I’m pretty sure I know more about the demarcation between science, non-science, pseudoscience, and sophistry than anyone living. And that includes the criteria for making scientific (testimonial) claims.
So no.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 20:24:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229139590725935109
Reply addressees: @nathan_a_tanner
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229121360024293379
YES ETHICS (INTERPERSONAL) MORALITY (EXTRAPERSONAL) IS A SCIENTIFIC LAW
(core)
Science absolutely positively can tell you about ethics and morality.
Morality, including the moral instincts, consist in reciprocity within the limits of proportionality, where reciprocity consists of limiting our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer( trade, consumption, harm, destruction, loss) of demonstrated interests free of imposition of costs upon demonstrated interests of others by externality. That’s morality. It’s got to be or evolution (physics) wouldn’t tolerate our existence as a species.
There is no difference between physics (involuntary change), economics (productive cooperation), and morality (social cooperation), except we have memory so can invest in and borrow from one another across time (. All that varies is the level of immorality tolerated given the stage of development in the current military, political, and economic circumstances.
So yes, science has told us what manners, ethics, morals, consist of. They cannot tell you what those range of actions will be in three years any more than economics can tell you that, because what constitutes reciprocity within the limits of proportionality, varies with the structure of production of polities, commons, goods, services, and information.
So we absolutely positively know what the physical and natural laws consist of – because they’re the same – we can judge borrow from one another or invest in one another and punish one another for violating those investments and borrowings (thefts, parasitism, free riding), and we do so by moral intuition we call “altruistic punishment’ – the payment of high personal costs of punishment of others to preserve the high value of trust in cooperation (borrowing, investing) in one another, because of the impossible-to-replace returns on cooperation – wherever cooperation is reciprocal: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, transfers, and free of negative externality.
And good luck refuting that scientific claim – because you will not be able to without violating it. It’s a physical law of conscious, cooperative, species beyond which no conscious cooperative species can survive.
Evil < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good
Quod erat demonstrandum
Thus endeth the lesson.
fin.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 13:47:00 UTC
Stop saying stupid shit you ignorant f-ck. Coronaviruses are a whole class of related viruses, including the common cold. This disinfectant does not kill this new “Novel” version of the virus.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-13 21:44:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1228072513521016833
Reply addressees: @RwiseFools
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1228004375290728448
—“Curt was trying to defend his statement that “Entropy is the prime mover” to refute the theistic claim that God is the prime mover. In the analysis of entropy, he reduced all phenomena to a “fundamental” component, namely “Differences in charge”.
There are plenty of other obtuse statements that Curt ought to defend in order to protect his reputation, such as his declaration that “philosophy is a pseudoscience.” That is a wildly hilarious and blatant domain error, that it ought to have disqualified anything Curt has to say on metaphysics or reason.”—- Josef Kalinin Prem Prayojan
1) Entropy/Charge: Any of the terms: entropy( order to disorder), equilibration (equalization of differences), energy(frequency), charge (energy in difference in states), pressure(effect of different states on one another), and difference satisfy the demand for truthful operational speech. The fact that we are as yet uncertain of the classical (geometric) structure of the universe that we describe with quantum mechanics, is a problem of our present technical inability to measure (observe) it. However, there is no evidence it is other than expressible in the same terms of differences in energy, organization, state, and available transformations (operations). No physicist of note will disagree with this statement.
2) Philosophy is a pseudoscience: Yes, as far as I know, the demarcation between philosophy and science is complete with philosophy limited to choice of preference, and science to decidability independent of preference. I can find no evidence that what remains of philosophy consists of other than the history of the evolution of science from philosophy. And I can find no evidence of those practicing philosophy for advocacy of truth claims instead of advocacy for preference claims engaging in other than deception. Part of the reason for this is that we have accumulated evidence of human behavior in large groups across mankind on one hand, and we have discovered the tediously simple method by which brain, mind, and experience are constructed on the other – although I do recognize I’m very current or ahead of the curve in that knowledge.
3) Domain error. There are no domain errors any longer. There is one most parsimonious operational paradigm across all grammars (paradigms) from the deflaitonary to the descriptive to the inflationary to the deceptive. That paradigm is language, because language is the system of measurement we use for thinking and speaking about the world.
It will be very difficult to falsify those arguments.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-13 08:44:00 UTC
—-“Just because something is defined as chaotic does not mean that it is any less causal as anything that is non-chaotic. There is no such thing as chaos objectively in the material world. There just is a state of matter in the state it is. Order is an expression of value that does not exist in matter. Certainly, we would, if all atoms were clustered by their kind, conventionally define this as order. But any other configuration of matter could just as validly be defined as order if given any other subjective idea of order. That is without any objective validity at all. You cannot assign objective value to the material world inside the material. That is logically baseless.
Grammar is nothing but subjective, objectively invalid expression if it does not have basis in the immaterial.”—Tobias Grill
I think you think you made sense there.
It requires memory to determine whether changes in state are preserved over time (including no change in state) by whatever interval of time we arbitrarily choose.
order is the name we give to a successful test of preservation of changes in state over time, and determinism to the repeatability of a change in state over time.
chaos is the name we give to the impossibility of successfully testing a preservation of change in state over some period of time at some degree of resolution.
At the particle level the world is only deterministic within the scope of the wave function.
Below the particle level it may only be causal density is such that a test of constant relations over time will always fail at any level below the particle level (i suspect we will discover it shortly).
So far we decrease the level of resolution until we identify a pattern, and we increase the level of resolution until we identify the next pattern. Likewise we increase the periodicity or decrease the periodicity of the sample to identify patterns. Using those two techniques we are able to identify patterns at every scale.
Scale is determined by the availability of steady states. So waves, particles, atoms, molecules etc constitute steady states that we can describe with vocabulary and operations (grammars).
So while we may vary either the time or resolution of our inquiry we will discover different scales at which we discover commensurable steady states that limit the scope of further steady states.
So to say order doesn’t exist is false because the universe is definitely deterministic, definitely produces a hierarchy of steady states, and a subsequent set of permutations that limit or enable a subsequent set of steady states.
If you wish to say instead that the universe is just matter (or energy density) in motion and that order is the name for our discovery of constant relations in time at constant relations of scale, then you are describing the same thing from firsts, second, or third person. Nothing more.
GRAMMAR
Grammar in P refers to a paradigm of constant relations, a vocabulary (name (state, proptery), action(operation, property)) and the grammar (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) necessary to construct a contract for agreement on meaning.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-11 15:10:00 UTC
FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM (DETERMINISTIC UNIVERSE)
—“Could you say then that free will is a sort of emergent property of determinism?”—Andy Lunn
Maybe I don’t understand that question enough.
We have will. That’s a fact.
We evolved for graceful failure in exercise of our will – so that is what we interpret as somtimes lacking free will.
We evolved for incremental improvement of our knowledge, and then our will as a consequence.
The degree to which we develop our will (ability) into agency (successful application) depends on ability, experience, training and general knowledge.
So the question isn’t do we have free will, it’s that we evolved will and the capacity to develop agency with it. But we are limited by our knowledge. We do not appear to be otherwise limited simply because we are so good at building tools that extend our sense, perception and action.
Now, within that context, if you mean, that without a deterministic universe (the scientific definition of determinism, not the sophomoric and philosophical definition), then yes, we could never develop agency because there would be no regularity, and without regularity no use for memory, and without memory there would be no use for will reason, or agency.
So in that sense, yes. But only in that sense.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-11 14:26:00 UTC
—“I would suggest that we defeat entropy first, and by extension we defeat time.”—Ahmed Reda
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-10 21:32:00 UTC
If we outlawed all estrogen related products touching anything edible would that make any difference at all?
What about Salts of Glutamate (MSG etc).
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 20:12:00 UTC
12182 pieces of orbital debris.
2161 spent rocket stages in orbit,
4790 satellites,
25 objects in orbit not yet assigned,
Less than 2000 satellite are alive
261 are Communications
178 are Military
98 are GPS
This is not a subject I have knowlege of. I don’t know the rest, and even these numbers are only rough. Yes, there are databases. Multiple. They’re detailed.
—GPS—
74 Global Positioning System navigation satellites have been launched, 31 of which are operational, 9 in reserve, 2 being tested, 30 have been retired and 2 were lost at launch.
There are currently 5 Positioning and Navigation satellite systems.
1) GPS (USA)
2) GLONASS (Russia)
3) Galileo (European Union)
4) BeiDou (China)
5) NAVIC (India)
GPS has 31 satellites in orbit.
GLONASS has 24 satellites in orbit.
Galileo has 14 satellites in orbit.
BeiDou has 22 satellites in orbit.
NAVIC has 7 satellites in orbit.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 20:58:00 UTC
I don’t either. Especially when it’s used by Creationists. A vague allusion to Naturalism? Darwin’s original five precepts? Late century? Prewar? Postwar? Today’s Neo-Darwinian synthesis?
Same problem exists with (a)money (b)economics (c)Law (d)Science and Scientific Method.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 12:50:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224314148605042688
Reply addressees: @JayMan471
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224271391018627072
IN REPLY TO:
@JayMan471
I stand by this still today https://t.co/kkdB2N0kys
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224271391018627072