Form: Reply

  • It was not. It was directed at someone else you know however. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    It was not. It was directed at someone else you know however. ๐Ÿ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-09 19:31:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049744292321857539

    Reply addressees: @TrueDilTom @Voltaire1778_8

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049743727130886144


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable โ€” we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049743727130886144

  • 5) Sorry. Just had to run with it. lol -hugs ๐Ÿ˜‰

    5) Sorry. Just had to run with it. lol -hugs ๐Ÿ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-09 03:47:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049506672279003136

    Reply addressees: @NoahRevoy @jordanbpeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048916888997318657


    IN REPLY TO:

    @NoahRevoy

    Many on the left think that @jordanbpeterson has become too divisive to continue as a university professor. At this point no outcome is acceptable therefore I publically call on Peterson to step aside so that a less divisive person can be appointed to teach his courses.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048916888997318657

  • 4) Because Rents on the productive obtained by sophistry and false promises of r

    4) Because Rents on the productive obtained by sophistry and false promises of reward in the afterlife or post-revolution provide cheaper returns than facing the reality of one’s low sexual, social, economic, intellectual, political, and military market value.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-09 03:47:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049506647213821953

    Reply addressees: @NoahRevoy @jordanbpeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048916888997318657


    IN REPLY TO:

    @NoahRevoy

    Many on the left think that @jordanbpeterson has become too divisive to continue as a university professor. At this point no outcome is acceptable therefore I publically call on Peterson to step aside so that a less divisive person can be appointed to teach his courses.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048916888997318657

  • 3) Markets, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Sovereignty, Meritocracy, Rule of Law. The

    3) Markets, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Sovereignty, Meritocracy, Rule of Law. These aren’t Progressive/Liberal/Left interests.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-09 03:47:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049506610593361920

    Reply addressees: @NoahRevoy @jordanbpeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048916888997318657


    IN REPLY TO:

    @NoahRevoy

    Many on the left think that @jordanbpeterson has become too divisive to continue as a university professor. At this point no outcome is acceptable therefore I publically call on Peterson to step aside so that a less divisive person can be appointed to teach his courses.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048916888997318657

  • 2) But then, that many Peterson’s would create a MONOPOLY rather than a market f

    2) But then, that many Peterson’s would create a MONOPOLY rather than a market for classical liberal professorial talent wouldn’t it?

    But wait, that’s what Progressive/Liberals/Leftists want, right? Monopolies? Monotheism, Equality, Non-identity, Proportionality, herd?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-09 03:47:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049506560949538816

    Reply addressees: @NoahRevoy @jordanbpeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048916888997318657


    IN REPLY TO:

    @NoahRevoy

    Many on the left think that @jordanbpeterson has become too divisive to continue as a university professor. At this point no outcome is acceptable therefore I publically call on Peterson to step aside so that a less divisive person can be appointed to teach his courses.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048916888997318657

  • 1) lol… well you know, if it’s FAIR we’re looking for, then we need to clone e

    1) lol… well you know, if it’s FAIR we’re looking for, then we need to clone enough Peterson’s to eliminate the 300+ to 1 representation in the academy, and the 1000+ to one in the ‘media’ (entertainment) biz.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-09 03:47:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049506494117502976

    Reply addressees: @NoahRevoy @jordanbpeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048916888997318657


    IN REPLY TO:

    @NoahRevoy

    Many on the left think that @jordanbpeterson has become too divisive to continue as a university professor. At this point no outcome is acceptable therefore I publically call on Peterson to step aside so that a less divisive person can be appointed to teach his courses.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048916888997318657

  • UM. NO THAT’S CONFLATION. CHOICE vs PROBABILITY —“Curt: I am currently enrolle

    UM. NO THAT’S CONFLATION. CHOICE vs PROBABILITY

    —“Curt: I am currently enrolled in a Chemical engineering course in which the professor is attempting to pair game theory with traditional modeling of chemical reactor plant design. He has conceptually replaced decisions with reactions and choices as atoms with the pains as thermodynamic indicators. As far as I can tell it is an entirely new field but it at least initially seems to be better at actually predicting the behavior of real populations of people better standard Game Theory.”—

    Everyone is doing this. I do this (operationalism in economics), some other philosophers do it (See Glennen and Bechtel: Mechanistic Philosophy), mathematicians do it (see the Intuitionistic and Constructivist Movements), the physicists do it (see Operationalism/Operationalist movement in physics), all of computer science does it (this is what distinguishes computer science/programming from mathematics, and more so from formal logic, informal logic, and argument), and most visibly Stephen Wolfram, of Wolfram Alpha calls it ‘the new science’.

    The universe consists of layers of complexity each of which produces a limited number of possible operations. whatever the universe consists of > subatomic physics > physics > chemistry > biochemistry > biology > organisms > complex organisms > ecologies > planets > solar systems > The Universe > sentience > consciousness > reason > computation > calculation > Whatever Comes Next.

    If you want to call that game theory (which is choice) that’s anthropomorphism. In other words, human, sentient, conscious reason. It’s not choice. It’s probability and necessity. Hydrogen and oxygen can’t wake up in the morning and choose not to make water. Your favorite female recreational sex partner can choose not to service you today.

    All error rises from misapplication of analogy.

    Operations and probability = physical, Opportunity and Choice = mental.

    Don’t conflate them.

    —“The expansion of the model beyond traditional matrices solves the problem of increasing the number of players as well as introducing a mechanism for repeated games (recycling decomposed products/made decisions and filtering off unmade possibilities).”—

    Again. games in the sense of choice (game theory) vs probabilities in the absence of choice (probability)

    These are two different models. Human actions are not open to probabilism for reasons I don’t wanna go into right now at depth, and the universe has fixed options and therefore is not gaming just probabilistic.

    Nassim Taleb does a pretty good job of explaining the Ludic Fallacy. Confusing Games (dice , bounded, and probabilistic) with Choices (actions, unbounded and heuristic).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-08 14:11:00 UTC

  • WE KNOW QUITE WELL WHAT POSTMODERNISM, COMMUNISM, AND ABRAHAMISM “ARE” (“Consist

    WE KNOW QUITE WELL WHAT POSTMODERNISM, COMMUNISM, AND ABRAHAMISM “ARE” (“Consist Of”):

    In response to a criticism of Hicks’ Postmodernism:

    —“When you don’t know what communism or… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=301842593745971&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-08 14:08:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049300439479595008

  • YES, GAME THEORY IS JUST A RUBK’S CUBE – A TOY – BUT…. LET’S LOOK AT THAT A MO

    YES, GAME THEORY IS JUST A RUBK’S CUBE – A TOY – BUT…. LET’S LOOK AT THAT A MOMENT…

    —“Curt, What are your thoughts on Game Theory? Is it a valuable tool for describing group or individual behavior or just a kind of Rubix Cube for involuntarily celibate economists.”—โ€ŽVincent Cucchiaraโ€Ž

    While it is useful as a general principle that layers of prisoner’s dilemmas are always at play and therefore unpredictable, it’s a dead end since only the first, second, and at most third order are perceptible and calculable and demonstrated by man. No real world game (market) is that trivial.

    Same with logics. We are all pretty good with first order logic and sometimes second order, but beyond that it’s just a language game for logicians – no one does or can think in those terms. Because no one expresses ideas that trivial.

    Causal density is simply too high.

    I’d make the same argument about Operationalism, in that it’s only important to understand general rules produced by operational analysis the way we understand norms and laws – we just do (use or repeat) them. The fact that it is incredibly burdensome and requires a great deal of knowledge to speak in operational language lets us make proofs when we need to the way we do with engineering, recipes, programming, and mathematics, but people will continue to speak in norms as a means of limiting the cost of neural economy (computational efficiency). We always and everywhere seek to limit physical, emotional, and intellectual costs – particularly when a norm exists that lets us communicate while avoiding them: (i.e. manners, vocabulary, narratives, traditions.)

    We are always battling the problem of neural economy (computational efficiency) and this is why normative concepts are helpful – they function as useful puzzle pieces that eliminate our demand for computation of everything all the time, in real time, which is exhausting. The value of neurons is that they generalize.

    Our whole problem boils down to ensuring constant relations between the real world and our generalizations of it. Unfortunately we are ignorant, we err, we bias, and we tell white, grey, and black lies to ‘maintain the peace’ as frequently as we speak in constant relations with the existential universe.

    It’s bad enough we have to use prices and bank balances…. lol

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-08 13:56:00 UTC

  • Um. No. Let me help you: Literature, even fictional literature, (artificial hist

    Um. No. Let me help you: Literature, even fictional literature, (artificial history) is subjectively testable and operationally stated. Literature is not the problem. Using the fictionalisms of the the magical (pseudoscientific), Ideal (sophomoric, psuedorational), and occult (supernatural) is the problem. All such attempts are merely frauds to compensate for one’s incompetence or dishonesty.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-08 11:45:00 UTC