Isn’t Racism Just A Reaction to Criminality?
( … )
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-13 16:46:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790061093391393185
Isn’t Racism Just A Reaction to Criminality?
( … )
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-13 16:46:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790061093391393185
I”m still struggling to understand how you can disagree with what I’ve written (and other scholars have as well), and it appears you don’t understand the difference between the worthiness of a god, and that none are worthy, but that when he speaks of ‘we killed him’ he’s…
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-13 05:27:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789890225637904449
Reply addressees: @tramryder
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789888600433164454
I”m still struggling to understand how you can disagree with what I’ve written (and other scholars have as well), and it appears you don’t understand the difference between the worthiness of a god, and that none are worthy, but that when he speaks of ‘we killed him’ he’s referring to the christian god – who is unworthy.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-13 05:27:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789890225566613504
(I understand of course. The justification of his model rather than the understanding of others is rather trying, and the criticism of wolfram, who himself is rather challenged at contextualizing his work, was just a bit more than I could stomach at the time.)
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-12 22:56:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789791815555543314
Reply addressees: @cryptogeni @TOEwithCurt
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789790859929457043
It happens. BTW: reminding you again, or rather suggesting again, that you choose an alias that is identifiable. I can identify you by the frame of mind. you use in your text, but it’d be nice if I didn’t have to. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-12 21:35:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789771295653073005
Reply addressees: @josh61597760 @TOEwithCurt
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789758289628041496
Try to make an argument. You haven’t yet.
You’re cognitively feminine.
You probably can’t.
It’s genetic.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-12 20:16:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789751420729626665
Reply addressees: @MoisheTheFried
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789751239082692632
Chris Langan is on Curt Jaimungal’s TOE (@TOEwithCurt) today. Speaking nonsense again, and Curt isn’t capable of handling him. It’s funny that I can find some truth in what Chris says but he’s a bit of a phenomenalist and says ‘start with perception’.
But that’s rather silly since the universe is constructed from trivial rules, everything in it is emergent from those trivial rules, including the neurons that emerge from those same principles.
The universe consists of the defeat of entropy by the production of density that survives in persistent relations – and neurons identify sets of persistent relations.
The only theory we need is evolutionary computation by discovery of stable relations, and the hierarchy of emergent possibilities for recombination and the possible operations they can perform, that emerge from these assemblies – what we call disciplines.
So of course he doesn’t understand Wolfram as simply running evolutionary simulations to identify emergences.
Consequence of combinations are are computationally (operationally reducible) but they are not computationally predictable, nor are they mathematically reducible and so cannot be mathematically predictable.
It’s not that complicated.
CD
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-12 19:24:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789738461617889281
Chris Langan is on Curt Jaimungal’s TOE (@TOEwithCurt) today. Speaking nonsense again, and Curt isn’t capable of handling him. It’s funny that I can find some truth in what Chris says but he’s a bit of a phenomenalist and says ‘start with perception’ but that’s rather silly…
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-12 19:24:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789737418863570966
Chris Langan is on Curt Jaimungal’s TOE (@TOEwithCurt) today. Speaking nonsense again, and Curt isn’t capable of handling him. It’s funny that I can find some truth in what Chris says but he’s a bit of a phenomenalist and says ‘start with perception’ but that’s rather silly since the universe is constructed from trivial rules, everything in it is emergent from those trivial rules, including the neurons that emerge from those same principles. The universe consists of the defeat of entropy by the production of density that survives in persistent relations – and neurons identify sets of persistent relations. The only theory we need is evolutionary computation by discovery of stable relations, and the emergent possibilities for recombination that emerge from these assemblies.
So of course he doesn’t understand Wolfram as simply running evolutionary simulations to identify emergences.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-12 19:20:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789737418741997568
correct
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-12 18:17:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789721527895642269
Reply addressees: @Xene1042 @whatifalthist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789721417224757333