Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • 3)RE:Economists/Astrology: Advances in Lie grp./Lie algebra will solve some of t

    3)RE:Economists/Astrology: Advances in Lie grp./Lie algebra will solve some of the prediction problem this century. @alanlevinovitz @aeonmag


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-22 13:43:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/888756334132375553

  • 3)RE:Economists/Astrology: Advances in Lie grp./Lie algebra will solve some of t

    3)RE:Economists/Astrology: Advances in Lie grp./Lie algebra will solve some of the prediction problem this century. @alanlevinovitz @aeonmag


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-22 09:43:00 UTC

  • THOUGHTS ON STATE OF PHYSICS AND QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT Given the history of man’s

    THOUGHTS ON STATE OF PHYSICS AND QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT

    Given the history of man’s cognitive development and that at each stage of our development the innovation has been in correcting a cognitive bias or error rather than providing an insight into the simplicity of the universe, it still appears more likely that quantum theory is simply incomplete (the ‘hidden variable’ question) and that we simply do not understand what is occurring. At present the most likely explanation is that particles per se, even as described as fields, consist of different levels of excitement and density of a single substance we do not yet understand, that CAN disentangle (unwind) faster than the speed of light even if it cannot ‘transmit’ (wind/unwind) faster than the speed of light. This is a fairly simple explanation that preserves all our existing observations, but requires us to imagine something even less biased by the evolutionary condition of our minds, than quantum theory and relativity and electromagnetic radiation(fields) and the excitement of gasses (steam) and evolution itself (adaptation) have been. The universe is simple. Our evolutionary cognitive biases given our need to act at human scale simply cannot yet imagine something ‘that simple’.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-22 09:27:00 UTC

  • Everyone is a scientist now. Or else he is a mystic. The middle ground – the ide

    Everyone is a scientist now. Or else he is a mystic. The middle ground – the ideal – is gone. Plato is dead. Abraham is dead. Buddha limps along. Confucius survives. Aristotle thrives.

    (worth repeating)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 10:01:00 UTC

  • AN EXPLANATION OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE 20th CENTURY (we are all scientists now)

    AN EXPLANATION OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE 20th CENTURY

    (we are all scientists now)

    In retrospect, the first wave of the enlightenment failed by not articulating transcendence but merely ‘good’. Darwin, Spencer and Nietzsche provided existential transcendence: evolution. Maxwell and Poincare (and later Einstein) provided evidence of our possibility of physical transcendence. The social scientists (Menger, Weber, Pareto, Durkheim) and the legalists (Jefferson, Hayek) came very close to providing the rule of ethical, social and political transcendence: Reciprocity. And despite Popper’s stumbling upon falsification and Mises’, Brouwer/Poincare/Hilbert, Bridgman, and Turing stumbling upon Operationalism in all its forms, in all their fields, I think it was the failed pursuit of logic as a science in its own as a defense of philosophy against science that begins with Wittgenstein, Russell, and Whitehead that opened the door for the attack on western civilization through the masses, using Abrahamism (deception using suggestion through narrative conflation and overloading), just as Abrahamic Marxism had been used immediately prior, and just as Abrahamic religion had been used as a means of uniting the dysgenic underclasses through deception against the eugenic aristocracy and their use of Deflationary Truth in the ancient world.

    Their (typical) victorian vanity, as if philosophy was not the pursuit of law but a puzzle from a detective novel with which one could display one’s wit, produced a catastrophic failure for our civilization. Linguistic philosophy was a failed program largely because there is nothing in it that cannot be produced in mathematics alone. Mathematics, even if practiced deductively, is always reducible to operations, with the single exception of the law of the excluded middle – an exception which is only necessary for scale independence. And for language to function meaningfully requires action, sequence, and time – leaving linguistic philosophy the only non-operational and therefore ideal (if not magical) discipline.

    So the operational revolution that was needed in both linguistic philosophy, law, and economics, was produced in computer science under Turing. Unfortunately, this failure of the philosophers not only made room for, but assisted in the replacement of Marxist pseudoscience with Postmodern pseudo-rationalism in the 60’s – itself the most novel innovation in the art of lying since the invention of Abrahamism.

    So, my generation, raised with computer science, computability, algorithmic operations, object oriented analysis, the representation of existential reality using relational database design (vs set ideal set theory of language as a false bridge between mathematics and algorithms), has developed an intuitive antagonistic reaction to both linguistic idealism, postmodern pseudo-rationalism, marxist (boazian, freudian, cantorian) pseudoscience. Hence the libertarianism of the technology sector – at least until recent massive asian immigration.

    So for this reason, philosophy is being reformed by people like myself, who have been raised in the discipline of computability and algorithms, well outside of philosophy departments, and who solved the problem that 20th century philosophy failed to: the deflation of the logic of language into only mathematics (sets), and only algorithms(language). And by doing so, all the disciplines: the logic of identity, the logic of mathematics, the logic of sets, the logic of operations, the logic of rational choice, and the logic of reciprocity, each correspond to a single dimension of existential and actionable reality. Thereby removing all mystery behind the logics.

    Next, by overthrowing the ancient conflation of moral and legal justification, including Kant’s apriorism (all via-positiva), and replacing it with science’s criticism (all via-negativa), we are able to unite law, morality, philosophy, and science into a single discipline: the discipline of providing warranty of due diligence by tests of consistency in each dimension of actionable reality applicable to the testimony (speech) we publish (speak in the commons).

    Everyone is a scientist now. Or else he is a mystic. The middle ground – the ideal – is gone. Plato is dead. Abraham is dead. Buddha limps along. Confucius survives. And Aristotle thrives.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 08:09:00 UTC

  • Wise and Smart a few mathematicians appear to be smarter than the smartest of al

    Wise and Smart

    a few mathematicians appear to be smarter than the smartest of all other disciplines. And while they may speak in nonsense now and then, this art remains the most demonstrated because failure is so visible.

    a few philosophers appear to be wiser than the wisest of all other disciplines, but most are mere authors of fantasy literature and word puzzles, and their discipline is largely nonsense. And failure is almost universal.

    a few jurists appear to be both smart and wise, but their record is not very good. Justice is a cult as much as a craft – and we must return it to an empirical science.

    a few few physical scientists appear to be smarter than all that remain, but their discipline is largely a craft.

    a few engineers appear to be both smart and wise, but wiser than most disciplines. And while they may speak pragmatically and skeptically at times, it is because failure is both visible and costly.

    I won’t talk about economists. And we will just laugh at social scientists.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 11:32:00 UTC

  • BIOLOGY OF DOMESTICATION via Matej Lovrić

    http://www.genetics.org/content/197/3/795.longTHE BIOLOGY OF DOMESTICATION

    via Matej Lovrić


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 15:35:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.genetics.org/content/197/3/795.long


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 15:28:00 UTC

  • SCIENCE IS THE PRODUCT OF MAN AND MAN ALONE – AND METAL WAS HIS MUSE —“Science

    SCIENCE IS THE PRODUCT OF MAN AND MAN ALONE – AND METAL WAS HIS MUSE

    —“Science did not develop apart from God somehow. “—

    Science developed by human trial and error – largely in the pursuit of the competitive utility of metal, and all that metals brought us. Aristotle and Archimedes developed what we call the foundations of science today, and aristotle, zeno, and the stoics developed the foundations of law that we use today. These were inventions of man.

    The romans specifically rejected the idealism of the greeks, and it was their pragmatism that led them to build what the greeks failed to: a civilization. And to avoid what the greeks had done, which was philosophical utopianism, and democratic overextension.

    Science evolve little during the church’s reign and often under some degree of persecution. Although not as much prosecution as under islam. Or as much as its total absence under judaism.

    Science evolved rapidly after Bacon. And despite the anglo enlightenment and industrial revolution, the german second enlightenment and industrial revolution, and the current (albeit weak) American attempt at ending the Second Abrahamic Conquest of the West by Marxism, Socialism, Feminism, and Postmodernism, we still have not completed ending the revolt by athens(idealism), jerusalem(judaism), Constantinople/Anatolia(christianity), and the Damascus/Bekaa-Valley(Islam) against the people of action (Sparta, northern/germanic Europe).


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 12:37:00 UTC

  • “CURT, BUT ISN’T SCIENCE A PROCESS OF MYTH DEVELOPMENT?” —“What is the process

    “CURT, BUT ISN’T SCIENCE A PROCESS OF MYTH DEVELOPMENT?”

    —“What is the process of science if not building upon mythological language?”— Josh Jeppson

    Ah… great question.

    NARRATIVE CYCLE

    — begin —

    Free Association

    Hypothesis, Theory, Testimony

    History

    Analogy (literature)

    Idealism (rational + ideal – real)

    Mythology (supernormal/hyperbolic – temporal )

    Supernaturalism (rational + ideal + supernormal )

    Occult ( Supernatural + post-rational )

    Dreams (pure experiential)

    — return to to begin –>

    EPISTEMOLOGICAL CYCLE

    — begin –>

    Observation

    Free Association — on false, begin –>

    Hypothesis — on false, begin –>

    Theory — on false, begin –>

    Law (visible) — on false, begin –>

    Habit (becoming invisible) — on false, begin –>

    Metaphysical Assumption(invisible) — on false, begin –>

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CATEGORIES OF NARRATIVES

    Science vs literature:

    Sure, we can describe science as an effort to create narratives and plots so that we humans can use scientific narratives like historical, or fictional, or mythical, or supernatural narratives to identify opportunities to apply transformations.

    The difference is that we had to learn (very slowly it seems) that the universe’s monomyth is very different from ours (cycles of entropy). And that it was extremely difficult for us to learn do de-anthropomorphize the universe’s narrative

    So the purpose of narratives is to assist us in producing searches for opportunities. The purpose of recipes is to provide us means of transformation.

    So all sorts of narratives must contain certain useful functions (or attempts at inserting dysfunctions – as does postmodern literature).

    And while scientific narratives assist us in transforming the world, political narratives assist us in transforming the polity, interpersonal narratives assist us in transforming others, and personal narratives assist us in transforming ourselves.

    Narrative=search, Recipe=transformation(action)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-15 10:57:00 UTC