Well that’s not really true. There is a short period when the physical sciences were producing absurdly revolutionary returns. Then came Darwin/Menger/Spencer/Nietzsche. Then came the Marxist-neo-marxist-postmodern-woke counter-revolution against them. And it’s just peaking now.
Source date (UTC): 2021-03-07 01:17:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1368370158293647369
Reply addressees: @Ayaan
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1368213033324003338
Science: Use of logical, sensory, physical, and applied instrumentation to identify, observe (measure), and describe increasingly parsimonious causal relations (consistency under realism, naturalism) by eliminating ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.
Social Construction: lying.
Source date (UTC): 2021-03-06 23:01:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1368335931854438402
Reply addressees: @RichardDawkins
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1368259842222268421
DO COMPLEX NUMBERS EXIST?
(foundations of #mathematics )
I should publish a paper on this subject as yet another of the many problems of mathematical idealism(analogy) vs mathematical operationalism (reality). Because “i”, just as |absolute value|, solves a problem of ambiguity in mathematics: the language and logic of positional names.
Sabine correctly identifies the convenient use of “i” in simplifying oscillations (geometry). But why can’t we identify the square root of negative one as negative one? Because of the Conflation of Direction(geometry) and Position(arithmetic). The use of “i” is necessary because as a general rule we’re conflating arithmetic (position) with geometry (direction).
Is this solvable? Of course. Is “i” simply denoting the use of geometric (directional) math versus arithmetic (positional) math? Yes. Is it any more complex than that? Absolutely not. Math is a trivially simple language (paradigm, logic, vocabulary, grammar, syntax) under mathematical operationalism. It’s all the nonsense we piled on it, that makes it difficult to learn.
Unfortunately, while the operational revolution was identified in math, in physics, in economics (and less so in law) it only stuck in some parts of physics and not in mathematical physics, or in mathematics. This is why (in my opinion) computational revolutions are occurring in computer science where the limits of mathematics are openly exposed (the domain of the operationally calculable is greater than the domain of mathematically reducible.)
We can’t reform mathematics because the operational revolution failed in math – we got a set foundation (idealism) of math instead. And IMO the problem Sabine is continuously exposing both in her book and in her videos, is this underlying failure: that mathematics fails in economics and below the quantum level for the same reason: the underlying mechanics are operational and either we lack the information to describe that geometry or the underlying geometry isn’t mathematically reducible beyond the quantum level. We all assume it’s the former but it just as likely is the latter.
(numeral=glypth for cardinal position in and order. number= position, as a ratio, produced by a function. iow: all numerals are x/1 )
Source date (UTC): 2021-03-06 17:04:48 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105843935685349261
In response to: I should publish a paper on this subject as yet another of the many problems of mathematical idealism(analogy) vs mathematical operationalism (reality). Because “i”, just as |absolute value|, solves a problem of ambiguity in mathematics: the language and logic of positional names. Sabine correctly identifies the convenient use of “i” in simplifying oscillations (geometry). But why can’t we identify the square root of negative one as negative one? Because of the Conflation of Direction(geometry) and Position(arithmetic). The use of “i” is necessary because as a general rule we’re conflating arithmetic (position) with geometry (direction). Is this solvable? Of course. Is “i” simply denoting the use of geometric (directional) math versus arithmetic (positional) math? Yes. Is it any more complex than that? Absolutely not. Math is a trivially simple language (paradigm, logic, vocabulary, grammar, syntax) under mathematical operationalism. It’s all the nonsense we piled on it, that makes it difficult to learn. Unfortunately, while the operational revolution was identified in math, in physics, in economics (and less so in law) it only stuck in some parts of physics and not in mathematical physics, or in mathematics. This is why (in my opinion) computational revolutions are occurring in computer science where the limits of mathematics are openly exposed (the domain of the operationally calculable is greater than the domain of mathematically reducible.) We can’t reform mathematics because the operational revolution failed in math – we got a set foundation (idealism) of math instead. And IMO the problem Sabine is continuously exposing both in her book and in her videos, is this underlying failure: that mathematics fails in economics and below the quantum level for the same reason: the underlying mechanics are operational and either we lack the information to describe that geometry or the underlying geometry isn’t mathematically reducible beyond the quantum level. We all assume it’s the former but it just as likely is the latter.
In response to: I should publish a paper on this subject as yet another of the many problems of mathematical idealism(analogy) vs mathematical operationalism (reality). Because “i”, just as |absolute value|, solves a problem of ambiguity in mathematics: the language and logic of positional names. Sabine correctly identifies the convenient use of “i” in simplifying oscillations (geometry). But why can’t we identify the square root of negative one as negative one? Because of the Conflation of Direction(geometry) and Position(arithmetic). The use of “i” is necessary because as a general rule we’re conflating arithmetic (position) with geometry (direction). Is this solvable? Of course. Is “i” simply denoting the use of geometric (directional) math versus arithmetic (positional) math? Yes. Is it any more complex than that? Absolutely not. Math is a trivially simple language (paradigm, logic, vocabulary, grammar, syntax) under mathematical operationalism. It’s all the nonsense we piled on it, that makes it difficult to learn. Unfortunately, while the operational revolution was identified in math, in physics, in economics (and less so in law) it only stuck in some parts of physics and not in mathematical physics, or in mathematics. This is why (in my opinion) computational revolutions are occurring in computer science where the limits of mathematics are openly exposed (the domain of the operationally calculable is greater than the domain of mathematically reducible.) We can’t reform mathematics because the operational revolution failed in math – we got a set foundation (idealism) of math instead. And IMO the problem Sabine is continuously exposing both in her book and in her videos, is this underlying failure: that mathematics fails in economics and below the quantum level for the same reason: the underlying mechanics are operational and either we lack the information to describe that geometry or the underlying geometry isn’t mathematically reducible beyond the quantum level. We all assume it’s the former but it just as likely is the latter.
RT @curtdoolittle: @NonFakeNews3 @SammySc44817825 Of course. That is the ‘final’ decidability. Ergo: The universe is calculating gods, and…
Source date (UTC): 2021-03-04 14:46:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367486563924520960
@Jerry1776 There was no creation. There was only evolution. There is no possibilty of a will outside of the organization of the universe. And as far as we can tell the universe is either eternal, eternally cycilcal, or the concept of sequence in time is irrelevant since there is no time without the universe itself.
Do you deny all the accumulated evidence of our observations, in order to defend your malinvestment in a jewish lie?
Source date (UTC): 2021-03-03 00:38:23 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105823070015064891
@Graphic@GeneralJackDRipper If you knew what you were talking about you’d know where do know where the first photon came from. 😉 We do not know yet (although we will rather soon) which of the universe cycles that started this iteration. (And that’s before we talk about whether time has a beginning or has no meaning outside of space time – so far it doesn’t.)
And that’s before we get to the fact that (a) there is no where or nothing to contain a deity (b) nowhere in the spectrum of energy for a deity to act.
And that’s before we get to the fact that we can’t find any evidence of a single miracle.
And that’s before we get to the fact that jesus was one of hundreds of so called prophets at the time.
And that’s before we get to the fact that the jewish method of lying is that of mothers providing comforting lies to children.
Of that the jewish method of creating the abrahamic religions depends on the vulnerability of humans to mothers comforting lies.
And that’s before we get to the fact that religious devotion appears to be a genetic weakness. And that the devotional behavior is identical to the addiction response.
But it doesn’t matter. Every single christian claim about the structure of the universe has been false. You just keep reaching in order to defend your self delusions by social cosntruction.
The clock is ticking. You’re being defeated world wide. Christianity is now a third world religion of people below the minimum IQ curve for mechanical operation and repair.
You are a sad pathetic group of losers being crushed by superior religions, philosophies, ideologies, and the painful truth of science.
There is only one lesson to learn: We know most of the fundamental laws of the universe and within a visible time horizon will know the rest. ANd those formal, physical, cooperative, and evolutionary laws are consistent and coherent, and complete. And they are all but hostile to life.
Jesus’ message was a counter-revolution against continuous defeat by superior peoples. Aryanism was the greatest revolution in history at that time. But instead of using the peasants for slave labor, it threatend to leave them behind in a cruel world of reason, evidence, and science. And as such jesus correctly identified the correct solution: Love in the present was the only method of tolerating evolution over time.
But the jews – liars all – created a cult of hatred of aryanism and aryans (whether european or iranic) out of what was a lesson in love instead.
Source date (UTC): 2021-03-02 20:23:37 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105822068231219214
@Graphic I can’t help you. We know the organization of the universe, and we know it’s approximate beginning and approximate end. Although until we know the underlying geometry we won’t know if anything can be done about it or ourselves.
We know why some people developed religion, some wisdom literature, and some people philosophy and some people science. We know why some people are prone to drug and alcohol abuse, we know why some people are prone to religiosity, and we know why some people are prone to be free of all of the above.
You need your addiction. That’s ok. But I don’t need it. A decreasing number of people need it. And its likely it will be replaced by something less absurd, but providing the same services.
So please don’t pretend you are even vaguely capable of such discussions. You aren’t. And you are wasting my time trying to protect the social acceptability of your addiction.
So stop wasting my time.
Source date (UTC): 2021-03-01 04:00:40 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105812540794617393
JUST SAY NO TO THE LIE
There is no freedom from formal, physical, natural, and evolutionary law. “Whiteness” is just science: the application of those laws. If you are unfit for them, you are unfit for the universe. There is no equality without degeneracy.
“So I refuse to take part in the lie.”
We cannot alter one’s intelligence, conscientiousness, depth of sexual maturity, and resulting degree of aggression. We can only train the individual to compensate as much as possible for his or her genetics and development.
Humans are domesticated superpredators.
Source date (UTC): 2021-02-28 16:09:47 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105809745520465035