Curt Doolittle

Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • The Meaning of Existence

    (worth reading) —“Ivar Diederik “Math does not appear in what we study.” Actually it does. There are several theorems that were first developed theoretically, and only years later were discovered or proven to exist in nature. James Clerk Maxwell predicted things about electro-magnetism which physicist Heinrich Hertz later proved to be true. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) and Riemann’s new geometries were only later revealed to be practically useful. The inner (and eternal) logic of mathematics, rather than the measurement of phenomena, suggested these theorems were true and useful. And as it later turned out, existence does indeed make use of the dynamics of these theorems.”—- No, what EXISTS is the universe in different states of excitement, and the universe is deterministic, meaning regular, and if we (humans) break it into some set of categories (forces, particles, elements, entities) we observe that those categories demonstrate constant relations (determinism). Positions (cardinality and ordinality) also consist of constant relations. We then created a hierarchy of grammars of constant relations beginning with counting, and at present through field-symmetries (god only knows what’s after that if anything, other than a hierarchy of self same). This hierarchy of grammars of constant relations we categorize as ‘mathematics’. The grammars ( rules of continuous disambiguation) of mathematics consists of very limited vocabulary (semantics), and syntax, Man creates referrers when he observes referents, and his referents are determined by the limits of the the human body (senses, memory, cognition). Mathematics is just one of the hierarchy of grammars possible under the human language capacity (the universal grammar) and is a very narrow grammar of very narrow semantics (positional names) and a very limited set of operations. This simplicity (positions) makes it very difficult to produce malformed statements. So again, constant relations exist in the universe. man recognizes those constant relations. man describes those constant relations in language. The error you are making is called ‘platonism’ which is confusing the existence of a man made referrer with a category we identify in existence and describe the grammar constrained enough for the purpose of disambiguation suiting the use of the statement. —“Math is just another language made by man” There you go again, bringing man into it. Do you seriously believe the Pythagorean Theorem was untrue prior to it being defined by man? When I talk of ontological mathematics, I talk about the totality of mathematical principles that are eternally true and cannot be otherwise. This complete, ontological mathematics is what everything comes from, the only “nothing” that can create something.”—- Well I think I’ve answered this about as thoroughly as possible, but for sake of repetitive training I’ll reiterate that man makes descriptions using a grammar limited by human ability, of categories of constant relations. So when we say a tree exists we are speaking parsimoniously (conveniently), when matter exists, we have identified a set of constant relations in time at human scale’s of time perception, and we name that set of constant relations (category) a tree, and therefore reality exists, the set of constant relations we call the tree exists, we have identified a category of similar constant relations, we have CREATED a name for those constant relations at human scales of perception, and referred to it. So we often conflate existence (universe), referent (constant relations), referrer (named category). We do not necessarily have a name for the referrer other than ‘knowledge’ or ‘knowledge of’. Even such, we use the term ‘knowledge of’ for both awareness of, hypothesis, theory, settled theory, and law. Worse, knowledge consist of some record (memory, or physical translation to symbols that will activate memories), that when recalled, observed, contemplated, or calculated, is reconstructed as experience. As such knowledge of necessity requires a host to experience it. So knowledge is potential for experience, and the act of knowing is the point at which knowledge is brought into existence during experience. Ergo, existence = persistence, and knowledge = potential for knowing, and Knowing = experience. And so knowing does not persist except when active in thought. And it consists of some subset of symbols or references that combined with memory reconstruct the state of knowing that we call knowledge. —-“the universe, lacks intelligence and choice and as such is entirely deterministic” The universe is an expression of the most flawless logic, namely the totality of mathematics. Although that does indeed create a deterministic situation, because every “big bang” will invariably result in the kind of inhabited cosmos we experience now, this itself is a manifestation of the “intelligence” of the eternal whole. The way existence is “set up”, it can be enjoyed eternally. That’s a pretty good “design”, I’d say. If I had a choice, I would structure existence that way too. Of course, I do agree with you that we should not conceive of this intelligence and choice in a anthropocentric way. “— Well that can’t be true. The universe existed before man. The universe is deterministic. Becasue it is deterministic (can’t choose) we can identify constant relations and refer to them as categories, and we can identify constant relations between those relations, and so on in vast hierarchies. The fact that we can create a language within the limits of human perception that describe these categories and relations in terms of the limits of human perception (all language analogy to experience), we can then describe that universe in a grammar (subset of our language) limited to constant relations. —“and as such evidence of the absence of any ‘deity’.”I’m not arguing for the existence of a deity. In fact I reject it as unnecessary and impossible. Nothing can exist prior to creation except the eternal logic of mathematics. There can be no self-consciousness prior to the arrival of Homo sapiens sapiens, or similar creatures. All conceptions of a deity supposedly getting bored and then, thinking out loud, deciding to create the universe are entirely metaphorical.”— You mean, that the universe exists and we invented a grammar to describe its constant relations in human language at human scale. —“But I do disagree with your notion that we are an anomaly, just because the majority of space is filled with lifeless matter. To me that argument is as silly as stating that an apple tree is hostile to the creation of apples because there aren’t any apples growing on its trunk and roots, and most of the year not even on the tips of its branches. The majority of our DNA is “junk”, yet it would be foolish to suggest DNA is hostile to life, and the coding part is just an anomaly.”— Well you can debate the semantics of anomaly with me, but life does not appear anywhere that we are looking yet, and it is extremely difficult to keep humans (or any other form of life) alive anywhere that we know of other than this planet (and I doubt there ever will be). —“You talk about lies, yet you yourself embrace the blatant lie that the universe does not support life, even though evidently you and I are alive, and the goldilocks situation isn’t that unique in a universe that seems to be unlimited in size and “obeying” the same mathematical principles. Even the circumstances that favored the development of human species aren’t that special.”— Well that’s a lie right? Because I said only that (a) life is a deterministic solution to entropy, (b) is appears that (and is logically) rare – at least a human scales of perception and action, and (c) it is simply a fact that the universe is hostile to our life form, and (d) that even here on earth life has been all but exterminated on a regular basis. —-“That we can created math disproves a god.” That we can describe mathematics proves we are an aspect of this universe that can come to understand itself. Self-consciousness is possible in the human form (of which the introverted, intuitive thinking type is closest to enlightenment), and since the universe favors the evolution of the human form, as evidenced by our existence, it favors self-consciousness. You and I are the universe attaining its telos. The subjective aspect of mathematics “wants” to experience life (of course, it’s eternal so it never dies, but simply being is “boring”, whereas becoming is great fun). And there’s your free will, the engine of creativity. A deterministic universe, in which the eventual development of human life is guaranteed, grants the maximum experience of free will and excitement of discovery. It’s the best of all possible worlds.”— The universe, in order to be able to ‘understand itself’ would have to have a means of maintaining memory of prior states in order to identify categories, of changes in state of constant relations. So no. Self consciousness is available to humans because we have finally produced enough capacity to organize changes in state and contemplate alternatives and therefore choose them. As far as I know this is the result of our extraordinary brain to body ratio, extraordinary modeling ability, and the need to serialize language (storytell) in order to communicate in serial symbols of continuous disambiguation. There is a method by which matter within the universe can be organized to retain state, but there is no method by which the universe can retain a continuous stream of states, and if it could it would ahve the ability to choose, and if it had the ability to choose the universe would not be deterministic everywhere we look, and therefore we could not describe the universe in human scale language using the deflationary grammar of constant relations that we call mathematics. And let this be a lesson to you and others, that unless you can reduce your ideas to a sequence of operations in operational language that you can easily fool yourself. This was Aristotle’s lesson to Plato.
    May 14, 2018 10:15am

  • The Meaning of Existence

    (worth reading) —“Ivar Diederik “Math does not appear in what we study.” Actually it does. There are several theorems that were first developed theoretically, and only years later were discovered or proven to exist in nature. James Clerk Maxwell predicted things about electro-magnetism which physicist Heinrich Hertz later proved to be true. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) and Riemann’s new geometries were only later revealed to be practically useful. The inner (and eternal) logic of mathematics, rather than the measurement of phenomena, suggested these theorems were true and useful. And as it later turned out, existence does indeed make use of the dynamics of these theorems.”—- No, what EXISTS is the universe in different states of excitement, and the universe is deterministic, meaning regular, and if we (humans) break it into some set of categories (forces, particles, elements, entities) we observe that those categories demonstrate constant relations (determinism). Positions (cardinality and ordinality) also consist of constant relations. We then created a hierarchy of grammars of constant relations beginning with counting, and at present through field-symmetries (god only knows what’s after that if anything, other than a hierarchy of self same). This hierarchy of grammars of constant relations we categorize as ‘mathematics’. The grammars ( rules of continuous disambiguation) of mathematics consists of very limited vocabulary (semantics), and syntax, Man creates referrers when he observes referents, and his referents are determined by the limits of the the human body (senses, memory, cognition). Mathematics is just one of the hierarchy of grammars possible under the human language capacity (the universal grammar) and is a very narrow grammar of very narrow semantics (positional names) and a very limited set of operations. This simplicity (positions) makes it very difficult to produce malformed statements. So again, constant relations exist in the universe. man recognizes those constant relations. man describes those constant relations in language. The error you are making is called ‘platonism’ which is confusing the existence of a man made referrer with a category we identify in existence and describe the grammar constrained enough for the purpose of disambiguation suiting the use of the statement. —“Math is just another language made by man” There you go again, bringing man into it. Do you seriously believe the Pythagorean Theorem was untrue prior to it being defined by man? When I talk of ontological mathematics, I talk about the totality of mathematical principles that are eternally true and cannot be otherwise. This complete, ontological mathematics is what everything comes from, the only “nothing” that can create something.”—- Well I think I’ve answered this about as thoroughly as possible, but for sake of repetitive training I’ll reiterate that man makes descriptions using a grammar limited by human ability, of categories of constant relations. So when we say a tree exists we are speaking parsimoniously (conveniently), when matter exists, we have identified a set of constant relations in time at human scale’s of time perception, and we name that set of constant relations (category) a tree, and therefore reality exists, the set of constant relations we call the tree exists, we have identified a category of similar constant relations, we have CREATED a name for those constant relations at human scales of perception, and referred to it. So we often conflate existence (universe), referent (constant relations), referrer (named category). We do not necessarily have a name for the referrer other than ‘knowledge’ or ‘knowledge of’. Even such, we use the term ‘knowledge of’ for both awareness of, hypothesis, theory, settled theory, and law. Worse, knowledge consist of some record (memory, or physical translation to symbols that will activate memories), that when recalled, observed, contemplated, or calculated, is reconstructed as experience. As such knowledge of necessity requires a host to experience it. So knowledge is potential for experience, and the act of knowing is the point at which knowledge is brought into existence during experience. Ergo, existence = persistence, and knowledge = potential for knowing, and Knowing = experience. And so knowing does not persist except when active in thought. And it consists of some subset of symbols or references that combined with memory reconstruct the state of knowing that we call knowledge. —-“the universe, lacks intelligence and choice and as such is entirely deterministic” The universe is an expression of the most flawless logic, namely the totality of mathematics. Although that does indeed create a deterministic situation, because every “big bang” will invariably result in the kind of inhabited cosmos we experience now, this itself is a manifestation of the “intelligence” of the eternal whole. The way existence is “set up”, it can be enjoyed eternally. That’s a pretty good “design”, I’d say. If I had a choice, I would structure existence that way too. Of course, I do agree with you that we should not conceive of this intelligence and choice in a anthropocentric way. “— Well that can’t be true. The universe existed before man. The universe is deterministic. Becasue it is deterministic (can’t choose) we can identify constant relations and refer to them as categories, and we can identify constant relations between those relations, and so on in vast hierarchies. The fact that we can create a language within the limits of human perception that describe these categories and relations in terms of the limits of human perception (all language analogy to experience), we can then describe that universe in a grammar (subset of our language) limited to constant relations. —“and as such evidence of the absence of any ‘deity’.”I’m not arguing for the existence of a deity. In fact I reject it as unnecessary and impossible. Nothing can exist prior to creation except the eternal logic of mathematics. There can be no self-consciousness prior to the arrival of Homo sapiens sapiens, or similar creatures. All conceptions of a deity supposedly getting bored and then, thinking out loud, deciding to create the universe are entirely metaphorical.”— You mean, that the universe exists and we invented a grammar to describe its constant relations in human language at human scale. —“But I do disagree with your notion that we are an anomaly, just because the majority of space is filled with lifeless matter. To me that argument is as silly as stating that an apple tree is hostile to the creation of apples because there aren’t any apples growing on its trunk and roots, and most of the year not even on the tips of its branches. The majority of our DNA is “junk”, yet it would be foolish to suggest DNA is hostile to life, and the coding part is just an anomaly.”— Well you can debate the semantics of anomaly with me, but life does not appear anywhere that we are looking yet, and it is extremely difficult to keep humans (or any other form of life) alive anywhere that we know of other than this planet (and I doubt there ever will be). —“You talk about lies, yet you yourself embrace the blatant lie that the universe does not support life, even though evidently you and I are alive, and the goldilocks situation isn’t that unique in a universe that seems to be unlimited in size and “obeying” the same mathematical principles. Even the circumstances that favored the development of human species aren’t that special.”— Well that’s a lie right? Because I said only that (a) life is a deterministic solution to entropy, (b) is appears that (and is logically) rare – at least a human scales of perception and action, and (c) it is simply a fact that the universe is hostile to our life form, and (d) that even here on earth life has been all but exterminated on a regular basis. —-“That we can created math disproves a god.” That we can describe mathematics proves we are an aspect of this universe that can come to understand itself. Self-consciousness is possible in the human form (of which the introverted, intuitive thinking type is closest to enlightenment), and since the universe favors the evolution of the human form, as evidenced by our existence, it favors self-consciousness. You and I are the universe attaining its telos. The subjective aspect of mathematics “wants” to experience life (of course, it’s eternal so it never dies, but simply being is “boring”, whereas becoming is great fun). And there’s your free will, the engine of creativity. A deterministic universe, in which the eventual development of human life is guaranteed, grants the maximum experience of free will and excitement of discovery. It’s the best of all possible worlds.”— The universe, in order to be able to ‘understand itself’ would have to have a means of maintaining memory of prior states in order to identify categories, of changes in state of constant relations. So no. Self consciousness is available to humans because we have finally produced enough capacity to organize changes in state and contemplate alternatives and therefore choose them. As far as I know this is the result of our extraordinary brain to body ratio, extraordinary modeling ability, and the need to serialize language (storytell) in order to communicate in serial symbols of continuous disambiguation. There is a method by which matter within the universe can be organized to retain state, but there is no method by which the universe can retain a continuous stream of states, and if it could it would ahve the ability to choose, and if it had the ability to choose the universe would not be deterministic everywhere we look, and therefore we could not describe the universe in human scale language using the deflationary grammar of constant relations that we call mathematics. And let this be a lesson to you and others, that unless you can reduce your ideas to a sequence of operations in operational language that you can easily fool yourself. This was Aristotle’s lesson to Plato.
    May 14, 2018 10:15am

  • Math Does Not Exist in Reality, We Invented Math to Describe Reality, Because Reality Consists of Constant Relations.

    Due to the limited number of operations available at various temperatures to various particles, and the consequential formation of patterns (symmetries, asymmetries) of constant relations at various scales (force, particle, element, molecule…) due to those limited operations, and the hierarchy of operations possible at different scales, we will easily identify certain consistencies across these scales the same way we will identify consistencies (symmetries) in mathematical fields. Math does not appear in what we study. The use of positional names, provides constant relations at scale independence, and primitive operations on positions (ratios), preserve those constant relations. Ergo, the universe consists of a limited number of fundamental rules the combinations of which at different temperatures and in different proximities produce deterministic (invariant) changes in state equilibrating frequency(energy) those differences as entropy. In other words, the universe, lacks intelligence and choice and as such is entirely deterministic (consisting of constant relations), and since positional names consist of nothing BUT constant relations we can use positional naming constructed of ratios, to produce scale independent general rules (descriptions) of those constant relations. Math is just another language made by man to describe the most trivially simple properties of an invariant choiceness universe. The ability to use math to describe the universe’s regularity is in and of itself evidence of the absence of choice in the universe and therefore evidence of the absence of any intelligence, and as such evidence of the absence of any ‘deity’. There is no evidence of anything in the universe other than random effects of deterministic changes in state producing entropy. That we can created math disproves a god.

  • Math Does Not Exist in Reality, We Invented Math to Describe Reality, Because Reality Consists of Constant Relations.

    Due to the limited number of operations available at various temperatures to various particles, and the consequential formation of patterns (symmetries, asymmetries) of constant relations at various scales (force, particle, element, molecule…) due to those limited operations, and the hierarchy of operations possible at different scales, we will easily identify certain consistencies across these scales the same way we will identify consistencies (symmetries) in mathematical fields. Math does not appear in what we study. The use of positional names, provides constant relations at scale independence, and primitive operations on positions (ratios), preserve those constant relations. Ergo, the universe consists of a limited number of fundamental rules the combinations of which at different temperatures and in different proximities produce deterministic (invariant) changes in state equilibrating frequency(energy) those differences as entropy. In other words, the universe, lacks intelligence and choice and as such is entirely deterministic (consisting of constant relations), and since positional names consist of nothing BUT constant relations we can use positional naming constructed of ratios, to produce scale independent general rules (descriptions) of those constant relations. Math is just another language made by man to describe the most trivially simple properties of an invariant choiceness universe. The ability to use math to describe the universe’s regularity is in and of itself evidence of the absence of choice in the universe and therefore evidence of the absence of any intelligence, and as such evidence of the absence of any ‘deity’. There is no evidence of anything in the universe other than random effects of deterministic changes in state producing entropy. That we can created math disproves a god.

  • Cost and parsimony are required for tests of science that are not required for t

    Cost and parsimony are required for tests of science that are not required for tests of scripture (cost, limits, and parsimony are absent from rationalist and theological argument). A Creator requires: cost, limit, parsimony, the time problem, and infinite regress. No chance.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-12 16:57:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995347198538809350

    Reply addressees: @thousanth_man

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995277043481837574

    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/995277043481837574

  • The Damage of Cantor’s Frame Depends upon Which Problem You”re Trying to Solve

    So cantor’s argument is regressive because it reversed the trend toward historizing math and merging math and science. And it provided a generation with excuses to restore platonism. And it contributed to the misdirection of philosophy and logic in the 20th century just when we needed the opposite. So, you know, I am criticizing the tendency of abrahamists to make similar methaphysical fictions and cause damage by externality. So if you are only concerned with ‘meaning” then cantor’s fictionalism is a suppose a fairy tale that explains pairing-off (one to one correspondence) as a means of testing extremely large sets. If you are concerned with truth, then cantor is a fictionalist, and is leading to the confusion of generations of minds. If you are concerned with platonism and abrahamism as the primary means by which western civilization was destroyed in the ancient and modern worlds, then Cantor like Marx, Freud, Boaz, and Adorno is a half-liar undermining the very secret of western civilization: words are sacred, promise is sacred, and by creating moral hazards with language all the ‘liars’ contributed to the catastrophe of the present.

  • The Damage of Cantor’s Frame Depends upon Which Problem You”re Trying to Solve

    So cantor’s argument is regressive because it reversed the trend toward historizing math and merging math and science. And it provided a generation with excuses to restore platonism. And it contributed to the misdirection of philosophy and logic in the 20th century just when we needed the opposite. So, you know, I am criticizing the tendency of abrahamists to make similar methaphysical fictions and cause damage by externality. So if you are only concerned with ‘meaning” then cantor’s fictionalism is a suppose a fairy tale that explains pairing-off (one to one correspondence) as a means of testing extremely large sets. If you are concerned with truth, then cantor is a fictionalist, and is leading to the confusion of generations of minds. If you are concerned with platonism and abrahamism as the primary means by which western civilization was destroyed in the ancient and modern worlds, then Cantor like Marx, Freud, Boaz, and Adorno is a half-liar undermining the very secret of western civilization: words are sacred, promise is sacred, and by creating moral hazards with language all the ‘liars’ contributed to the catastrophe of the present.

  • “I laugh at people who discredit Christianity in favor of big bang. Something cr

    —“I laugh at people who discredit Christianity in favor of big bang. Something created us.”— Charlton Ward

    An infinite number of monkeys randomly typing keys, in an infinite amount of time, will (must) eventually produce the works of Shakespeare.

    If we were ‘created’ rather than ‘an accident’ then the universe should look a lot less like an infinite number of monkeys, trying an infinite number of permutations, over a nearly infinite amount of time.

    We know of a periodic table, and below the periodic table a set of particles, and below those particles a very small set of fields(charges), and those fields certainly appear to consist of a single something at different levels of excitement.

    The very thing that produces the passage of time (Entropy) creates the opportunity for the conservation of energy, and life concentrates and transfers energy between time.

    No one created us. We are a probabilistic anomaly An accident.

    As such, it is we who are gods, for … we are all there is for a gods to be.

    And those of us with the agency to look truth in the face laugh at those of you who cannot.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-12 07:07:00 UTC

  • Faith and justification, and the use of faith and justification differs from the

    Faith and justification, and the use of faith and justification differs from the use of science and falsification.

    The former (justification) enforces priors and causes stagnation, the latter (falsification) defeats priors and causes evolution.

    I don’t make justifications or pragmatisms. I just solve for what’s true.

    If it’s true I ask if it’s existentially possible.

    If it’s possible I ask if its a rational choice.

    If it’s a rational choice I ask if it will be reciprocated, and if it will be reciprocated I as if it will produce externalities and be survivable under competition.

    I do my job as judge. That’s what I do.

    To persuade me that a theocratic solution is possible, you’d have to persuade me that (a) a bringing about a theocracy was existentially possible by some means, (b) that it was possible without dictatorship to impose it for enough generations that the theological decline (end) could be reversed, and (c) that the rules were in fact moral in practice, (d) that such moral rules didn’t produce damaging externalities, (e) that people in time, place, and circumstance would adopt them or institution them and demonstrate them, and (f) that such moral rules were a competitive advantage, and therefore survivable.

    I mean, if you can answer those questions I’ll say it’s a possibility. I don’t ‘support’ anything. Propositions are either true, operationally possible, and moral; or they’re contingently so in the face of competing propositions, or they’re nonsense.

    As far as I know no theology is possible when by all accounts aristotelianism (empiricism or ‘descriptivism’) has replaced theology, and continues to do so, and the only people who do otherwise are either aging out of the pool, or those with below the threshold (95) group IQ’s.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 15:13:00 UTC

  • “Do you believe in The Big Bang and other ‘Nihilistic’ science fiction”— a sil

    —“Do you believe in The Big Bang and other ‘Nihilistic’ science fiction”— a silly person

    (putting aside the fraudulence of that statement, lol…)

    I don’t ‘believe’ in anything as you understand that term. I maintain a collection of possibilities that are as yet unsolved, a set I suspect are solved, and a set of things I cannot yet refute.

    I’m a scientist. My conceptual framework is via-negative (survival) or what you might consider ‘darwinian’. And all knowledge is forever contingent.

    As I understand it and I think I understand it as well as anyone living, we can describe what we can see, and we cannot describe what we can’t, and there is a lot we can’t, and the remaining problems we can solve in what we see, appear by all accounts to be determined by what we cannot see.

    Of the known options the idea of collection of bubbles (universes) holds the highest explanatory power, with the least demand for that which violates what we now of geometry.

    My value judgement of the structure of the universe has no influence over the truth or falsehood of it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 15:51:00 UTC