Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • Quantum Dointers? (NLI Neologism) 😉 –“Quantum Dointer: Describes someone who m

    Quantum Dointers?
    (NLI Neologism) 😉

    –“Quantum Dointer: Describes someone who makes a living turning physics into cheap tricks, confusing and amazing people. Neil Degrasse Tyson would go there too if he talked about quantum more. “– Michael

    –“Take the water analogy: “Use a hose. The water sprays forward from the hose but the water droplets (e-) hit the air-resistance and scatter, probabilistically to us because the water drops (e-) interact with the air but also each other. The only difference is water coheres on contact, electrons repel.
    Quantum Dointers like Michio Kaku or Brian Greene will say “Even Saturn gets a little wet!” Or something like that. Because a probability distribution like a Gaussian never touches 0.
    What a bunch of jerks.”– Michael


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-27 18:12:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673756095834193920

  • Yes and as of the last decade we know why the existence of all is deterministic.

    Yes and as of the last decade we know why the existence of all is deterministic. And that answer is simple, boring, and obvious.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-26 13:26:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673321805577170944

    Reply addressees: @ZahraaAlm313 @RichardDawkins

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673313663854477313

  • Selection or cause?

    Selection or cause?


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-25 20:12:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673061626235240450

    Reply addressees: @BronskiJoseph @TheAutistocrat

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672751755833090050

  • Safe title. Contradicts the report. The lab leak satisfies the criteria of “beyo

    Safe title. Contradicts the report.
    The lab leak satisfies the criteria of “beyond all reasonable doubt”. The fact that we don’t have documentation despite all the other documented leaks from that lab would only convert “beyond all reasonable doubt” to “undeniable”. Not sure why…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-24 01:33:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672417558471778305

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672411990919184389

  • “Q: WHAT IS SCIENCE? AND HOW DID WE ‘SCIENCE’ THE FORMAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

    “Q: WHAT IS SCIENCE? AND HOW DID WE ‘SCIENCE’ THE FORMAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES. (FINALLY)”

    I should just point people to our videos and let them sink or swim, rather than try to help them along. 😉

    But just the difference between the mathematical (continuous descriptions),… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1671927180253708290


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-22 17:29:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671933490793791503

  • WHAT IS SCIENCE AND HOW DOES IT SCALE IN COMPLEXITY? (RE: “Thats Not Science!”)

    WHAT IS SCIENCE AND HOW DOES IT SCALE IN COMPLEXITY? (RE: “Thats Not Science!”)
    (with links to our videos)

    1. Science consists of producing testimony by compensating for human frailty in sensation, perception, auto-association, prediction, valuation, and cognition. We do so by some means of testing observables, whether external (instrumental) or internal (logically consistent).

    2. The endpoint of all scientific research is the production of irreducible first principles (laws), where the spectrum of laws evolves from the mathematical (continuous descriptions) to categorical (consistent sets), to the computational (discreet operations). (Note that this might be hard for you to understand without an advanced education.)

    3. The commonality(consistencies) between laws produces the first principle (ternary logic of evolutionary computation) of all existence (persistence), and construction from that first principle survives falsification both the first principle (vertical) and the resulting first principles and their applications (horizontal).

    4. This hierarchy of first principles forms a universally commensurable value natural constructive logic of falsification across all domains. Conversely, we can enumerate the dimensions of possible testifiability (realism, naturalism, identity, consistency, constructability, correspondence, rational choice, coherence, completeness(full accounting) within stated limits) and falsify all possible truth claims utterable by man.

    5. Constructability makes use of the ternary logic of behavior, that because sex differences are the result of cognitive bias differences, is rather simple consisting of sex differences in cognition, by the spatial and temporal division of labor, and the need for negotiation on agreement in order to identify survival to evolutionary opportunities.

    6. Likewise, the much more complex ternary logic of the grammars (language), including sex differences in choice, negotiation, and lying, tells us how we try to ‘cheat’ (obtain discounts) on cooperation (parasitism, predation).

    7. We can catalog those *grammars* (methods, techniques) including those of lying and how they are constructed from human cognitive biology, processes, biases.

    8. This means we can, and have, ‘scienced’ both truth and lying, and everything in between. (we have a large spreadsheet of the grammars and the evolution of both truth and lying.

    9. This means all human speech is open to deconstruction (analysis), and that analysis informs us that the vast majority of human speech consists of communication, coercion, persuasion, negotiation, and most of all that is some form of discount-seeking: lying.

    10. Ergo, we have a relatively complete science of decidability and constructive logic of cognition, behavior, and speech.

    11. And as such, we can deconstruct the female and male biases in methods of lying and how both sexes apply them differently.

    12. And as such, we can demonstrate (and have) the sex differences in cognition, in lying, and the Abrahamic (vs the greco-roman) methods of deception, whether by intuition and instinct, or by habit, or by wishful thinking, or by malicious intent.

    So no. You are simply not knowledgeable in such matters, and yes they are somewhat challenging.

    VIDEOS
    The Method:
    Preface:
    https://t.co/NpYt7jWSIE
    Introduction:
    https://t.co/gHjIm7vRcu
    What’s Wrong with Public Speech
    https://t.co/lqaFttQFHD
    An Overview of the Method
    https://t.co/BY6VZ2n6uV
    Basic Concepts
    https://t.co/KvYSdLwiyk
    Disambiguation
    https://t.co/FdgjRsIhrW
    Operational Sentences (Prose)
    https://t.co/FCnzHglZfy
    The Grammars
    https://t.co/m8y74Jkl4K
    Introduction to First Principles
    https://t.co/xcEk75OvAA
    First Principles: Acquisitionism
    https://t.co/k8hVqMcUba

    You can also watch the cognitive science videos in this playlist:
    Foundations: Brain Mind Consciousness.
    https://t.co/x5xWzs58hX

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @enhanced_vibes


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-22 17:04:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671927179855249411

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671915356238102529

  • Ah, There you go. Smart. Why do we need empiricism, instrumentation, science, an

    Ah, There you go. Smart.
    Why do we need empiricism, instrumentation, science, and logic?


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-21 15:11:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671536432186261506

    Reply addressees: @Glace15840573 @TheAutistocrat

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671535616293470208

  • RT @charlesmurray: We live in an intellectual Dark Age. People will look back on

    RT @charlesmurray: We live in an intellectual Dark Age. People will look back on what’s happening the same way we look at the persecution o…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-20 17:14:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671204861797445632

  • RT @Evolutionistrue: A new Skeptical Inquirer paper by Luana Maroja and me on th

    RT @Evolutionistrue: A new Skeptical Inquirer paper by Luana Maroja and me on the ideological subversion of biology:

    https://t.co/PPTnJyPy…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-20 17:14:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671204848115626005

  • I don’t know of any paradoxes in physics. But sure. In physics all paradoxes I k

    I don’t know of any paradoxes in physics. But sure. In physics all paradoxes I know of are of the same origin as the philosophical, in the false expecations we derived from mathematics. Ergo a paradox in physics means we have somethingn wrong because we do. Whereas in philosophy…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-19 21:25:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670905776423030787

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670905143955529728