Theme: Truth

  • P IS A LEAP IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. SORRY. MAN UP AND LEARN. —“Brandon Hayes

    P IS A LEAP IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. SORRY. MAN UP AND LEARN.

    —“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.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 10:38:00 UTC

  • EXPLAINING (DEFINING) PROPERTARIANISM – FOR NEWBS: 1 – The completion of the sci

    EXPLAINING (DEFINING) PROPERTARIANISM – FOR NEWBS:

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-02 18:35:00 UTC

  • “Curt Doolittle is a moron…. Because is talks nonsense, its just waffle which

    —“Curt Doolittle is a moron…. Because is talks nonsense, its just waffle which doesn’t link together. He compared himself to Aristotle in reply to a comment I made on one of his videos. He isn’t very smart and can’t make higher connections to the true. He is similar to Jordan B Peterson or Ben Shapiru…. Because he thinks he has done some genius work by converting political language and idea’s into scientific language, which just makes political stuff much more complex than it actually is. What he’s doing is looking at a cream wall and trying to find the flecks of white in it. Its utterly pointless.”—William Walker

    lol….

    Answer a question: by what system of rules are governments – the largest organizations in the world – operated? (law) What differs between those organization (the body of laws and the limits upon them). By what other means is it possible for them to be operated? (none). Law is the operating system for governments. And if you had sufficient worldly knowledge and experience, you would know that.

    Logistics in war, Law in State, Contract in Commerce, Protocols in Medicine, Norm in commons, Tradition in Family.

    It’s ok if you’re only fit for the soldiery. You don’t need to understand. You either need to fight for your people or stay out of the way.

    As for understanding the work, well, you know, stupidities such as “Calculus is hard so it mustn’t be useful or true” apply to Propertarianism. It’s hard. Its useful. And it’s true. You don’t understand the constitution or the law either. Yet you think you do and you live by the rules put in place by the vast body of the common law, the constitution, the amendements, the findings of the court, the federal code, the state codes, and the regulations that make them possible.

    You don’t understand quantum mechanics and you still can use a cell phone, a computer, the internet, and satellite GPS systems.

    Understanding is overrated.

    Soldiers do their duty.

    That’s why we win.

    Man up.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-31 09:13:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) Thank you brother for the honest question. I understand that wh

    (from elsewhere)

    Thank you brother for the honest question.

    I understand that when one cannot comprehend the truth or falsehood of a set of ideas that one must trust that the man who utters them *does* comprehend them – and relays them with his warranty of due diligence in both the truth of the content, and the meaning he conveys when relaying it.

    My position is that I don’t want you to trust me, since truth should stand on its own. The problem then, is overcoming the barrier of complexity.

    There are a lot of you who want me to sound like a preacher selling a moral parable. There are others of you who want me to sound like a politician selling an ideology. There are others of you who want me to sound like a general inspiring the troops. But I am a judge rendering judgements in the law of nature and the natural law of men.

    So we are in a difficult position of you (all of you) one way or another, demanding some impossible test of character.

    Yet the only test is this: why would a man of accomplishment sacrifice everything in his life: time, wealth, business, family, relationships, and risk ostracization, punishment, imprisonment, and even death, to write down in law for the first time a scientific understanding of his people’s strategy, history, in recipe form, to give them moral license, a set of demands, a means of transition, and a plan of execution of a revolution – in order to save them from the second dark age that threatens this time to not only enslave them but to exterminate them?

    Who else would pay that cost but one who was devoted to it? Do you have any idea what I have given up to do this? I’ve bet my entire life that I can give mission to a revolution that restores my people to their historical path, and defeats the enemy forever.

    If you can’t comprehend my words. You can’t sympathize with my thoughts. You can’t empathize with my feelings, you can at least take the evidence of my incentives.

    We must win. I bet more than anyone else so far that I can make us win.

    You must only choose whether you trust your own judgement.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-30 21:12:00 UTC

  • Psychologizing is an example of failure to make an argument because of cognitive

    Psychologizing is an example of failure to make an argument because of cognitively female mind.

    Instead, why should I not calmly professional rigor use reason and argument to suppress irreciprocity, fraud and deceit? (what you’re doing.)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-30 15:33:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211671567119335425

    Reply addressees: @AreRadical @TheCelticOrder

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211665099322208256


    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/1211665099322208256

  • I ‘started’ with you ‘disciplining’ me. I responded with the above “Talk to your

    I ‘started’ with you ‘disciplining’ me. I responded with the above “Talk to your market and I’ll talk to mine”. It’s my job to thwart the enemy intellectuals, not to ‘dumb it down’ for the lay classes. So man up. Truth and Reciprocity. Learn from your mistakes. Ok? (attached) https://t.co/gDMsOXe7wC


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-30 14:43:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211659116646666240

    Reply addressees: @ivanlawhg @ZeitgeistIndLLC

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211599387085946880


    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/1211599387085946880

  • ( 7 Day twitter block for Truthing.) 😉

    ( 7 Day twitter block for Truthing.) 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-30 14:25:00 UTC

  • It’s increasingly clear to me that the Grammars are as important an insight as i

    It’s increasingly clear to me that the Grammars are as important an insight as is Testimonial Truth, Propertarian Ethics, The Ternary Logic of Social Science.

    Why? Scientists, philosophers, logicians, mathematicians who don’t understand the foundations (grammars) of their disciplines.

    Scientists: It’s testimony on results after falsification of all available dimensions. The means of falsification are irrelevant.

    Philosophers: avoiding cost, actionability, informational asymmetry, and reciprocity creating unreality. Idealism is merely confession of ignorance. The majority of Philosophical terms and categories are dead because they were WRONG.

    Logicians: there is no closure, and logics are only falsificationary, you can’t prove anything without appeal to reality. Stop treating it as scriptural interpretation (hermeneutics).

    Mathematicians: it’s just a language of positional names limited by the grammar of ratios, meaning that positional names provide both perfect disambiguation by a single constant relation (position) and position can be used to generate endless names, so it is endlessly possible to describe constant relations, where the term pattern refers only to some set of constant relation. It’s not that math is unreasonably effective at describing constant relations it’s that it’s only possible for it to describe constant relations.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-30 11:35:00 UTC

  • Sorry princess. My specialization is truth and methods of deceit, particularly g

    Sorry princess. My specialization is truth and methods of deceit, particularly gender and civilizational differences in conflict. And you just demonstrated the female cognitive bias of NAXALT. So in two comments you demonstrate two of the common tactics of female deceit.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-30 02:08:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211469117179531264

    Reply addressees: @charlottemorl13 @nytopinion

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211468074890780673


    IN REPLY TO:

    @charlottemorl13

    @curtdoolittle @nytopinion But for starters you are basing YOUR weak arguments on sweeping generalizations of groups of ppl without taking into account the fact that w/in these groups there are vast differences so your ideas are flawed from the outset. Flawed premise would make ur entire argument invalid

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211468074890780673

  • I agree that it’s disgusting. It’s also true. So how will we stop it? Note that

    I agree that it’s disgusting. It’s also true. So how will we stop it?

    Note that you didn’t disagree or propose and argument but validated my argument by responding with GSRRM rather than intelligence, reason, and knowledge. 😉 https://t.co/I0CqJDVqbC


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-30 02:00:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211466956647337985

    Reply addressees: @charlottemorl13 @nytopinion

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211460932079104001


    IN REPLY TO:

    @charlottemorl13

    @curtdoolittle @nytopinion This is disgusting. You are sick.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211460932079104001