Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • THE DIMENSIONS OF TRUTHFUL SPEECH Existentially Possible Truth in Speech: TRUTH

    THE DIMENSIONS OF TRUTHFUL SPEECH

    Existentially Possible Truth in Speech:

    TRUTH

    That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    TRUTHFULNESS:

    that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    HONESTY:

    That testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    DEMAND FOR TRUTH

    Categories of Demand for Truth:

    1 – True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship.

    2 – True enough for me to feel good about myself.

    3 – True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    4 – True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    5 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7 – True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    8 – Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    FALSEHOOD

    Categories of Falsehood:

    1 – ignorance,

    2 – error,

    3 – bias,

    4 – wishful thinking,

    5 – suggestion,

    6 – obscurantism,

    7 – fictionalism, and

    8 – deceit:

    DUE DILIGENCE

    Dimensions of Due Diligence by which we eliminate falsehoods:

    1 – categorical consistency (identity)

    2 – logical consistency (internal correspondence)

    3 – empirical consistency (external correspondence)

    4 – existential consistency (operational correspondence)

    5 – rational consistency ( correspondence to incentives )

    6 – moral consistency ( reciprocity – reciprocal correspondence)

    7 – scope consistency (limits, parsimony, and full accounting – scope correspondence)

    CRITICISM

    Categories of Incremental Demand for Criticism (Survival):

    1 – hypothesis,

    2 – theory(falsification), and;

    3 – law (market application).

    KNOWLEDGE

    Because Justificationism is false – a misapplication of mathematical proof, moral observation, and legal observation – and only survival from criticism can produce a truth candidate, the knowledge cannot consist of justified belief, but of survival from the incremental markets for criticism: hypothesis, theory(falsification), and law (market application).

    TRUTH, TRUTHFUL, HONEST

    1 – because our demand for Truth varies greatly. (1-8 above), and;

    2 – because our efforts at due diligence in different dimensions (1-7 above) varies greatly;

    3 – because our efforts at due diligence in the markets (hypothesis, theory, and law, above), varies greatly (1-3 above), and;

    The best we can do is speak truthfully. To speak truthfully we must:

    1) Test our speech against the degree of Demand for Truth.

    2) Test our speech against the applicable dimensions for that form of truth.

    3) Test our speech against the scope of markets sufficient for the Demand for Truth.

    (Everyone tries to escape due diligence, and warranty of their speech)

    WORKING WITH SCIENCE, NOT PLATONISM

    You are making the error of set comparisons that is so common in rationalist ‘pseudoscience’, by which you use framing to create false dichotomies.

    DEFINITIONS

    —“Thus, if you try to define the concept of “truth” by appeal to the concept of “knowledge”,”—

    I don’t. I define the concept of TRUTH by the spectrum of survival from due diligence.

    I define KNOWLEDGE as anything from awareness to perfectly informed.

    INFORMATION CONTENT UNDER CONSIDERATION

    We work, I work, not with ideal types, but with series (a spectrum).

    We work, I work, not with sets but with supply demand curves.

    We work, I work, not with set operations, but with algorithmic (existential) operations.

    We work, I work, with the information content of reality, not a subset of reality.

    Ergo We work, I work, with actions(reality) not just language(ideals).

    In other words, I work with science, not platonism.

    SPECTRUM OF KNOWLEDGE

    1) True (decidable) in the given context of a given question. (truth candidate)(law)

    2) Truthful (actionable) in the given context of a given question. (truth candidate)(theory)

    3) Undecidable (inactionable) in the given context of a given question. (non-truth)(hypothesis)

    4) Suspect (undecidable) in the given context of a given question.(non-truth)(theory)

    5) False (decidable) in the given context of the given question.(non-truth)(law)

    WHAT DOES THIS RESULT IN?

    Truth by Triangulation

    One can only estimate by triangulation.

    Truth is a process of incremental improvement of estimations.

    And in fact. If you were to study all facets of man (I have) this is how truth is determined in all disciplines wherein men act upon their statements (‘Skin in the Game’), and those disciplines that are ‘just talk’ do not.

    Hence the similarity in nonsense between rationalism and religious law (Hermenutics) that it evolved from.

    Hence the similarity in not-nonsense between sciences, and the common empirical law that they evolved from.

    CLOSING

    If you understand the past two long posts I have made you will understand the entire history of philosophy in those few words.

    The Iranian laws evolved to prevent retaliation cycles.

    Abrahamic religion was invented to lie.

    Greek philosophy to reform greek law – more reason.

    Stoic philosophy evolved out off greek law to speak the truth.

    Roman law evolved out of stoic philosophy.

    Western law evolved out of roman law and germanic pagan law.

    English law evolved more out of anglo saxon pagan law.

    Empiricism evolved out of germanic and anglo saxon law.

    Nothing else to be understood.

    In other words, if you’re practicing ‘cherry-picking’ using set operations on language, you’re engaging in pseudoscience.

    No dimension of reason’s subsets of reality is capable of proving itself without appeal to the next dimension of reality.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 20:23:00 UTC

  • NON-FALSEHOOD except in trivial cases, (largely the a priori or tautologies), we

    NON-FALSEHOOD

    except in trivial cases, (largely the a priori or tautologies), we cannot know we speak the truth, we can only warranty that we have done sufficient due diligence to not knowingly speak a falsehood.

    So we can say that all certain knowledge consists of falsehoods, and all that we conventionally claim is true, except for trivialities, consists only of truth candidates.

    Of those truth candidates we can only claim that they survive in the tests of hypothesis(survival of plausibility), theory(survival from criticism), and law(survival in application), and tautology (indifference).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 15:45:00 UTC

  • TRUTH: A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES (worth repeating) [D]EFINITIONS OF TRUTH.

    TRUTH: A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES

    (worth repeating)

    [D]EFINITIONS OF TRUTH.

    [T]RUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    [T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    [H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    [I]ntuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).

    [P]reference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants).

    [O]pinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.

    [P]osition: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.

    [D]emonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.

    TRUTH CONSISTS IN A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES.

    True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship.

    True enough for me to feel good about myself.

    True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 15:20:00 UTC

  • PLEASE TRY TO BE SMARTER ABOUT APPLIED MATHEMATICS THAN I AM. IT’S EASY. I AM GL

    PLEASE TRY TO BE SMARTER ABOUT APPLIED MATHEMATICS THAN I AM. IT’S EASY. I AM GLAD PEOPLE DO THAT SO I DON”T HAVE TO. BUT DO NOT TRY TO BE SMARTER ABOUT THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATH (OR TRUTH) THAN I AM. OK?

    > Curt Doolittle :

    A priori consist of trivial examples of hypotheses. The deductive consist of trivial examples of the a priori.

    There exists only one epistemic method:

    observation > free association > wayfinding > hypothesis > self criticism > theory > market criticism > law.

    The non-contradictory, the a priori and the deductive are simply trivial cases.

    ===

    >Robert Mosimann :

    If such a simplistic view of the a priori and epistemic methods were true then

    Provide the observational evidence to establish the axioms of mathematics such as

    The axiom of infinity

    The Power set axiom

    The Generalized Continuum Hypothesis.

    How about the law of Contradiction itself

    Etc

    Only someone not knowing much science or mathematics would consider the a priori and deductive cases to be trivial.

    ====

    Curt Doolittle:

    You’re kidding me.

    Let’s just take the first one.

    “I promise that I observe that the method of constructing positional names that we commonly refer to as ‘natural numbers’, can be performed without limit, other than practical limit, and as such I can deduce that at least that single set of positional names satisfies the criteria of limitlessness independent of applied context that we commonly represent with the symbol *infinity*.”

    Ergo: “I can truthfully claim, as a general rule of scale independence – meaning that by removing the dimensions of time, space, operations, and cost, at least one condition of infinity is possible.”

    This is a trivial observation.

    The Continuum Hypothesis is the most interesting because it’s stated pseudo-scientifically and appears profound. But if stated scientifically (meaning informationally complete) then it’s also trivial:

    “I promise that I observe that the method of constructing position names beginning with the natural numbers all ratios thereof, that the rate of production of some positional names (numbers) will vary per operation.”

    Or the law of contradiction.

    “I promise that I observe that when I name a set of properties, relations, and values (category), that if I refer to (testify) a different set of properties, relations and values(category) by the same name I engage in either error or deception (falsehood).”

    These are trivial statements dressed upon pseudo-scientific garb, because of the remnants of archaic platonism in the field.

    The foundation of mathematics is trivial: correspondence and non-correspondence. Dimensions included, or dimensions ignored. The only challenge in mathematics is in applied math: like chess, the learning of observable patterns of transformations.

    Each dimension of reality we can speak of (identity, logical, empirical, operational(existential), rational, reciprocal, and fully accounted), and each dimension of constant relations (mathematics) we can speak of (identity, number(name), arithmetic(quantity), geometry(space), calculus(motion), and algebraic geometry (pure relations), can only be tested (proved) by appeal to the subsequent dimension. (No system of logic can prove itself). Hence the necessity of axiom of choice..

    Anyway. If there is anyone living who understands these matters better than I do, I would love to know. But as far as I know, there isn’t.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 14:53:00 UTC

  • YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID —No but you have a real penchant for wordplay and putting

    YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID

    —No but you have a real penchant for wordplay and putting words in peoples mouths to evade criticism— Jordan Kert

    Well, there is True criticism and False criticism, expression of ignorance, and mere expression of dissatisfaction masquerading as criticism.

    So here is the deal. (dipshit) There is nothing I propose that is not in the law and has not been practiced by the law for thousands of years. what I have done is increase the precision of that form of law we call tort, and specifically that subset of tort we call ‘fraud’, just as many other generations before me have increased that precision.

    The law operates by protocols: processes. Hence the term “Due Process Of Law”.

    Try not to be ignorant and stupid. Although, if there were no ignorant and stupid people I would have fewer excuses to explain solutions to intelligent but merely ignorant people.

    I have pity for the stupid. I do not have pity for the stupid’s evasion of dunning kruger.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 12:33:00 UTC

  • (excerpt) Philosophy has faced a worse decline than science, if for the simple r

    (excerpt)

    Philosophy has faced a worse decline than science, if for the simple reason that separating truth, goodness, preference, utility, and possibility in the discipline of philosophy in the same way that physics, chemistry, biology, and cognitive science has been separated in the sciences, has been almost impossible.

    (see?)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 19:52:00 UTC

  • You know, I work on these ‘seven theses’ of Propertarianism, and it’s … it’s a

    You know, I work on these ‘seven theses’ of Propertarianism, and it’s … it’s a lot more like math or programming. Where you’re trying to figure out how to do something. And you try this and that and the other thing over and over again, and they don’t work. And then… And then you finally get the ‘equation-algorithim’ to work and you look at it. You hold it up – all proud. And you look around and say “Look mom! Look what I made!”. But ’cause it’s all formal, and declarative like a legal pronouncement, it sounds all pompous and high-falutin’. And everyone thinks you’re smart and stuff. And I giggle at that irony. And that irony never goes away. ‘Cause really. It’s just a whole lotta trial and error. A lotta work with the crayons of reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 19:14:00 UTC

  • COMPARING TESTIMONIALISM AND MATHEMATICS AS TESTS OF DESCRIPTIONS OF INCREASING

    COMPARING TESTIMONIALISM AND MATHEMATICS AS TESTS OF DESCRIPTIONS OF INCREASING DIMENSIONS OF REALITY

    (more very important ideas in here for serious philosophy students)

    Testimonialism = test all possible dimensions of reality.

    categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, and fully accounted (scope and limits).

    Just like math: identity, correspondence, positional name, arithmetic (quantity) operations, geometric (space) operations, Algebra (change) operations, Calculus (relative change) operations, algebraic geometry (pure relations) operations.

    So in both mathematics and testimony we test all possible dimensions of reality. The difference is that in mathematics we are familiar with the choice of which level of math is necessary to describe a problem, whereas in Testimony we are not yet familiar enough to understand which level of reasoning is necessary to describe a problem.

    So think of Testimonialism as differing from math in that mathematical objects consists of identical categories of constant relations in relation to the possible dimensions of reality. Whereas Testimonialism consists of any set of categories and any set of relations, in relation to the possible dimensions of reality.

    Or another way, mathematics and logic and empirical science and law are subsets of testimonialism. (truthful testimony)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 18:53:00 UTC

  • THE UNIVERSE OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION IN SIMPLE TERMS —“All of logic and reason

    THE UNIVERSE OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION IN SIMPLE TERMS

    —“All of logic and reason is inherently unfalsifiable. You can take any purely physical theory and I can tell you how just changing one of the primary assumptions of it would give exactly the same results but say something totally different about how reality works.” – What do you say to this statement?”— A Friend

    Reasonable arguments are falsifiable, that’s what logic assists us in achieving.

    Logical argument is falsifiable, that’s what empirical arguments are for. That’s what Kripke, Frege, and Godel help us understand.

    Reasoned, Logical and empirical arguments are falsifiable, that’s what operational arguments are for.

    Reasoned, logical, empirical,and operational arguments are falsifiable, that’s what full accounting is for.

    Reasoned, logical, empirical, operational, and fully accounted arguments are falsifiable. That’s what reciprocity is for.

    It is extremely difficult to make a false statement that is reasoned, logical, empirical, operationally, fully accounted, and reciprocal, since to do so requires we reduce all such statements to a series of subjectively decidable statements.

    The fact that we do NOT state these things by our evolutionary nature, is simply a matter of brevity, life’s tolerance for error, and the division of perception, cognition, and knowledge in combination with communication that allows us each to operate with fragmentary and largely false information and still survive.

    The fact that we can understand all this and therefore speak truthfully, means that we can reduce the ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit both individually and interpersonally, and therefore increase our successes primarily by decreasing our failures.

    The fact that we rely on our falsehoods, is a matter of the cost of retraining ourselves. And this is the principle problem we face. We all want everyone else to pay the cost of retraining, but not us.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 16:02:00 UTC

  • TRUTH IN PUBLIC IS EASY. All ‘should’ or ‘is’ statements implicitly begin with “

    TRUTH IN PUBLIC IS EASY.

    All ‘should’ or ‘is’ statements implicitly begin with “I promise that you will find….”. It is very hard to make promises when you lack the information to operationally state them. It’s far harder when you also have to demonstrate rationality of choice due to incentives, reciprocity, and fully accounting.

    Now, I have been talking about this for years now, and I have observed that very, very, very few people can state their cherished beliefs under operational, rational, reciprocal, fully accounted language.

    It’s very difficult to come to terms with the fact, that you in fact, in all but the rarest of cases, have no idea what you’re talking about. And instead everything you think you know is just a hodge podge of sayings you’ve heard from others.f

    It is very easy to require truthful speech. It’s almost impossible to state without knowing the truth. The simple fact of trying to state something truthfully in an operational, rational, reciprocal, fully accounted set of statements will demonstrate fairly rapidly whether a proposition survives even the most trivial of tests.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 15:40:00 UTC