Fictional vs Juridical · Languages (Precision) · Mathematics · Sequences · Uncategorized

The Dimensions of Reality: Mathematics As Science of Measurement – But Stated Badly

Mar 22, 2017 11:08am
(mathematics and truth) (very important) (hot gates pls read)

The answer is quite simple: you just demonstrated proof of operational construction and named that series of actions.

Reality consists of the following actionable and conceivable dimensions:
1 – point, (identity, or correspondence)
2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points)
3 – area (defined by constant relations)
4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations)
5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations)
6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas))
7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations)
7 – reality (or totality) (full causal density)

We can speak in descriptions including (at least):
1 – operational (true) names
2 – mathematics (ratios)
3 – logic (sets)
4 – physics (operations)
5 – Law (reciprocity)
6 – History (memory)
7 – Literature (allegory (possible))
8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible )
8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory)
8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory)
8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature)
8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory)
8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory )

We can testify to the truth of our speech only when we have performed due diligence to remove:
1 – ignorance,
2 – error,
3 – bias,
4 – wishful thinking,
5 – suggestion,
6 – obscurantism,
7 – fictionalism, and
8 – deceit.

So of the tests:
1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point)
2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line)
3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object)
4 – operational possibility (what you just described) (equivalent of change [operations])
6 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof)
You have demonstrated test number 4. Only.

Those operations existed or can exist. That you engaged in conflation (or deception) because you have given allegorical (fictional) names to a sequence of operations does not. Because you reintroduced falsehood by analogy.

You can imagine a something with the properties of a unicorn, you can speak of the same, draw the same, sculpt the same … but until you can breed one (and even then we must question), and we can test it, the unicorn does not exist ***in any condition that we can test in all dimensions necessary for you to testify it exists***

This is just one of the differences between TRUTH (dimensional consistency (constant relations)), and some subset of the properties of reality (DIMENSIONAL CONSISTENCY).

Mathematics allows us to describe constant relations between constant categories (correspondence) by means of self-reference we call ‘ratios’ to some constant unit (one). The more deterministic (constant) the relations the more descriptive mathematics, the higher causal density that influences changes in state, the more information and calculation is necessary for the description of candidate consequences, and eventually we must move from the description of end states to the description of intermediary states that because of causal density place limits on the ranges of possible end states.

In other words, in oder to construct theories (descriptions) of general rules of constant relations, we SUBTRACT properties of reality from our descriptions until we include nothing but identity(category), quantity, and ratio, and constrain ourselves to operations that maintain the ratios between the subject (identity).

Mathematics has evolved but retained (since the greeks at least) the ‘magical’ (fictional, supernormal fiction, we call platonism) as a means of obscuring a mathematician’s lack of understanding of just why ‘this magic works’. When in reality, mathematics is trivially simple, because it rests on nothing more than correspondence (identity), quantity, ratio, and operations that maintain those ratios, and incrementally adding or removing dimensions, to describe relations across the spectrum between points(identities, objects, categories) and pure relations at scales we do not yet possess the instrumentation or memory or ability to calculate at such vast scales – except through intermediary phenomenon.

As such, operationally speaking, the discipline of mathematics consists (Truthfully) of the science (theories of), general rules of constant relations at scale independence, in arbitrarily selected dimensions. In other words. Mathematics consists of the study of measurement.

it is understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of the universe – they are unobservable directly except at great cost. It is not understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of mathematics: because measurement is a very simple thing, and dimensions are very simple things.

That mathematicians still speak in fictional language, just as do theists and just as do the majority of philosophers (pseudo science, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-mythology) is merely evidence of retention of ancient fictionalism (platonism). And the fact that we must have these discussions demonstrates the equivalent of faith in platonic models, is equal to faith in theological models – merely lacking the anthropomorphism.

Ergo, infinities are a fictionalism. Multiple infinities are a fictionalism. Both fictionalism describe conditions where time and actions (operations) have been removed as is common in the discipline of measurement (mathematics). Operationally, numbers (operationally constructed positional names, must be existentially produced as are movements of gears attached in ratio. And as such certain sets of numbers (outputs) are produced faster (like seconds or minutes vs hours) than other sets of numbers (outputs), and the reverse: some slower. But we simply ignore this fact and instead of saying no matter what limits we apply, the size of the current set of x will always be larger than the current set of y, we say the infinities are of different sizes? No. the intermediary sets produce members at different rates, and the term ‘infinity’ merely refers to ‘unknown limit’ or ‘limit that must be supplies by correspondence with reality upon application.

Practice math as science, or practice it as supernatural religion. I can make correspondent statements referring to god, I can make correspondent statements referring to ‘infinities’ or any other form of mathematical platonism, but in the end, when I do that, I merely make excuses for my inability to testify to causality: TRUTH.

Ergo, like I said, I am pretty well versed in the philosophy of mathematics, and I am perhaps most versed in the philosophy of science of anyone living. And I am pretty confident that mathematicians are no different from scripturalists and platonists: using arcane language and internal consistency to justify a failure to grasp causality: that the only reason internal consistency correspondence to reality is because at least in the physics of the universe if not the actions of man, determinism reigns. In other words, mathematicians in most senses have no idea why what they do, allows them to do what they do.

And at least physicists admit it.

And lawyers before juries have no choice.

Our “Objectives” (intentions) are irrelevant in court. You do not have any right, permission, or ability to determine harm to others. Others determine if you have caused harm to them. And the jury, the judge, and the law are used to determine if in fact your words and deeds cause harm to others. As a prosecutor in court, trying you on whether you speak truthfully, you are guilty of making excuses for the harm you have done by false representation of the discipline of measurement. 😉 you might claim no harm, but then the opposition would say that your retention of fictionalism imposes a cost on every student which is multiplied by every possible action that they could have taken involving any judgement requiring measurement. If we can prevent other kinds of fraud in the market for goods, services, and testimony, why cannot we fill the gap, and prevent fraud in the market for information? 😉

In other words, in crime, neither your intentions nor your opinion matter. Defacto, you’re imposing costs on the commons.

The question is only whether the outcome of your actions imposes costs. Once that question is settled, you are liable for restitution regardless of intent.

Now, since the cost of the practice of supernaturalism, super-normalism (platonism), pseudo-rationalism, and pseudoscience, are only substantial when in the commons, whatever you think in your head is your choice. However once yo speak it in public you are just as liable for that damage as you are liable for yelling fire in the theater. There is no fire in the theatre, and there is no imaginary existence.

Infinity is the name we give to unknown limits that must be provided by context.

3.1-Introduction · Anti-Philosophy · Languages (Precision) · Law · Sequences · Uncategorized

Correcting Aristotle’s Categories of Philosophy

The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”

Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY

Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics

Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE

Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology

Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD

Ethics, morality, law, economics

Law of Testimony – THE TRUE

Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric

Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL

Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness

–Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

3.1-Introduction · Definitions · Languages (Precision) · Sequences · Uncategorized

Defining Philosophy


I have been working on defining philosophy (because like truth, it wasn’t defined before).

And you know, there are a few ways to approach it: western philosophy (argumentative methodology) or philosophy in all cultures (multiple argumentative methodologies). And whether the philosophy is literary and imaginative (possibilities), escapist (most), a form of assistance(sinic), or problem solving (western).

And what constitutes truth in each methodology – which differs dramatically from civilization to civilization.

Now, I’m going to say that philosophy is to reason what apperception is to consciousness: the re-measuring of all related relations in response to the new measure provided by the new information. In other words: recursive recalculation in response to new measurements.

The difference being that while cognition and apperception are continuous autonomic processes, reason and philosophy are guided processes, in which we devote (concentrate) resources (mental) to achieve desired ends.

This is, I think, the correct description of the processes of reason and philosophy.

Reason measures. Philosophy seeks commensurability of new ideas to old Ideas and refactors old ideas recursively as a consequence.

At this point we should see the general union of neurology, computer science, and information: commensurability that makes judgment (comparison) possible.

Western philosophy differs in its analytic (deconflated) versus synthetic (conflated) method of reasoning.

The categories of philosophy form an expanding hierarchy:
– existence (actionability)
– epistemology (knowledge)
– truth (testimony)
– ethics and morality (cooperation in production )
– politics (cooperation in production of commons )
– group evolutionary strategy (competition against other groups)
– aesthetics (means of associating emotions with principles that advance all of the above)

And we make use of a hierarchy of argument types:
– reason
– rationalism (non-contradiction)
– logic (internal consistency)
– empiricism (external correspondence)
– operationalism (existential possibility)
– voluntarism (moral possibility)

And we make use of a hierarchy of measurements
– identity (category)
– counting (measurement)
– arithmetic (operations)
– mathematics (sets)
– geometry (space)
– calculus (change)
– post-euclidian calculus (logical rather than physical relations)

And we practice different fields:
– physical science(s)
– cooperative science(s)
– informational science(s)
– aesthetic science(s).
(and we conflate these fields as needed to produce goods, services, and information)

And we conduct these arguments using different languages and methods appropriate to each of the classes. And each language places greater demand on the individual’s ability to reason.

So my view of philosophy proper is an analytic deconflated process by which we recursively render commensurable the full range of stimuli from the most primitive to the most complex.

Everything else I would tend to describe as moral literature, or literary law.

I don’t see philosophy proper anywhere other than in the west and a touch of it in the east.

What I see is analogies to philosophy proper, that we have no names for, but can be decomposed into the forms of conflation that they use, across fields, measurements, and argument types.

Languages (Precision) · Truth · Uncategorized

No. Science Is A Moral Discipline Within Natural Law: The Means By Which We Warrant The Truthfulness Of Our Statements.

(Ethelbert, Jesus, and Kant say the same thing)

The languages of science(testimony), physical science, propertarianism (social science), natural law (science of dispute resolution), accounting, finance, and economics, (measurement of production), function as the universal language of truth-telling.

The discipline of science asks us to warranty that we have performed due diligence on our statements. We warranty that we have eliminated error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit from our utterances.

That’s what science is:

A NATURAL LAW: a warranty of our information, just like the warranty of our services, just as the warranty of our products, just as the warranty of our speech.

Period. End of story.

I know. You thought you were smart. You were so proud that you had transcended superstition. But it never occurred to you that you were just as ridiculous in the present generation due to the pseudosciences of Marx, Freud, Boaz, Adorno than your superstitious ancestors were in the pseudoscience of theology.

Ok. Have we got that straight? Look in the mirror. Repeat after me: “I was suckered by pseudoscience, just like my ancestors were suckered by superstition. I am a sucker. I pledge not to be a sucker any longer. There is only one moral rule in both silver(negative) and gold (positive) forms: Impose not cost upon the cost born by others, by limiting yourself to actions and words, consisting only of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externalities.

Ethelbert (Anglo-Saxon Silver Rule), Jesus (Golden-Rule), and Kant (bi-metal rule), all said the same thing. Everything else is lies to justify theft and to circumvent voluntary transfers between individuals classes and groups.

Ok. We’re done here.

“Please stop torturing me with your postmodern superstitions, ok?. Thanks, -The Management.”

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy

Anti-Philosophy · Definitions · Education · Languages (Precision) · Uncategorized

The Intellectual Catastrophe Of Specialization And The Cure For It In Education

Outside of the top 5% in all disciplines:

Physicists are often ridiculous because either they don’t understand their own subject, or because they lack the philosophical training to know the difference between general rules of the discipline (dogma) and the epistemological necessity that these general rules provide a shortcut for.

Economists are often ridiculous because either they don’t understand the limits of mathematics, the limits of statistics, and the limits of human cognitive bias, but most importantly, the epistemology that places that their models, methods, explanatory and predictive power that seems to evade them – and is now being supplied by experimental psychology and cognitive science.

Philosophers are almost universally ridiculous becasue either they ignore what we have learned about epistemology from physics, economics, and cognitive science, or they do not understand the difference between meaning(map) and existence(territory), or because they are subject of dogmas (sets, internal consistency without external correspondence), but most importantly because they do not account for costs on the one hand and rely on a false intuitionistic definition of the good on the other.

Mathematicians are only slightly ridiculous since their field is the easiest to test, but they seem to ignore the fact that mathematics functions by removing properties from reality, but that all mathematics in application is bound by reality that it ignores. As such we see them confuse the reductio logic of mathematics with mathematical platonism. They confuse the determinism of all axiomatic declarations with mystery rather than the limits of human comprehension that mathematics assists us in extending through symbols and constant relations. They confuse the rate at which operations will produce members of a collection in any period of time, or over so many operations, with the size of the set itself which must always be bound by some limit. They confuse the name of a positional number with the name of a function upon positional numbers that produces a ratio. They seem to have lost sight of the fact that their discipline can either be treated as a science of measurement, or a logic disconnected from reality, or ideal fantasy no different from philosophical and literary adventurism. I could go on at length here with ease.

What differs is the instruments we require to inspect. We have invented both methods of inspection (and they’re reductio in almost all cases), and methods of measurement, and methods of decidability.

1 – Reason, Logic, Mathematics, (Reason)
2 – Physics, Chemistry, Biology, (Existence)
3 – Psychology, Sociology, Politics, History, Economy, Law (Cooperation)

1 – Categories, properties, and relations
2 – Logic of comparisons and transformations
3 – Empirical measurements of existential reality
4 – Moral measurements of cooperation
– WITH –
5 – Operational language to articulate all of the above free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit.
– AND –
6 – Full Accounting, Limits, and Parsimony To protect Against Our cherry picking by error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit.

1 – Strength, Fitness, Sport, Defense, War, Strategy
2 – Mythology, Story, Biography, History, Essay, Diary, Criticism
3 – Self, Friendship, Employment, Partnership, Marriage, Parenting, Managing, Commanding, Ruling
4 – Property, Manners, Ethics, Morals, Natural Law, Evolutionary Strategies
5 – Psychology, Sociology, Economics, Politics, Conflict(War/Crime)
6 – Vocabulary, Grammar, Logic,Testimony(Truth), Rhetoric, Judgement
7 – Reading, Writing, Programming, Strictly Constructed Law
8 – Arithmetic, Accounting, Algebra, Geometry, Statistics, Calculus, (Mathematics of Mind/Cognition <–Note!)
9 – Empiricism(observation and measurement), Physics, Chemistry, Biology, (Sentience <–Note!)
10 – Monuments, Architecture, Arts, Decoration, Music, Plays, (the discipline of creativity: knowledge and free association.)

This curriculum produces skills in all areas of life. If a student can make it through the first half of each, he or she will be adequately prepared for life in modernity.

Rolling three years in each class
Boys and Girls In separate classes
Children start by maturity level, not age, with delay preferable to early entry.
Emphasis should be given to rate of maturity and individual needs so that boys with high testosterone and rapid maturity are given more exercise and those with less and lower more drills.
IMHO Pass Fail, or % is all that is needed, since they will be exposed to the same information repeatedly. I don’t like ‘grades’. As far as I can tell most grades are a reflection of the relationship between the intelligence and maturity of an individual and the artificial standard of the industrial classroom.

Definitions · Languages (Precision) · Uncategorized

True Names

(notes to self for current line of thought)

—“Any sufficiently true property of the universe appears to the trained eye as a model rather than reality.”—Jonathan Page

Constancy and determinism and true names. True = True Name. True name is “invariant”.

If we pass the tests of dimensional consistency that I suggest with the 6/7 model, then it is very hard to say we do not have a true name.

We can test the dimensions of the universe with mathematics.

We can test the dimensions of cooperation with various forms of reason.

But I am not sure that either in mathematics, or in reason, that once we surpass a certain (small) number of dimensions, that we are in-fact talking about a property of the universe, or whether we have entered the realm of models alone.

There is possibly no limit to the manifold RELATIONS that we can model using dimensions to track those relations. I mean, this is what I suggest is a superior method of constructing artificial intelligences for very, very, fast searches. I suspect this is the long term answer to post-human intelligences. I kind of doubt that anything could touch it. And in this sense, mathematical searching *WILL* surpass proceduralism.

What I am unsure about is whether we are describing the universe then, or whether we are describing a model constrained by the properties of the universe.

3.1-Introduction · Core · Languages (Precision) · Religion · Sequences · Truth

Truth, Law of Information, Natural Law of Cooperation, Physical Law of the Universe

(religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls)

[O]ur brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors.

With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement.

By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories.

But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability.

With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability.

We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation:
“What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.”

1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation

2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation?

3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation.

4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve).

This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques
Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man.

So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise.

A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy.

Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do.

A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information.

A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’.

A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law.

A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence:

Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging.

And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability.

That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage.

But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results.

So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether
The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state.

And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence.

All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected.

If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion.

Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence.

The Church may not preserve its dependents at the expense of natural law or at the expense of transcendence. That would be the work of the self interest of the bureaucracy of man, not the work of Truth and Transcendence.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine