Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • DEFINITION: “GRAMMAR” IN P

    Dec 31, 2019, 12:54 PM “CURT, WHAT’S A GRAMMAR IN PROPERTARIANISM?” (important)(core) A grammar has traditionally referred to a book containing the rules of a language. But I had to put quite a bit of work into ‘disambiguating’ the terms we use in language. The human cognitive facility consists of identification of constant relations between stimuli in time resulting in categorization (identity). The human auto association facility consists of discovering relations between categories (identities). The human memory facility consists of repetition of stimuli or rehearsal from short term memory, to create, reinforce, change, and eliminate constant relation within and between categories (locations, places, barriers, models, identities) The human logical facility consist of tests of constant, inconstant, and unrecognized relations between states (categories, identities). The human grammar facility refers to our physical ability to perform continuous recursive disambiguation using a stream of signals, most commonly in the form of sounds. The human language facility refers to the use of patterns of symbols or sounds in sequence of continuously recursive attempts at disambiguation. A language consists of Phonemes (sounds), Morphemes(meaningful combination of sounds – roots), Vocabulary (words), Phrases (state), Sentences (changes in state – transactions), Stories (collections of transactions), Grammar (rules of organization making possible disambiguation by inference), and Syntax (further disambiguation – specifically when writing). A vocabulary consists of Names (Nouns, references to referents), Name Substitutes (pronouns), Properties (Adjective, state), Operations (verbs, actions, state of acting), Properties of Operations (Adverb). and Approval or Rejection (yes no true false agree disagree etc). Note that I’ve clarified some terms here a little differently than we traditionally do. However (this is the issue) the collections of permissible dimensions (paradigms) limit the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation: The logic of the paradigm. This is why…. Let’s use math because it’s the most simple language we have that all of us share. Mathematics consists of names of positions (numbers), variables (pronouns), names of operations ( mathematical operations, verbs), phrases (expressions), statements (functions), sentences (transactions), proofs (stories), and Approval or Rejection (true false). There are no adverbs or adjectives. What differs between ordinary language and mathematical language is that mathematics (the language of positional names) and ordinary language (the language of human experience) differ in ‘dimensions of permissible references’ to both Names (nouns) and Operations (verbs). And we can do the same analysis for every Grammar (system of rules) in the spectrum of: math, accounting, logics, programming, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, recipes, protocols, laws, testimony, descriptions, ordinary language, narration, storytelling, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits – and everything in between. And we use the term “Deflationary grammar” for the narrowest grammars (math, logics), “ordinary grammar” for ordinary language, and “Inflationary grammar” for the widest grammars (story, fiction, fictionalism, deceits). 

    Deflationary < ---- Ordinary ----> Inflationary.

    So instead of the traditional hierarchy: 

    Human Facilities -> language -> phoneme -> morpheme -> ...
... paradigms (metaphysics) -> vocabulary -> grammar -> syntax.

    Instead we have: 

    Human Facilities (see above) -> vocabulary -> paradigms(dimensions) -> 
... grammar of paradigm(rules of story, transaction, 
... ... function, expression, operation, names: the LOGIC of the paradigm) -> 
... ... ... permissible vocabulary -> necessary syntax.

    So a Grammar refers to the Paradigm (permissible dimensions of perception, cognition, and action), the Names, Operations, and Rules of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (morpheme, word, phrase, sentence, story organization) and the LOGIC (constant relations) that limit consistency, correspondence, coherence, and completeness. So in P we use a ‘grammar’ to refer to the Vocabulary, logic, syntax of a paradigm. And when we use the term “the Grammars’ we mean the spectrum And Operational Grammar or Testimony is a Deflationary Grammar: a Deflation (constraint upon) ordinary language grammar, limiting it to a single point of view, absent the verb to be, using complete promissory sentences, describing a series of operations (human actions), resulting in testable transactions (sentence), and sets of transactions (testimony).

  • Explaining (defining) Propertarianism – for Newbs:

    Jan 2, 2020, 6:35 PM 1 – The completion of the scientific method and all that it entails – which is a lot and why P is such a big program: it touches everything and it converts almost all psychological, social, and political speech to economic expressions – which is counter-intuitive because it’s scientific where our current psychological social, moral, and political speech is only normative or in the case of psychology sociology and politics, both pseudoscientific and sophomoric. 2 – The explanation for western success in ancient and modern worlds (adaptive velocity because of our individual sovereignty and resulting traditional law of property/tort.) 3 – The explanation of the different systems of argument used in the different civilizations, and in particular the abrahamic means of deceit used in the ancient world (judaism, Christianity, islam) and in the modern world (marxism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism/political correctness). EXPLANATION Do you know what a formal logic is? It’s grammar of the logic of inference using sets and binary truth or falsehood. Do you know what programming is? It’s a grammar of operational logic using binary truth or falsehood. Do you know what law is? It’s a formal operational rational grammar of conflict resolution, using ternary falsehood, truth candidacy, and undecidability. Do you know what tort law is? it’s a formal rational operational grammar of conflict resolution over demonstrated interests that we enumerate as property, using ternary logic of falsehood, truth candidacy, undecidability. Propertarianism is a formal (strict), operational(sequential action), grammar (vocabulary, grammar, syntax, logic), of Tort (demonstrated interests), and as a consequence a value neutral universal language (vocabulary, grammar, syntax, logic) across all disciplines (physical science, language-metaphysics, psychology, sociology, politics, ethics, law, group strategy), that allows us to falsify (test) every possible dimension of human action, intuition, cognition, and speech, for both testimonial possibility (truth) and reciprocity(ethics, morality, trespass, tort), and as a consequence allows us to create uninterpretable constitutions, and their enumerated rights and responsibilities, the most influential of which is the conversion of free speech to free truthful and reciprocal speech, in public, to the public, on matters public (commerce, economics, commons, politics, group strategy) by extending the involuntary warranty of due diligence and involuntary liability for the truthfulness and reciprocity of commercial speech to that of political speech. As such it allows us to outlaw hostile religions, and pseudo-religions especially the pseudoscientific and sophomoric restatements of supernatural judaism , christianity, and islam, in pseudoscientific and sophomoric and ir-reciprocal marxism, socialism, feminism, and postmodernism. Propertarianism is equivalent in scope to the revolutions of Aristotelian reason (Realism, Naturalism, Reason), the Empirical Revolution(Realism, Naturalism, Empiricism), in that it completes the scientific method by extending it from the physical to the psychological and social sciences, including that of law, politics, and group strategy. In other words, “Propertarianism consists of the completion of the Scientific Method; its application to the totality of human knowledge; producing a universally commensurable language of all thought; its embodiment in the common law of tort; resulting in a logical and scientific constitution; permitting the criminalization of ir-reciprocal and un-testifiable speech, and as a consequence the eradication of superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons.” When we explain the reason for western success we discover: “Heroism and Excellence; Truth and Duty; Oath and Warranty; Sovereignty and Reciprocity; Law and Jury; And Voluntary Markets in Every Aspect of Life: Association, Cooperation, Production, Reproduction, Commons, Polities and War; The direction of surpluses to the production of commons and the returns therefrom; at the cost of suppression of the reproduction of the unproductive underclasses; and the Direction of Dominance Expression to the Production of Commons by a Distributed Dictatorship of Individually Sovereign People and the Reciprocal Warranty of Denial of Power To Any and All.” Propertarianism is (a) the completion of the Aristotelian program (b) the completion of the scientific method (c ) the logic and science of the social sciences, and (d) the Natural Law of Reciprocity under which all display word and deed is expressible and commensurable. (e) and the means of institutionalizing in a “Market for the Suppression of Fraud” the suppression of the greatest crime against humanity: the big lies that are responsible for the last dark age and the new one that the enemy has sought to bring about.

  • Explaining (defining) Propertarianism – for Newbs:

    Jan 2, 2020, 6:35 PM 1 – The completion of the scientific method and all that it entails – which is a lot and why P is such a big program: it touches everything and it converts almost all psychological, social, and political speech to economic expressions – which is counter-intuitive because it’s scientific where our current psychological social, moral, and political speech is only normative or in the case of psychology sociology and politics, both pseudoscientific and sophomoric. 2 – The explanation for western success in ancient and modern worlds (adaptive velocity because of our individual sovereignty and resulting traditional law of property/tort.) 3 – The explanation of the different systems of argument used in the different civilizations, and in particular the abrahamic means of deceit used in the ancient world (judaism, Christianity, islam) and in the modern world (marxism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism/political correctness). EXPLANATION Do you know what a formal logic is? It’s grammar of the logic of inference using sets and binary truth or falsehood. Do you know what programming is? It’s a grammar of operational logic using binary truth or falsehood. Do you know what law is? It’s a formal operational rational grammar of conflict resolution, using ternary falsehood, truth candidacy, and undecidability. Do you know what tort law is? it’s a formal rational operational grammar of conflict resolution over demonstrated interests that we enumerate as property, using ternary logic of falsehood, truth candidacy, undecidability. Propertarianism is a formal (strict), operational(sequential action), grammar (vocabulary, grammar, syntax, logic), of Tort (demonstrated interests), and as a consequence a value neutral universal language (vocabulary, grammar, syntax, logic) across all disciplines (physical science, language-metaphysics, psychology, sociology, politics, ethics, law, group strategy), that allows us to falsify (test) every possible dimension of human action, intuition, cognition, and speech, for both testimonial possibility (truth) and reciprocity(ethics, morality, trespass, tort), and as a consequence allows us to create uninterpretable constitutions, and their enumerated rights and responsibilities, the most influential of which is the conversion of free speech to free truthful and reciprocal speech, in public, to the public, on matters public (commerce, economics, commons, politics, group strategy) by extending the involuntary warranty of due diligence and involuntary liability for the truthfulness and reciprocity of commercial speech to that of political speech. As such it allows us to outlaw hostile religions, and pseudo-religions especially the pseudoscientific and sophomoric restatements of supernatural judaism , christianity, and islam, in pseudoscientific and sophomoric and ir-reciprocal marxism, socialism, feminism, and postmodernism. Propertarianism is equivalent in scope to the revolutions of Aristotelian reason (Realism, Naturalism, Reason), the Empirical Revolution(Realism, Naturalism, Empiricism), in that it completes the scientific method by extending it from the physical to the psychological and social sciences, including that of law, politics, and group strategy. In other words, “Propertarianism consists of the completion of the Scientific Method; its application to the totality of human knowledge; producing a universally commensurable language of all thought; its embodiment in the common law of tort; resulting in a logical and scientific constitution; permitting the criminalization of ir-reciprocal and un-testifiable speech, and as a consequence the eradication of superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons.” When we explain the reason for western success we discover: “Heroism and Excellence; Truth and Duty; Oath and Warranty; Sovereignty and Reciprocity; Law and Jury; And Voluntary Markets in Every Aspect of Life: Association, Cooperation, Production, Reproduction, Commons, Polities and War; The direction of surpluses to the production of commons and the returns therefrom; at the cost of suppression of the reproduction of the unproductive underclasses; and the Direction of Dominance Expression to the Production of Commons by a Distributed Dictatorship of Individually Sovereign People and the Reciprocal Warranty of Denial of Power To Any and All.” Propertarianism is (a) the completion of the Aristotelian program (b) the completion of the scientific method (c ) the logic and science of the social sciences, and (d) the Natural Law of Reciprocity under which all display word and deed is expressible and commensurable. (e) and the means of institutionalizing in a “Market for the Suppression of Fraud” the suppression of the greatest crime against humanity: the big lies that are responsible for the last dark age and the new one that the enemy has sought to bring about.

  • What About Hiding Advocacy of Ir-Reciprocity and Falsehood in Entertainment?

    Jan 3, 2020, 12:41 PM

    —“How would a society with functioning P-Constitution deal with literature that contains a lot of BS, and claiming it’s just fiction, poetry as an argument to justify the untruths presented and argued in that publication?”—Lauritz Burgunderholm

    We prosecute advocacy of criminality today. We have prosecuted it in the past. We had no means of DEMARCATION in the past. Because of P, we have that means of demarcation now, so there is no problem criminalizing advocacy of falsehood and ir-reciprocity no matter the ‘Grammar’ it is written in. The Law doesn’t say what TO do, and what NOT to do is just what is false or ir-reciprocal. You could write Animal Farm. You couldn’t write the communist manifesto, or pretty much anything postmodern in form.

    —“Thank you.”–Lauritz Burgunderholm

  • What About Hiding Advocacy of Ir-Reciprocity and Falsehood in Entertainment?

    Jan 3, 2020, 12:41 PM

    —“How would a society with functioning P-Constitution deal with literature that contains a lot of BS, and claiming it’s just fiction, poetry as an argument to justify the untruths presented and argued in that publication?”—Lauritz Burgunderholm

    We prosecute advocacy of criminality today. We have prosecuted it in the past. We had no means of DEMARCATION in the past. Because of P, we have that means of demarcation now, so there is no problem criminalizing advocacy of falsehood and ir-reciprocity no matter the ‘Grammar’ it is written in. The Law doesn’t say what TO do, and what NOT to do is just what is false or ir-reciprocal. You could write Animal Farm. You couldn’t write the communist manifesto, or pretty much anything postmodern in form.

    —“Thank you.”–Lauritz Burgunderholm

  • The Unreasonable Effectiveness of P-Logic(law)

    Jan 4, 2020, 12:01 PM THE UNREASONABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF P-LOGIC(LAW) IN HUMAN SCIENCES: PARADIGMS(METAPHYSICS), PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIOLOGY, ECON, LAW, AND POLITICS P-Logic (Law) is (a) universally commensurable (b) value neutral, ( c) operational logic, of (d) decidability. Read that a few times and make sure you undrestand it. Universally commensurable, value neutral, operational logic, of decidability. The profound depth of that set of properties isn’t at all obvious, but just as saying math has extraordinary explanatory power in the physical sciences of constant temporal relations: P-logic (law) has equally extraordinary explanatory power in the cognitive sciences: paradigms(metaphysics), psychology, sociology, politics, group competitive strategy, ethics, and law. Physical sciences are mathematically predictive because categories and relations at a given resolution are constant both in and across time. The physical world can’t choose. Economic sciences are mathematically un-predictive, and only mathematically descriptive, and only operationally explanatory because relations (categories, weights(values), and operations) are inconstant across time – the consequence of Humans scheming and choosing with fragmentary and asymmetric information. Social Sciences are only operationally explanatory, not mathematically descriptive, nor mathematically predictive because while operations and incentives are constant, subject categories and values are inconstant, and unpredictable because humans scheme and choose using fragmentary and asymmetric information. P-Logic(law) provides universal explanatory power across the disciplines. Predictive power decreases with the inconstancy of relations over time. Many can create arbitrary relations within the limits of his perception, cognition, incentives, negotiation, and action, to plot and scheme against the course of events such that by some action or inaction he captures more caloric gains or opportunity for those gains, or prevents losses of opportunity or gains, than he would by not acting or acting.

  • P Is a Leap in The Scientific Method. Sorry. Man up And Learn.

    Jan 5, 2020, 10:38 AM

    —“Brandon Hayes so in other words p has similar descriptive and predictive powers to things like astrology and Marxism. If you recite these dogmas enough I’m sure they come to seem like objective truths, but my suggestion would be that you read a few things that are not by other cult members, or books of quotations taken out of context”—John Tangney

    Alright you overconfident idiot, let’s dance.

    —“Lol, who writes your dialogue?”—John Tangney

    1. Is science defined as the use of the scientific method or not? If not, then what is it defined as?
    2. Is that scientific method justificationary or falsificationary?
    3. Is mathematics the logic of constant positional relations, if not then what?
    4. What are the limits of mathematics as we currently understand them? (I’ll tell you: quantum mechanics (probability at the low end), and economics (probability at the high end). Why? Informational availability and categorical consistency.
    5. So is prediction in science limited? Or limited is it by current mathematical understanding? (I’ll tell you: it’s a limit of our current understanding of single-position mathematics, and we haven’t – see Wolfram – developed the geometric equivalent that we have in curves (calculus ), lines (geometry), points (arithmetic). It appears that it is not possible for humans without the help of computers. We can however use variation from intermediary symmetries (constants) in the meantime.
    6. Is prediction or explanation by constant relations a test of falsification? It doesn’t matter.

    P is a falsificationary, operational, explicatory, logic of limits. It is predictive given information (bounded rationality), and is predictive given symmetries (findings of general rules of economics). It cannot be as mathematics can be closed, because we can innovate and axioms can’t. Not only is P itself scientific, it defines science and the scientific method completely. Now watch john engage in GSRRM, Pilpul and Critique.

  • P Is a Leap in The Scientific Method. Sorry. Man up And Learn.

    Jan 5, 2020, 10:38 AM

    —“Brandon Hayes so in other words p has similar descriptive and predictive powers to things like astrology and Marxism. If you recite these dogmas enough I’m sure they come to seem like objective truths, but my suggestion would be that you read a few things that are not by other cult members, or books of quotations taken out of context”—John Tangney

    Alright you overconfident idiot, let’s dance.

    —“Lol, who writes your dialogue?”—John Tangney

    1. Is science defined as the use of the scientific method or not? If not, then what is it defined as?
    2. Is that scientific method justificationary or falsificationary?
    3. Is mathematics the logic of constant positional relations, if not then what?
    4. What are the limits of mathematics as we currently understand them? (I’ll tell you: quantum mechanics (probability at the low end), and economics (probability at the high end). Why? Informational availability and categorical consistency.
    5. So is prediction in science limited? Or limited is it by current mathematical understanding? (I’ll tell you: it’s a limit of our current understanding of single-position mathematics, and we haven’t – see Wolfram – developed the geometric equivalent that we have in curves (calculus ), lines (geometry), points (arithmetic). It appears that it is not possible for humans without the help of computers. We can however use variation from intermediary symmetries (constants) in the meantime.
    6. Is prediction or explanation by constant relations a test of falsification? It doesn’t matter.

    P is a falsificationary, operational, explicatory, logic of limits. It is predictive given information (bounded rationality), and is predictive given symmetries (findings of general rules of economics). It cannot be as mathematics can be closed, because we can innovate and axioms can’t. Not only is P itself scientific, it defines science and the scientific method completely. Now watch john engage in GSRRM, Pilpul and Critique.

  • Could We Falsify All Human Speech in Court?

    Could We Falsify All Human Speech in Court? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/26/could-we-falsify-all-human-speech-in-court/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-26 21:14:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265390966497841154

  • Could We Falsify All Human Speech in Court?

    Jan 5, 2020, 2:48 PM We can, and do, falsify all human action in court. The question was, could we falsify all human speech in court. The answer is yes. The usual problem is that someone wants an ideology(political) philosophy (secular theological), or theology (supernatural theological) solution – which is impossible. Because Science (truthful testimony) is falsificationary. As far as I know, P is complete. And there are no false or ir-reciprocal statements that can survive its falsification. That fact that people can’t get their noggins around the fact that all science (testimony) like markets (competition) is falsificationary is a common problem. But it stems from a failure to understand that science is falsificationary, then demanding P, like philosophy, ideology, or religion be justificationary. It’s not. So they criticize P for not being a science on the one hand by false presumption science is justificationary, and then complain P isn’t justificationary. Kind of silly really, but you can see where they get it from. Most people are stuck in the error of “Mathiness” because they don’t grasp the constitution of, or limits of, mathematics. Math breaks down in all three directions: the very small, the very large, and the very-human (cognitive): economics. If you need a positive theology, philosophy, ideology, sophism, or pseudoscience, then I understand the via-positiva is necessary for simple minds. But grownups are not afraid of via-negativa (skepticism), because we know all non trivial non tautological propositions are contingent, because we may always or nearly always, discover some novel parsimony that allows us to reorganize our paradigms for greater consistency, correspondence, coherence, completeness and parsimony than before.