https://propertarianism.com/2016/02/02/truth-natural-law-physical-law/HAVE ANGLOS TRIED TO CREATE THE LAW OF INFORMATION?
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 10:46:00 UTC
https://propertarianism.com/2016/02/02/truth-natural-law-physical-law/HAVE ANGLOS TRIED TO CREATE THE LAW OF INFORMATION?
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 10:46:00 UTC
(from elsewhere)
James, if this is a forum for discussion, then it’s a value. Which would require posting both sides of the debate. If this is a form for you to express your frustrations then it is no longer anything to do with theory policy and philosophy, but simply just emotional. Just create an “I hate trump” forum and put it there. But at present you’re not acting any differently from the alt-right-green-frog folks except your posting pseudo-rational propaganda instead of openly irrational green-frog cartoons.
You have energy and a particular gift. And if you employ it honestly then you can make a contribution to the world.
I’m honest about my work and my bias. (and yes, the fact that The Clinton Foundation defrauded me of $2M they said they would pay me for developing the greenhouse-gas measurement software, after we rescued their efforts in India at Microsoft’s request; and the fact that I have direct experience with these people – including Murdoch’s wife – might color my judgement a bit. These are ‘bad’ immoral, people for whom lying is simply a justifiable means of achieving their ends.)
Anger destroys honesty. Half truths are lies. Half arguments are just half truths.
Hence why I argue in the manner that I do: the only ‘good’ is exchange. The only ‘moral’ is non-imposition of costs.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 07:17:00 UTC
(for super-geeks)(math vs science)(unification of disciplines)(universal epistemological method) (human scale)
(read the comments with Davin and I.)
MATH VS SCIENCE?
Mathematics is not a science (theoretic system of external correspondence) but a logic (axiomatic system of internal consistency).
We are, almost universally, fooled by the fact that we cannot imagine all consequences of our axiomatic declarations, and equate this to the same phenomenon of our inability to imagine all consequences of our observations of reality. But axiomatic systems are declared (models) and theoretic systems are observed (reality). When our models and reality appear to correspond, we say that the model appears good or true.
For this reason mathematical (axiomatic systems) do not produce truths (ultimately parsimonious and completely correspondent descriptions of reality) , but proofs of internal consistency. Theories = True correspondence. Axioms = Proof of internal consistency. Both of which require that we are describing constant relations.
Until we discover the set of possible operations in the universe (causality or causal particulars) we must content ourselves with descriptions of the consequences of those operations (mathematics), by creating models with which we declare descriptive axioms as a general expression of the unknown causal operations.
Ergo we can use mathematics to create models of theoretic systems (reality) because axioms express constant relations and the universe operates deterministically (according to a set of rules that produce observably constant relations).
Science != to Empiricism (that the error of positivism). Instead, identity, logics, empiricism, operations, and morality when tested by limits, full accounting, and parsimony, assist us in removing error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, and deception from our thoughts, words, and deeds.
This is why mathematics generally succeeds in representing highly deterministic systems (constant relations of constant categories) but why mathematics fails us in slightly deterministic systems – in particular, heuristic systems (inconstant relations of inconstant categories.)
Mathematics is an abstraction of operations. A generalization for the expression of observations about which we do not know the operations.
Science on the other hand ensures that we use categories, sets, mathematical descriptions, empirical correspondence, causal operations, moral reciprocity (in matters of cooperation: social science) and then define limits, test for full accounting, and test for parsimony.
This process of ensuring is what we call falsification. if a description (theory) can survive all those tests, we can warranty that we have performed due diligence and speak truthfully.
In other words science provides us with a universal epistemology.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-16 09:45:00 UTC
THAT WHICH IS NOT BAD, BUT IS A DEMONSTRATED PREFERENCE, IS GOOD.
Bill Joslin: —“defining by POSITIVA does not distinguish the necessary and essential. But by NEGATIVA – the removal of properties/operations – we identify the essentials because if the essential is removed the term is no longer possible…this is why you say operational consistency shows what is possible.. not there yet. I’ll sit with it.”—
Bingo. Ying/Yang, Communication/Criticism, Free-Association-Hypothesis/Theory-Law, Art-Literature-Religion/Natural-Law, Cooperation/ConflictAvoidance, Negativa/Positiva. Opportunities/Morality.
Convey the idea, and then subtract the falsehoods.
Truth cannot be conveyed or testified to without both.
Balance is bad. That’s asian. It’s one of the reasons for their failure.
We practice innovation. That which is not bad, and is chosen as an action, must be good for at least the person who chose it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 13:50:00 UTC
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/15/dont-think-of-a-rampaging-elephant-linguist-george-lakoff-explains-how-the-democrats-helped-elect-trump/LIARS, REALLY?
It never seems to occur to journalists (or many other people) that LOADING, FRAMING, OVERLOADING are forms of SUGGESTION ( which means LYING).
There exists only one truthful form of political speech: cost. And one truthful objective: group evolutionary strategy (persistence.)
So why does Lakoff (like Chomsky) (a) specialize in language, (b) advise people to use loading, framing, overloading, for the purpose of suggestion (lying) rather than arguments to the contribution to or cost to one’s group evolutionary strategy?
THATS THE ISSUE: LYING TO OBSCURE THEFT.
Why do conservatives favor Constitutionalism? Because it’s just a statement of Natural Law of cooperation: The demand for 1) Productive, 2) Fully Informed, 3) Warrantied (skin in the game), 4) Voluntary transfer, 5) limited to productive externality. In other words – the law against parasitism.
Why do these people advance the violation of natural law consistently, and do so by means of obscurantist lying:
KRUGMAN, DELONG, STEIGLITZ, LAKOFF, CHOMSKY.
Group evolutionary strategy in action: lying.
It’s not complicated.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 13:26:00 UTC
PROPERTARIANISM: A DESCRIPTIVE, SCIENTIFIC, ETHICS
(important piece)
—“Propertarianism is a descriptive framework. A Propertarian would be someone who uses that descriptive framework, and then most of us who are Propertarians are also aristocratic republicans or monarchists (our particular political advocacy).”— Josh Jeppson
Yes, and I think this gets lost. (As usual it’s my fault.) I conflate the methodology with explanation with the preference.
1) REFORMATION OF SCIENCE:
What we call “Propertarianism”, or the combination of Testimonialism (epistemology), Acquisitionism(psychology), Propertarianism (ethics / sociology [cooperation]), and Propertarian Group Evolutionary Strategy(group competition – which still needs a name), creates an internally consistent language and methodology for the truthful, value-free description, comparison, and judgement of human action (and speech).
As far as I know this framework completes the scientific method, and replaces philosophy, psychology, social science, and reforms law, political science, and economics. I call this framework “The Law of Nature”, which includes “Natural Law (cooperation and competition)” and “Testimonial Law (law of information)” as extensions of Laws of Nature (physical laws).
The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”
…. 1 – Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY
…. …. Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics
…. 2 – Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE
…. Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology
…. 3 – Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD
…. Ethics, morality, law, economics
…. 4 – Law of Testimony – THE TRUE
…. Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric
…. 5 – Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL
…. Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness
2) EXPLANATION OF WESTERN EXCELLENCE:
The combination of Transcendence, Heroism, Sovereignty, Aristocracy, and the institutional necessity of Markets in Everything as a consequence; Aryan Expansionism (attempt to obtain the status of the gods), and the consequential evolution of non-conflation / deconflation / deflationary truth, reason, rationalism, science; independent judiciary and empirical law; testimony, jury, and senate; property, contract, and competition; the domestication of man from animal, to slave, to serf, to freeman, to sovereign; and the estates of the realm: labor(neutral), burgher(organization/”remuneration”), priesthood(education/’gossip’), aristocracy (rule/force) – all explain the rapid rise of western civilization in the ancient and modern worlds as producing *faster* experimental and therefore adaptive velocity in all aspects of human existence. In other words, it explains the rise of the west in the ancient and modern worlds, and the weakness of the west in the medieval (christian) interim.
3) EXPLANATION OF THE FALL OF THE WEST
How the enlightenment was only successful in science, and entirely wrong in everything else – and how the enlightenment was unique to the British, and that all other civilizations reacted *against it*, in a counter-enlightenment, culminating in the Pseudoscientific era (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Frankfurt) the same way that all other civilizations reacted against Greek reason and Roman law in the ancient world(christianity, rabbinical judaism, islamism, confucianism), and the same way that all other civilizations reacted against European Aryanism: ‘heroism, truth, sovereignty, contractualism, competition, and ‘domesticationism’ in the dawn of civilization by producing organized religion (the indo-iranian branch of indo europeans)
4) RESTORATION OF THE WEST:
How to restore western civilization to its previous rates of success by completing the scientific Enlightenment and restoring markets in everything: defense/emergency/care, reproduction, production, commons, polities. And in particular, the extension of involuntary warranty on goods and services brought to market, to *information* that is brought to market (published). And the restoration of multiple houses for the purpose of restoring a market for trades between the classes.
CLOSING
Propertarianism technically refers to the descriptive ethics alone. But we bundle all of these ideas under the same ‘banner’ (term) for the sake of expediency. But one can advocate for a communist, socialist, democratic humanist, classical liberal, republican, monarchic, fascist, or dicatorship polity using testimonialism, acquisitionism, and propertarianism, and create a constitution for one under strictly (formal operational logic) constructed natural law. But one must do so truthfully and honestly.
Someone who values each of those governments may or may not have a harder time truthfully defending his preferences. But we can then create compromises between such different political orders, rather than attempt to impose such a political order upon everyone.
It is very easy to propose sovereignty, classical multi-house monarchy, markets in everything and to do so truthfully and honestly – because that order provided the origin and evolution of the technology of truthful speech we call ‘science’. But to do so we must admit also that the outcome of such a political order is eugenic. Conversely it is harder to propose a democratic humanist order, because it is dysgenic. in the short term it is easier to tolerate a dysgenic order. In the long term it is devolutionary and will destroy the ability to produce either a democratic humanist OR a classical monarchic. For the simple reason that every person at the bottom is more damaging to the political, social, and economic order than every person at the time is advantageous. The uncomfortable history of man is that a minority of men have domesticated men, the way men domesticated all our domesticated animals. And more uncomfortable, that men domesticated women before that. And that’s the origin of our intuitionary skill at domestication.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 10:47:00 UTC
TESTIMONIALISM, TRUTH, AND UNCERTAINTY
by James Augustus Berens
Negative Convexity of Information:
– Dependent variable (y): consequential knowledge
– Input (x): information
– Function (f): human cognition
Justificationism and rationalism only hold when (a) the relationship between (y) and (x) is linear, and (b) when assume the correspondence of (y).
But, f(x) is nonlinear [negative convexity]: an increase in the input (x) will yield more of (y) until the the limits of the function are approached; after which an increase in the input (x) will yield diminishing returns to scale.
Because of uncertainty, we cannot identify the optimal input of (x) for the given function. However, we can test* (y) [via negativa] and conclude with a higher degree of certainty if the output is non-correspondent.
Testing (y) allows us to calibrate our inputs and function to yield higher returns (optimal computation via algorithm).
Testimonialism—as performed warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, deception and fraud—increases the objectivity of (y) through the reduction of subjective inputs (cognitive bias).
*Tests (criticism)
i. identity (category)
ii. internal consistency (logic)
iii. external correspondence (explanatory power)
iv. existential possibility (existence proof)
v. limits (falsification) (parsimony)
vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias)
vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers)
Ultimately, we can never be fully certain of truth. We can, however, prove possibility (truth candidacy) and incrementally decrease the probability of speaking/testifying falsely.
That is, we advance knowledge through subtraction (via negativa)—not justification (via positiva).
(CURT: This is absolutely flawless. Excellent. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 12:17:00 UTC
EPISTEMOLOGY AT CIVILIZATIONAL SCALE
James Augustus Berens
—“The relationship between investment and return on exploration is non-linear (negative-convexity/concavity): we see increases in our ROI up to the vertex of our function, where additional investment begins to yield diminishing returns.
I was thinking about non-linearities in information, exploration and discovery a few weeks ago:
1) “During the Age of Discovery, the acquisition of knowledge and territory produced high return to investment ratios. However, given the limits of human perception and cognition and available territory, we’ve observed diminishing returns.
It is now costly, and highly unlikely, though not impossible, that we can make consequential scientific discoveries that produce the returns observed in the early scientific period. Similarly, humans have populated all habitable areas of planet earth, so territorial expansion is costly and rarely pursued.
With these two changes we observe a corresponding shift from ‘discovery,’ the low-cost identification and capitalization of opportunities, to scientific criticism (high-cost identification + optimal calculation via negativa) of available, and known choices/opportunities.”***
And
2) “Testimonialism, Truth & Uncertainty
Negative Convexity of Information:
Dependent variable (y): consequential knowledge
Input (x): information
Function (f): human cognition
Justificationism and rationalism only hold when (a) the relationship between (y) and (x) is linear, and (b) when assume the correspondence of (y).
But, f(x) is nonlinear [negative convexity]: an increase in the input (x) will yield more of (y) until the the limits of the function are approached; after which an increase in the input (x) will yield diminishing returns to scale.
Because of uncertainty, we cannot identify the optimal input of (x) for the given function. However, we can test* (y) [via negativa] and conclude with a higher degree of certainty if the output is non-correspondent.
Testing (y) allows us to calibrate our inputs and function to yield higher returns (optimal computation via algorithm).
Testimonialism—as performed warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, deception and fraud—increases the objectivity of (y) through the reduction of subjective inputs (cognitive bias).
*Tests (criticism)
i. identity (category)
ii. internal consistency (logic)
iii. external correspondence (explanatory power)
iv. existential possibility (existence proof)
v. limits (falsification) (parsimony)
vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias)
vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers)
Ultimately, we can never be fully certain of truth. We can, however, prove possibility (truth candidacy) and incrementally decrease the probability of speaking/testifying falsely.
That is, we advance knowledge through subtraction (via negativa)—not justification (via positiva).”—
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 12:15:00 UTC
—“Veritatis simplex oratio est”–Seneca
(The language of truth is simple.)
Unfortunately, the language by which we discover it is not.
Else it would not have taken us millennia to create it.
Gods work with simple rules. But they transcribe them in the most complex of languages: the fabric of the universe.
The translation effort has been our costliest monument.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 10:23:00 UTC
ANTI-PHILOSOPHY
Science is a method by which we attempt to remove error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, theology, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience) from our thoughts and speech. It’s purely reductive.
1 – Categories are the methods by which we test names for consistency of state, properties and relations.
2 – The logics are methods by which we test dimensions for internal consistency.
3 – The empirical is the method by which we test for external consistency (correspondence).
4 – The operational is the method by which we test for existential possibility.
5 – Reciprocity is the method by which we test for morality.
6 – Limits (and full accounting) are the method by which we test for parsimony and completeness.
Literature is the method by which we construct and communicate fantasies (generate possibilities which we can then test by Scientific Means.
Philosophical literature is a conflation of fantasy moral literature combined with insufficient testing. In other words, it’s deception. 😉 Hence why philosophers have been accused of doing far more harm than good.
We read philosophy in order to obtain ideas.
We read and practice science in order to sift what little truth is contained in them.
Via Positiva (ideas through free association), Via Negativa (survival from criticism), Via Deceptio ( advocacy without supplying the full suite of criticisms )
I have seen precious little in philosophy that is other than an attempt to create a literary moral alternative to theology.
ANOTHER VIEW
Physical Science (external correspondence)
Law (reciprocity)
Logic (internal consistency)
Accounting (scope)
Testimony (language)
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 10:03:00 UTC