Curt Doolittle

Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • On Richard Dawkins vs Brett Weinstein

    FORMAL PROBLEM 1) A mathematical model is a general rule, necessarily statistical, and is not an operational (causally complete) model – we fail to understand the limits of mathematics as we increase precision. (mathematical descriptions are invariably generalizations, and at the point of marginal difference, algorithmic simulations must replace mathematical calculations) 2) Mathematical models rely on generalizations that discount causal influences that are marginally indifferent UNTIL they are no longer marginally indifferent. (models require more information at scale) 3) There must exist three dimensions (competitive axis) in order to form a competitive evolutionary equilibrium. (choice must exist) DISCUSSIONS 1) Peacock Tail. Why Is That? Because nature can’t calculate a maximum expression of fitness without a competing axis of fitness. Conditions must change. 2) Genes are modified by other genes, so that fitness in youth and death in age is likely to survive, so the rest is. This is offset by intergenerational caretaking and knowledge transfer, making grandparents the end value. 3) Weinstein’s “It’s not for me” and “selfish replicators” is, in fact, a genetic expression specifically because we see the masculine european evolutionary Dawkins and the feminine Semitic devolutionary in Weinstein – reflecting our group evolutionary strategies, and the european and Jewish specialization in male vs female reproductive strategies. This is why Europeans (masculine eugenic quality) and european jews (feminine dysgenic quantity) serve as the intellectual leadership in the world, at least under democracy where these differences are enabled, vs the rest of the world, particularly China, maintains the masculine competitive evolutionary demonstrating at the civilizational level why there are no feminine civilizations and why Abrahamic (Semitic) civilizations devolved. 4) Dawkins’ “this is not Darwinism, its not helpful to couch this in Darwinian terms”. Weinstein is using pilpul and critique (the Abrahamic method of deceit) to seek opportunity for weakness despite its devolutionary consequences. He’s not talking about evolution. He’s talking politics. And he’s advocating for a political wing (leftism) not for evolution. In fact he’s arguing for devolution. In other words, Dawkins is disambiguating in search for truth and Weinstein is conflating to create ambiguity, in order to advance a political bias (that’s actually bad). 5) Genocide: Genocide is the most effective and determinant evolutionary behavior in history. That’s an unpleasant truth. (Hybridization is also genocide.) it won’t go away. it will simply be necessary or not, or useful or not. 6) FWIW: european history is a battle between the Mediterranean > Christian > supernatural > feminine > Latin > french south and the continental > empirical > masculine > germanic north, and the french catholic Latin persistence of the feminine Semitic authoritarian strategy attempt to destroy the germanic rational-legal holy roman empire wherein the Prussians restored the european tradition. The jews and the french and the germanic and protestants continue an ancestral conflict and it’s rather obvious in retrospect that the enemy of human civilization is the feminine. 7) Eusocial upward redistribution (he’s referring to priesthood vs Jewish rabbinical method). These are differences in group use of capital. This is why I argue that economics is a better language than biology as soon as we hit the agrarian age. Catholics produce corruption. 8) Weinstein is trying to justify Judaism and Dawkins is trying to state science. Which is, in fact, the difference between european masculine aristocratic and Jewish feminine communist group strategies. (which is fascinating). 😉    

  • A natural consequence of the building next to the RV reflecting the blast, so th

    A natural consequence of the building next to the RV reflecting the blast, so that the last of the gas expansion is on the opposite side of the street. So same accidental effect as intentionally using sandbags or shaped charges.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-12-27 02:07:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1343015582850019330

    Reply addressees: @YosoyYdo @DavidBegnaud @jeffpeguescbs

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1342944804661956611

  • There is no evidence anywhere of anything defeating Darwinian evolution. There a

    There is no evidence anywhere of anything defeating Darwinian evolution. There are very stupid ignorant arrogant people making claims that because of their ignorance they claim impossible.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-12-25 23:47:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1342617942798823426

    Reply addressees: @globoHGplex

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1342614915438301184

  • (a) So you’re claiming intentional design? On what basis do you claim (b) that t

    (a) So you’re claiming intentional design? On what basis do you claim (b) that they couldn’t have evolved (c) that evolution works in a stepwise fashion?

    It’s extremely unlikely you are competent to make that assertion as other than an act of faith as a demonstration of loyalty.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-12-25 23:20:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1342611256029687810

    Reply addressees: @globoHGplex

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1342610309450768387

  • I mean everything he’s said is tediously covered in the literature as obvious. I

    I mean everything he’s said is tediously covered in the literature as obvious. It’s common sense knowledge. I suppose its possible people are confused by the term natural selection. It means ‘anything’ that’s a competitive advantage.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-12-25 22:37:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1342600289048817670

    Reply addressees: @bot3685

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1342594645805604864

  • (He didn’t say anything complicated. A manifold is a mathematical construct usin

    (He didn’t say anything complicated. A manifold is a mathematical construct using an arbitrary number of dimensions, where dimension means axis of measurement or cause or both. “Of course it’ll be described with a 4D manifold.” It’s the equivalent of saying the sky is blue.)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-12-23 21:31:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1341858885733392390

    Reply addressees: @EricRWeinstein

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1341857049869729798

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @EricRWeinstein Eric: Restate that operationally (scientifically) instead of mathematically (platonically).

    All: it seems impossible with the information we can obtain to deduce the fundamental geometry. This is why wolfram’s constructivist method has more promise (as we just saw in proteins).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1341857049869729798

  • 0) Mixing teaching and research $ and talent creates the problem 1) the majority

    0) Mixing teaching and research $ and talent creates the problem
    1) the majority of work is sh-t by students, grads, post.
    2) the grant industry favors sh-t work by lesser talent.
    3) the quality work (the 1%) doesn’t have a problem
    4) the press creates the majority of problems.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-12-22 21:54:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1341502397294800899

    Reply addressees: @catao_velhaco

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1341498062942957568

  • Reforming the Sciences requires increasing levels of resistance as we move from

    Reforming the Sciences requires increasing levels of resistance as we move from physical, to cognitive-psychological, to socio-economic-political.

    Maxwells and Einsteins get lauded. Hayek’s get criticized. Darwins and Doolittles get Pitchforks. https://t.co/NfRLSogbs2

    Source date (UTC): 2020-12-22 21:33:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1341497144776282117

  • Stephen Wolfram’s Revolution – and Questions To Help Explain It

    Regarding

    @Stephen_Wolfram: This is the most complete and coherent explanation you’ve given so far. I would like to help explain it a little more clearly, by taking this talk, pulling out the key concepts, and stating them in operational language. Doing so would unite your work on computational physics, Joscha Bach’s work on computational intelligence, and my work on computational behavioral science( and testimonial truth in law regarding all of the above), which together would provide explanatory power for the entire suite of formal, physical, behavioral, and evolutionary sciences with a single consistent and coherent model.

    TOPICS
    Goal: Less concerned with application to physics but with the general implications of and application of “Wolfram’s Computational Revolution.”
    PROVIDE CONTEXT
    • Language as measurement, and measurement of commensurability, and commensurability at human scale Reason vs Calculation (transformation) vs Mathematics (top-down deduction) vs Computation (bottom up construction)
    • What is the difference between a mental model, a mathematical description, and an operational(calculated) construction?
    • The limits mathematics (upper and lower) vs computation (address human scale, limits of human mathematical ability)
    • What was and why did the Combinatoric Revolution Dissipate?
    • What was his original idea and what did we learn from Mandelbrot?
    SET UP WCR’S BROADER CONTEXTUAL SUCCESS
    • Interject: What if anything is wrong with mathematics?
    • Interject: What’s wrong with Statistics? (completeness)
    • Interject: Physics: the success of GR and QM, but the Problem of Cantor and Bohr. (Reversing Descartes)
    • Interject: The Failure of the Philosophical Project (analytic)
    • Interject: Why did Economics Fail? (balance sheet)
    CORE OF WOLFRAM’S INSIGHTS
    • Explain Dimension (measurement, or cause, vs existence) Does space have three plus one dimensions or do we measure space with three plus one dimension?
    • Explain Decidability and Undecidability (mathematics, limits, arbitrary precision, scale independence (choice) vs computational invariance and decidability) Explain Universal Computation (arbitrary rules of computation, computation as operations, math expressed in operations (computation) vs language (sets))
    • Explain Computational(operational) Unpredictability
    • Explain Computational Reduction, Reducibility
    • Explain Computational(operational) Irreducibility
    • Explain The Principle of Computational Equivalence (generalization, universalization, resulting in indifference, limits)
    • Explain Causal Invariance ( lots of unexpected explanatory power in this conclusion )
    • Explain how we can identify a successful branch or branches
    • Explain whether some branches are ‘false’ and if so, how we can experimentally or logically Prune Branches from Graphs.
    • What is the ‘field’ of mathematical expressions vs ‘field’ of computational expression? What is the generalization we learn from this?
    • Explain how we would state a theory in computational rules? (the rule set AND the subset of the result sets)
    • Do you have a wild guess about (a) how far you are from finding the elementary rule? (b) how long it will take for the physics and mathematics (and then subsequent fields) to adopt and adapt to this new model?
    • How does this affect the allocation of funds for scientific research in physics? (justifies funding experiments to verify, falsify)
    CONSEQUENCE
    • Would you consider it possible that you’re providing a universal mental model?  (mental model > mathematical description > computational consturction)
    • Explain emergent phenomenon (everything that can be calculated will be) What does this mean for the universe? What does this say about Goedel? Language? (talk about grammar and what grammar and logic mean)
    • What does this say about evolutionary possibility? (maybe: costs vs costless, math(instant) vs operations(time), philosophy and cost, economics and failure of full accounting)
    • What’s the General Meaning for all of Science (predictability) vs Calculability (explanatory power) isn’t that adversarialism? Adversarialism vs Falsificationism. (Tie back to failed operationalist revolution: Babbage revolution > operational (intuitionistic) revolution > combinatoric revolution failures. Why? (cost) )
    • Have you discovered or considered a frame of the adversarial competition in the universe that leads to equilibrial states.
    EXTRAS IF POSSIBLE:
    • What would bayesian accounting add, as we’ve seen in proteins – which is the hard problem. Why did biologists use permutation but physicists not? (human scale problem again). what does this say about the current research in physics?
    • Would you expect vocabulary (references), grammar (of continuous recursive disambiguation), and logic of equilibrial states (abstractions) – particles, atoms, molecules, organic molecules etc – to emerge? (of course) Is there any limit to this vocabulary?
    • Is there any implication that how far you are from discovering a set of equilibrial states below our existing particles? (admitting that particles are waves)
    • Why did you choose vectors as rules rather than geometries? How did geometries emerge? Why did Triangles emerge? (equilibria) (Why triangles in human spatial computation.)
    • Is your claim that there are an endless number of languages of computational expression? (why not parsimony of positional names. Body form and sense as standard of measure)
    • How much of the challenge of teaching mathematics is a failure of reducing it to computational realism and a ‘periodic table’ of dimensions vs techniques?
    • R is challenging. Wolfram language is enormous. what is the relationship between today’s AI (bayesian categorization), algorithmic choice, wolfram Language, and databases? Are we passing human scale in mathematics (logics)? Is that the whole problem of the 19th 20th? (I think so).
    NOTES
    • Note 1: IMO Babbage’s failure to convert from physical experimentation to theoretical expression and subsequent exposition of applications of the theory cost mankind at least a century, delayed the Einsteinian and quantum revolutions, and gave permission to ‘mathiness’ (pseudomathematics and pseudoscience) in philosophy, law, economics, social science, psychology, and very nearly brought about a dark age in present academia because of it. In other words, while you see your work solving the problem of the foundations of physics, it’s more that our generation is compensating for one of the great intellectual failures in history with one of the most dangerous consequences in history – at least as dangerous as the Christian destruction of Greek and Roman arts, knowledge, law, and administration. My experience is that we are compensating for and correcting a vast wave of pseudoscience outside of applied science in branches of technology, in a desperate race to reverse the momentum of the ‘pseudoscientific’ revolution. So my analysis is that your work is more important outside the field than is obvious.
    • Note 2: Following Hayek and Popper, and less so Brouwer and Bridgman, I saw the problem in economics and law that you saw in mathematics and physics, and that the solution was computational (better labeled perhaps, as operational). The difference is, that while you can reform mathematical platonism into mathematical and computational realism (thank you), and reform physics with it into operational realism (thank you), with mathematicians resisting your reform, physicists largely appreciative, and the general public will lionize you. And while the Joscha Bach’s of the world can reform cognitive science into operational realism, with philosophers and theologians in opposition. My attempt to reform psychology and sociology, economics and politics, ethics and law will be (has been) met with pitchforks and scythes. Truth is only as valuable as it empowers us with new discounts and opportunities. All attempts in history to suppress desirable and profitable deceits is met with vehement resistance. Socrates Aristotle, Galileo and Darwin and all those between them. 😉 -Cheers

  • Stephen Wolfram’s Revolution – and Questions To Help Explain It

    Regarding

    @Stephen_Wolfram: This is the most complete and coherent explanation you’ve given so far. I would like to help explain it a little more clearly, by taking this talk, pulling out the key concepts, and stating them in operational language. Doing so would unite your work on computational physics, Joscha Bach’s work on computational intelligence, and my work on computational behavioral science( and testimonial truth in law regarding all of the above), which together would provide explanatory power for the entire suite of formal, physical, behavioral, and evolutionary sciences with a single consistent and coherent model.

    TOPICS
    Goal: Less concerned with application to physics but with the general implications of and application of “Wolfram’s Computational Revolution.”
    PROVIDE CONTEXT
    • Language as measurement, and measurement of commensurability, and commensurability at human scale Reason vs Calculation (transformation) vs Mathematics (top-down deduction) vs Computation (bottom up construction)
    • What is the difference between a mental model, a mathematical description, and an operational(calculated) construction?
    • The limits mathematics (upper and lower) vs computation (address human scale, limits of human mathematical ability)
    • What was and why did the Combinatoric Revolution Dissipate?
    • What was his original idea and what did we learn from Mandelbrot?
    SET UP WCR’S BROADER CONTEXTUAL SUCCESS
    • Interject: What if anything is wrong with mathematics?
    • Interject: What’s wrong with Statistics? (completeness)
    • Interject: Physics: the success of GR and QM, but the Problem of Cantor and Bohr. (Reversing Descartes)
    • Interject: The Failure of the Philosophical Project (analytic)
    • Interject: Why did Economics Fail? (balance sheet)
    CORE OF WOLFRAM’S INSIGHTS
    • Explain Dimension (measurement, or cause, vs existence) Does space have three plus one dimensions or do we measure space with three plus one dimension?
    • Explain Decidability and Undecidability (mathematics, limits, arbitrary precision, scale independence (choice) vs computational invariance and decidability) Explain Universal Computation (arbitrary rules of computation, computation as operations, math expressed in operations (computation) vs language (sets))
    • Explain Computational(operational) Unpredictability
    • Explain Computational Reduction, Reducibility
    • Explain Computational(operational) Irreducibility
    • Explain The Principle of Computational Equivalence (generalization, universalization, resulting in indifference, limits)
    • Explain Causal Invariance ( lots of unexpected explanatory power in this conclusion )
    • Explain how we can identify a successful branch or branches
    • Explain whether some branches are ‘false’ and if so, how we can experimentally or logically Prune Branches from Graphs.
    • What is the ‘field’ of mathematical expressions vs ‘field’ of computational expression? What is the generalization we learn from this?
    • Explain how we would state a theory in computational rules? (the rule set AND the subset of the result sets)
    • Do you have a wild guess about (a) how far you are from finding the elementary rule? (b) how long it will take for the physics and mathematics (and then subsequent fields) to adopt and adapt to this new model?
    • How does this affect the allocation of funds for scientific research in physics? (justifies funding experiments to verify, falsify)
    CONSEQUENCE
    • Would you consider it possible that you’re providing a universal mental model?  (mental model > mathematical description > computational consturction)
    • Explain emergent phenomenon (everything that can be calculated will be) What does this mean for the universe? What does this say about Goedel? Language? (talk about grammar and what grammar and logic mean)
    • What does this say about evolutionary possibility? (maybe: costs vs costless, math(instant) vs operations(time), philosophy and cost, economics and failure of full accounting)
    • What’s the General Meaning for all of Science (predictability) vs Calculability (explanatory power) isn’t that adversarialism? Adversarialism vs Falsificationism. (Tie back to failed operationalist revolution: Babbage revolution > operational (intuitionistic) revolution > combinatoric revolution failures. Why? (cost) )
    • Have you discovered or considered a frame of the adversarial competition in the universe that leads to equilibrial states.
    EXTRAS IF POSSIBLE:
    • What would bayesian accounting add, as we’ve seen in proteins – which is the hard problem. Why did biologists use permutation but physicists not? (human scale problem again). what does this say about the current research in physics?
    • Would you expect vocabulary (references), grammar (of continuous recursive disambiguation), and logic of equilibrial states (abstractions) – particles, atoms, molecules, organic molecules etc – to emerge? (of course) Is there any limit to this vocabulary?
    • Is there any implication that how far you are from discovering a set of equilibrial states below our existing particles? (admitting that particles are waves)
    • Why did you choose vectors as rules rather than geometries? How did geometries emerge? Why did Triangles emerge? (equilibria) (Why triangles in human spatial computation.)
    • Is your claim that there are an endless number of languages of computational expression? (why not parsimony of positional names. Body form and sense as standard of measure)
    • How much of the challenge of teaching mathematics is a failure of reducing it to computational realism and a ‘periodic table’ of dimensions vs techniques?
    • R is challenging. Wolfram language is enormous. what is the relationship between today’s AI (bayesian categorization), algorithmic choice, wolfram Language, and databases? Are we passing human scale in mathematics (logics)? Is that the whole problem of the 19th 20th? (I think so).
    NOTES
    • Note 1: IMO Babbage’s failure to convert from physical experimentation to theoretical expression and subsequent exposition of applications of the theory cost mankind at least a century, delayed the Einsteinian and quantum revolutions, and gave permission to ‘mathiness’ (pseudomathematics and pseudoscience) in philosophy, law, economics, social science, psychology, and very nearly brought about a dark age in present academia because of it. In other words, while you see your work solving the problem of the foundations of physics, it’s more that our generation is compensating for one of the great intellectual failures in history with one of the most dangerous consequences in history – at least as dangerous as the Christian destruction of Greek and Roman arts, knowledge, law, and administration. My experience is that we are compensating for and correcting a vast wave of pseudoscience outside of applied science in branches of technology, in a desperate race to reverse the momentum of the ‘pseudoscientific’ revolution. So my analysis is that your work is more important outside the field than is obvious.
    • Note 2: Following Hayek and Popper, and less so Brouwer and Bridgman, I saw the problem in economics and law that you saw in mathematics and physics, and that the solution was computational (better labeled perhaps, as operational). The difference is, that while you can reform mathematical platonism into mathematical and computational realism (thank you), and reform physics with it into operational realism (thank you), with mathematicians resisting your reform, physicists largely appreciative, and the general public will lionize you. And while the Joscha Bach’s of the world can reform cognitive science into operational realism, with philosophers and theologians in opposition. My attempt to reform psychology and sociology, economics and politics, ethics and law will be (has been) met with pitchforks and scythes. Truth is only as valuable as it empowers us with new discounts and opportunities. All attempts in history to suppress desirable and profitable deceits is met with vehement resistance. Socrates Aristotle, Galileo and Darwin and all those between them. 😉 -Cheers