I ALWAYS START WITH THE SCIENCE.
If I say something, it’s because I know the science and the data. The audience’s problem is figuring out whether I’m educating or baiting. š And the trick of doing my job is never letting you know for sure – so you are forced to think, and,ā¦
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-19 19:31:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670876935725936646
RT @ATabarrok: Fake research doesnāt just waste researcher resources it can delay cures and end up killing people. https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-18 17:14:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670480199736066054
–āMath is the conversion of caffeine into theoremsā–Paul Erdos
(via Michael)
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-17 23:49:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670217185745149953
An example of truer words were never spoken.
–“Darwinian evolution is more dangerous(uncaring) than eugenics”– https://twitter.com/antigg860413/status/1670187708818366464
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-17 22:05:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670190878965612544
Bad science produces more citations than good science. š https://twitter.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1669508373212016641
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-17 00:36:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669866645483823107
https://twitter.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1669508373212016641
Q: “Curt: Let us assume that science gets rid of these pseudoscientific intellectuals. What would be so beneficial?”
Great question.
Our evidence so far, and admittedly it’s not a large population, is that just as physical science has converted man from many particular rules to a few general rules and the result has been about a standard deviation in performance despite the same brains – though not as much as greek reason, not as much as language but still a leap – my (our) work has produced about the same increase in measurable performance, because there is literally nothing we cannot understand and explain at least at human scale. This is because there is a very simple, painfully simple logic to the universe at all scales.
So to address the ‘why’? At the very least, there is a serious problem of the relationship between cognitive performance and economic and political condition, and therefore qualit of life, and the slope is not linear – it’s terrifying.
So while before the industrial revolution it appears that europeans had 105iq’s and the brits even higher, in America, because of immigration, urbanization, and asymmetric reproduction we have dropped below an average 100IQ points, and there is a cliff at about 97, which we should hit any year now. This is causing economic bifurcation which is causing political bifurcation, and the numbers are devastating.
So a shift by a standard deviation, through a revolution in education (which we all know we are due for) would compensate for the loss of IQ, and the economic and political consequences of the present bifurcation. Even we were to politically separate into feminine-irresponsible-left and masculine-responsibile-right states (which I expect will occur this century) it will still produce benefits for everyone.
It’s one thing to lose strategic advantage, an other to lose economic advantage, another to lose technological advantage, an other to lose scientific advantage, but the worst are to lose cultural (formal and informal institutions) advantage, or genetic advantage, because you can fix everything else but those two.
So yes, nearly every field will require and benefit from some reformation, and yes I’ve done the primary work on most fields (by 2017 really).
We lost a thousand years in europe last time to the abrahamic destruction of human thought – and we still haven’t fully recovered from it. Seven great civilizations of the ancient world were reduced to ignorance and superstition, intellectual, techonlogical, cultural and aesthetic destruction by Islam alone. At present the introgression of similar thought has cost us a century during which we still have progressed thanks to consuming the innovations produced largely in the german academy, just like we had advanced by innovations largely produced in scotland before, and england before that.
So yes we will uncover incremental improvements – but in all walks of life. But more importntly, we we do not succeed, if the left’s pseudoscientific replacement for theology isn’t defeated, we’re just as likely to either repeat the dark ages, or worse, succumb to the ignorance and superstition of abrahamic religion version two.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Reply addressees: @mrcmurgia
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-14 15:20:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669001967849422848
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668996454826889219
: Like I said, that revolution is in progress and about to start, but as we’ve discovered, science advances with tombstones, and we have to purge these generations from the academy before we will find new blood with incentive for status seeking by outperforming theirā¦
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-14 14:58:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668996436573265922
Reply addressees: @Helium_He3
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668994927164895240
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
THE NATURAL LAW OF DECIDABILTY ON THE STATE OF PHYSICS:
1) Yes there is a classical explanation of quantum mechanics using fluid dynamics.
2) Yes an ‘aether’ exists as the quantum background with fluidic properties.
3) The variables aren’t hidden. They were deducible. They weren’t deduced because of a failure permute upon classical explanations in favor of continuing mathematical (non causal) explanations.
4) Yes this ‘mathiness’ set us back because math is only descriptive not causal, and as such, einstein/bohr’s descriptive but non causal adventure with ‘mathiness’ (platonism) was easier to solve than maxwell, lorentz, and hilbert’s ‘physics’ (realism, naturalism, empiricism).
5) No, there is no evidence of non classical existence. We simply do not know if information can be transmitted by other than waves through the background at whatever lower level of resolution that exists that the background evolves from.
6) So we face two problems (a) a set of models rather than a mathematics from which to produce experiments (b) the means of testing the even-smaller to perform these experiments.
Why? If we study the *instinctual* means of human igorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, magical thinking, fictionalisms, deceits and denials, we can catalogue them, and test hypotheses and theories for engaging in those means of ‘error’ (or lying). (And it’s humiliating to study human lying, and then gaining awareness of how much of our speech consists of lies whether by intent or not.
If we search through the history of western *systems* of thought, we find the conflict between the observable and the imaginary in the empiricism of aristotle(epicurus, the stoics et all), and the magical thinking in plato’s idealism as well as in other civilizations as confucian wisdom, supernatural abrahamism, hinduism, and buddhism.
If we catalogue the sophistries of suggestion (deceit) and overloading by loading, framing, obscuring, fabrication, and the fictionalisms of Emotional: Supernatural->Theology, Verbal: Idealism->Philosophy(Idealism), and Physical:Magic->Pseudoscience and Pseudomathematics, we find man is naturally predisposed to ‘lie’ whenever possible if for no other reason than psychological comfort or satisfaction at having some sort of answer, and that man lies by overloading each of the three human faculties of measurement: emotion, langauge, and the physical world.
And if we catalog the evolution of the history of thought from instinct to cusality as:
|Cognitive Evolution|: Embodiment > Anthropomorphism(Projection) > Mythology(Explanation) > Theology(authoritarian idealism) > Philosophy(Rational Idealism) > Natural Philosophy(Empiricism, Measurement) > Science(Calculus, Correspondence) > Operationalism(Computation, Causality).
The purpose of the scientific method is to produce testimony. The purpose of the market for science is to produce evolutionary survival (or death) of testimony. Over time we reduce surviving testimony, by versimilitude (market competition) toward parsimony (first principles) from which we no longer need to imagine, hypothesize, theorize, but only describe as a sequence of causal operations in time in a hierarchy of first principles. If we can do so, then it’s testifiable. If we can’t it’s not.
My work in large part is in this ‘via negativa’ completion of the logic of falsification, recognizing that there is no proof, only survival from falsification. Because the sequence of certainty is:
|Certainty|: incomprehensible > comprehensible but undecidable > possibly true but undecidable > decidably false.
It’s not just physics and behavioral science that are lost. It most everything other than technology. Why? The marxists, the left, and yes, especially jewish thought leaders, reintroduced non-european thinking into our sciences, that depended upon their ancestral cultural ‘logic’ that includes the above methods of self and other deception (lying) and as such we have the crisis of the age – while we try to preserve european truth in the face of a world trying to assert it’s ancestral thought that is everything but true.
Cheers.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1668994927164895240
@Helium_He3 : Like I said, that revolution is in progress and about to start, but as we’ve discovered, science advances with tombstones, and we have to purge these generations from the academy before we will find new blood with incentive for status seeking by outperforming their previous generations with new and better solutions.
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-14 14:58:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668996436489392132
THE NATURAL LAW OF DECIDABILTY ON THE STATE OF PHYSICS:
1) Yes there is a classical explanation of quantum mechanics using fluid dynamics.
2) Yes an ‘aether’ exists as the quantum background with fluidic properties.
3) The variables aren’t hidden. They were deducible. They weren’t deduced because of a failure permute upon classical explanations in favor of continuing mathematical (non causal) explanations.
4) Yes this ‘mathiness’ set us back because math is only descriptive not causal, and as such, einstein/bohr’s descriptive but non causal adventure with ‘mathiness’ (platonism) was easier to solve than maxwell, lorentz, and hilbert’s ‘physics’ (realism, naturalism, empiricism).
5) No, there is no evidence of non classical existence. We simply do not know if information can be transmitted by other than waves through the background at whatever lower level of resolution that exists that the background evolves from.
6) So we face two problems (a) a set of models rather than a mathematics from which to produce experiments (b) the means of testing the even-smaller to perform these experiments.
Why? If we study the *instinctual* means of human igorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, magical thinking, fictionalisms, deceits and denials, we can catalogue them, and test hypotheses and theories for engaging in those means of ‘error’ (or lying). (And it’s humiliating to study human lying, and then gaining awareness of how much of our speech consists of lies whether by intent or not.
If we search through the history of western *systems* of thought, we find the conflict between the observable and the imaginary in the empiricism of aristotle(epicurus, the stoics et all), and the magical thinking in plato’s idealism as well as in other civilizations as confucian wisdom, supernatural abrahamism, hinduism, and buddhism.
If we catalogue the sophistries of suggestion (deceit) and overloading by loading, framing, obscuring, fabrication, and the fictionalisms of Emotional: Supernatural->Theology, Verbal: Idealism->Philosophy(Idealism), and Physical:Magic->Pseudoscience and Pseudomathematics, we find man is naturally predisposed to ‘lie’ whenever possible if for no other reason than psychological comfort or satisfaction at having some sort of answer, and that man lies by overloading each of the three human faculties of measurement: emotion, langauge, and the physical world.
And if we catalog the evolution of the history of thought from instinct to cusality as:
|Cognitive Evolution|: Embodiment > Anthropomorphism(Projection) > Mythology(Explanation) > Theology(authoritarian idealism) > Philosophy(Rational Idealism) > Natural Philosophy(Empiricism, Measurement) > Science(Calculus, Correspondence) > Operationalism(Computation, Causality).
The purpose of the scientific method is to produce testimony. The purpose of the market for science is to produce evolutionary survival (or death) of testimony. Over time we reduce surviving testimony, by versimilitude (market competition) toward parsimony (first principles) from which we no longer need to imagine, hypothesize, theorize, but only describe as a sequence of causal operations in time in a hierarchy of first principles. If we can do so, then it’s testifiable. If we can’t it’s not.
My work in large part is in this ‘via negativa’ completion of the logic of falsification, recognizing that there is no proof, only survival from falsification. Because the sequence of certainty is:
|Certainty|: incomprehensible > comprehensible but undecidable > possibly true but undecidable > decidably false.
It’s not just physics and behavioral science that are lost. It most everything other than technology. Why? The marxists, the left, and yes, especially jewish thought leaders, reintroduced non-european thinking into our sciences, that depended upon their ancestral cultural ‘logic’ that includes the above methods of self and other deception (lying) and as such we have the crisis of the age – while we try to preserve european truth in the face of a world trying to assert it’s ancestral thought that is everything but true.
Cheers.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-14 14:52:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668994926829338627
Q: “CURT: ARE WE DUE FOR NEW DISCOVERIES IN PHYSICS?”
I’m fairly sure we are about to experience a reformation by restoring ‘physics’ (physicality, discreetness) to the disciple of physics, which as been mired in mathiness (continuousness). Yes.
This reformation will eliminate the many falsehoods that evolved in the field during the 20th century. And it will change our explanations of what we observe in the cosmos from a little to a lot. However, in terms of discoveries, as far as I know, we are still stuck with the observation (measurement) problem.
And while much of this ‘mathiness’ has been nonsense, some clues did arise from the nonsense. And those clues suggest that there are two more layers of precision that produce the quantum background.
And personally, I find all of this science of different scales of complexity something between awe-inspiring and terrifyingly creepy. š Because the very small is very small, and the very big is very big, and while we’re incredibly complex compared to the observable universe itself, we’re sort of ‘not much’ by comparison.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Reply addressees: @ScottClaremonty
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-14 11:15:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668940252046606336
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668928198606979072