Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN ALL ITS FORMS IS THE RESULT OF THE APPLICATION OF THE E

    THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN ALL ITS FORMS IS THE RESULT OF THE APPLICATION OF THE EMPIRICAL, INDO EUROPEAN, COMMON, LAW OF SOVEREIGN MEN (the property owners) TO OTHER FIELDS OF INQUIRY.

    The developmental order is Greek Law -> Aristotle -> Stoics -> Roman Law -> Roman Legal Revival -> Anglo Early Empiricism 1200 -> Baconian Empiricism.

    In all of history it is most common for the propagandist class (the religions) to claim credit for that which they had no interest.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-21 11:46:00 UTC

  • I suspect that when we discover the means by which space time is constructed (of

    I suspect that when we discover the means by which space time is constructed (of big,heavy somethings), that Einstein will look ‘dumb’ for having distracted us for a century or more, by solving the question of electromagnetic radiation (light) rather than the problem of the construction of the universe. A particularly obvious human cognitive bias in retrospect.

    it certainly appears that what we see of the universe in the radiant spectrums consists of little more than the sparklers and we are still ignorant of what it is that casts them off. We live off the sparkles, and we see a world of sparkles, but like the maggot we feast on the waste, not the beast.

    I say this not because I know some particular secret about the universe. But because I know a few particular secrets about the mind of man and the consistency of errors he makes. And just how difficult it is to circumvent those errors in each great leap forward.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-21 08:34:00 UTC

  • YES, MATHEMATICS IS TAUGHT AS FICTION: “LET US TEACH EVERYONE A VERY INTERESTING

    YES, MATHEMATICS IS TAUGHT AS FICTION: “LET US TEACH EVERYONE A VERY INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT LESSON VIA MR JOHN BLACK.”

    —“Mathematical fictionalism is more tenable than mathematical platonism.”—Melvin Davila Martinez

    “There are no such things as abstract objects?

    Prove it.” — John Black

    The verb ‘to-be’ = ‘exists’. (is, are, was, were, be, being, been) It is the most ‘irregular’ verb in the english language. Irregular means ‘fungible’. In other words, it is the least precise verb in the english language. It allows us to ‘cheat’, and save both thinking and words, and to claim authority rather than subjectivity, by circumventing the process of constructing the existence of the referent.

    Example:

    The cat is black = i see a cat, and the cat looks like the color black to me.

    The first is both a verbal shortcut, a testimony of one’s honesty, and an appeal to authority by a definitive statement, which can only POSSIBLY be a subjective statement.

    The same applies to the use of the word ‘number’ which is an irregular NOUN – that like the most irregular VERB ‘to be’, allows us to ‘cheat’, and save thinking and words, by circumventing the process of constructing the existence of the referent. the natural numbers refer to a set of names for quantities of anything we choose to categorize.

    But everything else we call a ‘number’ is, like the verb ‘to-be’ a pretense, since a number, including fractional representation using numbers, refers to the name of a quantity, whereas all other referents are the result of operations: FUNCTIONS, not numbers.

    So let us scientifically test this statement:

    “There are no such things as abstract objects.”

    …. which translates to ….

    “There [exist] no such [referents] as [non-existent] [referents]”

    To which the answer is:

    “There exist constant relations between constant relations.”

    which is a tautology. In other words, its meaningless.

    Why? Because what is a measurement? A measurement is a unitary quantity of constant relations. And what is a number? the name of a constant relation of quantities.

    Do constant relations exist? Yes, we call this ‘determinism’ in the scientific ( not philosophical) sense: that the universe operates by a set of constant relations we call ‘laws’ that we must only discover. If the universe did not operate by constant relations thought would be impossible, since that is the function of memory: to identify constant relations, and test inconstant relations.

    So do constant relations exist? Yes. We name those constant relations by the use of names that we call numbers, and functions that we reduce to the symbolic equivalent of numbers.

    But all that ‘exists’ are constant relations. Mathematics currently consists of a large set of verbal myths and parables by which we reduce complex sequences of consistent operations upon a unitary measure of constant relations.

    In other words, when we say Christianity or Aristotelianism, we give a name to a complex set of undefined operations. When we speak in much of mathematical language we do the same.

    Why? Because the human mind uses mathematics as a symbolic store of constant relations beyond which our perceptions are able to discern, and beyond which our short term memories are capable of holding. So we speak in the language of manipulating the symbols and begin to treat those symbols as existential rather than as names for the set of constant relations and constant operations that they refer to.

    ANY TESTIMONIAL STATEMENT (ANY STATEMENT IN WHICH YOU CLAIM TO CONSTRUCT A TRUTH PROPOSITION) THAT CONTAINS THE VERB TO BE, MUST BE TESTED AS A POTENTIAL ACT OF FRAUD, BECAUSE EACH SUCH STATEMENT IS A FRAUD CANDIDATE, SINCE ANY TESTIMONIAL STATEMENT CAN BE STATED WITHOUT THE VERB TO BE WITH GREATER DEFENSE AGAINST CONFLATION, SUBSTITUTION, SUGGESTION, AND DECEIT.

    Almost all philosophical questions that we normally find irresolvable are dependent upon the use of the verb to be to create appeal to authority through the use of confusion and incommensurability by acts of polymorphism by the use of conflation, substitution, suggestion, loading (moral distraction) and deceit (counter-factual loading).

    In other words MATHEMATICAL FICTIONALISM truthfully and scientifically describes the ‘story’ or ‘mythology’ of mathematics. When we speak in the names of heroes, and refer to myths and legends, and use these parables as methods of decidability in the face of a kaleidic universe, we are ‘calculating’ using symbolic referents and operations. Just as when we claim that the square root of two exists, when it cannot, since we refer to a constant relation that cannot be reduced to a constant relation without a context to provide the information supplied by context: what mathematicians call ‘limits’ or ‘decidability’ or ‘the axiom of choice’.

    Mathematics is to Programming, what Rationalism is to Empiricism: a smaller set of properties. Mathematics functions as a language for the expression of constant relations greater than the constant relations we can express by other means.

    Mathematics is spoken in terms of mythology, but computer science is not. This is what separates the imaginary and mythological, from the existential, and computable.

    Programming tests mathematics. Because functions exist, because operations exist. Everything else refers to some complex set of constant relations we give a name to: a function: a sequence of existentially possible operations.

    QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-21 08:25:00 UTC

  • HOLD THE NOBEL PRIZE COMMITTEE LIABLE FOR THEIR RATING SERVICE? Do you suppose w

    HOLD THE NOBEL PRIZE COMMITTEE LIABLE FOR THEIR RATING SERVICE?

    Do you suppose we could make the Nobel Prize committee liable for the certification of pseudoscience? I think we could. Why not? I mean, for all intents and purposes, how is the Nobel Committee any different from the Mortgage Rating Services? Privatizing commons while socializing losses into the commons?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-20 12:38:00 UTC

  • I like his suggestion that dutch is a good language for science (actually engine

    I like his suggestion that dutch is a good language for science (actually engineering). I think a lot of us agree. English=Law.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-18 17:28:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799665581502775296

    Reply addressees: @Continuatie

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799665215772114944

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799665215772114944

  • In fact, the irish are the demonstration that religions can manufacture ignoranc

    In fact, the irish are the demonstration that religions can manufacture ignorance, and science and law can set us free.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-18 14:06:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799614727483703297

    Reply addressees: @PeanutArbuckle

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799614001000972288

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799614001000972288

  • Science(and math), Rationalism(philosophy), Law(commercial), Religion(civic), My

    Science(and math), Rationalism(philosophy), Law(commercial), Religion(civic), Myth(home). We are always polytheistic.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-18 13:58:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799612649705074688

    Reply addressees: @PeanutArbuckle

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799611085565272064

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799611085565272064

  • I’m a scientist. I just write in the language of philosophy. True is true is tru

    I’m a scientist. I just write in the language of philosophy. True is true is true. It is what it is. Polytheism is better.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-18 13:51:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799610995656294400

    Reply addressees: @PeanutArbuckle

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799610748255272961

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799610748255272961

  • THE BOURGEOISE SOCIETY HAS BEEN A CATASTROPHE. There is a vast difference betwee

    THE BOURGEOISE SOCIETY HAS BEEN A CATASTROPHE.

    There is a vast difference between the scientific enlightenment which was a tremendous success, and the classical liberal seizure of political power through the various revolutions against the aristocracy and the monarchies.

    Yes we can blame the aristocracy from failing to evolve the organization of the state and incorporate the bourgeoisie. And yes we can blame the bourgeoisie for failing by incorporating the proletariat and women into the house of commons.

    But in the present, of the Marxist proletariat(worldwide), the classical liberal bourgeoisie, the ‘liberal’ priesthood (20th century), and the martial aristocracy(antiquity to 1800), all have failed except the martial aristocracy. And more frighteningly, they have failed quickly, and in succession.

    The aristocracy created markets in every aspect of life: freedom, marriage, commerce, commons, dispute resolution, and rule. But failed to abandon their rents and accommodate the finance and merchant class when commerce rather than agrarian territory evolved to the central source of production.

    The classical liberal bourgeoisie tried to make the market everything, at the expense of the tribe. They tried to create a monopoly of the entrepreneurial classes. And they failed. They destroyed the family and community as a unit of production. They brought people to capital rather than capital to people. Even if the primary beneficiaries of their financial order were the common people’

    The Marxists proletarians resisted the bourgeoise’s impact on home and family – and committed the greatest crimes in human history by trying to take over rule from the bourgeoisie. They tried to create a monopoly of the laboring classes. And they failed. They destroyed entire nations, tribes, families, economies and traditions. Worst of all they destroyed all trust.

    The secular priesthood we call ‘liberals’ or ‘the cathedral’ tried to take over from the Marxists, in pursuit of a global secular religion consisting of utopian promises, pseudoscience, and faith in the persistent expansion of technology – and destroyed the entirety of western civilization in less than a century.

    They tried to create a monopoly of the secular priestly caste. And they failed. They failed because they treated as equal in potential and demand people who are not. As the classical liberals destroyed the family as a unit of production, the liberals destroyed the nation as a unit of production.

    But only the martial aristocracy forced the creation of markets in everything by the total prohibition of monopoly – even a monopoly of rule – by resisting all unification and federalization until Napoleon used fiat credit to create ‘total war’ and forced them to relent out of defense.

    Only the monarchy created markets for the voluntary production, distribution, and exchange of goods, services, information, and commons, between the classes.

    And only the aristocracy understood that each class’ attempt to create monopolies would lead to a breakdown of the cooperation between the ‘estates of the realm’ – what we call today ‘the social classes’.

    Aristocracy creates a monopoly: the prevention of monopoly by the enforcement of markets.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-18 12:52:00 UTC

  • The evolution of life is humorous if you consider most life forms either matter-

    The evolution of life is humorous if you consider most life forms either matter-bags in water, or water-bags on land and air. How far can I get from the water, and how big can I get if i can’t just absorb water from condensation?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-18 08:05:00 UTC