Konstantin:
A bit of wisdom on ‘merit’.
A common problem with most languages that is easily overcome in English is the use of complete sentences. In this case merit remains ambiguous – a normative term.
Merit has a single, universal, cause:
“Demonstrated capacity for bearing the…
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-29 22:46:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674549940779876355
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674488134237560849
Because their measures are lagging indicators.
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-29 20:03:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674508974085795847
Reply addressees: @tysonmaly
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674508542328336404
BTW: I use the same authors and frame the problems of epistemology that you do, so I understand where you’re coming from.
My work is in epistemology, testimonial truth, decidability, economics, and law. I spent time on AI in the 80s before the AI winter arrived, and we realized it was a hardware problem we couldn’t solve. Even today the hardware requirements are still astounding because we ignored Turning, and we have computers architected inversely for neurological computation in real-time. Hopefully, we’ll see neuromorphic computers so that AGI compute is no longer centralized. 😉
Good to see your thoughts and work.
Curt
Reply addressees: @dela3499
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-29 03:05:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674252655307243520
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674251142488891394
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
Carlos,
As someone much older that has been involved for decades, your outline looks about correct.
Only reaction I had going through it, is that you’re using abstract names for physical processes and regions in the brain, and you might consider “physical thing as abstract name” section heads – this would anchor (legitimize) your framing.
Something akin to:
Sensation (nerves) as …..
Disambiguation (neural columns) as …..
Adversarial Organization (rear and side neocortex) as …..
Episodic Modeling (hippocampal(indexing)) as …..
Autoassociative Prediction (hippocampal vs neocortex)as …..
Adversarial Valuation (neocortex, thalamus, brain stem) as …..
Attention capture (Thalamus) as …..
Executive function (prefrontal cortex) as …..
Recursion (working memory, recursion (wayfinding)) as …..
Just a suggestion so that you aren’t written off as philosophizing independent of physical causality instead of trying to communicate effectively to the reader.
Curt
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1674251142488891394
thinking… unfortunately identifying the problem in the first place, or rather, framing it, may be the most difficult challenge….
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-27 19:28:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673775207834591233
Reply addressees: @Chris_Hafer101
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673772074727542784
Now, why you’re confused (as is common) about the meaning of ‘law’ as in laws of the universe.
This is a long standing problem in western thought even though western thought is far superior to the thought in every other civilization – we still have a few issues.
So let’s understand what’s possible to describe by what system of description (measurement).
|Sequence|: Sets(Identification, Logic) > Math(Descriptions), Computation(Operations) > Simulation (Adversarial Competition)
1. Set Reducibility (Language, Logic)
2. Mathematical Reducibility (Physics)
3. Computational Reducibility (Behavior)
4. Simulational Reducibility (Evolution)
How does prediction change in that sequence?
Why do we need each increase in precision?
What dimensions are we adding with each increase in precision?
See? 😉
Reply addressees: @justinmchase
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-27 16:53:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673736283775025169
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673734153542549512
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
Yes, because when we refer to “The Method”, we’re referring to producing sequences of terms as measurements by the process of ‘disambiguation by enumeration, operationalization, aversarial competition, and serialization’, thereby creating a discreet definition of a term.
Science consists of the means of producing testifiable testimony by production of falsifiable operations. Scientific statesments contain two properties: the formula (description) and search criteria (context).
There are four sciences: the physical (before state), behavioral (during state), evolutionary (after state), and the formal science (the logics) we describe those states with.
All four sciences are constructable from the one first principle (first law) of the ternary logic of evolutionary computation by the defeat of entropy by the concentration of energy consisting of positive, negative charges in stable persistent organizations.
All language consitsts of measurements of levels of ambiguous to unambiguous precision, using the same rule of evolutionary computation by continous recursive disambiguation of ambiguity into meaning: agreement (or not): “stable relations”
Ergo language is just an extension of the same rules that all the rest of the universe operates by – because thats how our neurons operate, because that’s how molecules operate – etc.
The “grammars”, from unambiuous (math) to ambiguous(deception) consists of paradigms (permissible dimensions), vocabulary, and syntax for communication by some measurment wiether precise, imprecise, or associative, or misleading.
Natural Law = The science, and logic of cooperation (non conflict) by the production of a universally commensurable value neutral paradigm, vocabulary, and logic of decidability.
We use the term natural law because it completes the aristotelian project of the same name. And is the foundation behind the common, concurrent law of europeans and british and american constitutions in particular.
We have merely ‘scienced’ that law, and plugged holes in that constitution by doing so.
This completes the wilsonian synthesis of the unification of the sciences.
So our work is quite important – on the scale of the Darwinian Revlution.
And social media was one of the most useful research tools because we can ‘experiement’ with language and behavior cheaply and quickly by the collection of demonstrated (good) rather than reported (bad) behavior.
Cheers
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1673734153542549512
Yes, because when we refer to “The Method”, we’re referring to producing sequences of terms as measurements by the process of ‘disambiguation by enumeration, operationalization, aversarial competition, and serialization’, thereby creating a discreet definition of a term.
Science consists of the means of producing testifiable testimony by production of falsifiable operations. Scientific statesments contain two properties: the formula (description) and search criteria (context).
There are four sciences: the physical (before state), behavioral (during state), evolutionary (after state), and the formal science (the logics) we describe those states with.
All four sciences are constructable from the one first principle (first law) of the ternary logic of evolutionary computation by the defeat of entropy by the concentration of energy consisting of positive, negative charges in stable persistent organizations.
All language consitsts of measurements of levels of ambiguous to unambiguous precision, using the same rule of evolutionary computation by continous recursive disambiguation of ambiguity into meaning: agreement (or not): “stable relations”
Ergo language is just an extension of the same rules that all the rest of the universe operates by – because thats how our neurons operate, because that’s how molecules operate – etc.
The “grammars”, from unambiuous (math) to ambiguous(deception) consists of paradigms (permissible dimensions), vocabulary, and syntax for communication by some measurment wiether precise, imprecise, or associative, or misleading.
Natural Law = The science, and logic of cooperation (non conflict) by the production of a universally commensurable value neutral paradigm, vocabulary, and logic of decidability.
We use the term natural law because it completes the aristotelian project of the same name. And is the foundation behind the common, concurrent law of europeans and british and american constitutions in particular.
We have merely ‘scienced’ that law, and plugged holes in that constitution by doing so.
This completes the wilsonian synthesis of the unification of the sciences.
So our work is quite important – on the scale of the Darwinian Revlution.
And social media was one of the most useful research tools because we can ‘experiement’ with language and behavior cheaply and quickly by the collection of demonstrated (good) rather than reported (bad) behavior.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @justinmchase
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-27 16:44:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673734153328631808
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673720451317612544
It’s understandable. All technical disciplines require terms with domain specific meaning. But in sending you to the source material, you would easily get lost because it’s overwhelming. So instead, pick a term or statement you don’t understand, and I’ll clarify for you and…
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-27 13:06:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673679132322832385
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673673418028335104
🙂 Sure but what’s the difference between science, natural law, philosophy, and morality?
There shouldn’t be any – because otherwise it’s false? :0
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-27 00:17:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673485750266994688
Reply addressees: @SmoothBrain109
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673481946733617154
WHY UNDERSTANDING THE SEQUENCE OF SETS, MATH, AND OPERATIONS MATTERS TO YOU.
–“I started reading “Math and Computation” which isn’t on the NLI list, but often recommended by Curt. I have no CS background, so a lot is over my head. But I’m picking up about 80% of it. It’s pretty fun, even as an amateur. I guess the relevance to NLI is that there exist problems that are very difficult to solve even with a computer. But markets are like computers that can solve very complex problems.”– Daniel
Correct. Discretely computable atomic operations produce greater explanatory opportunity than continuous mathematical reductions So it’s more that unlike mathematics (continuous) and like computation (discreetness) markets identify reciprocal voluntary exchanges making use of the pricing system (time value of scarcity), by the discovery of mutual gains of time and as such continue the laws of nature (evolutionary computation of persistence, opportunity, innovation, adaptation) demonstrating the continuity between all physical, behavioral, evolutionary, and logical processes.
–“I finally finished Math and Computation. The last chapter (Epilogue) is where he ties it all together in plain English. I recommend the whole thing, but especially the last chapter.”–
–“”One of the broadest ways to informally define computation — indeed, the view that underpins the celebrated Church-Turing thesis (which is discussed more later), is as follows:
Computation is the evolution process of some environment, by a sequence of “simple, local” steps.”–
–“Here is a partial list of environments with such interacting parts, which in all cases can shed their physical characteristics and be viewed as transformations of pure information:
• Bits in a computer.
• Computers in a network.
• Atoms in matter.
• Neurons in the brain.
• Proteins in a cell.
• Cells in a tissue.
• Bacteria in a Petri dish.
• Deductions in proof systems.
• Prices in a market.
• Individuals in a population.
• Stars in galaxies.
• Friends on Facebook.
• Qubits in entangled states.”—
–“I got the spiritual epiphany by the end with the realization that all this computing stuff is just God and God’s laws and God’s own curiosity to understand Gods laws. God’s nature is algorithmic. So, spiritually it was ultimately a rewarding experience.”–
Clearly, Daniel Understands. 😉
Now, how do I say the same thing without ‘God’ for those of us who simply see ‘The Laws of the Universe”?
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-23 18:03:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672304388738523143
WHY UNDERSTANDING THE SEQUENCE OF SETS, MATH, AND OPERATIONS MATTERS TO YOU.
–“I started reading “Math and Computation” which isn’t on the NLI list, but often recommended by Curt. I have no CS background, so a lot is over my head. But I’m picking up about 80% of it. It’s pretty fun, even as an amateur. I guess the relevance to NLI is that there exist problems that are very difficult to solve even with a computer. But markets are like computers that can solve very complex problems.”–
Correct. Discretely computable atomic operations produce greater explanatory opportunity than continuous mathematical reductions So it’s more that unlike mathematics (continuous) and like computation (discreetness) markets identify reciprocal voluntary exchanges making use of the pricing system (time value of scarcity), by the discovery of mutual gains of time and as such continue the laws of nature (evolutionary computation of persistence, opportunity, innovation, adaptation) demonstrating the continuity between all physical, behavioral, evolutionary, and logical processes.
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-23 18:03:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672302727957717003