“Q: Curt; How did you come to these conclusions? Reading list somewhere?”— Inv

–“Q: Curt; How did you come to these conclusions? Reading list somewhere?”—

Inventing and applying the The Method (P-Method) and The Grammars (the Logics) to produce the First Principles of each of the sciences (Physical, Behavioral, Evolutionary, and Formal/Logical), which in turn results in a formal, operational, constructive logic of all existence. Then iteratively explaining everything in this constructive logic from entropy to mass to life to cooperation to speech to ideas. By rough analogy there is a logical equivalent to geometry that produces roughly the same utility: the ternary logic of evolutionary computation.

I have no idea what that sounds like to you and I’m sure I wouldn’t understand what I wrote without having done it. Most of the team recommends it takes about a year to get your head around it, and two years or more to become fluent in it, and more to master it So it’s rougly the same as learning say, object oritented programming, database analysis and design, and systems analysis, along with the resulting design patterns. In that sense It’s harder than programming but easier than mathematics. Why? Nature is stuck with pretty simple tools, but it can produce anyting in vast numbers. So it’s a very simple state machine: it has only one rule (more), one means (ternary logic) and one process to accomplish it (evolutionary computation by combination and recombination).

Reading list is possible. Multiple people in our group have worked through it. Martin Stepan (@TheAutistocrat) is a machine when it comes to devouring the literature. But it’s probably easier just to follow the team and learn.

If you want our reading list it’s at, though I don’t believe it’s up to date.
https://t.co/Nus5JIA88v