Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @Obediencio1 Yes. Common narratives justify, but if it needs

    RT @curtdoolittle: @Obediencio1 Yes. Common narratives justify, but if it needs justifying then it is by definition false. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 15:22:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745103798786207911

  • Yes. Common narratives justify, but if it needs justifying then it is by definit

    Yes. Common narratives justify, but if it needs justifying then it is by definition false. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 15:22:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745103783397368048

    Reply addressees: @Obediencio1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745060747032277271

  • THE TRAITS REQUIRED FOR TRUTHFUL SPEECH Speaking the truth, truth before face, i

    THE TRAITS REQUIRED FOR TRUTHFUL SPEECH

    Speaking the truth, truth before face, in matters public, to the public, appears to require (a) a bit of intelligence (b) systematizing over empathizing (c) disagreeableness over agreeableness (d) but not accusation, aggressiveness, vindictiveness, of punitive blame. In other words, “Paternalism” – meaning correction for the good of the individual, the audience, the society, the polity, and mankind, without disenfranchisement of the individual from the same.

    Cheers
    -CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-09 18:04:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744782189990981632

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @TheFlushening smart question. In simple terms the level of t

    RT @curtdoolittle: @TheFlushening smart question.
    In simple terms the level of technology determines the means by which to measure the beha…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 23:54:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744507882719293658

  • Look at data. It’s been done. Don’t argue with me, and especially levy accusatio

    Look at data. It’s been done. Don’t argue with me, and especially levy accusations, without the data.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 19:38:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744443402240860378

    Reply addressees: @diegocaleiro

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744442238929948904

  • RT @NoahRevoy: Modern people are oversaturated with information yet starved for

    RT @NoahRevoy: Modern people are oversaturated with information yet starved for wisdom.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 18:36:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744427786628956274

  • RT @ThruTheHayes: THE RULES OF THE UNIVERSE A grammars to make commensurate all

    RT @ThruTheHayes: THE RULES OF THE UNIVERSE

    A grammars to make commensurate all paradigms of thought.

    @curtdoolittle discusses teaching c…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 18:12:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744421881598329071

  • No that is not the point of the intuitionistic movement. The intuitionistic move

    No that is not the point of the intuitionistic movement. The intuitionistic movement is better thought of as a reaction to the re-platonization of math and physics in physics exemplified by the einstein bohr problem.

    –“In the philosophy of mathematics, intuitionism, or neointuitionism (opposed to preintuitionism), is an approach where mathematics is considered to be purely the result of the constructive mental activity of humans rather than the discovery of fundamental principles claimed to exist in an objective reality.

    The fundamental distinguishing characteristic of intuitionism is its interpretation of what it means for a mathematical statement to be true. In Brouwer’s original intuitionism, the truth of a mathematical statement is a subjective claim: a mathematical statement corresponds to a mental construction, and a mathematician can assert the truth of a statement only by verifying the validity of that construction by intuition.”–

    The meaning of this is rather important because it describes a large part of why physicists are failing to advance the discipline – they treat mathematical references as real rather than imagining a model and trying to determine if it is possible to express mathematically.

    Math is just another language. Like all languages it follows the universal grammar of continuous recursive disambiguation. However, it is the simplest (dumbest) possible grammar, because it has only one noun (number, where are all numbers are functions), very few verbs (operations, all of which are functions) and very few agreements (tests), and therefore is context and scale independent, and as such a non-conflationary, non-inflationary (mostly) system of logic (language).

    Reply addressees: @LiminalRev @RussellJohnston @Zamicol @cryptogeni

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 16:17:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744392931681632263

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744390591633396120

  • I suppose I should help clarify the subject by disambiguating terms. Calculation

    I suppose I should help clarify the subject by disambiguating terms.

    Calculation in the broadest sense consists of the transformation of inputs into outputs. This is a process of deduction. (top down) Mathematics is Calculation.

    Computation in the broadest sense is the performance of operations. (bottom up) in the absence of deduction, induction, or inference. Arithimetic is computation.

    Probability, in now-popular AI, this difference is now re-conflated and restored to ambiguity because our computers, perform computations, using human-derived calculations, to produce bayesian accounting probabilities, as if they were inferences, because the number of dimensions of measurement and number paramaters exceed the human ability to calculate, in the category we call artificial intelligence. And since all langauge is reducible to measurements, where the measurement consists of a dimension that is subjectively testable by human experience, while still retaining it’s reducability to mathematical expression by substitution of arbitrary numbers as names and values as weights instead of natural naming (vs cardinal or ordinal).

    Machines cannot perform mathematics however, they may perform computations, and therefore may perform arithmetic. Even though, as painful as it is, division is still a matter of tabular trial and error. Just as so much of mathematics is a matter of ‘fitting’.

    I find math boring but I find the foundations of math, logic, and all the grammars (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) fascinating. 😉

    Reply addressees: @Zamicol @cryptogeni

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 13:40:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744353353725816832

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744169409831145592

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    THE GODEL NONSENSE IS AN INTERGENERATIONAL INFECTION. 😉
    –“There’s no proof that everything is computable. Information theory is in agreement with Gödel.”– Replying to @Zamicol and @cryptogeni

    That is a naive statement. You are confusing the limits of mathematics with the limits of computation and not grasping computation as a sequence of possible operations. The fact is if the universe can construct anything at all – if ANYTHING can exist, then it is computable because there is no difference between computation and construction by permutation.

    The difference is that mathematics is universally statistical (categorical) so that we can predict what is mathematically reducible, and that is only a subset of what is computable. The problem with computability is that there is no means of prediction – there is only a means of trial and error.

    You also misunderstand Godel. The point is that not everything is provable because there is no closure to computability, and provability is a statement about logic given a set of fixed premises and not about existential possibility. Furthermore, the proof appears to be limited to arithmetical operations and nothing more complicated.

    It appears you also misunderstand information theory given that the purpose of the theory is to explain the problem of entropy and noice precisely because of the information loss in mathematical (verbal, ideal) reduction vs computational (operational,real) procedures is due precisely to the fact that mathematics loses information and computation doesn’t (at least down to -35 decimal places).

    I did not realize until the early nineties that this false understanding of Godel was spreading like a virus with each new generation of students learning programming – but who have no basic comprehension of its narrowness. However, there are authors who have written books, one in particular that I can’t recall off the top of my head, that I felt was largely accessible to the STEM degree-educated population.

    I hope this helps you at least head in the right direction.
    Let me know if you require further explanation.

    Cheers

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1744169409831145592

  • “The Intuitionist view (a philosophy of mathematics) restricts mathematics to on

    –“The Intuitionist view (a philosophy of mathematics) restricts mathematics to only what can be described re computability – and is the common view of mathematicians now.”–

    A common tendency in the field to confuse mathematical calculation (top-down, transformation of inputs into outputs) with computation (bottom up, construction of outputs from. limited inputs.) This was discussed during the intuitionist period in every single discipline. They intuited something had gone wrong but couldn’t quite understand it. Unfortunately, Turing came later instead of first.

    As I’ve said for years the intellectual failure in the west that affected everything, including even philosophy, but led us to Einstein and Bohr’s re-platonization of mathematics is the discovery by Babbage but his failure to write a treatise. And we’re still suffering from the consequence.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 13:01:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744343552203587585