Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • THE LAW ALLOWS US TO CREATE RELIGIONS THAT ARE NOT FALSE —“Humans really don’t

    THE LAW ALLOWS US TO CREATE RELIGIONS THAT ARE NOT FALSE

    —“Humans really don’t live day to day in the “conscious” “rational” mode, you know this but it seems you unconsciously push against this fact.”— SG Simmons

    Because religions are relativistic and truth absolute.

    As such in matters of conflict, the truth and the law, supercede religion – for the simple reason that they do in fact supercede it.

    For some reason it is inconceivable to people that we can create religions (as the stoics tried to, as buddha tried to, and the japanese do) that are in fact, not false.

    But this is why I have to work on this problem so hard. And why law is so important. So that we can end the undecidability of religions and produce one that is decidable.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 12:38:00 UTC

  • NEW RIGHT = SCIENTIFIC RIGHT It drives the Left nuts that the New Right owns the

    NEW RIGHT = SCIENTIFIC RIGHT

    It drives the Left nuts that the New Right owns the scientific discourse, and that it’s now clear progressivisms, in marxist pseudoscientific, feminist pseudoscientific, and postmodern pseudo-rational forms, are just another Religion.

    They can’t deal with the fact that New Right = Scientific Right.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 11:46:00 UTC

  • PROGRESSIVISM IS A RELIGION, AND TRUTH BLASPHEMY by Vivek Na Liberals use this k

    PROGRESSIVISM IS A RELIGION, AND TRUTH BLASPHEMY

    by Vivek Na

    Liberals use this kind of rhetoric – “no right thinking individual would say that”. Or “That doesn’t sound right” – meaning you’re committing blasphemy according to their constructed sense of right and wrong, ergo, you’re a heretic who should be metaphorically exiled or pilloried.

    –Curt:–

    You know, we ought to use that more often: “So you mean it’s blasphemous in your religion, right?”

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 11:44:00 UTC

  • STUFF I DIDN’T KNOW Red pill = unpleasant truth. Blue pill = comforting lie. Bla

    STUFF I DIDN’T KNOW

    Red pill = unpleasant truth.

    Blue pill = comforting lie.

    Black pill = demoralizing defeatism.

    White pill = hopeful encouragement.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 11:06:00 UTC

  • ANY SUFFICIENTLY COMPLEX THEORY WILL BE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC —“Most pe

    ANY SUFFICIENTLY COMPLEX THEORY WILL BE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC

    —“Most people won’t understand the basis for [the Propertarian] legal theory, and it will need explanation in mythological terms. To the people who require this form of explanation it will essentially be a religion.”– Eric Orwoll

    You know, sometimes you just need someone to reframe it for you. Thanks Eric. That’s smart.

    You could ahve told me that three years ago and saved me six months… lol

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 09:32:00 UTC

  • A LITTLE DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE LUDIC FALLACY AND WHY I RARELY USE ANY VARI

    A LITTLE DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE LUDIC FALLACY AND WHY I RARELY USE ANY VARIATION ON “PROBABLE”.

    The Ludic Fallacy consists in the error that probability can be calculated on unclosed systems, whereas outliers are of greater influence on consequences that change state than are regularities that maintain state.

    In other words, there are very few conditions under which dice are a model for probability, and the ratio of influence (change) is a log of the tail. Dice are closed systems. There are no outliers. Whereas in all other categories (real world) we are almost always measuring variations in a norm, not possible outliers – which although rare, are far more influential than the regularities we measure. In other words, we get what we measure but what we measure is largely unimportant, because it’s obvious and not influential. What we don’t measure is that which is not obvious and rare, but influential.

    When we predict the future we depend upon regularities. but if regularities exist then there is no profit to be made. it is from outliers that profits are made.

    This is a via negativa strategy, just as is falsification.

    Or stated otherwise, the unimaginable and improbable is more influential than the imaginable and probable.

    This is – reductio version – the whole point of Taleb’s work.

    And Taleb is, even if he doesn’t succeed, the counter to Keynesian Probabilism, the same way I am counter to Marxist pseudoscience.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 09:21:00 UTC

  • “THE GRID” axiomatic,….theoretic,………….and analogistic. deductive, …i

    “THE GRID”

    axiomatic,….theoretic,………….and analogistic.

    deductive, …inductive, ………..and abductive.

    proof, ……….truth, ………………and meaningful.

    ideal,…………real,………………..and imaginary.

    consistent….correspondent,…and coherent

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 05:38:00 UTC

  • By Bill Joslin Truth is an adjective not a noun. The subtle difference between t

    By Bill Joslin

    Truth is an adjective not a noun.

    The subtle difference between truth as semantic axioms and truth as an asymptotic correspondence resolves the above.

    The ability to test a statement against a criteria (correspondence, coherence , utility, meaning or any combination thereof) makes “true” possible (the only time “true” us relevant) – thus “true” exists as a property of speech and thought (not a prooerty of the world or reality).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 21:32:00 UTC

  • “Curt do you believe in the notion of a universally verifiable truth?”—Mark Jo

    —“Curt do you believe in the notion of a universally verifiable truth?”—Mark Joyner

    (FWIW apparently this post was interpreted by mark as offensive. I didn’t mean it to be.)

    Um. You probably can’t comprehend how …. sophomoric that question is, because it’s so common a sophomoric question that like belief in flying donkeys it’s a given.

    1) A person may speak truthfully… if you know what that means:

    For every phenomenon there exists a most parsimonious description possible in a language that can be uttered by man.

    To state the most parsimonious description of possible one needs perfect knowledge.

    We are rarely if ever possessed of perfect knowledge. When we are, it is all but certain we speak of a tautology or a triviality (reductio) – and meaningless.

    So even if we speak the most parsimonious description possible we may not know we do, and as such must assume our description is forever contingent.

    Ergo all *testimony* (truth claim) of any substance is forever contingent.

    2) We can speak in at least three categories: axiomatic, theoretic, and fictional(analogistic).

    We can verify the internal consistency of an axiomatic statement, and we can attempt to construct of proof of such an axiomatic statement – assuming that the axioms themselves are internally consistent. We can declare axioms. We call internally consistent tests ‘true’ but they are merely proofs, not truths. Mathematics is axiomatic. They are only contingent upon the declared axioms.

    We can only try to falsify the theoretical, and see if it survives falsification. We cannot declare laws, only discover them. We call theories (descriptions) true if they are consistent, correspondent, possible, complete, and coherent. This is a far higher standard that the must ‘simpler’ axiomatic. Real world phenomenon are theoretic.

    We do not recognize the need to test the internal consistency or external correspondence (operational possibility) or coherence of fictions (analogies). Imaginary phenomenon only need be meaningful, nothing else.

    One can verify the existence of evidence. But this tells us only that the evidence exists and therefore claims are not false. It does not tell us that the theory is true.

    So, one does not ‘verify’ a truth proposition, only a test of internal consistency of axioms. One tests the survivability of a theory. Because it is forever contingent.

    Hence why we have juries.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 20:28:00 UTC

  • It’s because they feel more vulnerable. Our ability to admit we are wrong is a c

    It’s because they feel more vulnerable. Our ability to admit we are wrong is a combination of our vulnerability and the degree to which we have over invested in falsehoods in order to create self and other illusions of status and ability. Since both men and women do the latter, the sensitivity to vulnerability is what causes greater resistance to admit error in women. The problem for men is making women feel safe enough, or finding women that feel safe of their own accord.