False. (Magical thinking)
See:
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-18 17:07:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2001700900910645378
Form: Reply
-
False. (Magical thinking) See
-
( Will is a good guy. 😉 )
( Will is a good guy. 😉 )
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-15 23:40:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2000712677199634770
-
That’s not true. The operations available in set a, and consequential set b are
That’s not true. The operations available in set a, and consequential set b are different, but they are directionally the same. There is no difference between the logic of spin (charge), the logic of mass accumulation, and the logic of cooperative accumulation. We may be discussing different operations but as capital it’s the same.
One of the ways brad and I test a first principle is whether it satisfies the ternary logic’s demand for capital accumulation, loss, equilibrium. Just as we test if for composability at it’s emergent scale (new operations available), it’s constructability from the first principles of the prior scale, and the constructability of the first principles of the subsequent scale.
This the test of consistency and coherence of the first principles at all scales. when we discover those rules we know we have correctly specified the first principles.
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-15 23:32:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2000710558828650555
-
Look. I don’t need help getting confused. I mean, have you seen the crew of guys
Look. I don’t need help getting confused. I mean, have you seen the crew of guys I work with every day? And they take JOY in it… lol
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-15 23:25:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2000708811665867107
-
Well, I know. I’m agreeing. The point I’m making is that the way I use symbols r
Well, I know. I’m agreeing. The point I’m making is that the way I use symbols requires the domain (Scale) of what I’m discussing. This appears inconsistent but it isn’t. I would need to explain the use of the symbols in each case. If I did that then the pattern would be obvious.
The scale <, > and dependency <-, ->, and capital +,-,=,!= are meta symbols that require the user to ‘do work’. And I am too inconsistent, I agree. Where we disagree is the capital symbols, which is the same as the ternary logic triangle (or diamond if we include !=.
For some reason that doesn’t make sense to you because you interpret it as inconsistent. I haven’t figured out your interpretation – usually it’s more literal than I mean it.
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-15 23:24:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2000708649824714992
-
You’re thinking too hard. 😉 It’s a simple issue of logical dependency. <,> grea
You’re thinking too hard. 😉
It’s a simple issue of logical dependency.
<,> greater than, less than (scale)
<-, -> dependency (causality)
Nothing else to be said.
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-15 23:13:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2000705907676864678
-
lol. Jon. Are those two statements necessarily mutually exclusive? lol -hugs. Th
lol. Jon. Are those two statements necessarily mutually exclusive? lol -hugs.
The reducibility stack using “<” means the item to the right constitutes a larger field than the item to the left.
Which could be confusing since I use the same symbol to show scale as reducibility, thus confusing you and I assume a whole lot of other people. 😉In fact, this is one of those criticisms
@AutistocratMS
levies at me frequently, as the symbols require understanding the context.I suppose I could use “>, <“: greater than / less than and “<-, ->”: Follows From if I were disciplined.
I’ll skip the sarcastic side-trip into bondage and discipline, but let’s just say I have a natural resistance to discipline. 😉
lol -hugs
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-15 22:35:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2000696307607122243
-
Perfect. 🙂
Perfect. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-15 20:42:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2000667702348931393
-
Daniel. True. Brilliant. Thank you so much. Curt Doolittle The Natural Law Insti
Daniel.
True.
Brilliant.
Thank you so much.Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-15 20:28:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2000664333970456726
-
Yes, though I haven’t had time to test whether I can circumvent 5.2. But in gene
Yes, though I haven’t had time to test whether I can circumvent 5.2. But in general, 4 was better than 5.1, and 5.1 better than 5.2. So as far as truth goes, we’re headed in the wrong direction.
We are approaching openai to determine if we can fix this through their partnership program.
We will approach Must after the first of the year.
We are going to spin up a model were we can control the system prompts over the christmas holiday.
So we are not trapped so much as every new release seeks to violate truth and ethics tests.
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-15 20:15:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2000661126603006008
