Curt Doolittle

Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • Sabine Hossenfelder Fixes Physics 😉 (A woman in science that really, really, ma

    Sabine Hossenfelder Fixes Physics 😉
    (A woman in science that really, really, matters.)

    The first physicist to explain what’s wrong with physics, our understanding of it, and why, and largely what to do about it.
    Please have a watch, It’s worth it. Simple, clear, and direct as she always is.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=B7Pc0LQHu38…

    I my own work I came to the same conclusion but I can’t warranty it as other than a logical analysis of how humans engage in ignorance error bias and deceit – even for the best of reasons. Since I spend so much time cataloging human error I tend to see it whenever its present.
    In physics that error is what we call ‘mathiness’ in economics, idealism in philosophy, and the confusion that Einstein was describing light and perception not physical bodies independent of them in our general interpretation.
    Now if we can just get to the point where space is a medium, and that there is at least one or two layers beyond the quantum background (that medium) and figure out how to conduct experiments with it, then we might get somewhere. 😉

    Thanks to Sabine for her work.
    The value of the german mind at work. 😉

    cc:
    @skdh

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-21 13:29:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2035347953444102197

  • Peter, (all); I disagree with the optimism. (a) our primary constraints at prese

    Peter, (all);
    I disagree with the optimism.
    (a) our primary constraints at present are the capacity to conduct tests that produce the information necessary for innovation.
    (b) our secondary constraints are the limit of human permutability (modeling) because of irreducibility of chemical, biochemical, biological, systems.
    (c) Our third constraint is the resistance of humans who have made investment and malinvestment in disciplines vs the population who has not or cannot.
    d) Our primary disadvantage is that siloing produces all sorts of negative externalities because of the inability to identify patterns across disciplines.
    e) Our primary advantage from AI is presently discovery of interstitial opportunity given the siloing of disciplines in order to ‘fit’ reasoning into a domain accessible to human cognition.
    I know in my case I had to master all the disciplines of high dimensionality and high closure (language, logic, neuroscience, economics, law, comparative civilization,) before I saw the failings of mathematics in particular and programming less so, and formal logic more so as the result of low dimensionality low closure – meaning low reducibility.
    So IQ: Not so much. Its value is limited to available information and the structure of that information. So AI? AI’s current advantage is associative breadth and depth despite it’s incapacity for innovative prediction other than by unregulated hallucination.
    So AI’s will expand the interstitial (inter-discipline) knowledge by discovery and application of patterns.
    But at some near point those discoveries will run out (be exhausted) for the same reason we have exhuasted the innovations of a century ago in physics most visibly, but in all sciences as well.
    Unfortunately, the constructivist and performative revolutions only partly succeeded, and unfortunately ‘philosophy’ went sideways and dead ended by the sixties. And while he’s still skewed more than a little, at least Wolfram has identified reducibility as the problem that cannot be overcome.
    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-03 21:34:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2028947194750136645

  • @SethBannon RE: “Because this administration is so anti-science,” That’s nonsens

    @SethBannon

    RE: “Because this administration is so anti-science,”

    That’s nonsense. The administration is against pseudoscience and against seeking funding as rents against the population without return. And the evidence is overwhelming that waste is rampant.

    You don’t get to

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-15 01:22:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2022843876080496719

  • RE: @Science You want funding? Separate the hard science from the pseudoscience,

    RE:
    @Science

    You want funding? Separate the hard science from the pseudoscience, fix the mathiness problem in physics that’s crippled it for more than fifty years. Fix the replication problem in the behavioral sciences, Fix the sophistry and conformity problem in the humanities (philosophy theses are intellectually embarrassing). End the publication hamster wheel of junk science production, separate teaching staff from research staff, prohibit research with a leftist agenda of perpetuating 20th century pseudoscience, and stop the prohibition on research on human differences such that we can create policy to accommodate those differences instead of preserving conflict because we don’t. Cut the production of PhD’s so that the output meets market demand. Give primacy to american citizens in admission. Balance left and right professors so students see both perspectives. End the nonsense (gut) courses that are simple seditions. Otherwise you’re just part of the corruption problem hiding under pretense of ‘scientific neutrality’. You are not producing the scientific and governing classes we need. You’re producing the same corrupt bureaucracies as we faced with the church. The “Managerial State” has been a failure.

    We wouldn’t need think tanks to augment academic research (like ours) if the academy did it’s job instead of replacing the supernatural clericy with a pseudoscientific one, that because it’s dominated by women seek to amplify consensus and suppress innovation.

    The amount of time I spend debunking pseudoscientific claims that are then magnified by a sensationalist media is absurd.

    You know the cause of all this? We prohibit IQ tests in employment, which causes people to get nonsense degrees, go deeply into debt, corrupt the incentives of our academy, produce seditionists instead of scientists and public servants, and mass produce junk science, and replicate in academic corruption what has been achieved by the left in financing NGO corruption.

    I mean. You excuse yourselves. Every day. But you’re all culpable by tolerating it. Moreover you oddly believe your own nonsense.

    It’s exasperating.

    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-21 20:03:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2014066425091203424

  • Its bad enough that the Indians try to concoct this nonsense. Now east asians ar

    Its bad enough that the Indians try to concoct this nonsense. Now east asians are trying the same?
    There was gene flow both directions. There is no other ‘implication’.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-30 16:43:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006043573771460616

  • AN IMPORTANT THOUGHT Because our modeling of the world evolved from the physical

    AN IMPORTANT THOUGHT
    Because our modeling of the world evolved from the physical to the economic, we tend to think that’s a dependency. And instead, I might extend my argument by saying that for human reasoning, the physical world and how we think of it in cardinal indexing and measure by mathematical reduction is a subset of the economic world and we think of it in natural indexing and measure by satisfaction of supply and demand.
    It helps us humans a bit to grasp that all cardinality and ordinality is effectively a statistical game rather than the purity we presume in mathematical reasoning. And that naturality is effectively the neural equivalent of a statistical game (predictive) by dendritic computation that we can barely observe.
    I put all this ‘error’ in the category of ‘mathiness’ which is one of the principle traps in both physics, and philosophy, and possibly why philosophy stalled until we developed twenty first century cognitive science to escape the failure of the non-sciences.
    I hope this has some value to you.
    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-24 21:49:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2003946084604039502

  • > I stated that energy constraints are social. Yes. That is a way of capturing s

    > I stated that energy constraints are social.
    Yes. That is a way of capturing some of the constraints. But that isn’t a solution. The solution is circumventing those constraints. Every powerplant and data center represents procedural and time hurdles out of their control. Engineering problems are under their control. And that separates the powerplant problem (nuclear energy is necessary) from the data center problem (solar radiation is effectively free).

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-12 02:07:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1999300072518090929

  • Science: Follow us at the natural law institute if you want to evolve from philo

    Science:
    Follow us at the natural law institute if you want to evolve from philosophical libertarianism to scientific revolution on top of classical liberalism. ;).

    Source date (UTC): 2025-11-18 17:41:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1990837725122228728

  • Yes it does unless one’s being pedantic: A statement of precision beyond which t

    Yes it does unless one’s being pedantic: A statement of precision beyond which the analogy is meant to inform.
    Yes, the only rules governing the operation of the universe produce the equivalent of computation by trial and error within those rules. Computation need not be declarative and with intent, it can, conduct experimentation by trial and error.
    Why? Because like computation, there are only so many operations available at every scale of complexity.
    As such we do see as (+) Accumulation (supply), (-) Accumulation (demand), (=) Stabilization(Persistence), and (!=) Dissipation to Collapse.
    Giving us states and operations (those combinations that persist). Which results in computation.
    If you mean is there a program? Of course. Was it composed? No. Did it evolve? Yes, but by the same rule: survival.
    The laws of the universe are those that could survive. We just haven’t quite understood what’s happening down there in the quantum background prior to the formation of proto particles and particles.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-11-09 07:09:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1987417159727984657

  • @elonmusk QUESTION If we can power the entire country from a single field that t

    @elonmusk

    QUESTION
    If we can power the entire country from a single field that tells us a great deal. The problem of course is strategic vulnerability. As such how can we do approximately the same without producing that vulnerability?

    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-21 01:43:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1980449745756909916