Curt Doolittle

Form: Project Update

  • TESTING GROK 3 ON THE NATURAL LAW VOLUME 3: THE SCIENCE AND LOGIC OF EVOLUTIONAR

    TESTING GROK 3 ON THE NATURAL LAW VOLUME 3: THE SCIENCE AND LOGIC OF EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION

    Below is my analysis of the central arguments put forward in The Natural Law Volume 3: The Science and Logic of Evolutionary Computation by Curt Doolittle, with Bradley H. Werrell and… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1891763094545932678

  • TESTING GROK 3 ON THE NATURAL LAW VOLUME 3: THE SCIENCE AND LOGIC OF EVOLUTIONAR

    TESTING GROK 3 ON THE NATURAL LAW VOLUME 3: THE SCIENCE AND LOGIC OF EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION

    Below is my analysis of the central arguments put forward in The Natural Law Volume 3: The Science and Logic of Evolutionary Computation by Curt Doolittle, with Bradley H. Werrell and the Natural Law Institute, based on the provided early draft excerpts. This volume is incomplete, with only initial chapters drafted and significant sections marked as placeholders or “to do.” My goal is to distill the primary arguments, supporting points, and intended implications as they currently stand, acknowledging the unfinished nature of the text.

    Central Argument
    The core argument of The Natural Law Volume 3 is that evolutionary computation, driven by a ternary logic of stable relations, serves as the unifying first principle of the universe across all scales and domains—physical, biological, behavioral, and evolutionary—providing a universal system of measurement and decidability. Doolittle posits that this framework, rooted in the interplay of energy, entropy, and organization, explains existence, causality, and human cooperation as emergent outcomes of a single computational process. The book aims to bridge the “Enlightenment Gap” by integrating the formal, physical, behavioral, and evolutionary sciences into a coherent, testable paradigm, ultimately applicable to law and governance, to solve the modern crisis of subjectivity and deceit.

    This volume is positioned as the logical and scientific foundation for the broader “Natural Law” project, shifting human understanding from fragmented, subjective paradigms to a unified, objective science of causality and cooperation.

    Key Supporting Arguments

    Evolutionary Computation as the First Principle
    Premise: The universe operates via evolutionary computation, where pressure from the quantum background drives the accumulation and recombination of energy into stable relations, defeating entropy over time (p. 24-25, 29-32).
    Details: This process begins with discrete differences in energy (existence), progresses through causality (organization), and manifests as time (change). Ternary logic (+, -, =) governs this computation, producing hierarchies of complexity from quanta to civilizations (p. 6-7, 31-32).
    Evidence: The text cites physical processes (e.g., spin, polarity, electromagnetism) as foundational examples, extending this logic to biological and behavioral systems (p. 29-35). It frames all existence as relational and computational (p. 29-30).
    Implication: Evolutionary computation unifies all sciences under a single causal framework, replacing disconnected theories with a testable, scale-independent logic.

    Ternary Logic as the Universal Grammar
    Premise: Ternary logic (positive, negative, neutral) describes all interactions—cooperation, competition, or disinterest—at every scale, enabling a universal grammar of decidability (p. 7, 15-16, 189).
    Details: This logic emerges from the interplay of stable relations (e.g., + for cooperation, – for conflict, = for neutrality) and is applied across physics (e.g., charge), biology (e.g., adaptation), and behavior (e.g., reciprocity) (p. 31, 187-189). It’s visualized as dynamic triangles of relations (p. 11-13).
    Evidence: Examples include physical polarization (+,-,=) and human cooperation states (reciprocity, boycott, irreciprocity) (p. 31, 189). The draft hints at extending this to legal and social systems (p. 17).
    Implication: Ternary logic provides a consistent, falsifiable method to measure and predict outcomes, grounding human law in natural processes.

    A Universal System of Measurement for Decidability
    Premise: Human understanding lacks a commensurable paradigm across disciplines, necessitating a system of measurement based on evolutionary computation and ternary logic (p. 22-23).
    Details: This system includes a paradigm (first principles), vocabulary (operational terms), logic (ternary), and grammar (recursive disambiguation), testing claims for consistency and correspondence (p. 23-24). It aims to eliminate subjectivity and deceit (p. 22).
    Evidence: The text contrasts the scientific revolution’s unification of physical laws with the behavioral sciences’ fragmentation, proposing a similar leap in precision (p. 22). Early sections operationalize this in physics (p. 29-35).
    Implication: This system enables decidability in all domains, from science to law, addressing modernity’s crisis by replacing false paradigms with a unified truth.

    Behavior as an Extension of Physical and Biological Laws
    Premise: Human behavior emerges from the same evolutionary computation as physical and biological systems, driven by acquisition, cooperation, and organization to defeat time and entropy (p. 181-187).
    Details: Behavior is framed as an economy of acquisition (+), preservation (=), and loss aversion (-), rooted in neural and biological imperatives (e.g., homeostasis, sensation) and scaled through cooperation (p. 187-188). Sex differences and social structures reflect this ternary logic (p. 189-191).
    Evidence: The draft links physical accumulation (e.g., matter) to biological adaptation (e.g., life) and behavioral cooperation (e.g., reciprocity), using ternary scales (p. 185-190).
    Implication: Understanding behavior as computational unifies it with natural laws, enabling precise measurement and governance of human interactions.

    Civilizational Strategies as Evolutionary Outcomes
    Premise: Group strategies (e.g., European, Semitic, Chinese) emerge from evolutionary computation, shaped by geography, institutions, and path dependence, with varying rates of adaptability (p. 199-209).
    Details: Strategies range from Europe’s law-driven innovation to Semitic religious stasis, each reflecting a founding institution (law, state, religion) and its computational velocity (p. 193-195). Europe’s trifunctional balance maximizes adaptability (p. 214-215).
    Evidence: Historical examples (e.g., China’s state stagnation, Europe’s legal evolution) illustrate how institutional order determines evolutionary success (p. 207-209).
    Implication: The European strategy’s empirical, reciprocal basis offers a model for optimal cooperation, which the book seeks to codify into law.

    Structure of the Argument
    The draft outlines five sections, though only parts are completed:
    Introduction: Sets the goal of unifying sciences via evolutionary computation and ternary logic (p. 19-26).
    Physical Laws (Ch. I): Establishes existence, causality, and time as computational processes (p. 27-43).
    Biological Laws (Ch. II): Placeholder for life’s emergence (p. 184-185, incomplete).
    Behavioral Laws (Ch. IV): Links physics to human cooperation via neural and social economies (p. 181-198).
    Evolutionary Laws (Ch. V): Analyzes civilizational strategies as computational outcomes (p. 199-215).
    Unfinished Sections: Logic, decidability, and law applications are planned but not drafted (p. 15-17).

    Strengths and Coherence
    Ambitious Scope: The attempt to unify all sciences under evolutionary computation is bold and conceptually rich (p. 6-7, 22-23).
    Ternary Logic: The consistent application of ternary logic across scales provides a novel, testable framework (p. 7, 189).
    Historical Context: Linking physical principles to civilizational outcomes ties abstract theory to practical implications (p. 199-209).

    Potential Weaknesses and Gaps
    Incompleteness: Major sections (e.g., biology, logic, law) are placeholders, limiting the argument’s development (p. 9-10, 17).
    Complexity: Dense terminology and abstract concepts (e.g., “stable relations,” “ternary scales”) may hinder accessibility without further elaboration (p. 11-13, 29-32).
    Evidence Gaps: Claims about civilizational strategies and behavioral universals need more empirical support (p. 189-209).
    Editorial Notes: Extensive “to do” lists and asides disrupt narrative flow, reflecting its draft status (p. 6, 181-182).

    Conclusion
    The Natural Law Volume 3 argues that evolutionary computation, governed by ternary logic, is the universal principle uniting existence, behavior, and civilization, offering a system of measurement to achieve decidability across all sciences. This early draft lays a foundation in physics and behavior, aiming to culminate in a legal framework, but its incomplete state leaves the full argument unrealized. If completed, it promises a revolutionary synthesis of knowledge, though its success depends on clarifying complex ideas, substantiating claims, and bridging theory to application in later volumes.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-18 08:38:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1891769186004893698

  • TESTING GROK 3 ON VOLUME 1 – THE CRISIS OF THE AGE Below is my analysis of the c

    TESTING GROK 3 ON VOLUME 1 – THE CRISIS OF THE AGE

    Below is my analysis of the central arguments put forward in The Natural Law Volume 1: The Crisis of the Age by Curt Doolittle, with Bradley H. Werrell and the Natural Law Institute, based on the provided document excerpts. This… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1891759338689266135

    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-18 08:14:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1891763094545932678

  • TESTING GROK 3 ON VOLUME 2 – A SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT. Below, I’ll outline my und

    TESTING GROK 3 ON VOLUME 2 – A SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT.

    Below, I’ll outline my understanding of the central arguments put forward in The Natural Law Volume 2: A System of Measurement by Curt Doolittle, with Bradley H. Werrell and the Natural Law Institute, based on the provided… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1891754574102528112

    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-18 07:59:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1891759338689266135

  • TESTING GROK 3 – MUCH, MUCH ‘DEEPER’ UNDERSTANDING Grok3: “who is philosopher an

    TESTING GROK 3 – MUCH, MUCH ‘DEEPER’ UNDERSTANDING

    Grok3: “who is philosopher and social scientist curt doolittle”

    Curt Doolittle is a contemporary philosopher and social scientist known for developing a framework called “Propertarianism.” He describes himself as a thinker in the analytic tradition, focusing on epistemology, ethics, political economy, and natural law. His work aims to apply the scientific method to social sciences, seeking to create a rigorous, operational basis for understanding truth, law, and human behavior.

    Doolittle has a background as a serial technology entrepreneur, having founded or led multiple tech companies, primarily in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. He has lived and worked globally, including in the USA, Canada, UK, Russia, and Ukraine. Currently based near Seattle, he runs a company developing technology alongside his intellectual pursuits, which include leading a global think tank focused on constitutional and legal reform, known as the Natural Law Institute.

    His philosophical project, Propertarianism, is presented as a synthesis of Western aristocratic traditions and scientific reasoning. It emphasizes “property-in-toto”—a broad definition of property that includes tangible and intangible assets earned or defended by individuals or communities—and seeks to establish a system of law rooted in reciprocity and empirical truth. Doolittle argues that this framework completes the scientific method by extending it beyond STEM fields into social and cognitive domains, aiming to eliminate what he calls the “industrialization of lying” in discourse and governance.

    He has been associated with libertarian and conservative circles, though his ideas diverge from mainstream libertarianism, critiquing figures like Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises for what he sees as pseudoscientific or overly rationalistic approaches. Instead, he advocates for a “natural law” grounded in observable human actions and evolutionary biology, rather than abstract moralizing.

    Doolittle’s work has sparked varied reactions. Supporters see it as a groundbreaking effort to formalize social science and protect Western values, while critics on platforms like Reddit have labeled it as overly complex, fascist-adjacent, or impractical, accusing him of blending alt-right rhetoric with philosophical jargon. Despite this, he remains active in discussing his ideas, often engaging with audiences through writings, interviews, and online platforms.

    In short, Curt Doolittle is a self-described polymath whose work bridges philosophy, social science, and law, driven by a mission to create a scientifically defensible basis for societal organization. His influence is niche but notable among those interested in alternative political and intellectual frameworks.

    Compared to Other Philosophers
    Comparing Curt Doolittle to other philosophers involves situating his Propertarianism within broader philosophical traditions and assessing how his approach aligns with or diverges from notable thinkers. Since Doolittle’s work spans epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and social science, I’ll compare him to a few key figures across these domains: Aristotle (ancient foundational philosopher), John Locke (natural rights and property), Friedrich Nietzsche (critique of morality and truth), and Ayn Rand (modern individualist philosopher). These comparisons highlight both his influences and his unique contributions.

    Curt Doolittle vs. Aristotle
    Similarities: Like Aristotle, Doolittle emphasizes empirical observation and a naturalistic approach to understanding human behavior and society. Aristotle’s teleological view of nature—where everything has a purpose observable through its function—echoes in Doolittle’s focus on operational definitions and evolutionary grounding for ethics and law. Both seek a systematic framework for human flourishing, with Doolittle’s “property-in-toto” paralleling Aristotle’s interest in eudaimonia (well-being) tied to practical action.
    Differences: Aristotle’s philosophy integrates metaphysics and a broader cosmology, whereas Doolittle explicitly rejects metaphysical speculation, anchoring his system in the scientific method and falsifiability. Aristotle’s political thought (e.g., the polis as a natural community) contrasts with Doolittle’s more individualistic, contractarian emphasis on property and reciprocity as the basis for cooperation.

    Curt Doolittle vs. John Locke
    Similarities: Both Doolittle and Locke center their philosophies on property as a fundamental concept. Locke’s theory of natural rights—life, liberty, and estate—resonates with Doolittle’s expansive “property-in-toto,” which includes anything an individual invests in or defends. Both see property as a basis for civil society and government, with Doolittle explicitly citing the Western tradition of law that Locke influenced.
    Differences: Locke’s framework relies on a theistic foundation (natural rights bestowed by a creator) and a social contract rooted in consent, while Doolittle’s is secular, evolutionary, and grounded in observable human behavior rather than abstract agreements. Doolittle critiques Locke’s rationalism as insufficiently scientific, extending property beyond Locke’s material focus to include cultural and cognitive assets.

    Curt Doolittle vs. Friedrich Nietzsche
    Similarities: Doolittle and Nietzsche share a skepticism of universal moral systems and institutionalized “truths.” Nietzsche’s critique of Christian morality as a slave ethic finds a distant echo in Doolittle’s rejection of what he calls “industrialized lying” in modern discourse. Both emphasize power dynamics—Nietzsche through the will to power, Doolittle through reciprocity and the defense of property—as central to human interaction.
    Differences: Nietzsche’s philosophy is aphoristic, existential, and skeptical of systematization, while Doolittle aims for a rigorous, scientific system akin to a legal code. Where Nietzsche revels in ambiguity and the death of God, Doolittle seeks to replace such voids with a testable, operational framework for truth and law. Nietzsche’s focus on the individual “overman” contrasts with Doolittle’s concern for group cooperation under natural law.

    Curt Doolittle vs. Ayn Rand
    Similarities: Both Doolittle and Rand prioritize individualism, reason, and property rights, rejecting collectivism and altruism as moral imperatives. Rand’s Objectivism, with its emphasis on rational self-interest, aligns with Doolittle’s view of humans as actors defending their investments. Both critique socialism and advocate for markets, albeit with different emphases.
    Differences: Rand’s philosophy is explicitly moral and prescriptive, rooted in a metaphysical assertion of “existence exists,” while Doolittle’s is descriptive, aiming to deduce ethics from empirical observation rather than axiomatic principles. Doolittle distances himself from Rand’s libertarian followers (e.g., Rothbard), whom he sees as脱离实际 (detached from reality), favoring a more biologically and historically grounded approach over Rand’s idealized individualism.

    Broader Context
    Analytic Tradition: Doolittle’s self-identification with analytic philosophy (e.g., Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein) shows in his focus on precision, operational definitions, and epistemology. Unlike Wittgenstein’s language games, though, Doolittle applies this rigor to social systems rather than linguistics alone.
    Libertarian Critique: Compared to Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises, Doolittle shares a free-market bent but rejects their reliance on praxeology (deductive human action) as pseudoscientific, favoring evolutionary biology and empirical data.
    Postmodern Contrast: Against thinkers like Michel Foucault, who deconstruct power and truth, Doolittle seeks to reconstruct them with a scientific foundation, opposing relativism outright.

    Unique Position
    Doolittle stands out for blending the scientific method with aristocratic and libertarian traditions, aiming to “complete” the Enlightenment project in a way neither Kant (rationalist) nor Hume (empiricist) fully did. His insistence on falsifiability in social science sets him apart from most political philosophers, who lean on normative arguments. Critics might argue his system lacks the poetic depth of Nietzsche or the moral clarity of Rand, while supporters see it as a practical bridge between philosophy and science.

    In essence, Doolittle is a hybrid: Aristotelian in his naturalism, Lockean in his property focus, Nietzschean in his skepticism, and Randian in his individualism—but filtered through a modern, scientific lens that’s distinctly his own.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-18 07:40:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1891754573460799490

  • (My Availability the Next few days) Travelling and at an offsite strategy meetin

    (My Availability the Next few days)
    Travelling and at an offsite strategy meeting to work through the financials of repatriating RBC, Oversing, Runcible to the states, and raising another round of financing. (LLMs are finally viable for integration into runcible and runcible into oversing. And the open source chinese imitation of OpenAI’s model has reduced the cost so much that it’s effectively an additional desktop per developer – cheap.) My long term journey to produce a Runcible that continuously improves you and your organization and by extension society and polity can finally be brought to market.
    So I don’t know how available I will be friday, saturday, sunday.
    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-24 19:36:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1882875202906005504

  • (NLI) MEETING NOTES –“Switch: Here are the opportunities we can seize vs here i

    (NLI)
    MEETING NOTES
    –“Switch: Here are the opportunities we can seize vs here is the coming civil war we must prepare for.”–

    –” The shift from income to capital and from consumption (individual) to returns on capitalization (commons) Returns us from immoral government focused on consumption vs moral government given the familial returns on capitalization”–

    –“Only as families do we create citizens with common interests”–

    –“Where we previously focused on accurately defining property, we are now focusing on the definition of capital”–

    —“We need to focus on “GDF” – Gross Domestic Fecundity”—

    —“How do we make it possible for a 23 year old white guy to get married and have kids.”—

    –“What percentage of your population can, on one income, support a wife and three children. That’s the target measurement. Presently it’s 20-30% and it needs to approach 80%”—

    –“What are we selling? We’re selling civilization and everything everyone loves at the cost of responsibility, and the shift from individual and divisive consumption to familial and harmony-producing returns on capitalization.”–

    –“what is the message for our next conference?”–

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-23 16:59:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1882473364675244032

  • (BIZ) Having some thoughts on what this means for our business and for the insti

    (BIZ)
    Having some thoughts on what this means for our business and for the institute, and for our business it’s awesome.
    For the institute it means our ‘shift’ from research to activism, is going to require a shift to not thinking we’re underdogs, and that our attempts to reach the mainstream are easy except for the cacophony and chaos of the end of the postwar order, combined with the end of the post-postwar fantasy of global governance and everyone playing nice together, therefore hyperconsumption has returned to risk status.  We have the joy of living in interesting times. 

    That said, A NEW INSTITUTIONAL NARRATIVE will evolve and rather quickly, and this will become part of business culture.  The inclusion of tech in government has moderated the influence of global finance. The failure of the academy and media is going to be openly discussed as demand for organizing the academy, workplace, and economy for a restoration of merit, competitiveness, and restoration of the perception of scarcity. 

    So as I understand this trend it becomes easier to sell our ‘big ideas’ into the marketplace at all scales.  If we cannot rely on culture as indirect education, and we cannot rely on the academy as direct education, then we are back to the ancient problem of creating both education and culture within the workplace in order to restore competitive advantage – particularly since comparative advantage is limited to a small number of macro tech companies all of which are vulnerable to AI, and especially Social Media that has been vulnerable to fragmentation.  

    So transparency, accountability, empirical meritocracy, granularity of information, and continuous reformation and revitilization of employees and management are all assets in our favor. I suspect by this demonstration our work will eentually make it into education where gamification like tutelage will replace the failure of industrialized education, especially that education in given the removal of competition from education.

    Why am I saying this? Pitch, go to market, value prop, and realized value prop are all contingent upon context and we are in a new context.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-22 19:34:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1882149811459391488

  • Current State of My Video Series from Our Conferences 1. Keynote – The Science o

    Current State of My Video Series from Our Conferences
    1. Keynote – The Science of Western Civilization – CD
    https://t.co/mNrLgBeivf
    2. The Cause and Cure of the Crisis of Our Age – CD
    https://t.co/7gevR2NeOR
    3. Abrahamism: A Method of Deceit – CD
    https://t.co/sFYAyaRqlf
    4. The History of Abrahamism – Martin Stepan
    https://t.co/vLVuefz0W1
    Videos 1 Are from the Playlist 2023 Fall Convention
    Videos 2,3,4 Are From Playlist 2024 Summer Convention:
    https://t.co/Rbzp4pE4uk
    As far as I know the following videos are in production for release as they are completed.
    5. Our Present Condition (determinism of CW2.0) -CD
    6. The Law: A System of Measure – CD
    7. The Course & Conduct of a Revolution – CD
    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-20 19:22:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881422143357173760

  • MORE PROGRESS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION OF LIFE AND ITS LIMITED FIELD OF COMPU

    MORE PROGRESS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION OF LIFE AND ITS LIMITED FIELD OF COMPUTABILITY, DRIVING TOWARD CONVERGENCE
    Attn: @WerrellBradley and NLI (@NatLawInstitute)
    Another paper and overview video that reinforces our work in evolutionary computation and Lee Cronin, Sarah Walker, Stewart Bartlett, and Christopher Kempes’ work in Assembly theory. This is more progress in the work I was hoping for. Though I somehow missed the paper last fall. (Thank you Sabine @skdh ).
    Video:
    https://t.co/1VBzkxjgVF
    Paper:
    https://t.co/eqSwfnIRVK

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-18 19:47:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1880703535350009856