Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. NATURAL LAW VS SOCIAL CONSTRUCT John Mark “Xy

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    NATURAL LAW VS SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
    John Mark

    “Xyz is a social construct” carries no testable content. What they mean to say is “Human groups don’t actually need xyz to be successful. People have told us we need xyz but we would be better off without it.”

    Insert “legislation” or “rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity” for “xyz” and we have a testable statement.

    As far as I know, rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity with full accounting (of all forms of property) can and would adapt to social conditions – meaning that regardless of what actions people are taking in a polity, such a system of law would provide legal recourse and restitution for individuals or groups who experienced others violating reciprocity in dealings with them.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 20:05:54 UTC

  • NATURAL LAW VS SOCIAL CONSTRUCT John Mark “Xyz is a social construct” carries no

    NATURAL LAW VS SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

    John Mark

    “Xyz is a social construct” carries no testable content. What they mean to say is “Human groups don’t actually need xyz to be successful. People have told us we need xyz but we would be better off without it.”

    Insert “legislation” or “rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity” for “xyz” and we have a testable statement.

    As far as I know, rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity with full accounting (of all forms of property) can and would adapt to social conditions – meaning that regardless of what actions people are taking in a polity, such a system of law would provide legal recourse and restitution for individuals or groups who experienced others violating reciprocity in dealings with them.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 16:05:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. TABLE This:…………………………….

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    TABLE
    This:………………………………………..Degrades to:
    (Physical)…..Science………………….Magic
    (Verbal)……..Testimony(law)………..Sophism
    (Emotional)..Experience . ……………Supernaturalism

    HIERARCHY
    – Law (Science/Anglo Analytic)
    – Phenomenalism (Literary/Continental)
    – Sophism (Verbalism/Deception)
    – Theology (Mythology)
    – Occult (Dreams)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 12:38:18 UTC

  • TABLE This:………………………………………..Degrades to: (Physical

    TABLE

    This:………………………………………..Degrades to:

    (Physical)…..Science………………….Magic

    (Verbal)……..Testimony(law)………..Sophism

    (Emotional)..Experience . ……………Supernaturalism

    HIERARCHY

    – Law (Science/Anglo Analytic)

    – Phenomenalism (Literary/Continental)

    – Sophism (Verbalism/Deception)

    – Theology (Mythology)

    – Occult (Dreams)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 08:38:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. TOO DENSE BUT ANY MATHEMATICIAN WILL GROK IT

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    TOO DENSE BUT ANY MATHEMATICIAN WILL GROK IT

    As far as I know all truth refers to testimony (correspondence) and we use the term ‘loosely’ for many purposes. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0).

    We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations).

    We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false.

    As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify.

    In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass).

    Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination.

    Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality.

    This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 00:20:38 UTC

  • Define Philosophy?

    —People define the word philosophy differently: My first year of college my philosophy professor defined it as “the rational appropriation of conscious subjectivity.” Would you comment on this definition?”—Joe Cooley  1) Philosophy consists of the act of REASONING by attempting to produce paradigms (sets of constant relations) of understanding (decidability) in the absence of sufficient measurements (observations) to do so, because of logical(cognitive) and physical(human scale) and technological(mechanical and logical), and economic (cost) limitations. For this reason, all disciplines started as branches of philosophy until they evolved into sciences (measurements) consisting of constant relations in paradigms(networks). 2) We create WISDOM LITERATURES using Mythology(supernormal), Literature (fiction), History, Science, Mathematics, and produce at least the following by conflation: ( a ) Religion: (Emotional) false history, fictional literature, pseudoscience, occult, and fictional law (fictions) ( b ) Philosophy: (Verbal) Sophisms (arguments) ( c ) Pseudoscience and Practical Knowledge (utilities): Note the Physical>Emotional>Intellectual(verbal) scope of those literatures, and the fictional means we have created to claim pretense of knowledge using them. 3) While Aristotle began with a hierarchy of categories by which to divide knowledge – the categories of philosophy we still used – he lacked knowledge of how to do better than he did. Today we can include metaphysics(grammars), psychology(aesthetics), sociology(ethics), the sciences(epistemology), testimony(speech), law(cooperation), economics(production), politics(commons), group strategy(competition/evolution). Note that Socrates practiced Criticism(Critique), Plato practiced Justification(Pilpul), only Aristotle Practiced Testimony (due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit). 4) As far as I know I’ve completed Testimony (epistemology) by converting it to a science (truth) – although we must wait a few decades to see if I’m correct (its very very unlikely that I err). That means that all measurement (“Truth”) is now a question of the sciences. That means that philosophy now consists of the study of CHOICE. Not the true, but the MEANINGFUL, PREFERABLE and the GOOD. 5) Until we solved the problem of epistemology, we lack a most parsimonious paradigm (truth) – meaning a set of constant relations across the entire spectrum of knowledge from the physical, to the emotional to the intellectual, and could not separate philosophy into truth, good, preference, and meaning. There is only one most parsimonious paradigm (truth) but there are an infinite number of paradigms that provide us understanding(meaning), preference(choice), and good (collective). So the domain of philosophy is at present – if not always – the use of fragmentary information in kaleidic (unpredictable) time, to reason out paradigms (networks of constant relations) that help us understand (Meaningful), how to choose how to achieve the Preferable and the Good. As such philosophy, as meaning, preference, and good, like creativity, will never end.

  • Define Philosophy?

    —People define the word philosophy differently: My first year of college my philosophy professor defined it as “the rational appropriation of conscious subjectivity.” Would you comment on this definition?”—Joe Cooley  1) Philosophy consists of the act of REASONING by attempting to produce paradigms (sets of constant relations) of understanding (decidability) in the absence of sufficient measurements (observations) to do so, because of logical(cognitive) and physical(human scale) and technological(mechanical and logical), and economic (cost) limitations. For this reason, all disciplines started as branches of philosophy until they evolved into sciences (measurements) consisting of constant relations in paradigms(networks). 2) We create WISDOM LITERATURES using Mythology(supernormal), Literature (fiction), History, Science, Mathematics, and produce at least the following by conflation: ( a ) Religion: (Emotional) false history, fictional literature, pseudoscience, occult, and fictional law (fictions) ( b ) Philosophy: (Verbal) Sophisms (arguments) ( c ) Pseudoscience and Practical Knowledge (utilities): Note the Physical>Emotional>Intellectual(verbal) scope of those literatures, and the fictional means we have created to claim pretense of knowledge using them. 3) While Aristotle began with a hierarchy of categories by which to divide knowledge – the categories of philosophy we still used – he lacked knowledge of how to do better than he did. Today we can include metaphysics(grammars), psychology(aesthetics), sociology(ethics), the sciences(epistemology), testimony(speech), law(cooperation), economics(production), politics(commons), group strategy(competition/evolution). Note that Socrates practiced Criticism(Critique), Plato practiced Justification(Pilpul), only Aristotle Practiced Testimony (due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit). 4) As far as I know I’ve completed Testimony (epistemology) by converting it to a science (truth) – although we must wait a few decades to see if I’m correct (its very very unlikely that I err). That means that all measurement (“Truth”) is now a question of the sciences. That means that philosophy now consists of the study of CHOICE. Not the true, but the MEANINGFUL, PREFERABLE and the GOOD. 5) Until we solved the problem of epistemology, we lack a most parsimonious paradigm (truth) – meaning a set of constant relations across the entire spectrum of knowledge from the physical, to the emotional to the intellectual, and could not separate philosophy into truth, good, preference, and meaning. There is only one most parsimonious paradigm (truth) but there are an infinite number of paradigms that provide us understanding(meaning), preference(choice), and good (collective). So the domain of philosophy is at present – if not always – the use of fragmentary information in kaleidic (unpredictable) time, to reason out paradigms (networks of constant relations) that help us understand (Meaningful), how to choose how to achieve the Preferable and the Good. As such philosophy, as meaning, preference, and good, like creativity, will never end.

  • Too Dense but Any Mathematician Will Grok It

    As far as I know all truth refers to testimony (correspondence) and we use the term ‘loosely’ for many purposes. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0). We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations). We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false. As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify. In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass). Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination. Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality. This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics).

  • Too Dense but Any Mathematician Will Grok It

    As far as I know all truth refers to testimony (correspondence) and we use the term ‘loosely’ for many purposes. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0). We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations). We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false. As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify. In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass). Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination. Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality. This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics).

  • TOO DENSE BUT ANY MATHEMATICIAN WILL GROK IT As far as I know all truth refers t

    TOO DENSE BUT ANY MATHEMATICIAN WILL GROK IT

    As far as I know all truth refers to testimony (correspondence) and we use the term ‘loosely’ for many purposes. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0).

    We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations).

    We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false.

    As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify.

    In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass).

    Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination.

    Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality.

    This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 20:20:00 UTC