Theme: Truth

  • 4) Your proposition is that fictionalism is different from lying – which it cann

    4) Your proposition is that fictionalism is different from lying – which it cannot be: you are fabricating information that is not there. The information is either present in reality or you are fabricating it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-12 13:30:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017400786530242560

    Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim @egoissocial @IberianSoldier

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017382157776510977


    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/1017382157776510977

  • 2) I framed the criteria for decidability as (a) parsimony (b) constant relation

    2) I framed the criteria for decidability as (a) parsimony (b) constant relations between existence, perception, cognition, and action, (c) motive, (d) absence of fictionalism.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-12 13:30:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017400711750062080

    Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim @egoissocial @IberianSoldier

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017382157776510977


    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/1017382157776510977

  • 1) I framed the problem as whether you can testify. You cannot. Since you cannot

    1) I framed the problem as whether you can testify. You cannot. Since you cannot testify, you are in fact fictionalizing (adding information that does not exist).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-12 13:29:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017400578450903040

    Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim @egoissocial @IberianSoldier

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017382157776510977


    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/1017382157776510977

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. 1) I framed the problem as whether you can te

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    1) I framed the problem as whether you can testify. You cannot. Since you cannot testify, you are in fact fictionalizing (adding information that does not exist).

    2) I framed the criteria for decidability as (a) parsimony (b) constant relations between existence, perception, cognition, and action, (c) motive, (d) absence of fictionalism.

    3) I can testify to my proposition that all these phenomenon either to exist or can exist, without anything other than an energetic substance seeking an impossible equilibrium. (a pattern which we see throughout the natural world).

    4) Your proposition is that fictionalism is different from lying – which it cannot be: you are fabricating information that is not there. The information is either present in reality or you are fabricating it.

    Note: —“To fabricate information means to assert correspondence between objects which do not correspond; and possibly to suppress the full accounting which proves evident said non-correspondence”— George Hobbs

    5) non-temporality (non-time), self organization via entropy, and inter-universe sinusoidal equilibration (the ‘bubble’ universe), requires nothing other than itself. There is no meaning of time outside of such a bubble.

    6) We treat all fictionalist arguments as error, and in particular anthropomorphism as an error, because in history we have found *all* instances of that pattern of argument to be error.

    7) In summary, there is no difference between your fabrication of a fiction to support your fantasy of comforting anthropomorphism, and the bank robber who tells a story that god told him to do so, and the counterfeiter who says he did nothing wrong.

    8) Ergo, you are arguing as if we are discussing a theory when I am arguing that you are engaged in deception (fraud). In other words, you are creating a fictionalism in order to justify a personal psychological, political, or material want (or fear).

    9) I *cannot* come to any other conclusion simply because I cannot testify to the untestifiable; cannot fictionalize to compensate; and have before me a rather simple answer that explains the universe, and all that results from it’s entropic transformation.

    10) Aristotle was wrong about a great many things. Adults don’t fall back two millennia in order to desperately cherry pick an argument. They work with the totality of information such that they cannot.

    11) Propertarianism (my work) cannot be applied by people lacking the agency to serve as judges of truth(speech) and reciprocity(action). The weak need their falsehoods. And they are unfit for rule by rule of law.

    12) There are any number of people who have found that they lack the agency to function as judges and prosecutors of truth (speech) and reciprocity(action), and who can compete in markets in everything (natural aristocracy).

    13) But their choice is always and everywhere without exception – lack of agency. ie: they are still animals. And as animals must be ruled by those who possess it. (aristocracy).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-12 13:29:04 UTC

  • ARISTOTLE’S TESTIMONIALISM —“Following Plato’s death, Aristotle immersed himse

    ARISTOTLE’S TESTIMONIALISM

    —“Following Plato’s death, Aristotle immersed himself in empirical studies and shifted from Platonism to empiricism. He believed all concepts and knowledge were ultimately based on perception.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-12 10:36:00 UTC

  • 1) I framed the problem as whether you can testify. You cannot. Since you cannot

    1) I framed the problem as whether you can testify. You cannot. Since you cannot testify, you are in fact fictionalizing (adding information that does not exist).

    2) I framed the criteria for decidability as (a) parsimony (b) constant relations between existence, perception, cognition, and action, (c) motive, (d) absence of fictionalism.

    3) I can testify to my proposition that all these phenomenon either to exist or can exist, without anything other than an energetic substance seeking an impossible equilibrium. (a pattern which we see throughout the natural world).

    4) Your proposition is that fictionalism is different from lying – which it cannot be: you are fabricating information that is not there. The information is either present in reality or you are fabricating it.

    Note: —“To fabricate information means to assert correspondence between objects which do not correspond; and possibly to suppress the full accounting which proves evident said non-correspondence”— George Hobbs

    5) non-temporality (non-time), self organization via entropy, and inter-universe sinusoidal equilibration (the ‘bubble’ universe), requires nothing other than itself. There is no meaning of time outside of such a bubble.

    6) We treat all fictionalist arguments as error, and in particular anthropomorphism as an error, because in history we have found *all* instances of that pattern of argument to be error.

    7) In summary, there is no difference between your fabrication of a fiction to support your fantasy of comforting anthropomorphism, and the bank robber who tells a story that god told him to do so, and the counterfeiter who says he did nothing wrong.

    8) Ergo, you are arguing as if we are discussing a theory when I am arguing that you are engaged in deception (fraud). In other words, you are creating a fictionalism in order to justify a personal psychological, political, or material want (or fear).

    9) I *cannot* come to any other conclusion simply because I cannot testify to the untestifiable; cannot fictionalize to compensate; and have before me a rather simple answer that explains the universe, and all that results from it’s entropic transformation.

    10) Aristotle was wrong about a great many things. Adults don’t fall back two millennia in order to desperately cherry pick an argument. They work with the totality of information such that they cannot.

    11) Propertarianism (my work) cannot be applied by people lacking the agency to serve as judges of truth(speech) and reciprocity(action). The weak need their falsehoods. And they are unfit for rule by rule of law.

    12) There are any number of people who have found that they lack the agency to function as judges and prosecutors of truth (speech) and reciprocity(action), and who can compete in markets in everything (natural aristocracy).

    13) But their choice is always and everywhere without exception – lack of agency. ie: they are still animals. And as animals must be ruled by those who possess it. (aristocracy).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-12 09:29:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. 1) We (Taleb and I) are both specialists in d

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    1) We (Taleb and I) are both specialists in debunking frauds – he by innumeracy in specific and I fictionalism more broadly. We are both intolerant of frauds. One can only claim one speaks truthfully of the testifiable, where one can warranty one’s speech. if not one lies. Period.

    2) Since you demonstrate you lie, and you do so by fictionalism, it is not an ad hominem to call you a liar and a fraud it is an inescapable logical necessity. in other words some arguments and methods of arguments are lies and frauds by mere construction prior to content.

    3) i practice the natural law of reciprocity, falsificationary science, deflationary logic and constructivist mathematics, not justificationary rationalism, theology or pseudoscience. Stop wasting my time with fraud and deceit.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-12 02:43:14 UTC

  • 2) Since you demonstrate you lie, and you do so by fictionalism, it is not an ad

    2) Since you demonstrate you lie, and you do so by fictionalism, it is not an ad hominem to call you a liar and a fraud it is an inescapable logical necessity. in other words some arguments and methods of arguments are lies and frauds by mere construction prior to content.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-12 02:36:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017236218025840640

    Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim @egoissocial @IberianSoldier

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017183302288052224


    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/1017183302288052224

  • 1) We are both specialists in debunking frauds – he by innumeracy in specific an

    1) We are both specialists in debunking frauds – he by innumeracy in specific and I fictionalism more broadly. We are both intolerant of frauds. One can only claim one speaks truthfully of the testifiable, where one can warranty one’s speech. if not one lies. Period.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-12 02:32:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017235251070996480

    Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim @egoissocial @IberianSoldier

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017183302288052224


    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/1017183302288052224

  • My Simple Methodology: Locker Room vs Porch

    I have a very simple methodology: the truth. the truth provides decidability. And I don’t leave room for pragmatism. By allowing one pragmatic falsehood you allow all pragmatic falsehoods. By disallowing all falsehoods, no matter how practical, you leave only the truth. —“I get that you teach by a startling statement and follow-up Devil’s advocate questions. But sometime we lose the forest for trying to define a tree.”—Anne Summers It’s just the socratic method. Propose an assertion that will either reinforce or oppose a norm. Then we all debate until we understand. I love teaching online. It’s just more like teaching in a Locker Room or Bar than the vaulted porch of athenian wisdom….. lol