Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • THE FIFTH SECRET OF PROPERTARIANISM: WORDS THAT I USE MEAN WHAT I INTEND THEM TO

    THE FIFTH SECRET OF PROPERTARIANISM: WORDS THAT I USE MEAN WHAT I INTEND THEM TO MEAN.

    Yes I must create new terms, redefine existing terms, or clarify existing terms, or use different phrasing to prevent the falsehoods in accumulated semantics, whether fictional(fictionalisms), common(ordinary), professional (disciplinary).

    Moreover, in order to unite Religion, Philosophy (what remains of it), Ethics and Morality, Law, Economics, Science, and Logic, into a single commensurable language that gives no discipline room for deception, I must correct the many ‘fictionalisms’ that plague each of the disciplines no matter how long their traditions.

    So I choose terms from each that are the most common, and you will find that I choose economics, cognitive science, and physics wherever possible, because they are the youngest languages with the least …. traditional falsehoods. I use mathematics but I use it in operational language. Most of our intellectual history is heavily biased by fictionalisms (storytelling analogies with pretense of science, logic, or reason.)

    Words mean what I choose them to mean, and my meanings are less subject to falsehood, since that is the purpose of the deflationary grammar (and semantics) of operationism, acquisitionism, propertarianism.

    TO DEFEAT ABRAHAMISM: THE INVENTION OF LYING.

    And I have an 80K word glossary to explain them.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-28 11:36:00 UTC

  • The Fifth Secret Of Propertarianism: Words That I Use Mean What I Intend Them To Mean.

    Yes I must create new terms, redefine existing terms, or clarify existing terms, or use different phrasing to prevent the falsehoods in accumulated semantics, whether fictional(fictionalisms), common(ordinary), professional (disciplinary). Moreover, in order to unite Religion, Philosophy (what remains of it), Ethics and Morality, Law, Economics, Science, and Logic, into a single commensurable language that gives no discipline room for deception, I must correct the many ‘fictionalisms’ that plague each of the disciplines no matter how long their traditions. So I choose terms from each that are the most common, and you will find that I choose economics, cognitive science, and physics wherever possible, because they are the youngest languages with the least …. traditional falsehoods. I use mathematics but I use it in operational language. Most of our intellectual history is heavily biased by fictionalisms (storytelling analogies with pretense of science, logic, or reason.) Words mean what I choose them to mean, and my meanings are less subject to falsehood, since that is the purpose of the deflationary grammar (and semantics) of operationism, acquisitionism, propertarianism. TO DEFEAT ABRAHAMISM: THE INVENTION OF LYING. And I have an 80K word glossary to explain them. Cheers

  • (Almost impossible to say anything substantive in operational language free of i

    (Almost impossible to say anything substantive in operational language free of ignorance, error, biases, pretense, (and deceit) in a tweet.A perfect medium for gossip, shaming, rallying, and tit-for-tat – and terrible one for the competition between arguments. But we try anyway.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-25 15:19:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/956547008910839810

    Reply addressees: @HermanthePerson @analytic_philo

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/947683277313159170

    IN REPLY TO:

    @HermanthePerson

    @analytic_philo In the spirit of analytic philosophy, you might need Twitter to increase its size limit to medium-sized essay: please define “everything” , “is”, “going” “to”, “be”, “okay” and “hopefully”, and you might like to shed light on the pragmatics of “,” and “.”

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/947683277313159170

  • What Does Logic Mean And What Are Its Limits?

    The human facility we call logic consists of tests of constant relations between states. The Logics consist of deflationary(limiting) grammars(rules of continuous disambiguation) that test via competition (comparison) the preservation of constant relations between states. And must, because that is all our brains(neurons) are capable of: relations. All non trivial premises are forever contingent. All non trivial statements are contingent. All non trivial proofs are contingent. And so the formal logics can only falsify the non trivial. No mathematician claims proofs and truths are the same. One does not prove the truth of anything. If not for the simple reason that confirmation does not convey truth – limits do (criteria of falsification). One tries to construct a proof of possibility or impossibility, and either can or cannot. One constructs operational proofs of possibility because operational statements are empirical (observable and measurable by the uniform system of measurement we call human action). Empirically, we prove nothing, but disprove much. Hence the world demonstrably operates by science and law. The same applies to that discipline we call logic itself. And so the formal logics teach us only how to falsify. One cannot prove a non trivial truth, only eliminate falsehoods. Popper was right. The sciences are right. I am right. Its same issue we have with mathematicians and mathematical platonism – infinities do not exit. Its a convention made necessary by scale independence. One cannot prove a truth. A statement survives prosecution or it doesn’t. Mathematics by virtue of consisting of nothing but positional names cannot consist of anything other than perfect constant relations. Just a matter of getting an authority figure to falsify it, rather than debate it with sophists who create straw men by conflating logic philosophy, law and science and just engage in denial of the first principle upon which their arguments depend: constant relations. Like prime numbers, some statements consist of relations so consistent that they cannot be otherwise. Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit. Pilpul in its original, theological, philosophical, rationalist, pseudorationalist, pseudoscientific forms can be brought to an end by consistent measurements: operational language and grammar. if we speak in complete sentences in operational grammar and semantics then we can put into law the same safeguards against propaganda and deceit in the market for information – particularly political information – that we have in the market for goods and services. -Curt Doolittle -The Propertarian Institute – Kiev Ukraine (PS: Trying to reach Catarina Dutilh Novaes to criticize it. She uses similar language so it will stand. (Never let a troll win.))

  • WHAT DOES LOGIC MEAN AND WHAT ARE ITS LIMITS? The human facility we call logic c

    WHAT DOES LOGIC MEAN AND WHAT ARE ITS LIMITS?

    The human facility we call logic consists of tests of constant relations between states.

    The Logics consist of deflationary(limiting) grammars(rules of continuous disambiguation) that test via competition (comparison) the preservation of constant relations between states. And must, because that is all our brains(neurons) are capable of: relations.

    All non trivial premises are forever contingent. All non trivial statements are contingent. All non trivial proofs are contingent. And so the formal logics can only falsify the non trivial. No mathematician claims proofs and truths are the same. One does not prove the truth of anything. If not for the simple reason that confirmation does not convey truth – limits do (criteria of falsification).

    One tries to construct a proof of possibility or impossibility, and either can or cannot. One constructs operational proofs of possibility because operational statements are empirical (observable and measurable by the uniform system of measurement we call human action). Empirically, we prove nothing, but disprove much. Hence the world demonstrably operates by science and law.

    The same applies to that discipline we call logic itself. And so the formal logics teach us only how to falsify. One cannot prove a non trivial truth, only eliminate falsehoods.

    Popper was right. The sciences are right. I am right. Its same issue we have with mathematicians and mathematical platonism – infinities do not exit. Its a convention made necessary by scale independence. One cannot prove a truth. A statement survives prosecution or it doesn’t.

    Mathematics by virtue of consisting of nothing but positional names cannot consist of anything other than perfect constant relations.

    Just a matter of getting an authority figure to falsify it, rather than debate it with sophists who create straw men by conflating logic philosophy, law and science and just engage in denial of the first principle upon which their arguments depend: constant relations.

    Like prime numbers, some statements consist of relations so consistent that they cannot be otherwise.

    Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit.

    Pilpul in its original, theological, philosophical, rationalist, pseudorationalist, pseudoscientific forms can be brought to an end by consistent measurements: operational language and grammar. if we speak in complete sentences in operational grammar and semantics then we can put into law the same safeguards against propaganda and deceit in the market for information – particularly political information – that we have in the market for goods and services.

    -Curt Doolittle

    -The Propertarian Institute

    – Kiev Ukraine

    (PS: Trying to reach Catarina Dutilh Novaes to criticize it. She uses similar language so it will stand. (Never let a troll win.))

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-25 05:19:00 UTC

  • When we say ‘RATIONAL’ we mean, it’s a rational or not rational choice by which

    When we say ‘RATIONAL’ we mean, it’s a rational or not rational choice by which to obtain desirable outcomes. When we LOGICAL we mean that one’s argument, justification, or reasoning, follows in the sense that the constant relations of properties, categories, relations, and values, that you’re depending upon are constant for the purposes you suggest, assert, or claim. And generally we separate the logical (necessary) from the rational (choice) When we say ‘EMPIRICAL’ we mean that ones description, argument, justification, or reasoning, has been tested against reality by the use of physical and logical instrumentation to eliminate common errors of perception, bias, reason, logic, and fraud. When we say ‘SCIENTIFIC’ we mean that ones statements have been tested logically, empirically, rationally, stated operationally, scope complete, and limited, and that the work is warrantied, if by nothing else than reputation and career. (very little work is scientific) When we say TESTIMONIAL we mean that if your statement is logical, scientific, rational, reciprocal (meaning ethical an dmoral)l, limited and complete, and that you’ve given a warranty that you’ve done these due diligences , and have put ‘skin in the game’ if you are wrong.

  • When we say ‘RATIONAL’ we mean, it’s a rational or not rational choice by which

    When we say ‘RATIONAL’ we mean, it’s a rational or not rational choice by which to obtain desirable outcomes.

    When we LOGICAL we mean that one’s argument, justification, or reasoning, follows in the sense that the constant relations of properties, categories, relations, and values, that you’re depending upon are constant for the purposes you suggest, assert, or claim. And generally we separate the logical (necessary) from the rational (choice)

    When we say ‘EMPIRICAL’ we mean that ones description, argument, justification, or reasoning, has been tested against reality by the use of physical and logical instrumentation to eliminate common errors of perception, bias, reason, logic, and fraud.

    When we say ‘SCIENTIFIC’ we mean that ones statements have been tested logically, empirically, rationally, stated operationally, scope complete, and limited, and that the work is warrantied, if by nothing else than reputation and career. (very little work is scientific)

    When we say TESTIMONIAL we mean that if your statement is logical, scientific, rational, reciprocal (meaning ethical an dmoral)l, limited and complete, and that you’ve given a warranty that you’ve done these due diligences , and have put ‘skin in the game’ if you are wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-24 13:18:00 UTC

  • When we say ‘RATIONAL’ we mean, it’s a rational or not rational choice by which

    When we say ‘RATIONAL’ we mean, it’s a rational or not rational choice by which to obtain desirable outcomes. When we LOGICAL we mean that one’s argument, justification, or reasoning, follows in the sense that the constant relations of properties, categories, relations, and values, that you’re depending upon are constant for the purposes you suggest, assert, or claim. And generally we separate the logical (necessary) from the rational (choice) When we say ‘EMPIRICAL’ we mean that ones description, argument, justification, or reasoning, has been tested against reality by the use of physical and logical instrumentation to eliminate common errors of perception, bias, reason, logic, and fraud. When we say ‘SCIENTIFIC’ we mean that ones statements have been tested logically, empirically, rationally, stated operationally, scope complete, and limited, and that the work is warrantied, if by nothing else than reputation and career. (very little work is scientific) When we say TESTIMONIAL we mean that if your statement is logical, scientific, rational, reciprocal (meaning ethical an dmoral)l, limited and complete, and that you’ve given a warranty that you’ve done these due diligences , and have put ‘skin in the game’ if you are wrong.

  • Tech is trivial. The problem is topic and prep so that we don’t spiral into soph

    Tech is trivial. The problem is topic and prep so that we don’t spiral into sophisms.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 16:19:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955475133774417920

    Reply addressees: @InsulaQui @Voltaire1778__8 @Rewwgh @TrueDilTom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955462664746078208

    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/955462664746078208

  • Set something up that negotiates the topics, is moderated, and structured and it

    Set something up that negotiates the topics, is moderated, and structured and it’s fine. I’m not going to have another discourse like Sean (MisesUK) where he states the contra empirical, and we leave all evidence behind.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 15:22:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955460721080520705

    Reply addressees: @Voltaire1778__8 @Rewwgh @InsulaQui @TrueDilTom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955460162747338753

    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/955460162747338753