Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Deflationary Language in Ethics

    Mar 01, 2017 6:51pm James Augustus I suspect one of the factors contributing to deflationary language in ethics, law and science is that we needed a rational, empirical means of decidability in matters concerning rule, organization and extra-familial cooperation. (Note that legal realism, contractualism and truth telling (science and it’s precursors) coincided with conquest and colonization of non-kin groups. Myth (context driven means of decidability) doesn’t scale past regulating/adjudicating tribal and familia affairs; Natural Law does because it serves as the only universally decidable means of adjudication between heterogeneous peoples.) On the institutional level, the West was blessed with a geography that produced a high frequency of warfare in a manner that made institutional monopolies evolutionarily disadvantageous. An institution was able to survive if it wasn’t conflated with the current power structure (think of the Church and it’s relation to political power during the Middle Ages). In othewords, the incentive for institutions was to secure their existence by remaining autonomous/separated from the institutions of rule scince there was constant and frequent shifts in political power—the opposite of China. These are just loose thoughts. I’ve been mulling this over in hopes that I can write a more formal evolutionary argument for Western Dynamism.

  • The Past Superstition vs Present Pseudoscience. (Fictionalisms)

    ….I think the problem is that the past was honest but justified it supernaturally, because the promise of reward was after death. Whereas the present is dishonest and justified pseudo-scientifically and promised if we can reach a socialist utopia or some variation thereof. The medieval order was hierarchical and honest. The only false promise was after death. We live in a world of loneliness and lies….

  • The Past Superstition vs Present Pseudoscience. (Fictionalisms)

    ….I think the problem is that the past was honest but justified it supernaturally, because the promise of reward was after death. Whereas the present is dishonest and justified pseudo-scientifically and promised if we can reach a socialist utopia or some variation thereof. The medieval order was hierarchical and honest. The only false promise was after death. We live in a world of loneliness and lies….

  • The People Who Lie and Defraud

    The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences ( Frankfurt/aesthetics and history, freud/psychology, boaz/anthropology, marx/sociology/economics, mises/economics, cantor/mathematical-platonism, (b) the conquest of the university by pseudoscience (all of the above), (c) as well as the organized attack on our constitution (Natural Law) by the selective prosecution of cases designed to incrementally break it, (d) as well as the current method of financial parasitism which we incorrectly call capitalism, but should call Rothchildian Monetary Fraud. There is nothing immoral about capitalism. But everything immoral about financialism. And they are the principle activists in propagandizing in the Entertainment, Media, and Advertising industries. “The People Who Lie and Defraud.” Yeah, we aren’t exactly saints and the british certainly take the cake during colonialism, but the consequences of their administration by rule of law turn out to be profoundly beneficial. Americans basically are great sherrifs but the worst possible judges of anything. And between the british and americans we pretty much do everything WRONG except the law. Thankfully THE LAW AND TRUTH ARE ENOUGH despite our multitude of utopian idealistic and entirely false fantasies about the nature of man. The evil of (((their))) intuitions like the evil of women’s intuitions is not so much from intent but from parasitic impulse and lack of agency. We must either conquer and rule, and rule by natural law, or be ruled and conquered. Yes (((they))) and their islamic cousins are evil as hell. But that does not mean they cannot be domesticated like all other wild animals we have domesticated in the past.

  • The People Who Lie and Defraud

    The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences ( Frankfurt/aesthetics and history, freud/psychology, boaz/anthropology, marx/sociology/economics, mises/economics, cantor/mathematical-platonism, (b) the conquest of the university by pseudoscience (all of the above), (c) as well as the organized attack on our constitution (Natural Law) by the selective prosecution of cases designed to incrementally break it, (d) as well as the current method of financial parasitism which we incorrectly call capitalism, but should call Rothchildian Monetary Fraud. There is nothing immoral about capitalism. But everything immoral about financialism. And they are the principle activists in propagandizing in the Entertainment, Media, and Advertising industries. “The People Who Lie and Defraud.” Yeah, we aren’t exactly saints and the british certainly take the cake during colonialism, but the consequences of their administration by rule of law turn out to be profoundly beneficial. Americans basically are great sherrifs but the worst possible judges of anything. And between the british and americans we pretty much do everything WRONG except the law. Thankfully THE LAW AND TRUTH ARE ENOUGH despite our multitude of utopian idealistic and entirely false fantasies about the nature of man. The evil of (((their))) intuitions like the evil of women’s intuitions is not so much from intent but from parasitic impulse and lack of agency. We must either conquer and rule, and rule by natural law, or be ruled and conquered. Yes (((they))) and their islamic cousins are evil as hell. But that does not mean they cannot be domesticated like all other wild animals we have domesticated in the past.

  • Against Platonic Forms

    by John Dow and Curt Doolittle As I understand it, adherents to belief in Platonic Forms believe they literally exist, in some form or another, as if there’s some extra portion of reality beyond verifiable observation in which they exist. [ Moreover they are unable to articulate their ideas by reference to existential reality, such as when we refer to the invisible forces of the universe, then to the constant relations between them; or when we refer to a unicorn as a mythical character consisting of a conflation of horse, eagle, and antlers; or when we say that the numbers refer to positional names. ] I see Empiricism as a practical method – it gives us a process of verification and testing to follow which we can demonstrate via its’ success at informing successfully predictive conceptions of the operation of the reality which we mutually observe. I don’t believe empiricism describes some truth about the universe, I don’t claim our mutually verifiable observations are necessarily objective truth, I merely claim that we seem to have psychological motivations to pursue/avoid specific consequences from our interaction with the sensation of our mutually verifiable observations, and that methods which enable us to conceptualize it with less ignorance, error, and bias improve our capacity for developing successful strategies in pursuing consequences we desire. So in this sense, when discussing the “reality” of our mutually verifiable observations, empiricism has demonstrated it’s superior capacity to extract useful “truth” from our perception, whereas platonic forms have no verifiable basis in observations, they can have no observable source but imagination, so essentially they’re just people guessing, and even if they are correct, they would be correct by accident. I don’t find it ridiculous for someone to make a conceptual claim about my experience, then demonstrate the success of the concept in predicting my observations of transformations of states. But, I do find it ridiculous when people attempt to pass off our imaginary constructs as “truth” without demonstrated evidence. Why? Because… 0) imaginary constructs may in some senses be testable for internal consistency. 1) And in some cases, one might demonstrate external correspondence. But… 2) One simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of CAUSALITY. 3) And lacking observability, one cannot testify to CAUSALITY. 4) Ergo we can convey MEANING between constant relations by speaking platonically, just as we convey MEANING between inconstant relations by literature. But we cannot convey causality, and therefore cannot warranty causality, and as we are unable to warranty causality, we are unable to warranty to the truthfulness of our statements. This is why mathematicians can ‘get away with’ speaking platonically: they test only for internal consistency, not causality. And that lack of understanding of causality – is why there is such confusion and ignorance over the foundations of mathematics. When one talks about math in platonic terms he demonstrates he does not understand its construction, and cannot testify to it. Therefore he never claims truth full correspondence but proof – mere internal consistency. Why is this important? Not because mathematicians do not understand the very simple technique that they employ by specializing in tests of internal consistency of constant relations. They don’t. They understand its success in describing the physical world. The success of mathematics in the physical sciences (and failure in social sciences) is caused by the fact that the universe consists of constant relations, and we do not know yet their first causes. So internal consistency and external correspondence assist us in describing with increasing precision those constant relations until such point as we can guess those first causes. However in human actions, we do not possess constant relations, only constant patterns (symmetries) of relations. And In human thought, we do not possess many boundaries at all – or rather, we lack the means of testing those boundaries of imagination. So the problem is much harder than mathematics is able to solve by tests of constant relations – math can only assist us in taking measurements whereby we attempt to identify constant intermediary patterns, despite the kaleidic distributions of our outcomes. What we seek is causality. Because we seek to permit man to act to take advantage of the current state of the universe, and acting such that we outwit the current deterministic path of some part of it and capture the energy for our use. Moreover, since actions are expensive, and humans engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit, we must conserve our energy as well as evade parasitism by others, and to do so requires we test enough dimensions of reality against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit, to preserve our accumulated interceptions of changes in state of reality.

  • Against Platonic Forms

    by John Dow and Curt Doolittle As I understand it, adherents to belief in Platonic Forms believe they literally exist, in some form or another, as if there’s some extra portion of reality beyond verifiable observation in which they exist. [ Moreover they are unable to articulate their ideas by reference to existential reality, such as when we refer to the invisible forces of the universe, then to the constant relations between them; or when we refer to a unicorn as a mythical character consisting of a conflation of horse, eagle, and antlers; or when we say that the numbers refer to positional names. ] I see Empiricism as a practical method – it gives us a process of verification and testing to follow which we can demonstrate via its’ success at informing successfully predictive conceptions of the operation of the reality which we mutually observe. I don’t believe empiricism describes some truth about the universe, I don’t claim our mutually verifiable observations are necessarily objective truth, I merely claim that we seem to have psychological motivations to pursue/avoid specific consequences from our interaction with the sensation of our mutually verifiable observations, and that methods which enable us to conceptualize it with less ignorance, error, and bias improve our capacity for developing successful strategies in pursuing consequences we desire. So in this sense, when discussing the “reality” of our mutually verifiable observations, empiricism has demonstrated it’s superior capacity to extract useful “truth” from our perception, whereas platonic forms have no verifiable basis in observations, they can have no observable source but imagination, so essentially they’re just people guessing, and even if they are correct, they would be correct by accident. I don’t find it ridiculous for someone to make a conceptual claim about my experience, then demonstrate the success of the concept in predicting my observations of transformations of states. But, I do find it ridiculous when people attempt to pass off our imaginary constructs as “truth” without demonstrated evidence. Why? Because… 0) imaginary constructs may in some senses be testable for internal consistency. 1) And in some cases, one might demonstrate external correspondence. But… 2) One simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of CAUSALITY. 3) And lacking observability, one cannot testify to CAUSALITY. 4) Ergo we can convey MEANING between constant relations by speaking platonically, just as we convey MEANING between inconstant relations by literature. But we cannot convey causality, and therefore cannot warranty causality, and as we are unable to warranty causality, we are unable to warranty to the truthfulness of our statements. This is why mathematicians can ‘get away with’ speaking platonically: they test only for internal consistency, not causality. And that lack of understanding of causality – is why there is such confusion and ignorance over the foundations of mathematics. When one talks about math in platonic terms he demonstrates he does not understand its construction, and cannot testify to it. Therefore he never claims truth full correspondence but proof – mere internal consistency. Why is this important? Not because mathematicians do not understand the very simple technique that they employ by specializing in tests of internal consistency of constant relations. They don’t. They understand its success in describing the physical world. The success of mathematics in the physical sciences (and failure in social sciences) is caused by the fact that the universe consists of constant relations, and we do not know yet their first causes. So internal consistency and external correspondence assist us in describing with increasing precision those constant relations until such point as we can guess those first causes. However in human actions, we do not possess constant relations, only constant patterns (symmetries) of relations. And In human thought, we do not possess many boundaries at all – or rather, we lack the means of testing those boundaries of imagination. So the problem is much harder than mathematics is able to solve by tests of constant relations – math can only assist us in taking measurements whereby we attempt to identify constant intermediary patterns, despite the kaleidic distributions of our outcomes. What we seek is causality. Because we seek to permit man to act to take advantage of the current state of the universe, and acting such that we outwit the current deterministic path of some part of it and capture the energy for our use. Moreover, since actions are expensive, and humans engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit, we must conserve our energy as well as evade parasitism by others, and to do so requires we test enough dimensions of reality against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit, to preserve our accumulated interceptions of changes in state of reality.

  • Q&A: “Curt How Do I Learn About Economics”

    IMPLIED (why don’t you recommend the Jewish austrian canon of : mises, rothbard, hoppe? In fact, why not austrians at all? GREAT QUESTION: No I don’t really recommend you read Mises, Rothbard or Hoppe any longer, except for the works below, qualified as I have qualified them below. And all of Austrian (Mengerian) Economics has been incorporated into mainstream economics, with the single exception of the certainty (determinism) of the business cycle. Instead I’ve listed some books below that I consider the least bad at this point in time. Why Not Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe?MISES: We must see Mises Praxeology an attempt to (a) preserve jewish separatism (b) prevent funding of the commons, and (c) a failed attempt at operationalism in economics – mostly because he did not understand science, or mathematics, or logic for that matter, and was, making a facile attempt at creating a logic of social science. ROTHBARD: We must see rothbard as again, attempting not to create liberty but to (a) restate jewish law of disaporic separatism (libertinism) and poly-ethicalism, (b) propose the ethics of the Caravan Trader, the Bazaar and the Ghetto as enlightenment universal morality (none of which can hold territory, construct rule of law, or create competitive commons) (c) preserve the ability to conduct parasitsm through verbal means, coercion, and trickery while at the same time prohibiting retaliation for parasitism through verbal means, coercion, and tricker – all of which make the formation of a voluntarily organized polity with consensual commons an impossibility due to the malincentives and high transaction and opportunity costs. HOPPE: As I’ve written elsewhere, (here: ) Hoppe is a victim of (a) his ‘German’ education in LITERARY, and Kantian (rationalism) rather than scientific (ratio-empirical-operational) thought (b) his education by Marxists who attempted to take Kantian moral argument, into jewish legal argument, and (c) his love of his friend and mentor rothbard (which is we must appreciate – he was a wonderful human I wish I had met), and his infuence under rothbard reinforcing (a) and (b). What we CAN take from hoppe is valuable but it is very hard to access without falling victim to his ‘nonsensical but sophisticated use of ‘Pilpul’ arguments: argumentation in particular. THE TRAP OF LITERATURE We all learn by different means and the more literary and accessible the easier, and the more abstract, deductive, and calculative, the more difficult. Libertarianism is writte almost entirely in entry level prose. IT is written almost entirely in literary prose. it is written almost entirely in morally intuitive prose. So it is attractive to the high school and college level individual in no small part because it includes basic economics, a simplified version of law, and for all intents and purposes never questions whether a libertarian polity can survive competition against opponents with different interests and institutions. (no it can’t). The reason we require money, prices, contract, law, institutions that regulate our actions and defend our investments, is precisely because the world of specialists who make improtant decisions that influence our lives does not consist of entry level prose, literary prose, morally intuitive prose, and it is not accessible to high school and colloge level readers – people those with specialized knoweldge employ. The world operates by war, technology, economy, government, demographics, law, norm, tradition, and myth – in precisely that order. So what is Curt telling you? Don’t be tricked by literature. When I tell people to become informed, I tell them to read a literary history, a biography or two, an economic history, and then get into the science of it (measurements). This takes us through the natural learning curve of myth, literature, history, and science. And through that incremental process we learn as we evolved to learn. READ THESE INSTEAD Instead Consider These Instead. (High School Market) 1. Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson (80% of everything you need to know about economics can be reduced to ‘full accounting’ of differences between potential actions, and their internal and external consequences.) (College Market) 1. Nial Ferguson’s Ascent of Money 2. Rothbard’s History of Banking (best work he did) 3. Plucknett: A Concise History Of The Common Law. 4. Fukuyama: Trust 5. Civilization: The West and the Rest (College Graduate Market) 1. Mankiw’s Micro Economics 2. Mankiew’s Macro Economics (I don’t think macro helps other than to understand how policy is made and why feds work they way they do.) 3. Mises Human Action (!!! but ONLY chapter 6+. The first five chapters are the cause of his failure.) Mises could have done it. I have looked at trying to correct it but it’s almost impossible. Simmel’s The Philosophy of Money ( Graduate School Market) (by: Emil Suric ) 1. Capital and its Structure (Lachmann); 2. Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle (Hayek); 3. Monetary Nationalism and International Stability (Hayek); 4. Prices and Production (Hayek); 5. Interest and Prices (Wicksell); 6. Theory of Money and Credit (Mises); 7. The Positive Theory of Capital (Bohm-Bawerk); 8. They Keynesian Episode (Hutt); 9. Anything ever written by Garrison. (optional) Hoppe: read his PAPERS,on his website, not his books. THE MOST IMPORTANT ADVICE Mortimer Adler’s “How To Read A Book” Why? Because you don’t really try to remember what you read. You definitely read the table of contents. You pick out a chapter or two that’s interesting to you. And then if you feel like you can chew it, read more of it. Only read what you get value out of. Return later once you’ve had more experience if there is something new to grasp. I swear it is more important to understand the table of contents so that you understand the author’s basic outline of his argument than it is to go through the book which is largely all the excuses he makes for proposing that argument. Read a bunch of Amazon reviews that have high ratings. Then read the Table of contents, pick a chapter. And for god’s sake, remember we have almost all these books online in digital form where you can read them for free if you are impoverished. If you can afford books, or use the library then please ‘pay the author his due’. But never sacrifice your learning. Copyright is a privilege not a right.

  • Q&A: “Curt How Do I Learn About Economics”

    IMPLIED (why don’t you recommend the Jewish austrian canon of : mises, rothbard, hoppe? In fact, why not austrians at all? GREAT QUESTION: No I don’t really recommend you read Mises, Rothbard or Hoppe any longer, except for the works below, qualified as I have qualified them below. And all of Austrian (Mengerian) Economics has been incorporated into mainstream economics, with the single exception of the certainty (determinism) of the business cycle. Instead I’ve listed some books below that I consider the least bad at this point in time. Why Not Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe?MISES: We must see Mises Praxeology an attempt to (a) preserve jewish separatism (b) prevent funding of the commons, and (c) a failed attempt at operationalism in economics – mostly because he did not understand science, or mathematics, or logic for that matter, and was, making a facile attempt at creating a logic of social science. ROTHBARD: We must see rothbard as again, attempting not to create liberty but to (a) restate jewish law of disaporic separatism (libertinism) and poly-ethicalism, (b) propose the ethics of the Caravan Trader, the Bazaar and the Ghetto as enlightenment universal morality (none of which can hold territory, construct rule of law, or create competitive commons) (c) preserve the ability to conduct parasitsm through verbal means, coercion, and trickery while at the same time prohibiting retaliation for parasitism through verbal means, coercion, and tricker – all of which make the formation of a voluntarily organized polity with consensual commons an impossibility due to the malincentives and high transaction and opportunity costs. HOPPE: As I’ve written elsewhere, (here: ) Hoppe is a victim of (a) his ‘German’ education in LITERARY, and Kantian (rationalism) rather than scientific (ratio-empirical-operational) thought (b) his education by Marxists who attempted to take Kantian moral argument, into jewish legal argument, and (c) his love of his friend and mentor rothbard (which is we must appreciate – he was a wonderful human I wish I had met), and his infuence under rothbard reinforcing (a) and (b). What we CAN take from hoppe is valuable but it is very hard to access without falling victim to his ‘nonsensical but sophisticated use of ‘Pilpul’ arguments: argumentation in particular. THE TRAP OF LITERATURE We all learn by different means and the more literary and accessible the easier, and the more abstract, deductive, and calculative, the more difficult. Libertarianism is writte almost entirely in entry level prose. IT is written almost entirely in literary prose. it is written almost entirely in morally intuitive prose. So it is attractive to the high school and college level individual in no small part because it includes basic economics, a simplified version of law, and for all intents and purposes never questions whether a libertarian polity can survive competition against opponents with different interests and institutions. (no it can’t). The reason we require money, prices, contract, law, institutions that regulate our actions and defend our investments, is precisely because the world of specialists who make improtant decisions that influence our lives does not consist of entry level prose, literary prose, morally intuitive prose, and it is not accessible to high school and colloge level readers – people those with specialized knoweldge employ. The world operates by war, technology, economy, government, demographics, law, norm, tradition, and myth – in precisely that order. So what is Curt telling you? Don’t be tricked by literature. When I tell people to become informed, I tell them to read a literary history, a biography or two, an economic history, and then get into the science of it (measurements). This takes us through the natural learning curve of myth, literature, history, and science. And through that incremental process we learn as we evolved to learn. READ THESE INSTEAD Instead Consider These Instead. (High School Market) 1. Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson (80% of everything you need to know about economics can be reduced to ‘full accounting’ of differences between potential actions, and their internal and external consequences.) (College Market) 1. Nial Ferguson’s Ascent of Money 2. Rothbard’s History of Banking (best work he did) 3. Plucknett: A Concise History Of The Common Law. 4. Fukuyama: Trust 5. Civilization: The West and the Rest (College Graduate Market) 1. Mankiw’s Micro Economics 2. Mankiew’s Macro Economics (I don’t think macro helps other than to understand how policy is made and why feds work they way they do.) 3. Mises Human Action (!!! but ONLY chapter 6+. The first five chapters are the cause of his failure.) Mises could have done it. I have looked at trying to correct it but it’s almost impossible. Simmel’s The Philosophy of Money ( Graduate School Market) (by: Emil Suric ) 1. Capital and its Structure (Lachmann); 2. Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle (Hayek); 3. Monetary Nationalism and International Stability (Hayek); 4. Prices and Production (Hayek); 5. Interest and Prices (Wicksell); 6. Theory of Money and Credit (Mises); 7. The Positive Theory of Capital (Bohm-Bawerk); 8. They Keynesian Episode (Hutt); 9. Anything ever written by Garrison. (optional) Hoppe: read his PAPERS,on his website, not his books. THE MOST IMPORTANT ADVICE Mortimer Adler’s “How To Read A Book” Why? Because you don’t really try to remember what you read. You definitely read the table of contents. You pick out a chapter or two that’s interesting to you. And then if you feel like you can chew it, read more of it. Only read what you get value out of. Return later once you’ve had more experience if there is something new to grasp. I swear it is more important to understand the table of contents so that you understand the author’s basic outline of his argument than it is to go through the book which is largely all the excuses he makes for proposing that argument. Read a bunch of Amazon reviews that have high ratings. Then read the Table of contents, pick a chapter. And for god’s sake, remember we have almost all these books online in digital form where you can read them for free if you are impoverished. If you can afford books, or use the library then please ‘pay the author his due’. But never sacrifice your learning. Copyright is a privilege not a right.

  • The Dimensions of Reality: Mathematics As Science of Measurement – But Stated Badly

    Mar 22, 2017 11:08am I THINK THIS MIGHT BE HARD FOR YOU BUT …. (mathematics and truth) (very important) (hot gates pls read) The answer is quite simple: you just demonstrated proof of operational construction and named that series of actions. Reality consists of the following actionable and conceivable dimensions: 1 – point, (identity, or correspondence) 2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points) 3 – area (defined by constant relations) 4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations) 5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations) 6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas)) 7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations) 8 – reality (or totality) (full causal density) We can speak in descriptions including (at least): 1 – operational (true) names 2 – mathematics (ratios) 3 – logic (sets) 4 – physics (operations) 5 – Law (reciprocity) 6 – History (memory) 7 – Literature (allegory (possible)) 8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible ) 8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory) 8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory) 8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature) 8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory) 8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory ) We can testify to the truth of our speech only when we have performed due diligence to remove: 1 – ignorance, 2 – error, 3 – bias, 4 – wishful thinking, 5 – suggestion, 6 – obscurantism, 7 – fictionalism, and 8 – deceit. So of the tests: 1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point) 2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line) 3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object) 4 – operational possibility (what you just described) (equivalent of change [operations]) 6 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof) You have demonstrated test number 4. Only. Those operations existed or can exist. That you engaged in conflation (or deception) because you have given allegorical (fictional) names to a sequence of operations does not. Because you reintroduced falsehood by analogy. You can imagine a something with the properties of a unicorn, you can speak of the same, draw the same, sculpt the same … but until you can breed one (and even then we must question), and we can test it, the unicorn does not exist ***in any condition that we can test in all dimensions necessary for you to testify it exists*** This is just one of the differences between TRUTH (dimensional consistency (constant relations)), and some subset of the properties of reality (DIMENSIONAL CONSISTENCY). Mathematics allows us to describe constant relations between constant categories (correspondence) by means of self-reference we call ‘ratios’ to some constant unit (one). The more deterministic (constant) the relations the more descriptive mathematics, the higher causal density that influences changes in state, the more information and calculation is necessary for the description of candidate consequences, and eventually we must move from the description of end states to the description of intermediary states that because of causal density place limits on the ranges of possible end states. In other words, in oder to construct theories (descriptions) of general rules of constant relations, we SUBTRACT properties of reality from our descriptions until we include nothing but identity(category), quantity, and ratio, and constrain ourselves to operations that maintain the ratios between the subject (identity). Mathematics has evolved but retained (since the greeks at least) the ‘magical’ (fictional, supernormal fiction, we call platonism) as a means of obscuring a mathematician’s lack of understanding of just why ‘this magic works’. When in reality, mathematics is trivially simple, because it rests on nothing more than correspondence (identity), quantity, ratio, and operations that maintain those ratios, and incrementally adding or removing dimensions, to describe relations across the spectrum between points(identities, objects, categories) and pure relations at scales we do not yet possess the instrumentation or memory or ability to calculate at such vast scales – except through intermediary phenomenon. As such, operationally speaking, the discipline of mathematics consists (Truthfully) of the science (theories of), general rules of constant relations at scale independence, in arbitrarily selected dimensions. In other words. Mathematics consists of the study of measurement. it is understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of the universe – they are unobservable directly except at great cost. It is not understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of mathematics: because measurement is a very simple thing, and dimensions are very simple things. That mathematicians still speak in fictional language, just as do theists and just as do the majority of philosophers (pseudo science, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-mythology) is merely evidence of retention of ancient fictionalism (platonism). And the fact that we must have these discussions demonstrates the equivalent of faith in platonic models, is equal to faith in theological models – merely lacking the anthropomorphism. Ergo, infinities are a fictionalism. Multiple infinities are a fictionalism. Both fictionalism describe conditions where time and actions (operations) have been removed as is common in the discipline of measurement (mathematics). Operationally, numbers (operationally constructed positional names, must be existentially produced as are movements of gears attached in ratio. And as such certain sets of numbers (outputs) are produced faster (like seconds or minutes vs hours) than other sets of numbers (outputs), and the reverse: some slower. But we simply ignore this fact and instead of saying no matter what limits we apply, the size of the current set of x will always be larger than the current set of y, we say the infinities are of different sizes? No. the intermediary sets produce members at different rates, and the term ‘infinity’ merely refers to ‘unknown limit’ or ‘limit that must be supplies by correspondence with reality upon application. Practice math as science, or practice it as supernatural religion. I can make correspondent statements referring to god, I can make correspondent statements referring to ‘infinities’ or any other form of mathematical platonism, but in the end, when I do that, I merely make excuses for my inability to testify to causality: TRUTH. Ergo, like I said, I am pretty well versed in the philosophy of mathematics, and I am perhaps most versed in the philosophy of science of anyone living. And I am pretty confident that mathematicians are no different from scripturalists and platonists: using arcane language and internal consistency to justify a failure to grasp causality: that the only reason internal consistency correspondence to reality is because at least in the physics of the universe if not the actions of man, determinism reigns. In other words, mathematicians in most senses have no idea why what they do, allows them to do what they do. And at least physicists admit it. And lawyers before juries have no choice. Our “Objectives” (intentions) are irrelevant in court. You do not have any right, permission, or ability to determine harm to others. Others determine if you have caused harm to them. And the jury, the judge, and the law are used to determine if in fact your words and deeds cause harm to others. As a prosecutor in court, trying you on whether you speak truthfully, you are guilty of making excuses for the harm you have done by false representation of the discipline of measurement. 😉 you might claim no harm, but then the opposition would say that your retention of fictionalism imposes a cost on every student which is multiplied by every possible action that they could have taken involving any judgement requiring measurement. If we can prevent other kinds of fraud in the market for goods, services, and testimony, why cannot we fill the gap, and prevent fraud in the market for information? 😉 In other words, in crime, neither your intentions nor your opinion matter. Defacto, you’re imposing costs on the commons. The question is only whether the outcome of your actions imposes costs. Once that question is settled, you are liable for restitution regardless of intent. Now, since the cost of the practice of supernaturalism, super-normalism (platonism), pseudo-rationalism, and pseudoscience, are only substantial when in the commons, whatever you think in your head is your choice. However once yo speak it in public you are just as liable for that damage as you are liable for yelling fire in the theater. There is no fire in the theatre, and there is no imaginary existence. Infinity is the name we give to unknown limits that must be provided by context.