[T]he only energy technology that we are going to use and depend upon is nuclear, helped by water, and as a minor contributor – solar, because it’s the only source of energy strategically tolerable to depend upon.
And while teenage boys like to fantasize about star trek technology, adult men only spend vast amounts of money on strategically defensible assets. – That’s Just How It Is.
The way you get to be in charge of money is because people put you in charge of money, and people put you in charge of money largely because they trust what you will do with it. And that means the use of loss aversion, and opportunity cost to make decisions. And expensive, failure-prone, strategically indefensible, and therefore vulnerability-inducing assets are pretty unintelligent investments.
We will explore space when we develop both an extremely light craft big enough for humans to trundle around in, AND an engine capable of efficient conversion of energy to velocity, at constant acceleration of one G or greater. We already have cheap means of flying stuff into orbit. That’s why there is so much in low orbit already. But there appears to be less free ‘stuff’ in space to convert into energy along the way so we are going to have to act like primitive ships and move from mass-port to mass-port, and spending more time traveling because we cannot carry the mass with us to convert into energy.
It is possible that we will discover or invent the interstellar equivalent of hydrocarbons (a very dense store of energy for newtonian scale), but as yet we don’t know of such a thing even though from what precious little we understand about the universe, such a thing should be possible in theory even if in practice we cannot find a means of constructing it.
Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science
-
Criticism: Tech As Belief In New Gods
-
Criticism: Tech As Belief In New Gods
[T]he only energy technology that we are going to use and depend upon is nuclear, helped by water, and as a minor contributor – solar, because it’s the only source of energy strategically tolerable to depend upon.
And while teenage boys like to fantasize about star trek technology, adult men only spend vast amounts of money on strategically defensible assets. – That’s Just How It Is.
The way you get to be in charge of money is because people put you in charge of money, and people put you in charge of money largely because they trust what you will do with it. And that means the use of loss aversion, and opportunity cost to make decisions. And expensive, failure-prone, strategically indefensible, and therefore vulnerability-inducing assets are pretty unintelligent investments.
We will explore space when we develop both an extremely light craft big enough for humans to trundle around in, AND an engine capable of efficient conversion of energy to velocity, at constant acceleration of one G or greater. We already have cheap means of flying stuff into orbit. That’s why there is so much in low orbit already. But there appears to be less free ‘stuff’ in space to convert into energy along the way so we are going to have to act like primitive ships and move from mass-port to mass-port, and spending more time traveling because we cannot carry the mass with us to convert into energy.
It is possible that we will discover or invent the interstellar equivalent of hydrocarbons (a very dense store of energy for newtonian scale), but as yet we don’t know of such a thing even though from what precious little we understand about the universe, such a thing should be possible in theory even if in practice we cannot find a means of constructing it. -
Looking Into The Future: Doolittle, Haidt, Hawkins, Dennett
[W]illiam L. Benge just pointed out to me that “Dennett and Hawkins” have pretty much demonstrated the end of the Cathedral’s fallacy, and have moved beyond it.
I think if you watch Hawkin’s talk, then Haidt’s talk on moral blindness, then my talk on The Inter-temporal Division of Reproductive Labor. Then you begin to see the future : we act more like a set of hives than the individually rational actors proposed by the greeks and the enlightenment.
Doolittle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNg4NpDTxMHaidt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxcHawkins
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_hawkins_on_how_brain_science_will_change_computingDennett
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness?language=en -
Looking Into The Future: Doolittle, Haidt, Hawkins, Dennett
[W]illiam L. Benge just pointed out to me that “Dennett and Hawkins” have pretty much demonstrated the end of the Cathedral’s fallacy, and have moved beyond it.
I think if you watch Hawkin’s talk, then Haidt’s talk on moral blindness, then my talk on The Inter-temporal Division of Reproductive Labor. Then you begin to see the future : we act more like a set of hives than the individually rational actors proposed by the greeks and the enlightenment.
Doolittle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNg4NpDTxMHaidt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxcHawkins
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_hawkins_on_how_brain_science_will_change_computingDennett
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness?language=en -
The Future: Doolittle, Haidt, Hawkins, Dennett
William L. Benge just pointed out to me that “Dennett and Hawkins” have pretty much demonstrated the end of the Cathedral’s fallacy, and have moved beyond it.
I think if you watch Hawkin’s talk, then Haidt’s talk on moral blindness, then my talk on The Inter-temporal Division of Reproductive Labor. Then you begin to see the future : we act more like a set of hives than the individually rational actors proposed by the greeks and the enlightenment.
DOOLITTLE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNg4NpDTxM
HAIDT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxcHAWKINS
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_hawkins_on_how_brain_science_will_change_computing
DENNETT
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness?language=en -
The Future: Doolittle, Haidt, Hawkins, Dennett
William L. Benge just pointed out to me that “Dennett and Hawkins” have pretty much demonstrated the end of the Cathedral’s fallacy, and have moved beyond it.
I think if you watch Hawkin’s talk, then Haidt’s talk on moral blindness, then my talk on The Inter-temporal Division of Reproductive Labor. Then you begin to see the future : we act more like a set of hives than the individually rational actors proposed by the greeks and the enlightenment.
DOOLITTLE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNg4NpDTxM
HAIDT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxcHAWKINS
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_hawkins_on_how_brain_science_will_change_computing
DENNETT
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness?language=en -
Untitled
http://m.livescience.com/48951-surnames-social-mobility.html?adbid=10152407455481761&adbpl=fb&adbpr=30478646760&cmpid=514627_20141201_36484777
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-02 10:31:00 UTC
-
William L. Benge just pointed out to me that “Dennett and Hawkins” have pretty m
William L. Benge just pointed out to me that “Dennett and Hawkins” have pretty much demonstrated the end of the Cathedral’s fallacy, and have moved beyond it.
I think if you watch Dennett’s talk, then Haidt’s talk on moral blindness, then my talk on The Inter-temporal Division of Reproductive Labor. Then you begin to see the future : we act more like a set of hives than individually rational actors proposed by the greeks and the enlightenment.
And when you grasp that, you will perhaps see the importance of both speaking the truth, the virtue of contracts, and the importance of prices, rather than unlimited free speech, the dream of reason, – and just about all that we have done during the democratic era under the fallacy of the rationally capable rational actor.
Hive mind exists.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-28 17:07:00 UTC
-
OK I CAN STOP CRITICISING CRITICAL RATIONALISM NOW. 🙂 It is merely a convenient
OK I CAN STOP CRITICISING CRITICAL RATIONALISM NOW. 🙂
It is merely a convenient language for science. A pidgin -just as mathematical Platonism is a convenient pidgin for mathematics.
I apologise to my friends an ex friends for the experiments that I had to run in order to solve the superior problem.
I appreciate all your efforts and patience.
But I think it was worth it.
Although science as a discipline will undoubtably disapprove of its loss of philosophical status, and possibly of the imposition of limited constraints upon what constitutes moral and legal pronouncements.
But that is a necessary consequence of suppressing deception – and an even more important objective than suppressing mysticism.
Cheers.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-27 07:18:00 UTC
-
PAPER: “MEANING IN CLASSICAL MATHEMATICS AND INTUITIONISM” It’s not just a probl
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5456.pdfYUMMY PAPER: “MEANING IN CLASSICAL MATHEMATICS AND INTUITIONISM”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5456.pdf
It’s not just a problem in philosophy and economics….
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-25 11:35:00 UTC