Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • I think I answered the question. 😉

    I think I answered the question. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-08 04:09:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049149873948434432

    Reply addressees: @SaltwaterGroyp1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049146918243188736

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — 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/1049146918243188736

  • Two different questions. As a matter of natural law,drugs that export any risk w

    Two different questions. As a matter of natural law,drugs that export any risk whatsoever in the commons are violation of reciprocity. So it’s not drugs but behavior and crime. As the chinese found out,legalization doesn’t go the way you think it will. As for me, depends on drug.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-08 03:56:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049146462909714432

    Reply addressees: @SaltwaterGroyp1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049143831310958593

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — 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/1049143831310958593

  • Eh. Yes. But it’s to be expected. Right? Anything that revolutionary is going to

    Eh. Yes. But it’s to be expected. Right? Anything that revolutionary is going to meet misunderstanding and resistance. -hugs

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-08 03:44:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049143404016406530

    Reply addressees: @eruditenights

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049137106176462848

    IN REPLY TO:

    @eruditenights

    @curtdoolittle people gravely misinterpret the nature of your work and its importance,

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049137106176462848

  • Deconflation: Choice vs Probability

    October 8th, 2018 2:11 PM 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.”—

    [E]veryone 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).

  • Yes, Game Theory Is Just a Rubik’s Cube – a Toy – But…. Let’s Look at That a Moment…

    October 8th, 2018 1:56 PM 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.”—‎Vincent Cucchiara‎

    [W]hile 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

  • Literature, even fictional literature, is subjectively testable when operationally stated.

    October 8th, 2018 11:45 AM

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

  • Deconflation: Choice vs Probability

    October 8th, 2018 2:11 PM 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.”—

    [E]veryone 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).

  • Yes, Game Theory Is Just a Rubik’s Cube – a Toy – But…. Let’s Look at That a Moment…

    October 8th, 2018 1:56 PM 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.”—‎Vincent Cucchiara‎

    [W]hile 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

  • Literature, even fictional literature, is subjectively testable when operationally stated.

    October 8th, 2018 11:45 AM

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

  • “US experts say that the Russians are not capable of taking a direct clash with

    —“US experts say that the Russians are not capable of taking a direct clash with an army of equal manpower sounds weird indeed.”—

    This is not a question of Russian bravery (which no one doubts) or Russian skill (which no one doubts) or Russian technology (which fell behind but is catching up), but a question of Economics. America has a vast number of combat experienced troops, and can put men and equipment in the field anywhere faster and with more operational coordination. Americans have spent a great deal of time with current combined arms and technology. And the men are well trained in large numbers to use it.

    No one questions Russians militarily. But Russia has not had enough time to recover population, skills, diverse economy, technological manufacturing capacity, and rule of law, to fight among the great powers. What Russia has is missiles. These missiles can be used precisely once. If they are used, there may be no USA, or no world, but there will be no Russia either. Americans will not do that. Particularly to “Our own people in Christendom”.

    No one thinks Russians are that stupid. 😉 Just Proud. And we like it that Russians are Strong and Proud.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-07 23:03:00 UTC