Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Do Complex Numbers Exist?

    In response to:     I should publish a paper on this subject as yet another of the many problems of mathematical idealism(analogy) vs mathematical operationalism (reality). Because “i”, just as |absolute value|, solves a problem of ambiguity in mathematics: the language and logic of positional names. Sabine correctly identifies the convenient use of “i” in simplifying oscillations (geometry). But why can’t we identify the square root of negative one as negative one? Because of the Conflation of Direction(geometry) and Position(arithmetic). The use of “i” is necessary because as a general rule we’re conflating arithmetic (position) with geometry (direction). Is this solvable? Of course. Is “i” simply denoting the use of geometric (directional) math versus arithmetic (positional) math? Yes. Is it any more complex than that? Absolutely not. Math is a trivially simple language (paradigm, logic, vocabulary, grammar, syntax) under mathematical operationalism. It’s all the nonsense we piled on it, that makes it difficult to learn. Unfortunately, while the operational revolution was identified in math, in physics, in economics (and less so in law) it only stuck in some parts of physics and not in mathematical physics, or in mathematics. This is why (in my opinion) computational revolutions are occurring in computer science where the limits of mathematics are openly exposed (the domain of the operationally calculable is greater than the domain of mathematically reducible.) We can’t reform mathematics because the operational revolution failed in math – we got a set foundation (idealism) of math instead. And IMO the problem Sabine is continuously exposing both in her book and in her videos, is this underlying failure: that mathematics fails in economics and below the quantum level for the same reason: the underlying mechanics are operational and either we lack the information to describe that geometry or the underlying geometry isn’t mathematically reducible beyond the quantum level. We all assume it’s the former but it just as likely is the latter.  

  • Do Complex Numbers Exist?

    In response to:     I should publish a paper on this subject as yet another of the many problems of mathematical idealism(analogy) vs mathematical operationalism (reality). Because “i”, just as |absolute value|, solves a problem of ambiguity in mathematics: the language and logic of positional names. Sabine correctly identifies the convenient use of “i” in simplifying oscillations (geometry). But why can’t we identify the square root of negative one as negative one? Because of the Conflation of Direction(geometry) and Position(arithmetic). The use of “i” is necessary because as a general rule we’re conflating arithmetic (position) with geometry (direction). Is this solvable? Of course. Is “i” simply denoting the use of geometric (directional) math versus arithmetic (positional) math? Yes. Is it any more complex than that? Absolutely not. Math is a trivially simple language (paradigm, logic, vocabulary, grammar, syntax) under mathematical operationalism. It’s all the nonsense we piled on it, that makes it difficult to learn. Unfortunately, while the operational revolution was identified in math, in physics, in economics (and less so in law) it only stuck in some parts of physics and not in mathematical physics, or in mathematics. This is why (in my opinion) computational revolutions are occurring in computer science where the limits of mathematics are openly exposed (the domain of the operationally calculable is greater than the domain of mathematically reducible.) We can’t reform mathematics because the operational revolution failed in math – we got a set foundation (idealism) of math instead. And IMO the problem Sabine is continuously exposing both in her book and in her videos, is this underlying failure: that mathematics fails in economics and below the quantum level for the same reason: the underlying mechanics are operational and either we lack the information to describe that geometry or the underlying geometry isn’t mathematically reducible beyond the quantum level. We all assume it’s the former but it just as likely is the latter.  

  • THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION FOR THE RIGHT -“Curt, when will we see the Right resp

    THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION FOR THE RIGHT

    -“Curt, when will we see the Right respond to the constant attack by the Left in America? I can’t believe things have gone this far without retaliation?”-

    I mean, what would it take for YOU to show up? Imagine that you’re more willing to show up than most. What will it take for you and the rest to ‘show up’ at any cost for long enough to win? That’s the issue. “Someone else’s (a leader’s) responsibility”. The left shows up.

    Winning is easy. The problem is the left shows up and the Right doesn’t – and when they do they’re either Idiots (CVille), A Clowns (Capitol), or Cheerleaders (Any Trump Rally)**, and a disorganized mob without demands. If you don’t have demands your wants are inactionable.

    -“Oh man, this is so good. I’m guilty as charged. I’ve been a Cheerleader. Makes me think of the movie The Patriot. He didn’t want to fight. He only fought when it came to his doorstep. We live in modern times, where our doorstep is our laptop, the countless regulations etc.”-

    -“I know you’ve had scuffles with Nick Fuentes before but have you seen his AFPAC2 convention? He’s gotten support from 2 US House reps (sitting and former). Their platform is ill-defined but it’s around immigration halt & reform, absolute free speech.”-

    Not denigrating their efforts, but what are the chances that a majority can be created to enact that policy?

    None.

    Will changing immigration now make any difference?

    No.

    There is only one solution.

    (So, false sense of progress. There are all sorts of people who have influence. We could shift from reforms to activism (a political party) but it’s better to work on theory, supply activists with policy, and press for separation while letting personalities fight for attention.)

    -“I agree, by demographics alone any RW federal policy is already impossible. But I’m interested in the propaganda aspects of it, or, how much middle class attention can someone right-wing like Nick rally, by some use of Alinsky tactics. I was surprised by this much rallying as is.”-

    It works and the sad part of it is that undermining (racing to the bottom) is the only solution under democracy. Just as the only cure is re-militarization > legal reinstitution > government reformation > policy reformation.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-28 15:46:55 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105809655569306313

  • We need a more expensive religion

    Well at present I seem to have ‘scienced’ religion into operational and functional demands – more so than anyone in the past. You can ‘science’ literature as well. Or consciousness. There is a difference however between the science, the experience, and especially the auto-associative experience, that results from a long history of practicing a religion. That said, the personal consequences versus the consequences for the polity due to any religious, literary, historical, traditional, normative set of behaviors is often in conflict with the religious claims. Heroin addiction feels good and accomplishes the same thing as religion. Its consequences for the individual and society are terrible. Anything that produces mindfulness (sedating the prey response by evoking the pack response) will create tradeoffs. So you care about religion as a USER (personal consequences) and I care about it as RULER (political consequences). Religion is one of the last domains to ‘science’ and there is no reason we should think doing so will be any less dehumanizing than every other falsification of our primitive fantasies. Yet the demand for mindfulness will remain. As such, what will provide the services of religion yet is not false and does not produce negative consequences like the Abrahamic religions? Stoicism-epicureanism and the Tragedy worked – but it’s expensive. So Abrahamic religion is cheap education and what we call formal ‘education’ is expensive. So it appears that we need a more expensive religion. And one that isn’t false.

  • We need a more expensive religion

    Well at present I seem to have ‘scienced’ religion into operational and functional demands – more so than anyone in the past. You can ‘science’ literature as well. Or consciousness. There is a difference however between the science, the experience, and especially the auto-associative experience, that results from a long history of practicing a religion. That said, the personal consequences versus the consequences for the polity due to any religious, literary, historical, traditional, normative set of behaviors is often in conflict with the religious claims. Heroin addiction feels good and accomplishes the same thing as religion. Its consequences for the individual and society are terrible. Anything that produces mindfulness (sedating the prey response by evoking the pack response) will create tradeoffs. So you care about religion as a USER (personal consequences) and I care about it as RULER (political consequences). Religion is one of the last domains to ‘science’ and there is no reason we should think doing so will be any less dehumanizing than every other falsification of our primitive fantasies. Yet the demand for mindfulness will remain. As such, what will provide the services of religion yet is not false and does not produce negative consequences like the Abrahamic religions? Stoicism-epicureanism and the Tragedy worked – but it’s expensive. So Abrahamic religion is cheap education and what we call formal ‘education’ is expensive. So it appears that we need a more expensive religion. And one that isn’t false.

  • Thoughts: Yes, The Left is Parasitic

    Hi, this is curt doolittle, I thought I’d talk a little bit about the left’s parasitism. ANALOGY: Gad Saad’s new book is the Parasitic Mind.  I have an entirely appropriate man-crush on Saad because he practices masculinity as an art form, particularly suited to intellectuals. And he’s a master of it, as well as a master communicator and intellectual in his field. And his use of the analogy of parasitism is correct: Yes, taking zombie fungus as an example, an intuitionistic organism (wasp) needs biochemical neurological reorganization because it’s not conscious. But humans are conscious, meaning self-auditing, and we achieve the same neurological reorganization by informational INCENTIVES. We adapt by information more so than evolutionary or biological mutation. That’s why we’re hyper-adaptive to the laws of the universe. That’s what it means to be an intelligent species: to adapt quickly by information and cognitive change, rather than slowly by biological evolution. But a parasitic biochemical process or a parasitic informational process is indifferent – both product informational changes to the underlying organization of the life form’s behavior. PARASITISM: The left is parasitic and devolutionary and all leftism consists of continuous lying, producing social construction, to claim european civilization is ‘oppressive’ for discovery, adaptation to, and application of the laws of the universe, despite that the entire reason for european asymmetric success in turning the universe to our advantage is due to our discovery, adaptation, and application of those laws – and paying the cost in reproductive, psychological, and emotional discipline necessary to do so, resulting largely in persisting those logical (formal), physical, behavioral(cooperative), and evolutionary (natural selection) laws of the universe and converting the gains for having done so into a superior demographic distribution with lower rates of genetic load, higher cooperative incentive, lower clannishness, lower aggression, lower crime, higher trust, and higher economic, social, political evolutionary velocity. So yes, the left is parasitic. Equality in the absence of demonstrated merit (evolutionary fitness) is a claim on those demonstrating merit *in the current state of informational, technological, economic, social, political, military, and strategic market conditions. *. The entire purpose of the left is to use the temporary windfall of the industrial revolution to claim that we are no longer bound by Maxwell and Malthus (physical), Menger and Spencer (social), Gobineau and Darwin (evolutionary) laws, and the necessity of heroism (Nietzche) and exhaustion of kinship love (Christianity) to suffer the tragedy (Nietzche) of it. The entire pseudoscientific movement whether in Boaz, Freud, Gould’s behavioral, Marxist (marx lenin trotsky et al) social and economic, neo-marxist(frankfurt) anti-cultural institutions, Pomo anti-truth and reason, Steinem anti-family Anti-Male feminist, PC/Woke (social deconstruction of truth), anti-colonialism(industrialization), anti-whiteness (science and testimonial truth), anti-white, white-replacement, white-genocide movement is an inversion of religion. Instead of anthropomorphizing the universe in a love of a god, the left’s pseudoscientific thought is an exercise in anthropomorphization by attacking western people, their knowledge, their cultural institutions, their formal institutions, and their entire civilization – and their race – as a proxy for hating the laws of nature and nature’s god. They hate European civilization as a proxy for hating the universe, and if there is one, hating god for the long history of poor decisions by themselves and their ancestors. And instead of continuing the tradition of conformity to those laws through integration and discipline, and the exhaustion of Christian love to tolerate it, they think they can ‘cheat mother nature’ – and in doing so they are bringing about the third dark age using the same technique that brought about the second: false promise of freedom from those laws.

  • Thoughts: Yes, The Left is Parasitic

    Hi, this is curt doolittle, I thought I’d talk a little bit about the left’s parasitism. ANALOGY: Gad Saad’s new book is the Parasitic Mind.  I have an entirely appropriate man-crush on Saad because he practices masculinity as an art form, particularly suited to intellectuals. And he’s a master of it, as well as a master communicator and intellectual in his field. And his use of the analogy of parasitism is correct: Yes, taking zombie fungus as an example, an intuitionistic organism (wasp) needs biochemical neurological reorganization because it’s not conscious. But humans are conscious, meaning self-auditing, and we achieve the same neurological reorganization by informational INCENTIVES. We adapt by information more so than evolutionary or biological mutation. That’s why we’re hyper-adaptive to the laws of the universe. That’s what it means to be an intelligent species: to adapt quickly by information and cognitive change, rather than slowly by biological evolution. But a parasitic biochemical process or a parasitic informational process is indifferent – both product informational changes to the underlying organization of the life form’s behavior. PARASITISM: The left is parasitic and devolutionary and all leftism consists of continuous lying, producing social construction, to claim european civilization is ‘oppressive’ for discovery, adaptation to, and application of the laws of the universe, despite that the entire reason for european asymmetric success in turning the universe to our advantage is due to our discovery, adaptation, and application of those laws – and paying the cost in reproductive, psychological, and emotional discipline necessary to do so, resulting largely in persisting those logical (formal), physical, behavioral(cooperative), and evolutionary (natural selection) laws of the universe and converting the gains for having done so into a superior demographic distribution with lower rates of genetic load, higher cooperative incentive, lower clannishness, lower aggression, lower crime, higher trust, and higher economic, social, political evolutionary velocity. So yes, the left is parasitic. Equality in the absence of demonstrated merit (evolutionary fitness) is a claim on those demonstrating merit *in the current state of informational, technological, economic, social, political, military, and strategic market conditions. *. The entire purpose of the left is to use the temporary windfall of the industrial revolution to claim that we are no longer bound by Maxwell and Malthus (physical), Menger and Spencer (social), Gobineau and Darwin (evolutionary) laws, and the necessity of heroism (Nietzche) and exhaustion of kinship love (Christianity) to suffer the tragedy (Nietzche) of it. The entire pseudoscientific movement whether in Boaz, Freud, Gould’s behavioral, Marxist (marx lenin trotsky et al) social and economic, neo-marxist(frankfurt) anti-cultural institutions, Pomo anti-truth and reason, Steinem anti-family Anti-Male feminist, PC/Woke (social deconstruction of truth), anti-colonialism(industrialization), anti-whiteness (science and testimonial truth), anti-white, white-replacement, white-genocide movement is an inversion of religion. Instead of anthropomorphizing the universe in a love of a god, the left’s pseudoscientific thought is an exercise in anthropomorphization by attacking western people, their knowledge, their cultural institutions, their formal institutions, and their entire civilization – and their race – as a proxy for hating the laws of nature and nature’s god. They hate European civilization as a proxy for hating the universe, and if there is one, hating god for the long history of poor decisions by themselves and their ancestors. And instead of continuing the tradition of conformity to those laws through integration and discipline, and the exhaustion of Christian love to tolerate it, they think they can ‘cheat mother nature’ – and in doing so they are bringing about the third dark age using the same technique that brought about the second: false promise of freedom from those laws.

  • Is Christianity Salvageable?

    IS CHRISTIANITY SALVAGEABLE?  IMO, and I realize that this is an area of your specialty, I don’t work in ideals but in necessities, and the failure to solve the problem of heterogeneous underclasses (vs india and china) was a substantive one. He looks to me to be solving that problem regardless of the church.

    -“But is [jesus] really solving it? I understand that if you want somehow to operationalize Christianity, you would have to boil down his preaching of love to those 5 tenets and then strictly circumscribe it to the kindergarten. Is it feasible to do that today?”-Dan

    Let’s try again. Did Aristotle/Epicurus solve empiricism? No.

    1. The west developed heroic, entrepreneurial, technological, war, law, polity, and economy at the cost of natural selection paid by the unfit to compete.
    2. As they conquered, their expanding economy demanded labor (slaves, women, peasants).
    3. They expanded too rapidly exhausting their domestic HUMAN (Aryan) resources and turned their strength in concentration into a weakness in dilution.
    4. This is the problem with the fast, expansionary war and conquest model of growth (as practiced in europe)- martial war vs the slow defensive technological warfare model of growth (as practiced in china) – Total War
    5. So the problem of enfranchising (Europe) is different from the problem of indoctrinating (china). Both models are possible as long as one doesn’t exhaust the originary human capital. IOW, the rate of expansion is limited by the equilibrium between aristocracy + kin, and alien.
    6. So my argument is that Jesus discovered the cheapest possible solution to solving the problem of being subject to the (European-discovered) laws of the universe, including natural selection which has ‘selected them for removal’ – by the process of extending kinship love.
    7. The consequence of rapid evolution (european aryans) exposing natural selection (underclasses, especially among south eurasians, ~80’s), generated demand for tragedy among heterogeneous people just as it did for the Greeks (the tragedy) among homogeneous people.
    8. Which is why I argue that the jews merely copied the bible of the west(epic cycle) and in particular the tragic hero of the aristocracy(Achilles), by combining south eurasian(low iq) ancient mythos(Horus) into a tragic figure of jesus that was virtuous for suffering tragedy.
    9. (Confirming that they never invent anything they just copy it by converting it into lies.).
    10. So again, I work by searching for first causes, (what we consider first principles) and man’s history of innovation and adaptation by the satisfaction of demand.
    11. And my purpose is to destroy the system of lying, and its lies, even if those lies are entrenched, and millions or billions are addicted to them.
    12. Because if there is or are gods(the universe) and they speak to us at all (the laws of the universe), and have any plan for us at all (evolution into the hands of god) then only Europeans have identified god(s), discovered their words, applied them, to transcend man for them.
    13. The jews chose the devil(lies) and the strategy of women(stagnation), the Europeans chose the gods(truth) and the strategy of men(evolution), and the only struggle other than that is the slow Chinese or the fast European method. Or the failure of the Semites and their lies.
    14. My objective is to outlaw the lies of the Semites without outlawing the gains of extension of kinship love to kith, but not to enemies. In this way we can preserve the original insight of jesus, satisfy the devoted that they were in some way not ‘wrong’, and end semitic lying.
    15. So I think your specialty is to fight theological fire with theological fire from a position of political weakness, and mine is to fight theological fire with scientific and legal Halon from a position of political strength. So my mission is to obtain that political power.
    16. And instead of bribing people with false promises and lies, I want to ‘pay’ people with the end of the conflict, the restoration of self-determination, economic reforms that end the parasitism upon them and restore them, and exposing and defunding the enemy in every dimension.
    17. That requires a method of mandating a dialog that only the ‘threat’ seems possible to bring into being. And the right is a bunch of ignorant overconfident clown world man-boys lacking any possible empirical elite being crushed by the world’s best elite at parasitism.
    18. So the question is whether (a- the fast method) that power is obtainable given the clown world of the right (b-the medium method) the sale can be made at political pace, or (c-the slow method) we require a new religion because that fking sophistry is all the nitwits can handle without elites to boss them around.
    19. So is Christianity salvageable? That depends on the fundamentalists who are addicts, the traditionalists who only seek solutions, and the intellectuals who will tolerate any form of persisting superstition.
    20. The natural religion is debt payment to ancestors, heroes, nature, and the universe, and the celebration of our struggle to defeat that universe despite its hostility to us and all advanced life. So again, our ancient religion was heroic and evolutionary at the cost of underclasses, and Christianity was submissive and devolutionary at the cost of self-defense, innovation, and evolution.  The optimum admixture is simply reformation of our ancient religions – heathen nature, pagan ancestor and hero, and Christian care for the unfit in exchange for their constraint on reproduction.

  • Is Christianity Salvageable?

    IS CHRISTIANITY SALVAGEABLE?  IMO, and I realize that this is an area of your specialty, I don’t work in ideals but in necessities, and the failure to solve the problem of heterogeneous underclasses (vs india and china) was a substantive one. He looks to me to be solving that problem regardless of the church.

    -“But is [jesus] really solving it? I understand that if you want somehow to operationalize Christianity, you would have to boil down his preaching of love to those 5 tenets and then strictly circumscribe it to the kindergarten. Is it feasible to do that today?”-Dan

    Let’s try again. Did Aristotle/Epicurus solve empiricism? No.

    1. The west developed heroic, entrepreneurial, technological, war, law, polity, and economy at the cost of natural selection paid by the unfit to compete.
    2. As they conquered, their expanding economy demanded labor (slaves, women, peasants).
    3. They expanded too rapidly exhausting their domestic HUMAN (Aryan) resources and turned their strength in concentration into a weakness in dilution.
    4. This is the problem with the fast, expansionary war and conquest model of growth (as practiced in europe)- martial war vs the slow defensive technological warfare model of growth (as practiced in china) – Total War
    5. So the problem of enfranchising (Europe) is different from the problem of indoctrinating (china). Both models are possible as long as one doesn’t exhaust the originary human capital. IOW, the rate of expansion is limited by the equilibrium between aristocracy + kin, and alien.
    6. So my argument is that Jesus discovered the cheapest possible solution to solving the problem of being subject to the (European-discovered) laws of the universe, including natural selection which has ‘selected them for removal’ – by the process of extending kinship love.
    7. The consequence of rapid evolution (european aryans) exposing natural selection (underclasses, especially among south eurasians, ~80’s), generated demand for tragedy among heterogeneous people just as it did for the Greeks (the tragedy) among homogeneous people.
    8. Which is why I argue that the jews merely copied the bible of the west(epic cycle) and in particular the tragic hero of the aristocracy(Achilles), by combining south eurasian(low iq) ancient mythos(Horus) into a tragic figure of jesus that was virtuous for suffering tragedy.
    9. (Confirming that they never invent anything they just copy it by converting it into lies.).
    10. So again, I work by searching for first causes, (what we consider first principles) and man’s history of innovation and adaptation by the satisfaction of demand.
    11. And my purpose is to destroy the system of lying, and its lies, even if those lies are entrenched, and millions or billions are addicted to them.
    12. Because if there is or are gods(the universe) and they speak to us at all (the laws of the universe), and have any plan for us at all (evolution into the hands of god) then only Europeans have identified god(s), discovered their words, applied them, to transcend man for them.
    13. The jews chose the devil(lies) and the strategy of women(stagnation), the Europeans chose the gods(truth) and the strategy of men(evolution), and the only struggle other than that is the slow Chinese or the fast European method. Or the failure of the Semites and their lies.
    14. My objective is to outlaw the lies of the Semites without outlawing the gains of extension of kinship love to kith, but not to enemies. In this way we can preserve the original insight of jesus, satisfy the devoted that they were in some way not ‘wrong’, and end semitic lying.
    15. So I think your specialty is to fight theological fire with theological fire from a position of political weakness, and mine is to fight theological fire with scientific and legal Halon from a position of political strength. So my mission is to obtain that political power.
    16. And instead of bribing people with false promises and lies, I want to ‘pay’ people with the end of the conflict, the restoration of self-determination, economic reforms that end the parasitism upon them and restore them, and exposing and defunding the enemy in every dimension.
    17. That requires a method of mandating a dialog that only the ‘threat’ seems possible to bring into being. And the right is a bunch of ignorant overconfident clown world man-boys lacking any possible empirical elite being crushed by the world’s best elite at parasitism.
    18. So the question is whether (a- the fast method) that power is obtainable given the clown world of the right (b-the medium method) the sale can be made at political pace, or (c-the slow method) we require a new religion because that fking sophistry is all the nitwits can handle without elites to boss them around.
    19. So is Christianity salvageable? That depends on the fundamentalists who are addicts, the traditionalists who only seek solutions, and the intellectuals who will tolerate any form of persisting superstition.
    20. The natural religion is debt payment to ancestors, heroes, nature, and the universe, and the celebration of our struggle to defeat that universe despite its hostility to us and all advanced life. So again, our ancient religion was heroic and evolutionary at the cost of underclasses, and Christianity was submissive and devolutionary at the cost of self-defense, innovation, and evolution.  The optimum admixture is simply reformation of our ancient religions – heathen nature, pagan ancestor and hero, and Christian care for the unfit in exchange for their constraint on reproduction.

  • Explaining the Confusion of The Conservative Mind

    EXPLAINING THE CONFUSION OF THE CONSERVATIVE MIND

    1. Conservative males mistake their intertemporal predictive modeling as a need for woo-woo. If you need woo-woo it means that which you are contemplating is beyond your present knowledge. It’s the instinct to patrol the borders of your territory to gain the info to model it.
    2. The problem you face is that the territory isn’t physically accessible, and the model requires knowledge of the population, economics, politics, and abstract information.
    3. So the Left’s Feminine mind can’t do intertemporal prediction and they just manufacture falsehoods. But the Right Mascluine mind manufactures demand for falsehoods too.
    4. The difference is that the left’s short term falsehood is continuously actionable using gossip and information distortion but yours requires you act on information but that the available information that is being distorted by the left – and you lack a means of defeating that.
    5. I try to provide you with P-law which is will allow you to model the world by seeing through or past the distortion, allowing to to correct the distortion, and allowing you together to organize because you see past that distortion.
    6. Because you are all searching for woo woo to organize against and it’s all failing. Becaues you’re just as bad as the left at searching for falsehoods. For the simple reason that developing a model of the world at this scale is very difficult. And P-Logic solves that problem.
    7. Unfortunately while P-law exists, you want feels not realz just like the left wants feelz not realz. So you double down on your various woo woos that you can feel, instead of learning the ‘science’ that would provide you with a model of the world free of woo woo: P-law.