Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • drug dealers, shamans, fortune tellers, oracles, gossips, and yes-men are more p

    drug dealers, shamans, fortune tellers, oracles, gossips, and yes-men are more popular than physicists and judges.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-04 19:34:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/672861616313122817

    Reply addressees: @FriedrichHayek

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/672494928811855873

    IN REPLY TO:

    @FriedrichHayek

    The world’s most influential economists are almost all leftists and Keynesians of one stripe or another …. https://t.co/J6rUUt8GdG

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/672494928811855873

  • Lots of good evidence once again that people who drink coffee live longer with l

    Lots of good evidence once again that people who drink coffee live longer with less serious disease up to about five cups a day.

    I am looking for a reason why the kind of people who live longer drink coffee rather than why coffee makes you live longer, and I suspect the following:

    1-smarter folk/more social folk

    2-middle upper middle class.

    3-more active folk.

    With 3 being the obvious candidate for producing longer lifespans with less disease.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-03 04:50:00 UTC

  • Scientific Method In Everything

    Seek out combat: Intellectual, romantic, social, economic, and physical. Not to win, but to improve until you can no longer find a way to lose. Love the fight. Revel in it. It’s your heritage. Celebrate it. Heroes all – whether words, heart, work, money, stick, spear, sword or rifle. He who fights regardless of rank is a brother in arms.

    Famous household phrase I’d hear, “that’s okay, at least I’ll die trying.” Anecdotal. Nostalgic. Usually it was spoken in reference to a physical contest (street scuffle) and rebuffing an opponents boastful challenge.— William Benge

    Also pick intellectual fights with people with similar belief structure using arguments you do not agree with… great for hashing out third ways and new perspectives.–Delian

  • Scientific Method In Everything

    Seek out combat: Intellectual, romantic, social, economic, and physical. Not to win, but to improve until you can no longer find a way to lose. Love the fight. Revel in it. It’s your heritage. Celebrate it. Heroes all – whether words, heart, work, money, stick, spear, sword or rifle. He who fights regardless of rank is a brother in arms.

    Famous household phrase I’d hear, “that’s okay, at least I’ll die trying.” Anecdotal. Nostalgic. Usually it was spoken in reference to a physical contest (street scuffle) and rebuffing an opponents boastful challenge.— William Benge

    Also pick intellectual fights with people with similar belief structure using arguments you do not agree with… great for hashing out third ways and new perspectives.–Delian

  • A Dramatic Change

    [P]ropertarianism and Testimonialism together are as great an advancement over the scientific era as the scientific era was over the rationalist, and the rationalist over the mystical. No kidding. We can revolutionize human thought, action, existence, and history.

  • A Dramatic Change

    [P]ropertarianism and Testimonialism together are as great an advancement over the scientific era as the scientific era was over the rationalist, and the rationalist over the mystical. No kidding. We can revolutionize human thought, action, existence, and history.

  • Q&A: Curt, Why Attack Cantor? It’s Useful. (Lying is also useful, but it’s not true.)

    (advanced)

    —“I’ve been following your work for some time. I’m going through your reading list and am intrigued. One thing however was bugging me for some time. Namely, your attack on Cantor you gave on one of your interviews. I’d greatly appreciate if you could expand on this a little. For example infinities of different sizes were very helpful in answering a very practical question of decidability of the halting problem.Could you give some very brief explanation?”—

    [M]any analogies and models are useful, but are not true. Fairy tales are useful, and may in fact be the ultimate form of pedagogy but they are not true. Lying is profoundly useful. Propaganda is perhaps the most useful of technologies. I will see if I can do this topic justice. I am not sure I can do it briefly. So I will give a few hints and see if you can make the connections rather than write five pages of text that I don’t have time for right now. Lets understand that my criticism is an attempt to require mathematicians to practice their work ethically and morally and free of externality. And that as a cosmopolitan, I criticize cantor for unscientific method of argument that produces ‘meantinful’ but ‘untrue’ externalities, in a case where scientific statements that are equally meaningful but produce no untrue externalities will suffice. I am particularly concerned about this for the reasons the Intuitionists were concerned: Einstein should not have been revolutionary, and should have occurred a century earlier. And for the same reasons scientists publish in operational definitions and postmodernist pseudoscientists publish in ‘meaning and allegory’ – non-operational statements. Becuase there is a very great difference between a Name of something extant, and an Analogy to Experience. The former is laundered of imaginary content and the latter loaded with it. Or more precisely, the former is more true and the latter almost always false. Cantor’s insight would be trivial if we taught the foundations of mathematics to children instead of taught by wrote memorization. The foundation being ‘pairing off’. Mathematics evolved from the very simple act of putting stone in a bag for every sheep one took out to the pasture at night, and one out of the bag for every sheep that one brought in. This is ‘pairing off’. Cantor returns us to the basis of mathematics by reminding us that we are at all times, paring off. And that we can pair off different bags of stones as well. We can also create a bag that in theory will always have more stones in it because in practice we can always find more stones on the beaches with which to refill the bag. We can use stones of different colors, sizes and textures. We can also name stones. But humans can only remember so many names so we invented positional naming: what we call ‘numbers’, consists of a sequence of operations by which we generate names, each of which is unique and whose name is positionally commensurable with all other names of stones regardless of size, texture and color. The point I make here is that mathematics consists of sequences of operations, all of which use pairing off (category), positional naming(identity), and functions (collections of operations) to express ratios. All of which are existentially possible operations, that because of ‘pairing off’ correspond to the real world. We can however, construct general rules of arbitrary precision by ignoring correspondence with any real world entity and instead comparing ratios of names against names. This arbitrary precision however eliminates contextual decidability. We now must construct a what we call a ‘limit’ for any ratio to be decidable. This limit corresponds to a real-world context. For example, the square of two cannot logically exist without an expressed limit to the number of operations that must be performed. Yet neither can one perform an unlimited number of operations. So we have a general logical rule, not a number, because that number is existentially impossible to exist other than as a function decidable by contextual limit (limit of arbitrary precision). Furthermore, we can use symbols to form recipes for these operations, and additional symbols for functions (collections of operations into a recipe). In this sense only natural numbers scientifically exist. All other ‘numbers’ that we refer to are existentially and necessarily, irrefutably, names of functions, not in fact numbers. We can use these functions as we use numbers, but they remain functions at all times out of existential necessity. Applying the name ‘number’ to a ‘function’ is a verbal convenience, like so many verbal conveniences in mathematics. But it is not ‘true’. This is the most common pseudoscientific fallacy in mathematics, and has been understood for over a century. Religious mysticism works. Mathematical Platonism ‘works’. Both have the same scientific standing: pseudoscience or utter falsehood. We criticize the externalities of religious mysticism. I criticize the externalities of philosophical rationalism. Mathematicians of great skill still talk in terms of a non-existent mathematical reality instead of ‘the deterministic consequences of an axiomatic definition that appears to the human mind real because we are unable to imagine those relations as entirely deterministic.” So let us look at infinity. Can any infinity exist? Well no extant infinity can exist, because there is nothing infinite that we can identify, and anythign we construct logically as infinite (a path around a circle) is limited by the boundaries of the universe, or limited by the number of operations we perform….. OR….. ***limited by the rate of operations we perform***. What Cantor’s ‘analogy’ does, is imagine that all operations are performed instantaneously, and that the rate of one set of operations is faster than another rate of operations. In other words, he’s using the time honored principle of GEARS. Now, is one infinity bigger than another? No. One set of operations produces more outputs per cycle of operations than another set of operations. One rate is faster than another rate. If we ignore the passage of time, then in any system the rate of production no matter how long will produce more operations in one than the other. But, just as length did not exist as the constant, as Einstein showed us, neither do rates, also as Einstein showed us. Lengths are externally dependent on the observer as are rates. Now, can any infinity exist? No. No infinity can exist. Infinity cannot exist any more than the square root of two can exist. Infinity is a name for a limit of arbitrary precision: information provided external to the calculation, useful when we wish to construct a scale independent general rule. So let me play economist here, and ask the question “what is the total cost of mathematical platonism and the ignorance of mathematicians of the very simple fact that much of their language is pseudoscience justified by special pleading?” The answer I suspect, is that mathematics is quite simple and most people are limited in the application of it and access to it, simply because it remains taught to the general public as an ancient form of mysticism, rather than a very basic principle: bags, stones, and moving them around. What has been the impact on physical science and mathematics? I am not sure. What has been the impact on the perpetuation of pseudoscience in the public mind: that appears to be vast. Half truths are a pretty serious problem as precision increases. This is the direction of man’s evolution: toward greater truth. And greater truth means greater parsimony: greater precision. And greater precision means greater correspondence. We can know names rather than analogies. When we speak in the language of truth, using the true names of the universe, we will indeed be gods of it. And mathematical platonism is for a variety of reasons one of the means by which modern pseudoscience in all walks of life has been perpetuated. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • Q&A: Curt, Why Attack Cantor? It’s Useful. (Lying is also useful, but it’s not true.)

    (advanced)

    —“I’ve been following your work for some time. I’m going through your reading list and am intrigued. One thing however was bugging me for some time. Namely, your attack on Cantor you gave on one of your interviews. I’d greatly appreciate if you could expand on this a little. For example infinities of different sizes were very helpful in answering a very practical question of decidability of the halting problem.Could you give some very brief explanation?”—

    [M]any analogies and models are useful, but are not true. Fairy tales are useful, and may in fact be the ultimate form of pedagogy but they are not true. Lying is profoundly useful. Propaganda is perhaps the most useful of technologies. I will see if I can do this topic justice. I am not sure I can do it briefly. So I will give a few hints and see if you can make the connections rather than write five pages of text that I don’t have time for right now. Lets understand that my criticism is an attempt to require mathematicians to practice their work ethically and morally and free of externality. And that as a cosmopolitan, I criticize cantor for unscientific method of argument that produces ‘meantinful’ but ‘untrue’ externalities, in a case where scientific statements that are equally meaningful but produce no untrue externalities will suffice. I am particularly concerned about this for the reasons the Intuitionists were concerned: Einstein should not have been revolutionary, and should have occurred a century earlier. And for the same reasons scientists publish in operational definitions and postmodernist pseudoscientists publish in ‘meaning and allegory’ – non-operational statements. Becuase there is a very great difference between a Name of something extant, and an Analogy to Experience. The former is laundered of imaginary content and the latter loaded with it. Or more precisely, the former is more true and the latter almost always false. Cantor’s insight would be trivial if we taught the foundations of mathematics to children instead of taught by wrote memorization. The foundation being ‘pairing off’. Mathematics evolved from the very simple act of putting stone in a bag for every sheep one took out to the pasture at night, and one out of the bag for every sheep that one brought in. This is ‘pairing off’. Cantor returns us to the basis of mathematics by reminding us that we are at all times, paring off. And that we can pair off different bags of stones as well. We can also create a bag that in theory will always have more stones in it because in practice we can always find more stones on the beaches with which to refill the bag. We can use stones of different colors, sizes and textures. We can also name stones. But humans can only remember so many names so we invented positional naming: what we call ‘numbers’, consists of a sequence of operations by which we generate names, each of which is unique and whose name is positionally commensurable with all other names of stones regardless of size, texture and color. The point I make here is that mathematics consists of sequences of operations, all of which use pairing off (category), positional naming(identity), and functions (collections of operations) to express ratios. All of which are existentially possible operations, that because of ‘pairing off’ correspond to the real world. We can however, construct general rules of arbitrary precision by ignoring correspondence with any real world entity and instead comparing ratios of names against names. This arbitrary precision however eliminates contextual decidability. We now must construct a what we call a ‘limit’ for any ratio to be decidable. This limit corresponds to a real-world context. For example, the square of two cannot logically exist without an expressed limit to the number of operations that must be performed. Yet neither can one perform an unlimited number of operations. So we have a general logical rule, not a number, because that number is existentially impossible to exist other than as a function decidable by contextual limit (limit of arbitrary precision). Furthermore, we can use symbols to form recipes for these operations, and additional symbols for functions (collections of operations into a recipe). In this sense only natural numbers scientifically exist. All other ‘numbers’ that we refer to are existentially and necessarily, irrefutably, names of functions, not in fact numbers. We can use these functions as we use numbers, but they remain functions at all times out of existential necessity. Applying the name ‘number’ to a ‘function’ is a verbal convenience, like so many verbal conveniences in mathematics. But it is not ‘true’. This is the most common pseudoscientific fallacy in mathematics, and has been understood for over a century. Religious mysticism works. Mathematical Platonism ‘works’. Both have the same scientific standing: pseudoscience or utter falsehood. We criticize the externalities of religious mysticism. I criticize the externalities of philosophical rationalism. Mathematicians of great skill still talk in terms of a non-existent mathematical reality instead of ‘the deterministic consequences of an axiomatic definition that appears to the human mind real because we are unable to imagine those relations as entirely deterministic.” So let us look at infinity. Can any infinity exist? Well no extant infinity can exist, because there is nothing infinite that we can identify, and anythign we construct logically as infinite (a path around a circle) is limited by the boundaries of the universe, or limited by the number of operations we perform….. OR….. ***limited by the rate of operations we perform***. What Cantor’s ‘analogy’ does, is imagine that all operations are performed instantaneously, and that the rate of one set of operations is faster than another rate of operations. In other words, he’s using the time honored principle of GEARS. Now, is one infinity bigger than another? No. One set of operations produces more outputs per cycle of operations than another set of operations. One rate is faster than another rate. If we ignore the passage of time, then in any system the rate of production no matter how long will produce more operations in one than the other. But, just as length did not exist as the constant, as Einstein showed us, neither do rates, also as Einstein showed us. Lengths are externally dependent on the observer as are rates. Now, can any infinity exist? No. No infinity can exist. Infinity cannot exist any more than the square root of two can exist. Infinity is a name for a limit of arbitrary precision: information provided external to the calculation, useful when we wish to construct a scale independent general rule. So let me play economist here, and ask the question “what is the total cost of mathematical platonism and the ignorance of mathematicians of the very simple fact that much of their language is pseudoscience justified by special pleading?” The answer I suspect, is that mathematics is quite simple and most people are limited in the application of it and access to it, simply because it remains taught to the general public as an ancient form of mysticism, rather than a very basic principle: bags, stones, and moving them around. What has been the impact on physical science and mathematics? I am not sure. What has been the impact on the perpetuation of pseudoscience in the public mind: that appears to be vast. Half truths are a pretty serious problem as precision increases. This is the direction of man’s evolution: toward greater truth. And greater truth means greater parsimony: greater precision. And greater precision means greater correspondence. We can know names rather than analogies. When we speak in the language of truth, using the true names of the universe, we will indeed be gods of it. And mathematical platonism is for a variety of reasons one of the means by which modern pseudoscience in all walks of life has been perpetuated. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • Can Christianity Find Room for Intellectuals?

    [I] am fairly sure at this point that my concept of christianity differs little from say Jefferson’s except in the current scientific language I would use to express it. I practice an intellectual form of what we call christianity. It is demonstrably more pagan (the adoration of beauty, life, nature, the universe) in sentiment. It is not submissive but heroic. It is not the demand of a god, but an exchange with one. It is not mystical, but psychological and ethical, social and moral, political and economic. But it remains spiritual: a means of serving the pack by submission to, investment in, and sacrifice for, the pack (the tribe). I pray to and take advice from my god daily. Yet I see this god as a construction of man’s collective intuition, belief, and action, and the magic of religion a product of complex consilience. When I talk to my god he is not the semitic, Egyptian or babylonian terrorist, nor the fearsome Odin, nor the importune Zeus. He is the “all-father” for certain, but he is a distinctly christian father. A wise monarch, not a pious priest or selfish demon. Or better yet, he is the god I need him to be in order to do the work of my people – to raise my people from beast, to man, to gods all. To transform the entire universe to eden. Not to be cast out of paradise, but to construct it. So in this sense I see Polytheism as superior for an advanced civilization: to lionize our generals and saints, artists and poets, scientists and philosophers, manufacturers, merchants, and craftsmen. Because all of us require that our gods speak to us in our our language. But what are gods? Gods are the product of the human mind, just as are numbers and formulae, and they exist just as do numbers and formulae. They are what we wish to be if we were able, not what exists prior to us. Is it better to practice ancestor worship, disciplined ritual, as the Japanese and the stoics? It certainly appears so. Is it problematic to practice nature worship, seek advice of the gods? I do not see reason to. I can pray to the soul of Aristotle and if I understand him well enough hear his advice. Prayer is a means of circumventing your cognitive biases by a ritual act of submission to the pack. We hear the truth in prayer because we cannot lie to ourselves before an the knowing gods. If Christianity can find room for Intellectual Christians then why must it remain ‘truth’ rather than ‘myth and allegory’? Surely a tea ceremony, or the daily ritual of diary planning and writing are personal rituals rather than political. While prayer remains a mixture of personal and political. But all three quiet the mind so that we can listen to intuition gained from the study or experience of the ideas of great minds free of the multitude of biases that cloud our minds. Christianity can be expressed as an entirely rational system of thought. The premise is very simple: extend love of kin to non kin, and in doing so construct trust, and trust will produce prosperity. When paired with aristocracy and chivalry, this comprises the western character: heroism: the construction of personal excellence for the purpose of service to and advancement of the tribe. That we create god within us is more important for us than to explain the vicissitudes of nature – the universe is definitely hostile to human life. If I agree with the Catholic philosophers and Mormon practice, why is there no room for those men of science (truth) who need even FEWER biases and comforts in order to gain access to our intuitions? We need fewer excuses and incentives to think and act in Christian fashion, other than because of our station or disposition we understand that limiting consumption and contributing to the commons with our thoughts, feelings, and efforts is you see, I understand the cancer that is monopoly in any form, and the genius that is what we call balance of powers, but is better considered a division of labor. For in that division we produce multiple excellences, and through voluntary exchange we find the golden mean: the optimum path for many specialists rather than the only possible path for monopolists. The church is meaningless and rudderless without aristocracy. Aristocracy is meaningless without the church. Without the competition between Nobility, Priesthood and Burgher (bourgeoisie), two must be subject to the whim of one rather than each in constant excellence each conducting exchanges, and where those exchanges form an information system by which we investigate all three possible dimensions of social order as specialists, use each that we find advantageous, and continue to evolve. Meanwhile each keeps the other from abuses by a competition for power. This was our western secret and we have abandoned it for the folly of monopoly government by the lower classes in which we simply lie and cheat and manipulate outside of government and using government rather than between the great houses of state, church and industry. A man must be educated by the church and the aristocracy and industry. He can then specialize to suit his abilities: education and care-taking, invention and production, law and order. I do not see the value in the bible that I see in our great literature. I see value in a church, in a priesthood, in a mythos, and in rituals. I do not see the value in heaven that I see in the natural world. I do not see the value in false gods that I see in past saints and heroes. I do see a true god, and a truthful god, that seeks to parent us through our evolution such that we may transform the universe into the garden of eden. And that god has many faces. It has taken me a long time to understand that across all of mankind the words spoken in ritual whether field, temple or church, are meaningless. It is the safety we feel in ritual that matters – our feeling of membership in the pack and the great comfort that it brings to us no matter what the forum (including TED talks for the new hippie era). We need a christian reformation as well as a restitution. And we need to kill forever the monopoly of the heresy that is state-run-secular-humanism as one of the great failed experiments – another great lie – in human history. A heresy that is a monopoly, and as a monopoly NOT CHRISTIAN OR WESTERN but middle eastern. It is not only islam we must purge from the west, but democratic secular humanism: the worship of the state: the worst false god man has invented in two thousand years. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Can Christianity Find Room for Intellectuals?

    [I] am fairly sure at this point that my concept of christianity differs little from say Jefferson’s except in the current scientific language I would use to express it. I practice an intellectual form of what we call christianity. It is demonstrably more pagan (the adoration of beauty, life, nature, the universe) in sentiment. It is not submissive but heroic. It is not the demand of a god, but an exchange with one. It is not mystical, but psychological and ethical, social and moral, political and economic. But it remains spiritual: a means of serving the pack by submission to, investment in, and sacrifice for, the pack (the tribe). I pray to and take advice from my god daily. Yet I see this god as a construction of man’s collective intuition, belief, and action, and the magic of religion a product of complex consilience. When I talk to my god he is not the semitic, Egyptian or babylonian terrorist, nor the fearsome Odin, nor the importune Zeus. He is the “all-father” for certain, but he is a distinctly christian father. A wise monarch, not a pious priest or selfish demon. Or better yet, he is the god I need him to be in order to do the work of my people – to raise my people from beast, to man, to gods all. To transform the entire universe to eden. Not to be cast out of paradise, but to construct it. So in this sense I see Polytheism as superior for an advanced civilization: to lionize our generals and saints, artists and poets, scientists and philosophers, manufacturers, merchants, and craftsmen. Because all of us require that our gods speak to us in our our language. But what are gods? Gods are the product of the human mind, just as are numbers and formulae, and they exist just as do numbers and formulae. They are what we wish to be if we were able, not what exists prior to us. Is it better to practice ancestor worship, disciplined ritual, as the Japanese and the stoics? It certainly appears so. Is it problematic to practice nature worship, seek advice of the gods? I do not see reason to. I can pray to the soul of Aristotle and if I understand him well enough hear his advice. Prayer is a means of circumventing your cognitive biases by a ritual act of submission to the pack. We hear the truth in prayer because we cannot lie to ourselves before an the knowing gods. If Christianity can find room for Intellectual Christians then why must it remain ‘truth’ rather than ‘myth and allegory’? Surely a tea ceremony, or the daily ritual of diary planning and writing are personal rituals rather than political. While prayer remains a mixture of personal and political. But all three quiet the mind so that we can listen to intuition gained from the study or experience of the ideas of great minds free of the multitude of biases that cloud our minds. Christianity can be expressed as an entirely rational system of thought. The premise is very simple: extend love of kin to non kin, and in doing so construct trust, and trust will produce prosperity. When paired with aristocracy and chivalry, this comprises the western character: heroism: the construction of personal excellence for the purpose of service to and advancement of the tribe. That we create god within us is more important for us than to explain the vicissitudes of nature – the universe is definitely hostile to human life. If I agree with the Catholic philosophers and Mormon practice, why is there no room for those men of science (truth) who need even FEWER biases and comforts in order to gain access to our intuitions? We need fewer excuses and incentives to think and act in Christian fashion, other than because of our station or disposition we understand that limiting consumption and contributing to the commons with our thoughts, feelings, and efforts is you see, I understand the cancer that is monopoly in any form, and the genius that is what we call balance of powers, but is better considered a division of labor. For in that division we produce multiple excellences, and through voluntary exchange we find the golden mean: the optimum path for many specialists rather than the only possible path for monopolists. The church is meaningless and rudderless without aristocracy. Aristocracy is meaningless without the church. Without the competition between Nobility, Priesthood and Burgher (bourgeoisie), two must be subject to the whim of one rather than each in constant excellence each conducting exchanges, and where those exchanges form an information system by which we investigate all three possible dimensions of social order as specialists, use each that we find advantageous, and continue to evolve. Meanwhile each keeps the other from abuses by a competition for power. This was our western secret and we have abandoned it for the folly of monopoly government by the lower classes in which we simply lie and cheat and manipulate outside of government and using government rather than between the great houses of state, church and industry. A man must be educated by the church and the aristocracy and industry. He can then specialize to suit his abilities: education and care-taking, invention and production, law and order. I do not see the value in the bible that I see in our great literature. I see value in a church, in a priesthood, in a mythos, and in rituals. I do not see the value in heaven that I see in the natural world. I do not see the value in false gods that I see in past saints and heroes. I do see a true god, and a truthful god, that seeks to parent us through our evolution such that we may transform the universe into the garden of eden. And that god has many faces. It has taken me a long time to understand that across all of mankind the words spoken in ritual whether field, temple or church, are meaningless. It is the safety we feel in ritual that matters – our feeling of membership in the pack and the great comfort that it brings to us no matter what the forum (including TED talks for the new hippie era). We need a christian reformation as well as a restitution. And we need to kill forever the monopoly of the heresy that is state-run-secular-humanism as one of the great failed experiments – another great lie – in human history. A heresy that is a monopoly, and as a monopoly NOT CHRISTIAN OR WESTERN but middle eastern. It is not only islam we must purge from the west, but democratic secular humanism: the worship of the state: the worst false god man has invented in two thousand years. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine