Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • exactly. Very curious how they would react to the sounds of explosives, and litt

    exactly. Very curious how they would react to the sounds of explosives, and little mammals with boom sticks. I suppose not too differently from the fauna we decimated as we left africa…

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-30 05:02:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950421768126288165

  • Untitled

    [No text content]

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-30 05:01:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950421489972629863

  • Economics as the Local Expression of Entropy Management (A section of my work on

    Economics as the Local Expression of Entropy Management

    (A section of my work on unification of the sciences)
    All systems that persist do so by defeating entropy through organization. Atoms persist by forming stable configurations. Molecules persist through symmetry and conservation. Life persists by expending energy to maintain low entropy states. Human beings—organisms with memory, abstraction, and communication—extend this logic by constructing strategies of cooperative acquisition that preserve and accumulate capital across time.
    Economics, in this light, is not a social science, but an operational expression of physics: the extension of entropy resistance via distributed cooperation. It is the logic by which organisms with foresight, memory, and language predict, plan, and negotiate to cover more of the time-space opportunity set than evolution by mutation and selection alone could ever reach.
    Where physics governs states, and biology governs forms, economics governs adaptive organization.
    This framework reveals that economics is embedded within a broader hierarchy of entropy management strategies:
    At each level, entropy resistance increases by substituting reactive adaptation with anticipatory computation. Economics emerges when agents can model potential futures, assign them relative costs, and negotiate cooperative strategies to select the highest-yielding paths.
    When economists treat economics as a domain divorced from physics and biology, they detach the discipline from its causal roots. The result is a field corrupted by idealism, justificationism, and moralizing. By restoring economics to its base—entropy resistance by cooperative adaptation under constraint—we realign the field with its proper function:
    • Money is not wealth, but a store of time—our most general form of entropy-defying investment.
    • Markets are not social constructs, but distributed cognition—an evolutionarily optimized way of scanning the time-space landscape of opportunity.
    • Prices are not fictions, but signals—compressed expressions of valuation across agents.
    • Capital is stored decision advantage—adaptation codified in durable form.
    • Trust and Reciprocity are not moral sentiments, but constraints on defection—necessary for sustaining cooperative entropy resistance over time.
    All failure modes of economics—financial bubbles, moral hazard, parasitism, overconsumption—are simply entropy victories over miscalibrated constraint.
    The project of Natural Law economics is to restore computability to cooperation by aligning our behavioral, institutional, and economic grammars with the underlying physics of reality.
    This requires three steps:
    1. Operationalize demonstrated interest as the measurable unit of cooperative investment—time, attention, energy, risk, and opportunity.
    2. Constrain cooperation via reciprocity, truth, and liability—ensuring entropy resistance is mutual, not parasitic.
    3. Formalize economic behavior as adaptive computation—measuring progress not by consumption, but by cumulative increases in complexity, optionality, and persistence.
    By embedding economics in the chain of entropy resistance—from physics to trade—we reveal it not as a self-contained system, but as the interface layer between biology and civilization:
    Core Aphoristic Assertion

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-30 05:01:18 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1950421420967706977

  • a lesson in sophistry that confuses policy with science. 😉

    a lesson in sophistry that confuses policy with science. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-30 04:57:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950420504642502877

  • I do not. I construct from first principles. (And frankly I’m working beyond the

    I do not. I construct from first principles.

    (And frankly I’m working beyond the scope of your knowledge and ability)

    You’re conflating the empirical determinants of market interest rates (which are institutionally manipulated) with the causal logic of time preference as a biological constant—the necessary precondition for all economic behavior.

    Time preference is not an “Austrian myth”; it is an evolved constraint. All organisms—humans included—face tradeoffs between present and future consumption, and these tradeoffs are determined by biological risk, environmental scarcity, capital availability, and lifespan projection. To act is to prefer the present over the absent; to defer is to store and transfer the cost of that action over time.

    That’s why interest exists at all: it’s a price on deferral. Yes, institutions (central banks, credit markets, fiat regimes) distort that price—but they do not abolish the underlying function. If anything, the manipulation of interest rates without respect for underlying time preferences creates malinvestment and capital consumption—the very problems that neoclassicals and Keynesians continually fail to predict.

    As for investment: of course it’s a function of expectations. But expectations are projections of intertemporal gain, weighted by risk, time, and return. You cannot even define investment coherently without a theory of time valuation.

    So no—there’s no contradiction here. I treat subjectivity in value, expectation in investment, and time preference in discounting as different operational expressions of the same principle:

    1. Behavior is the allocation of time under constraint.
    2. Money is the unit of its exchange.
    3. Investment is the deferral of time in expectation of return.
    5. Interest is the price of deferral.

    That’s not Austrian metaphysics or neoclassical equilibrium modeling. That’s operational physics applied to cooperative behavior.

    You’re welcome.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-30 04:55:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950420029142683656

  • None of those are wrong or partly wrong. they are, as stated, positiva and negat

    None of those are wrong or partly wrong. they are, as stated, positiva and negativa first principles.
    You can keep trying but in the end all you will do is provide me with increasing examples of evidence of the criticism I have correctly levied against you. You are an exceptional student of saltwater school’s pragmatism. That’s not science or law or even economics. It’s policy.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-30 04:51:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950419015215829049

  • correct. Tho that was not the question I was answering. It was how to kill them.

    correct. Tho that was not the question I was answering. It was how to kill them. The point being that hollywood showing nitwits with current carbines or even battle rifles would have a hard time with some of these animals.
    In other words, if you were to show hunting dinosaurs how would you equip a team. Especially when the problem is the weapons are at the limit of human carrying capacity, and the ammunition is heavy and they’d need a lot of it.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-30 04:49:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950418480945385889

  • There are no errors. The list is of pathologies. That means that they can be eit

    There are no errors. The list is of pathologies. That means that they can be either tolerated or accumulated to catastrophic consequences.

    I have known you a long time, and while you’re competent, you are also happy making excuses for aggregate outcomes whereas my job is juridical – I don’t have the license to make the excuses you do. It’s called ‘full accounting’. As such what is the compensation for the transfers you involuntarily upon the population? This is the difference between science, law, and utilitarianism. I do science and law, with economics both behavioral and material. I don’t do political excuse making. That’s for politicians.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-30 04:46:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950417683909927052

  • How Would You Hunt a Dinosaur? You’d need: 1. A team, with synchronized fire, id

    How Would You Hunt a Dinosaur?
    You’d need:
    1. A team, with synchronized fire, ideally hitting vital zones.
    2. Heavy weaponry, potentially including:
    – .50 cal rifles
    – Autocannons (e.g., 20mm)
    – Grenade launchers
    – Anti-tank weapons (for sauropods or armored species)
    – A means of carrying the necessary ammunition and supplies.
    3. Other Variables
    – Behavior: Predators can be stopped more easily than herbivores in a panic or stampede.
    – Skin and Bone Density: Some dinosaurs had keratinous layers or air-sacs that reduced damage.
    – Vital Targeting: If you can’t reach brain/heart/lungs due to scale or armor, lethality drops significantly.

    Conclusion
    Most standard military rifles would not be sufficient to reliably kill the largest dinosaurs. They could be effective against smaller or medium theropods with well-placed shots.

    For the truly gargantuan or armored ones, you’d need anti-materiel weapons or heavier, up to and including 20mm+ autocannons, missiles, or explosives.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-30 04:41:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950416526869451253

  • Economics is the operational logic of cooperative arbitrage under constraint. It

    Economics is the operational logic of cooperative arbitrage under constraint. It consists in:
    – 1. Accounting for all costs.
    – 2. Acknowledging the subjectivity of value.
    – 3. Understanding markets as evolutionary systems tending toward exhaustion of profit (equilibrium).
    – 4. Recognizing time preference as a causal factor in capital formation.
    – 5. Treating prices as distributed cognition and incentives as behavioral constraints.
    – 6. Insisting on reciprocity as the ethical boundary of cooperation.
    – 7. Using money as a commensurable measurement of preference across domains.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-30 04:16:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950410236462060018