Well, you see, one of the lessons one learns from the study of testimonial truth (performative truth) is the necessity of operational language in complete sentences to prevent others from falsehoods of deduction, induction, abduction by conflation, inflation, substitution, and…
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-05 04:02:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1698909438587850776
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1698905531975639404
I am quite the contrary, so painfully skeptical and diligent an epistemologies that I can claim little but not being biased and “full of myself”. You might ask yourself why you believe you are correct and I err – because if capable of it (doubtful) you would discover you merely disapprove of painful truths. But are happy to perpetuate comforting lies.
None of us is free of sin or folly. But some of us work harder at it than others.
Reply addressees: @combienDUtemps @mrkbrooks @lauferlaw @elonmusk @alx
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-05 01:29:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1698870837095387136
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1698869112745627824
See, the method looks like language, but it’s really math. 😉 Or rather we can also write math as language rather than symbols. But We are generalizing a universally commensurable logic from economics instead of math or physics, so our work is better expressed in supply-demand language and diagrams than in mathematics – in no small part because it’s more accessible.
–“Cooperation consists of an interaction between two organizations(identities) that satisfies an internal disequilibrium (potential), creating a more stable set of relations (work) or more capital (energy, mass), producing a new equilibrium with a new partial disequilibrium with new potential for additional recombination producing additional work or capital, and thereby continuing persistent evolutionary computation. (+),(-),(=)”–
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-04 15:03:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1698713434014056448
I’m using the Socratic method. Is that toying with you? Or am I trying to assist you in gaining competency over yourself and the world?
When I was fairly young, about 25, I understood just how dim the vastness of humanity really is – and was horrified. So from that day onward, I tried to help everyone I can at every opportunity, no matter how small, even if it was just to make them feel better. But that’s because it’s possible for me to. So is ‘toying’ with people not educating them? Isn’t every test I run a test of whether I can benefit people or the world? And am I just conscious that I almost everyone runs tests for themselves alone, and I run tests for everyone as well as myself, and take joy in it.
So, should I, as me, behave as I do? Or should I behave as if I were you and behave as you do?
Reply addressees: @zwholetruth @afoolishwiseman
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-04 02:02:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1698516880846110720
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1698513291163607299
Will do.
During our discussion we concluded that the methodology on this topic requires a video.
Unfortunately, one of my ‘quirks’ is that what I presume is obvious is often not. So, while I’ve frequently written about and made a video of the linguistic side of the method (measurements), the ethics, and some of the first principles, I haven’t done the same with the ternary logic (science) side of the method.
That’s despite that while we have all the rules and the triangles (diagrams) I haven’t explained how to apply them systematically to problems.
Most of our team just learns to do the work by discourse. But that’s not good enough for most people.
So it’s time to ‘upgrade’. 😉
Thanks for asking.
BTW: Love your work. Watch every day. Thanks for investing your time in becoming a rational voice free of the drama and hype. I’m sure your audience will build over time. I’ll help when I can. -CD
PS: Might be fun to interview you someday soon.
-Cheers
Reply addressees: @VelenskiMeir
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-03 05:31:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1698207142161874944
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1698204837995803083
Not that your comment has any merit, but, if you can find anyone more capable of the foundations of and limits of mathematics (or any of the paradigmatic grammars for that matter) or the history of what has ‘gone wrong’ in the 20th century, it would be helpful to know that…
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-03 05:03:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1698200100663623867
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1698186847967694942
It looks like breaking the sentence into one or more of the triangles and into first principles.
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-02 16:32:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1698010962127650947
Reply addressees: @Will_of_Europa @WerrellBradley
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697991571092668792
Q: Curt: What’s Limit-Based Reasoning?
(from Economics)
Limit-based reasoning is an application of full-accounting of incentives, that consists of constructing a field of rational incentives for human behavior by working backward from the constraints (limits) on those incentives, producing an adversarial competition between wants and limits, that narrows the potential set of rational choices. The purpose of limit-based reasoning is to prevent overly optimistic or pessimistic predictions, that do not fully account for limitations on choice.
Characteristics:
Constrained: Operates within a set of predefined boundaries, which could be mathematical, ethical, or empirical.
Focused: Because it operates within limits, it may be more focused and specific than other forms of reasoning.
Pragmatic: Likely geared towards solving real-world problems where resources or data are limited.
Applications:
Mathematics: In calculus, limits are used to understand the behavior of functions at certain points.
Computer Science: Algorithms often have to operate within computational limits.
Ethics: Ethical frameworks often impose limits on what actions are considered moral or immoral.
Economics: Economic models often assume limits like scarcity of resources.
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-02 14:35:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697981551072411649
WHY DOES THE INSTITUTE CARE ABOUT CATEGORY THEORY IN MATHEMATICS?
Because it’s the closest to a data representation of the neural relations in language. That said if we wrote in math or even symbols we’d find fewer followers than we do with operational language. 😉
Via Michael:
Category theory was created in the 1950s to half-resolve the problems of set theory (axiom of choice, axiom of infninity) early on in 20th century. (CD: see my work on intuitionism and operationalism)
For Mathematics
https://t.co/CgDTImh50e
For Programmers
https://t.co/Tv1pRl5VDM
The core insight of category theory is that most math structures “are the same in some way” (CD: There exists a pattern of consistent relations between them.)
If you have these FOUR structures, you’re a Category
1. Every category starts as a SET
2. Then that SET gets MORPHISMS
(state transitions, references, maps; not quite “operations” because many math state transitions are maps not operations) (CD: unlike applied mathematics, pure mathematics can drop the time and sequence dimensions and transform instantly, so both dimensions are irrelevant.)
3. There must be an IDENTITY operation (a return to self map) (CD: reversibility. no information loss.)
4. Maps must COMPOSE. (The formal terminology is that the associative law holds) (CD: in our work composability refers to fitness within the grammatical rules of disambiguation.)
Examples:
– Sets are categories, trivial ones
– Groups
– Rings
– Topological spaces
– Vector spaces (the objects are basis vectors, the morphisms are matrices that change basis)
What results when you climb to the top of category mountain?
You start with large chalkboards full of dots and arrows between them. (Directed graphs, or “Quills”).
The graphs (their vertices as objects, and arrows as maps) form higher dimensional shapes (triangles, squares, pentagons, “associahedrons”). (cd: I love the term “associahedrons” because this is what operational LANGUAGE produces. And this is why I originally started the foundations course with geometry before I realized it was too complex for the students.)
When you take a FUNCTOR (which maps one entire Category to another Category), you’re now drawing NEW arrows, one for each functorial pair. (CD:A set of transformations)
What happens is that if you follow these lines, the higher dimensional subshapes you found earlier MAY be preserved in some form as well.
So if a square structure the original category becomes a triangle in the new category: well, that means something. (Means we lost structure when applying the functor. The functor is called “forgetful”). So category B is the same as A, minus a few structures that B has
As such…
You get to compare environments (categories) in which to “do math”.
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-01 17:28:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697662817367670784
I can state anything we do formally. You lack the knowledge to understand what that means. Why do I rely on operational construction from irreducible first principles (laws) rather than arbitrarily asserted axioms? Why don’t we rely on symbols instead using sequences of terms as measurements produced by enumeration, operationilizing, serializing, by adversarial disambiguation? Why do we rely on ternary logic not t/f? Why van we define truth and you can’t?
I happen to be born at the right point in time when the analytic movement failed, physics failed, computation evolved, and artificial intelligence, entered a crisis, magetic imaging gave us the answers, while I designed the first ai for law and basically printed money. Like hayekbut in reverse I set out to fix the law and discovered the problems in economics and physics were misunderstandings of the limits of mathematical reducibility, and the necessity of simulation and baysian accounting.
Now the fact that I built technology companies and made money rather than suffer the poverty and indignity of academic politics is a choice many of my peers made as well.
So I retired in my 40s to work on these questions using the new technology of social media as an infinite pool of free volunteers who were easily used as subjects in experiments in producing demonstrated rather than reported interests.
You see solving the problem if truth wasn’t that hard. Studying lying was. And the study of lying was even more fruitful than intelligence, personality, and more recently haidt’s morality framework.
Anyway, keep trying and maybe you’ll contribute to your field. But you really aren’t suited for discourse at this level.
Reply addressees: @Ket_Math_Dad @EricMorganCoach @Viorp2 @AntonyArakkal1 @Sargon_of_Akkad
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-01 11:55:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697578845619036160
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697544237330710922