The human facility we call logic consists of tests of constant relations between states.

The Logics consist of deflationary(limiting) grammars(rules of continuous disambiguation) that test via competition (comparison) the preservation of constant relations between states. And must, because that is all our brains(neurons) are capable of: relations.

All non trivial premises are forever contingent. All non trivial statements are contingent. All non trivial proofs are contingent. And so the formal logics can only falsify the non trivial. No mathematician claims proofs and truths are the same. One does not prove the truth of anything. If not for the simple reason that confirmation does not convey truth – limits do (criteria of falsification).

One tries to construct a proof of possibility or impossibility, and either can or cannot. One constructs operational proofs of possibility because operational statements are empirical (observable and measurable by the uniform system of measurement we call human action). Empirically, we prove nothing, but disprove much. Hence the world demonstrably operates by science and law.

The same applies to that discipline we call logic itself. And so the formal logics teach us only how to falsify. One cannot prove a non trivial truth, only eliminate falsehoods.

Popper was right. The sciences are right. I am right. Its same issue we have with mathematicians and mathematical platonism – infinities do not exit. Its a convention made necessary by scale independence. One cannot prove a truth. A statement survives prosecution or it doesn’t.

Mathematics by virtue of consisting of nothing but positional names cannot consist of anything other than perfect constant relations.

Just a matter of getting an authority figure to falsify it, rather than debate it with sophists who create straw men by conflating logic philosophy, law and science and just engage in denial of the first principle upon which their arguments depend: constant relations.

Like prime numbers, some statements consist of relations so consistent that they cannot be otherwise.

Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit.

Pilpul in its original, theological, philosophical, rationalist, pseudorationalist, pseudoscientific forms can be brought to an end by consistent measurements: operational language and grammar. if we speak in complete sentences in operational grammar and semantics then we can put into law the same safeguards against propaganda and deceit in the market for information – particularly political information – that we have in the market for goods and services.

-Curt Doolittle

-The Propertarian Institute

– Kiev Ukraine

(PS: Trying to reach Catarina Dutilh Novaes to criticize it. She uses similar language so it will stand. (Never let a troll win.))

The Logics consist of deflationary(limiting) grammars(rules of continuous disambiguation) that test via competition (comparison) the preservation of constant relations between states. And must, because that is all our brains(neurons) are capable of: relations.

All non trivial premises are forever contingent. All non trivial statements are contingent. All non trivial proofs are contingent. And so the formal logics can only falsify the non trivial. No mathematician claims proofs and truths are the same. One does not prove the truth of anything. If not for the simple reason that confirmation does not convey truth – limits do (criteria of falsification).

One tries to construct a proof of possibility or impossibility, and either can or cannot. One constructs operational proofs of possibility because operational statements are empirical (observable and measurable by the uniform system of measurement we call human action). Empirically, we prove nothing, but disprove much. Hence the world demonstrably operates by science and law.

The same applies to that discipline we call logic itself. And so the formal logics teach us only how to falsify. One cannot prove a non trivial truth, only eliminate falsehoods.

Popper was right. The sciences are right. I am right. Its same issue we have with mathematicians and mathematical platonism – infinities do not exit. Its a convention made necessary by scale independence. One cannot prove a truth. A statement survives prosecution or it doesn’t.

Mathematics by virtue of consisting of nothing but positional names cannot consist of anything other than perfect constant relations.

Just a matter of getting an authority figure to falsify it, rather than debate it with sophists who create straw men by conflating logic philosophy, law and science and just engage in denial of the first principle upon which their arguments depend: constant relations.

Like prime numbers, some statements consist of relations so consistent that they cannot be otherwise.

Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit.

Pilpul in its original, theological, philosophical, rationalist, pseudorationalist, pseudoscientific forms can be brought to an end by consistent measurements: operational language and grammar. if we speak in complete sentences in operational grammar and semantics then we can put into law the same safeguards against propaganda and deceit in the market for information – particularly political information – that we have in the market for goods and services.

-Curt Doolittle

-The Propertarian Institute

– Kiev Ukraine

(PS: Trying to reach Catarina Dutilh Novaes to criticize it. She uses similar language so it will stand. (Never let a troll win.))