FREE WILL?
—“Up until now everybody has gotten it completely backwards: free will is not rebelling against nature and escaping natural cause-and-effect, but it is exactly the opposite. By becoming part of the cause-and-effect chains and inserting ourselves into them, we gain agency.”—Moritz Bierling
UNIVERSALISM AND PARTICULARISM ARE STRATEGIES
@Eli
I don’t think universalism has to be ‘taught’. It’s just the rational choice when you are wealthy enough to gamble on the potential to increase the scale of cooperation. Conversely, non-cooperation in a condition of wealth where you forgo opportunities for cooperation is costly. These are evident in all walks of life.
I think universalism arises in periods of empire (colonialism) and declines in periods of contraction – and now that the gains of the enlightenment have been equi-distributed across the world, I think that we are in a period of contraction so that particularism is returning to the ‘natural state’ of man.
I have been looking at history as progressions through economic phases, and the demand for different abilities at each phase and scale and I see a world where calories are of little coast and consequence but VALUE to one another is reduced to zero OTHER than political value. This is what we are ‘intuiting’.
This is a ‘return to normal’ so to speak.
(profoundly important)
FICTION ( possibility – opportunity – productivity )
VS
LAW ( decidability – limits – parasitism )
Of the following, which is fiction, which is law?
A) Golden Rule : Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
B) Silver Rule: Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you.
Fiction and Law serve as the western equivalent of Ying and Yang.
But our western model innovates, and Ying and Yang stagnates.
PETERSON: FICTIONALISM (SELLING), DOOLITTLE: LAW (TELLING)
HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE IDEAS WITH FICTION BUT NOT FALSELY?
William Butchman
—“We have a universe of potentiality available to us. Is potential which has not yet been called into being ‘fiction’, is it ‘false’?”—
Curt Doolittle
No. We can state it falsely, but we cannot state that which we can envision is yet false. no. To respect natural law we must merely not make false claims. This is the beauty of fiction (literature) vs fictionalism (religion, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience – the discourse of conflation) Fiction makes no truth claims, it merely spreads ideas. If it makes truth claims, (particularly ‘smear campaigns against past idols) then that is not fiction but fictionalization – conflation)
(regarding the republican failure to reform healthcare)
Dick,
Are you speaking truthfully, with bias, with wishful thinking, or propagandizing (fictionalizing)?
1 – they (mainstream republicans) thought they could replace it in name only.
2 – the right libertarians and conservatives that were elected to repeal it completely put together enough votes to block it.
3 – Now it will fail economically, and they will allow it to fail, and the right and the mainstream republicans will say ‘told you so’ – and they will solidify the movement of the middle class to the republican party permanently.
4 – The left will (as they intended originally) to propose full nationalization upon failure.
5 – The right will propose a tiered program (extending the two tiered system we have today: medicare and private.)
6 – the uninformed (unaligned) voter will provide marginal voting power to one party or another depending upon the timing.
7 – the outcome then is random, dependent upon the economic mood of the country.
My opinion remains, and has been, to keep and expand the subsidy (medicare, medicaid) system for the poor, cover catastrophic health problems fully (for the lower middle and middl) and leave market plans available for the upper middle and upper classes. This three tiered system allows the governments (states) to negotiate price controls for the poor, the middle class to obtain insurance at reasonable prices by eliminating the high cost outliers, and the upper classes to fund research and development as they always have.
This is, I am fairly certain, the optimum system that preserves the benefits of the market on one hand, the control of prices across that market on the other, and the ability to create demand for innovative (risky, expensive) services that respond to market demands.
Cheers.
DO WHAT YOU WERE BORN TO DO (v2)
Killing is what we evolved to do – and we are excel at it. We are evolution’s super-predators. And hunting, sport, and soldiery are poor substitutes for the heady war of warrior kinsmen. There is no higher good, no higher achievement, no greater demonstration of your self and your people, your culture and your civilization, than the defeat, decimation, deprivation, and enslavement of your enemies, and the distribution of their women, their property, and their territory. We don’t need to shrink from the opportunity to war for our kin – but REVEL in it.
We need not water the tree of sovereignty, liberty, freedom with the blood of enemies and tyrants lightly – but drench it, and thoroughly.
Huh. I thought restoring the constitution to natural law was an obligation mandated by the framers, and the very reason for the constitution and the second amendment.
As far as I know, under natural law, the constitition of which is an expression, any act against those institutions that undermines natural law, rule of law, is de facto an act of treason.
if instead, the government is limited only by what the mass of voters and the houses of government rule, then government is purely arbitrary.
CHASING DOWN ‘LIBERTARIAN’ (free rider) SMELLS
Matt Mitchell
—“Curt, is there anything in particular that I said that goes against what you said? For markets to function there needs to be a particular order in the first place, right? Things can change in time, yes, though there are things that do not change or are unlikely to change. Forcing people to live one way or the other, doesn’t help in any way.”—
Curt Doolittle
Hmmm…. well, you know, I have a job right? And in my job I look for opportunities to encourage people to think ‘completely’. So to some degree I’m just ‘riffing’ off your post to get people to think.
But in the context of your post, you are implying steady state, homogeneity, and religious authority necessary to indoctrinate those beliefs – when people merely choose the beliefs that suit their circumstances.
So that I felt the need to do was to remind you and others, that we are not agrarians any longer. That the world of modern urbanity is much more like living as diasporic tribes floating between city-markets, trading our goods (skills, labor), and that we do not have the steady state, the homogeneity, or the ability to indoctrinate under these conditions, and as such we can only struggle to impose limits and exceptions (laws) in a jurisdiction, not ‘regularities’ (beliefs).
So I was reacting to a ‘libertarian smell’, and ‘false assumption’ smell to your argument.
Trade always existed. Cities were created by violence. Markets were created by violence. Trade routes were created by violence. More violence than the thieves could muster to prey upon them.
The truth is, we have to fight. And that’s all there is to it. So what is the social order that both allows us to fight and eliminates the need to fight?
Rule of law.
So yes, forcing people to live under increasing suppression of parasitism is unquestionably in all of history a ‘good’. It may in fact, be the good that produces the highest returns of all. Even more so than the division of labor. Because it is the first good that makes the division of labor possible.
😉
Force, fire, water, air, and words, are good things put to good purpose. Or bad things put to bad purpose. They are not intrinsically good or bad.
———–definition———–
“Code smell”, also known as bad smell, in computer programming code, refers to any symptom in the source code of a program that possibly indicates a deeper problem. According to Martin Fowler, “a code smell is a surface indication that usually corresponds to a deeper problem in the system”.
DEAR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
A) Please come for me. Please give me even more credibility, and expand my market dramatically.
B) Please expand the opportunity for promoting discourse on rule of law and the solution to the next iteration of european governments.
C) Please ensure that the income source necessary to fund any revolution (a foreign government) will provide for a revolution.
Once you tried to destroy me procedurally, you made me an enemy, and I made it my mission to ensure that rule of law is restored, so that never again can a man be harmed by the arbitrary judgement of individuals prior to juridical review, under rule of law, under natural law, of universal standing, and universal applicability – without exception.
DO WHAT YOU WERE BORN TO DO
Killing is what we evolved to do. And we are great at it. The best who have ever lived at it. And hunting, sport, and soldiery are poor substitutes for the heady war of warrior kinsmen. There is no more passionate feeling, no higher good, no higher achievement, no greater demonstration of your self and your people, your culture and your civilization, than the defeat, decimation, deprivation, and enslavement of your enemies, and the distribution of their women, their property, and their territory.
Do not water the tree of sovereignty, liberty, freedom with the blood of enemies and tyrants lightly – but drench it, thoroughly.
I think that the scientific rather than platonic explanations are more truthful and less “magical” (and less ridiculous honestly).
So try this: We can act in four dimensions of the physical universe, measure in four dimensions of the physical universe, and model four dimensions of the physical universe with mathematics. However, we can use the same techniques to model purely logical relationships, as we do to model physical relationships. It requires quite a bit of skill to keep track of what you’re doing, but when we are modeling very complex things, like waves, magnetism, forces, economic phenomenon, we can perform very complex calculations – not because these spaces exist, but because we can use the techniques we developed in the more simple physical spaces consisting of a small number of dimensions of change, to solve problems with many many, dimensions of change. It’s not that complicated really. It just sounds complicated because of the old fashioned (archaic) language we use to describe what we’re doing.
Mar 24, 2017 11:43am
DEFINITION: FICTIONALISM
(important for propertarian core)
Fictionalism is the name of the judgement within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”).
Fictionalism consists in at least the following three theses:
1) Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false.
2) The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:
Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of
Of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.)
3) The purpose of *discourse(discovery)* in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.
Four common occurrences of fictionalism are:
1) mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement)
2) modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and;
3) moral fictionalism in meta-ethics, advocated by Richard Joyce, suggests that fictions (Falsehoods) are too useful to throw out.
4) religious fiction in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of fictionalism.
5) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult)
We must note that all three of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past.
Of these groups:
0 – Religious Language in toto (supernaturalism)
1 – Literary Philosophers (positive, or advocates ),
2 – Supernormal Physicists, and
3 – Mathematical Platonists;
All attempt to preserve the use of fictions for one of the following possible reasons:
1) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgements are truths.
2) Obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or
3) Preserve the cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or
4) Avoid the costs of investigating the method of decidability within their domains.
5) Avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered.
And so:
If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and
If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference.
Then:
We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.
We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.
Natural Law (propertarianism), is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
EDUCATION: RETURNING TO RULE
Our ‘Education’, back when only the aristocracy and it’s imitators could obtain an education, was not to manage, as was true in the as through the 19th century; was not to teach one to be an employee, or labor as it was in the early 20th, or a tax slave, as it become in the mid 20th through today, but to RULE over Territory, military, production, and family, successfully.
There is no reason we cannot return to our traditional profession: RULE. And there is no reason we cannot return to teaching how to rule.
1) Fitness, Hunting, Sport, Games, and War? Absolutely.
2) Economics, Ethics, Natural Law, Contracts, Institutions, Group Strategy? Of necessity.
3) Reading, Arithmetic, Accounting, Mathematics, Programming, Engineering and Physics? Hmm. Only basics.
4) Aesthetics, Art, Myth, Literature, History? it can’t hurt.
5) Psychology, Sociology, Politics? It’s a waste of time – its false.
6) Religion, Philosophy, Pseudoscience? It can only hurt.
THE RESTORATION IS SIMPLE.
RETURN TO OUR MAJOR INDUSTRY AND EXPORT: RULE.
Understanding advanced mathematics of economics and physics for ordinary people.
The Mengerian revolution, which we call the Marginalist revolution, occurred when the people of the period applied calculus ( the mathematics of “relative motion”) to what had been largely a combination of accounting and algebra.
20th century economics can be seen largely as an attempt to apply the mathematics of relative motion (constant change) from mathematics of constant categories that we use in perfectly constant axiomatic systems, and the relatively constant mathematics of physical systems, to the mathematics of inconstant categories that we find in economics – because things on the market have a multitude of subsequent yet interdependent uses that are determined by ever changing preferences, demands, availability, and shocks.
Physics is a much harder problem than axiomatic mathematics. Economics is a much harder problem than mathematical physics, and before we head down this road (which I have been thinking about a long time) Sentience (the next dimension of complexity) is a much harder problem than economics.
And there have been questions in the 20th century whether mathematics as we understand it can solve the hard problem of economics. But this is, as usual, a problem of misunderstanding the very simple nature of mathematics as the study of constant relations. Most human use of mathematics consists of the study of trivial constant relations such as quantities of objects, physical measurements. Or changes in state over time. Or relative motion in time. And this constitutes the four dimensions we can conceive of when discussing real world physical phenomenon. So in our simplistic view of mathematics, we think in terms of small numbers of causal relations. But, it does not reflect the number of POSSIBLE causal relations. In other words, we change from the position of observing change in state by things humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density higher than humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density such that every act of measurement distorts what humans can observe and act upon, by distorting the causality.
One of our discoveries in mathematical physics, is that as things move along a trajectory, they are affected by high causal density, and change through many different states during that time period. Such that causal density is so high that it is very hard to reduce change in state of many dimensions of constant relations to a trivial value: meaning a measurement or state that we can predict. Instead we fine a range of output constant relations, which we call probabilistic. So that instead of a say, a point as a measurement, we fined a line, or a triangle, or a multi dimensional geometry that the resulting state will fit within.
However, we can, with some work identify what we might call sums or aggregates (which are simple sets of relationships) but what higher mathematicians refer to as patterns, ‘symmetries’ or ‘geometries’. And these patterns refer to a set of constant relations in ‘space’ (on a coordinate system of sorts) that seem to emerge regardless of differences in the causes that produce them.
These patterns, symmetries, or geometries reflect a set of constant relationships that are the product of inconstant causal operations. And when you refer to a ‘number’, a pattern, a symmetry, or a geometry, or what is called a non-euclidian geometry, we are merely talking about the number of dimensions of constant relations we are talking about, and using ‘space’ as the analogy that the human mind is able to grasp.
Unfortunately, mathematics has not ‘reformed’ itself into operational language as have the physical sciences – and remains like the social sciences and philosophy a bastion of archaic language. But we can reduce this archaic language into meaningful operational terms as nothing more than sets of constant relations between measurements, consisting of a dimension per measurement, which we represent as a field (flat), euclidian geometry (possible geometry), or post Euclidian geometry (physically impossible but logically useful) geometry of constant relations.
And more importantly, once we can identify these patterns, symmetries, or geometries that arise from complex causal density consisting of seemingly unrelated causal operations, we have found a constant by which to measure that which is causally dense but consequentially constant.
So think of the current need for reform in economics to refer to and require a transition from the measurement of numeric (trivial) values, to the analysis of (non-trivial) consequent geometries.
These constant states (geometries) constitute the aggregate operations in economies. The unintended but constant consequences of causally dense actions.
Think of it like using fingers to make a shadow puppet. If you put a lot of people together between the light and the shadow, you can form the same pattern in the shadow despite very different combinations of fingers, hands, and arms. But because of the limits of the human anatomy, there are certain patterns more likely to emerge than others.
Now imagine we do that in three dimensions. Now (if you can) four, and so on. At some point we can’t imagine these things. Because we have moved beyond what is possible to that which is only analogous to the possible: a set of constant relations in multiple dimensions.
So economics then can evolve from the study of inputs and outputs without intermediary state which allows prediction, to the study of the consequence of inputs and the range of possible outputs that will likely produce predictability.
in other words, it is possible to define constant relations in economics.
And of course it is possible to define constant relations in sentience.
The same is true for the operations possible by mankind. There are many possible, but there are only so many that produce a condition of natural law: reciprocity.
Like I’ve said. Math isn’t complicated if you undrestand that it’s nothing more than saying “this stone represents one of our sheep”. And in doing so produce a constant relation. all we do is increase the quantity of constant relations we must measure. And from them deduce what we do not know, but is necessary because of those constant relations.
Math is simple. That’s why it works for just about everything: we can define a correspondence with anything.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
THE FORMAT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF POSTS
Note: See this update instead: https://propertarianism.com/2017/11/27/newbie-information-possible-criticisms-and-post-format-cues/
1 ==========================
THIS MEANS I WROTE IT FOR YOU TO READ AS AN ARGUMENT
(this cues you to important stuff)
And this is the body text here.
–“this is quoting someone else”–
***this is quoting myself***
… this
… … is a
… … … series that you might want to learn.
2 ===========================
this doesn’t have header so it’s just a record from elsewhere or quick thought or observation, or a work in progress.
3 ===========================
(this doesn’t have a header, is in parenthesis and in all lower case, which means it’s possibly something to ignore … because it’s not an argument.)
4 ===========================
(diary entry)
this is something I wrote for myself that is unfiltered, and likely includes very personal feelings of my own, or on the state of my thinking, and not something that you will probably want to read unless the psychology that I operate under is of some interest to you or other.
===========================
Closing:
I work in public, partly to conduct experiments. I am personally open in public because this prevents people attributing psychological motivations to me that I don’t have. I create conflict in order to run tests. The purpose of running a test is to attempt to create a proof.