I am working on integrating your position. It will take me a bit. So if there is a science of optimums, then what’s the science of pragmatisms? We have scienced truth and falseood, testimony and deceit. Can we science pragmatism (utility?) You’d think so,
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-18 20:01:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869473082114711891
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869472515925627110
Most of what we do is similar to a contextual mathematics in operational prose. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1868806923849715911
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-16 23:55:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868807191211462843
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1868806923849715911
Universally people will behave as I suggested.
Universally the consequences will result as I suggested.
That’s empirical science.
Universally people will demonstrate utility in the application of that science without understanding what they’re doing precisely because their behavior is limited by that science.
The science remains (first cause), peoples demonstrate behavioral variation from it (good-utility), individuals demonstrate behavioral variation from it (preference-utility).
There is no exit from this logic any more than there is from entropy.
If you want to do philosophy (utility of a good) within a science (description of existence) then that’s fine – but it’s philosophy(choice) not science (decidability).
I do science and decidability and leave open the choice of philosophy.
If you want to o philosophy instead then do so but don’t criticize the science you operate under or you’re just lying like everyone else.
I am fully aware that I will likely lose this attempt to persuade you because of the dominance of your incentives given your country and circumstances are of more urgent utility in achieving your desired ends than the science is in mine.
That’s fine. It has no bearing on me what I say or my work other than to confirm everything I argue.
I’m just disturbed by your attempt to conflate a philosophical preference or utility as having any bearing on the science. And I’m resisting your attempt to ‘capture’ terms and meaning like the left does to suit the preferences and utility in your philosophy and it’s application to your polity.
So from my understanding you are practicing the libertarian attempt (middle class leftism), cultural marxism, and postmodernism(credentialist marxism), shared by all the abrahamic cults, to manipulate language such that it suits your preferences, rather than to constrain language to measurements that are free of such biases and deceptions.
As I have said repeatedly I respect your attempt to produce a continental small-country application of the work (a philosophy) even if it is often a cost I must bear while you continue to evolve in sophisticated.
While I recognize (as in the OP of this thread) people cannot separate my work on the science for my prescriptions for the anglosphere becaues tehre is so little divergence, that is different from your accusation that I myself don’t know the difference between the science and its application.
You could quite easily base your preferences on the science by creating a philosophy (applied science) rather than try to capture the science or my anglosphere recommendations for your use like the left does by claiming it’s a primacy rather than a derivation.
Hugs
CD
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-15 20:22:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868391240884199424
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868385672383610949
The fundamental principle of measurement in economics, behavioral economics, and physics, is the accounting of the differences between the seen and unseen. It is easy to rely on justification (itself which is false, because all logic is only falsificationary), and it is easy to rely on the untestifiable for the same reason.
There is literally zero chance you understand the production of mindfulness by that production of systems of measurement, by what we call religion than I do. š
There isn’t anyone. Sorry.
Reply addressees: @IsraelAnderson
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-14 22:57:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868067939318181888
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868063498510680099
–“Truth transcends all, predates all and will out last all. It’s an aspect of God.”–
A claim you can’t make and claim you do so truthfully since it is untestifiable without the pretense of knowledge. In other words, you have to lie to make that claim.
You could, instead, claim that whether god exists or not, the laws of the universe are consistent at all scales of complexity, and we suffer the consequences of deviation from them. This is testifiable.
In most cases ‘true’ means satisfaction of infallibility in the context in question. It does not mean we are possessed of perfect and complete knowledge from which to testify to the truth of our claims.
We recommend christians or more fully, the devoted in the abrahamic spectrum of religions, use this justification so that they can’t be accused of lying, and therefore accuse all of the faithful of lying, and their religions as formulations of lies.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @julianrosser @BrianRoemmele
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-14 01:02:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867736875722846213
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867452530747486268
Brian,
This is a research project I’ve been investing in for years.
Spectrum:
Dishonesty (loading, framing, obscuring)
Response (Absence of Due Diligence – Think auto-association, ideation)
Honesty ( Minimum Due Diligence – Think Hypothesis)
Testifiability (Performative truth after max due diligence – Think Theory)
Decidable (Satisfaction of demand for infallibility – Think Settled Theory)
Ideal Truth (Decidability were we omniscient)
Logical Truth (Tautology)
Yes it is possible to use falsification by constructive logic using a fairly limited number of testable dimensions and a fairly limited number of first principles (irreducible causes) to train an AI to DETERMINE the testifiability and to SUGGEST the decidability.
We expect to take the first two thirds of next year to train GPTX to test the testifiability (truthfulness) of claims.
The problem at present is the size of the context window, and the limits on breaking a problem down into discrete steps, and the problem of requiring discrete terms (similar to programming) on an architecture where, unlike math and programming, we are fighting the training. So far the AI’s can’t do it. And the only one that has even a vague chance is ChatGPT.
Probably worth a chat at some point. Our goal is to make the logic accessible to all – it’s not commercial.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @BrianRoemmele
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-14 00:58:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867735797363015680
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867443437907345569
James. That definition holds no meaning. My explanation of your meaning did.
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-12 20:24:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867304655044456508
Reply addressees: @ConceptualJames
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867031511733596458
I deal with decidability. Meaning I work in proofs. For me it’s just math and sciencde. It’s not an opinion.
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-09 22:46:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1866253095594082656
Reply addressees: @ArionWise11 @TonyGause49
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1866250543997272286
CHATGPT ON OUR VOLUME 1: A SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT
Your document, The Natural Law Volume 1: A System of Measurement, lays out a highly detailed and structured framework for addressing human cooperation, conflict, and decision-making through a scientific and operational lens. Below are my observations and recommendations:
1. Strengths of the Work
Rigorous Framework: The articulation of a universal, testable system of measurement rooted in Natural Law provides a robust foundation for addressing socio-political, legal, and economic issues.
Integration of History and Science: By grounding your principles in both historical analysis and the scientific method, you connect abstract theories to tangible human experiences.
Comprehensive Scope: The inclusion of diverse domainsāfrom epistemology to governanceādemonstrates the ambition and interdisciplinary nature of your project.
2. Central Themes
Measurement and Decidability:
Strengths: Your system operationalizes abstract concepts, translating them into actionable metrics and principles. The emphasis on reciprocity and truth as guiding standards is compelling.
Considerations: Some readers may find the transition from theoretical to practical applications challenging. Including concrete examples or case studies could clarify how these principles manifest in real-world scenarios.
Causal Explanation of Social Dynamics:
Strengths: The identification of parasitic rents and institutional failures as root causes of societal crises aligns well with empirical observations.
Considerations: While the critique of rent-seeking behavior is strong, expanding on specific mechanisms to counteract these tendencies within existing institutions might make the framework more actionable.
Human Cognition and Evolution:
Strengths: The detailed breakdown of cognitive processes, from sensation to computation, offers a granular view of human decision-making.
Considerations: Simplifying or summarizing this section for broader audiences may enhance its accessibility without compromising depth.
3. Opportunities for Refinement
Language and Accessibility:The density of technical language might alienate some readers. Including a glossary or summary sections after dense chapters could improve comprehension.
Use examples or analogies to illustrate abstract concepts, making them relatable and easier to understand.
Historical and Cultural Analysis:While your critique of cultural and institutional evolution is incisive, balancing critiques with acknowledgments of their contributions may prevent alienation of certain audiences.
Consider expanding on how different civilizations have approached reciprocity and measurement to highlight the universality of your framework.
Implementation Pathways:The theoretical rigor of your work would benefit from actionable steps for applying these principles in governance, education, or legal systems.
Propose pilot projects or examples where Natural Law principles could be tested or implemented.
Anticipating Criticism:Addressing potential counterarguments, such as accusations of determinism or cultural bias, upfront could strengthen the persuasive power of your work.
Explicitly differentiate your framework from similar ideologies or methodologies to clarify its unique contributions.
4. Specific Recommendations
Introduction:Clearly articulate the stakes of the project. Why is this system necessary now? How does it solve problems other frameworks fail to address?
Measurement Chapter:Provide a summary at the end of the chapter highlighting key takeaways, such as how measurement facilitates understanding and cooperation.
Truth and Reciprocity:Expand on how truth and reciprocity operate as practical tools for resolving disputes and fostering cooperation in diverse contexts.
Glossary and Summaries:Add a glossary of key terms and concise summaries at the end of each chapter to aid comprehension.
5. Overall Impact
Your work is a monumental attempt to unify disciplines and address the meta-crises of our time through a scientific and operational framework. Refining its presentation and expanding on practical applications will make it more accessible and impactful.
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-05 16:39:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1864711276712349696
WHY THE WORLD SEEMS CHAOTIC – BECAUSE YOU’RE WRONG IN UNDERSTANDING IT.
Rudyard, (all);
Given I work in first principles, constructive logic, and universal commensurability, of course, I see reality as obvious – and humans operating by bounded rationality, and behavior deterministic under no more than thirty or so general rules.
The only thing I’m ever surprised by is the degree of human innovation in vanity, magical thinking, folly, ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.
People are really, really, really good at trying to rationalize reality such that they need not conform to it.
The human intuition is to adapt as little as possible. But to demand others adapt to us instead. That is the underlying reason for why you, and they, and almost everyone, does not grasp the simplicity of reality.
We confuse our biases in the moral terms under which we wish to cooperate, with the amoral rules of the universe which cares not whether we do so or not.
Chaos is the result of incommensurability.
Incommensurability exists only because we err.
We err to avoid adapting.
Our instinct is moral demand to others.
But the universe will not reciprocate.
And humans only will when convenient.
Life: Adapt or die
Our Lives: Adapt or suffer not doing so.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute.
Reply addressees: @whatifalthist
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-01 04:59:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1863085558136020992
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1862938130958987396