Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • “Q: CURT WHY THE EMPHASIS ON TRIFUNCTIONALISM?” (bookmark)(core) Well, nature ha

    “Q: CURT WHY THE EMPHASIS ON TRIFUNCTIONALISM?”
    (bookmark)(core)

    Well, nature has a hard problem beginning in the quantum background, and it solves it with velocity(spin) resulting in positive, negative, and equilibriuim. There is nothing in the unverse that violates this model – there can’t be. Everything in the universe is constructed from it.
    So we see this same rule throughout material, all life, and all of mankind, and most imporantly it the three possible means of human coercion: Physical, Social, and Reciprocal.
    Then we see it as large scale in organizing principles of state, religion, and contract(law). And we see it incomparative civilization as means of competition between races expressed in the various possible path dependences between state, religion, contract(law) institutions. And finally we see it in logic as undecidable, possibly true, and definitely false, and in all language that follows the same rules.

    There are only twenty something rules like this.
    And all of existence is explained by them.
    That is why, we make such an emphasis on trifuctionalism, as well as continuous recursive disambiguation, which is the means by which the universe defeats entropy (pressure spatial expansion) with negative entropy (concentration in mass), and the P-Method of disambiguation by enumeration, serialization, disambiguation, operationalization, of all terms into a system of ordinal measurement, within those rules.

    It might seem a lot at the beginning, but it’s the universe’s programming language. Not math. Why? Mathematical reducibility is smaller than computational reducibility. 😉

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 21:34:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635031469063020545

  • “Q: CURT WHY THE EMPHASIS ON TRIFUNCTIONALISM?” (bookmark)(core) Well, nature ha

    “Q: CURT WHY THE EMPHASIS ON TRIFUNCTIONALISM?”
    (bookmark)(core)

    Well, nature has a hard problem beginning in the quantum background, and it solves it with velocity(spin) resulting in positive, negative, and equilibriuim. There is nothing in the unverse that violates this model – there can’t be. Everything in the universe is constructed from it.
    So we see this same rule throughout material, all life, and all of mankind, and most imporantly it the three possible means of human coercion: Physical, Social, and Reciprocal.
    Then we see it as large scale in organizing principles of state, religion, and contract(law). And we see it incomparative civilization as means of competition between races expressed in the various possible path dependences between state, religion, contract(law) institutions. And finally we see it in logic as undecidable, possibly true, and definitely false, and in all language that follows the same rules.

    There are only twenty something rules like this.
    And all of existence is explained by them.
    That is why, we make such an emphasis on trifuctionalism, as well as continuous recursive disambiguation, which is the means by which the universe defeats entropy (pressure spatial expansion) with negative entropy (concentration in mass), and the P-Method of disambiguation by enumeration, serialization, disambiguation, operationalization, of all terms into a system of ordinal measurement, within those rules.

    It might seem a lot at the beginning, but it’s the universe’s programming language. Not math. Why? Mathematical reducibility is smaller than computational reducibility. 😉

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 21:34:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635031469289529345

  • You’re not making a scientific argument. I am

    You’re not making a scientific argument.
    I am.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 17:55:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634976365442392064

    Reply addressees: @Mathilduhhhh @FrailSkeleton

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634976058041851904

  • Marc. (all); It’s under 3% It’s probably closer to 2%. In some fields ( psych, s

    Marc. (all);
    It’s under 3% It’s probably closer to 2%. In some fields ( psych, soc, pol) it’s right of the decimal if not a negative number (sic). In other fields (philosophy) it’s multiple digits to the right of the decimal point. I don’t know how many papers I read a month, but its many tens. And all I see that has any value with any regularity is applied sicence (neurology, biology, chemistry, materials). Though some fields (genetics, archaeology, one or two AI papers a year) are useful. Franky, randomly shuffling thru patent apps is at least entertaining.

    You know how we used to track news narratives over time? It’d be interesting to do the same with theories, and then group papers under those theories and watch them over time. Without context we lose the opportunity for the rather obvious observation that it’s mostly nonsense.
    -cheers

    Reply addressees: @pmarca


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 22:42:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634686235925946373

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634484210009522176

  • Marc. (all); It’s under 3% It’s probably closer to 2%. In some fields ( psych, s

    Marc. (all);
    It’s under 3% It’s probably closer to 2%. In some fields ( psych, soc, pol) it’s right of the decimal if not a negative number (sic). In other fields (philosophy) it’s multiple digits to the right of the decimal point. I don’t know how many papers I read a month, but its many tens. And all I see that has any value with any regularity is applied sicence (neurology, biology, chemistry, materials). Though some fields (genetics, archaeology, one or two AI papers a year) are useful. Franky, randomly shuffling thru patent apps is at least entertaining.

    You know how we used to track news narratives over time? It’d be interesting to do the same with theories, and then group papers under those theories and watch them over time. Without context we lose the opportunity for the rather obvious observation that it’s mostly nonsense.
    -cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 22:42:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634686236068659205

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634484210009522176

  • There are no inter-dimensions. It won’t make sense if I try to explain it, but t

    There are no inter-dimensions.
    It won’t make sense if I try to explain it, but there are reasons there are only three spatial and one temporal dimension. Nothing else is possible or ever will be.
    As for the word itself.
    A dimension means a measurement.
    It requires three measurements to describe space.
    It requires a fourth to describe change (time)
    When nitwits talk about 11 dimensions that does not mean 11 spatial dimensions exist. It means it takes eleven measurements of causality to describe a behavior.
    Most of these people are telling pseudoscience fiction for entertainment purposes the same way women go to fortue tellers and card readers. That’s all. It’s fun. But like horoscopes it’s just entertainment.

    Reply addressees: @ScottClaremonty


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 03:06:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634390283742789632

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634385695207997440

  • There are no inter-dimensions. It won’t make sense if I try to explain it, but t

    There are no inter-dimensions.
    It won’t make sense if I try to explain it, but there are reasons there are only three spatial and one temporal dimension. Nothing else is possible or ever will be.
    As for the word itself.
    A dimension means a measurement.
    It requires three measurements to describe space.
    It requires a fourth to describe change (time)
    When nitwits talk about 11 dimensions that does not mean 11 spatial dimensions exist. It means it takes eleven measurements of causality to describe a behavior.
    Most of these people are telling pseudoscience fiction for entertainment purposes the same way women go to fortue tellers and card readers. That’s all. It’s fun. But like horoscopes it’s just entertainment.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 03:06:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634390283860279296

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634385695207997440

  • Involved? No. Visit us? Very Unlikely. Possibly impossible. Exist? Probably. Mor

    Involved? No.
    Visit us? Very Unlikely. Possibly impossible.
    Exist? Probably. More rare than we imagine. But almost certain.
    Can we ever discover them? We dunno yet. Possibly not.

    Do I wish? Yes to all of the above. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 02:07:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634375385856061440

    Reply addressees: @ScottClaremonty

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634371207742238720

  • RT @D__2__3: Put a bookmark in this. I’d suggest that most of the habitat and wi

    RT @D__2__3: Put a bookmark in this.

    I’d suggest that most of the habitat and wildlife destruction shown can actually be attributed to ove…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 22:30:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634320762818506753

  • I still don’t understand how that makes any sense. Sorry. Men and women still ex

    I still don’t understand how that makes any sense. Sorry.
    Men and women still exist. But women are no longer needed for wombs or eggs. All that’s needed are skin cells even from men alone. So, many more people could have single-parent households. Have one, two, three at once. Not sure how that’s much different from today other than it’s deliberate. Women could keep building their ‘masculine energy’ hyperconsumption and hyper spending in the work force. Pay taxes. Etc. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-09 04:17:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633683395615109121

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633682082521120769