Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Truth About Human Beings

    Truth About Human Beings https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/truth-about-human-beings/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 14:54:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267469583251836932

  • Duke Newcomb Explains Decidability

    DUKE NEWCOMB EXPLAINS DECIDABILITY by Duke Newcomb (important) This notion of decidability, as you say, strikes me as one of your most important contributions. By decidability, I take it you mean a diffuse decision architecture that allows people at various levels to make decisions that are consistent with the intent of the program. It is a kind of information architectonics. If you could develop a geometry for decidability, that REALLY allows for analytically testing which notions are decidable by the human agent before deployment, THAT is the pathway to power. Or at least part of it. It doesn’t do the work of building an organization. You have to do that with ideas, influence, charisma, &tc. But once you have an organization and a defined and consistent decidability architecture you can quickly transform organization into institution. And those economy of scale efficiency gains (everyone doing their right proper part rowing the boat) would allow you to outcompete institutional rivals. I think I’m starting to see the core logic of your analytic system. It is this Darwinian metaphor for selection of information that Dawkins uses. By invoking this kind of post-Popperian notion of falsification as key lever of the epistemology, you are using competitive falsification as an evolutionary selection mechanism to get to better phenotypes of truth. How progressive! Basically, you aim to create multilayered sieves for truth out of all of these different layers of thought: geometry, philosophy, law, economics; with each doing its part to. Operational analysis as sieving process. T he biggest problem I see is that each of these disciplines is at different levels of technical maturity. Many disciplines are in a pre-Copernican Revolution state, so they’re immature and will give you variable performance. I suppose the best you can do is put more mature disciplines at more fundamental levels so they do more of the work filtering out falsehoods and the less mature disciplines, like economics, can just kind of pick the fat off the bones. (OMG. Thank you. yes. Thats far better than I can say it. -CD )

  • Duke Newcomb Explains Decidability

    DUKE NEWCOMB EXPLAINS DECIDABILITY by Duke Newcomb (important) This notion of decidability, as you say, strikes me as one of your most important contributions. By decidability, I take it you mean a diffuse decision architecture that allows people at various levels to make decisions that are consistent with the intent of the program. It is a kind of information architectonics. If you could develop a geometry for decidability, that REALLY allows for analytically testing which notions are decidable by the human agent before deployment, THAT is the pathway to power. Or at least part of it. It doesn’t do the work of building an organization. You have to do that with ideas, influence, charisma, &tc. But once you have an organization and a defined and consistent decidability architecture you can quickly transform organization into institution. And those economy of scale efficiency gains (everyone doing their right proper part rowing the boat) would allow you to outcompete institutional rivals. I think I’m starting to see the core logic of your analytic system. It is this Darwinian metaphor for selection of information that Dawkins uses. By invoking this kind of post-Popperian notion of falsification as key lever of the epistemology, you are using competitive falsification as an evolutionary selection mechanism to get to better phenotypes of truth. How progressive! Basically, you aim to create multilayered sieves for truth out of all of these different layers of thought: geometry, philosophy, law, economics; with each doing its part to. Operational analysis as sieving process. T he biggest problem I see is that each of these disciplines is at different levels of technical maturity. Many disciplines are in a pre-Copernican Revolution state, so they’re immature and will give you variable performance. I suppose the best you can do is put more mature disciplines at more fundamental levels so they do more of the work filtering out falsehoods and the less mature disciplines, like economics, can just kind of pick the fat off the bones. (OMG. Thank you. yes. Thats far better than I can say it. -CD )

  • Converting Kant’s Apriorism to Science(testimony)

    Converting Kant’s Apriorism to Science(testimony) https://t.co/4MPtY8hS0o

  • Converting Kant’s Apriorism to Science(testimony)

    Converting Kant’s Apriorism to Science(testimony) https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/converting-kants-apriorism-to-sciencetestimony/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 13:45:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267452336148004872

  • Converting Kant’s Apriorism to Science(testimony)

    A Priori: “independent of observation.” There are three dimensions to a priori truth claims: i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori, ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and iii) Necessity vs Contingency Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims. (a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof. (c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: Childless women will have no grandchildren. (b) “General” Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation. (d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.” This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision: (a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori (b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori (c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori (d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori Nothing more to be said. We now have converted kantian apriorism to scientific and testimonial prose and in doing so explained the relationship between Testimonials and Kantian apriorism, and in doing so the increase in precision under P, increase in testability under P, and ended Kant’s attempt to undermine our ability to falsify and his attempt at preservation of christian and church authority. You may not yet grasp why that paragraph is so, but you will.

  • Converting Kant’s Apriorism to Science(testimony)

    A Priori: “independent of observation.” There are three dimensions to a priori truth claims: i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori, ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and iii) Necessity vs Contingency Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims. (a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof. (c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: Childless women will have no grandchildren. (b) “General” Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation. (d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.” This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision: (a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori (b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori (c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori (d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori Nothing more to be said. We now have converted kantian apriorism to scientific and testimonial prose and in doing so explained the relationship between Testimonials and Kantian apriorism, and in doing so the increase in precision under P, increase in testability under P, and ended Kant’s attempt to undermine our ability to falsify and his attempt at preservation of christian and church authority. You may not yet grasp why that paragraph is so, but you will.

  • A Woman’s Observation of Propertarianism

    —“Well, as a woman that’s been observing Propertarianism over the last few years I can say that holding my interest was never really the issue. For me it was a question of being too drawn in, to the point of distrusting my own judgement, leading to withdrawal. I mostly just found it all too overwhelming…like being caught in an intellectual flash-flood that was hell bent on carving out a new course for humanity. My presence felt inappropriate somehow. There is a degree of masculinity within the group that’s certainly suffocating – you’re clearly aware of this and acknowledge that it is a necessary part of building up the organisation, however. I don’t think Propertarianism really needs a female presence and any attempts and making it more accommodating will likely weaken the organisation’s capacity to attract young, enterprising males.”— Lisa Outhwaite

    Smart woman. A rare intellectually honest one.

  • A Woman’s Observation of Propertarianism

    —“Well, as a woman that’s been observing Propertarianism over the last few years I can say that holding my interest was never really the issue. For me it was a question of being too drawn in, to the point of distrusting my own judgement, leading to withdrawal. I mostly just found it all too overwhelming…like being caught in an intellectual flash-flood that was hell bent on carving out a new course for humanity. My presence felt inappropriate somehow. There is a degree of masculinity within the group that’s certainly suffocating – you’re clearly aware of this and acknowledge that it is a necessary part of building up the organisation, however. I don’t think Propertarianism really needs a female presence and any attempts and making it more accommodating will likely weaken the organisation’s capacity to attract young, enterprising males.”— Lisa Outhwaite

    Smart woman. A rare intellectually honest one.

  • P-Decidabilty Is a Dangerous Idea!

    P-DECIDABILTY IS A DANGEROUS IDEA! by Duke Newcomb This decidability is a dangerous idea. If the you-know-whos were to figure out the stuff we talk about and what we really mean, they’d SHUT IT DOWN! Decidability may be more of an antipode to parasitism than reciprocity. A decidable institution could hit such an escape velocity that it would shake off or burn off parasites along the way. It could not just counter the small hats’ group strategy as enforced reciprocity does, it could foreclose on its use. Perhaps that’s wishful thinking on my part, but mein Gott, this idea seems highly radioactive and long half-lived.