RT @Dek01907133: Natural Law
Once a system or an organism exploits all opportunities for energy acquisition within its environment with it…
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-03 13:24:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1687092192924291073
–“Evolutionary Computation = Economics x Time”– Dr. Brad.
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-31 21:57:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1686133949012066305
As Bryan Brey stated already.
The First principle is continuous recursive evolutionary computation of the defeat of entropy(release of pressure) by organization, using accumulation, vibration, and spin, producing persistence in the form of that thing we call mass. All existence evolves from this one single cause.
From this first principle we discover the ternary logic of evolutionary computation and the hierarchy of ternary logics that describe all existential phenomena in the universe.
It really is that simple.
You can memorize about twenty general rules of ternary logic and explain all of existence.
Understanding grammar (speech) which also consists of continuous recursive disambiguation of experience into unambiguous references sufficient for transfer of meaning, is a bit harder, but we can teach the basics rather quickly.
Yes it is that simple.
Any behavior you can refer to is explicable by a hierarchy of causality using the hierarchy of first principles, all of which are mere applications of the single first principle.
Reply addressees: @shl
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-30 14:35:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1685660362513727488
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1685471268236328961
(responding by request)
Matthew is asserting that a common question in evolutionary theory (evolutionary computation) exposes a flaw rather than an unsettled uncertainty.
This uncertainty is usually stated as “a genome contains a history of sucesses in a vast sequence of the results of massively parallel computations, that for some reason narrows the possibility of meaningful error in development, survival and reproduction, while permissively allowing errors in copying sufficient for identification of innovations in adaptation.”
This argument is rather logical given that the increase in complexity is an increase in tolerance, and complexity is the only substative direction of evolution.
It’s more logical given the intra-cellular computation by supply and demand, intercellular supply and demand, inter organ supply and demand, orgaism’s supply and demand with the evironment, mates, and social cooperators.
So the tendency to think of genetics like deterministic mechanical manufacturing instead of a highly fault tolerant system of cooperation at all scales, persisting a record of successes that can be expressed upon need (think “backward copatibility”) is a common mistake.
As for matematics, this process lke all economic (cooperative) processes, is computationally reducible whith sifficient information th do so, but is very unlikely to be mathematically reducible.
This is why we can measure aggregate change in evolutionary velocity, but little else, just as we are limited to general measures in an economy, and even then only loosely explicable not statistically predictable.
The oversimplification is: “Molecules interact, but life cooperates”. This means physics is mathematical and life is computational. This is why life can do so much more complexity.
Just like us.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-28 19:54:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1685015869204701184
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1684974328751034369
My life’s work is based on this principle: evolutionary computation will compute everything it is possible to compute that will defeat entropy within a given condition. Fortunately, sunlight, carbon, and water are available in at least this one known condition. 😉
If you want to grasp human differences, they all evolve from sex differences, and sex differences all evolve from the division of computation produced by the division of reproductive costs and behaviors.
And those sex differences are increasingly expressed by neotenic evolution as increases in the possibility of parallel computation.
Reply addressees: @sama
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-21 18:05:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1682451784546111499
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1682194022398402560
Computation = a sequence of operations to bring about a desired end.
In other words, if we know all the first principles (we do) then we can create a constructive logic (computational, ‘real’) not a descriptive logic (mathematical, ‘ideal’).
So yes, it means knowledge is relatively complete other than the ability to invent new permutations with that knowledge.
So yes, it’s the end MODEL of human thought.
Reply addressees: @Bayonne59552234
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-07 15:37:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1677340949519777792
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1677325674292338689
RE: “This is super interesting theory.”
Explanation
Evolutionary processes can’t predict or envision they can only discover by accident of recombination. Ergo ‘everything evolves from somewhere’ given there are very few basic principles (I’ve documented all of them).
So the theory is obvious in retrospect and interesting in that it demonstrates the power of basic human instincts to produce fascinating social economic political and strategic permutations at large scales. 😉
In other words, this ‘theory’ is the most parsimonious solution to the question of behavior: it’s just polarity discovering states of equilibrium results in evolutionary computation of increasing energy and mass, which results in the ternary logic, then the polarity sex differences resulting in the ternary logic of human evolutionary computation, the resulting three means of coercion, the resulting three institutions of coercion, and the resulting sequence of the evolution of those institutions of coercion producing all civilizational differences. Add the detail that those sex differences are reducible to responsibility seeking in time, and empathizing vs systematizing to assist in that responsibility seeking, then there isn’t a lot that can’t be readily explained by just this one paragraph. 😉
That’s why we say that the method and the law are hard to learn. But once you do, the world is extraordinarily simple, and as such, we gain mindfulness from true. knowledge rather than false belief. 😉
Reply addressees: @patriciamdavis @MahmoudEng4 @RobOU812Rob @TheAutistocrat @_faraharif
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-06 19:59:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1677044681450946568
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1677005165344493569
Q: Curt: Could you elaborate on the “accumulation in physical systems”?”
Sure. And a bit more… 😉
The process of evolutionary computation is the same whether in physics, biology, or sentient life.
1. Accumulation (in physical systems) – ‘Accidental Organization’ The universe can’t choose – so it’s deterministic in the organization of energy (waves, protoparticles, particles, elements, molecules) it’s accidental.
2. Acquisition (in living systems) – ‘Biologically Organized”. Life has “learned” by trial and error in genetics some organization to assist in energy capture
3. Cooperation (in sentient or conscious systems) – “voluntarily organized”. Sentient life has learned using genetics by trial and error in evolution, and in memory in its experience, when cooperation is beneficial and when it is not.
So we use Accumulation, Acquisition, Cooperation for the three stages in the hierarchy of complexity that increases the chance of capture of increases in energy in order to persist whatever organization they rely on for that energy capture: accident, organization, or volition.
We will ‘sometimes’ classify that three-step sequence of accumulation, acquisition, and cooperation using the anthropocentric term “Cooperation” to help people frame the universe as ‘everything cooperating’ even though cooperation requires volition, and neither inanimate matter, nor simple life has any ability to ‘choose’, so it can’t choose to cooperate. 😉
So we see the history of evolutionary computation as increases in the chances of the capture of increasingly niche energy for the persistence of whatever organization (physical, biological, neurological) that persists that organization. 😉
Dimensions:
1. Energy (+)(=)(-) (potential)
Think Noun -> Inventory. Point
2. Accumulation (Storage, Transformation, or Consumption) (+)(to store), (+/-/=) to transform, or (-)(to use, dispose, or consume).
Think Verb -> Operation, Action. Line
3. Organization (matter,charge) (=)
Think Agreement, Phrase -> Transaction. Plane.
4. Scale: Complexity (accumulation(physical), acquisition(biological), cooperation (neurological))
Think Phrase, Sentence, Story -> Ledger, Journal. Object
5. Consequence: (evolutionary survival)
Think Novel or Encyclopedia -> P&L, Balance Sheet. Object Over Time
And the reason for this set of dimensions is to suggest to those who might be able to see the pattern:
That language, and all our paradigms, our methodologies, and all our disciplines are just a set of measurements, that like physics, biology, and cooperation, follow one very simple trivial rule:
“The ternary logic(+,=,-) of evolutionary computation of persistence in the defeat of entropy, by a process of continuous disambiguation of disorder into hierarchies of order.”
That is why the first rule of grammar, is ‘the continuous recursive disambiguation of disorder into order resulting in ‘meaning’ (agreement) – or not. 😉
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Reply addressees: @FlorianRose_
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-26 22:48:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673463374070333440
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673450176734965760
“ORDER MEANS COOPERATION”
Matter requires order. Life requires order. Intelligent life requires order, and creates order by cooperation. Order at all scales is generalizable under that anthropocentric term ‘cooperation’. Matter can’t choose to cooperate. Most life can’t choose to cooperate. Intelligent creatures can choose to cooperate somewhat. Humans can choose quite a bit to cooperate or not. But all order requires cooperation whether voluntary or not. Entropy is a resource but exists in disorder. Negative Entropy is the result of organizing energy through involuntary or voluntary cooperation.
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-17 14:20:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670073943858851841
Q: “So it sounds like P-Law can be synonymous with Evolutionary Computation?”
Bingo. Instead, P-Method to P-Law is the logic of evolutionary computation, because it is built from the ternary logic of evolutionary computation – and no other premises. It’s the logic of first principles and the only first principles.
I’m not sure why it’s hard to understand the difference between how ‘computation from first principles’ defeats ‘mathematics and sets’ because computational reducibility is greater than mathematical reducibility, and computational is casual where mathematical is only descriptive of observations.
We talk mostly in terms of behavior ethics and politics in public, but the foundation of our work in Natural Law is the irreducible first principle of the universe: the ternary logic of evolutionary computation. It’s the completion of the unification of the four sciences.
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-13 20:32:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668718115612491777