Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • —“Only the autodidacts are free.”— Nassim Nicholas Taleb,

    —“Only the autodidacts are free.”— Nassim Nicholas Taleb, I would never have been ‘permitted’ to develop Propertarianism (Natural Law) in the academy. The simple reasons that (a) interdisciplinary phd’s are nearly impossible, (b) taking 10+ years to solve a hard problem is unacceptable. (c) publishing along the way to a solution only serves to anchor you in a falsehood. (d) the academy forces presumptions (paradigms) that are false due to its market incentives to produce educational products rather than truth (in other than the physical sciences).

  • —“Only the autodidacts are free.”— Nassim Nicholas Taleb,

    —“Only the autodidacts are free.”— Nassim Nicholas Taleb, I would never have been ‘permitted’ to develop Propertarianism (Natural Law) in the academy. The simple reasons that (a) interdisciplinary phd’s are nearly impossible, (b) taking 10+ years to solve a hard problem is unacceptable. (c) publishing along the way to a solution only serves to anchor you in a falsehood. (d) the academy forces presumptions (paradigms) that are false due to its market incentives to produce educational products rather than truth (in other than the physical sciences).

  • Answering a Presumptuous Critic

    (From Original Post: https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156430444672264) Lets get posturing out of the way first: I can judge from your argument and sentence structure I have somewhere in the vicinity of 15-30 IQ points on you (at a minimum), from your activity stream, far greater agency, have built multiple technology companies of scale, and am in the process of making a more than marginal contribution to human thought. That’s said, if we’re both done with appeals to achievement, let’s go through what non-argument you’re making and see if there is anything to it or not. Now onto discussion. 1. Original criticism makes two accusations: (a) pseudoscience, and (b) poor or lazy writing. The second (c) mentions something about scientific laws. As for (b), I don’t ‘dumb down’ my sentences in the postwar model. I’m perfectly happy with Jefferson, Lincoln, and Seneca’s prose. Writing for publication is different from sketching for followers. Dumbing it down is work I avoid. In fact, the higher on the Flesch Kincaid scale my writing lands, the more natural it is for me. (You clearly haven’t read Menger or Kant.) Although followers do say that experience with latin grammar is helpful. But yes, the accusation of laziness is correct. Although I consider it economically. It’s not worth my time to invest the extra effort. As for (a) Pseudoscience, well, I think we can address that with a little effort below. As for (c) “scientific laws”, I said “science and law” meaning that both the hard sciences and law require operational prose. This is logical because in large part, western civilization has always relied upon tort (empirical law) into prehistory, and our discourse, debate, law, reason, and science, all developed out of that prior influence. However, to put a sharper point on it. In the sequence: free association > hypothesis > theory > law > convention, each interstitial consists of a method of falsification. And whether a law consists of a mathematical expression of constant relations in deterministic (physical) or a verbal expression of constant relations in semi-deterministic (behavioral), is merely dependent upon the determinism of the discipline. Most economic laws can only be expressed symbolically because the categories change. Most physical laws can, in addition, be expressed mathematically for the simple reason that the categories do not change. “The universe can’t choose to outwit itself. Humans choose to outwit the universe and capture the difference in calories.” 2. Regarding: —“Also, no matter what language scientists write in, the rules of grammar of that language apply, as do the majority of the terms used therein.”— This statement depends on whether you use the definition of grammar of (a) the 19th and early 20th century (normatively) that was developed for mass education, or (b) the definition of grammar of the enlightenment prior to the revolutionary wars, and definition of grammar of the post-Turing (postwar) period (Operationally) (Chomsky). I use the latter: Universal Grammar > Generative Grammar > Rules of continuous, recursive disambiguation. Secondly, once one defines grammar “operationally” not “normatively”, as Continuous Recursive Disambiguation, one is forced to reorganize Semantics(dimensions of reference) as limited by grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation). Thirdly, once we do so, we discover that we have produced many, many ‘grammars’ (rules of continuous disambiguation, each limiting or expanding semantic dimensions), including Mathematical (positional), Logical (dimensional), Operational (actions), Procedural(programming), Contracts(property), Testimony(observability), Ordinary Language, Narrative, fictional, and the Fictionalisms. Fourth; once we account for the influence that the work of Popper Kuhn thru Kripke, and the work of Brouwer(physics), Bridgman(Math), Mises (economics), and the Operational, Operationalist, Intuitionistic, movements have had on the sciences, we see that the current language of at least the physical sciences is limited to Operational Grammar (and semantics). And that this difference in grammars separates the sciences (hard) from the pseudosciences (soft): psychology, sociology, literature, pseudo-history, theology, philosophy. Fifth, Operational grammar contains the most observable (empirical), least inflationary and conflationary (most deflationary) and most correspondent description (Testimony) that is possible – and therefore the most parsimonious in information EVEN IF FAR MORE PEDANTIC IN PROSE. Although we can, at some point, reduce SOME phenomenon to mathematical descriptions (constant relations) as long as the relations (categories, relations and values) are constant (physical world). Even if we cannot always do so because the relations are inconstant (economics, sentience). Although we have discovered that all economic phenomenon produce some set of symmetries (lie groups etc) which show that even in economics the hierarchy of the physical word (subatomic, atomic, chemical, biochemical, biological, ecological) also applies to a lesser degree to the discretionary (less deterministic) phenomenon that includes human memory, forecasting, and choice. CLOSING As far as I know I have no peers in these matters. As far as I know you have just stumbled onto one of my sketches, made for my followers, and either presumed you understood, or counter-signaled against prose you couldn’t understand. I don’t know. I just know it is in the nature of men to police the commons and you think that is what you are doing. Well done. But with this ‘crime’ brought before the judge so to speak, you merely err in your accusation. -Cheers

  • Understanding Deflationary Truth

    (Core Concept) (Attn: SG Simmons) || Ordinary Language Grammar > Deflationary Truth > Performative Truth > *Testimonial Truth*. Deflationary Theories of Truth —“That assertions of predicate truth of a statement do not attribute a property called “truth” to such a statement.”— In other words, “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as “it is true that I smell the scent of violets”. Performative Theory of Truth —“Peter Strawson formulated a performative theory of truth in the 1950s. Like Ramsey, Strawson believed that there was no separate problem of truth apart from determining the semantic contents (or facts of the world) which give the words and sentences of language the meanings that they have. Once the questions of meaning and reference are resolved, there is no further question of truth. Strawson’s view differs from Ramsey’s, however, in that Strawson maintains that there is an important role for the expression “is true” : specifically, it has a performative role similar to “I promise to clean the house”. In asserting that p is true, we not only assert that p but also perform the “speech act” of confirming the truth of a statement in a context. We signal our agreement or approbation of a previously uttered assertion or confirm some commonly held belief or imply that what we are asserting is likely to be accepted by others in the same context.”— Testimonial Truth (Natural Law > Testimonialism) (Doolittle) “I promise [statement], is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.” With Testimonial Truth assuming ‘warranty’, just as promissory truth assumes ‘I promise’, just as deflationary truths assume “is true”. So instead of “I promise [statement] is true, and warranty that I have performed due diligence necessary to make that promise of truth.” On simply states “[statement]”. It means that all speech must be interpreted as Testimony: So when we say “I smell the scent of violets”; …. in testimony that means: “I promise that I smell the scent of violets and that what I say is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.” And what’s not obvious is this: It is very hard to state a falsehood in this form of prose, and not be visibly accountable (to blame) for your words. And conversely, if you cannot state something in this form of prose, the question is why? And the answer can only be ‘fraud’ or ‘free riding’. TESTIMONIALISM Testimonialism provides the criteria (list of methods of due diligence) that enable us to claim we have performed that due diligence and can warranty our words. Next we need to understand Ordinary Language, Conflation, Inflation, and Deflation…. (continued)

  • Understanding Deflationary Truth

    (Core Concept) (Attn: SG Simmons) || Ordinary Language Grammar > Deflationary Truth > Performative Truth > *Testimonial Truth*. Deflationary Theories of Truth —“That assertions of predicate truth of a statement do not attribute a property called “truth” to such a statement.”— In other words, “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as “it is true that I smell the scent of violets”. Performative Theory of Truth —“Peter Strawson formulated a performative theory of truth in the 1950s. Like Ramsey, Strawson believed that there was no separate problem of truth apart from determining the semantic contents (or facts of the world) which give the words and sentences of language the meanings that they have. Once the questions of meaning and reference are resolved, there is no further question of truth. Strawson’s view differs from Ramsey’s, however, in that Strawson maintains that there is an important role for the expression “is true” : specifically, it has a performative role similar to “I promise to clean the house”. In asserting that p is true, we not only assert that p but also perform the “speech act” of confirming the truth of a statement in a context. We signal our agreement or approbation of a previously uttered assertion or confirm some commonly held belief or imply that what we are asserting is likely to be accepted by others in the same context.”— Testimonial Truth (Natural Law > Testimonialism) (Doolittle) “I promise [statement], is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.” With Testimonial Truth assuming ‘warranty’, just as promissory truth assumes ‘I promise’, just as deflationary truths assume “is true”. So instead of “I promise [statement] is true, and warranty that I have performed due diligence necessary to make that promise of truth.” On simply states “[statement]”. It means that all speech must be interpreted as Testimony: So when we say “I smell the scent of violets”; …. in testimony that means: “I promise that I smell the scent of violets and that what I say is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.” And what’s not obvious is this: It is very hard to state a falsehood in this form of prose, and not be visibly accountable (to blame) for your words. And conversely, if you cannot state something in this form of prose, the question is why? And the answer can only be ‘fraud’ or ‘free riding’. TESTIMONIALISM Testimonialism provides the criteria (list of methods of due diligence) that enable us to claim we have performed that due diligence and can warranty our words. Next we need to understand Ordinary Language, Conflation, Inflation, and Deflation…. (continued)

  • UNDERSTANDING DEFLATIONARY TRUTH (Core Concept) (Attn: SG Simmons) || Ordinary L

    UNDERSTANDING DEFLATIONARY TRUTH

    (Core Concept) (Attn: SG Simmons)

    || Ordinary Language Grammar > Deflationary Truth > Performative Truth > *Testimonial Truth*.

    Deflationary Theories of Truth

    —“That assertions of predicate truth of a statement do not attribute a property called “truth” to such a statement.”—

    In other words, “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as “it is true that I smell the scent of violets”.

    Performative Theory of Truth

    —“Peter Strawson formulated a performative theory of truth in the 1950s. Like Ramsey, Strawson believed that there was no separate problem of truth apart from determining the semantic contents (or facts of the world) which give the words and sentences of language the meanings that they have. Once the questions of meaning and reference are resolved, there is no further question of truth. Strawson’s view differs from Ramsey’s, however, in that Strawson maintains that there is an important role for the expression “is true” : specifically, it has a performative role similar to “I promise to clean the house”. In asserting that p is true, we not only assert that p but also perform the “speech act” of confirming the truth of a statement in a context. We signal our agreement or approbation of a previously uttered assertion or confirm some commonly held belief or imply that what we are asserting is likely to be accepted by others in the same context.”—

    Testimonial Truth

    (Natural Law > Testimonialism) (Doolittle)

    “I promise [statement], is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.”

    With Testimonial Truth assuming ‘warranty’, just as promissory truth assumes ‘I promise’, just as deflationary truths assume “is true”.

    So instead of “I promise [statement] is true, and warranty that I have performed due diligence necessary to make that promise of truth.” On simply states “[statement]”.

    It means that all speech must be interpreted as Testimony:

    So when we say “I smell the scent of violets”;

    …. in testimony that means:

    “I promise that I smell the scent of violets and that what I say is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.”

    And what’s not obvious is this:

    It is very hard to state a falsehood in this form of prose, and not be visibly accountable (to blame) for your words.

    And conversely, if you cannot state something in this form of prose, the question is why?

    And the answer can only be ‘fraud’ or ‘free riding’.

    TESTIMONIALISM

    Testimonialism provides the criteria (list of methods of due diligence) that enable us to claim we have performed that due diligence and can warranty our words.

    Next we need to understand Ordinary Language, Conflation, Inflation, and Deflation…. (continued)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-20 12:25:00 UTC

  • “I thought Curt hated memes.”—Albano Nano —“Just when posted as replies to h

    —“I thought Curt hated memes.”—Albano Nano

    —“Just when posted as replies to his status updates in place of an argument(s) or question(s).”—Ciaren Cawley

    (bingo)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 11:53:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1009041590579548161

  • THE WESTERN EMPHASIS ON TESTIMONY Sovereignty is Sacred – Regardless of the cons

    THE WESTERN EMPHASIS ON TESTIMONY

    Sovereignty is Sacred – Regardless of the consequences.

    Truth is Sacred – Regardless of its impact on the dominance hierarchy.

    Speech is Sacred – Regardless of the consequences.

    Oath Is Sacred – Regardless of the consequences.

    Excellence (Disruption) is Sacred = Regardless of the Consequences.

    Law is Sacred – Regardless of the consequences.

    We must continuously adapt to the truth.

    That is why we adapt fastest.

    That is why we evolved fastest (not first)

    That is what (((They))) want to continue to destroy.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 11:23:00 UTC

  • THE TRUTH IS FOR OURSELVES – NOT YOU. We don’t use the Truth to convince you. Yo

    THE TRUTH IS FOR OURSELVES – NOT YOU.

    We don’t use the Truth to convince you. You are immoral, dishonest, dysgenic and lack the agency to use the Truth. We use the Truth to convince ourselves, who are moral, honest, eugenic, and possess of agency, that it is right, just and moral, to separate from you – and if not, then conquer, kill, enslave, en-serf, and subjugate you in self defense – not only of ourselves, but of all we have made, and the future of mankind yet unmade.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 11:15:00 UTC

  • The Impression of Consensus

    Imprecision, suggestion, and demand for substitution create the impression of consensus where there is none. If you can’t state something operationally so that it is testable, then you either don’t know what you’re talking about or are engaged in abrahamic sophisms.