Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • THE NATURAL LAW OF DECIDABILTY ON THE STATE OF PHYSICS 1) Yes there is a classic

    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 causality 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): 2025-04-19 17:22:21 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1913644348329361408

  • I would say that the ternary logic of the universe expressed as evolutionary com

    I would say that the ternary logic of the universe expressed as evolutionary computation, tells us that opposites (the points of the triangle) are necessary CONSTRAINTS (limits) by the other two points of the triangle, regardless of which point you start from. This is because the universe cannot predict or think, and only remember by physical, genetic, or knowledge representation. As such the logic of the universe is that men and women divide both the population and time dimensions of labor, with intelligence maximizing the adaptability and range of conversion of energy (consumption), and the sexes and ages limiting one another.
    As such yes, women are not competent at scale since their sensory system is insufficient for it, even if hyper dense compared to the male at present experiential evaluation.
    Therefore men must constrain women in politics just as women must constrain men in families and social groups.
    I had previously assumed we could produce a house of women, and that we could add meritocratic tests for both voting and for political position. I am increasingly unsure given the demonstration of women’s behavior worldwide. Normally I seek to solve a problem through establishing an equilibrium but I’m losing confidence that it’s possible.
    Women are not self aware nor competent at scale or rather too few are at too high risk to consider it.
    And no I don’t like that which is why I’m still trying to solve the problem by resisting it.

    Reply addressees: @truthb4face

    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-16 18:50:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1912579251041361920

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1912576368274981043

  • Q: “CURT: HOW DOES NLI’S CASE AGAINST FACEBOOK DIFFER FROM THE FTC’S CASE?” The

    Q: “CURT: HOW DOES NLI’S CASE AGAINST FACEBOOK DIFFER FROM THE FTC’S CASE?”

    The FTC case is arguing against anti-competitive practices of Meta as a consequence of its acquisitions.
    The NLI case is more substantive in that we argue that social networks of such dominance are functioning as “Common Carriers” and as such constitute necessary social, economic, and political infrastructure necessary for the preservation of a democratic polity. And as such while meta may prohibit criminal and immoral (seductive) content consistent with the general application of the existing law, that they may widely distribute content that is apolitical and of demonstrated common interest, but it may not suppress content within networks of those that subscribe to one another with the intention of consuming political or other content conforming to their wants and needs.
    While the FTC may pursue their case as an orthogonal attack on these companies, it is our (NLI) opinion that directly addressing this issue and if necessary escalating it to the supreme court is the only durable solution to the problem.

    Reply addressees: @ErnestoGeorgi

    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-15 23:12:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1912283040098971650

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1912279196505715160

  • I’m arguing what’s true and what’s optimal. You’re arguing what’s good is what’s

    I’m arguing what’s true and what’s optimal.
    You’re arguing what’s good is what’s optimal.
    But you’re not using a constructive logic (proof) to demonstrate what you perceive as good is what is possible.
    This is the same way I defeated the libertarians. There is no possible means…

    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-14 20:19:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1911876897430213050

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1911860614252925320

  • WHY YOU ARE WRONG 😉 CHINA DOESN’T MATTER. –“China accounted for about 2.7% of

    WHY YOU ARE WRONG 😉 CHINA DOESN’T MATTER.
    –“China accounted for about 2.7% of U.S. personal consumption expenditures (PCE). PCE represents the total spending by households on goods and services and is a broad measure of “ordinary consumption.” Of this 2.7%, less than half (roughly 1.3%) reflected the actual cost of Chinese imports”–

    What percent of what you buy comes from china? 1.3%.
    How long does it take for any of that business to be repatriated to the USA ending the import, the tariff and the suppression of labor and wages caused by the import? Eighteen months.
    Why would you think that any tariff would survive for more than eighteen months?
    Is 18 months worth of tariff enough of a cost of repatriating working class jobs?
    What about when automation wipes out white collar jobs (which started last year and will accelerate). Will you want the government to implement policy that preserves your employability?

    Reply addressees: @MotivationSober @Dre31111 @elonmusk @realDonaldTrump

    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-10 22:28:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1910459891464232963

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1910457971999461802

  • I assume that ‘ending the remains of empires’ (Russia, China, Iran) either econo

    I assume that ‘ending the remains of empires’ (Russia, China, Iran) either economically or militarily is going to be a costly necessity of our survival. I don’t see how it’s avoidable at all. Even if we are (as trump is trying to) redistribute the world order to those who benefit from it (most), then either way, the restructuring is going to take 30yrs. I think most historians of ‘change’ would hold about the same opinion. The world will be as different in thirty years as it was between 1850 and 1900, or between 1920 and 1950.
    The pax americana of the 20th was only possible because most of the world committed suicide in the ending of agrarian empires and the transformation to industrial states – with some empires trying to survive because they were so backward (russia, china, middle east).
    So like I said leading up to 2016, when the ball really started moving, I had some predictive ability up through 2020, but after that – well you know – timing is impossible, and outcomes are only vaguely imaginable.
    My hope is that the current wave of innovation made possible by AI produces such ‘goods’ that we have something positive to focus on in this world. Otherwise, I can easily see the collapse of trade and the generation of conflict – particularly by starvation and energy warfare – such that we enter a cyclical decline on the scale of the roman empire. Would it last as long as the cancer cuased by the rise of christianity and islam? Probably not. But it would still be ‘bad’.

    Reply addressees: @sqpatrick77

    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-03 21:22:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1907906693339725824

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1907886185432719528

  • I don’t work in ideology. I work in science, and more precisely in operationalis

    I don’t work in ideology. I work in science, and more precisely in operationalism: causal chains of first principles. The ‘bias’ if you claim I have one, is toward cooperation at scale maximizing evolutionary computation. Which is nature and evolution’s bias as well. I just explain the world and what to do with it. I don’t make excuses for it. 😉

    Ideology makes a pragmatic claim. Theology makes a good claim. Philosophy makes a preference claim. And science makes a truth claim. We can evaluate the utility of ideology in pursuing some political goal. But ideologies are absent the necessity of truth claims.

    To understand the demarcation see :
    1) Political Ideologies by Heywood: https://t.co/UwwN2owNPN
    And to understand cuausality:
    2) The Explanation of Ideology: Family Structure and Social Systems: Emmanuel Todd (get from libgen).
    https://t.co/JvZ8IoaH3f

    Reply addressees: @ooana

    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-01 17:31:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1907123563909509120

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1906897524847263936

  • Anything good in christianity was present in proto germanic, in greece and rome.

    Anything good in christianity was present in proto germanic, in greece and rome. Had rome had the time to finish one of the related cults (sol invictus for example) the evil that is the abrahamic system of lying and sedition would never have been able to take route. Just as today, we are too tolerant of islam, they were too tolerant of christianity. And the medievals too tolerant of Judaism. China would never and did never make display that tolerance and they were and still are correct that it is civilizational cancer.

    Reply addressees: @ProductionMan @MikeChardin

    Source date (UTC): 2025-03-24 01:55:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1903989128334868480

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1903987143011365148

  • No, Europe was a majority aristocratic (military) civilization, and this meant a

    No, Europe was a majority aristocratic (military) civilization, and this meant a permanent underclass. Christianity gave the underclasses a means of status seeking (a) they could comprehend (b) didn’t require the ability and competency of the aristocracy. It started as a religion of women, became a religion of the weak, expanded into a religion of the rent seekers, and did so not by spreading greek and roman reason, but by the feminine construct of the abrahamic deception which started as the jewish undermining of the west, and was reformed into the marxist sequence and around 1900 into the muslim fundamentalist sequence. The only substantial problem is that (a) women are the voters who disable the civilization by evading responsibility, (b) immigrants from non-responsible civilizations ally with women, and (c) the folly of progressive optimism (responsibility evasion), by failing to respond to islamism as thoroughly as we did to world communism, and jewish economic and political sedition that preceded it.

    Sorry.

    Reply addressees: @ProductionMan @MikeChardin

    Source date (UTC): 2025-03-24 01:53:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1903988405853392897

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1903987143011365148

  • Mathematics (continuous mathematics) used in mainstream physics, is absent a the

    Mathematics (continuous mathematics) used in mainstream physics, is absent a theory of discreteness and a description in discrete mathematics (operationalism) and as such is a verbal description of observations not an operational description of causality.

    Perimeter was getting close. Weinstein is claiming they’ve gone sideways. I’m open to seeing what they’re proposing. But as far as I know they are and we are quite close to ending the mathematical platonism of cantor, einstein, and bohr. And I am fairly sure we’re going to feel pretty silly. 😉

    Reply addressees: @gray_rhinos @Plinz

    Source date (UTC): 2025-03-17 21:25:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1901746849188618240

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1901746079735124069


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    First Principle:
    (-) discreteness (we don’t know why)
    (a) pressure (we don’t know why)
    (b) release by expansion (sparsity) or contraction (density)
    (c) release by polarity ( organized motion: spin )
    (d) release by accumulation ( persistence )
    (e) release by combination (quanta)
    (f) release by recombination (particles, elements)
    (g) recombination produces emergent opportunity (combinatorics, molecules)
    (h) defense of persistence by assemblies (success or fail)
    (i) emergence of domains, cooperation, economies
    (j) emergence of evolution, evolutionary economies, and Evolutionary computation.

    Cheers.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1901746079735124069