“Q: CURT: Let me try and cut through the language here a little bit for the work

—“Q: CURT: Let me try and cut through the language here a little bit for the working man; so your a math geek programming equations in order to figure out the secrets of… *squints* the universe?”—

Great question. But, the other way around. 😉
–“Our thoughts are only as precise as our instrumentation: systems of measurements.”–

1. Language relies on the same evolutionary algorithm as the rest of the universe. However, we use paradigms to reflect the logic of some subset of that universe. Mathematics is the simplest paradigm, grammar, vocabulary and logic because it is context, scale, cost, and time independent. Every other paradigm from arithmetic to math to physics to chemistry to genetics, to sets to programming to procedures to formal (written) language, to common to ideomatic to fiction to fictionalism to lying, denial, projection, reflection and undermining is merely a question of which dimensions of reference and which operations are permitted within the logic of the paradigm. So, paradigms are limited to the references (names-nouns, states-verbs, agreements (true-false)) that preserve internal consistency (logical consistency) withint hat paradigm.

2. Mathematical (descriptive, verbal, sets) reducibility whose outcome is predictable is a smaller set than computational (causal, action, sequences) reducibility whose outcome is not predictable. Next, simulational reducibility (competitive, interaction, parallels) is theoretically at least limited only by computational capacity and time. Ergo the primacy of computation over mathematics.

3. The problems in math and science and subsequently logic and human thinking require a conceptual revision from the mathematical foundations to the operational foundations. Only then will we limit mathematical applications to that which is mathematically reducible, and end the era of being ‘stuck’ in the sciences.

4. Some of this is happening by accident and some of us are working on it deliberately. The only other person I know of that grasps this at depth is Josch Bach. And I’m the only person I know of that works on the subject itself and applies it to the behavioral sciences.

I work in decidability (think truth) and its application to cooperation (law) and its consequences (economics). This is why my work often sounds wordy: it’s closer to programming than to ordinary english because the terms are measurements not analogies. 😉

Cheers
CD

Reply addressees: @PlayerJuan96 @Plinz