Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Empty Criticisms to Obscure Unsatisfied Demand I Never Set out To Supply

    Oct 17, 2019, 9:28 PM

    —“I think Curt is working with an oversimplified, inaccurate theory of language, which leads to many liberal problems (Propertarianism as merely an intensification of liberalism), but I’ve always enjoyed some of his encyclopedic observations (because those are all necessarily written scientifically anyways, so there can be some compatibility).”—Imperius

    I am not working on an oversimplified and inaccurate theory of language, I am working on disambiguating language into causal axis (which I have done – as far as I know it’s complete). You are, as many right-wing-postmoderists are, correctly stating that language can via positiva be used to construct paradigms by narrative expression that are useful for various purposes in pseudoscientific, rational(continental sophomoric), literary (analogistic), mythological(heroic analogistic), supernatural prose. But that’ isn’t my objective (which you know). My objective is to write law that is decidable regardless of the USEFUL paradigms employed, by anyone whenever they are in CONFLICT. So the answer is, yes, P is so far flawless for purpose intended: decidability in matters of conflict. And since you and yours seek secular theology, the christians and muslims supernatural theology, and those like me seek scientific(Testimonial) decidability. So I’m writing a constitution serving all in the only language commensurable across all. I am not (as you wish I would) create a literary, philosophical, or theological religion dependent upon appeal to empathy(emotion) or sympathy(intuition), only reason. P provides no via positiva for any of the empathic, intuitionistic, or sympathetic market demands. It however does provide via negativa for juridical, political, and military, demands. So the best anyone can do (that I know of) is precisely what we have seen: rebel against science and reason without offering an alternative solution other than return to christian theology – which is impossible for all but those evolved to demand it. You want a continental secular theology, or perhaps occult theology, or perhaps supernatural theology that appeals to empathy and intuition. And if you want something like abrahamic religions or buddhism that is intentionally designed to circumvent criticism by science and reason, then go ahead and try to create one. But criticizing P while not producing an alternative, is simply unearned attention seeking on one hand and critique without competing alternative on the other. P is actionable. When I see some other centrist, libertarian, or conservative put out a work product that is other than pretense of knowledge and pretense of solution we can talk. Until then, there is no other new game in town.

  • Empty Criticisms to Obscure Unsatisfied Demand I Never Set out To Supply

    Oct 17, 2019, 9:28 PM

    —“I think Curt is working with an oversimplified, inaccurate theory of language, which leads to many liberal problems (Propertarianism as merely an intensification of liberalism), but I’ve always enjoyed some of his encyclopedic observations (because those are all necessarily written scientifically anyways, so there can be some compatibility).”—Imperius

    I am not working on an oversimplified and inaccurate theory of language, I am working on disambiguating language into causal axis (which I have done – as far as I know it’s complete). You are, as many right-wing-postmoderists are, correctly stating that language can via positiva be used to construct paradigms by narrative expression that are useful for various purposes in pseudoscientific, rational(continental sophomoric), literary (analogistic), mythological(heroic analogistic), supernatural prose. But that’ isn’t my objective (which you know). My objective is to write law that is decidable regardless of the USEFUL paradigms employed, by anyone whenever they are in CONFLICT. So the answer is, yes, P is so far flawless for purpose intended: decidability in matters of conflict. And since you and yours seek secular theology, the christians and muslims supernatural theology, and those like me seek scientific(Testimonial) decidability. So I’m writing a constitution serving all in the only language commensurable across all. I am not (as you wish I would) create a literary, philosophical, or theological religion dependent upon appeal to empathy(emotion) or sympathy(intuition), only reason. P provides no via positiva for any of the empathic, intuitionistic, or sympathetic market demands. It however does provide via negativa for juridical, political, and military, demands. So the best anyone can do (that I know of) is precisely what we have seen: rebel against science and reason without offering an alternative solution other than return to christian theology – which is impossible for all but those evolved to demand it. You want a continental secular theology, or perhaps occult theology, or perhaps supernatural theology that appeals to empathy and intuition. And if you want something like abrahamic religions or buddhism that is intentionally designed to circumvent criticism by science and reason, then go ahead and try to create one. But criticizing P while not producing an alternative, is simply unearned attention seeking on one hand and critique without competing alternative on the other. P is actionable. When I see some other centrist, libertarian, or conservative put out a work product that is other than pretense of knowledge and pretense of solution we can talk. Until then, there is no other new game in town.

  • Um. I Think You’re Confused About Property and Commons and The Evolution of Each

    Oct 21, 2019, 8:54 PM How food, forests, and people are connected, in 10 charts grist.org

    —“Commons are for high-input, savage hunter-gatherers. Deconstruction of the commons via recognition of private property is the first step to civilisation.”— Jonathan Besler

    Um. Well, not quite the argument you’re making. European Hunter gatherers either did not produce fixed commons (hunting grounds, grazing grounds, farms) before they competed with settled peoples, only after they competed with herding peoples, or settled peoples. All people hae always produced normative institutional commons: Norms, traditions, myths, manners, customs, and even property respect itself are commons. The central problem for settled people has been the gradual conversion from familial property to individual property, that followed the increase in the division of labor, and the development of inheritance, and the devotion of surplus to the incremental production of commons (defense, granaries(ex:africa), buildings(south america), walls(mesopotamia), grazing lands(caucuses, steppe), farming lands(anatolia), walkways(britain), bridges(asia), water transport (mesopotamia) ). The excess productivity of the flood river valleys when irrigated made possible the conquest of, taxation of, and centralization of proceeds of production in administrative(clerical) and martial (military) classes, in exchange for suppression of local rent seeking, corruption, and exposure to brigandry. Europe was unable to centralize as such until the conquest of other peoples under agrarianism, and the expansion of mediterranean trade. Europe lacks the flood river valleys and warm climate and so production was distributed, power, distributed, and evolved only in parallel with trade. Even the english, the most corporate of european peoples still maintained intergenerational familial property (land, animals, house) until the early modern period. The jews maintained serial marriage until the late middle ages, and the irish until the 1800’s, and slavery, polygamy, and child marriage, and paternal ownership of property are still practiced in developing countries. The distribution of decidability upon the scope and interest in property evolves with the division of labor, just as it did with women in this century. The distribution of decidability in conflict over demonstrated interests determines property. As property increases in atomization, free riding of all kinds is incrementally eradicated. This pushes people into all four directions: decrease in consumption, increases in productivity, innovation in production, or innovation in parasitism. The population always seeks means of externalization of loss, privatization of commons, free riding, parasitism, and predation, so the law must keep pace with innovations in The individual is the most rapid means of adapting to constriction of consumption. The market for goods services and information is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of production. The market for suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of parasitism. The common law is the most rapid means of suppressing innovations in the parasitism by the immediate expansion of the suppression of innovations in parasitism, by the first case adjudicated. It requires no further institutional support other than communication between judges. The principle difference P-adds is that ALL demonstrated interests of all kinds and require strict construction of judgements (findings), contracts (agreements), regulations (insurance against non-resitutability), legislation (contracts of the commons) and command (military dictate in cases of duress). And it prevents ir-reciprocal and untruthful (untestimonial) speech in matter of the commons to the commons. This means sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, and truthful speech, and no more marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, as well as no more judaism and islam or any other religion contrary to the natural law of reciprocity and testimonial truth. Cheers

  • Um. I Think You’re Confused About Property and Commons and The Evolution of Each

    Oct 21, 2019, 8:54 PM How food, forests, and people are connected, in 10 charts grist.org

    —“Commons are for high-input, savage hunter-gatherers. Deconstruction of the commons via recognition of private property is the first step to civilisation.”— Jonathan Besler

    Um. Well, not quite the argument you’re making. European Hunter gatherers either did not produce fixed commons (hunting grounds, grazing grounds, farms) before they competed with settled peoples, only after they competed with herding peoples, or settled peoples. All people hae always produced normative institutional commons: Norms, traditions, myths, manners, customs, and even property respect itself are commons. The central problem for settled people has been the gradual conversion from familial property to individual property, that followed the increase in the division of labor, and the development of inheritance, and the devotion of surplus to the incremental production of commons (defense, granaries(ex:africa), buildings(south america), walls(mesopotamia), grazing lands(caucuses, steppe), farming lands(anatolia), walkways(britain), bridges(asia), water transport (mesopotamia) ). The excess productivity of the flood river valleys when irrigated made possible the conquest of, taxation of, and centralization of proceeds of production in administrative(clerical) and martial (military) classes, in exchange for suppression of local rent seeking, corruption, and exposure to brigandry. Europe was unable to centralize as such until the conquest of other peoples under agrarianism, and the expansion of mediterranean trade. Europe lacks the flood river valleys and warm climate and so production was distributed, power, distributed, and evolved only in parallel with trade. Even the english, the most corporate of european peoples still maintained intergenerational familial property (land, animals, house) until the early modern period. The jews maintained serial marriage until the late middle ages, and the irish until the 1800’s, and slavery, polygamy, and child marriage, and paternal ownership of property are still practiced in developing countries. The distribution of decidability upon the scope and interest in property evolves with the division of labor, just as it did with women in this century. The distribution of decidability in conflict over demonstrated interests determines property. As property increases in atomization, free riding of all kinds is incrementally eradicated. This pushes people into all four directions: decrease in consumption, increases in productivity, innovation in production, or innovation in parasitism. The population always seeks means of externalization of loss, privatization of commons, free riding, parasitism, and predation, so the law must keep pace with innovations in The individual is the most rapid means of adapting to constriction of consumption. The market for goods services and information is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of production. The market for suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of parasitism. The common law is the most rapid means of suppressing innovations in the parasitism by the immediate expansion of the suppression of innovations in parasitism, by the first case adjudicated. It requires no further institutional support other than communication between judges. The principle difference P-adds is that ALL demonstrated interests of all kinds and require strict construction of judgements (findings), contracts (agreements), regulations (insurance against non-resitutability), legislation (contracts of the commons) and command (military dictate in cases of duress). And it prevents ir-reciprocal and untruthful (untestimonial) speech in matter of the commons to the commons. This means sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, and truthful speech, and no more marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, as well as no more judaism and islam or any other religion contrary to the natural law of reciprocity and testimonial truth. Cheers

  • More Fun with Christians

    —“Darwin doesn’t even agree with macro evolution. DNA, the eye, Cambrian explosion all disprove any macro evolution not to mention that species actually show just as much entropy as positive gains over time just look at how many useless dogs exist today. To pretend things get better and more organized over time is simply false.”—Charles Schiavo

    Did you just try to make sense? Because you didn’t. I’m perfectly able to narrate, almost without checking first, the history of the development of the eye, in at least the two times it evolved. I don’t know how many times blood evolved but I know of two. Darwin didn’t know about DNA, but we do, that’s no argument. DNA merely explains why Darwin was right (massive parallelization, niche exploitation, favoring nothing but increased complexity. The Cambrian explosion is the result of bottlenecking, creating opportunity, increase in oxygen levels increasing available energy – particularly by increasing surface area, and the cliff effect of a new generation of genetic grammars making possible more rapid evolution. So, Energy Density > Entropy > fundamental structure(Tetrahedron?) > fundamental forces > quantum fields > particles > atoms > chemistry > biochemistry > biology > neurons > memory > sentience > consciousness > language > calculation. The same applies for the complexity of biochemical constructions, especially proteins, which function as mechanical devices at the molecular level whose changes in state are powered by changing of charges produced by attachment and detachment of molecules. So there was a Cambrian explosion just as there was a bronze age, steel age, science age, and technological age, and now computational age revolution. Just as the first generations of stars contained little, but made the higher elements, and distributed them through explosion, and laying the seeds for the development of future permutations upon those elements. In evolutionary biology this is called ‘punctuated equilibrium’ where there are periods of explosive growth due to some particular innovation. For example the Indo europeans conquered much of Eurasia in no small part because they developed the ability to drink milk, giving them 40% more calories for the same effort of production. The same for business, economic, state, and civilizational cycles. The entire universe follows the same simple rules from it’s most basic foundations through our most complex inventions. And what on earth would make you think you’re smart enough, knowledgeable enough, intellectually honest enough to make such an argument when the greatest minds of our age make the opposite. Edit

    —“You are clearly analyzing religion as some kind of intentional civilization building thing rather than a set of existential beliefs that individuals possess in light of the full human ignorance of the origins and purpose of reality.”—John Marshall

    A) Yes I understand human demand for mindfulness. I simply observe that this particular means of mindfulness is catastrophically destructive, and that there are scientific and philosophical means of achieving the same ends, without the same side effects. So did the conquering christians – which is why they closed all the stoic schools, and killed or chased off the philosophers, and destroyed the arts letters and architecture of the ancient world – to prevent men from independence they would gain by stoic training, and epicurean lifestyles, rather than abrahamic mindfulness submission and slavery. B) You don’t think each and every institutional religion was designed to employ suggestion, empathy, and false promise as a means of coercing primitive illiterate ignorant petty people into a politically beneficial behavior? I mean, I’m pretty well read on the development of every religion and by and large there isn’t any difference between the development of a logic, a science, a philosophy, a work of literature, a work of mythology, and a theology. it’s all engineering the human experience by a combination of techniques. There is no difference between the script writer and director provoking an experience, than that of Saul of Tarsus trying merge the various Roman, Greek, Persian, Mesopotamian religions into a jewish rebel’s narrative, in order to replace the primary religious works of the Mediterranean (Homer and Achilles), with an anti-hero (Abraham and Jesus). The fact that we desire the provisions of science, history, literature, philosophy, and theology and that we have produced religions for different classes in every civilization except islam is rather obvious. it’s just that the underclasses are better governed by theological superstition, the middle by philosophical sophism, and the upper by exercise of power, is nothing more than evidence of the need for a system of achievement accessible to classes possessed of different degrees of agency. Escapism and supernaturalism; justification and sophism; empiricism and power. You need to feel you aren’t manipulated by those with greater agency – I understand. It’s just false. Religion largely provides sedation as a means of mindfulness, while buddhism, stoicism, and wisdom(science, history) incrementally provide mindfulness by providing one with agency – rather than sedation. Just because drugs feel good doesn’t mean that they are good for you. Just because theology makes you feel good doesn’t mean it is good for you. Just because lying feels good doesn’t mean it is good for you.

    —“To be clear: You believe in Evolution and a 4 billion year old Earth, while taking the entire Book of Genesis as a fraud or a work of fiction?”—John Marshall

    Of course. I mean, we know the origin of every story in it. I’ve written about Adam and Eve and Cain and Able. These stories predate the jews. They were just appropriated. Most of it’s Babylonian. And the story of Egypt is also claiming victimhood rather than defeat. I mean, I don’t make errors. I have to compensate for a lot of you. It’s not that hard. I just do the work instead of presume.

    —“Where is your evidence that all living things in the world share a single celled common ancestor, despite the fact that the change of a kind of animal into a totally different kind has never been observed? Wheres your evidence for a 4 billion year old Earth, despite the fact that this is impossible due to the rate at which the Moon is leaving the Earth, and that those years are simply added to give more time for Evolution to happen in the minds of Evolutionists? Seems like you’re just accepting myths from above like everyone else.”—John Marshall

    Why would we share a single celled common ancestor. Parallel evolution happened all over the place. (you don’t understand Gelernter’s argument, and even if you did, he is a jewish theologian first, and a professor of computer science last, and if you were able (or i was in front of him) it would be a very short conversation to humiliate him. )

    –“Wheres your evidence for a 4 billion year old Earth”—

    Radioactive materials decay at invariant rates, giving rise to daughter products, and it is a nearly perfect clock. Radioactive materials require sun to terminate in order to produce them. The oldest material in the solar system is 4.6b, from the period of first consolidation (formation) and the estimate of the age of the earth (4.5 or so) varies only by whether we’re talking about the beginning of accretion or the beginning of granite flotation. In other words we cannot falsify the evidence, since no matter where we look in the solar system everything else is explained by the same time frames.

    —“Do you believe that human beings share a common ancestor with gorillas and chimpanzees?”—

    I don’t ‘believe’ anything – that is a theological statement. Instead, I can’t falsify the theory. And, if you’re asking ‘did we share a set of common ancestors rather than a single ancestor, then yes. The only bottlenecks I know of are relatively recent and seem to be largely on the female side. These were later offset by a minority of males fathering a majority of children. Why? Similar to rates of change in radiation, there is a measurable mutation survival rate in all DNA including that of all the great apes. (This is how Gelertner and others have tried to fool the ignorant – by conflating survivor mutation rate in surviving samples with mutation rate in population.) Taking advantage of people’s ignorance combined with their wishful thinking. The evolutionary trajectory is traceable, and rather obvious, the only problem we really face is that while we differ from chimps by about 5-6%, 90% of DNA is Junk (unused). And recombinant genetic expression is far more complex than we had originally thought. meaning smaller numbers of increasingly complex proteins can replace larger numbers of less complex proteins. I mean in theory at some point we should be able to build a human with one very complex protein, which , ooops… would look like the next generation of DNA, just as DNA is a revolution over RNA. Anyway. Yeah. We, like all great apes, evolved from groups of related ancestors.

  • More Fun with Christians

    —“Darwin doesn’t even agree with macro evolution. DNA, the eye, Cambrian explosion all disprove any macro evolution not to mention that species actually show just as much entropy as positive gains over time just look at how many useless dogs exist today. To pretend things get better and more organized over time is simply false.”—Charles Schiavo

    Did you just try to make sense? Because you didn’t. I’m perfectly able to narrate, almost without checking first, the history of the development of the eye, in at least the two times it evolved. I don’t know how many times blood evolved but I know of two. Darwin didn’t know about DNA, but we do, that’s no argument. DNA merely explains why Darwin was right (massive parallelization, niche exploitation, favoring nothing but increased complexity. The Cambrian explosion is the result of bottlenecking, creating opportunity, increase in oxygen levels increasing available energy – particularly by increasing surface area, and the cliff effect of a new generation of genetic grammars making possible more rapid evolution. So, Energy Density > Entropy > fundamental structure(Tetrahedron?) > fundamental forces > quantum fields > particles > atoms > chemistry > biochemistry > biology > neurons > memory > sentience > consciousness > language > calculation. The same applies for the complexity of biochemical constructions, especially proteins, which function as mechanical devices at the molecular level whose changes in state are powered by changing of charges produced by attachment and detachment of molecules. So there was a Cambrian explosion just as there was a bronze age, steel age, science age, and technological age, and now computational age revolution. Just as the first generations of stars contained little, but made the higher elements, and distributed them through explosion, and laying the seeds for the development of future permutations upon those elements. In evolutionary biology this is called ‘punctuated equilibrium’ where there are periods of explosive growth due to some particular innovation. For example the Indo europeans conquered much of Eurasia in no small part because they developed the ability to drink milk, giving them 40% more calories for the same effort of production. The same for business, economic, state, and civilizational cycles. The entire universe follows the same simple rules from it’s most basic foundations through our most complex inventions. And what on earth would make you think you’re smart enough, knowledgeable enough, intellectually honest enough to make such an argument when the greatest minds of our age make the opposite. Edit

    —“You are clearly analyzing religion as some kind of intentional civilization building thing rather than a set of existential beliefs that individuals possess in light of the full human ignorance of the origins and purpose of reality.”—John Marshall

    A) Yes I understand human demand for mindfulness. I simply observe that this particular means of mindfulness is catastrophically destructive, and that there are scientific and philosophical means of achieving the same ends, without the same side effects. So did the conquering christians – which is why they closed all the stoic schools, and killed or chased off the philosophers, and destroyed the arts letters and architecture of the ancient world – to prevent men from independence they would gain by stoic training, and epicurean lifestyles, rather than abrahamic mindfulness submission and slavery. B) You don’t think each and every institutional religion was designed to employ suggestion, empathy, and false promise as a means of coercing primitive illiterate ignorant petty people into a politically beneficial behavior? I mean, I’m pretty well read on the development of every religion and by and large there isn’t any difference between the development of a logic, a science, a philosophy, a work of literature, a work of mythology, and a theology. it’s all engineering the human experience by a combination of techniques. There is no difference between the script writer and director provoking an experience, than that of Saul of Tarsus trying merge the various Roman, Greek, Persian, Mesopotamian religions into a jewish rebel’s narrative, in order to replace the primary religious works of the Mediterranean (Homer and Achilles), with an anti-hero (Abraham and Jesus). The fact that we desire the provisions of science, history, literature, philosophy, and theology and that we have produced religions for different classes in every civilization except islam is rather obvious. it’s just that the underclasses are better governed by theological superstition, the middle by philosophical sophism, and the upper by exercise of power, is nothing more than evidence of the need for a system of achievement accessible to classes possessed of different degrees of agency. Escapism and supernaturalism; justification and sophism; empiricism and power. You need to feel you aren’t manipulated by those with greater agency – I understand. It’s just false. Religion largely provides sedation as a means of mindfulness, while buddhism, stoicism, and wisdom(science, history) incrementally provide mindfulness by providing one with agency – rather than sedation. Just because drugs feel good doesn’t mean that they are good for you. Just because theology makes you feel good doesn’t mean it is good for you. Just because lying feels good doesn’t mean it is good for you.

    —“To be clear: You believe in Evolution and a 4 billion year old Earth, while taking the entire Book of Genesis as a fraud or a work of fiction?”—John Marshall

    Of course. I mean, we know the origin of every story in it. I’ve written about Adam and Eve and Cain and Able. These stories predate the jews. They were just appropriated. Most of it’s Babylonian. And the story of Egypt is also claiming victimhood rather than defeat. I mean, I don’t make errors. I have to compensate for a lot of you. It’s not that hard. I just do the work instead of presume.

    —“Where is your evidence that all living things in the world share a single celled common ancestor, despite the fact that the change of a kind of animal into a totally different kind has never been observed? Wheres your evidence for a 4 billion year old Earth, despite the fact that this is impossible due to the rate at which the Moon is leaving the Earth, and that those years are simply added to give more time for Evolution to happen in the minds of Evolutionists? Seems like you’re just accepting myths from above like everyone else.”—John Marshall

    Why would we share a single celled common ancestor. Parallel evolution happened all over the place. (you don’t understand Gelernter’s argument, and even if you did, he is a jewish theologian first, and a professor of computer science last, and if you were able (or i was in front of him) it would be a very short conversation to humiliate him. )

    –“Wheres your evidence for a 4 billion year old Earth”—

    Radioactive materials decay at invariant rates, giving rise to daughter products, and it is a nearly perfect clock. Radioactive materials require sun to terminate in order to produce them. The oldest material in the solar system is 4.6b, from the period of first consolidation (formation) and the estimate of the age of the earth (4.5 or so) varies only by whether we’re talking about the beginning of accretion or the beginning of granite flotation. In other words we cannot falsify the evidence, since no matter where we look in the solar system everything else is explained by the same time frames.

    —“Do you believe that human beings share a common ancestor with gorillas and chimpanzees?”—

    I don’t ‘believe’ anything – that is a theological statement. Instead, I can’t falsify the theory. And, if you’re asking ‘did we share a set of common ancestors rather than a single ancestor, then yes. The only bottlenecks I know of are relatively recent and seem to be largely on the female side. These were later offset by a minority of males fathering a majority of children. Why? Similar to rates of change in radiation, there is a measurable mutation survival rate in all DNA including that of all the great apes. (This is how Gelertner and others have tried to fool the ignorant – by conflating survivor mutation rate in surviving samples with mutation rate in population.) Taking advantage of people’s ignorance combined with their wishful thinking. The evolutionary trajectory is traceable, and rather obvious, the only problem we really face is that while we differ from chimps by about 5-6%, 90% of DNA is Junk (unused). And recombinant genetic expression is far more complex than we had originally thought. meaning smaller numbers of increasingly complex proteins can replace larger numbers of less complex proteins. I mean in theory at some point we should be able to build a human with one very complex protein, which , ooops… would look like the next generation of DNA, just as DNA is a revolution over RNA. Anyway. Yeah. We, like all great apes, evolved from groups of related ancestors.

  • See the Stupid Sh-t I Have to Put up With?

    Oct 25, 2019, 10:29 AM The world is full of these idiots.

    —“Curt Doolittle You wrote <<The only thing entropy depends upon is a difference in charge>> As soon as you admit entropy depends on anything, you have already disproven the statement you are trying unsuccessfully to defend – viz. “Entropy is the prime mover.” Game over.”—Prem Prayojan

    That’s false right? Entropy is the name we give to the equilibration of differences in charges. Ergo it is a tautology (same by different words). Differences in charges exist. which tells us nothing about change. entropy tells us the consequence of change. Or we could say “the process in time we observe as entropy describes the state within time of a difference in charges, where all differences in charges are caused by a competition with other differences in charges that are organized differently. At present we deduce that a difference in fundamental charges is producing a consequent difference in fundamental charges that we call quantum fields, and a temporary density of that quantum field we call a particle. And by repeating this process of a difference in the pattern of charges, particles form combinations we call atoms or elements, elements form chemicals ,chemicals form molecules, molecules that include carbon produce biochemical molecules, biochemical molecules form proteins, proteins produce molecules necessary for cells, cells produce other cells, cells produce organs, organs produce organisms, organisms produce nervous systems, nervous systems produce memories, memories produce predictions, predictions product choices, and there we go. The entirety of the ‘grammar’ of the universe is – similar to binary or ternary logic – a difference in charges, whose change we call entropy: the tendency of all charges to equilibrate from order caused by differences in charges, to the disorder – the minimum difference in charges possible. So. As usual, I have just demonstrated the difference between verbal-linguistic sophisms made possible by imprecision by loose association permitting false deduction, induction, and abduction, versus verbal-linguistic testimony made possible by precision using operationalism, limiting false deduction, induction, and abduction. You are desperate. I understand. You have malinvested in a falsehood. You take pride (self image) in the explanatory power of your malinvestment, and you obtain undoubtably some social status by using such explanatory power of your malinvestment with other weak or dishonest minded people. But to anyone reading this it’s rather obvious that you just engaged in not only an error, not only a fallacy, but in a fraud, and a fraud perpetrated by sophism. Like the owner of a boat you have invested in a hole in the water into which you must throw further investment to maintain the prior malinvestment. I understand. I sympathize with your loss. But you chose poorly.

  • See the Stupid Sh-t I Have to Put up With?

    Oct 25, 2019, 10:29 AM The world is full of these idiots.

    —“Curt Doolittle You wrote <<The only thing entropy depends upon is a difference in charge>> As soon as you admit entropy depends on anything, you have already disproven the statement you are trying unsuccessfully to defend – viz. “Entropy is the prime mover.” Game over.”—Prem Prayojan

    That’s false right? Entropy is the name we give to the equilibration of differences in charges. Ergo it is a tautology (same by different words). Differences in charges exist. which tells us nothing about change. entropy tells us the consequence of change. Or we could say “the process in time we observe as entropy describes the state within time of a difference in charges, where all differences in charges are caused by a competition with other differences in charges that are organized differently. At present we deduce that a difference in fundamental charges is producing a consequent difference in fundamental charges that we call quantum fields, and a temporary density of that quantum field we call a particle. And by repeating this process of a difference in the pattern of charges, particles form combinations we call atoms or elements, elements form chemicals ,chemicals form molecules, molecules that include carbon produce biochemical molecules, biochemical molecules form proteins, proteins produce molecules necessary for cells, cells produce other cells, cells produce organs, organs produce organisms, organisms produce nervous systems, nervous systems produce memories, memories produce predictions, predictions product choices, and there we go. The entirety of the ‘grammar’ of the universe is – similar to binary or ternary logic – a difference in charges, whose change we call entropy: the tendency of all charges to equilibrate from order caused by differences in charges, to the disorder – the minimum difference in charges possible. So. As usual, I have just demonstrated the difference between verbal-linguistic sophisms made possible by imprecision by loose association permitting false deduction, induction, and abduction, versus verbal-linguistic testimony made possible by precision using operationalism, limiting false deduction, induction, and abduction. You are desperate. I understand. You have malinvested in a falsehood. You take pride (self image) in the explanatory power of your malinvestment, and you obtain undoubtably some social status by using such explanatory power of your malinvestment with other weak or dishonest minded people. But to anyone reading this it’s rather obvious that you just engaged in not only an error, not only a fallacy, but in a fraud, and a fraud perpetrated by sophism. Like the owner of a boat you have invested in a hole in the water into which you must throw further investment to maintain the prior malinvestment. I understand. I sympathize with your loss. But you chose poorly.

  • Nailing Fake Christians on The Rhetorical Cross

    Oct 29, 2019, 12:35 PM (possibly offensive) (necessary for preservation of christianity in european civlization) (the ‘harsh words’ for christians unwilling to accept the compromise with their scientific, rational, moral(traditional), non-theological christian peers.

    —“Modern Christianity just isn’t compatible with your ideas and will be a weak point if you adopt them. Christian concept of love and forgiveness is truly at odds. Islamic religion are far more inline with your concept. Eye for an eye is a neutral concept, restriction of free speech like lying, punishment for traitorous speech (their blasphemy concept), self defense of property and life is encouraged, rejection of debauchery is absolute and host of other issue make Islam superior for nation building. If you must hold onto Christianity, the older roots of christianity will work the best.”— Jay Smith

    Aside from the fact that you claim wisdom, knowledge, understanding, that you do not possess, or you would argue both sides and compare them, I think I have studied this subject as thoroughly as anyone in history with the least tolerance for lies from either side. We can accommodate christianity because christianity is compatible with the natural law, and european high trust peoples compatible with christian tolerance and charity – to a point. But christianity has failed in the ancient, medieval, and modern world to solve the problem of politics, and at present universalist christianity and christians are hostile enemies of western civlization. So if instead we limit Christian tolerance to “our own’ and prevent Christians from lying to themselves that they are doing good by helping others than their own – virtue signaling, not doing good. And if we can embody natural law and christian tolerance (love) in the constitution, then we can eliminate the evils of marxism, postmodernism, feminism, judaism and islam, that seek to destroy our civilization, and maintain scientific, rational, moral, and theological strains of christian thought. I understand. You want to promote the lie that faith is truth so that you don’t have to work so hard at preserving your faith. I understand that. But it just means your a liar, a parasite, and a thief, and you have no faith if you cannot accept both the truth AND faith together. If you cannot, then you have no faith. you are just a liar – no different from a drug addict making excuses for your addition to your lies. We can no longer tolerate cancerous Christians. Either have faith, truth, and honor and duty, or you are not a Christian or a European you are just another useful idiot of the enemy, and a cancer undermining western civilization. Faith is not incompatible with truth unless you have no faith. If you cannot bear truthful christianity, rational christianity, moral (traditional) christianity, and theological christianity together, you are no christian. You are just a selfish, lying, parasite, and an enemy of our people.

  • Nailing Fake Christians on The Rhetorical Cross

    Oct 29, 2019, 12:35 PM (possibly offensive) (necessary for preservation of christianity in european civlization) (the ‘harsh words’ for christians unwilling to accept the compromise with their scientific, rational, moral(traditional), non-theological christian peers.

    —“Modern Christianity just isn’t compatible with your ideas and will be a weak point if you adopt them. Christian concept of love and forgiveness is truly at odds. Islamic religion are far more inline with your concept. Eye for an eye is a neutral concept, restriction of free speech like lying, punishment for traitorous speech (their blasphemy concept), self defense of property and life is encouraged, rejection of debauchery is absolute and host of other issue make Islam superior for nation building. If you must hold onto Christianity, the older roots of christianity will work the best.”— Jay Smith

    Aside from the fact that you claim wisdom, knowledge, understanding, that you do not possess, or you would argue both sides and compare them, I think I have studied this subject as thoroughly as anyone in history with the least tolerance for lies from either side. We can accommodate christianity because christianity is compatible with the natural law, and european high trust peoples compatible with christian tolerance and charity – to a point. But christianity has failed in the ancient, medieval, and modern world to solve the problem of politics, and at present universalist christianity and christians are hostile enemies of western civlization. So if instead we limit Christian tolerance to “our own’ and prevent Christians from lying to themselves that they are doing good by helping others than their own – virtue signaling, not doing good. And if we can embody natural law and christian tolerance (love) in the constitution, then we can eliminate the evils of marxism, postmodernism, feminism, judaism and islam, that seek to destroy our civilization, and maintain scientific, rational, moral, and theological strains of christian thought. I understand. You want to promote the lie that faith is truth so that you don’t have to work so hard at preserving your faith. I understand that. But it just means your a liar, a parasite, and a thief, and you have no faith if you cannot accept both the truth AND faith together. If you cannot, then you have no faith. you are just a liar – no different from a drug addict making excuses for your addition to your lies. We can no longer tolerate cancerous Christians. Either have faith, truth, and honor and duty, or you are not a Christian or a European you are just another useful idiot of the enemy, and a cancer undermining western civilization. Faith is not incompatible with truth unless you have no faith. If you cannot bear truthful christianity, rational christianity, moral (traditional) christianity, and theological christianity together, you are no christian. You are just a selfish, lying, parasite, and an enemy of our people.