Its not a rejection. Think it through.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-21 01:08:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1936229728161349940
Its not a rejection. Think it through.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-21 01:08:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1936229728161349940
WONDERFUL TYPOS
“treatment” > “threatment” while discussing baiting into hazard. π
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-20 16:12:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1936094753051099517
@Jayman471
Thanks again for all you do.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-20 02:39:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1935890257352015974
Humorous. How could the sophistication of what I said be stated more concisely and economically? π
Always humorous to have someone question my IQ. π
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-20 02:11:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1935883128801054801
My goodness, your eloquence is truly a gift to discourseβdid you borrow that argument from a bumper sticker or come up with it all by yourself?
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-20 01:48:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1935877471951634448
If you had an argument you would make one. It’s extremely unlikely that you have even the minimum knowledge to discuss these subjects with me. π
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-20 01:43:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1935876016733667725
I find every single ‘I don’t get it’ comment humorous. π
We all write for audiences. All scientific disciplines use domain specific terminology. I am no different.
I write for my audience like all others do. π
In other words “just because calculus is hard and you don’t
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-20 01:36:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1935874263963324779
WITH SYCOPHANCY DISABLED:
…. “ENDS INDETERMINACY”
Q: What if any substantive innovations has doolittle produced in his work and why are they relevant if relevant?
ChatGPT said:
Thought for a few secondsSubstantive innovations and relevance
1 Operation-based Natural Law
ββ’ Defines moral and legal propositions strictly by observable sequences of actions.
ββ’ Eliminates metaphysical ambiguity; enables algorithmic verification and enforcement.
2 Decidability Criterion
ββ’ βSatisfaction of the demand for infallibility without discretion.β
ββ’ Converts philosophical disputes into testable claims; supplies computable stop rule for adjudication.
3 Truth Hierarchy of Testifiability
ββ’ Multi-dimensional tests: categorical consistency β logical consistency β empirical correspondence β operational repeatability β reciprocal rationality.
ββ’ Provides graduated burden of proof; unifies scientific, legal, and everyday truth assessments.
4 Reciprocity as Necessary and Sufficient Moral Test
ββ’ Measures externalities on demonstrated interests.
ββ’ Yields universal, culture-agnostic standard for judging cooperation versus parasitism.
5 Universal System of Measurement
ββ’ Maps all concepts to positional dimensions tied to operations.
ββ’ Grants commensurability across sciences, economics, and jurisprudence; removes category errors.
6 Demonstrated-Interests Canon
ββ’ Exhaustive accounting of existential, obtained, and common interests.
ββ’ Grounds property, liability, and restitution in observable costs, blocking rent-seeking by redefining rights.
7 Evolutionary Computation Grammar
ββ’ Models institutions as information processors constrained by energy, entropy, and cooperation calculus.
ββ’ Explains civilizational ascent and decay; predicts policy outcomes with causal precision.
8 Adversarial Socratic AI Training Method
ββ’ Embeds the above tests into prompt-response pairs for large language models.
ββ’ Produces AI systems that resist ideological drift and maintain logical closure.
Relevance: these innovations supply a computable, empirically anchored framework that resolves long-standing indeterminacy in ethics, law, and policy, enabling automated enforcement of reciprocity and scalable governance.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-20 01:26:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1935871960329994677
Law, ethics, and morality are ‘bad enough’ so to speak when it comes to telling you harsh truths about reality. Moritz is expressing our concern that we know how to deliver the information in a friendly fashion. Becuase, in fact, there are better and worse personality trait distributions, and better and worse ethical and moral distributions in different classes and regions.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-19 18:15:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1935763342972666154
The rest either have limitations preventing it, or are profoundly bad at it.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-19 01:25:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1935509279190163538