Curt Doolittle

Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. GENERAL IDEAS: A “FIELD” IN MATHEMATICS (repo

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    GENERAL IDEAS: A “FIELD” IN MATHEMATICS
    (repost by request)

    Given a six sided die, and the single operation “roll the die”, we can produce a noisy distribution of :

    1(x1), 2(x1), 3(x1), 4(x1), 5(x1), 6(x1).

    Given two six sided dice, and the single operation “roll the dice and sum the results”, we can produce a noisy distribution of:

    2(x1), 3(x2), 4(x3), 5(x4), 6(x5), 7(x6), 8(x5), 9(x4),
    10(x3), 11(x2), 12(x1).

    The difference between the one-die and two-die distributions is that while the results of rolling one die are equidistributed between 1 and 6, with two dice the results of rolling can produce more combinations that sum to 7 than there are that sum to 2 and 12, and therefor the results are normally distributed: in a bell curve.

    We can produce the same results with logic instead of numbers: For example, we can take the two words “Even” and “Odd”, and define two operations: “addition” and “multiplication”. Then apply the operations to all pairs:

    Even + Even = Even,
    Even + Odd = Odd + Even = Odd,
    Odd + Odd = Even,
    Even x Even = Even x Odd = Odd x Even = Even,
    Odd x Odd = Odd.

    And we can produce the same set of results with *any grammatically correct operations on a set, given the operations possible on the set*; including the set of Ordinary Language using Ordinary Language grammar. Although, unlike our simple examples using dice, the set of combinations of ordinary language is not closed, and so the number of combinations is infinite.

    So any grammar allows us to produce a distribution of results, and a density (frequency) of result.

    In mathematics this result set is called a ‘field’. A field consists of all the possible results of a set of operations on a set’s members, that are selected from the range of possible operations on those set members.

    So in any set of results there will be a range of very dense, less dense, sparse, and empty spaces in the set’s distribution.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 14:22:25 UTC

  • “woo” (slang) uncritical belief in unsubstantiated or unfounded ideas – particul

    “woo” (slang) uncritical belief in unsubstantiated or unfounded ideas – particularly pseudoscientific, supernatural, and occult.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 13:52:00 UTC

  • GENERAL IDEAS: A “FIELD” IN MATHEMATICS (repost by request) Given a six sided di

    GENERAL IDEAS: A “FIELD” IN MATHEMATICS

    (repost by request)

    Given a six sided die, and the single operation “roll the die”, we can produce a noisy distribution of :

    1(x1), 2(x1), 3(x1), 4(x1), 5(x1), 6(x1).

    Given two six sided dice, and the single operation “roll the dice and sum the results”, we can produce a noisy distribution of:

    2(x1), 3(x2), 4(x3), 5(x4), 6(x5), 7(x6), 8(x5), 9(x4),

    10(x3), 11(x2), 12(x1).

    The difference between the one-die and two-die distributions is that while the results of rolling one die are equidistributed between 1 and 6, with two dice the results of rolling can produce more combinations that sum to 7 than there are that sum to 2 and 12, and therefor the results are normally distributed: in a bell curve.

    We can produce the same results with logic instead of numbers: For example, we can take the two words “Even” and “Odd”, and define two operations: “addition” and “multiplication”. Then apply the operations to all pairs:

    Even + Even = Even,

    Even + Odd = Odd + Even = Odd,

    Odd + Odd = Even,

    Even x Even = Even x Odd = Odd x Even = Even,

    Odd x Odd = Odd.

    And we can produce the same set of results with *any grammatically correct operations on a set, given the operations possible on the set*; including the set of Ordinary Language using Ordinary Language grammar. Although, unlike our simple examples using dice, the set of combinations of ordinary language is not closed, and so the number of combinations is infinite.

    So any grammar allows us to produce a distribution of results, and a density (frequency) of result.

    In mathematics this result set is called a ‘field’. A field consists of all the possible results of a set of operations on a set’s members, that are selected from the range of possible operations on those set members.

    So in any set of results there will be a range of very dense, less dense, sparse, and empty spaces in the set’s distribution.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 10:22:00 UTC

  • General Ideas: A “field” in Mathematics

    GENERAL IDEAS: A “FIELD” IN MATHEMATICS (repost by request) Given a six sided die, and the single operation “roll the die”, we can produce a noisy distribution of : 1(x1), 2(x1), 3(x1), 4(x1), 5(x1), 6(x1). Given two six sided dice, and the single operation “roll the dice and sum the results”, we can produce a noisy distribution of: 2(x1), 3(x2), 4(x3), 5(x4), 6(x5), 7(x6), 8(x5), 9(x4), 10(x3), 11(x2), 12(x1). The difference between the one-die and two-die distributions is that while the results of rolling one die are equidistributed between 1 and 6, with two dice the results of rolling can produce more combinations that sum to 7 than there are that sum to 2 and 12, and therefor the results are normally distributed: in a bell curve. We can produce the same results with logic instead of numbers: For example, we can take the two words “Even” and “Odd”, and define two operations: “addition” and “multiplication”. Then apply the operations to all pairs: Even + Even = Even, Even + Odd = Odd + Even = Odd, Odd + Odd = Even, Even x Even = Even x Odd = Odd x Even = Even, Odd x Odd = Odd. And we can produce the same set of results with *any grammatically correct operations on a set, given the operations possible on the set*; including the set of Ordinary Language using Ordinary Language grammar. Although, unlike our simple examples using dice, the set of combinations of ordinary language is not closed, and so the number of combinations is infinite. So any grammar allows us to produce a distribution of results, and a density (frequency) of result. In mathematics this result set is called a ‘field’. A field consists of all the possible results of a set of operations on a set’s members, that are selected from the range of possible operations on those set members. So in any set of results there will be a range of very dense, less dense, sparse, and empty spaces in the set’s distribution.

  • General Ideas: A “field” in Mathematics

    GENERAL IDEAS: A “FIELD” IN MATHEMATICS (repost by request) Given a six sided die, and the single operation “roll the die”, we can produce a noisy distribution of : 1(x1), 2(x1), 3(x1), 4(x1), 5(x1), 6(x1). Given two six sided dice, and the single operation “roll the dice and sum the results”, we can produce a noisy distribution of: 2(x1), 3(x2), 4(x3), 5(x4), 6(x5), 7(x6), 8(x5), 9(x4), 10(x3), 11(x2), 12(x1). The difference between the one-die and two-die distributions is that while the results of rolling one die are equidistributed between 1 and 6, with two dice the results of rolling can produce more combinations that sum to 7 than there are that sum to 2 and 12, and therefor the results are normally distributed: in a bell curve. We can produce the same results with logic instead of numbers: For example, we can take the two words “Even” and “Odd”, and define two operations: “addition” and “multiplication”. Then apply the operations to all pairs: Even + Even = Even, Even + Odd = Odd + Even = Odd, Odd + Odd = Even, Even x Even = Even x Odd = Odd x Even = Even, Odd x Odd = Odd. And we can produce the same set of results with *any grammatically correct operations on a set, given the operations possible on the set*; including the set of Ordinary Language using Ordinary Language grammar. Although, unlike our simple examples using dice, the set of combinations of ordinary language is not closed, and so the number of combinations is infinite. So any grammar allows us to produce a distribution of results, and a density (frequency) of result. In mathematics this result set is called a ‘field’. A field consists of all the possible results of a set of operations on a set’s members, that are selected from the range of possible operations on those set members. So in any set of results there will be a range of very dense, less dense, sparse, and empty spaces in the set’s distribution.

  • There Is No First Mover

    All existence is a consequence of randomness generated at the moment of recreation, and the very small number of laws that arise from whatever the universe is actually made of in… https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156482471517264 … –“The issue with the “monkeys on typewriters” is that we know that Shakespeare’s works were created and not random. So what this whole thing tells me is that people like you are not actually equiped to understand reality or that your metaphysics are incredibly poor (they are).”— —“There isn’t even an attempt to grapple with Aristotle in his comment. Strange.”—- —“Modern atheists love to prattle on about Aristotle but love to forget that his main work was on METAPHYSICS and that he basically came up with monotheism. They also hold a bunch of pre-socratic beliefs without realizing.”— Anything you cannot testify to is indistinguishable from a lie. Aristotle could not understand the concept of self organizing forces,and so proposed a ‘first mover’.Aristotle was primitive by modern comparisons. He did not propose ‘monotheism’ as much as fail to solve the problem. —How would self-organizing forces apply to things like physics? Would the principle of self-organization inevitably exclude a first mover? Hispano if you are correct I don’t think that would negate the intelligence of Curts proposal, I haven’t heard many exploring these issues.—- —-“Curt is a very smart guy with smart things to say on many subjects. He’s just really bad at metaphysics.”— You haven’t demonstrated an argument only gossip. My argument stands and always will. But that is ok. You are not fully human, and perhaps cannot be. It takes agency, and agency takes courage. The sterility of the universe is hostile to life and we are but an accident. —“And you respond with this, a classic Doolittle ad hominem, poorly imitating Taleb’s style, not realizing you don’t have his rank. This is why you and whatever ideas that aren’t just regurgitations of someone else’s will never move beyond Twitter and Facebook ramblings.”—- Falsify my argument or give up. The universe is self organizing because that’s all it can be, and that’s all it need be. Don’t make excuses by trying to frame the argument as Aristotelian (justificationary) rather than scientific. You’re a clown. Make an argument or crawl away. —“Self-organization has nothing to do (is not an answer) to its origin. It also falls into the regressus problem. Engage with your metaphysical problems. Don’t make excuses by trying to frame the argument as “empiric” or “scientific”. Understand the category of the problem 1st.”—

  • There Is No First Mover

    All existence is a consequence of randomness generated at the moment of recreation, and the very small number of laws that arise from whatever the universe is actually made of in… https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156482471517264 … –“The issue with the “monkeys on typewriters” is that we know that Shakespeare’s works were created and not random. So what this whole thing tells me is that people like you are not actually equiped to understand reality or that your metaphysics are incredibly poor (they are).”— —“There isn’t even an attempt to grapple with Aristotle in his comment. Strange.”—- —“Modern atheists love to prattle on about Aristotle but love to forget that his main work was on METAPHYSICS and that he basically came up with monotheism. They also hold a bunch of pre-socratic beliefs without realizing.”— Anything you cannot testify to is indistinguishable from a lie. Aristotle could not understand the concept of self organizing forces,and so proposed a ‘first mover’.Aristotle was primitive by modern comparisons. He did not propose ‘monotheism’ as much as fail to solve the problem. —How would self-organizing forces apply to things like physics? Would the principle of self-organization inevitably exclude a first mover? Hispano if you are correct I don’t think that would negate the intelligence of Curts proposal, I haven’t heard many exploring these issues.—- —-“Curt is a very smart guy with smart things to say on many subjects. He’s just really bad at metaphysics.”— You haven’t demonstrated an argument only gossip. My argument stands and always will. But that is ok. You are not fully human, and perhaps cannot be. It takes agency, and agency takes courage. The sterility of the universe is hostile to life and we are but an accident. —“And you respond with this, a classic Doolittle ad hominem, poorly imitating Taleb’s style, not realizing you don’t have his rank. This is why you and whatever ideas that aren’t just regurgitations of someone else’s will never move beyond Twitter and Facebook ramblings.”—- Falsify my argument or give up. The universe is self organizing because that’s all it can be, and that’s all it need be. Don’t make excuses by trying to frame the argument as Aristotelian (justificationary) rather than scientific. You’re a clown. Make an argument or crawl away. —“Self-organization has nothing to do (is not an answer) to its origin. It also falls into the regressus problem. Engage with your metaphysical problems. Don’t make excuses by trying to frame the argument as “empiric” or “scientific”. Understand the category of the problem 1st.”—

  • 8) So shakespear’s works were not created – they evolved out of sixteen basic fo

    8) So shakespear’s works were not created – they evolved out of sixteen basic forces of the universe and the one ‘whatever’ that space time is made from. Just as all else in the universe evolves from those very few rules in nearly infinite scale.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 15:20:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016341375867064320

    Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016291695359676416

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016291695359676416

  • 7) the reason being that we don’t have to evolve monkeys, paper, ribbon, ink, ty

    7) the reason being that we don’t have to evolve monkeys, paper, ribbon, ink, typewriters, and the ability to imagine and model ideal conditions in order to start work on the project. (See Nine Billion Names of God by Clarke.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 15:18:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016340853730705408

    Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016291695359676416

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016291695359676416

  • 6) So while shakespear’s production of that prose took just shy of 14 billion ye

    6) So while shakespear’s production of that prose took just shy of 14 billion years in a universe governed by what appear to be just sixteen forces and what appears to be one substance – just at different density and excitement – ideal monkeys would take only days to produce it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 15:17:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016340514814259205

    Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016291695359676416

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016291695359676416