Theme: Operationalism

  • “Furthermore, any subjective valuation must be founded upon objective limitation

    “Furthermore, any subjective valuation must be founded upon objective limitations and conditions.” How?

    “Those limitations and conditions result from and can only be evaluated relative to socially necessary labor time.” Why is chocolate ice cream socially necessary?


    Source date (UTC): 2021-12-14 22:17:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1470880757380001799

    Reply addressees: @eethan_james @shituationist @IanAdelstein @phl43

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1470880348317884420

  • We use the prefix “P” to disambiguate our formal physical and operational gramma

    We use the prefix “P” to disambiguate our formal physical and operational grammar, vocabulary, logic, first principles, and law, from traditional set-theoretic verbal logic.

    P-Method, Logic, Vocabulary, First Principles, Law, Testimony, Reciprocity etc.

    Operational vs Set


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-25 18:03:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1463931355805401088

    Reply addressees: @OmoleDanielAyo1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1463927508571762700

  • So, once you can climb that ladder – a ladder that is very similar to learning a

    So, once you can climb that ladder – a ladder that is very similar to learning a programming language and a large scale business application and its datatypes, you can completely understand P-logic, vocabulary, grammar, and law – which is the logic of testimony about the world.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-19 17:58:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1461755891116650502

    Reply addressees: @hoeberian

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1461755424215126017


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @hoeberian And subsequently, once you can write operationally, the next challenge of writing causal explanations in first principles. And once you can do that, the next challenge is testing for reciprocity and testimony (morality and truth) in display word and deed. Next, is Authoring Laws.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1461755424215126017

  • And subsequently, once you can write operationally, the next challenge of writin

    And subsequently, once you can write operationally, the next challenge of writing causal explanations in first principles. And once you can do that, the next challenge is testing for reciprocity and testimony (morality and truth) in display word and deed. Next, is Authoring Laws.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-19 17:57:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1461755424215126017

    Reply addressees: @hoeberian

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1461754840955117573


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @hoeberian Now, anyone who’s learned to speak colloquial English has had some challenges learning to speak grammatically correctly; more so learning to write clearly and grammatically correctly. And operational prose evolved from work on writing clearly. So P is another level of CHALLENGE.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1461754840955117573

  • I want (as always) to produce an operational (physical, intuitionistic, classica

    I want (as always) to produce an operational (physical, intuitionistic, classical) explanation of how the physical biology produces differences in behavior, and how that behavior manifests across the spectrum of classes, thereby creating a value neutral system of explanations.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-19 13:56:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1461694819697373191

    Reply addressees: @Claffertyshane

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1461694295308738568

  • “Objective”: testimony warrantied as limited to realism, naturalism, operational

    “Objective”: testimony warrantied as limited to realism, naturalism, operationalism, rational choice, and reciprocity.

    That’s the same thing as scientific claim or legal testimony.
    So yes, objective facts exist.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-17 19:18:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1461051012064722948

  • Nerd Humor: We can understand Einstein’s errors as the result of empathizing and

    Nerd Humor: We can understand Einstein’s errors as the result of empathizing and verbal logic instead of systematizing and operational logic. We can then understand what’s gone wrong with mathiness in physics.
    Again Popper’s “Sources of Ignorance” are devastating.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-17 00:08:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460761805702279169

  • @WhitesAdvocate Self falsificationary statement. 😉 Math isn’t hard. Knowing wha

    @WhitesAdvocate Self falsificationary statement. 😉

    Math isn’t hard. Knowing what’s wrong with math (mathiness) is a bit hard. Knowing the difference between math, computation, operations, and cooperative transactions is hard. Knowing how to disambiguate all methods of computation (Grammars) isn’t hard. Knowing how to produce decidability across math, computation, operations, transactions, is fairly hard. Knowing how to construct formal law from that hierarchy is fairly hard. In other words, a single specialization tends to reiforce general ignorance, while comparative disciplines, in particular, comparison across all disciplines is quite hard becuase one must master every discipline. So, If you can’t comprehend it you can’t. Others can. Others do. And in particular some mathematicians do, and that is why we are reforming mathematics to merge it with computation and operation and reversing counter-revolution against mathematics that began with Cantor and the attempt to unify mathematics and logic by set theory instead of (obviously in retrospect) unifying mathematics, computation, algorithm, operations, and set (verbal logic), with operations devovling into math on one end, and into set (verbal) on the other, by the removal of dimensions of subjectively testable reality.

    The reality is that you’re a chimp by comparison. You can’t even imagine that P-Law is as great a leap as empiricism was over theology, or science over empiricism, and is as meaningful as was darwin to biology.

    That’s ok. I wouldn’t expect you to. However, I do understand that others do and do demonstrate that knowledge.

    “You are but a measure of your own ignorance.”

    Cheers. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-15 19:11:09 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282659385939047

  • THINKING:”How do I teach others how to think about all existence, life, thought,

    THINKING:”How do I teach others how to think about all existence, life, thought, feeling, and behavior operationally – by construction from first principles – by disambiguation into first principles?” Well, you list the first principles and gradually learn(habituate) the process.

    I don’t think there is any magic to it. It’s like anything else. People may want a single insight like they get with ideology or philosophy or theology. But P-Law is in the same categorical hierarchy as math, programming, (P-Law,) formal (Verbal) logic. You have to PRACTICE it.

    It’s the same with my work. Newbs find something I write or say and then jump to some conclusion that’s false. Or they complain that it’s incoherent or complex or word salad. The answer is you learn math, programming, P-law, and formal logic by STUDY not by immediate insight.

    That said, given the four sciences: Formal(Logics), Physical, Behavioral, and Evolutionary, why would we expect that truth and law, the logic of cooperation and morality, economics and politics, groups and group evolutionary strategy to require less study than the other sciences?

    Now the fact that P-Law requires work, doesn’t mean that you have to understand the science to use the products of it any more than you have to understand quantum mechanics to use the transistors in your cell phone. You have to understand the OUTPUTS of P-Law Science.

    The output of P-Law is expressible as the group evolutionary strategy of the european people when written in p-law. Why? Because the reason europeans invented reason, math, science, technology, and medicine so disproportionately vs all other civs, is that strategy=law=science.

    That translates to individual responsibility, rather than clan, religion, or state responsibility.

    Responsibility provides mindfulness, and mindfulness tolerance for the tragedy of nature’s laws, and the only means of overcoming that tragedy as mastery of and application of those laws for our benefit, by not seeking to avoid, but to conquer those laws.

    So of course, Europeans would not only invent mathematical realism, reason, law proper, philosophy, science and epicureanism, but government, technology, and medicine. The only problem? Many can’t bear that responsibility, lacking ability, agency, and training.

    So we could as the ancients tried, pay the high cost of training mindfulness or we can pay the cost of NOT training mindfulness – which is what allowed our invasive JChristianity and the destruction of the ancient World, like we allowed Judaism-marxism-pomo-pc-woke in the modern.

    And so, my overall point here is that we cannot have an advanced (aristocratic, responsible, evolutionarily adaptive) civilization without paying the cost of training those who are not naturally fit for it, or in families naturally fit and able to train it.

    (…more in comments…)


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-15 16:29:13 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282022650660535

  • THINKING:”How do I teach others how to think about all existence, life, thought,

    THINKING:”How do I teach others how to think about all existence, life, thought, feeling, and behavior operationally – by construction from first principles – by disambiguation into first principles?” Well, you list the first principles and gradually learn(habituate) the process.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-15 15:31:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460269186266152966