Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

Topic: Why We Know We’re Right, And Physics Finally Knows Why It’s Wrong. 😉

To: NLI Followers, All;

You know, I’m doing a bit more work on the foundations of physics again (explaining the ternary logic of evolutionary computation), and the nagging little voice in the back of my head, that predicts nitwittery by critics is saying “but your not a physicist!” To which my answer would be, not really, but i’m not ignorant of physics or mathematics, and at the root of it all, I’m an epistemologist – and I don’t know of a better one living or dead. If I did I’d return to making money and living the rather exciting life I did previously.

But I am, and the generations that follow me, are also going to be, falsificationary (really, darwinian adversarial) epistemologists. Why?

Because just as there was a switch from justification to falsification in research as our explorations exceeded human scales of perception, the same is true for both logic itself and truth itself: all logic and all truth claims are falsificationary not justificationary: meaning what survives is a truth candidate, but falsehood is more certain that truth candidacy. As such epistemology consists not of proofs of correctness but of tests of possibility first, and tests of competitive survivability second, and hopefully tests of first causal construction third and finally. All of which only eliminate less competitive claims.

In other words, we can catalog what errors, biases (and yes deceits) humans make in their work because they lack sufficient understanding of the foundations of the grammars from mathematics, to the disciplines, to testimony, to ordinary language, to fictions, to fictionalisms, to evasion, to denial, to deceit, to projection (reversal, reflection, accusation)… and yes, to undermining, canceling, sedition and treason.

As such just as there exists a catalog of first causes of constructive logic of all existence there is a catalog of first causes of all existence of ignorance error, bias and deceit.

Meaning there is a constructive logic for falsification of all truth and falsehood claims sufficient to expose whether the information necessary to make the claim is insufficient, possibly sufficient, or sufficient in its falsehood. Thus disambiguating what is known and unknown regardless of the individual or group’s claim.

And I have, or at least Martin Stepan and I have, working together, documented them in painful detail as a formal system of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

And we have even categorized them as sex differences in cognitive processing and the *reasons* for sex difference in cognitive processing that results in different success failure falsehood deceit sedition and warfare. Which of course is where we found the first principle of human variance other than in neoteny and ability: sex differences in cognition and valuation and their distribution across the population: responsibility.

These sex differences and foundations of them, strangely enough, appear, at least to the public, to be the most interesting of the discoveries I have, and we have, produced over our more than twenty five years of effort.

So we have in our work produced both a constructive logic of existence and a constructive logic of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, providing near universal falsifiability of truth or possibility claims.

Yes, really.

And in the most illustrative examples currently facing us are in the failure of physics, and explaining the failure of physics, and the origin of that failure in physics as the Ashenazi (feminine) vs European (masculine) differences in cognitive construction (yes it’s real and substantive at the margins) where Maxwell to Hilbert could not quite come to a physical solution but Einstein and Bohr came to a verbal half-solution, but given the rapid expansion of physics in response to that discovery expanded the population and indoctrinated them into the mathematics of descriptive continuousness instead of the mathematics of causal discreteness and physical models.

So I am pretty confident that the following things are true:
1) Because of entrenchment (malinvestment) scientific progress proceeds with tombstones (thank you Dr Kuhn). So this transition will take some time.
2) Because scientific funding follows convention, institutional transformation of funding may take tombstones.
3) Because education lags innovation, theorists may lag recognition.
4) The universe is physical, homogenous in base constitution, discrete, operational, and painfully simple. And if I’m correct most of the answers are already know at the fringes, and we could finish the foundations of physics within a decade if it was sponsored by an absurdly large reward for doing so by the state.

And how do I know this?
Because I know, and now we know, how and why humans demonstrate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit on one hand and the first principle of the universe from which all existence is constructed by the ternary logic of evolutionary computation. 😉

We stand on the shoulders of giants who came before us.. but we are closer to ‘knowing’ the unknown than we though were a century ago, only to discover were weren’t’. 😉

Cheers

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation