Curt Doolittle

Form: Dialogue

  • (Draft, in progress, saving for tomorrow) (script) “Q: Curt: What do you mean by

    (Draft, in progress, saving for tomorrow) (script)

    “Q: Curt: What do you mean by a formal operational logic?”

    I’m fundamentally an epistemologist and logician of decidability, and I apply my work to behavioral sciences. In particular, I focus on applying my work to historical explanations of our ‘errors’ (deceits) and then legal and economic reforms to repair them. And I do this to end the conflict of our age, and bring about a possible settlement before the deterministic war that will absolutely hurt us all comes to pass.

    What’s not obvious to you or anyone else, is that this solution to the formal sciences, unifies the sciences, meaning my work explains all the sciences in one simple model. So that means I’ve had to work across all the sciences and disciplines, which is why this effort was so challenging that no university would tolerate the scope of work necessary to produce it without publishing.

    One of the perils of my work, is that it’s extremely technical, yet because it’s of universally popular interest, everyone has an opinion – and speaks (like bots) out of pervasive ignorance, justifying their priors, but lacking any means of comprehending the subject other than their feelings of it. Conversely, you don’t find ordinary people criticizing mathematicians and logicians because the work is not only incomprehensible but unimportant to them. But I touch on ‘the frauds, lies, and falsehoods’ that all of us our invested in, and of course, people who agree need to spend a year learning enough to understand I’m correct, and people who disagree rapidly run from the first substantive argument demonstrating they don’t know what they’re talking about – of if (as we see is common on the left) the double down on ad homs, poisoning the well, and canceling by ridicule, outraging, shrilling, and shaming.

    So now that the research and development is done, and we’re working on the draft for publication, I find I can return to basic explanations. Partly to educate the willing, and partly in defense of the unwilling and ignorant, and partly to silence the abusive.

    List Explanations Covered Below:
    The Four sciences
    The Formal Science
    Positional
    Operational
    Constructive
    First Priciples
    Falsificationary
    Evolutionary Computation
    First Principles
    Disambiguation
    Testimony
    Decidability.

    The Four Sciences:
    1. Formal: Systems (Grammars, or abstract: ‘language’)
    That we use to describe the three other sciences:
    2. Physical (Natural): Continuous Mathematics (Before)
    3. Behavioral (Social) Discrete Computations (During)
    4. Evolutionary: Adversarial Simulations (After)

    Formal Science
    Formal science is a branch of science studying disciplines concerned with abstract structures described by formal systems, such as logic, mathematics, statistics, theoretical computer science, artificial intelligence, information theory, game theory, systems theory, decision theory, and theoretical linguistics.

    Whereas the natural sciences and social sciences seek to characterize physical systems and social systems, respectively, using empirical methods, the formal sciences use language tools concerned with characterizing abstract structures described by formal systems.

    The formal sciences aid the natural and social sciences by providing information about the structures used to describe the physical world, and what inferences may be made about them.

    In other words, universal grammar is trivial, consisting of rules of continuos recursive disabmiguation by a combination of names that refer to states (nouns, adjectives) or transformations (verbs, adverbs), and agreements (agree/disagree yes/no, true/false).

    As such all systems (grammars of paradigms vocabulary and syntax) from mathematics to procedures, to testimony to ordinary language, fiction to fictionalisms, to lying, to sedition are variations in permissible references that are consistent and correspondent … or not.

    I understand this can be difficult to understand. But what it means is langauge consists of a stream of measurements using the human body, senses, perceptions, and intuitions, and instruments(tools) as ‘natural measurements’. And that we can speak in very precise, practical, or deceptive measurements. And that all human disciplines are constructed of the universal grammar of continuous recursive disambiguation, with nothing other than names of states, changes in state, and tests of equality (agreement). In other words everything we say and do can be imagined as increasingly non-cardinal mathematics.

    (Nominally) Positional Systems of Measurement by Triangulation
    Cardinal vs Ordinal vs Nominal vs Nominally Positional:
    Cardinal (…)
    Ordinal (…)
    Nominal (…)
    Positional (…)
    Triangulation (…)

    Operational (Actions)
    An Operational Logic is a system of logic requiring that all statements must consist of a sequence of objectively (physical) and subjectively(logical) operations that are testable by possibility and repeatability by man.

    Constructive
    A constructive logic is a system of logic stating that mathematical or logical statements are true only when they can be constructed, and as such, proved.

    Falsificationary (Survival)
    (…)
    Evolutionary Computation
    (…)
    First Principles
    (…)
    Disambiguation
    (…)
    Testimony
    (…)
    Decidability.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-23 02:18:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672066564600807425

  • Q: “Curt: How long do you think each day on ways to be a bigger a– than the day

    Q: “Curt: How long do you think each day on ways to be a bigger a– than the day prior?”

    I keep working at incrementally discovering the limit of human instinct, intuition, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, magical thinking, incompetence, stupidity and denial – and through extraordinary diligence I uncover new people with ever-increasing new depths of such stupidity, by testing for their deviation from the tedious, boring, mechanical rules of the universe.

    It’s not hard.
    This is social media.
    It’s a rich vein of stupidity to mine.

    Thank you dear mouse.
    Here is some cheese.
    Now scuttle along. 😉

    Reply addressees: @rpeterson2317 @KiwiBreeder

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 19:15:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635359044935270401

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635357305234661376

  • Martin: “Q: What would happen under ROL-NL(P-Law) to those cities that claim div

    Martin: “Q: What would happen under ROL-NL(P-Law) to those cities that claim diversity is a good?”
    Curt: “A: Not all preferences are good. As long as you don’t like about the short, medium, and long-term consequences of political heterogeneity, and insure neighbors – it’s fine.”

    Source date (UTC): 2023-01-30 21:48:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1620177244877639680

  • Luke Weinhagen: “Q: What’s the political equivalent of the Dunbar number?” Curt:

    Luke Weinhagen: “Q: What’s the political equivalent of the Dunbar number?”
    Curt: “A: It’s a range rather than a number, which is, at least empirically, at present levels of technology, 10M or less. The optimum number is 300k to 5M simply because minimum scale is econ necessity.”

    Source date (UTC): 2023-01-30 21:40:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1620175054029078528

  • Q:”Curt: RU propaganda is preparing the people for nuclear war and 30M deaths. W

    Q:”Curt: RU propaganda is preparing the people for nuclear war and 30M deaths. W

    Q:”Curt: RU propaganda is preparing the people for nuclear war and 30M deaths. What’s the chance of nuclear war?”
    A: Propaganda preparing the population takes off the domestic table, demand to ‘use nukes!’ without having to use nukes.
    More > https://t.co/AWfnAxOh3L

    Source date (UTC): 2022-10-11 13:51:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1579831996800729088

  • DEFINING HOW THE UNIVERSE USES COMPUTATION VS CALCULATION Richard: Q: — “Curt:

    DEFINING HOW THE UNIVERSE USES COMPUTATION VS CALCULATION

    Richard: Q: — “Curt: So when matter is able to form a stable relationship that persists that is a computation rather than a calculation? I was under the (false?) impression that matter can only calculate and that life can only compute. Life, memory, consciousness, language are more and more precise levels of computation?” —

    This is one of my failings of inconsistency. techically only conscious life can calculate (Transform inputs into outputs by rules). The physical universe can compute by trial and error. We don’t have a word for the space between compute and calculate. So the best thing to say is that it takes life to calculate (as you said), and the universe otherwise can only compute.

    Or we can take it farther that only life can compute, only conscous life can calculate. but then we have to find some way of talking about the universe’s physical functions (which are closer to addition subtraction) and would rightly be categorized as arithmetic.

    We will always be stuck in soem of these battles becasue we want to avoid neologisms, and instead just improve the precision of terms.

    And so I try to pick the term that does the best job, and ‘compute’ is the most universal term at all scales, while calculate implies deduction and induction and therefore requries sentience (consciousness really).

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-06 23:05:24 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107753552240020305

  • Me: “My mother was very fragile and her reaction to the second shot was enough t

    Me: “My mother was very fragile and her reaction to the second shot was enough to kill her.”
    Dr: “I’ve never heard of anyone killed by the vaccine.”
    Me: “That’s an unscientific statement. We know that reactions vary from trivial to severe, and some of us are fragile. She was.”

    Source date (UTC): 2021-09-14 13:07:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1437765021803626504

  • GODS

    GODS

    —“Earlier in the year, around Richmond event, you posted something to the effect that God had imbued us with special chosenness and with the divine mandate to lead the rest of the world kicking and screaming out of poverty, ignorance etc. And that parasitism, tolerance, and civ collapse is the price we pay to the universe for these gifts. Did I understand your thoughts clearly?”—

    You understood correctly (or at least closely enough) because I was speaking in the language and grammar of inspirational theology: wisdom. In my work I am not working in the language and grammar of inspirational theology, but of juridical decidability: science.

    It’s not that I”m incapable of inspirational prose. It’s that it’s not the problem that needs solving because every appeal to inspiration that affects any faction of the right will alienate the rest of the factions of the right. So, I just use truth and policy under the presumption that rational self-interest in self-preservation will eventually eclipse shallow demand for emotional inspiration.

    That said, I absolutely positively agree with what I said to you. It’s just that my concept of God, which you take as anthropomorphic is considerably more complex and the difference between the Semitic god and my understanding is a bit like the difference between arithmetic and geometric transformations in n!-dimensional manifolds so to speak. So we can only, and therefore must, imagine ‘god’ as what we are capable of imagining and understanding. And we all must hold onto the presumption that there are those more capable of understanding than we, and that at some point others more capable than them.

    If the universe can calculate something it will, and will do so when and where it must, and not where it can’t and mustn’t. The challenge for man is that god does not care for man, and the universe is not made for us, but we for it, and we are being constructed over eons to fulfill the universe’s purpose – as are others like and unlike us too – because most of us will fail. The stories of the gods are made by men to make our ‘utility’ bearable.

    So my words are spoken in the context that in retrospect it is rather evident that we HAVE dragged mankind out of his condition as animal into at least some potential for godhood ourselves – to act as the hands of the gods on their behalf.

    The truth is, that all evidence is that the universe and the gods care nothing for us, other than what they must in order to achieve their ends. This is why I prefer the pagan gods. They are equal fictions but at least they do not lie, and they were not invented by men to deceive men to profit or manipulate, control, or govern, or comfort men but to EDUCATE THEM.

    We are, at least in potential, sort of like neo to the architect: the exception that proves the rule. The outliers.

  • GODS

    GODS

    —“Earlier in the year, around Richmond event, you posted something to the effect that God had imbued us with special chosenness and with the divine mandate to lead the rest of the world kicking and screaming out of poverty, ignorance etc. And that parasitism, tolerance, and civ collapse is the price we pay to the universe for these gifts. Did I understand your thoughts clearly?”—

    You understood correctly (or at least closely enough) because I was speaking in the language and grammar of inspirational theology: wisdom. In my work I am not working in the language and grammar of inspirational theology, but of juridical decidability: science.

    It’s not that I”m incapable of inspirational prose. It’s that it’s not the problem that needs solving because every appeal to inspiration that affects any faction of the right will alienate the rest of the factions of the right. So, I just use truth and policy under the presumption that rational self-interest in self-preservation will eventually eclipse shallow demand for emotional inspiration.

    That said, I absolutely positively agree with what I said to you. It’s just that my concept of God, which you take as anthropomorphic is considerably more complex and the difference between the Semitic god and my understanding is a bit like the difference between arithmetic and geometric transformations in n!-dimensional manifolds so to speak. So we can only, and therefore must, imagine ‘god’ as what we are capable of imagining and understanding. And we all must hold onto the presumption that there are those more capable of understanding than we, and that at some point others more capable than them.

    If the universe can calculate something it will, and will do so when and where it must, and not where it can’t and mustn’t. The challenge for man is that god does not care for man, and the universe is not made for us, but we for it, and we are being constructed over eons to fulfill the universe’s purpose – as are others like and unlike us too – because most of us will fail. The stories of the gods are made by men to make our ‘utility’ bearable.

    So my words are spoken in the context that in retrospect it is rather evident that we HAVE dragged mankind out of his condition as animal into at least some potential for godhood ourselves – to act as the hands of the gods on their behalf.

    The truth is, that all evidence is that the universe and the gods care nothing for us, other than what they must in order to achieve their ends. This is why I prefer the pagan gods. They are equal fictions but at least they do not lie, and they were not invented by men to deceive men to profit or manipulate, control, or govern, or comfort men but to EDUCATE THEM.

    We are, at least in potential, sort of like neo to the architect: the exception that proves the rule. The outliers.

  • What Do Marxism Feminism Postmodernism Have to Do with The Ignorance of The Current Generation… ?

    The Octogenarian Little Old Lady (criticizing): “Why is the current generation so ignorant?!” Me: “They had to make the generations ignorant in order to perpetuate the lie of Her: “What do marxism, feminism, and postmodernism have to do with the current generation being ignorant?!” Me: “Marxism to undermine compromise between the classes with straw man of oppression; undermining the compromise between the genders with the straw man of oppression; undermining the compromise between different peoples with the straw man of oppression; No one was oppressed in history. economic necessity isn’t oppression. conformity produces discounts, and unconformity imposes costs, and our people have been the very best in human history at producing those discounts.” Her: (Pause. Looking off into the distance.) “You think you’re so smart.” Me: “It’s a curse. And I gotta’ put up with all of you every … single … day … . It’s exhausting.” Her: (Head shaking). Me: “Score!”