and make decisions, which serve as inputs to our free association (search of memory for patterns). So just as we use justification for moral and legal argument, and criticism for truth and scientific argument. Just as we use the golden rule to assert desirable ends, and the silver rule to prevent negative ends, we also construct instrumentation to assert positive tests, and we apply the scientific method, to conduct negative tests. Most science requires the invention of tools to extend our perception such that we can reduce the imperceptible to an analogy to experience with which we can make comparisons and render judgments. DUE DILIGENCE: WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS But why must we perform due diligence? True Enough? True Enough For What Purpose ——————————————————————— Comprehension? Further Association? Planning action? Acting? Risking? – or – Communication? Negotiation? Advice? Ethical license? Moral license? Risk of loss license? Risk of harm license? Risk of Death License? There are greater consequences to our utterances than there are to our thoughts. What happens in your bedroom is beyond the reach of the commons, and so long as it does not enter the commons there is not a moral question. What happens in your living room among guests may enter the commons or not. What actions and words you speak in public are de facto within the commons. If you PUBLISH and especially do so for any form of profit, then you are manufacturing a good (or harm) that is not only entered into the commons but for the duration of its existence. There is no difference between shipping a poisonous medicine, an incorrect recipe or plan, a product that if misused can harm, or a product that can harm without extraordinary due diligence. We tolerate emotional outbursts from one another. We tolerate error from one another, we tolerate bias sometimes, we tolerate suggestion infrequently, and we react negatively do deception and harm. Moral intuitions evolved to cause us to retaliate even at very high cost, against those who engage in parasitism by any means, including the imposition of harm directly or indirectly. NO MAN WANTS TO PAY THE COST OF REGULATION AGAINST HARM – HE PREFERS TO EXTERNALIZE THE COSTS PARASITICALLY, FOR TESTING HIS UTTERANCES. Parasitism in production, consumption, defense, and information are all natural human behaviors: we take discounts where we can get away with them. But the history of civilization is the history of incremental suppression of parasitism from murder, to violence, to theft, to fraud, to conspiracy. And the (Popperian) insight that science occurs not only personally, interpersonally, and socially, and that we do harm by pseudoscientific and insufficient diligence, because we have insufficient incentive to warranty our utterances. The scientific method, at least for scientists, asks us to use instrumentation and judgement to warranty our utterances against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overlaoding, and decet. It just so happens that in an effort to speak the truth, through these process of warranties, we are more likely to discover that truth. THE X/Y AXIS OF DECIDABILITY IN THE SUFFICIENCY OF WARRANTY x—> Epistemic process, Y —> Due diligence against harm. There is no difference between the production of any good whether physical, normative, institutional, or intellectual. It follows the same process from free association, to individual rational testing, to individual or group hypothesis, to thorough testing, to theory to social application testing, to law, to universal metaphysical assumption about the nature of the universe we live in: physical and totally deterministic, or sentient, and less so. What differs only is which output we value that is produced in that process AND the level of ‘truthfulness’ necessary to act upon it without harm to ourselves or others. COSTS PROVIDE DECIDABILITY IN CHOICE We must always, if we are to avoid error and immorality, remember that the reason that the ancients failed to solve the problem of social science was that they ignored costs. Whether this was a polite mannerism of the wealthy crippling their reason, or the natural consequence of cost exposing our different interests, or fear of overlapping religion and politics, morality and law, and drawing their ire. The separation is either an error, a bias, or a deceit. The reasons we did not solve the problem of social science, are the same reasons popper did not correctly identify the scientific equivalent of the mathematical axiom of choice: cost. The universe takes the least cost route. Man takes the least cost route. Scientific investigation can and does proceed successfully by taking the least cost route. And it is the least cost route to information expansion that we CAN and do use to provide decidability in matters of inquiry. And that is what we do. Man is a very simple creature. We observe changes in state of assets that we value (calorically). These changes in assets produce chemical reactions we call emotions. Our mind evolved to assist us in obtaining those emotions. Our minds use memory to conduct wayfinding. We then criticize our wayfinding. And of the possible found ways, we take that which provides the greatest return in the shortest time, for the least effort, with the greatest degree of certainty, ad the lowest risk. Becuase we are merely a part of nature. And memory is very useful for the production of energy, and the conservation of energy, despite its extremely high cost of operation. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
When We Say āScientificā What Operations Are We Referring To?
WHEN WE SAY “SCIENTIFIC” WHAT OPERATIONS ARE WE REFERRING TO?(important) (scientific method) (informational commons) It’s not the subject matter, nor the method of inquiry, nor the method of hypothesizing that’s classifiably scientific or that places any limits on what we call scientific investigation. ORIGINATION OF HYPOTHESIS: INCREASED INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO PERCEPTION We can produce an hypothesis through free association, or random selection. The method of arrival doesn’t tell us anything. In general we must increase the amount of information that we possess either by concentrating time, expanding time, expanding scale, decreasing scale, increasing precision of physical instrumentation, increasing precision of logical instrumentation, increasing precision of institutional instrumentation. Once we have increased information by reducing it to an analogy to experience that we CAN perceive, we can then compare and make judgments and offer hypotheses that transcend the limitations of perception, time, scale, and instrumentation. The function of the discipline of science – and that which we call the scientific method – is to test each dimension of a hypothesis to determine whether it survives. And by survival increase the burden that we place on the testing; and by failure discover new potential ideas (avenues) for inquiry (free association). Because of this, the discipline of science, with which we practice the scientific method, functions (like its origins in law), as a warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion(and substitution), overloading(pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda), and deceit. In the process of due diligence, we search (a process of wayfinding), for possible causal explanations. INVESTIGATION: CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENTATION The act of scientific *investigation* consists not in the warranties, but in developing categorical, logical, physical, and institutional instrumentation with which to reduce what we cannot directly experience, to that which we can experience, so that we can detect marginal differences, and make decisions, which serve as inputs to our free association (search of memory for patterns). So just as we use justification for moral and legal argument, and criticism for truth and scientific argument. Just as we use the golden rule to assert desirable ends, and the silver rule to prevent negative ends, we also construct instrumentation to assert positive tests, and we apply the scientific method, to conduct negative tests. Most science requires the invention of tools to extend our perception such that we can reduce the imperceptible to an analogy to experience with which we can make comparisons and render judgments. DUE DILIGENCE: WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS But why must we perform due diligence? True Enough? True Enough For What Purpose ——————————————————————— Comprehension? Further Association? Planning action? Acting? Risking? – or – Communication? Negotiation? Advice? Ethical license? Moral license? Risk of loss license? Risk of harm license? Risk of Death License? There are greater consequences to our utterances than there are to our thoughts. What happens in your bedroom is beyond the reach of the commons, and so long as it does not enter the commons there is not a moral question. What happens in your living room among guests may enter the commons or not. What actions and words you speak in public are de facto within the commons. If you PUBLISH and especially do so for any form of profit, then you are manufacturing a good (or harm) that is not only entered into the commons but for the duration of its existence. There is no difference between shipping a poisonous medicine, an incorrect recipe or plan, a product that if misused can harm, or a product that can harm without extraordinary due diligence. We tolerate emotional outbursts from one another. We tolerate error from one another, we tolerate bias sometimes, we tolerate suggestion infrequently, and we react negatively do deception and harm. Moral intuitions evolved to cause us to retaliate even at very high cost, against those who engage in parasitism by any means, including the imposition of harm directly or indirectly. NO MAN WANTS TO PAY THE COST OF REGULATION AGAINST HARM – HE PREFERS TO EXTERNALIZE THE COSTS PARASITICALLY, FOR TESTING HIS UTTERANCES. Parasitism in production, consumption, defense, and information are all natural human behaviors: we take discounts where we can get away with them. But the history of civilization is the history of incremental suppression of parasitism from murder, to violence, to theft, to fraud, to conspiracy. And the (Popperian) insight that science occurs not only personally, interpersonally, and socially, and that we do harm by pseudoscientific and insufficient diligence, because we have insufficient incentive to warranty our utterances. The scientific method, at least for scientists, asks us to use instrumentation and judgement to warranty our utterances against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overlaoding, and decet. It just so happens that in an effort to speak the truth, through these process of warranties, we are more likely to discover that truth. THE X/Y AXIS OF DECIDABILITY IN THE SUFFICIENCY OF WARRANTY x—> Epistemic process, Y —> Due diligence against harm. There is no difference between the production of any good whether physical, normative, institutional, or intellectual. It follows the same process from free association, to individual rational testing, to individual or group hypothesis, to thorough testing, to theory to social application testing, to law, to universal metaphysical assumption about the nature of the universe we live in: physical and totally deterministic, or sentient, and less so. What differs only is which output we value that is produced in that process AND the level of ‘truthfulness’ necessary to act upon it without harm to ourselves or others. COSTS PROVIDE DECIDABILITY IN CHOICE We must always, if we are to avoid error and immorality, remember that the reason that the ancients failed to solve the problem of social science was that they ignored costs. Whether this was a polite mannerism of the wealthy crippling their reason, or the natural consequence of cost exposing our different interests, or fear of overlapping religion and politics, morality and law, and drawing their ire. The separation is either an error, a bias, or a deceit. The reasons we did not solve the problem of social science, are the same reasons popper did not correctly identify the scientific equivalent of the mathematical axiom of choice: cost. The universe takes the least cost route. Man takes the least cost route. Scientific investigation can and does proceed successfully by taking the least cost route. And it is the least cost route to information expansion that we CAN and do use to provide decidability in matters of inquiry. And that is what we do. Man is a very simple creature. We observe changes in state of assets that we value (calorically). These changes in assets produce chemical reactions we call emotions. Our mind evolved to assist us in obtaining those emotions. Our minds use memory to conduct wayfinding. We then criticize our wayfinding. And of the possible found ways, we take that which provides the greatest return in the shortest time, for the least effort, with the greatest degree of certainty, ad the lowest risk. Becuase we are merely a part of nature. And memory is very useful for the production of energy, and the conservation of energy, despite its extremely high cost of operation. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute