Nope. Not sure where you got that from. It’s a commonly held error however. Lions and tigers breed etc. Just not often
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-03 15:51:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631683735862104067
Reply addressees: @GronFarm @whatifalthist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631681752916688896
That’s not the definition of a species. In fact, that’s a long term effect of speciation. Speciation requires only a differentiation that influences selection. For example, frogs in chernobyl turning from green to black (darkbrown) by melatonin mutation. Or the famous british white moths that turned black because of the spread of a rare mutation as soot accumulated on birch trees. Or as we watch generations of bacteria adapt to survival in a medium with an antibiotic. It’s visible over just a few days.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-03 14:49:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631668050956042240
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631666215159570432
A couple of things.
I think we are closer to a systemic understanding of the universe than we think. That’s because my work has taught me how the universe works at all scales and how simple it is.
There are only two directions of “OMG!” discovery left to us (biological engineering and if anything can be done with the quantum background to circumvent SOL limits.) Only one of those has radical potential (quantum background).
I think that another cognitive revolution is possible in ordinary education. (I’m trying to make it possible) It should give us a std deviation – as much as the scientific revolution did.
I am not sure I have anything to add to the long history of visions of human-computer interaction that have been theorized for many decades now … OTHER than social disintigration will absolutely follow. I didn’t realize the degree of normative behavior we had presumed prior to mass internet communication and how well it would disrupt socialization and interpersonal cooperation.
I think the problem of human cooperation under robotics and AI especially given warfare possibilities, is the only uncertainty that exposes us to risk. So I expect AI and integration to accelerate social deconstruction. And I can’t really envison anything GOOD about that world.
I think the population problem (plus in Africa and India minus in everywhere else, and the starvation that is likely to result) is the most terrifying we can see on the horizon. And I don’t know HOW we avoid a century of wars to adapt to it.
I want star trek but I’m afraid we’ll get another dark age.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 22:53:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631427600785522689
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631423159139282945
I love this diagram, because it conveys that the universe is made of spherical legos, that separate from the quantum background by spinning, and that’s how they persist and don’t ‘fade’ back into the background (or at least, do so, in some cases, over terrifyingly long periods of time.) We are overly fascinated by particles, and a bit mystified by protoparticles and waves. But we can, and probably should, explain the universe, with less mathematics, and more classical models and explanations, because we confuse the limits of our measurements and the limits of mathematics with the relative simplicity of the universe at every level, even the quantum background, and it’s insanely fast ‘boiling’, which, using liquids at least as that model, makes perfect sense to anyone.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 19:54:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631382409311559703
I have a problem understanding why if you speak in ruliads, that you don’t understand the limits of mathematics and mathematical reducibility, limits of computation, limits of adversarial simulation, and limits of commensurability, because of limits of categorization.
All of mathematics is purely statistical (approximate). That’s why it’s valuable. And very little of the universe is quantifiable. That does not mean it can’t be rendered commensurable, but commensurability results in supply-demand (entropy-negative entropy) competitions, and adversarialism results in overlapping supply-demand competitions.
So you’re crippled by mathiness: the oldest cognitive error in western civilization. from that error evolved one-ness (universalism), and justifications, and proof, when all three of those concepts are false. A proof is a statement of possibility, justifications tell us nothing, only falsification does, all logic is falsificationary, telling us only that statements survive. There is no ideal human, only a distribution of male and female, across age and ability, in an adversarial competition between reproductive strategies, and resulting class, ethnicity, national, and civilizational strategies. And the calculation is performed by accumulated adversarial competitions by a vast hierarchy of supply demand competitions where cooperation functions as the only possible ‘equals’ sign, that tells us we have discovered a condition of reciprocity, that is the cognitive social and living equivalent of physical disambiguation of energy into mass.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 18:18:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631358218831028231
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631354482561802251
Of course they were. That occurs in every discipline. It doesn’t tell us anything. The faithful still deny Darwin. There will always be defenders of the faith. We still don’t know if Jesus existed or was a fictionalization. How hard has that been defended?
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-01 12:41:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630911141697208322
Reply addressees: @Columcilled @JMeanypants @ScottAdamsSays
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630884666013016066
RT @MKatorin: Billions of tax dollars across the world have been wasted on sociologists trying to connect crime rate reduction to poverty,…
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-01 06:54:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630823720183816193
THE UNIVERSE’S ORIGINS
I have a pretty good handle on WHY the universe’s laws are what they are. I have a pretty good handle on the possible options. Those are both testifiable judgments. If you asked me to gamble on which of those origins is most likely I could do so, but I have no reason to believe so other than it’s the ‘simplest’ answer given our present knowledge … a decision criterion that has failed us repeatedly in the past. 😉
Hmmm.. if you recall that I used the ‘fluke’ explanation, I suspect that I was either listing the possibilities, or I was using that example to refute someone’s undue certainty of a different theory. I can imagine the latter pretty confidently.
SPECTRUM OF POSSIBILITIES
One universe expanding and contracting, with that one universe the limit.
A collection of bubbles of universes (with the same laws) each bursting and replenishing the possibility of the next bubble universe, with the bundle of bubbles the limit.
Universes as explosions of bubbles in an otherwise ‘infinite’ universe.
PERMUTATIONS AND OPEN QUESTIONS
I can go into each of these and the permutations of each, but you can get the idea.
AFAIK each of space, energy, and time have a zero point and exist no matter what. But we can’t prove it yet.
We do not know if that zero point is a property of the bubble of our universe, or of the universe that contains our bubble of our universe. We don’t even know how to test it.
Until we grasp what I suspect are the next two levels down of the quantum background (aether, zero-point-space-time) and can determine whether space is created by the underlying medium(energy), I don’t know if we can for sure answer this question. And our lack of progress is frustrating.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-01 03:17:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630769218063937536
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630762486403305472
In mathematics, just as division by zero is a problem, infinity is a problem. We have a symbol for infinity, but not one for division by zero (which is effectively the same thing.) So infinity either means “error”, “I dunno”, or “undefined limit”.
Part of the problem if not the cause of the problem is the foundation of mathematics in set theory(idealism) rather than operational computation (realism).
The dam**ed consequences of that screw-up caused the loss of analytic philosophy that crashed in the 20th century.
I blame Babbage for not writing papers and generalizing the theory instead of trying to make bigger computers.
The result was cantor-einstein-bohr’s re-mystification of mathematics, and today’s physics lost in mathiness.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 02:32:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630395474162114561
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630393847342571525
Q: “YOU CAN’T CRITICIZE ABSTRACT IDEAS LIKE INFINITY!”
I understand your position. But you’re wrong. And you’re wrong because no infinities are existentially possible. The error originates like many errors in philosophy from a failure to understand mathematics. As such infinity is a mathematical concept (mathematical platonism) given that mathematics is context(reference), scale and operation(time, sequence) independent, (we remove the constraint of correspondence from mathematical language), and a logic of positional names (we remove scale and limits from correspondence), and time and operationally independent (no sequence of operations in time) and as a consequence requires arbitrary definition of limits. For example, we are conscious of the minimum scale of the quantum background, and as such, there is a relatively simple limit of 1.6x-10^35 or so (I might be mis-remembering) for scale. (at least until we get into the dipoles and polarity of the quantum background.). So for example, in Cantor’s ‘infinities,’ this is just a fantasy. Instead of infinities of different sizes, any set of operations will produce results at different rates – thus restoring time and sequence. So whenever we discuss reality we must ask ourselves what dimensions are we removing from limiting us to identity, consistency, constructability, correspondence, limits, full accounting, and coherence. all the fictionalisms (pseudoscience so to speak) whether supernatural-theological, sophistry-philosophy, magic-pseudoscience, and textualism-innumeracy, all require we subtract dimensions of reality and tests of possibility in order to construct our analogies – or our lies.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-27 23:00:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630342171084595206