Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • There are a number of videos on ‘the method’ on our youtube channel. If I try to

    There are a number of videos on ‘the method’ on our youtube channel.
    If I try to explain it to you it won’t make as much sense as trying to make use of it.
    That said:
    I use ‘continuous recursive disambiguation by adversarial competition by reduction of any dimension to a system of measurement. Again, by enumeration, operationalization, and organization into a spectrum by adversarial elimination.
    In other words, I build up a constructive logic (just as evolution did) from the polarity of the quantum background to human behavior.
    In practice there are about twenty-some-odd rules that explain nearly everything we care about.
    Learning how to apply them isn’t that different from learning how to apply geometry.
    The differences lies in the unlearning of your presumptions and biases.
    If it was easy someone would have done it before me.
    It’s not.
    I just happen to be born at the right time with enough other shoulders of other giants to stand on.

    Reply addressees: @RunicSigil

    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-21 03:15:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770650426666352640

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770647152743915605

  • AGAIN: First Principles: The foundational, self-evident truths that form the bas

    AGAIN:
    First Principles: The foundational, self-evident truths that form the basis of a system of thought or inquiry.
    The starting points for reasoning that cannot be deduced from other propositions.
    More general and broader in scope compared to laws.

    Axioms: Statements or propositions that are accepted as true within a particular domain or system of logic.
    Serve as the starting points for logical reasoning and the development of theories.
    Derived from or consistent with first principles.

    Laws: Well-established, universal principles that describe the fundamental behavior of natural phenomena.
    Based on empirical evidence and derived from the logical consequences of axioms and first principles.
    Specific to particular domains or phenomena within the natural world.

    Conjectures: Propositions or conclusions that are based on incomplete evidence or reasoning.
    Educated guesses or speculations that require further investigation or proof.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-21 02:16:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770635541156937728

  • I work from first causes. He’s pointing it out

    I work from first causes. He’s pointing it out.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-20 22:36:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770580277565296952

    Reply addressees: @Lincoln_Osis @whatifalthist @philthatremains

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770572333700599846

  • As far as I know I understand metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics better than

    As far as I know I understand metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics better than any human living. So if you think I’m making an error, please try to explain how. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-20 20:31:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770548662315200856

    Reply addressees: @Saurabh_Shah1 @radiofreenw

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770530299299975289

  • Let us say that you have a system of measurement. That system includes say, X di

    Let us say that you have a system of measurement.

    That system includes say, X dimensions of measurement – just as, say, we previously did not understand the solar system, then galaxy, and then or universe at large scale, or the atomic, particle, quantum, or quantum background.

    Now, what if the system of measurement you’re using to make the assessments you do, are insufficient for the same reasons: the scale of distribution of your measurements and the number of dimensions you measure?

    Now, in addition, what if your selection bias seeks to maximize correlations, instead of maximize falsifications?
    That would cause you to include partial truths when you could exclude even those.
    And as such could see the patterns of causality that bring about consequential patterns that are destructive.

    In other words, I can make true general statements about distributions of unlimited scale (first principle) despite outliers, and you cannot either do so, nor observe the patterns that would exist if you threw out the half truths.

    Then having done so you could, as I do, make truthful statements about general rules while tolerating outliers – and even criticize those outliers given their limits and failings both directly express, implied, and metaphysically presumed.

    So no, I do not err. But then it would take you quite a bit of effort to learn my (our) work sufficiently to develop that skill and expertise.

    All I have done here is illustrate why you might want to.

    Because some of us seek thruth regardless of cost, so that we may work on problems of time and scale. And some of you seek utility and justification in-time and at personal scale.

    You must only make that choice by two criteria (a) capacity to learn more despite the painful truths and work of doing so, and (b) willingness to do the work necessary to learn that skill set and discipline.

    Affections
    Curt

    Reply addressees: @JerryWilly1st @o18953970 @whatifalthist

    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-20 19:57:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770540092949512192

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770533102437175512

  • It’s not concrete and testable enough. And this form of construction is used onl

    It’s not concrete and testable enough. And this form of construction is used only when trying to manipulate by use of conflation.

    The west consists of the natural religions, the germanic semi-formalization, the greco-roman formalization, and the greek philosophical formation, culminating in stoicism.

    The method for comparing civilizational differences consists of:
    1) Given the three means of coercion possible:
    … 1. Religion/Social by Seduction/Ostracization
    … 2. Economic by Trade/Boycott
    … 3. State by Defense/Violence
    2) Given the path dependence of institutional formation:
    … 1. Religion(Strong) > State(Weak) > Law(fail)
    … 2. Religion(Strong) > Law(Weak) > State(fail)
    … 3. State(Strong) > Religion(Weak) > Law (fail)
    … 4. State(Strong) > Law (Weak) > Religion (fail)
    … 5. Law(Strong) > Religion(Weak) > State (fail)
    … 6. Law(Strong) > State(weak) > Religion (fail)
    3) Given the Innovative ability of those institutions:
    … 1. Limited: Religion
    … 2. Only Under Stress: State
    … 3. Continuous: Law
    4) Given the adaptability of those institutions:
    … 1. Slow: Religion
    … 2. Medium: Law
    … 3. Fast: State
    5) Given the demographic composition of the polity (IQ):
    … Slow: Below Minimum (85) – no innovation or adaptation
    … Medium: Below Innovation (100) – adaptation
    … Fast: Above threshold (105) – innovation
    6) In addition:
    … Relationship between rulers and ruled (parasitic vs productive)
    … Homogeneity (good) vs Heterogeneity (bad)
    … Resources
    … Geography
    … Climate
    … Condition vs competing states.

    This determines the condition of the population.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @Saurabh_Shah1 @radiofreenw

    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-20 17:46:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770507251679174656

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770502259614310896

  • The First Principles of Philosophy In Five Questions

    The First Principles of Philosophy In Five Questions

    The First Principles of Philosophy In Five Questions. https://t.co/iqiYZaf9G1

    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-20 17:22:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770501139076714577

  • I don’t understand why people with fragmentary knowledge waste my time by arguin

    I don’t understand why people with fragmentary knowledge waste my time by arguing with me. (Sigh)

    Those numbers are aggregates (averages) of distributions. They are not measures of outliers.

    If you even make that significant a mistake on such a simple statistical question why…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-19 14:59:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770102901580382703

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770088926474072356

  • SOURCES OF MY CORE IDEAS, FWIW: I use some ideas that are directly from the work

    SOURCES OF MY CORE IDEAS, FWIW:
    I use some ideas that are directly from the work of others:
    1. Chomsky’s continuous recursive disambiguation as universal grammar turns out to be the universal law of everything.
    2. Baron-Cohen’s empathizing vs systematizing – really is the key to all psychology.
    3. I use the big 5/6 and combine with with intelligence to show it’s all just variation in information processing.
    4. Haidt’s moral foundations that I converted to demonstrated interests (property)
    5. Hoppe’s reduction of all social science to statments of demonstrated interest.
    6. Most of the rest is my work that is all derived from analysis of language (the grammars) and neuroscience and genetics. I simply can’t emphasize enough the importance of that work. And the logic I use computational, constructive(operational), economic (Gary Becker), and evolutionary which means I must decompose all phenomenon into first principles and reconstruct each phenomena from them (write a proof).

    Reply addressees: @bootlegapples

    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-19 13:01:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770073183875403778

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1769791842873114772

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    SOURCES OF CORE IDEAS
    FWIW: The two three I use that are directly from the work of others are
    1. Chomsky’s continuous recursive disambiguation as universal grammar turns out to be the universal law of everything.
    2. Baron-Cohen’s empathizing vs systematizing – really is the key to it all.
    3. I use the big 5/6 and combine with with intelligence to show it’s all just information processing.
    4. Haidt’s moral foundations that I converted to demonstrated interests (property)
    5. Hoppe’s reduction of all social science to statments of demonstrated interest.
    6. Most of the rest is my work that is all derived from analysis of language (the grammars) and neuroscience and genetics. I simply can’t emphasize enough the importance of that work. And the logic I use computational, constructive(operational), economic (Gary Becker), and evolutionary which means I must decompose all phenomenon into first principles and reconstruct each phenomena from them (write a proof).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1769791842873114772

  • SOURCES OF CORE IDEAS FWIW: The two three I use that are directly from the work

    SOURCES OF CORE IDEAS
    FWIW: The two three I use that are directly from the work of others are
    1. Chomsky’s continuous recursive disambiguation as universal grammar turns out to be the universal law of everything.
    2. Baron-Cohen’s empathizing vs systematizing – really is the key to it all.
    3. I use the big 5/6 and combine with with intelligence to show it’s all just information processing.
    4. Haidt’s moral foundations that I converted to demonstrated interests (property)
    5. Hoppe’s reduction of all social science to statments of demonstrated interest.
    6. Most of the rest is my work that is all derived from analysis of language (the grammars) and neuroscience and genetics. I simply can’t emphasize enough the importance of that work. And the logic I use computational, constructive(operational), economic (Gary Becker), and evolutionary which means I must decompose all phenomenon into first principles and reconstruct each phenomena from them (write a proof).

    Reply addressees: @bootlegapples

    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-18 18:23:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1769791842755727361

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1769788538805973135