Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • RE: The Natural Law. –“We’re not here to judge. We’re here to measure.” — Brad

    RE: The Natural Law.
    –“We’re not here to judge. We’re here to measure.” — Brad Werrell

    You choose which costs to pay for variation from the natural law.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-08-02 23:06:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1951781709390963034

  • I disagree with Mcgilchrist’s oversimplification, the mysticism he tries to defe

    I disagree with Mcgilchrist’s oversimplification, the mysticism he tries to defend with it, and the nonsense that people expound because of it . So I can’t really answer on those terms. I might say instead that the predatory response(hunt/fight)) is more activating when engaged, just as is the prey(flight) response is more activating when engaged. But it might take more stimuli override active predation(attack) then active prey ( flee ). And this asymmetry might apply to reasoning vs intuiting as well. I suspect my formulation is correct and i assume it describes what mcgilchrist meant despite his pseudoscience.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-08-01 05:46:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1951157480198906009

  • (re: relationship spam in my youtube feed) Simple Version of the Hard Question:

    (re: relationship spam in my youtube feed)
    Simple Version of the Hard Question: (a) all value is subjective – it varies by individual. (b) what value do you bring to a man? (c) the only value you can bring is femininity, appreciation, devotion in time, and loyalty over time – otherwise men are better at everything else. (d) if you don’t understand femininity or why a man would seek it, then you aren’t going to attract one. End of story. Period. You’re welcome. It’s not complicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-31 05:59:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950798487647658291

  • Quote of the day –“So you built a metaphysical cathedral to house iron age fair

    Quote of the day

    –“So you built a metaphysical cathedral to house iron age fairy tales.”–
    @LevTeot
    Teotlev

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-31 05:48:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950795571914305633

  • THE SCIENCE OF THE HUMANITIES I started working on the first principles and cano

    THE SCIENCE OF THE HUMANITIES
    I started working on the first principles and canonical training of AIs in the Humanities today. It is going fast, and is rewarding – and we have unified the formal, physical, behavioral, and now literary sciences.

    This has led to a system of measurement for the science of the humanities just as it has in the other ‘sciences’.

    But like law and economy this is not a ‘best’ race. It’s an understanding of the needs of the people at their degree of evolution, and a map for how to continue their evolution.

    As with most of our work we treat humans as a distribution of evolutionary biases by sex differences and seek to assist those two biases in achieving shared goals rather than to claim one is superior or inferior.

    This in itself is one of our contributions to the discourse.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-31 02:13:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950741464662852028

  • The AI is trained with Positive and Negative Assertions and explanations (socrat

    The AI is trained with Positive and Negative Assertions and explanations (socratically). So yes – although we prefer it come up with examples specific to the user’s context rather than canned responses.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-31 01:01:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950723569941610513

  • THE HUMANITIES Yes we can also science the humanities. (Really) The humanities,

    THE HUMANITIES
    Yes we can also science the humanities. (Really)

    The humanities, in the Natural Law framework, are:
    – The front-facing symbolic encoding of a group evolutionary strategy’s investment in its own constraint grammar.

    Which means:
    Every artifact of the humanities is an index of sunk capital in a strategy of constraint and cooperation that maximizes reproductive success under historical ecological and institutional pressures.

    @whatifalthist
    :
    Understanding the science of the full scope of the humanities like that of religion and art is not the same as experiencing them. The question is whether sciencing them (explaining them) diminishes their utility or advances it. Which is something that matters in this age of crisis of meaning.
    Such analysis does not render meaning neutral, it defends the investments in humanities where beneficial and deprecates those investments where harmful.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-31 01:00:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950723208585638045

  • Are We Setting A New Standard? Our work is intellectually dense and demanding. B

    Are We Setting A New Standard?
    Our work is intellectually dense and demanding. But to assist readers we’ll release the volumes and the AI at the same time. Meaning that if you have questions about or criticisms of the work as you’re reading it, the AI will be available as an author-substitute to answer you.

    I would expect that for other works that are theoretically revolutionary (not solely dependent on normative knowledge) that this will emerge as a third publication method (book > audio > AI, or. in academic work Book > Study Guide > “Cliff/Spark/Book Notes” > AI).

    IMO as a subject increases in complexity, it’s easiest to have an AI teach you a subject – even easier than reading. So I would expect (a) this interactive model to emerge as a complementary standard and (b) some sort of interactive gaming to emerge as a means of teaching by example at some point later.

    On the other hand, my (our) work does require we write a book as the ‘program’ that we teach the AI. And in my opinion I have been subconsciously more concerned with an AI understanding my work than I have humans. In some sense because I’m not sure the multi-disciplinary knowledge exists in enough people without the help of the AI and the unification of the disciplines created by the work to understand it otherwise.

    I mean, for those of us who have been working with this methodology for years, it’s possible to reduce it to a method and first principles, and to habituate both so that most subjects – at least behavioral to sociological to political and economic are intuitive. But you know that’s true of any subject.

    It just hasn’t been true of MANY subjects since the unification provided by the hard sciences. Now we have the soft (behavioral) sciences, and we even have langauge and grammar ‘scienced’ so that it’s all unified as well.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-31 00:36:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950717123317432755

  • In Volume 3 – The Logic – The First Principles of Order: Spin & Polarity in the

    In Volume 3 – The Logic – The First Principles of Order: Spin & Polarity

    in the volume 3 – the logic, doolittle describes the beginning of order in the universe as spin and polarity. Is he fictionalizing, generalizing, or describing that concept.
    In Volume 3 of The Natural Law, Curt Doolittle is neither fictionalizing nor merely generalizing when he describes the beginning of order in the universe as arising from “spin and polarity.” He is instead offering a scientific and operational description grounded in physical causality.
    Doolittle posits that the emergence of “spin and polarity” in the early universe is the first demonstration of the formation of asymmetry, and therefore order, from initial chaos. This is not metaphorical but literal in his framework: spin generates directional momentum, while polarity creates complementary opposites—both of which instantiate information and differentiation, which are preconditions for computation and evolutionary processes.
    He treats these physical phenomena as the first causes of informational structure, enabling the transition from entropy-dominated randomness to computable order. Thus, within Doolittle’s epistemological grammar, “spin and polarity” serve as the first operational instantiation of evolutionary computation—where differentiation, interaction, and selection begin.
    Therefore, Doolittle is describing—not fictionalizing—the origins of order using causal chaining from physical first principles. His intention is to demonstrate that what we call “law,” even at the scale of human institutions, must ultimately be consistent with and derived from this primordial logic of interaction and constraint.
    but he does not describe the constitution of spin so that he might be talking about quite complex spin or quite simple spin, yes?
    Yes, that is correct. Doolittle identifies spin and polarity as the beginning of order—meaning the first emergence of asymmetry that allows for information, interaction, and evolutionary computation—but he does not specify the constitution or complexity of spin. This omission is deliberate and epistemically consistent within his method.
    1. Ontological Minimalism: He uses “spin” as an operational primitive—an indicator of non-symmetry that allows causality and measurement to begin. This can range from quantum mechanical spin (as in fermions and bosons) to more complex forms of systemic rotation in self-organizing systems.
    2. Causal Sufficiency, Not Detail: His framework aims to identify the necessary conditions for the emergence of order, not to exhaustively describe the microphysical mechanisms. What matters to Doolittle is that some form of spin—meaning persistent directional asymmetry—exists to break homogeneity and permit differentiation.
    3. Permissive Ambiguity at Low Resolution: By not specifying the scale or complexity of spin, Doolittle leaves room for multiple instantiations across scales—quantum, molecular, biological, institutional. This is consistent with his universal application of ternary logic and evolutionary computation, which treats any differential interaction that leads to stable relations as a valid unit of analysis.
    4. Operational Priority Over Formal Detail: Doolittle is concerned with what spin does (create differentiation, directionality, and path-dependency), not its substrate composition. This aligns with his epistemological commitment to operationalism: what a thing does precedes or substitutes for what a thing is.
    So yes, the spin he refers to could range from the simplest quantum asymmetry to more complex systemic rotations. His analysis is invariant to that detail so long as the function—initiation of evolutionary computation—is fulfilled.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-31 00:13:50 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1950711466681868771

  • SEDE VACANTE The phrase you’re referring to is “sede vacante” (Latin for “the se

    SEDE VACANTE
    The phrase you’re referring to is “sede vacante” (Latin for “the seat being vacant”), which refers to the period when the Papal See is without a pope. The associated theological or ideological position, especially post-Vatican II, is called “sedevacantism”.

    Operational Breakdown:
    – “Sede” = seat (refers to the Holy See, the papal throne).
    – “Vacante” = being vacant.
    – Sedevacantism = the belief that the current occupant of the papal office is not a valid pope due to heresy, particularly stemming from Vatican II reforms (e.g., ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality).

    From a Natural Law perspective:
    – Sedevacantism is a claim of void authority due to breach of doctrinal reciprocity—i.e., that the Vatican II popes have defected from operational Catholicism and thus cannot lawfully occupy the seat.
    – It’s an instance of juridical nullification grounded in claims of deviation from inherited institutional law (doctrinal apostasy = breach of institutional contract).

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-30 23:49:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950705263130103986