Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Your problem is using a label. Always use operational prose when anything comple

    Your problem is using a label. Always use operational prose when anything complex is necessary. I intentionally use langauge that keeps the nitwits away. But if you are trying to make a point, and reach a lot of people, you can’t use ‘stakeholder capitalism’ because anyone sophisticated enough to understand it thinks its obvious and boring (and secondary to woke) and anyone who needs to underestand will ignore you. Talk cause and effecdt. If you need longer form to do it,t hen pay the eight bucks for blue checkmarks and write longer form.

    Reply addressees: @Z3r0An0n

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 07:31:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640255294709149696

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640246417594912768

  • I write, we write, constructive proofs. What does that mean? It means we write a

    I write, we write, constructive proofs. What does that mean? It means we write a proof of evolutionary causality from first principles. This is the most parsimonious unambiguous means of explaining all behavior.

    If you are new to philosophy of science, mathematics, computation, and logic, then you can google the debate over intuitionistic mathematics. After that do a quick overview of Wolfram’s mathematical vs computational reducibility. The point is that contrary to our concept of justified true belief by justificationary argument throughout history, all logic is falsificationary. We only discover something is not false (yet). 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 01:50:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640169339725783040

  • I write, we write, constructive proofs. What does that mean? It means we write a

    I write, we write, constructive proofs. What does that mean? It means we write a proof of evolutionary causality from first principles. This is the most parsimonious unambiguous means of explaining all behavior.

    If you are new to philosophy of science, mathematics, computation, and logic, then you can google the debate over intuitionistic mathematics. After that do a quick overview of Wolfram’s mathematical vs computational reducibility. The point is that contrary to our concept of justified true belief by justificationary argument throughout history, all logic is falsificationary. We only discover something is not false (yet). 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 01:50:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640169339646083073

  • The problem is you’d have to be knowledgeable enough and competent enough to mak

    The problem is you’d have to be knowledgeable enough and competent enough to make that judgment. And as in all things, “Sufficiently advance X is indistinguishable from primitive Y.” I order to know the difference you’d have to operationally falsify X.

    Given that there ARE people who understand, and you dn’t that, by the evidence, disqualifies you from the possibility of making the judgment – because as demonstrated, your opinion is only a measure of your own ignorance. 😉

    Now stop throwing me softballs.
    This is entertaining but it’s not really useful.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 01:10:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640159377733632005

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640158023665561602

  • The problem is you’d have to be knowledgeable enough and competent enough to mak

    The problem is you’d have to be knowledgeable enough and competent enough to make that judgment. And as in all things, “Sufficiently advance X is indistinguishable from primitive Y.” I order to know the difference you’d have to operationally falsify X.

    Given that there ARE people who understand, and you dn’t that, by the evidence, disqualifies you from the possibility of making the judgment – because as demonstrated, your opinion is only a measure of your own ignorance. 😉

    Now stop throwing me softballs.
    This is entertaining but it’s not really useful.

    Reply addressees: @TheMattSeaton @charliereif @BobMurphyEcon

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 01:10:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640159377611972608

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640158023665561602

  • “James: Woke is critical consciousness. Audience: That’s too hard. Dumb it down.

    –“James: Woke is critical consciousness. Audience: That’s too hard. Dumb it down.”–

    I’ll dumb it down further for James’ audience:

    Q: DEFINE SCIENTIFICALLY “critical constructivist epistemology, ethics, and activism.”

    SUMMARY: “Feminine Undermining that you see every single… https://t.co/zDIM1RCQ2d

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-26 19:49:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640078455701135363

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637487849472761856

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @whatifalthist (Advanced topic warning) a) a dimension refers

    RT @curtdoolittle: @whatifalthist (Advanced topic warning)
    a) a dimension refers to a measurement necessary to disambiguate a reference. O…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-24 23:46:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639413514296082432

  • (Advanced topic warning) a) a dimension refers to a measurement necessary to dis

    (Advanced topic warning)
    a) a dimension refers to a measurement necessary to disambiguate a reference. Or more specifically, in mathematics, to produce a set of vectors that produce a direction of causality that will influence other dimensions of causality. Ergo why we use Manifolds in mathematics to track dense causalities (relations). Our neurons are for all intents and purpose producing vast networks of cause in the manifold that is our neocortex.
    b) The universe only requires three spatial and one time dimensions to describe it. We can use either three linear or two circular(direction) and one linear (scale) dimensions as descriptors.
    c) (Very advanced topic) The universe is incapable of more than those three plus one dimensions – no more dimensions are possible without destroying the prior four.
    d) When we talk of say ten dimensions we are talking about a three step hierarchy of dimensions of causality, each that affects the others within the one time dimensions. In physics this means it is likely that there is at least one more dimension of causality (one more hierarchy of constant states) beneath the quantum background.
    e) Until we end our wasted einsteinian century ‘lost in mathiness’ (pseudoscience), by completing the classical model of the quantum background (we’re close), explaining what we call particles but aren’t (they’re closer to lightning storms that collapse as lightning bolts), and explain the cause of the quantum background we will not know if the speed of light and the mass that results as we compress the quantum background, can be overcome. I have, no one has, any sense as yet whether it’s possible. If not, and, if we cannot capture and use the energy of the quantum background (huge) even if only zero point, then we are ‘not going anywhere fast’.
    f) As such the only dimension we can likely ‘colonize’ is time. And in that sense, given relative time at mass and velocity (or even independent thereof) for all intents and purposes ‘dimensions’ (differeent rates of life histories) will be effectively infinite.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-24 22:00:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639386608200818693

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639333629477416961

  • (Advanced topic warning) a) a dimension refers to a measurement necessary to dis

    (Advanced topic warning)
    a) a dimension refers to a measurement necessary to disambiguate a reference. Or more specifically, in mathematics, to produce a set of vectors that produce a direction of causality that will influence other dimensions of causality. Ergo why we use Manifolds in mathematics to track dense causalities (relations). Our neurons are for all intents and purpose producing vast networks of cause in the manifold that is our neocortex.
    b) The universe only requires three spatial and one time dimensions to describe it. We can use either three linear or two circular(direction) and one linear (scale) dimensions as descriptors.
    c) (Very advanced topic) The universe is incapable of more than those three plus one dimensions – no more dimensions are possible without destroying the prior four.
    d) When we talk of say ten dimensions we are talking about a three step hierarchy of dimensions of causality, each that affects the others within the one time dimensions. In physics this means it is likely that there is at least one more dimension of causality (one more hierarchy of constant states) beneath the quantum background.
    e) Until we end our wasted einsteinian century ‘lost in mathiness’ (pseudoscience), by completing the classical model of the quantum background (we’re close), explaining what we call particles but aren’t (they’re closer to lightning storms that collapse as lightning bolts), and explain the cause of the quantum background we will not know if the speed of light and the mass that results as we compress the quantum background, can be overcome. I have, no one has, any sense as yet whether it’s possible. If not, and, if we cannot capture and use the energy of the quantum background (huge) even if only zero point, then we are ‘not going anywhere fast’.
    f) As such the only dimension we can likely ‘colonize’ is time. And in that sense, given relative time at mass and velocity (or even independent thereof) for all intents and purposes ‘dimensions’ (differeent rates of life histories) will be effectively infinite.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-24 22:00:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639386608016187393

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639333629477416961

  • RE: –“not understanding 1, 2, 3.”– RE: SIX/TEN REMAINING GREAT FLAWS IN HUMAN

    RE: –“not understanding 1, 2, 3.”–
    RE: SIX/TEN REMAINING GREAT FLAWS IN HUMAN THOUGHT
    https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1638602036370456576

    1) a) all logic is falsificationary: proofs test survival. b) we learn about the universe through incremental removal of human error. c) All human error originates…

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    SIX REMAINING GREAT FLAWS IN HUMAN THOUGHT
    1. The search for justification(proof) rather than falsification(survival).
    2. The search for inconsistent utilities (paradigms) rather than a hierarchy of consistent first principles (universal paradigm).
    3. The search for the ideal person, behavior, wants, means, and ends, rather than means of cooperation between male and female opposites.
    4. The search for positive law of thou shall, limiting possibilities, vs negative laws of though shall-not, leaving open infinite possibilities.
    5. The search for the good instead of the true, from which we choose possible goods.
    6. The search for political uniformity as a static optimum rather than competing diversities as an evolutionary optimum – the search for predictable certainty rather than evolutionary and adaptive uncertainty.

    Every one of these falsehoods is hostile to the first principle of the universe: evolutionary computation, and our condition in the capture and transformation of energy per person, yielding us the greatest prosperity with which to make the greatest range of choices that will as a consequence, repeat the cycle, of evolutionary computation, and the improvement of our condition by increasing the capture and transformation of energy.

    “NO MORE ERRORS, FALSEHOODS, AND LIES”

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1638602036370456576